On Mar 31, 6:24 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:45 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what
happened.

Nonsense.

Perhaps you ought to trouble yourself to actually *read* the SCOTUS decisions;
it's clear that you have not.


Holding:

In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking
to meet the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline would be
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

--

FF

wrote:

Secondly, the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT
has no authority beyond his duties as president
of the Senate. He has no authority to implement
anything.

So, how long was AlGore a Senator? Didn't he have the power then to
get an airline security bill passed? After all, as Senator he took the
initiative in creating the Internet, didn't he?

On Mar 31, 6:24 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:45 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what
happened.

Nonsense.

Perhaps you ought to trouble yourself to actually *read* the SCOTUS decisions;
it's clear that you have not.


As usual, it appears that you have not.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 12, 2000]
Per Curiam.

I

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the
Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-
Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote
totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes
identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.,
and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and
Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor
George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in
Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to
resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n.
6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts
in all Florida counties where so-called "undervotes" had not been
subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to
begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates
for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application
for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application,
treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and
granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.

The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed
in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing
Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8, 2000, the day
following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections
reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes,
and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a
margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush's margin of
victory was less than "one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast,"
an automatic machine recount was conducted under §102.141(4) of the
election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning
the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought
manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade
Counties, pursuant to Florida's election protest provisions. Fla.
Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for
local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the
Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the
November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The
Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We
granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court's decision,
finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was
based. Bush I, ante, at ___-___ (slip. op., at 6-7). On December 11,
the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that
date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30-31).

On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission
certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the
winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President
Gore, pursuant to Florida's contest provisions, filed a complaint in
Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat.
§102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which
provides that "[r]eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of
a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the
result of the election" shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit
Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet
his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of
Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.

Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part
and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d. ____ (2000). The
court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice
President Gore's challenge to the results certified in Nassau County
and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board's
determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the
statutory phrase, "legal votes."

The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his
burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to
Miami-Dade County's failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000
ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for
President ("undervotes"). ___ So. 2d., at ___ (slip. op., at 22-23).
Noting the closeness of the election, the Court explained that "[o]n
this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes
within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of
this election in doubt." Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 35). A "legal
vote," as determined by the Supreme Court, is "one in which there is a
'clear indication of the intent of the voter. ' " Id., at ____ (slip
op., at 25). The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000
ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provisions
vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to "provide any relief
appropriate under such circumstances," Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000),
the Supreme Court further held that the Circuit Court could order "the
Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the
necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a
manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes ... to do so forthwith,
said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the
ballots are located." ____ So. 2d, at ____ (slip. op., at 38).

The Supreme Court also determined that both Palm Beach County and
Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a
net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes for Vice President Gore. Id., at
___ (slip. op., at 33-34). Rejecting the Circuit Court's conclusion
that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net
votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court
explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes
identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As to
Miami-Dade County, the Court concluded that although the 168 votes
identified were the result of a partial recount, they were "legal
votes [that] could change the outcome of the election." Id., at (slip
op., at 34). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to
include those totals in the certified results, subject to resolution
of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida
Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential
election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United
States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and
whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal
protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause.

II

A

The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal
challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp
focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon. Nationwide
statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register
a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately
choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for
two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot. See Ho, More Than
2M Ballots Uncounted, AP Online (Nov. 28, 2000); Kelley, Balloting
Problems Not Rare But Only In A Very Close Election Do Mistakes And
Mismarking Make A Difference, Omaha World-Herald (Nov. 15, 2000). In
certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the
certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal
requirements.

This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce
an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean,
complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely
legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the
mechanisms and machinery for voting.

B

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote
for electors for the President of the United States unless and until
the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to
implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S.
Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson
v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power
to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it
so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner
used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the
Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored
the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves
vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the
right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the
legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its
fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and
the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after
granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take
back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 ("[T]here is no
doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time,
for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated") (quoting S. Rep. No.
395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation
of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of
its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,
the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value
one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia
Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is
granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are
inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be
denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote
just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the
franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

There is no difference between the two sides of the present
controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very
purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount
procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether
the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are
consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate
treatment of the members of its electorate.

Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards
designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error
or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient
precision for a machine to count them. In some cases a piece of the
card-a chad-is hanging, say by two corners. In other cases there is no
separation at all, just an indentation.

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter
be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal
protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the
Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme
for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to
mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount
mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida
Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary
treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right.
Florida's basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to
consider the "intent of the voter." Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___
(slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition
and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of
specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of
uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring
circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the
actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general
command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further
refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to
believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches
on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is
said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count.
The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent
can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform
treatment.

The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of
ballots in various respects. See Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___
(slip op., at 51) (Wells, J., dissenting) ("Should a county canvassing
board count or not count a 'dimpled chad' where the voter is able to
successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest on that ballot?
Here, the county canvassing boards disagree"). As seems to have been
acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or
rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county
but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.

The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three
members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in
defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at
trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative
standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example,
began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting
completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote
to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to
the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only
to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal.
This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.

An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when
a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its
different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court
found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the
context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394
U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that
diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating
process. There we observed that "[t]he idea that one group can be
granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one
man, one vote basis of our representative government." Id., at 819.

The State Supreme Court ratified this uneven treatment. It
mandated that the recount totals from two counties, Miami-Dade and
Palm Beach, be included in the certified total. The court also
appeared to hold sub silentio that the recount totals from Broward
County, which were not completed until after the original November 14
certification by the Secretary of State, were to be considered part of
the new certified vote totals even though the county certification was
not contested by Vice President Gore. Yet each of the counties used
varying standards to determine what was a legal vote. Broward County
used a more forgiving standard than Palm Beach County, and uncovered
almost three times as many new votes, a result markedly
disproportionate to the difference in population between the counties.

In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited
to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The
distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots
identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those
which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category
will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral
argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes
statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a
machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by
a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the
other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable
by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote
count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the
requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two
candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have
his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid
ballot. The State Supreme Court's inclusion of vote counts based on
these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial
processes that were under way.

That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protection
problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total
from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court's decision thus
gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification
must be complete. Indeed, it is respondent's submission that it would
be consistent with the rules of the recount procedures to include
whatever partial counts are done by the time of final certification,
and we interpret the Florida Supreme Court's decision to permit this.
See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 21 (slip op., at 37, n. 21) (noting
"practical difficulties" may control outcome of election, but
certifying partial Miami-Dade total nonetheless). This accommodation
no doubt results from the truncated contest period established by the
Florida Supreme Court in Bush I, at respondents' own urging. The press
of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for
speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection
guarantees.

In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the
votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court's decision
raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount
the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together
ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no
previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore,
while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from
objecting during the recount.

The recount process, in its features here described, is
inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the
fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide
recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our
consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem
of equal protection in election processes generally presents many
complexities.

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in
the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for
implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation
where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a
statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court
orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that
the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental
fairness are satisfied.

Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was
probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court
stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and
render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was
mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain
the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of
elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the
necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of the estimated
110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells
called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See ____
So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26).

Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this
point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in
compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process
without substantial additional work. It would require not only the
adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide
standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable
procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any
disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State
has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires
that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a
function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of
overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be
necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software
developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the
Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature
intended the State's electors to "participat[e] fully in the federal
electoral process," as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___
(slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000
WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any
controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive
selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon
us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme
Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards.
Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12
date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we
reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a
recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional
problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that
demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2,
15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the
remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida
Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. §
5 Justice Breyer's proposed remedy-remanding to the Florida Supreme
Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until
December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election
code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized
by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

* * *

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority
than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration
of the Constitution's design to leave the selection of the President
to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political
sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts,
however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal
and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to
confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.

Pursuant to this Court's Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue
the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See? Seven Justices concurred that
the manner in which the counting was
being done violated the 14th amendment.

That is what I said.

The USSC did not hold that recounting the
votes was a violation of the law. as you said.

Ironically the court observed that:

"The press of time does not diminish the
constitutional concern. A desire for speed
is not a general excuse for ignoring equal
protection guarantees."

but ruled:

"That (Florida) statute, in turn, requires
that any controversy or contest ...
be completed by December 12. That
date is upon us, and there is no recount
procedure in place under the State Supreme
Court's order that comports with minimal
constitutional standards.

[Again, the procedure, not the counting per
se, was unconstitutional, FF]

Because it is
evident that any recount seeking to meet
the December 12 date will be unconstitutional
for the reasons we have discussed, we
reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court
of Florida ordering a recount to proceed."


The essence of this ruling is that the state
law requiring that the electors cast their
votes on the day mandated by the Congress
trumps the equal protection clause of the
14th amendment.

This is particularly bizarre when you
consider that the Constitution neither
requires that Congress accept votes cast
on the 'safe harbor date' nor prohibits it
from accepting votes cast thereafter.
Indeed, the Congress has done both.
Yet the USSC held that meeting that
arbitrary deadline was more important
than accurately counting the votes!


Thus George W Bush became the first
man to sue his way into the Presidency,
though an accurate and timely counting
of the votes, which he successfully sued to
prevent, would have had the same effect
but with considerably less controversy.

--

FF

On Mar 31, 9:11 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:

Secondly, the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT
has no authority beyond his duties as president
of the Senate. He has no authority to implement
anything.

So, how long was AlGore a Senator? Didn't he have the power then to
get an airline security bill passed? After all, as Senator he took the
initiative in creating the Internet, didn't he?

George Washington was President for 8 years and
yet he nothing at all for airline security.

Crimony, he didn't even fund the Air Force!

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 31, 6:32 pm, "todd" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

I love discussions like this about Gore. People talk like he was some
outsider with all these great ideas. HE WAS
THE FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT FOR
8 YEARS! If it was such a great idea, why
didn't he get it implemented
himself?

As you may note upon review the commission
met late in Clinton's second term, not before
he took office, so your claim that Gore had
8 years to implement it is wrong. I may be
mistaken but I expect that the commission
was created at least partly in response to
al Queda's mass hijacking plot thwarted a bit
earlier in the Clinton Presidency and not
merely to rectify the preceding twelve
years of disregard for the issues.

The final report of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security chaired by Al Gore was submitted to President Clinton on February
12, 1997. It was in response to the downing of TWA Flight 800 in July of
1996, not some supposedly-thwarted al Queda hijacking plot. Gore and
Clinton left office on January 20, 2001. That's almost 4 years. By the
way, I find no reference to locking the cockpit door in the entire report.
So, it appears that just about everything you had to say on this topic is
wrong. Perhaps there's another commission that I'm unaware of. If so,
please point me to a reference. By the way, how many years of the Clinton
presidency are you including in the twelve you mention?

Secondly, the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT
has no authority beyond his duties as president
of the Senate. He has no authority to implement
anything.

Of course he can't do it by vice-presidential fiat. But if it was really
important to him, he could discuss it with the president or with the Senate.
I'm told he spent some time in the Senate himself.

In article . com, wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:24 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, fredf=
wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:45 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewrite Florida law to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that the Florida election as it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what
happened.

Nonsense.

Perhaps you ought to trouble yourself to actually *read* the SCOTUS decis=
ions;
it's clear that you have not.


As usual, it appears that you have not.

No, actually, I *did* -- but it sure looks like you never have, either before
or after you posted this. For example:
[snip]
Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the
November 14 deadline imposed by statute. =A7=A7102.111, 102.112. The
Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We
granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court's decision,
finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was
based.

Like I said... the Florida Supreme Court was ignoring the law, and SCOTUS told
them to follow it.

