On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:38:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

It also explains who Richard Mellon Scaife is, and how he paid millions
to
crucify Bill Clinton. Brock was part of the hit team and he got a big
Mercedes Benz out of the deal, among other things.


Any relation to George Soros, who has been funding all the Leftist
527s such as MoveOn.org and so forth?

No, no relation. Soros funds political organizations, in public. Scaife
funds felons, corrupt reporters, corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers, and
prostitutes, in private.

Soros wants you to know what he's doing. Scaife doesn't want *anyone* to
know what he's doing, probably because there's prison time attached to some
of his activities. Different modus operendi.


So Soros brags about being behind all the 527s that have sprung up
with fringe kook extremists at the helm?

I wonder..was he the money source when the Dems paid for all the
booze, smokes and crack cocaine, when they were loading up buses with
the homeless and driving them to the Dem rallies, or did the local Dem
organizations pay the freight?

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:42:31 GMT, "John Emmons"
wrote:


The backlash of the Abramoff, Delay, Frist, Rove, Libby, et al, affairs will
hopefully go as high as the oval office.Then the democrats can run things
and **** them up for a while.

John Emmons


http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:38:40 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

It also explains who Richard Mellon Scaife is, and how he paid
millions
to
crucify Bill Clinton. Brock was part of the hit team and he got a big
Mercedes Benz out of the deal, among other things.


Any relation to George Soros, who has been funding all the Leftist
527s such as MoveOn.org and so forth?

No, no relation. Soros funds political organizations, in public. Scaife
funds felons, corrupt reporters, corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers, and
prostitutes, in private.

Soros wants you to know what he's doing. Scaife doesn't want *anyone* to
know what he's doing, probably because there's prison time attached to
some
of his activities. Different modus operendi.


So Soros brags about being behind all the 527s that have sprung up
with fringe kook extremists at the helm?

Not that I've ever heard. What evidence do you have that he has, Gunner? Or
are you staying up late reading right-wing blogs again?


I wonder..was he the money source when the Dems paid for all the
booze, smokes and crack cocaine, when they were loading up buses with
the homeless and driving them to the Dem rallies, or did the local Dem
organizations pay the freight?

Why do you wonder that? Do you have evidence of these things?

No third-party allegations. We know about your third-party allegations. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't use rightard and I'm really stingy with the use of winger. But a
neocon (neoconservative) is self-defined, an outgrowth of some articles
written in the 60s by a group of Jewish intellectuals (Irving Kristol and
Norman Podhoretz were prominent among them) who objected to the way the US
reacted to the '67 Mideast War, and who flipped from liberal to conservative
political postures.

It has a clear-cut history and the development of neocon thinking can be
tracked through articles and essays published in the intellectual-right
press in the years since. The term has broadened and narrowed, then
broadened again. It's not perfectly fixed. But it has a few common threads
and a core of well-defined adherents. The central idea, which has been
central since the first days of the neocons, is that the US should project
its power to "modernize" the key trouble spots around the globe --
particularly the Middle East -- by imposing a form of government and rights,
and, they may hope, a set of social attitudes that might be exemplified by
the attitudes of, say, Waco, Texas. The Project For The New American Century
is a major neocon program. You'll recognize the names of the key
participants: they're now filling the second tier in the White House.

The term "neocon" has taken on some opprobrium for warmongering and
heavy-handed political dealing, and most of them prefer to be called
"conservatives" today. But they're something like that new variety of
semi-domesticated Canada goose that spends its winters up north and doesn't
migrate. It honks like a goose and walks like a goose, but when it comes
time to migrate and act like a goose, it just hangs around and craps up the
neighborhood. Interestingly, these new geese, which I've heard are now
considered a subspecies by some, showed up at about the same time that
neocons first appeared.

I think you'll find that "neo-fascist" also has a fairly clear definition,
and there are specific groups around the world -- not all with the same
programs, but all of whom share a strong desire for authoritarian rule --
that political scientists label as neo-fascist.

"Neoliberal" has a specific meaning in economics. It refers to the current
US- and UK mainstream economic thought, which most people would call
conservative. It's known in economic policy circles as "the Washington
Consensus."

