| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Spartakus" |
| Date: |
24 Jun 2003 09:27:18 AM |
| Object: |
General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
.
|
|
| User: "Alan McIntire" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 06:43:43 PM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0306240627.1adffd07@posting.google.com>...
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein."
(cut) Clark didn't name any names, the call came from " ...all
over".
His allegation is as unreliable as his stupid assertion that the
United States was founded on a belief in a progressive income tax.-
A. McIntire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJ" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 01:53:44 PM |
|
|
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
Time magazine article, "How We Got Here" said pretty much the same
thing as did the PBS program, "Long Road To War".
DJ
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: ".BitHead." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 09:27:50 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2003 07:27:18 -0700, (Spartakus)
wrote:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
So, the reports he wants to run for PResident are true, eh?
And not as a Democrat, either.
Watch him drop off UNfair's radar when he goes public.
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ http://clik.to/bithead/ \ /
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
__________________________________________________________/ /
\ __________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bushsucks" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 09:52:11 AM |
|
|
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on
Islam".
At that point the Bush Regime-controlled USA media will be unable
to suppress this TRUTH, and REAL investigations may begin.
Cynthia McKinney was so right!
Spartakus wrote:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 02:07:36 PM |
|
|
Bushsucks <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote in message news:<3EF866B1.62D9@moron.com>...
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
Actually I get the distinct feeling that Clark is positioning himself
for entry into politics. He'd be an interesting VP candidate on the
2004 Democratic ticket, for example. In that case we'll be hearing a
whole lot about Wesley Clark, whether Rupert Murdoch likes it or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hello Man" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 01:55:06 PM |
|
|
Bushsucks <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote in message news:<3EF866B1.62D9@moron.com>...
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on
Islam".
At that point the Bush Regime-controlled USA media will be unable
to suppress this TRUTH, and REAL investigations may begin.
Cynthia McKinney was so right!
You know, I'm probably one of the most progressive, left of center
people around, and I have to say that you are a frigging wacko.
Let me tell you something - America does not fight religious wars.
America fights wars to gain power and wealth. Period, end of story.
Now, in a way, you might be indirectly right. That is, I am sure that
military contractors wouldn't mind war for any reason. And if
religion could be used, they'd use it - but only FOR wealth. My point
is, the people who want the war the most, don't give a ***** about the
religion of the people on the other side. However, I'm sure they are
more than happy to give Pat Robertson a few bucks to stir up nutty
southern christians who hate islam.
I hope I'm making sense.
As long as there are people like you saying such ridiculous *****, and
claiming to be from the left, the republicons will be able to
generalize all from the left to be irrational nuts. A "war on islam"
is just totally inaccurate.
Please stop talking as a person from the left. No real progressive
wants to hear your nutty conspiracy theories.
Bushsucks, are you Muslim by any chance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bushsucks" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 09:36:15 PM |
|
|
Bush is fighting the PNAC / JINSA Jew War on Islam.
And killing our boys and bankrupting America DOING it.
The Jews cobntrol Americah media, markets, defense business,
Federal Reserve, the World Bank - AND AWOL Puke Bush.
Hello Man wrote:
Bushsucks <Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote in message news:<3EF866B1.62D9@moron.com>...
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on
Islam".
At that point the Bush Regime-controlled USA media will be unable
to suppress this TRUTH, and REAL investigations may begin.
Cynthia McKinney was so right!
You know, I'm probably one of the most progressive, left of center
people around, and I have to say that you are a frigging wacko.
Let me tell you something - America does not fight religious wars.
America fights wars to gain power and wealth. Period, end of story.
Now, in a way, you might be indirectly right. That is, I am sure that
military contractors wouldn't mind war for any reason. And if
religion could be used, they'd use it - but only FOR wealth. My point
is, the people who want the war the most, don't give a ***** about the
religion of the people on the other side. However, I'm sure they are
more than happy to give Pat Robertson a few bucks to stir up nutty
southern christians who hate islam.
I hope I'm making sense.
As long as there are people like you saying such ridiculous *****, and
claiming to be from the left, the republicons will be able to
generalize all from the left to be irrational nuts. A "war on islam"
is just totally inaccurate.