[snip]
The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida
Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential
election contests, thereby violating Art. II, =A71, cl. 2, of the United
States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. =A7 5 and
whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal
protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause.

IOW, the Supreme Court found that the recounts as being conducted
["standardless manual recounts"] were in violation of the law.

Just like I said.

Not much point in continuing, really. You've clearly failed to either read or
understand it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Iarnrod wrote:


In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.

I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.

You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil. It
makes no difference if it is sanctioned by the mob rule you've effected
and called "law". Any use of threat or force that is not in response to force
and/or threat initiated by others first is evil without exception.


and it ain't with the main of the Democratic Party.
The debate here was about the Left, not the Democratic Party.

You are wrong. You're not reading the poster to whom I responded then.
Clearly it was about the Democratic Party and his absurd claim,
helpfully reproduced he "Sadly, an increasing proportion of the
Democratic party has been hijacked by the likes of Noam Chomsky and
Ward Churchill, so I will concede that the trend is increasingly that
Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag." That's utter nonsense.

It is not remotely nonsense. The Democratic party was pulled
increasingly Left starting with FDR and has been accelerating that
way ever since. This is not even a remarkable idea among most
historians or other observers of Reality. Listening to screeching
rhetoric of the past 8 years just here in the US, one is led to
the conclusion that the Dems increasingly despise their own nation
(and the Republicans can find *no* fault with it even when evidence of
wrongdoing is in plain sight). I hear no loud condemnation from
the Dems when Rosie O'Donnell wheezes away at how the 9/11
attacks were fabricated by the US in an attempt to start new wars.
I see Democrat Senators - almost all of whom voted that the Iraq
war was necessary and just a few years ago suddenly getting
amnesia now that it's time to have an election again. I see
Democrats at all levels in public and private lining up as
class warriors against the "eeeeeevvvvilll rich people" because
they cannot themselves accomplish what the wealth have and must
therefore steal it if they want wealth (for the most part - one
noticeable exception is a certain Senator with a bad driving record
who has managed to be very rich by inheriting his family's
illegally gotten contraband money, but I digress). All of these
ideas find their genesis in the radical Left canon of people
like Chomsky and his apostles. The Dems may not *all* be Left
loons today but they are headed that way. In any case, the root
cause is moral and intellectual defects of Left ideology that
underpins all this.



At
the moment, your statement - as I have already stipulated - is
(barely) true.

No, it is wholly true.

But the Dems have been systematically been dragged
into the far-Left sewer, and the Chomskys and Churchills will soon
enough be speaking for the Democrat majority - well, at least their
politicians, but not necessarily their voters (yet).

Utter nonsense.

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility? Why do
the Dems like up like parrots with probes shoved up their nether regions
to give one loud voice to moral collectivist abominations like "univeral
healthcare", entitlement programs and all the rest? Why do they not
"abhor" notions that are fundamentally rooted in Leftist anti-liberty
agenda and inherently depend on force brought upon the few at the hands
of the many? You know the answer. The Dems are moving farther and
farther Left - at least as expressed by their leaders.



The OP didn't know what he was talking about. That was the trolling
remark.
Sadly, I know all too well what I am talking about.

That is not apparent to me given your misreading of the above.

I'm a loathe to defend the Right - they are ridiculous much of the time.
But the most Right leaning politician looks positively geniuslike by
comparison to the noise emanating from the far Left.

An indefensible position. Perhaps you just say that because you're
more inclined to sympathize with much of what the Right says aside
from the few things you might find objectionable, that you are with
the Left.

Not remotely so. There was a time when I found the Left and Right about
equally silly, but they could be counted upon to offset each other
sufficiently so they could do little real harm. But the radicalization
of the Left has caused its credibility to fall out of sight here in
the Real World. This has left the only voice being heard that of the
Right. This is why Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their ilk are
fabulously successful - there is no meaningful counterpoint coming from
the Left. How could there be when the entire philosophical basis for
Left ideology is rooted in mob rule, a defiance of demonstrably successful
Capitalist economics, a devaluing of personal liberty, and a denial of the
personal accountability attendant to it. As I said before, the Left,
having gotten a case of moral fleas, has left the political Right
looking healthy by comparison and thereby given the Right voice
and legitimacy.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 31, 11:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:

In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.

I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.

You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.

Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader. Do it the old fashioned
Republican way then... borrow and pass on a five trillion dollar debt to
your great-grandchildren; they're not around yet to object.

and it ain't with the main of the Democratic Party.
The debate here was about the Left, not the Democratic Party.

You are wrong. You're not reading the poster to whom I responded then.
Clearly it was about the Democratic Party and his absurd claim,
helpfully reproduced he "Sadly, an increasing proportion of the
Democratic party has been hijacked by the likes of Noam Chomsky and
Ward Churchill, so I will concede that the trend is increasingly that
Democrat = Radical Left Dirtbag." That's utter nonsense.

It is not remotely nonsense.

Of course it is. And you forgot to concede that you were wrong; the
debate *was* about the Democratic Party, as your reply that I snipped
harped on.

But the Dems have been systematically been dragged
into the far-Left sewer, and the Chomskys and Churchills will soon
enough be speaking for the Democrat majority - well, at least their
politicians, but not necessarily their voters (yet).

Utter nonsense.

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left?

Why should they? They already are distanced.

I'm a loathe to defend the Right - they are ridiculous much of the time.
But the most Right leaning politician looks positively geniuslike by
comparison to the noise emanating from the far Left.

An indefensible position. Perhaps you just say that because you're
more inclined to sympathize with much of what the Right says aside
from the few things you might find objectionable, that you are with
the Left.

Not remotely so.

Yes, very remotely, your rhetoric notwithstanding.

On Apr 1, 12:43 am, "todd" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



On Mar 31, 6:32 pm, "todd" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

I love discussions like this about Gore. People talk like he was some
outsider with all these great ideas. HE WAS
THE FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT FOR
8 YEARS! If it was such a great idea, why
didn't he get it implemented
himself?

As you may note upon review the commission
met late in Clinton's second term, not before
he took office, so your claim that Gore had
8 years to implement it is wrong. I may be
mistaken but I expect that the commission
was created at least partly in response to
al Queda's mass hijacking plot thwarted a bit
earlier in the Clinton Presidency and not
merely to rectify the preceding twelve
years of disregard for the issues.

The final report of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security chaired by Al Gore was submitted to President Clinton on February
12, 1997. It was in response to the downing of TWA Flight 800 in July of
1996, not some supposedly-thwarted al Queda hijacking plot. Gore and
Clinton left office on January 20, 2001. That's almost 4 years. By the
way, I find no reference to locking the cockpit door in the entire report.
So, it appears that just about everything you had to say on this topic is
wrong.

Thanks for checking. That'll teach me to not trust 'facts' I haven't
checked.

Now I did find a regulation that evidently WAS in effect as of
February 2001, though I am not clear on exactly which airliners
were being flown under part 121.

FAR 121.587 Closing and locking of flight crew compartment door.
(a)...a pilot in command of an airplane that has a lockable flight
crew
compartment door in accordance with Sec. 121.313 and that is carrying
passengers shall ensure that the door separating the flight crew
compartment
from the passenger compartment is closed and locked during flight.

Indeed, it was being discussed as if it were operational back in
1994:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.t...604e97c?hl=en&

But this FAA webpage indicates an effective date of 1/15/2002:

http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...F?OpenDocument

So I that is very confusing, I wonder waivers had been issued. I'll
ask
about it on the rec.aviation newsgroups.


Oh, it was a plot to simultaneously blow up 12 airliners, not hijack
them:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/091802hill.html
....
In January 1995, the Philippine National Police discovered
Ramzi Yousef's bombmaking lab in Manila and arrested an
accomplice named Abdul Haldm Murad. Captured materials
and interrogations of Murad revealed Yousef's plot to kill the
Pope, bomb U.S. and Israeli embassies in Manila, blow up
12 U.S.-owned airliners over the Pacific Ocean, and crash
a plane into CIA headquarters. Together, these plans
were known collectively as the "Bojinka Plot." Murad was
eventually convicted for his role in the plot and is currently
incarcerated in the United States.


Perhaps there's another commission that I'm unaware of. If so,
please point me to a reference. By the way, how many years of the Clinton
presidency are you including in the twelve you mention?

None.


Secondly, the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT
has no authority beyond his duties as president
of the Senate. He has no authority to implement
anything.

Of course he can't do it by vice-presidential fiat. But if it was really
important to him, he could discuss it with the president or with the Senate.
I'm told he spent some time in the Senate himself.

Yes, unlike VP Cheney who typically only went to the Senate
for a half-day on Wednesdays to caucus with the Republicans.
That doesn't bother me, but I was a bit peeved that so few people
pointed that out after he claimed that he was at the Senate
every day

--

FF

On Mar 31, 12:29 pm, wrote:
On Mar 31, 1:45 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article . com, wrote:

The FLSC was trying to rewriteFloridalaw to conform
to the 14th amendment. The USSC concurred 7 - 2
that theFloridaelectionas it then stood did not meet
the equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

That's absolute nonsense; in fact, it's the exact *opposite* of what happened.

Nonsense.



The FLSC was trying to rewriteFloridaelectionlaw to conform to its own
preconceived ideas of how theelection"should" turn out, including (among
other things) the assertion that when theFloridalegislature enacted a law
mandating certification ofelectionresults in seven days, it really "meant"
sevenTEEN.

Here you are confusing two different USSC decisions. Florida
law allowed for both a protest and a contest. I don't remember
which of these was first, but the first one was limited to 7 days.

The protest period is first, the contest of the certification is
second.

Bush sued repeatedly to stop the counting so that it could
not be completed in the requisite 7 days.

Bush could not get a single court to stop the recount.

The USSC upheld the decision to end the protest (or contest,
whichever was first) after 7 days,

As they should have, BUT, this decision came AFTER the 7 day period,
AND the extra 11 days added by the Florida Supreme Court.

The USSC found that the FSC violated the law by rewriting the protest
statute.

even though the counting
had been stopped several times during that period. The
argument for extending the deadline was based in part on the
several injunctions that had stopped the counting during the
seven day period.

FALSE. No injunctions were ever issued. NONE.

An analogy would be that a defendant doesn't
get to argue that he didn't receive a speedy trial if HE requested
a continuance. The argument for not extending the deadline
was that another remedy existed inFloridalaw--the contest.

Analogy based on a false premise.

That was the firstFloridaelectioncase to reach the
USSC in 2000.

The 5-4 decision that ultimately decided theelectionin favor
of Bush

FALSE. Bush v. Gore was decided on 12/12/2000. Bush was ALREADY the
winner of the state by that time. There was NO court remedy available
to Gore for him to win Florida. He had to face Congress to win.

relied (for the first time ever) on the Constitutionally
mandated voting date (so called 'safe harbor' date) of the
electoral college as its basis for enjoining further counting,
NOT anyFloridalaw.

FALSE. EVERY Democrat member (6 of 7) of the Florida Supreme Court,
and Al Gore himself, agreed that Florida Code REQUIRED these election
disputes to settled in the state by the safe harbor date. That IS
Florida Law.

During both the protest and the contest the Bush team
employed the same tactic, repeatedly obtaining injunctions

FALSE. Only one injunction was ever issue. That came on 12/9/2000.
"Repeatedly" is a bunch of BS.

to stop the counting until some deadline was reached.
'Counting' not 'recounting' because one county had a large
number of ballots that were not machine readable and were
never even examined until after the inauguration.

Again, FALSE. These ballots were spread all across the state, not "one
county".

Further, under Florida case law, these are NOT LEGAL ballots. Before
the 2000 election, the Florida Courts had REFUSED to order recounts
for ballots that were spoiled by the voter.

I say for the first time ever because the Consitution also
mandates that the newly elected Congress decides which
Electoral votes are 'regularly given'.

