| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Jeanne Newton" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2004 03:39:00 AM |
| Object: |
4 days before the election, COME ON!! |
What a LAME message Bin Laden delivered!
What a great move by Karl Rove to deliver this message!!
Bin Laden is Bushs friend! How superb that he takes responsibility
for 9-11 (after previously denying it) now all those people who have
a funny hunch that the Bush people REMOTE CONTROLLED those aircraft
can turn around.. (for a week or so FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION)
and "believe" in Bush again.
I think they spoke to Usama thus:
Look.. You are still protected by "the familiy", now
we want you to do something for us.
The facts:
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff committed 9-11 via remote control
(read Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert and
New Pearl Harbor by Griffin and SWITCH ON YOUR F.. BRAINS)
yeahh right.. The US wanted to stop the video broadcast...
In truth it couldn't have come at a better time:
WHICH swing-voter will switch from Bush to Kerry after watching
this video and the pundits talking about it??? HAH???
The Ben Ladin Video delivers THIS MESSAGE:
- Bush is really not responsible for 911
- REINFORCES Bush's (neocon manufactured!) world view
DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM:
"Power of Nightmares"
Torrent:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22+torrent
xvid:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22+xvid
avi:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22+avi
Keeping this on thread topic, there was a prescient interview in last
night's episode from 1996 with Brent Scrowcroft. In defending the
decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of Desert Storm:
"Had we tried, we might still be occupying Baghdad now. It would have
turned success into a very messy probable defeat."
Check it out, incendiary, Fahrenheit 9/11 for grownups.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 days before the election, COME ON!! |
30 Oct 2004 03:25:21 PM |
|
|
In article <YeQgd.92279$tU4.54341@okepread06>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
u2r2h@gmx.net (Jeanne Newton) wrote in
news:c42ff1ac.0410300039.3fbf9ad1@posting.google.com:
What a LAME message Bin Laden delivered!
What a great move by Karl Rove to deliver this message!!
Better put your tin foil hat back on before the mind control lasers get you.
I guess that was the best you could do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason McNorton" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 days before the election, COME ON!! |
30 Oct 2004 03:53:03 AM |
|
|
In article <c42ff1ac.0410300039.3fbf9ad1@posting.google.com>,
u2r2h@gmx.net says...
What a LAME message Bin Laden delivered!
What a great move by Karl Rove to deliver this message!!
No kidding, obviously Rove controls bin laden!!!
This is the kind of crap that runs the democrat party now. The entire
party is knee-deep in this paranoia and utterly laughable insanity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeanne Newton" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 days before the election, COME ON!! |
30 Oct 2004 11:11:14 AM |
|
|
Jason McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1bed126f75ededda9897be@news-40.giganews.com>... > In
article <c42ff1ac.0410300039.3fbf9ad1@posting.google.com>, >
u2r2h@gmx.net says... > > What a LAME message Bin Laden delivered! >
What a great move by Karl Rove to deliver this message!! > >
No kidding, obviously Rove controls bin laden!!! > > This is the kind
of crap that runs the democrat party now. The entire > party is
knee-deep in this paranoia and utterly laughable insanity. When
future generationa are looking back on the US americans of the 21st
century they will say WHAT A..HOLES !!! There are this
ideological cemented Republicans saying ITS THE FAULT OF KERRY
SUPPORTERS BIN LADEN WANTS TO TRICK US I WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN YOU
CAN'T FOOl ME and... guess what... the did exactly what the JCS and
Rove wanted.. AND THEY DON'T SEE IT... They are at best naive like
potatoes, but IMHO more like criminally insane, like the NAZI
followers, the WILLING EXECUTIONERS. check the 50000 AERIAL BOMBING
killed C H I L D R E N of IRAQ
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html and MUST WATCH this
film: Orwell roles in his grave
http://www.filedonkey.com/ed2k://|file|Orwell Rolls in his Grave
[found via www.FileDonkey.com].mpg|671240920|08052440ed5a636f6bcc94c0ed6bacb3|/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 days before the election, COME ON!! |
31 Oct 2004 05:10:45 PM |
|
|
Jeanne Newton <u2r2h@gmx.net> wrote:
What a LAME message Bin Laden delivered!
What a great move by Karl Rove to deliver this message!!
Never mind that it is proof that Bush let him go or was too
incompetant to do anything about bin Laden.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Naidoo" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 days before the election, COME ON!! |
30 Oct 2004 06:47:28 AM |
|
|
Jeanne Newton wrote:
What a LAME message Bin Laden delivered!
What a great move by Karl Rove to deliver this message!!
Bin Laden is Bushs friend! How superb that he takes responsibility
for 9-11 (after previously denying it) now all those people who have
a funny hunch that the Bush people REMOTE CONTROLLED those aircraft
can turn around.. (for a week or so FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION)
and "believe" in Bush again.
I think they spoke to Usama thus:
Look.. You are still protected by "the familiy", now
we want you to do something for us.
The facts:
- The Joint Chiefs of Staff committed 9-11 via remote control
(read Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert and
New Pearl Harbor by Griffin and SWITCH ON YOUR F.. BRAINS)
yeahh right.. The US wanted to stop the video broadcast...
In truth it couldn't have come at a better time:
WHICH swing-voter will switch from Bush to Kerry after watching
this video and the pundits talking about it??? HAH???