Please stop talking as a person from the left. No real progressive
wants to hear your nutty conspiracy theories.
Bushsucks, are you Muslim by any chance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 09:44:02 PM |
|
|
Bushsucks wrote:
Bush is fighting the PNAC / JINSA Jew War on Islam.
And killing our boys and bankrupting America DOING it.
The Jews cobntrol Americah media, markets, defense business,
Federal Reserve, the World Bank - AND AWOL Puke Bush.
Right. Next you will be telling us that Jews with beards and hook noses
are buying up the best real estate in Iraq.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "grub" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
25 Jun 2003 10:24:33 PM |
|
|
Bushsucks wrote:
Bush is fighting the PNAC / JINSA Jew War on Islam.
And killing our boys and bankrupting America DOING it.
The Jews cobntrol Americah media, markets, defense business,
Federal Reserve, the World Bank - AND AWOL Puke Bush.
Right. Next you will be telling us that Jews with beards and hook noses
are buying up the best real estate in Iraq.
Bob Kolker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fact : The Iraq/Israel oil pipeline was opened immediately after
[occupation/liberation] [depending on your point of view].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 02:28:47 PM |
|
|
In article Bushsucks wrote:
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on Islam".
...
But why should they speak out?
by feigning silence, as wave after wave of terror
appear over the horizon, as luftwaffe did durring WW II
they can capitalize on the general disdain for the (then) existance of Nazi Germany.
That Deliberately Evil Men do exist, and the worst of them have been elected by choice.
Were these same culpable and accountable democrats who
chaired the committees who had the knowledge, the facts, the dots
and chose to collaborate for political gain to come forward with the obviousness
of the Truth, what do you think the result would be?
This is Clinton's Bridge, where the Road to Tyranny
really *DID* begin with the destruction of the Truth...
http://www.attrition.org/gallery/politics/shattered_nation.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 09:59:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:52:11 GMT, Bushsucks
<Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote:
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on
Islam".
With the openess of the internet and access to foreign and even fringe
domestic news sources, the possibility and even probability that
anyone can "control the American media" is going from slim to none.
Conspiracy is the last vertige of those who cannot promote their
viewpoints through evidence. Why? It requires no evidence.
The Frog
At that point the Bush Regime-controlled USA media will be unable
to suppress this TRUTH, and REAL investigations may begin.
Cynthia McKinney was so right!
Spartakus wrote:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
27 Jun 2003 01:23:05 PM |
|
|
Alric Knebel wrote:
As long as those in the know -- those with access to this information; or
those with it who use it -- remain in a fringe minority, all of these other
stories don't amount to much of a threat to the status quo. The mainstream
media is pretty much what most people use for their information.
Anyone who is above room temperature can go into a public library and
use the computers therein for free.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alric Knebel" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
28 Jun 2003 10:06:55 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EFC8B89.10300@attbi.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
As long as those in the know -- those with access to this information;
or
those with it who use it -- remain in a fringe minority, all of these
other
stories don't amount to much of a threat to the status quo. The
mainstream
media is pretty much what most people use for their information.
Anyone who is above room temperature can go into a public library and
use the computers therein for free.
Bob Kolker
And most of Americans spend too much time working to gave enough time to do
that, and anyone with an I. Q. above a sofa would no that such a solution is
unworkable. The thing is, you -- with an I. Q. placing you barely above
that of said sofa, and with less integrity -- ignored the point, that the
fact is the mainstream media (media easily accessed by the average person)
is almost useless for real information.
Alric
--
http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
______________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 12:59:52 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:05 -0400,
Robert J. Kolker <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Alric Knebel wrote:
As long as those in the know -- those with access
to this information; or those with it who use it
-- remain in a fringe minority, all of these other
stories don't amount to much of a threat to the
status quo. The mainstream media is pretty much
what most people use for their information.
Anyone who is above room temperature can go into a
public library and use the computers therein for
free.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declared that Congress
has the power to *force* public libraries to put
"filtering" software on public library computers for
public Internet access.
In other words, the U.S. Congress gets to pick which
filtering software gets used on public access computers.
Hmmm. So Congress gets to decide what Internet news
sources the general public gets to see.