And in this case, that is exactly what happened. The Democrats in the
House lost a challenge to Bush's Florida electors because not a single
Senator in the Democrat controlled US Senate would sign on.


The Congress has
twice, in 1877 and in 1961 accepted Electoral Votes
cast after the day on which the Electoral College was
supposed to meet and vote. Indeed, in 1877 the Congress
rejected votes cast ON that day.

Thus relying on the 'safe harbor' date was specious as
the Constitution allows the Congress to ignore it anyways.

Why doesn't the Florida Legislature have a right to enact election
code in the manner they wish?? Why doesn't Article II of the US
Constitution apply to the state of Florida??

The 7-2 vote by the USSC held that the recounts
as being conducted violated the law.

Yes.

In so doing they affirmed the FLSC decision
which also found that the recounts were being
conducted in violation of the law.

FALSE. The FLSC ordered the recounts that were in violation of the
law. The FLSC said those counts were legal, the USSC didn't affirm
this, they OVERTURNED the FLSC orders.

Specifically the equal protections clause of the
14th Amendment was being violated by only
recounting some votes in some counties
and by the use of different methods in
some counties, though some of the justices
may not have concurred on every point.



The difference wa that the USSC also issued an injunction
5 - 4, prohibiting remedy.

Wrong again. The 5-4 vote forced the recounts -- previously held illegal by a
7-2 vote -- to be stopped. Justices Souter and Breyer voted with the majority
that the recounts were being conducted in violation of the law; then, later
the same day, voted to allow them to continue anyway.

False.

Recounting votes per se did not violate the equal protection
clause. It was the manner in which the recounting (or for that
matter the first counting) was done that violated the equal
protection clause. For example, some counties used paper
ballots that were marked with a black marker and optically
scanned. Some of those 'prescanned' the ballots for the
voters to check for errors and offered the voter a second chance
if the ballot was unreadable or had other errors (e.g. over or
under votes) detected.

FALSE, that is not part of the 7-2 decision. In fact, the court ruled
that this was NOT a violation of equal protection. The people are free
to choose what type of voting system they wish.

Thus some voters had a better
chance of having their vote counted than others, violating
the equal protection clause.

When the FLSC allowed some counties to include the overvote, while
ignore others, that is a violation of equal protection. When the FLSC
allowed IDENTICALLY marked ballots from IDENTICAL machines to be
scored in a different manner, that is a violation of equal protection.
Afterall, IDENTICALLY marked ballots MEAN THE SAME THING.

You are aware, aren't you, that *every* recount taken post-electionshowed
Gore lost?

You are aware, aren't you, that the circumstances
met the requirements inFloridalaw that permitted
recounts under both the contest and the protest
yet Bush successfully sued to stop them so that
the only recounts that were completed were completed
after the inauguration?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that those
recounts were being conducted illegally.

Yes, for the reasons I stated.

The 5-4 ruling prohibited any attempt to count them
in accordance with the law, by stopping them from
being counted at all.

Florida Code does not allow for recounts for voter error. How can
recount be in accordance with the law IF those are NOT LEGAL
BALLOTS????

Aside from confabulating the two cases your attempt
to spin the decision into a declaration that it was
illegal to recount ballots in a disputedelection
would be remarkable had I not already become a
ccustomed to such nonsense from you.

"(f) Prior practice before this election, which was not to do a manual
recount because of the claim that a county's machines were failing to
count partially perforated or indented chads. See Transcript of Oral
Arg. in Bush, at 39-40 (concession of Florida Attorney General that no
county had previously done so). For example, in Broward County
Canvassing Board v. Hogan, 607 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the
board recognized that "voter error in piercing of computer ballot
cards created loose or hanging paper chads." But the board declined to
do a manual recount even though two machine counts indicated a margin
of 3-5 votes. "Such voter errors, the board explained, are caused by
hesitant piercing, no piercing, or intentional or unintentional
multiple piercing of computer ballot cards, creating what are referred
to as overvotes and undervotes. The board thereupon declined
appellee's request for a recount". Id. (emphasis added). Thus, before
this election, the fact that a request for a manual recount was based
on incompletely perforated chads was considered not just insufficient,
but an affirmative reason to reject a manual recount because the
request was based on voter error rather than on machine or ballot
defects."

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/floridahouse.pdf

Even Gore's own Florida Campaign Chair admitted that this was not a
type of recount that had EVER been conducted in the state of Florida.

And you are correct, those showed that Gore lost
the popular vote inFlorida.

Yep.

I also have little doubt that had the situation been reversed
we would have seen essentially the same cases with
the same arguments but with Gore as plaintiff and Bush
as defendant. I am less confident, however, that the decisions
would have been the same in any of the courts.

It would have been tragic if the votes had been miscounted
so as to change the result in favor of Gore, just as it would
be for anyelectionto be miscounted producing an incorrect
result regardless of the comparative qualities of the candidates.

The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

How likely do you think it would have been for a Gore
administration to remove bin Laden's name from the State
Department's list of international terrorists or to abandon
the attempts to kill or capture him and disband the
program to track him. Some people, of course, will say
they are 100% confident he would have done those things
or worse. Such people are the real reason he was not
elected President.

--

FF

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 31, 6:32 pm, "todd" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

The tragedy we actually endured instead was a direct result
of the will of the electorate. Consider that as VP Gore chaired
a commission on airline security that, among other things,
recommended that airliner cockpit doors be closed and locked
at takeoff and remain that way during flight other than when
authorized persons were entering an leaving cockpit. How likely
do you suppose it would have been for Gore, as President, to
have tabled a rule he himself had recommended a year before?

I love discussions like this about Gore. People talk like he was some
outsider with all these great ideas. HE WAS
THE FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT FOR
8 YEARS! If it was such a great idea, why
didn't he get it implemented
himself?

As you may note upon review the commission
met late in Clinton's second term, not before
he took office, so your claim that Gore had
8 years to implement it is wrong. I may be
mistaken but I expect that the commission
was created at least partly in response to
al Queda's mass hijacking plot thwarted a bit
earlier in the Clinton Presidency and not
merely to rectify the preceding twelve
years of disregard for the issues.

The final report of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security chaired by Al Gore was submitted to President Clinton on February
12, 1997. It was in response to the downing of TWA Flight 800 in July of
1996, not some supposedly-thwarted al Queda hijacking plot. Gore and
Clinton left office on January 20, 2001. That's almost 4 years. By the
way, I find no reference to locking the cockpit door in the entire report.
So, it appears that just about everything you had to say on this topic is
wrong.

Gee, now *there's* a surprise...

Iarnrod wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:

In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.
I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.
You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.

Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader.

As always, when confronted with their support for evil actions, you
and your ilk resort to ... well ... nothing really. So do go
on and live your life in the full knowledge that your worldview
is based on theft and your eleemosynary kindnesses are entirely
built on violent force (or the threat thereof). You are no
different than a common street mugger. Actually, you're worse -
the do their own dirty work. You whip up the mob and hire the
government to do yours for you...

P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.

Do it the old fashioned
Republican way then... borrow and pass on a five trillion dollar debt to
your great-grandchildren; they're not around yet to object.

That's right, the Republicans are foul for spending money that did not
exist. Then again, what are the chances they could have done the
right thing and gutted the social entitlements portion of the
US Federal budget (50+% of that budget, I might add)? So long
as thugs like you and yours occupied essentially half the legislative
branch, they had *no* chance of doing so. But your point is taken.
Not only did they accomplish nothing, worse than that, they cut taxes
while stealing yet more money from people who actually work for
a living to give drug benefits to people who couldn't be bothered
to save for their own retirement the last 50 years. So, if you
think I'm going to defend the Republicans, think again. The whole
bunch of you are morally disgusting...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?

Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?

Maybe they BOTH realize that no reasonable person imagines
the association in the first place.

--

FF

On Apr 1, 6:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.


No sensible person equates taxation with robbery.

Every sensible person knows that every government expenditure
of which they personally approve will be regarded by some others
and making someone's socio-political fantasies come true.

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.


No sensible person equates taxation with robbery.

Every sensible person knows that every government expenditure
of which they personally approve will be regarded by some others
and making someone's socio-political fantasies come true.

--

FF



There is a rule-of-law that was established at the foundation of
this nation (the US). It delimited the conditions under
which the Federal government was permitted to extract wealth under
threat of force to support a very small and narrow set of
governmental actions. Today's Federal government has vastly exceeded
these boundaries and is thus engaging in theft. I do not hold that
*all* taxation is robbery, merely that today's system is and that
it's means is the mob rule percolated by the self-anointed do-gooders
among us.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?

Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?

Maybe they BOTH realize that no reasonable person imagines
the association in the first place.

You are evidently unaware the degree to which Chomsky is a patron saint
among the loud Left. He is regularly cited as one of the "leading
intellectuals" in various Democrat corners. I assume you don't waste
your time watching "The View", but there has been ample coverage of
Rosie O'Donnell's conspiratorial blathering that is deeply rooted in the
looney Left. Some years ago Michael Moore made quite a carreer for
himself attacking capital formation, the wealth, big eeeevil
corporations, and the like ... until he discovered that *he* was
immensely wealthy thereby. All of these people have publicly supported
Democrat candidates and were welcomed by those candidates at one point
or another. These are but a few of a myriad of examples wherein very
loud voices in the ecosystem of the Democrats are peddling radical Left
insanity while the "mainstream" Dems sit quietly.

By contrast, the Republicans at least run away publicly from their
lunatic fringe. When David Duke was identified as a Klacker, the Rs
distanced themselves immediately. When Trent Lott made even the mildest
of comments that could have been construed as racist (and then only
using the most tortured of analysis) he was promptly sent to stand in
the corner by the Rs.

I'm not suggesting the R's are inherently better in any way, merely that
the hijacking of the Ds by the radical Left is well underway and is
taking place almost silently.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Apr 1, 11:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?

Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?

Maybe they BOTH realize that no reasonable person imagines
the association in the first place.

You are evidently unaware the degree to which Chomsky is a patron saint
among the loud Left. He is regularly cited as one of the "leading
intellectuals" in various Democrat corners. I assume you don't waste
your time watching "The View", but there has been ample coverage of
Rosie O'Donnell's conspiratorial blathering that is deeply rooted in the
looney Left.

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.

If it weren't for you and Mark or Juanita I would
never have heard of Noah Chomsky. Thanks to
you I did notice a brief sound bite form him during
a Frontline presentation but disremember what
he said beyond the statement being totally bland.

The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.


Some years ago Michael Moore made quite a carreer for
himself attacking capital formation, the wealth, big eeeevil
corporations, and the like ... until he discovered that *he* was
immensely wealthy thereby. All of these people have publicly supported
Democrat candidates and were welcomed by those candidates at one point
or another. These are but a few of a myriad of examples wherein very
loud voices in the ecosystem of the Democrats are peddling radical Left
insanity while the "mainstream" Dems sit quietly.

Indeed I don't recall seeing any of them but Michael
More


By contrast, the Republicans at least run away publicly from their
lunatic fringe. When David Duke was identified as a Klacker, the Rs
distanced themselves immediately. When Trent Lott made even the mildest
of comments that could have been construed as racist (and then only
using the most tortured of analysis) he was promptly sent to stand in
the corner by the Rs.

And yet I still cannot recall even one Republican
criticizing a current member of the Klan, can you?

I've only seen *one* Republican run away from
Pat Robertson (you know, the one-time Presidential
Candidate and professional con artist, who wanted
to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)
and some other Republicans tried to recall him in
retaliation. Similarly absent is any condemnation
of Jerry Falwell, or Ann Coulter. I'm sure I could
find a few more naddering nabobs if I spent
as much time looking for obscure nuts as you
seem to do.