The Ben Ladin Video delivers THIS MESSAGE:
- Bush is really not responsible for 911
- REINFORCES Bush's (neocon manufactured!) world view
DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM:
"Power of Nightmares"
Torrent:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22+torrent
xvid:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22+xvid
avi:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22+avi
Keeping this on thread topic, there was a prescient interview in last
night's episode from 1996 with Brent Scrowcroft. In defending the
decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of Desert Storm:
"Had we tried, we might still be occupying Baghdad now. It would have
turned success into a very messy probable defeat."
Check it out, incendiary, Fahrenheit 9/11 for grownups.
The Big Picture
Editorial
October 2004
by: Andrew E. Busch
As the presidential race draws to a close, it may be difficult for
American voters to focus on the really big questions that the Bush-Kerry
contest raises. An unending stream of public opinion polls, a barrage of
new 30-second advertisements, the wild gyrations of television political
talk shows, and the transparent attempt by CBS News, the New York Times,
and others to affect the election through their news departments combine
to paint a picture for the electorate that looks a bit like a Picasso
painted on the inside of a kaleidoscope.
So what is the big picture?
It is important to remember always the limitations of the presidency. No
president can do everything that his supporters hope or his opponents
fear. Presidents are constrained by the permanent bureaucracy, Congress,
the courts, and even the states (think about California’s stem cell
initiative). Second term presidents, especially since the adoption of
the 22nd Amendment, are increasingly hamstrung until their power
dwindles to virtually nothing.
That said, there are a number of overarching questions that Americans
will ignore only at their own peril.
Does America have the stomach for the fight that it is in? In many
respects, this is the fundamental question of the election. For all of
his rhetoric of toughness in 2004, John Kerry’s record since his return
from Vietnam does not inspire confidence about his judgment, his
steadiness, or his resolve. Whether advancing the cause of North
Vietnamese propaganda, posing with Daniel Ortega, obstructing the Reagan
defense buildup, cutting the intelligence budget, or voting against
Desert Storm, Kerry has developed an utterly consistent record of
defeatism, retreat, and appeasement. George W. Bush has, on the other
hand, taken the fight to the enemy with determination. A vote against
Bush is a vote against fighting through to victory in Iraq and in the
war on terror in general, a vote for cutting our losses, hunkering down,
and returning to a pre-September 11 strategy of passive defense—and will
be interpreted as such by our friends and our enemies alike.
Is America prepared to draw the line against the further erosion of the
moral foundation of American society? Whether the issue is abortion, gay
marriage, or embryonic stem cell research, we are asked by Kerry’s
strongest supporters (and often by Kerry himself) to obliterate ethical
boundaries and to believe that the nation can be sustained on a moral
foundation of little more than nihilism, narcissism, and hedonism, the
social program of the left since the 1960s. Indeed, it is increasingly
clear to me that the fundamental source of the irrational hatred of Bush
that infects the left is a profound anti-religious bigotry. At recent
academic roundtables, I learned from three different Kerry supporters
that Bush should be defeated because he is supported by "Bible- thumping
Christians," "praying people," people who take a candidate’s faith into
account; a Bush win would be a lamentable victory for the "theocrats"
who run the Republican Party. In fact, a victory for Bush would be a
victory for the proposition that moral nihilism is not an adequate
foundation for a free society. It would also be a victory for the
proposition that America’s religious heritage should be respected and
treasured as a national resource rather than denigrated (by the core of
Kerry’s coalition) or diluted to insignificance (by Kerry himself).
Will the American people contribute to the collapse of rational
political discourse by rewarding Michael Moore, George Soros,
MoveOn.org, and their ilk, or will they say "enough is enough?" Two
nights in a row, I was treated to academic supporters of John Kerry
arguing seriously in a public forum that George Bush was a
"proto-fascist" and a Hitler-like menace to the peace of the world. If
this kind of rhetoric is not tamped down by electoral rejection, we can
only expect more of it. Likewise, Americans must decide whether to hold
the elite media accountable for its blatant cheerleading for Kerry,
which has passed through the course of the campaign from amusing to
embarrassing to frightening. Taken together, the partisans and their
press allies have conducted themselves more irresponsibly and more
viciously than in any election in recent history. If tolerated by the
public—and a Kerry win would send a clear signal of tolerance—just wait
until 2008.
What value will Americans place on the principle of consent of the
governed? The next president will almost certainly be able to make a
number of appointments to the Supreme Court, and those appointees will
largely determine whether judicial imperialism will continue to
metastasize. If carried into areas like same-sex marriage and other key
social controversies, current judicial tendencies have but one final
endpoint, the point at which the American people no longer have control
over the laws that define us as a nation. A victory for George Bush may
or may not produce a victory for separation of powers, consent of the
governed, and the rule of law—there are always more David Souters
waiting in the wings—but a victory for John Kerry will almost certainly
represent a defeat for those things. And without consent of the
governed, the Declaration of Independence tells us, there is no
legitimate government.
Resolve or "nuance"? Moral boundaries or nihilism? Rational debate or
"Bush is a fascist, and here are some forged documents you might be
interested in?" Consent of the governed or judicial imperialism? They
don’t make the neatest bumper stickers, and they don’t all fit into a
30-second ad. Whatever George W. Bush’s shortcomings in other areas—not
least, his loss of control over domestic spending and the near-total
eclipse of the limited-government argument between elections—these
questions provide four big reasons to vote for him. The answers
Americans choose to give on November 2 will go a long way toward
defining the meaning and significance of this election.
Andrew E. Busch is a Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna
College and an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