But I don't know what meaning you're assigning to it in politics. I suspect
there is none, really; it's just an attempt by conservatives to sling around
a term that sounds erudite and opprobrious, but which is really just noise.

In any case, there is no "new liberal" thought that I know of. The 60s/70s
liberals are mostly moribund. Those that remain have no projects or programs
around which they could cohere. Liberalism itself is little more than an
attitude today, as conservatism tends to be in the mainstream. But there is
no intellectual or policy-driven core of liberalism as there is with
conservatism.

Whew! That was good.

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't use rightard and I'm really stingy with the use of winger. But a
neocon (neoconservative) is self-defined, an outgrowth of some articles
written in the 60s by a group of Jewish intellectuals (Irving Kristol
and
Norman Podhoretz were prominent among them) who objected to the way the
US
reacted to the '67 Mideast War, and who flipped from liberal to
conservative
political postures.

It has a clear-cut history and the development of neocon thinking can be
tracked through articles and essays published in the intellectual-right
press in the years since. The term has broadened and narrowed, then
broadened again. It's not perfectly fixed. But it has a few common
threads
and a core of well-defined adherents. The central idea, which has been
central since the first days of the neocons, is that the US should
project
its power to "modernize" the key trouble spots around the globe --
particularly the Middle East -- by imposing a form of government and
rights,
and, they may hope, a set of social attitudes that might be exemplified
by
the attitudes of, say, Waco, Texas. The Project For The New American
Century
is a major neocon program. You'll recognize the names of the key
participants: they're now filling the second tier in the White House.

The term "neocon" has taken on some opprobrium for warmongering and
heavy-handed political dealing, and most of them prefer to be called
"conservatives" today. But they're something like that new variety of
semi-domesticated Canada goose that spends its winters up north and
doesn't
migrate. It honks like a goose and walks like a goose, but when it comes
time to migrate and act like a goose, it just hangs around and craps up
the
neighborhood. Interestingly, these new geese, which I've heard are now
considered a subspecies by some, showed up at about the same time that
neocons first appeared.

I think you'll find that "neo-fascist" also has a fairly clear
definition,
and there are specific groups around the world -- not all with the same
programs, but all of whom share a strong desire for authoritarian
rule --
that political scientists label as neo-fascist.

"Neoliberal" has a specific meaning in economics. It refers to the
current
US- and UK mainstream economic thought, which most people would call
conservative. It's known in economic policy circles as "the Washington
Consensus."

But I don't know what meaning you're assigning to it in politics. I
suspect
there is none, really; it's just an attempt by conservatives to sling
around
a term that sounds erudite and opprobrious, but which is really just
noise.

In any case, there is no "new liberal" thought that I know of. The
60s/70s
liberals are mostly moribund. Those that remain have no projects or
programs
around which they could cohere. Liberalism itself is little more than an
attitude today, as conservatism tends to be in the mainstream. But there
is
no intellectual or policy-driven core of liberalism as there is with
conservatism.

Whew! That was good.

thank you, thank you. I do that kind of stuff for a living, and I try hard
to play it straight when I'm being serious. I don't always succeed but at
least it ought to be entertaining. g

--
Ed Huntress

I'm impressed Ed. Metal forming and political thoughtfullness. Cool.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gus" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

If you were born right the first time, you don't worry about how you
appear
to others. You focus on your own integrity and you have the courage to
admit
when you aren't certain, as well as the courage to admit when you're
wrong.

If there's any single sign that this administration is based on that
born-again fear of admitting imperfect knowledge, it's their
unwillingness
to admit a mistake. Bush's recent mea culpas are coming out like he's
been
constipated for years and just ate a whole pack of Ex-Lax by mistake.

I guess I don't see what being "born again" has to do with anything. I
don't think that gives someone a new personality and fear of admitting
anything.

It's a theory I've been working on for years. d8-) I've known some
born-agains since before they were born for the second time and I've been
struck by certain parallels in their behaviors and their attitudes.

When I learned that W was one of them I had an "aha" response; his
behavior
fits the general pattern. Then when I learned more about his
pre-born-again
life I realized his was an elite version of the life led by an old friend
of
mine, who is now born-again and certain as hell -- not about minor facts
or
little details of life, but about the big things, and especially about
which
social and spiritual attitudes should guide the lives of everyone else. He
fears returning to his old attitudes and ways more than anything, as do
almost all of the born-agains I've known.