And again, I haven't seen or hear any condemnation
of the skinheads, neonazis , the KKK, abortion clinic
bombers or other such.


I'm not suggesting the R's are inherently better in any way, merely that
the hijacking of the Ds by the radical Left is well underway and is
taking place almost silently.


Since the Reagan years the Democrats
have moved so far to the right that Richard
Nixon would fit right in today.

You remember him, right? He created
the EPA, negotiated arms control with
the Soviet Union, and promoted affirmative
action.

--

FF

On Apr 1, 11:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.

No sensible person equates taxation with robbery.

Every sensible person knows that every government expenditure
of which they personally approve will be regarded by some others
and making someone's socio-political fantasies come true.

--

FF

There is a rule-of-law that was established at the foundation of
this nation (the US).

So?

As I recall you don;t believe in the rule of law prefering
social/legal contract theory instead.

It delimited the conditions under
which the Federal government was permitted to extract wealth under
threat of force to support a very small and narrow set of
governmental actions. Today's Federal government has vastly exceeded
these boundaries and is thus engaging in theft. I do not hold that
*all* taxation is robbery, merely that today's system is and that
it's means is the mob rule percolated by the self-anointed do-gooders
among us.


Twleve of the 13 original States permitted
bond (inherited) slavery and the prohibition
in the 13 was unenforced.

So if you are trying to argue that the
founding fathers had greater respect
for human liberty than does our government
today, I am strongly inclined to disagree.

Emancipation and women' suffrage were
also "mob rule" by self-anointed do gooders
among us.

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.
No sensible person equates taxation with robbery.
Every sensible person knows that every government expenditure
of which they personally approve will be regarded by some others
and making someone's socio-political fantasies come true.
--
FF
There is a rule-of-law that was established at the foundation of
this nation (the US).

So?

As I recall you don;t believe in the rule of law prefering
social/legal contract theory instead.

Nonsense. I believe both have a place, however neither can be
preferred over morally right action. When either theory or formal
law exceeds the limits of moral behavior, they must be bounded.


It delimited the conditions under
which the Federal government was permitted to extract wealth under
threat of force to support a very small and narrow set of
governmental actions. Today's Federal government has vastly exceeded
these boundaries and is thus engaging in theft. I do not hold that
*all* taxation is robbery, merely that today's system is and that
it's means is the mob rule percolated by the self-anointed do-gooders
among us.


Twleve of the 13 original States permitted
bond (inherited) slavery and the prohibition
in the 13 was unenforced.

So if you are trying to argue that the
founding fathers had greater respect
for human liberty than does our government
today, I am strongly inclined to disagree.

I was arguing no such thing. As always when discussing these matters, it
is the sign of lost rhetorical end game (yours) when you appeal to
slavery. The fact that the US Framers were wrong in this particular
matter (they were) does not particularly bear on the merits of the
larger system they designed. One of the lessons most people seem not to
grasp - and you appear among them - is that something does not have to
be perfect for it to be good or right. Our foundational laws are such an
example. The Framers got most things right and failed miserably on
the matter of slavery.


Emancipation and women' suffrage were
also "mob rule" by self-anointed do gooders
among us.

No they were not. In their essence, they were remediations of faults
left behind in formation of the original canon of law. i.e. They were
actions taken to make a very good form of government even better. Most
importantly, they were not forced acts of charity or world-saving by the
self-anointed saviors of mankind for which there was no moral basis.
They were simply a matter of justice. The fact that do-gooders were
involved does not change this essential nature.

Note that this is entirely different than, say, using the force of
government via mob rule to make me pay for people who refuse to save for
old age or who use IV drugs and get horrid diseases. In neither case
were the actions these people undertook a consequence of a fundamental
denial of rights or legal injustice. They were bad personal choices.
Remediating them by raiding my wallet is a morally reprehensible.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?

Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?

First of all, there is a considerable difference between the
various milita, the Klan, and the skinheads. This may be
a fine point, but not all or perhaps even most, militia are
remotely touting the kind of evil the Klan and the skinheads
endorse, but, again, I digress.

The reason the Rs don't distance themselves from these people
is because pretty much no one on the nominal Right (the Republicans)
cites any of the groups you mention as deep intellectual
foundations for their views. However, Chomsky and his ilk
*are* cited increasingly by the nominal Left (the Democrats)
with admiration and respect. (In this paragraph, I am using
the word "nominal" as a contrast to "radical".)


Maybe they BOTH realize that no reasonable person imagines
the association in the first place.

Probably true at the voter level. Not so true among the loudest
popular voices among the Ds.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:42 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?
Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?
Maybe they BOTH realize that no reasonable person imagines
the association in the first place.
You are evidently unaware the degree to which Chomsky is a patron saint
among the loud Left. He is regularly cited as one of the "leading
intellectuals" in various Democrat corners. I assume you don't waste
your time watching "The View", but there has been ample coverage of
Rosie O'Donnell's conspiratorial blathering that is deeply rooted in the
looney Left.

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.

Just this past week she equated the Iranian taking
of the UK soldiers as being akin to the Gulf Of
Tonkin affair. She (and other) media Lefties have
also made lots of noise about how the 9/11 murders
were staged (by the Neocons presumably) to get a nice juicy
war going. Note that she is not some barely heard
fringe voice. She is a "personality" on one of the
more popular daytime TV drool fests targeted
particularly at women.


If it weren't for you and Mark or Juanita I would
never have heard of Noah Chomsky. Thanks to
you I did notice a brief sound bite form him during
a Frontline presentation but disremember what
he said beyond the statement being totally bland.

Here's a bit of his wit and wisdom that you may find
less bland:


Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: stop participating in it.

(The implication, of course, is that the US/West acts equivalently
to terrorists.)

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to
exist, then it would choose the American system.

(It's a shame people like Noam have never known a real Fascist system
because then they would have the manners to keep quiet.)

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.

(Yes. American presidents are no better than the butchers of the 3rd Reich
and/or Nuremberg was a sham.)


There are many other equally un-bland comments from Chomsky. They
demonstrate an above-average intellect that is occasionally insightful
but full of self-loathing. He maintains an institutionalized hatred of the very
things that made the West the most durable bastion for the preservation
of liberty.



The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.

The latter is certainly true for all groups of people
who choose to create associations with one another, but
the former is not so. The Ds (and the Rs) do have some
basic formations on which they essentially agree. In
the case of the Ds the basic premise appears to be that
their definition of "social justice" is so good/proper/inarguable
that it justifies *forcing* other citizens to participate
against their will. This is nothing short of mob rule.
(For the record the Rs have a similar "we know what's good
for you" ethos, they merely define "good" differently.)



Some years ago Michael Moore made quite a carreer for
himself attacking capital formation, the wealth, big eeeevil
corporations, and the like ... until he discovered that *he* was
immensely wealthy thereby. All of these people have publicly supported
Democrat candidates and were welcomed by those candidates at one point
or another. These are but a few of a myriad of examples wherein very
loud voices in the ecosystem of the Democrats are peddling radical Left
insanity while the "mainstream" Dems sit quietly.

Indeed I don't recall seeing any of them but Michael
More

There are plenty of others. Many come from the so-called
"entertainment" business, many are academics, but they all
share a thinly-veiled contempt for the cornerstones of
free peoples: personal liberty - economic and political,
personal accountability, and limited government.


By contrast, the Republicans at least run away publicly from their
lunatic fringe. When David Duke was identified as a Klacker, the Rs
distanced themselves immediately. When Trent Lott made even the mildest
of comments that could have been construed as racist (and then only
using the most tortured of analysis) he was promptly sent to stand in
the corner by the Rs.

And yet I still cannot recall even one Republican
criticizing a current member of the Klan, can you?

But the Klan is never cited by pretty much anyone on
the Right - at least not in the last 30 or 40 years
that I can recall. Chomsky *is* cited by the leading Left
lights.


I've only seen *one* Republican run away from
Pat Robertson (you know, the one-time Presidential
Candidate and professional con artist, who wanted

In what way is he a "con artist" pray tell us? I'm
no fan of Robertson's, but he appears to be fairly
vanilla as TV religious personalities go.

to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)

I never heard him say the former and latter is - well -
appealing but unrealistic.

and some other Republicans tried to recall him in
retaliation. Similarly absent is any condemnation
of Jerry Falwell, or Ann Coulter. I'm sure I could

Falwell is probably the most mainstream of all the
religious right. His financial books open to all to see
and he is in no way ever been painted as a huckster.
While me might well not agree with his political
views, they are hardly the radical formations of
someone like Chomsky.

Coulter *was* sanctioned by the Right. IIRC, she
lost a job writing for National Review and has
largely been persona non grata in anything resembling
a mainstream Right outlet. But she's interesting
and illustrative for a much more important reason.
She uses rhetorical excess and brio to make a point.
When interviewed, she comes across as being outrageous
for effect and comedic value, not so much that she
believes every word of what she says to the letter.
A good part of her shtick seems to be irritating
her rhetorical foes. Chomsky, by contrast, *does*
take himself seriously. Big difference.

find a few more naddering nabobs if I spent
as much time looking for obscure nuts as you
seem to do.

But Chomsky is *not* obscure. That's the point.
He is a tenured professor at MIT that has fawning
followers all over the ideologically Left spectrum.
Moore is not obscure. Rosie O'Donnell is not obscure.
That's the whole point. The people foaming on the Left
are increasingly becoming *mainstream* which is why I
said a few posts ago that the Dems are headed in a direction
that has them being entirely hijacked by the radical Left.
If you close your eyes and listen to them, today's Left
"mainstream" politicians sound like radical Left loons
in many cases. The descent into the intellectual sewer is
almost complete.


And again, I haven't seen or hear any condemnation
of the skinheads, neonazis , the KKK, abortion clinic
bombers or other such.

I'm not suggesting the R's are inherently better in any way, merely that
the hijacking of the Ds by the radical Left is well underway and is
taking place almost silently.


Since the Reagan years the Democrats
have moved so far to the right that Richard
Nixon would fit right in today.

You remember him, right? He created
the EPA, negotiated arms control with
the Soviet Union, and promoted affirmative
action.

Nixon was a Republican, he was not really of the Right. In much the same
way, Kennedy today would be closer to what the Rs have become than the
Ds. But neither statement really means all that much, does it. The major
parties campaign to the their extreme constituents in the primaries and
then move to the so-called "middle" in the actual elections. Neither
much cares about preserving liberty and demanding individual
responsibility. The Rs want to be everyone's daddy and the Ds want to be
everyone's mommy. Not much of a choice. There have been exceptions,
of course. Carter was a pretty much down the line Leftie and his
disasterous results speak for themselves. Reagan was very much
Right ideologically and was arguably the most effective president of
the last half of the 20th century. But those two apart, we mostly
see executives that muddle about in the middle doing little good and
plenty of harm - aided and abetted by legislatures seeking to curry
favor with their greedy constituents feeding at the trough.

The US is not a great nation because of its people, government,
geography, or luck. It is a great nation because of its *ideas*.
Both the Ds and the Rs are busy abandoning those ideas in the vain
hope they can maintain power by "giving the people what they want".
Well, the people have morphed into this band of thugs who want something
for nothing, want to be personally accountable for very little, and
believe that if it is not perfect it must be bad. The net result is
a nation that headed into its twilight. Parallel and more rapid
examples of this exist throughout Western Europe and the larger
Anglosphere. China and India will likely be the next geopolitical
superpowers, not because *their* ideas were better, merely because
there will be no meaningful counterpoint from peoples who reaped the
benefits of liberty and they attacked the very principles that
upheld it in the first place.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , Tim Daneliuk wrote:

The US is not a great nation because of its people, government,
geography, or luck. It is a great nation because of its *ideas*.
Both the Ds and the Rs are busy abandoning those ideas in the vain
hope they can maintain power by "giving the people what they want".
Well, the people have morphed into this band of thugs who want something
for nothing, want to be personally accountable for very little, and
believe that if it is not perfect it must be bad. The net result is
a nation that headed into its twilight.