Even if some fringe news reporting source doesn't get
"accidentally" added to the filtering software, there's
also the problem of actually *getting to* the public
library. Some of us don't have reliable transportation.
Some of us live in cities where there is no public
transportation to speak of. Some of us bicycle to work
but the library is just a little too far away. And some
of us are disabled.
I lucked out into home Internet access (I get it as a
bonus through work).
My brother-in-law became disabled enough to be unable
to drive a car or ride a bicycle, and lives in a town
without public transportation. He doesn't get enough
from disability to afford Internet access from home,
and he can't get to the public library to use the
"free restricted Internet access".
So your "solution" isn't a solution for him. He's going
to be getting the free JUNO email in a couple weeks when
I finish building him a PC (an old Pentium-200Mhz,
circa 1995), but he still won't be able to afford full
Internet access.
I think that there are many people in his situation.
People who simply can't afford Internet at home and
can't get to the public library for "free restricted
Internet access". They remain the people who cannot
benefit from the "open Internet". The "have-nots".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 01:16:24 AM |
|
|
"webgiant" <webgiant@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbfsebn.35s.webgiant@localhost.localdomain...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:05 -0400,
Robert J. Kolker <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Alric Knebel wrote:
As long as those in the know -- those with access
to this information; or those with it who use it
-- remain in a fringe minority, all of these other
stories don't amount to much of a threat to the
status quo. The mainstream media is pretty much
what most people use for their information.
Anyone who is above room temperature can go into a
public library and use the computers therein for
free.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declared that Congress
has the power to *force* public libraries to put
"filtering" software on public library computers for
public Internet access.
In other words, the U.S. Congress gets to pick which
filtering software gets used on public access computers.
Hmmm. So Congress gets to decide what Internet news
sources the general public gets to see.
Even if some fringe news reporting source doesn't get
"accidentally" added to the filtering software, there's
also the problem of actually *getting to* the public
library. Some of us don't have reliable transportation.
Some of us live in cities where there is no public
transportation to speak of. Some of us bicycle to work
but the library is just a little too far away. And some
of us are disabled.
I lucked out into home Internet access (I get it as a
bonus through work).
My brother-in-law became disabled enough to be unable
to drive a car or ride a bicycle, and lives in a town
without public transportation. He doesn't get enough
from disability to afford Internet access from home,
and he can't get to the public library to use the
"free restricted Internet access".
So your "solution" isn't a solution for him. He's going
to be getting the free JUNO email in a couple weeks when
I finish building him a PC (an old Pentium-200Mhz,
circa 1995), but he still won't be able to afford full
Internet access.
I think that there are many people in his situation.
People who simply can't afford Internet at home and
can't get to the public library for "free restricted
Internet access". They remain the people who cannot
benefit from the "open Internet". The "have-nots".
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the libraries not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Falcon" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 03:08:46 AM |
|
|
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the libraries not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
What a bummer for you right wing types. No more chances to go back to
the good old days when blacks were excluded from the better colleges,
no more forcing gays from the public, and the chance of ever
overturning Roe v. Wade more and more distant with all these liberal
pro-privacy decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
The hate filled Right has only this Internet Filtering Issue to point
to. Funny how the Right likes to claim they are "pro-child." Recent
statistics make it clear that just ain't so. Abortion was down under
Clinton, up under Bush. Child quality of life up under Clinton, down
under Bush.
Now the good news - Hate is up under Bush - just like the Right likes
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 08:42:15 AM |
|
|
"Falcon" <falcon@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:p87tfvo8hot4rebgsv8d9nkv195gacv23r@4ax.com...
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are
not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the libraries
not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
What a bummer for you right wing types. No more chances to go back to
the good old days when blacks were excluded from the better colleges,
no more forcing gays from the public, and the chance of ever
overturning Roe v. Wade more and more distant with all these liberal
pro-privacy decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
The hate filled Right has only this Internet Filtering Issue to point
to. Funny how the Right likes to claim they are "pro-child." Recent
statistics make it clear that just ain't so. Abortion was down under
Clinton, up under Bush. Child quality of life up under Clinton, down
under Bush.
Now the good news - Hate is up under Bush - just like the Right likes
it.