But I digress...



NeoLibs provide them with uncertainty in order to keep them off
track,
promoting
and pushing their agendas. g

I didn't miss the g, but what's a "neolib"? It sounds like something
Gunner cut and pasted off of one of his neo-fascist blogs. g

Well, we have frequently used words like "neocon, winger, rightard",
and the ever-popular "neo-fascist" and I just didn't want anyone to
feel Left out.

I don't use rightard and I'm really stingy with the use of winger. But a
neocon (neoconservative) is self-defined, an outgrowth of some articles
written in the 60s by a group of Jewish intellectuals (Irving Kristol and
Norman Podhoretz were prominent among them) who objected to the way the US
reacted to the '67 Mideast War, and who flipped from liberal to
conservative
political postures.

It has a clear-cut history and the development of neocon thinking can be
tracked through articles and essays published in the intellectual-right
press in the years since. The term has broadened and narrowed, then
broadened again. It's not perfectly fixed. But it has a few common threads
and a core of well-defined adherents. The central idea, which has been
central since the first days of the neocons, is that the US should project
its power to "modernize" the key trouble spots around the globe --
particularly the Middle East -- by imposing a form of government and
rights,
and, they may hope, a set of social attitudes that might be exemplified by
the attitudes of, say, Waco, Texas. The Project For The New American
Century
is a major neocon program. You'll recognize the names of the key
participants: they're now filling the second tier in the White House.

The term "neocon" has taken on some opprobrium for warmongering and
heavy-handed political dealing, and most of them prefer to be called
"conservatives" today. But they're something like that new variety of
semi-domesticated Canada goose that spends its winters up north and
doesn't
migrate. It honks like a goose and walks like a goose, but when it comes
time to migrate and act like a goose, it just hangs around and craps up
the
neighborhood. Interestingly, these new geese, which I've heard are now
considered a subspecies by some, showed up at about the same time that
neocons first appeared.

I think you'll find that "neo-fascist" also has a fairly clear definition,
and there are specific groups around the world -- not all with the same
programs, but all of whom share a strong desire for authoritarian rule --
that political scientists label as neo-fascist.

"Neoliberal" has a specific meaning in economics. It refers to the current
US- and UK mainstream economic thought, which most people would call
conservative. It's known in economic policy circles as "the Washington
Consensus."

But I don't know what meaning you're assigning to it in politics. I
suspect
there is none, really; it's just an attempt by conservatives to sling
around
a term that sounds erudite and opprobrious, but which is really just
noise.

In any case, there is no "new liberal" thought that I know of. The 60s/70s
liberals are mostly moribund. Those that remain have no projects or
programs
around which they could cohere. Liberalism itself is little more than an
attitude today, as conservatism tends to be in the mainstream. But there
is
no intellectual or policy-driven core of liberalism as there is with
conservatism.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Bush's NSA fiasco broke the law.

So did the leaker and the New York Times.

New York Times v. United States, 1971: First Amendment claim sustained, per
curium decision.

Ed, I though you said the old liberals were dead, eh?

And here you are doing this. g

Next thing I know, yer gonna be joining the sit-in at the Times
Square recruiter's office.

Come ta think of it I might just join you.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , John
Emmons says...

The backlash of the Abramoff, Delay, Frist, Rove, Libby, et al, affairs will
hopefully go as high as the oval office.Then the democrats can run things
and **** them up for a while.

Oh, indeed not, sir. At least I hope not. I'm telling all my
associates to vote republican in the upcoming presidential election.

I think they really do need to reap what they have sown.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Bush's NSA fiasco broke the law.

So did the leaker and the New York Times.

New York Times v. United States, 1971: First Amendment claim sustained,
per
curium decision.

Ed, I though you said the old liberals were dead, eh?

And here you are doing this. g

Next thing I know, yer gonna be joining the sit-in at the Times
Square recruiter's office.

Come ta think of it I might just join you.