I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's reply when asked, shortly after the
Constitutional Convention, how long he expected the Republic to endu "Until
the People discover that they can vote themselves money from the public
treasury."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 2, 4:46 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 5:06 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

Then why do the popular leaders of the Dems - Hillary, Obama, Jackson,
et al - not openly distance themselves from the foul offal that emits
from the radical Left? Why are they silent about the Left attacks on
wealth, Capitalism, individual liberty, personal responsibility?

Perhaps for the same reasons that the Popular leaders of the
Reps do not openly distance themselves from the skinheads,
the 'militias', and the Ku Klux Klan?

First of all, there is a considerable difference between the
various milita, the Klan, and the skinheads. This may be
a fine point, but not all or perhaps even most, militia are
remotely touting the kind of evil the Klan and the skinheads
endorse, but, again, I digress.

The reason the Rs don't distance themselves from these people
is because pretty much no one on the nominal Right (the Republicans)
cites any of the groups you mention as deep intellectual
foundations for their views. However, Chomsky and his ilk
*are* cited increasingly by the nominal Left (the Democrats)
with admiration and respect. (In this paragraph, I am using
the word "nominal" as a contrast to "radical".)


My personal experience has been that aside from a one-liner
in one Frontline Episode Chomsky has been 'cited' exclusively
by yourself, and Mark or Juanita. If you guys are the 'nominal'
left, I'm off the scale.

--

FF

On Apr 2, 5:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

...

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.

Just this past week she equated the Iranian taking
of the UK soldiers as being akin to the Gulf Of
Tonkin affair.

Do you suppose that in the 1960's critics of the
Gulf of Tonkin fraud were criticized for comparing
it to the sinking of the Maine?

She (and other) media Lefties have
also made lots of noise about how the 9/11 murders
were staged (by the Neocons presumably) to get a nice juicy
war going.

I gather from your presumption, that she didn't say
that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the Neocons.
So that leaves us with an actual statement with
which I agree. The 9/11 attacks were staged to get
a nice juicy war going. IMHO they were staged for
that purpose by bin Laden. Considering the
extend you will go to fabricate ulterior motives
for the most banal of my remarks (e.g. I don't
know any prominent scientist...) I'm not inclined
to accept inferences you draw about what
she didn't say.

Note that she is not some barely heard
fringe voice. She is a "personality" on one of the
more popular daytime TV drool fests targeted
particularly at women.

I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en

Noah Chomsky. ...

Here's a bit of his wit and wisdom that you may find
less bland:

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: stop participating in it.

(The implication, of course, is that the US/West acts equivalently
to terrorists.)

Do you suppose he meant to imply that the US/West ONLY
acts thus, or merely that it has done so? It was once pointed
out to me that if you are standing next to a bomb when it explodes
it matters naught to you if the bomb was hidden in a trash can
or dropped from an airplane.


I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to
exist, then it would choose the American system.

(It's a shame people like Noam have never known a real Fascist system
because then they would have the manners to keep quiet.)

Maybe he has which is why he suggested that there were NO
rational examples thereof. You haven;t suggested what you
suppose he meant, do you suppose he meant that we should
keep our guard up because it would be easy for a Fascist
dictator to take control under the guise of a populist, progressive,
liberal, or 'social conservative'?


If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.

(Yes. American presidents are no better than the butchers of the 3rd Reich
and/or Nuremberg was a sham.)

Neither of those inference are remotely justifiable. Considering a
person to be a criminal is not equivalent to considering him to
be as bad a criminal as the worst ever.



There are many other equally un-bland comments from Chomsky. They
demonstrate an above-average intellect that is occasionally insightful
but full of self-loathing. He maintains an institutionalized hatred of the very
things that made the West the most durable bastion for the preservation
of liberty.

You've demonstrated so far that he is guilty of no exaggerations
worse that those which typify your remarks.

I certainly can't be sure that my interpretations are correct
but I surely don't buy your spin as definitive.




The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.

The latter is certainly true for all groups of people
who choose to create associations with one another, but
the former is not so. The Ds (and the Rs) do have some
basic formations on which they essentially agree. In
the case of the Ds the basic premise appears to be that
their definition of "social justice" is so good/proper/inarguable
that it justifies *forcing* other citizens to participate
against their will. This is nothing short of mob rule.
(For the record the Rs have a similar "we know what's good
for you" ethos, they merely define "good" differently.)


AFACT, what you mean is they both agree on such matters
as taxation, zoning laws, building codes and so on.

...
And yet I still cannot recall even one Republican
criticizing a current member of the Klan, can you?

But the Klan is never cited by pretty much anyone on
the Right - at least not in the last 30 or 40 years
that I can recall. Chomsky *is* cited by the leading Left
lights.

Like whom?




I've only seen *one* Republican run away from
Pat Robertson (you know, the one-time Presidential
Candidate and professional con artist, who wanted

In what way is he a "con artist" pray tell us? I'm
no fan of Robertson's, but he appears to be fairly
vanilla as TV religious personalities go.

Aside from the argument that everyone who makes
money by selling something (e.g. salvation) that
he cannot deliver is a fraud...
Have you ever seen him do his 'faith healing' by
mail act on the 700 club? It is the same act
Yuri Geller used to prove to people that they
could fix broken watches with their psychic
abilities, though I bet Robertson was first.


to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)

I never heard him say the former and latter is - well -
appealing but unrealistic.

Both are sufficiently unrealistic that if he had inspired
someone to a more conventionally executed act of
violence against other he would not have any legally
actionable responsibility.


and some other Republicans tried to recall him in
retaliation. Similarly absent is any condemnation
of Jerry Falwell, or Ann Coulter. I'm sure I could

Falwell is probably the most mainstream of all the
religious right.

I'd argue Billy Graham is more mainstream. Isn't
Falwell one of those who tried to paint the September
11 attacks as divine retribution for American tolerance
for homosexuality or some such?

His financial books open to all to see
and he is in no way ever been painted as a huckster.

Oh? How much is he worth and did he earn it or was it
donated to him? It is interesting that you 'know'
his finances are so 'open'.

He might not die as rich as Cardinal Cody but
AFAIK Cody came by his wealth through inheritance
and investment, drawing no more from the Church's
coffers than others of equal station in the hierarchy.

While me might well not agree with his political
views, they are hardly the radical formations of
someone like Chomsky.

I tend to think that abolishing the separation
of Church and State, is as radical and undesirable
as rampant socialism.


Coulter *was* sanctioned by the Right. IIRC, she
lost a job writing for National Review and has
largely been persona non grata in anything resembling
a mainstream Right outlet.

You mean like, she doesn't appear on FOX TV
any more?

But she's interesting
and illustrative for a much more important reason.
She uses rhetorical excess and brio to make a point.
When interviewed, she comes across as being outrageous
for effect and comedic value, not so much that she
believes every word of what she says to the letter.
A good part of her shtick seems to be irritating
her rhetorical foes. Chomsky, by contrast, *does*
take himself seriously. Big difference.

Oh really? You think Chomsky _seriously_ believes
every American President since WWII was as bad
as Himmler but Ann Coulter is just jiving us.

You think Moore believes every word he says,
never exaggerates for effect and wouldn't
dream of irritating anyone?


find a few more naddering nabobs if I spent
as much time looking for obscure nuts as you
seem to do.

But Chomsky is *not* obscure. That's the point.
He is a tenured professor at MIT that has fawning
followers all over the ideologically Left spectrum.

So says you.

Moore is not obscure. Rosie O'Donnell is not obscure.
That's the whole point.

And neither of them are as hateful as the likes of
Limbaugh and Coulter. Moore is a satirist and
O'Donnell is a clown. If you think Coulter is entertaining
then you should be laughing your ass off listening
to Moore.

The people foaming on the Left
are increasingly becoming *mainstream* which is why I
said a few posts ago that the Dems are headed in a direction
that has them being entirely hijacked by the radical Left.
If you close your eyes and listen to them, today's Left
"mainstream" politicians sound like radical Left loons
in many cases. The descent into the intellectual sewer is
almost complete.

Like I said before, they sound like the Republicans
of my youth. Aside from the blowjobs, Bill Clinton
was more like Nixon or Ford than any other President
since Nixon.


And again, I haven't seen or hear any condemnation
of the skinheads, neonazis , the KKK, abortion clinic
bombers or other such.

I'm not suggesting the R's are inherently better in any way, merely that
the hijacking of the Ds by the radical Left is well underway and is
taking place almost silently.

Since the Reagan years the Democrats
have moved so far to the right that Richard
Nixon would fit right in today.

You remember him, right? He created
the EPA, negotiated arms control with
the Soviet Union, and promoted affirmative
action.

Nixon was a Republican, he was not really of the Right. In much the same
way, Kennedy today would be closer to what the Rs have become than the
Ds.

Christ on a crutch no!

But neither statement really means all that much, does it. The major
parties campaign to the their extreme constituents in the primaries and
then move to the so-called "middle" in the actual elections. Neither
much cares about preserving liberty and demanding individual
responsibility. The Rs want to be everyone's daddy and the Ds want to be
everyone's mommy. Not much of a choice. There have been exceptions,
of course. Carter was a pretty much down the line Leftie and his
disasterous results speak for themselves. Reagan was very much
Right ideologically and was arguably the most effective president of
the last half of the 20th century.

While on the subject of disasterous results that speak for
themselves don't forget the collapse of the Savings and Loans,
ubiquitous legal looting of corporate pension plans, support
of Saddam Hussein in his first major unprovoked war of
aggression, 241 dead Marines in Beiruit and the subsequent
abandonment of Lebanon to Hezbollah, the systematic
destruction of any sort of energy policy that could reduce
US dependence on OPEC, and the contamination of
the US blood bank with HIV.

Of course it is an article of Faith with you that Ronald
Reagan personally torn down the iron curtain, the failed
war in Afghanistan, the internal reform that grew from the
fertile ground planted by detente and the leadership of
men like Walesa and Gorbochev were only minor
contributing factors.

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...05b47563?dmode
=source&hl=en

Do you really not ever read the stuff you post? Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?

In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.

Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.

There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:26 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

...

I don't recall ever hearing any political opinions
attributed to Rosie O'Donnell, that last thing I
remember hearing about her before movie when
made her current feud with Donald Trump had
something to do with her bodyguard applying
for a concealed carry permit and before that it
was a movie she made with Dan Ackroid.
Just this past week she equated the Iranian taking
of the UK soldiers as being akin to the Gulf Of
Tonkin affair.

Do you suppose that in the 1960's critics of the
Gulf of Tonkin fraud were criticized for comparing
it to the sinking of the Maine?

I don't recall, but it's irrelevant. In making this
statement she is arguing that the taking of these
soldiers was an intentional fraud by the UK government
and possibly the US. That is the obvious meaning of
her words. She is revolting.


She (and other) media Lefties have
also made lots of noise about how the 9/11 murders
were staged (by the Neocons presumably) to get a nice juicy
war going.

I gather from your presumption, that she didn't say
that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the Neocons.
So that leaves us with an actual statement with
which I agree. The 9/11 attacks were staged to get
a nice juicy war going. IMHO they were staged for
that purpose by bin Laden.

An utterly insane analysis. She clearly means that
it staging was by and within the US power structure.
She and the others in this bag clearly believe
in an internal US conspiracy in varying degrees.
They are so utterly ravaged by hatred of their political
enemies that they are willing to ascribe conspiracy where
the plain facts provide a much simpler and obvious answer.