Thank you for showing your own bigotry and ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Falcon" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 09:27:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:42:15 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Falcon" <falcon@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:p87tfvo8hot4rebgsv8d9nkv195gacv23r@4ax.com...
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are
not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the libraries
not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
What a bummer for you right wing types. No more chances to go back to
the good old days when blacks were excluded from the better colleges,
no more forcing gays from the public, and the chance of ever
overturning Roe v. Wade more and more distant with all these liberal
pro-privacy decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
The hate filled Right has only this Internet Filtering Issue to point
to. Funny how the Right likes to claim they are "pro-child." Recent
statistics make it clear that just ain't so. Abortion was down under
Clinton, up under Bush. Child quality of life up under Clinton, down
under Bush.
Now the good news - Hate is up under Bush - just like the Right likes
it.
Thank you for showing your own bigotry and ignorance.
Of course! If someone points out the hatred and lack of logical
thinking in your position, you say "bigotry and ignorance!" Pointing
out the obvious to the uneducated is neither bigoted nor uneducated.
You represent the wacko right very well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Ocean" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 03:33:47 AM |
|
|
Falcon wrote:
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the libraries not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
What a bummer for you right wing types. No more chances to go back to
the good old days when blacks were excluded from the better colleges,
no more forcing gays from the public, and the chance of ever
overturning Roe v. Wade more and more distant with all these liberal
pro-privacy decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
The hate filled Right has only this Internet Filtering Issue to point
to. Funny how the Right likes to claim they are "pro-child." Recent
statistics make it clear that just ain't so. Abortion was down under
Clinton, up under Bush. Child quality of life up under Clinton, down
under Bush.
I really hate to question your mindless drivel...But what has this to
do with blocking access to porn sites for public library children?
Now that Monica is no longer available to service Mr Klinton...Maybe
you would like to volunteer for that job. And just exactly would you
know about the quality of life for children?
Now the good news - Hate is up under Bush - just like the Right likes
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alric Knebel" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 04:09:54 AM |
|
|
"Don Ocean" <ocean@amerion.com> wrote in message
news:3EFEA46B.DF93E37C@amerion.com...
Falcon wrote:
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are
not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the
libraries not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
What a bummer for you right wing types. No more chances to go back to
the good old days when blacks were excluded from the better colleges,
no more forcing gays from the public, and the chance of ever
overturning Roe v. Wade more and more distant with all these liberal
pro-privacy decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
The hate filled Right has only this Internet Filtering Issue to point
to. Funny how the Right likes to claim they are "pro-child." Recent
statistics make it clear that just ain't so. Abortion was down under
Clinton, up under Bush. Child quality of life up under Clinton, down
under Bush.
I really hate to question your mindless drivel...But what has this to
do with blocking access to porn sites for public library children?
Now that Monica is no longer available to service Mr Klinton...Maybe
you would like to volunteer for that job. And just exactly would you
know about the quality of life for children?
What does blocking porn from children in public libraries have to do with
the initial question, which was how can real news get to the average
American in sore need of better news sources? So back to the point: The
media is almost useless for any information beyond celebrity scandals and
romances, high-profile murders, and the English royal family.
Alric
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 12:15:58 PM |
|
|
Don Ocean <ocean@amerion.com> wrote:
I really hate to question your mindless drivel...But what has this to
do with blocking access to porn sites for public library children?
What has protecting children to do with government censorship? The
federal government wants public access computers censored. The "porn"
bogeyman is just a smokescreen because everybody knows that such
software doesn't block all porn and doesn't block just porn.
Now that Monica is no longer available to service Mr Klinton...Maybe
What a loser.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 01:00:37 PM |
|
|
In talk.abortion, Falcon
<falcon@nomail.net>
wrote
on Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:08:46 -0700
<p87tfvo8hot4rebgsv8d9nkv195gacv23r@4ax.com>:
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
Not everyone is going to like every law passed. However, the laws are not
designed to please everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians must
consider the majority.
In this case, I think they are looking out for children in the libraries not
having access to adult pornographic sites.
What a bummer for you right wing types. No more chances to go back to
the good old days when blacks were excluded from the better colleges,
no more forcing gays from the public, and the chance of ever
overturning Roe v. Wade more and more distant with all these liberal
pro-privacy decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.