Hey, that wasn't old liberal thinking. That was *really* old liberal
thinking. d8-)

This isn't a liberal/conservative issue in the modern uses of the words.
It's a debate between liberty and authoritarianism; I'd say "libertarianism
and authoritarianism," if I thought that today's "libertarians" were
consistent or coherent enough in their thinking to warrant the use of the
term. But they're not. And the evidence is that some of the same people who
call themselves "libertarians" are arguing for greater government secrecy
and presumptuous authority. They shift sides from issue to issue, with
little principle involved and no real theory of government to justify their
positions.

Here's what a *real* libertarian had to say about the issue. This is from
the Court's opinion in NYT v. US:

=============================
"In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the
protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The
press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power
to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever
free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could
bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and
unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government...

"...To find that the President has 'inherent power' to halt the publication
of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and
destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the
Government hopes to make 'secure.' No one can read the history of the
adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt
that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his
collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time."
=============================

As was pointed out in the footnotes and the concurring opinion, the relevant
statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 793 (e), with later amendments) was originally
drafted to include the press among those who cannot "communicate" secret
information. But that version was rejected by the Senate and the references
to the press were taken out on First Amendment grounds.

So the New York Times did not violate the law. In fact, if you read the
precendent-setting cases (NYT v. Sullivan; NYT v. United States), you'll see
numerous statements in the majority opinions that have the same basis as the
ones I quoted above.

Being a really old liberal, or a coherent "libertarian," is not easy. It
requires a great faith that shedding light on governments' misuse of power
does more to strengthen a society than does allowing a government to
secretly violate basic rights and principles of liberty.

There aren't many people who call themselves "libertarians" who have the
fortitude for it. More importantly, they don't really believe the foundation
on which their supposed political position is based. For the most part, they
just want to own any gun they want to, any time and anywhere they want to.
Their "principles" usually fall like a house of cards when the issues extend
beyond that.

--
Ed Huntress

"THis is what nixon said, right?

If the president does it, it must be legal.

Bush's NSA fiasco broke the law. Just like all those Abramoff
folks. Oh, you'll hear a lot of spin going on, a lot of foot
stamping and blubbering.

But in the end there will be defense attorneys on hire.

The shrubster is alienating a lot of even his own party. THe CIA
is real ****ed at him. He made monkeys out of all those secret
security court judges. The mess with delay and ney isn't helping
either.

REmember how popular delay was until the prosecutors came knocking?
The same thing could happen to the president.

Jim "

If you step and take in the BIG picture, the same thing IS happening to
this President RIGHT NOW.

Spying without a warrant IS illegal and a felony.

It just takes time but George is already on the way out.

And he did it to himself. LOL

Just sit back and recall the last days of Nixon...it's like watching a
rerun of a bad movie.

TMT

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sat, 14 Jan 2006
17:53:10 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

No third-party allegations. We know about your third-party allegations. g

It's true that the Federal Election Commission doesn't require
disclosure of donors to 527s -- but that's because the Internal
Revenue Service does. Anyone -- including Poe -- who wishes to know
how much money Soros is giving to 527s can find out easily enough; the
Center for Public Integrity maintains an easy-to-use database of 527
contributions. This isn't difficult information to find: The second
result in a Google search for "527" is an IRS Web page explaining 527
disclosure; the third result is the Center for Public Integrity's 527
page, which includes links to its database.

http://www.publicintegrity.com/527/s...v&sub=topindiv
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/

Thanks. I hadn't been interested enough to go hunting myself, but now
that I know where to find it, in the words of Artie Johnson "Very
interestink."


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
What is normal?
"Two sigmas either side of mu.
You bring the cow." drieux.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:34:13 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sat, 14 Jan 2006
17:53:10 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

No third-party allegations. We know about your third-party allegations. g

It's true that the Federal Election Commission doesn't require
disclosure of donors to 527s -- but that's because the Internal
Revenue Service does. Anyone -- including Poe -- who wishes to know
how much money Soros is giving to 527s can find out easily enough; the
Center for Public Integrity maintains an easy-to-use database of 527
contributions. This isn't difficult information to find: The second
result in a Google search for "527" is an IRS Web page explaining 527
disclosure; the third result is the Center for Public Integrity's 527
page, which includes links to its database.

http://www.publicintegrity.com/527/s...v&sub=topindiv
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/

Thanks. I hadn't been interested enough to go hunting myself, but now
that I know where to find it, in the words of Artie Johnson "Very
interestink."


tschus
pyotr

I wonder...why Rozen isnt quite so quick to respond on this subject?