Considering the
extend you will go to fabricate ulterior motives
for the most banal of my remarks (e.g. I don't
know any prominent scientist...) I'm not inclined
to accept inferences you draw about what
she didn't say.

Interesting. In the threat which you are referencing
you claimed that 'no prominent scientist ...'. I challenged
you on the statement generally and also on the qualifier
'prominent'. The former because it simply isn't true and
the latter because it is an implici appeal to authority which
has no place in science. Then I produced *a* climatologist who
demonstrated my case that there was another view to be had.
Then you responded with something like "I stipulated you have
produced an example of one scientist who ..." Then I followed
up with a couple of emails were I documented a list of others.
And you responded with .... silence. (As you should, since your
position on the matter at hand was incorrect.) The point of this
little trip through recent posting history is to deflate this
claim that I ascribe ulterior motives. I analyze what you say
using the usual and obvious meaning of language and either agree,
keep still, or refute your statements.




Note that she is not some barely heard
fringe voice. She is a "personality" on one of the
more popular daytime TV drool fests targeted
particularly at women.

I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en

I don't listen to him much, but I've never heard him make that claim. I *have* heard him
claim that SH was part of an ecosystem friendly toward people who employ the methods of
terrorism and thus was legitimately in the crosshairs if we are to attack terrorists
*and* those who support them. This is an entirely unremarkable position. It is true
without dispute that SH has among other things: Funded "Palestinian" suicide bombers',
provided safe harbor to known terrorist (was it Abu Nidal, I can't recall), and plotted
to assassinate a former US president. These alone are ample evidence to support
that statement.


Noah Chomsky. ...
Here's a bit of his wit and wisdom that you may find
less bland:

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: stop participating in it.

(The implication, of course, is that the US/West acts equivalently
to terrorists.)

Do you suppose he meant to imply that the US/West ONLY
acts thus, or merely that it has done so? It was once pointed

That is has done so on some occasions would be the obvious reading.
Also the tense of "participating" means that he believes it is an
ongoing activity.

out to me that if you are standing next to a bomb when it explodes
it matters naught to you if the bomb was hidden in a trash can
or dropped from an airplane.

This is a very low form of moral equivalence. *Why* something happened
does matter in the larger geopolitical sphere. Sure, if you're the
victim, it doesn't make much difference. But, when judging the morality
of the acts, it sure does make a difference. "Terrorists" by planning
and intent target non-combatants as a matter of *policy*. While civilians
have died at the hands of US weapons in time of war, this has never
been the policy of our government in our lifetime so far as I am aware.
Chomsky drawing this parallel merely illustrates how much he loathes his
own country, nothing more. It is not remotely true.


I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to
exist, then it would choose the American system.

(It's a shame people like Noam have never known a real Fascist system
because then they would have the manners to keep quiet.)

Maybe he has which is why he suggested that there were NO
rational examples thereof. You haven;t suggested what you
suppose he meant, do you suppose he meant that we should
keep our guard up because it would be easy for a Fascist
dictator to take control under the guise of a populist, progressive,
liberal, or 'social conservative'?

Doubtful. But even if that is what he meant it is absurd. It would
not be *easy* for any Fascist to take control as you suggest because the
US citizenry is accustomed to considerably liberty - liberty that would be
fairly curtailed in any Fascist system, "rational" or otherwise. In any case,
I take the meaning of this statement in context of his many other
anti-American screeds and it is reasonable to conclude that this is just
another.


If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.

(Yes. American presidents are no better than the butchers of the 3rd Reich
and/or Nuremberg was a sham.)

Neither of those inference are remotely justifiable. Considering a
person to be a criminal is not equivalent to considering him to
be as bad a criminal as the worst ever.

Sure, but the point remains that he considers every postwar American
president as *the moral/legal equivalent* as the butchers of the 3rd Reich
under the rule of Nuremburg. It's just an outrageous statement. How
can any bright person (and he is that) seriously believe that, say,
Kennedy or Carter or Reagan could be judged and sentenced to death under
the rules in place at Nuremburg? The answer is this: It is possible to
hold this view only if you believe in the essential evil of US leadership
and/or the system at large.



There are many other equally un-bland comments from Chomsky. They
demonstrate an above-average intellect that is occasionally insightful
but full of self-loathing. He maintains an institutionalized hatred of the very
things that made the West the most durable bastion for the preservation
of liberty.

You've demonstrated so far that he is guilty of no exaggerations
worse that those which typify your remarks.

You are entitled to that view however wrong it is. But even if it
were so, no one considers *me* an important intellectual force in
the formation of a major stream of political theory. Moreover,
I think any reasonable reading of his comments, especially in context
of his perpetual vitriol directed at the US, it's government, its
leaders and so forth, leads one to conclude that he pretty much
loathes this country's ideas and system.


I certainly can't be sure that my interpretations are correct
but I surely don't buy your spin as definitive.

Nor should you. But you should at the very least be suspicious
that a person who articulates such views is considered important
among the radical Left.




The notion that the Democrats even HAVE some
sort of unifying ideology is ludicrous. They lack
the necessary social skills.
The latter is certainly true for all groups of people
who choose to create associations with one another, but
the former is not so. The Ds (and the Rs) do have some
basic formations on which they essentially agree. In
the case of the Ds the basic premise appears to be that
their definition of "social justice" is so good/proper/inarguable
that it justifies *forcing* other citizens to participate
against their will. This is nothing short of mob rule.
(For the record the Rs have a similar "we know what's good
for you" ethos, they merely define "good" differently.)


AFACT, what you mean is they both agree on such matters
as taxation, zoning laws, building codes and so on.

More broadly, they both "agree" that they know what is
"good" and are willing to use force beyond that
mandated by both our foundational law and the political theory
upon which it is built. Neither values liberty primarily. Both
value political power above everything else.


...
And yet I still cannot recall even one Republican
criticizing a current member of the Klan, can you?
But the Klan is never cited by pretty much anyone on
the Right - at least not in the last 30 or 40 years
that I can recall. Chomsky *is* cited by the leading Left
lights.

Like whom?

I will keep an eye out for this on your behalf. Most
of my encounters with the rabid, uh I mean, radical
Left are the in-person variety and thus impossible
to document since you won't take my word for it (as
you shouldn't - the burden lies with me).




I've only seen *one* Republican run away from
Pat Robertson (you know, the one-time Presidential
Candidate and professional con artist, who wanted
In what way is he a "con artist" pray tell us? I'm
no fan of Robertson's, but he appears to be fairly
vanilla as TV religious personalities go.

Aside from the argument that everyone who makes
money by selling something (e.g. salvation) that
he cannot deliver is a fraud...
Have you ever seen him do his 'faith healing' by
mail act on the 700 club? It is the same act
Yuri Geller used to prove to people that they
could fix broken watches with their psychic
abilities, though I bet Robertson was first.

Hang on a second. Notwithstanding our personal
religious views (or lack thereof), you have to
see people like Robertson (and Geller) as providing
some kind of service. People send him money *voluntarily* because
he gives them some sort of comfort, enhances their beliefs,
or otherwise gives them something they want.

By contrast, the Left has been promising social salvation by means
of increasing spending for over 6 decades and they have yet to deliver. Surely
this is *real* fraud since the funding in that case is not
voluntary. You tell me who the greater offender is.


to nuke the State Department and assassinate Chavez)
I never heard him say the former and latter is - well -
appealing but unrealistic.

Both are sufficiently unrealistic that if he had inspired
someone to a more conventionally executed act of
violence against other he would not have any legally
actionable responsibility.

and some other Republicans tried to recall him in
retaliation. Similarly absent is any condemnation
of Jerry Falwell, or Ann Coulter. I'm sure I could
Falwell is probably the most mainstream of all the
religious right.

I'd argue Billy Graham is more mainstream. Isn't

I was educated in the halls of an undergraduate institution
that was strongly aligned with the theology of both these
people. In that context, I heard them both speak at services
I attended. Graham and Falwell are - in my direct observation -
almost wholly aligned in their theology and understanding
of Evangelical Christianity. Graham was historically quieter
on matters political, but that's about the only significant
difference I could see.

Falwell one of those who tried to paint the September
11 attacks as divine retribution for American tolerance
for homosexuality or some such?

That's right. There is a broad spectrum of Evangelicals
who believe that the US is "reaping what it has sown"
as they put it and that when bad things happen to us it
is divine payback for our collective moral failings.
This is not an unusual perspective to hear once you leave the
Left and Right coast political insularity that ignores
everything in the rest of the country.


His financial books open to all to see
and he is in no way ever been painted as a huckster.

Oh? How much is he worth and did he earn it or was it
donated to him? It is interesting that you 'know'
his finances are so 'open'.

I've never bothered to look. I merely admire his willingness
to maintain an open book position as regards to his ministry's
finances. In any case, he is, as I said, providing a service
to his constituency and he is "worth" whatever they wish to
donate. It is fundamentally offensive for you to imply that
people who are funded by donations do not "work" for it. I
personally know many people, particularly among the clergy, who
do marvelous work all funded by donations. Oh ... I keep forgetting
that good works are the job of the Government and must be funded
at the point of a gun to be considered meritorious.


He might not die as rich as Cardinal Cody but
AFAIK Cody came by his wealth through inheritance
and investment, drawing no more from the Church's
coffers than others of equal station in the hierarchy.

Pardon me, but your bigotry is showing. There are
uncounted thousands of people whose life's work
depends on the voluntary donations of people who
share their sense of mission and purpose. For you
to denigrate it as you have is contemptible. I count
among my friends and family something like a couple of
dozen such people. On an average day they work harder,
longer, and for a lot less than most of the rest of us
would tolerate because they have this sense of purpose.
As it happens, I do not entirely share their worldview,
but do dismiss their efforts as you have is ignorant.
If people want voluntarily make, say, Pat Roberston
a multi-millionaire because they value his output
that highly, how is this in any way less honorable than
a best selling author doing the same thing peddling books,
for example?


While me might well not agree with his political
views, they are hardly the radical formations of
someone like Chomsky.

I tend to think that abolishing the separation
of Church and State, is as radical and undesirable
as rampant socialism.

If you believe that this is the principal intent of
the conservative religious right then you're are
completely out of touch with that movement. This
supposed elimination of the separation is a fiction
of the Left for the most part. While the Rev.
Billybob Swampwater in Backwater USA might want to
make Christianity the law of the land, it is not the
goal of mainstream Evangelicals. They merely and rightly
detest that fawning "tolerance" of the multi-cultural
Left for all traditions *except* traditional Judeo-Christianity.
Moreover, that tradition is an essential and inarguable
part of our foundations as a nation, but the Left wants
to institute a kind of amnesia so that we all manage to forget
that. I guess Jefferson and his ilk were actually more influenced
by crystal pyramids and Buddhist chants...


Coulter *was* sanctioned by the Right. IIRC, she
lost a job writing for National Review and has
largely been persona non grata in anything resembling
a mainstream Right outlet.

You mean like, she doesn't appear on FOX TV
any more?

I dunno. I don't watch that much TV. But she is absent
in published form in at least the one forum I mentioned, which
was as best I know, the most legitimate platform she ever had.


But she's interesting
and illustrative for a much more important reason.
She uses rhetorical excess and brio to make a point.
When interviewed, she comes across as being outrageous
for effect and comedic value, not so much that she
believes every word of what she says to the letter.
A good part of her shtick seems to be irritating
her rhetorical foes. Chomsky, by contrast, *does*
take himself seriously. Big difference.

Oh really? You think Chomsky _seriously_ believes
every American President since WWII was as bad
as Himmler but Ann Coulter is just jiving us.

Yes Chomsky seriously believes from everything I've
read. I think Coulter believes some or perhaps most
of what she says, but it is entirely clear from her
demeanor in the dozen or so interviews I've seen over
the years that she revels in being a gadfly and pain
to the Left.