I'm hoping this will continue in the new Court, as at least one,
possibly two, of the Court members have hinted at retirement.
However, Bush may have some troubles ramming his choices through
a divided Congress.
The hate filled Right has only this Internet Filtering Issue to point
to. Funny how the Right likes to claim they are "pro-child." Recent
statistics make it clear that just ain't so. Abortion was down under
Clinton, up under Bush. Child quality of life up under Clinton, down
under Bush.
Now the good news - Hate is up under Bush - just like the Right likes
it.
This is *good* news? :-) Maybe for the Left, which espouses Love,
rather than Hate. (Very generally speaking, anyway.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
02 Jul 2003 04:19:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 02:16:24 -0400,
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"webgiant" <webgiant@rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:23:05 -0400,
Robert J. Kolker <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Alric Knebel wrote:
As long as those in the know -- those
with access to this information; or
those with it who use it -- remain in
a fringe minority, all of these other
stories don't amount to much of a threat
to the status quo. The mainstream media
is pretty much what most people use for
their information.
Anyone who is above room temperature can
go into a public library and use the
computers therein for free.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declared that
Congress has the power to *force* public
libraries to put "filtering" software on
public library computers for public Internet
access.
In other words, the U.S. Congress gets to
pick which filtering software gets used on
public access computers.
Hmmm. So Congress gets to decide what
Internet news sources the general public
gets to see.
Ever hear the saying
Can't please everybody?
I'm just a little worried that the current
Congress is going to engage in a little
"legislative activism" when it decides what
sites get filtered out.
Not everyone is going to like every law passed.
However, the laws are not designed to please
everyone. Congress, as well as all politicians
must consider the majority.
One could argue a freedom of speech issue here,
and the First Amendment is supposed to protect
the *minority*.
But the SCOTUS has declared that the implementation
of filtering software does not violate the First
Amendment, so I guess I'll have to go along with
their ruling.
Amazing how few conservatives are coming out
against *this example* of "judicial activism".
In this case, I think they are looking out for
children in the libraries not having access to
adult pornographic sites.
Frankly, and speaking as a former 15 year old,
viewing pornographic pictures at the *public*
library would not have been high on my list of
things to do.
Now, as one gets older, this sort of thing might
happen more often, and adults viewing pornographic
pictures on their screens, which then are viewed in
passing by children, could be a problem.
I still remember being in college a few years back
for a one year certification program, and being in
the computer lab one fine day. I was typing away,
browsing the net, when security guys came through
and dragged off a guy sitting two seats away from
me. Then they came back through and requested to
interview each of us in turn.
Apparently the security guys had witnessed the
guy on the end *masturbating* at his computer,
while viewing a pornographic website. The hapless
self-abuser didn't realize that an expensive
security camera system had been in place for about
six years, and there was a camera pointed where his
actions could be seen. Security wanted to talk to
us to see if we could corroborate the tapes, and
also support one woman who reported him to security.
Even if some fringe news reporting source
doesn't get "accidentally" added to the
filtering software, there's also the problem
of actually *getting to* the public library.
Some of us don't have reliable transportation.
Some of us live in cities where there is no
public transportation to speak of. Some of us
bicycle to work but the library is just a little
too far away. And some of us are disabled.
I lucked out into home Internet access (I get
it as a bonus through work).
My brother-in-law became disabled enough to be
unable to drive a car or ride a bicycle, and
lives in a town without public transportation.
He doesn't get enough from disability to afford
Internet access from home, and he can't get to
the public library to use the "free restricted
Internet access".
So your "solution" isn't a solution for him.
He's going to be getting the free JUNO email
in a couple weeks when I finish building him
a PC (an old Pentium-200Mhz, circa 1995), but
he still won't be able to afford full Internet
access.
I think that there are many people in his
situation. People who simply can't afford
Internet at home and can't get to the public
library for "free restricted Internet access".
They remain the people who cannot benefit from
the "open Internet". The "have-nots".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 12:13:37 PM |
|
|
webgiant <webgiant@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Robert J. Kolker <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Alric Knebel wrote:
As long as those in the know -- those with access
to this information; or those with it who use it
-- remain in a fringe minority, all of these other
stories don't amount to much of a threat to the
status quo. The mainstream media is pretty much
what most people use for their information.