Chuckle......

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,

"Kelly Jones" wrote in message
. ..
I'm impressed Ed. Metal forming and political thoughtfullness. Cool.

Well, thanks, Kelly, but don't make too much of it. It just combines most of
what I did for a living and most of what I studied in college. I used to
race cars as an amateur with a guy who had a PhD in divinity. Now, *he* was
interesting. g

--
Ed Huntress

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Sun, 15 Jan 2006
17:20:31 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:34:13 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Thanks. I hadn't been interested enough to go hunting myself, but now
that I know where to find it, in the words of Artie Johnson "Very
interestink."


I wonder...why Rozen isnt quite so quick to respond on this subject?

He's waiting for instructions from the Mothership?

As an aside, I could care less the amounts of money various Democrats
got directly or indirectly from Abramoff. I expect pigs to have both feet
in the trough. It is those who are suppose to know better that raise my
ire.
I keep recalling joke from Soviet Union. Nikita Khrushchev, after
taking over as head of the USSR), has brought his mother to Moscow, and
shows her it apartment in the Kremlin. :Oh, my son, this is wonderful."
"But wait Ma, there is more" he says, and takes her to the little dacha
outside Moscow. She is overwhelmed. He then takes her to a dacha by the
Black Sea, she takes a look around at all the fine things and begins to
cry. Nikita say "Why are you crying Mother? I have come a long ways from
those hungry days in Kiev." And his mother says "Oh my dear son, it is all
so wonderful. But what will happen if the Bolsheviks ever return?"
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Any entity big enough to meet your needs,
is big enough to decide what those needs should be.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.


tootles

pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:22 +1300, Tom wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom


I can assure you..Pyotr is NOT a Democrat..so so much for that
claim....

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:22 +1300, Tom wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom

I can assure you..Pyotr is NOT a Democrat..so so much for that
claim....

Gunner

From his irrational postings that is self-evident, well,
to most anyway..

Tom

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:24:06 +1300, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:22 +1300, Tom wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom

I can assure you..Pyotr is NOT a Democrat..so so much for that
claim....

Gunner

From his irrational postings that is self-evident, well,
to most anyway..

Tom

Tom..you keep trying to make him out a Democrat. Thats not nice.

However..from your state of madness..it is understandable. Paranoid
Schitzophrenics generally have similar symptoms as yours.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:24:06 +1300, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:22 +1300, Tom wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom

I can assure you..Pyotr is NOT a Democrat..so so much for that
claim....

Gunner

From his irrational postings that is self-evident, well,
to most anyway..

Tom

Tom..you keep trying to make him out a Democrat. Thats not nice.

However..from your state of madness..it is understandable. Paranoid
Schitzophrenics generally have similar symptoms as yours.

Gunner

LOL, I'm not the one that wears a gun..

Tom

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:50:33 +1300, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:24:06 +1300, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:22 +1300, Tom wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom

I can assure you..Pyotr is NOT a Democrat..so so much for that
claim....

Gunner

From his irrational postings that is self-evident, well,
to most anyway..

Tom

Tom..you keep trying to make him out a Democrat. Thats not nice.

However..from your state of madness..it is understandable. Paranoid
Schitzophrenics generally have similar symptoms as yours.

Gunner

LOL, I'm not the one that wears a gun..

Tom

You are also not the one who has to work in Compton, East LA, Watts
and Downey late at night with a truck full of expensive tools.

Are the troops on patrol in Iraq paranoid? Or simply prepared?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article , Gunner says...

I wonder...why Rozen isnt quite so quick to respond

Rozen's coverage of usent is spotty at best at the moment,
his mom's in the cardiac care unit again. The good news
is her illiostomy reconnect was successful.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 17 Jan 2006 05:04:03 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

I wonder...why Rozen isnt quite so quick to respond

Rozen's coverage of usent is spotty at best at the moment,
his mom's in the cardiac care unit again. The good news
is her illiostomy reconnect was successful.