You think Moore believes every word he says,
never exaggerates for effect and wouldn't
dream of irritating anyone?

Moore clearly both believes everything he's peddling
AND loves irritating the Right just for effect.


find a few more naddering nabobs if I spent
as much time looking for obscure nuts as you
seem to do.
But Chomsky is *not* obscure. That's the point.
He is a tenured professor at MIT that has fawning
followers all over the ideologically Left spectrum.

So says you.

Moore is not obscure. Rosie O'Donnell is not obscure.
That's the whole point.

And neither of them are as hateful as the likes of
Limbaugh and Coulter. Moore is a satirist and

Sez you. Limbaugh is at least entertaining and usually
funny however much I think his politics are off kilter.

O'Donnell is a clown. If you think Coulter is entertaining
then you should be laughing your ass off listening
to Moore.

Moore did occasionally entertain me, but not for the reasons
he intended. He is so obviously dishonest while at the
same time taking himself seriously it's hilarious to watch.
SNIP


But neither statement really means all that much, does it. The major
parties campaign to the their extreme constituents in the primaries and
then move to the so-called "middle" in the actual elections. Neither
much cares about preserving liberty and demanding individual
responsibility. The Rs want to be everyone's daddy and the Ds want to be
everyone's mommy. Not much of a choice. There have been exceptions,
of course. Carter was a pretty much down the line Leftie and his
disasterous results speak for themselves. Reagan was very much
Right ideologically and was arguably the most effective president of
the last half of the 20th century.

While on the subject of disasterous results that speak for
themselves don't forget the collapse of the Savings and Loans,

Reagan's fault? I wonder how.

ubiquitous legal looting of corporate pension plans, support

Ditto. The legislature writes law, not the executive branch.
IIRC, the Dems were in the majority at that time.

of Saddam Hussein in his first major unprovoked war of

"Support" is an exaggeration. It was minor by comparison
of the support rendered by the Germans and French, but the
Left could never quite find the words to criticize them.
There is no such thing as perfect decision making only the
best decision under current circumstances. Iraq was the
best of a bad lot at the time and the US made decisions in
that context. Wrong now, perhaps not so much in those days.

aggression, 241 dead Marines in Beiruit and the subsequent

Thanks to the peace-loving followers of Allah in the region.
Regan did not bomb his own troops nor did he act indirectly
to make it so.

abandonment of Lebanon to Hezbollah, the systematic

Had he taken the proper course -the invasion of Lebanon to
kick out all the bad guys, the Left would have had an aneurysm.
It was politically impossible.

destruction of any sort of energy policy that could reduce
US dependence on OPEC, and the contamination of

And just what would that have entailed? I worked in the
nuclear business briefly during that time. It was the
usual Left earth worshipers who killed that option (the only
good one we had then and now). Wind and solar were -then and
now - insufficiently effective to make much of a difference.
Passing increased CAFE numbers does not magically repeal
the laws of physics notwithstanding what the environmental
pantheists think.


the US blood bank with HIV.

And this was Reagan's doing how? In 1980 we barely were
beginning to really understand the HIV disease vector
let alone respond to it. And correct me if I'm wrong,
but aren't most blood banks *private*?


Of course it is an article of Faith with you that Ronald
Reagan personally torn down the iron curtain, the failed

No - 35 years of preceding cold warriors made it possible,
but Reagan played a flawless endgame. He did so in the face
of loud and foamy opposition from the Left and bet on the
goodness of the American ideas to prevail. He was right,
the Left was wrong (on this matter). The simple truth is
that Reagan really believed in the inherent goodness and
effectiveness of American ideals. The Left did not then,
and believes them less today.

war in Afghanistan, the internal reform that grew from the

Again, the best choice from a palette of lousy choices.

fertile ground planted by detente and the leadership of
men like Walesa and Gorbochev were only minor
contributing factors.

Walesa was a genuine leader with balls of steel. Gorbachev
was the water boy left to clean up after his team lost.
The USSR went to the game of world poker and didn't have the
underlying system to support it. They got gutted and Reagan
was the guy who had what it took to accelerate their demise.

--

FF

On Apr 3, 1:51 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f....=source&hl=en

Do you really not ever read the stuff you post?
Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?

In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.

False.

You should go back and read it again.


Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.

There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.


I remain convinced that Limbaugh mixed and played
that segment of his show in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
World trade Center.

While there may be any number of other reasons
to reject your alternative explanation for now I'll
stick with the simplest--you present none.

--

FF

On Apr 1, 12:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
On Mar 31, 11:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:

In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.
I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.
You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.

Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader.

As always, when confronted with their support for evil actions, you
and your ilk resort to ... well ... nothing really.

I don't support evil actions and I don't have an "ilk."

So do go
on and live your life in the full knowledge that your worldview
is based on theft and your eleemosynary kindnesses are entirely
built on violent force (or the threat thereof).

It is not.

You are no different than a common street mugger.

Only in your freeloading, want-something-for-nothing mind

Actually, you're worse -
the do their own dirty work. You whip up the mob and hire the
government to do yours for you...

The people are the government.

P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.

No. One is a freeloader for wanting to get out of paying for the
things of common good and use, yet still use them.

Do it the old fashioned
Republican way then... borrow and pass on a five trillion dollar debt to
your great-grandchildren; they're not around yet to object.

That's right, the Republicans are foul for spending money that did not
exist. Then again, what are the chances they could have done the
right thing and gutted the social entitlements portion of the
US Federal budget (50+% of that budget, I might add)? So long
as thugs like you and yours occupied essentially half the legislative
branch, they had *no* chance of doing so.

Were you asleep for the last 12 years?

But your point is taken.
Not only did they accomplish nothing, worse than that, they cut taxes
while stealing yet more money from people who actually work for
a living to give drug benefits to people who couldn't be bothered
to save for their own retirement the last 50 years. So, if you
think I'm going to defend the Republicans, think again. The whole
bunch of you are morally disgusting...

I'm not.

Iarnrod wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
On Mar 31, 11:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.
I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.
You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.
Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader.
As always, when confronted with their support for evil actions, you
and your ilk resort to ... well ... nothing really.

I don't support evil actions and I don't have an "ilk."

I you support the use of government force to make other people
pay for things not prescribed by our founding documents and political
theory, you support evil actions.

SNIP


You are no different than a common street mugger.

Only in your freeloading, want-something-for-nothing mind

Actually, you're worse -
the do their own dirty work. You whip up the mob and hire the
government to do yours for you...

The people are the government.

And hence they form the mob to make the minority do what they want.
You prove my point. If "the people" decided to reinstitute slavery,
by your reasoning, it would be OK. There have to be limits to what
the people get to demand government do or you get the moral abyss into
which we are currently sliding.


P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.

No. One is a freeloader for wanting to get out of paying for the
things of common good and use, yet still use them.

Like what? I do not want to support loafers, people who cannot control
themselves sexually, people who cannot control their substance consumption,
people who refuse to prepare themselves financially for retirement, people
who prefer to remain ignorant, etc. In particular, I do not wish to
be *forced* to support them. I believe deeply in personal charity, but
I want to make those choices personally, not at the point of the gun you
manage to get the government to point at my head to support the causes
*you* want supported. I also do not believe that the government's job
is to care for *me* - that's my job. Hence I do *not* want to have to
belly up to the government's handout line to be given back scraps of what
I have been forced to contribute. I want to keep what's mine, let you
keep what's yours, which is how decent and civil people behave.

I have no opinion about how you spend your own
money, I just want you and people like you out of *my* wallet. There is nothing
"freeloading" about this. I want you to have good manners when it comes
to my property. You don't want to behave civilly but you think your self-appointed
"better" worldview justfies hiring the government hitman to do your bidding.
It is evil, you cannot escape it.



Do it the old fashioned
Republican way then... borrow and pass on a five trillion dollar debt to
your great-grandchildren; they're not around yet to object.

That's right, the Republicans are foul for spending money that did not
exist. Then again, what are the chances they could have done the
right thing and gutted the social entitlements portion of the
US Federal budget (50+% of that budget, I might add)? So long
as thugs like you and yours occupied essentially half the legislative
branch, they had *no* chance of doing so.

Were you asleep for the last 12 years?

No, and that is not a response to the point (what a shock). The Ds have
cranked up the social entitlements for years. These entitlements dwarf
military spending and even the servicing of the federal debt. If you
don't believe me, do your own homework - you may learn something. Now
even the Rs have joined the party in a large way making a bad problem
worse. Social entitlements are not sustainable at the projected pace
of spending. It is a looming disaster of immense proportions. Even
the head of the GAO under a Republican administration is currently touring
the country trying to wake people like you up. We *cannot* continue the
social spending binge we are on in the face of today's demographics shift.
We *will* go broke doing so. You think the debt is bad now, wait until the
peak of the boomers starts tapping the social security and medicare system
in amounts that will far, far exceed anything they remotely contributed.
Their children and grandchildren will not be able to earn enough fast enough
to keep up. You and the rest of the drooling social spenders are guaranteeing
this nation will become indebted an order of magnitude worse than anything
we've ever seen. What's you answer? We need to keep right on spending away,
ignoring reality, and punishing the one and only group of Americans who have
a hope of getting us out of this mess - the wealthy.



But your point is taken.
Not only did they accomplish nothing, worse than that, they cut taxes
while stealing yet more money from people who actually work for
a living to give drug benefits to people who couldn't be bothered
to save for their own retirement the last 50 years. So, if you
think I'm going to defend the Republicans, think again. The whole
bunch of you are morally disgusting...

I'm not.


Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral. You cannot make the
case it is not. This government was founded on the idea of *personal* responsibility.
The Federal government was severely restricted in scope to defend the borders and
maintain the union, very little more .. well, and run the Post Office. By expanding
its scope to be everyone's Mommy you and yours are guaranteeing national disaster.
You may think your social conscience as high minded - and it would be if it were private
and funded by volunteers you convinced to act in charitable ways. But it is not
high minded to *make* people do what you want. It is force nothing more.

In article om, wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:51 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...1505b4...=sour
ce&hl=en

Do you really not ever read the stuff you post?
Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?

In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.

False.

Picky, picky -- you describe hearing Limbaugh play a "sound bite". Point
remains, it was _somebody_else_speaking_, not Limbaugh -- but you blame
Limbaugh.

You should go back and read it again.

*You* need to read it the *first* time. Your characterization, *now*, of that
post is directly opposite of what it says.


Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.

There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.


I remain convinced that Limbaugh mixed and played
that segment of his show in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
World trade Center.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant and
ill-infomed it may be.

The *fact*, however, is that you did *not* "personally hear [Limbaugh] trying
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade
Center." What you heard was Limbaugh citing _somebody_else_ who made that
claim.

While there may be any number of other reasons
to reject your alternative explanation for now I'll
stick with the simplest--you present none.

The simplest explanation of all is the obvious one -- you're not telling the
truth. What you claim *now* that you heard is not what you stated *then* that
you heard.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
On Apr 1, 12:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
On Mar 31, 11:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Iarnrodwrote:
In other words - in true radical Left fashion - you
are defending evil. What a shock.
I did nothing of the sort. I and all Democrats I know abhor evil.
You abhor *some* evil, but not all. Most Dems I know - almost without
exception, actually - happily support the confiscation of other people's
life's work (aka "their money") in the name of what they claim to be the
"common good". You hide behind code phrases like "helping the children",
"caring for the poor" and so forth, but at the end of the day, you are
quite happy to use your government to threaten or actually use force to
extract the hours of my life expressed in my wallet in support of your
pet causes whether or not I agree with you. This is flatly evil.
Oh Gawd, another "taxes are evil" freeloader.
As always, when confronted with their support for evil actions, you
and your ilk resort to ... well ... nothing really.