Anyone who is above room temperature can go into a
public library and use the computers therein for
free.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declared that Congress
has the power to *force* public libraries to put
"filtering" software on public library computers for
public Internet access.
"Filtering" is newspeak for censorship.
In other words, the U.S. Congress gets to pick which
filtering software gets used on public access computers.
Hmmm. So Congress gets to decide what Internet news
sources the general public gets to see.
Almost. Many libraries in my areas refuse federal money for just that
reason. They have also annouced a policy of destroying checkout data
seven days after a book is returned to keep Ashcroft from
"investigating" people.
Even if some fringe news reporting source doesn't get
"accidentally" added to the filtering software, there's
also the problem of actually *getting to* the public
library. Some of us don't have reliable transportation.
Some of us live in cities where there is no public
transportation to speak of. Some of us bicycle to work
but the library is just a little too far away. And some
of us are disabled.
And because the Bush administration is doing its damndest to bankrupt
state a local governments, libraries are having to cut back hours or
close.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 11:03:43 AM |
|
|
Americans Must Be Stupid <spamspamspam@spam.spam> wrote in
news:Xns93A4675BF2752spamspamspamspamspam@65.82.44.187:
However, the American media is VERY controlled, and only a brain-dead
cowfucker would suggest otherwise.
as a representitive of BDCF Local #211 I can assure you that in a recent
vote cowfuckers everywhere agreed with you that the American media is
indeed controlled and we resent you using our organization in a satyrical
posting on Usenet. The next time you need a cow fucked by a one of our
brain-dead (and proud) union members for get it dude. ***** your own cows
-z
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 12:39:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:59:07 -0500, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:52:11 GMT, Bushsucks
<Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote:
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media,
you will hear NO MORE about this, and very little
about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some
Democratic candidate comes out and SAYS "9/11 was
an inside job created by the Bush Regime, to gain
control of the American media agenda, and launch
a War on Islam".
With the openess of the internet and access to foreign
and even fringe domestic news sources, the possibility
and even probability that anyone can "control the
American media" is going from slim to none. Conspiracy
is the last vertige of those who cannot promote their
viewpoints through evidence. Why? It requires no
evidence.
With the close-mindness, laziness, and general apathy
of the American public, the chance that any given
American is viewing a news source which isn't the
website of one of the *mainstream media sources* is
*slim to none*.
Despite news reports coming out on the back pages of
newspapers around the nation and in independent
newspapers that the White House LIED about WMDs in
Iraq, most Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs,
that Iraq was involved in planning 9/11, and that
more than half of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.
Despite the fact that none of these ideas is true.
The very openess of the Internet has led to massive
amounts of information. This information overload
has led to Americans adopting web portals, which
summarize the web for them. And web portals get
their news reporting from *mainstream media websites*.
It's a lost cause, expecting independent news sources
to educate the American public when the American public
is so uninterested in looking at independent news sources.
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following
on the June 15th edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld was directing his people to create plans for
attacking Iraq within hours of the 9/11 attacks, despite
the complete absence of evidence that Iraq had anything
to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and
his entire administration) have to go.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 11:46:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:59:06 GMT, Americans Must Be Stupid
<spamspamspam@spam.spam> wrote:
The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in
news:dkpgfvoe5n9hbo0bbvvrg7tk9hvcpf7eti@4ax.com:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:52:11 GMT, Bushsucks
<Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote:
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on
Islam".
With the openess of the internet and access to foreign and even fringe
domestic news sources, the possibility and even probability that
anyone can "control the American media" is going from slim to none.
Conspiracy is the last vertige of those who cannot promote their
viewpoints through evidence. Why? It requires no evidence.
The Frog
However, the American media is VERY controlled, and only a brain-dead
cowfucker would suggest otherwise.
All you have stated above is to reassert your statement without any
further evidence and then insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Saying it is so, doesn't necessisarily make it so and you have nothing
so say otherwise.
I'd say you're "done".
Your friend,
The Frog
At that point the Bush Regime-controlled USA media will be unable
to suppress this TRUTH, and REAL investigations may begin.
Cynthia McKinney was so right!