Jim


Sorry to hear that. My best to a complete and speedy and full
recovery. Ill even say a prayer for her.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article , Gunner says...

Rozen's coverage of usent is spotty at best at the moment,
his mom's in the cardiac care unit again. The good news
is her illiostomy reconnect was successful.

Sorry to hear that. My best to a complete and speedy and full
recovery. Ill even say a prayer for her.

A kind thought is all that's needed in her case. But right
now she can dispense with all the illiostomy hardware for the
first time in about five months.

Most folks don't realize just how important their plumbing inside
really is.

Thanks though. I've been doing the parkway shuffle for the past
week. I think I may have to stop temporarily because my
co-worker's entire family came down with a stomach virus. That's
one thing she *doesn't* need.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:50:33 +1300, with neither quill nor qualm, Tom
quickly quoth:

Gunner wrote:
Tom..you keep trying to make him out a Democrat. Thats not nice.

[ No, it isn't, Gunner. hint, hint ]


However..from your state of madness..it is understandable. Paranoid
Schitzophrenics generally have similar symptoms as yours.

Gunner

LOL, I'm not the one that wears a gun..

If you worked in some of the places he works, you'd either start
wearing one or become a statistic. HelL.A. earned its rep.


--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
================================================== ==========

Gunner wrote:

Ill even say a prayer for her.

Gunner

Gunner, In view of your posts on "religon", to whom would
you pray? :-)
...lew...

In article . net, Lew Hartswick
says...

Ill even say a prayer for her.

Gunner, In view of your posts on "religon", to whom would
you pray? :-)

As an agnostic, she would appreciate the kind thoughts, but
right now her 'prayers' are directed to the tiny lady surgeon
who did the needlework on her intestines.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Tue, 17 Jan 2006
12:39:22 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

No, that is the Democrats and their fellow travelers. For them the old
saying is true: Unless you're the lead lemming, the scenery doesn't change.

On the third hand, your one line response assumes much, and clarifies
little.

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Tue, 17 Jan 2006
02:11:20 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:22 +1300, Tom wrote:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Tom writes on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
12:31:37 +1300 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
pyotr filipivich wrote:

..........
Likewise, what will happen to this Congress if the Republicans ever
regain a majority?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Perhaps you need to take more notice of current affairs?

I see the parable was as a tin roof on the house over your head.

tootles

pyotr

You see? Your cyclopic view comes across as of one who has
that eye firmly closed and is dependent on total fantasy.

Tom


I can assure you..Pyotr is NOT a Democrat..so so much for that
claim....

I will admit, I did vote for the Democrat candidate. But just the once.

OTOH, I voted for Reagan as President three times.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner writes on Tue, 17 Jan 2006
17:58:46 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 17 Jan 2006 05:04:03 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

I wonder...why Rozen isnt quite so quick to respond

Rozen's coverage of usent is spotty at best at the moment,
his mom's in the cardiac care unit again. The good news
is her illiostomy reconnect was successful.

Jim


Sorry to hear that. My best to a complete and speedy and full
recovery. Ill even say a prayer for her.

I'll add an amen to that.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 13 Jan 2006
13:44:37 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Bush's NSA fiasco broke the law.
So did the leaker and the New York Times.

What, the valeri plame leaker?

No, I mean the poor confused soul who saw something he thought illegal,
and rather than report it to the Inspector General, or the Department of
Justice, reported it to a newspaper. (Funny how the New York Times does
seem to want to print the copy of the Barret Report, which was also been
"leaked" to it.)

I don't know about you, but I don't recall hearing about how the New
York Times was granted jurisdiction to investigate charges of criminal
behavior with the possibility of filing criminal indictments. Democrats
seem more than a bit unclear on that distinction.

One more time for the Left Coast Audience": the New York Times does not
have government powers, no matter how self important they consider
themselves.

That would be Karl Rove, right?

Wrong again.

I guess the worm as they say is indeed on the other foot now.

Jim

--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

One more time for the Left Coast Audience":
the New York Times does not have government powers,
no matter how self important they consider themselves.


Right. We have a government of _enumerated_ powers. The press does not
have "powers", it has _rights_, just like you do. Which of the NYT's rights
would you like to take away?

For your conservative audience: whatever rights mr. filipivich takes away
from the NYT, he also takes away from _you_.