I don't support evil actions and I don't have an "ilk."

I you support the use of government force to make other people
pay for things not prescribed by our founding documents and political
theory, you support evil actions.

This does not follow at all, from any logical standpoint.

SNIP

There have to be limits to what
the people get to demand government do or you get the moral abyss into
which we are currently sliding.

The moral abyss into which we are sliding is the result of Republican
policies.

(SNIP)

Do it the old fashioned
Republican way then... borrow and pass on a five trillion dollar debt to
your great-grandchildren; they're not around yet to object.

That's right, the Republicans are foul for spending money that did not
exist. Then again, what are the chances they could have done the
right thing and gutted the social entitlements portion of the
US Federal budget (50+% of that budget, I might add)? So long
as thugs like you and yours occupied essentially half the legislative
branch, they had *no* chance of doing so.

Were you asleep for the last 12 years?

No, and that is not a response to the point (what a shock).

Uh, of course it was. You must still be sleeping. There had been one-
party (R) control of the executive and legislative branches for six
years, and R control of Congress for 12.

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.

Freeloader.

Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?


Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?

OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?


Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?

OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.

--

FF



The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

On Apr 3, 2:38 pm, "Iarnrod" wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


...

The moral abyss into which we are sliding is the result of Republican
policies.

Not entirely.

...

Uh, of course it was. You must still be sleeping. There had been one-
party (R) control of the executive and legislative branches for six
years, and R control of Congress for 12.

All three branches were Republican controlled from
2001 - 2005, the USSC and the possibly also the
Federal Judiciary as a whole has been under continuous
Republican Control the longest, and for a very long time.

I'm not clear on exaclty when the Repubicans became the
majority in the Federal Judiciary but when Clinton was
in office the Republicans relied on on various procedural
tricks to block his nominees, 60 of whom never even
received a hearing before the House Judiciary committee.

The Democrats, of course, were no more cooperative when
Poppa Bush was in office, they just weren't quite as skilled.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0512/p02s01-uspo.html

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Keep that in mind if the Republicans renew their complaints
about the "out-of-control" Judiciary.

--

FF

On Apr 3, 1:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om, wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:51 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...g/0db4ff1505b4...
ce&hl=en

Do you really not ever read the stuff you post?
Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?

In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.

False.

Picky, picky -- you describe hearing Limbaugh play a "sound bite". Point
remains, it was _somebody_else_speaking_, not Limbaugh -- but you blame
Limbaugh.

Of course.

If I put on a radio show in which I speak, go to a commerical
then after the commercial, play music, then fade the music
out and play a soundbite from somebody else saying Mr Miller
is a bright guy, then play more music, then go to another
commercial break, then come back and resume speaking,
would it not be obvious that I was trying to fool people into
thinking that Mr Miller is a bright guy?

What other motivation could reasonably be ascribed to me?


You should go back and read it again.

*You* need to read it the *first* time. Your characterization, *now*, of that
post is directly opposite of what it says.


False.

You can't read plain English.



Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.

There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.

I remain convinced that Limbaugh mixed and played
that segment of his show in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
World trade Center.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant and
ill-infomed it may be.

Oddly enough, you deny that below.


The *fact*, however, is that you did *not* "personally hear [Limbaugh] trying
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade
Center." What you heard was Limbaugh citing _somebody_else_ who made that
claim.

Are you ordering your comments in reverse of
the described sequence of events just to obfuscate?

The first statement in your paragraph above is false.

The second statement is true for the first
part of the show, preceding the segment in
dispute. I never suggested that his entire show
was deceptive. If it was, he fooled me too.

It is what he played BETWEEN the two commercial
breaks that I recognize as attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World
Trade Center. Otherwise, why would he hide the
fact that it was part of his show?

Read it again.

I criticized Limbaugh for PLAYING a statement by
someone else, sandwiched between music, sandwiched
between commercials presented as if he had nothing to
do with it.

NOT citing someone else.

When you CITE someone you identify the speaker and
on a talk show typically also comment on it or at least
acknowledge that the presentation is part of your show.
You don't sneak it in between two commercials and in
the middle of a musical number as if you had nothing
to do with it.

Here is the sequence of his show that day:

Limbaugh played sound bites and commented on them

commercial break

music plays then fades away

soundbites, of someone else speaking
including "Saddam Hussein blew up the World
Trade Center and kids don't know it."

music resumes

commercial break

Limbaugh talks

That is just what I described when I first posted about it,
though I was a bit more succinct as I didn't expect to have
to lay it out in excruciating detail for a rabid semi-literate
moron.

I also expressed a suspicion that the false statement
had been taken out of context (and now suggest it may
also have been re-arranged) as it is hard to believe that
an educator concerned about keeping students informed
of world events would say such a thing intending it as
literal truth.


...

While there may be any number of other reasons
to reject your alternative explanation for now I'll
stick with the simplest--you present none.

The simplest explanation of all is the obvious one -- you're not telling the
truth. What you claim *now* that you heard is not what you stated *then* that
you heard.


Which as you know doesn't even address the issue.

We all know that you are calling me a liar instead of presenting
an alternative explanation for Mr Limbaugh's presentation. So
why not just cut to the chase and admit you can't come up
with one?

--

FF

On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?

Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?

OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.

--

FF

The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 3, 3:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:51 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, "Iarnrod" wrote:On Apr 2, 10:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Your defense of government-supported robbery is immoral.
Freeloader.
Wait a minute -- you support government policies that take money out of one
person's pocket in order to put it in someone else's pocket, and *Tim* is the
freeloader because he objects to that?? How is he a "freeloader" for wanting
to be able to keep what is already his?
Perhaps because he supposes Mr Daneliuk partakes of
(some) of the benefits for which he objects to paying?
OTOH, I suppose, Mr Daneliuk is perfectly willing to pay
for whatever government services he thinks are appropriate
-- and no more. Most people regard government expenditures
they object to as being wasteful, foolish, or 'pork'. Few
people go so far as to argue that it is robbery when they
find themselves in the minority on the issue of how tax money
should be spent.
--
FF
The only government "benefit" of which I wish to partake (and therefore pay for)
is the only thing it is legally chartered to do: Preserve personal liberty and
the union that enables it. Period. Everything else *is* pork. Well ... I guess
the Post Office is sanctioned as well, and I can live with that too...

How about Highways?

--

FF


Only the Postal Roads

On Apr 3, 12:55 pm, wrote:

On Apr 3, 1:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
[drivel snipped]

We all know that you are calling me a liar instead of presenting
an alternative explanation for Mr Limbaugh's presentation. So
why not just cut to the chase and admit you can't come up
with one?


Now you're asking Miller to be constructive when he's foaming?
Miller has sucked you into his manure-filled sand-box. When is anybody
going to learn that it is ALL he does?
Everybody is wrong, everybody is a liar.
Miller is the most vile, negative asshole in this news-group... yet
people keep feeding him.

I don't get it.

I am, however, glad he plonked me, so I no longer participate.

r--- who finds this funny.

In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om,
wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:51 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...g/0db4ff1505b4...
ce&hl=en

Do you really not ever read the stuff you post?
Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?

In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.

False.

Picky, picky -- you describe hearing Limbaugh play a "sound bite". Point
remains, it was _somebody_else_speaking_, not Limbaugh -- but you blame
Limbaugh.

Of course.

If I put on a radio show in which I speak, go to a commerical
then after the commercial, play music, then fade the music
out and play a soundbite from somebody else saying Mr Miller
is a bright guy, then play more music, then go to another
commercial break, then come back and resume speaking,
would it not be obvious that I was trying to fool people into
thinking that Mr Miller is a bright guy?

What other motivation could reasonably be ascribed to me?

Without context, it's not possible to tell whether you agree with that
sentiment, or are mocking it.

With respect to the segment of the Limbaugh show at issue, I'm much more
inclined to suspect the latter than the former -- since I've heard Limbaugh
*repeatedly* state that Saddam had *nothing* to do with 9/11; in fact, he's
been highly critical of the leftists such as yourself who have repeatedly
(and falsely) accused President Bush of blaming Saddam.


You should go back and read it again.

*You* need to read it the *first* time. Your characterization, *now*, of that
post is directly opposite of what it says.


False.

You can't read plain English.

The real problem is that you can't *write* plain English.



Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.

There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.

I remain convinced that Limbaugh mixed and played
that segment of his show in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
World trade Center.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant and
ill-infomed it may be.

Oddly enough, you deny that below.

And you have the nerve to accuse *me* of not being able to read plain
English?!


The *fact*, however, is that you did *not* "personally hear [Limbaugh] trying
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade
Center." What you heard was Limbaugh citing _somebody_else_ who made that
claim.

Are you ordering your comments in reverse of
the described sequence of events just to obfuscate?

Not at all. It *is* a fact that you did not hear Limbaugh say what you claim
he said. Your conclusion as to what he meant is inference and opinion.

The first statement in your paragraph above is false.

Not according to your original post.

The second statement is true for the first
part of the show, preceding the segment in
dispute. I never suggested that his entire show
was deceptive. If it was, he fooled me too.

You certainly stated that *part* of it was deceptive.

I guess it might have deceived me, too, if I had as much trouble understanding
plain English as you seem to.

It is what he played BETWEEN the two commercial
breaks that I recognize as attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World
Trade Center. Otherwise, why would he hide the
fact that it was part of his show?

"Hide"? Where does that come from?

Read it again.

Ditto.

I criticized Limbaugh for PLAYING a statement by
someone else, sandwiched between music, sandwiched
between commercials presented as if he had nothing to
do with it.

False. You criticized Limbaugh for "trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center."

He did no such thing.

NOT citing someone else.

When you CITE someone you identify the speaker and
on a talk show typically also comment on it or at least
acknowledge that the presentation is part of your show.
You don't sneak it in between two commercials and in
the middle of a musical number as if you had nothing
to do with it.

Here is the sequence of his show that day:

Limbaugh played sound bites and commented on them

commercial break

music plays then fades away

soundbites, of someone else speaking
including "Saddam Hussein blew up the World
Trade Center and kids don't know it."

music resumes

commercial break

Limbaugh talks

That is just what I described when I first posted about it,
though I was a bit more succinct as I didn't expect to have
to lay it out in excruciating detail for a rabid semi-literate
moron.

It now becomes clear that you are aware that you're losing the argument: as
leftists always do, you resort to personal insult when logic fails you.

I also expressed a suspicion that the false statement
had been taken out of context

Trying to evade responsibility for one lie by compounding it with another.
Your original post says nothing of the kind; in fact, it's titled "Playing
lies during the Thankgiving day show on Radio".

(and now suggest it may
also have been re-arranged) as it is hard to believe that
an educator concerned about keeping students informed
of world events would say such a thing intending it as
literal truth.

Your faith in the education system is touching, although perhaps misplaced.


...

While there may be any number of other reasons
to reject your alternative explanation for now I'll
stick with the simplest--you present none.

The simplest explanation of all is the obvious one -- you're not telling the
truth. What you claim *now* that you heard is not what you stated *then* that
you heard.


Which as you know doesn't even address the issue.

Actually, your failure to tell the truth is the *entire* issue here.

We all know that you are calling me a liar instead of presenting
an alternative explanation for Mr Limbaugh's presentation. So
why not just cut to the chase and admit you can't come up
with one?

Alternative explanation for *what*?

You ARE a liar: you claimed in the current thread that you "personally heard"
*Limbaugh* trying to fool people into thinking Saddam Hussein attacked the
WTC. The fact is -- by YOUR OWN admission in your earlier post -- that what
you heard was _someone_else_ speaking.

Not Limbaugh.

Either you were lying then, when you said it was someone else speaking, or
you're lying now, when you blame Limbaugh for it.

Or both.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.