Spartakus wrote:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his entire
administration) have to go.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of
Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Americans Must Be Stupid" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 11:50:36 AM |
|
|
The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in
news:svvgfvogof16iuh0u5qa333sdbnnopbu7m@4ax.com:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:59:06 GMT, Americans Must Be Stupid
<spamspamspam@spam.spam> wrote:
The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in
news:dkpgfvoe5n9hbo0bbvvrg7tk9hvcpf7eti@4ax.com:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:52:11 GMT, Bushsucks
<Impeachthedrunkard@moron.com> wrote:
Since the Bush Regime controls the American media, you will hear
NO MORE about this, and very little about Wesley Clark.
The media will be silent on this, unless some Democratic candidate
comes out and SAYS "9/11 was an inside job created by the Bush
Regime,
to gain control of the American media agenda, and launch a War on
Islam".
With the openess of the internet and access to foreign and even
fringe
domestic news sources, the possibility and even probability that
anyone can "control the American media" is going from slim to none.
Conspiracy is the last vertige of those who cannot promote their
viewpoints through evidence. Why? It requires no evidence.
The Frog
However, the American media is VERY controlled, and only a brain-dead
cowfucker would suggest otherwise.
All you have stated above is to reassert your statement without any
further evidence and then insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Saying it is so, doesn't necessisarily make it so and you have nothing
so say otherwise.
I'd say you're "done".
Your friend,
The Frog
Unfortunately, it is true, and everyone seems to know that but you...
At that point the Bush Regime-controlled USA media will be unable
to suppress this TRUTH, and REAL investigations may begin.
Cynthia McKinney was so right!
Spartakus wrote:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
Heads up! General Wesley Clark said the following on the June 15th
edition of Meet The Press:
GEN CLARK: ...there was a concerted effort during
the fall of 2001 starting immediately
after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism
problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it
came from people around the White House.
It came from all over. I got a call on
9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at
my home saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored
terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein." I said, "But -- I'm
willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence...
This is corroborated by reports that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was
directing his people to create plans for attacking Iraq within
hours
of the 9/11 attacks, despite the complete absence of evidence that
Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Bush lied and thousands of innocent people died. He (and his
entire
administration) have to go.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of
Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of
Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
--
Can I borrow a feeling?
http://www.mp3.com/gortician
Bass for your *****:
http://www.mp3.com/manticore
http://www.mp3.com/meterversusyard
http://www.mp3.com/highc
http://www.mp3.com/measurerecs.
"[The artwork of Andrew Penland] is REAL...what I mean by "real" is that
it made NEW THOUGHTS occur in my head, which would have never otherwise
occurred." --Full Force Frank
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "webgiant" |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
29 Jun 2003 12:47:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:05:40 -0400,
Robert J. Kolker <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote:
Americans Must Be Stupid wrote:
However, the American media is VERY controlled, and
only a brain-dead cowfucker would suggest otherwise.
The government cannot prevent the publication of news
(not without a legal war going on anyway). What the
government can do is make access to sources very
difficult for non-cooperating journalists. If
government folks wont talk to certain reporters, then
these reporters do not have much to report.
Look at a presidential news conference sometime. If
the president refuses you acknowledge a reporter that
he does not like. that reporter does not get to ask a
question.
This is especially true now that White House staffers
have been trained in the proper use of the White House
intercom and no longer accidentally route the Oval
Office to the Press Room.
And of course, there is that "Major League *****"
reporter that Dubya referred to over an open mike
directly into the ears of reporters listening in.
Clearly, the Dubya Administration has worked out
that speaking in front of a live microphone is
a bad idea when you are saying something you want
to keep people from hearing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: General Clark drops a bomb on Bush |
24 Jun 2003 10:53:52 AM |
|
|
The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in
news:dkpgfvoe5n9hbo0bbvvrg7tk9hvcpf7eti@4ax.com:
With the openess of the internet and access to foreign and
even fringe domestic news sources, the possibility and even
probability that anyone can "control the American media" is
going from slim to none. Conspiracy is the last vertige of
those who cannot promote their viewpoints through evidence.
Why? It requires no evidence.
had you said "media," i would have agreed, but there is no doubt
that the american media is tightly controlled by the far right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