-- TP

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

One more time for the Left Coast Audience": the New York Times does not
have government powers,

Well, they were given that funny first amendment thing.

Anyone want to hazard a guess why the folks who drafted the
constitution did that?

Why would the government deliberately tell the press "look,
you can print anything at all in the nature of political
speech, and we can't even consider prosecuting you for
any of that."

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

They did not want secret arrests without warrants.

They did not want searches without warrants.

They did not want state religions.

They did not want power concentrated in one man.

They DID however want the press to publish any and all
evidence for governmental mis-deeds and malfeasance.

The press does not have powers granted by the government. It
has power *over* the government.

Haven't you ever taken a fifth grade civics class? What
school did you *go* to?? Did you ever take a field trip
to Washington DC?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Being a really old liberal, or a coherent "libertarian," is not easy. It
requires a great faith that shedding light on governments' misuse of power
does more to strengthen a society than does allowing a government to
secretly violate basic rights and principles of liberty.

And yet the apologists literally trip over themselves to insist that
any kind of investigation or 'light shedding' is tantamount to treason.
"Comfort and Aid to the Enemy" is all one hears when one points out
that maybe, just maybe we should be taking a close look at what
our leaders are doing in washington.

Shutting down our constitution and the bill of rights is the
*ultimate* comfort to our enemies. As ms mulligan is fond
of saying, the favorite right-wing ditty nowadays is "they hate
us for our freedoms. So we'll destroy our own freedoms and
then they won't hate us any more."

There aren't many people who call themselves "libertarians" who have the
fortitude for it. More importantly, they don't really believe the foundation
on which their supposed political position is based. For the most part, they
just want to own any gun they want to, any time and anywhere they want to.
Their "principles" usually fall like a house of cards when the issues extend
beyond that.

I find it ironic indeed that the doctrines they gravitate towards
lead to increased govenmental meddling in private lives, reduced
privacy, unchecked government powers, and the concentration of
political power in the hands of only one or two men. If that is
truly being a 'libertarian' then count me out.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

There aren't many people who call themselves "libertarians" who have the
fortitude for it. More importantly, they don't really believe the
foundation
on which their supposed political position is based. For the most part,
they
just want to own any gun they want to, any time and anywhere they want
to.
Their "principles" usually fall like a house of cards when the issues
extend
beyond that.

I find it ironic indeed that the doctrines they gravitate towards
lead to increased govenmental meddling in private lives, reduced
privacy, unchecked government powers, and the concentration of
political power in the hands of only one or two men. If that is
truly being a 'libertarian' then count me out.

Well, libertarians come from a variety of places, but most of them come from
traditional (pre-neocon, pre-libertarian) conservatism. They can't easily
shake that authoritarian impulse, once they get beyond the 2nd Amendment and
anything to do with taxes.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

The [Press] also has the power to *enshrine* a government of its own design,
which is what appears to be happening "as we speak".

-jc-

Ed Huntress wrote:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
writes on 12 Jan 2006
05:49:46 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :


Bush's NSA fiasco broke the law.

So did the leaker and the New York Times.

New York Times v. United States, 1971: First Amendment claim sustained, per
curium decision.

No contest.

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that what the NY Times did by breaking the NSA story is
probably legal but if the story harms national security I don't think
it was the right thing to do. However, I don't think they worry about
trivial matters like that.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 05:04:29 GMT, "John Chase"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote

The Times has the power to *destroy* the government when it
misbehaves. That's what the folks who penned the constituion
*wanted*.

The [Press] also has the power to *enshrine* a government of its own design,
which is what appears to be happening "as we speak".

-jc-

So when is the Times going to release the Barrett Report?

(this is the report on the Clinton Administration using the IRS as
their own Einsatzgruppen used to attack political enemies)

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 20 Jan 2006 20:39:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Shutting down our constitution and the bill of rights is the
*ultimate* comfort to our enemies. As ms mulligan is fond
of saying, the favorite right-wing ditty nowadays is "they hate
us for our freedoms. So we'll destroy our own freedoms and
then they won't hate us any more."

Dont you just hate it when all those evil republicans keep pushing
those gun control laws..and forbidding religious symbols ?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin