| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"David W. Barnes" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2007 11:47:42 AM |
| Object: |
Well Worth Reading |
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
16 Oct 2007 05:02:46 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
17 Oct 2007 10:07:58 AM |
|
|
In article <1192572166.536152.195620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what people
discuss?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
18 Oct 2007 12:18:53 PM |
|
|
On Oct 17, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what people
discuss?)-
My whining is always in response to something someone else has
posted. So if you don't like it, I direct you to the people who
posted the messages I responded to.
This is as opposed to you, who posted completely unrelated drivel to
multiple groups.
Also noted is that you didn't actually answer the question, just made
a personal attack instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
19 Oct 2007 10:40:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1192727933.235266.127020@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what people
discuss?)-
My whining is always in response to something someone else has
posted. So if you don't like it, I direct you to the people who
posted the messages I responded to.
Non-responsive.
This is as opposed to you, who posted completely unrelated drivel to
multiple groups.
Because you say so.
Also noted is that you didn't actually answer the question, just made
a personal attack instead.
OK. Here is your answer. I would have thought it was obvious.
Bush was łelected˛ in no small part by the Right Wing Christians,
especially hard core Catholics and fundamentalists. Atheists, of
course, see these people for what they are, superstitious kooks who
łbelieve,˛ not for any logical or scientific reason, but because it
fits their judgmental, passive, and lemming-like personalities.
The reason most often given by Right Wing Christians for voting for
incompetents like Bush is that they have such łhigh regardł for łthe
sanctity of life.˛ As liberals have known for years, the Right Wing
could not care less for life, other than their own.
Here we have a former commander of coalition forces in Iraq admitting
what liberals and Democrats have been saying for years. We are in Iraq
killing, and having our service personnel killed, not for any righteous
reason, as the Right Wing Christians have always held, but for Bush and
his cronies "lust for power."
Hopefully, some of the more honest in America who are religious will
start to realize that voting Republican means voting for death, not
life. Get it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
19 Oct 2007 11:48:52 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1192727933.235266.127020@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with the=
ir
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve th=
eir
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility =
for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do =
you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what people
discuss?)-
My whining is always in response to something someone else has
posted. So if you don't like it, I direct you to the people who
posted the messages I responded to.
Non-responsive.
In what way? You asked what my whining had to do with the topics, and
I told you it was in direct response to whatever thread I was
responding to, so wherever my whining is off topic it is because the
original poster (that would be you in this case) was off topic.
That's a perfectly responsive answer to your question.
This is as opposed to you, who posted completely unrelated drivel to
multiple groups.
Because you say so.
I say so because it is so.
Also noted is that you didn't actually answer the question, just made
a personal attack instead.
OK. Here is your answer. I would have thought it was obvious.
Bush was =B3elected=B2 in no small part by the Right Wing Christians,
especially hard core Catholics and fundamentalists. Atheists, of
course, see these people for what they are, superstitious kooks who
=B3believe,=B2 not for any logical or scientific reason, but because it
fits their judgmental, passive, and lemming-like personalities.
The reason most often given by Right Wing Christians for voting for
incompetents like Bush is that they have such =B3high regard=B3 for =B3the
sanctity of life.=B2 As liberals have known for years, the Right Wing
could not care less for life, other than their own.
Here we have a former commander of coalition forces in Iraq admitting
what liberals and Democrats have been saying for years. We are in Iraq
killing, and having our service personnel killed, not for any righteous
reason, as the Right Wing Christians have always held, but for Bush and
his cronies "lust for power."
Hopefully, some of the more honest in America who are religious will
start to realize that voting Republican means voting for death, not
life. Get it?
You're the one who doesn't get it. Just because something might be of
interest to atheists or Catholics, does not make it about atheism or
Catholicism. It's off topic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
20 Oct 2007 10:11:05 AM |
|
|
In article <1192812532.345107.155070@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1192727933.235266.127020@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.barnes@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what people
discuss?)-
My whining is always in response to something someone else has
posted. So if you don't like it, I direct you to the people who
posted the messages I responded to.
Non-responsive.
In what way?
In the way that you did not respond to my question.
You asked what my whining had to do with the topics, and
I told you it was in direct response to whatever thread I was
responding to, so wherever my whining is off topic it is because the
original poster (that would be you in this case) was off topic.
That's a perfectly responsive answer to your question.
This is as opposed to you, who posted completely unrelated drivel to
multiple groups.
Because you say so.
I say so because it is so.
IŚm sure you believe that.
Also noted is that you didn't actually answer the question, just made
a personal attack instead.
OK. Here is your answer. I would have thought it was obvious.
Bush was łelected˛ in no small part by the Right Wing Christians,
especially hard core Catholics and fundamentalists. Atheists, of
course, see these people for what they are, superstitious kooks who
łbelieve,˛ not for any logical or scientific reason, but because it
fits their judgmental, passive, and lemming-like personalities.
The reason most often given by Right Wing Christians for voting for
incompetents like Bush is that they have such łhigh regardł for łthe
sanctity of life.˛ As liberals have known for years, the Right Wing
could not care less for life, other than their own.
Here we have a former commander of coalition forces in Iraq admitting
what liberals and Democrats have been saying for years. We are in Iraq
killing, and having our service personnel killed, not for any righteous
reason, as the Right Wing Christians have always held, but for Bush and
his cronies "lust for power."
Hopefully, some of the more honest in America who are religious will
start to realize that voting Republican means voting for death, not
life. Get it?
You're the one who doesn't get it. Just because something might be of
interest to atheists or Catholics, does not make it about atheism or
Catholicism. It's off topic.
Well, why donąt you just write up a list for all of us so we know of
what you approve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
26 Oct 2007 01:16:35 PM |
|
|
On Oct 20, 11:11 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192812532.345107.155...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1192727933.235266.127...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.ht=
ml>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with=
their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserv=
e their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he =
said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibil=
ity for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How=
do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what peo=
ple
discuss?)-
My whining is always in response to something someone else has
posted. So if you don't like it, I direct you to the people who
posted the messages I responded to.
Non-responsive.
In what way?
In the way that you did not respond to my question.
I did respond to your question. It is common on usenet when taking
someone to task for being off-topic that you post to the newsgroup
where the message is off-topic pointing this fact out. So, in that
your message was off topic, and my message was responding to your
message to tell you that, I am not being off topic. I am simply
following established procedure. What you did was post something off
topic, present no good justification for doing so, read someone else's
defense of you, then present another post copying their reasons and
claiming them as your own.
And you still haven't addressed the point of how something supposedly
"of interest" to people in a newsgroup makes it on topic for *that*
newsgroup. That is patently false and simply sloppy rationalization
after-the-fact. That can be said of any post whatsoever. "I thought
someone might be interested" is a pathetic excuse.
You asked what my whining had to do with the topics, and
I told you it was in direct response to whatever thread I was
responding to, so wherever my whining is off topic it is because the
original poster (that would be you in this case) was off topic.
That's a perfectly responsive answer to your question.
This is as opposed to you, who posted completely unrelated drivel to
multiple groups.
Because you say so.
I say so because it is so.
I=8Cm sure you believe that.
I can demonstrate that. Your posted your claim that all Catholics can
be considered pedophiles to alt.abortion. The pedophilia of Catholics
has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. Or are you going to claim
that pedophilia amongst the Catholic church is somehow "of interest"
to people interested in the abortion debate because of some completely
imaginary connection between that and the Catholic church having a
stance on abortion?
Also noted is that you didn't actually answer the question, just ma=
de
a personal attack instead.
OK. Here is your answer. I would have thought it was obvious.
Bush was =B3elected=B2 in no small part by the Right Wing Christians,
especially hard core Catholics and fundamentalists. Atheists, of
course, see these people for what they are, superstitious kooks who
=B3believe,=B2 not for any logical or scientific reason, but because =
it
fits their judgmental, passive, and lemming-like personalities.
The reason most often given by Right Wing Christians for voting for
incompetents like Bush is that they have such =B3high regard=B3 for =
=B3the
sanctity of life.=B2 As liberals have known for years, the Right Wing
could not care less for life, other than their own.
Here we have a former commander of coalition forces in Iraq admitting
what liberals and Democrats have been saying for years. We are in Ir=
aq
killing, and having our service personnel killed, not for any righteo=
us
reason, as the Right Wing Christians have always held, but for Bush a=
nd
his cronies "lust for power."
Hopefully, some of the more honest in America who are religious will
start to realize that voting Republican means voting for death, not
life. Get it?
You're the one who doesn't get it. Just because something might be of
interest to atheists or Catholics, does not make it about atheism or
Catholicism. It's off topic.
Well, why don=B9t you just write up a list for all of us so we know of
what you approve.-
Why don't you do the same? You have accused me of being off topic as
well, so don't be a hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
18 Oct 2007 12:19:46 PM |
|
|
On Oct 17, 11:07 am, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
What does your whining have to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism? (Other than a Right Wing desire to control what people
discuss?)-
My whining is always in response to something someone else has
posted. So if you don't like it, I direct you to the people who
posted the messages I responded to.
This is as opposed to you, who posted completely unrelated drivel to
multiple groups.
Also noted is that you didn't actually answer the question, just made
a personal attack instead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
16 Oct 2007 06:49:18 PM |
|
|
In article <1192572166.536152.195620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
17 Oct 2007 10:07:58 AM |
|
|
In article <r-1610071649180001@10.0.1.200>, •R L Measures <r@somis.org>
wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.
Exactly what I was thinking when I posted it. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
17 Oct 2007 11:15:26 AM |
|
|
In article <171020070807589732%davbarnes@gmail.com>, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <r-1610071649180001@10.0.1.200>, •R L Measures <r@somis.org>
wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.
Exactly what I was thinking when I posted it. ;-)
• W's enemies list:
#1: habeus corpus.
#2: freedom of speech.
#3: the 4th Amendment (illegal search)
#4: the 8th Amendment. (torture prohibition)
#5: the 22nd Amendment. (2-term Presidential limit)
Move over Tricky *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
17 Oct 2007 08:00:17 PM |
|
|
In article <r-1710070915260001@10.0.1.200>, •R L Measures <r@somis.org>
wrote:
In article <171020070807589732%davbarnes@gmail.com>, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <r-1610071649180001@10.0.1.200>, •R L Measures <r@somis.org>
wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.
Exactly what I was thinking when I posted it. ;-)
• W's enemies list:
#1: habeus corpus.
#2: freedom of speech.
#3: the 4th Amendment (illegal search)
#4: the 8th Amendment. (torture prohibition)
#5: the 22nd Amendment. (2-term Presidential limit)
Move over Tricky *****.
#6: Competence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
18 Oct 2007 06:46:22 AM |
|
|
In article <171020071800177535%davbarnes@gmail.com>, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <r-1710070915260001@10.0.1.200>, •R L Measures <r@somis.org>
wrote:
In article <171020070807589732%davbarnes@gmail.com>, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <r-1610071649180001@10.0.1.200>, •R L Measures <r@somis.org>
wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.
Exactly what I was thinking when I posted it. ;-)
• W's enemies list:
#1: habeus corpus.
#2: freedom of speech.
#3: the 4th Amendment (illegal search)
#4: the 8th Amendment. (torture prohibition)
#5: the 22nd Amendment. (2-term Presidential limit)
Move over Tricky *****.
#6: Competence.
• that's not an enemy, it's unchecked baggage.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
18 Oct 2007 12:16:47 PM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 7:49 pm, (=B7R L Measures) wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.-
Ummm....so what? Without atheists buying their cars, Ford would sell
less cars. Does that make discussing Mustangs appropriate for
alt.atheism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
18 Oct 2007 02:58:07 PM |
|
|
In article <1192727807.550181.315260@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.barnes@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 7:49 pm, (=B7R L Measures) wrote:
In article <1192572166.536152.195...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
All of which has what to do with abortion, atheism, or Roman
Catholicism?
** Without the undecided Catholic vote, W could not have won either
election. Without saying that he was opposed to abortion, W would not
have received the undecided Catholic vote.-
Ummm....so what?
** Zzzzzzzzz
Without atheists buying their cars, Ford would sell
less cars. Does that make discussing Mustangs appropriate for
alt.atheism?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
13 Oct 2007 08:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 12:47?pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
America...a Democratic, Communist Nation Under God....I think that
will be our future. I would not worry about Iraq so much. The oil is
flowing, so just be grateful. After all we are all gas whores, so we
need out pimps to keep the biz running.
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?
Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second. But
with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a spiritual
foundation that supports our country would 'hopefully' separate us
from the atheist based communists that have been run as
dictatorships.
Am I as Christian zealot?
No, I am an agnostic freethinker.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0
But we also need spiritual values to be at peace. (or a semblance of
peace.)
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=543.0
As for why I have come up with such a bold statement as 'America...a
Democratic, Communist Nation Under God?'
Until I can write that post:
See this DVD
1940's House PBS (albeit our enemy is not Germany...it is energy) And
witness something along the lines of a 'Democratic, Communist Nation
Under God.'
http://www.amazon.com/1940s-House-Marguerite-Patten/dp/B0000AYL47
See these 3 books:
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253
http://www.lastoilshock.com/
See my 2 posts
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=105221
(See OP):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4d264dd867e7be11/cd41e13d1ef7f1ed?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=should+the+us#cd41e13d1ef7f1ed
Add it all together and you have 'America...a Democratic, Communist
Nation Under God.' as the 'best fit ' equation.
And for dessert add 'politics as usual' and we can see nothing
substantive will be done in the US to fix our energy woes until it is
too late. (Really it can't be fixed, we can only slowed down the
inevitable at this point.)
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
BTW, do I like communism?
No, I like things EXACTLY as they are.
But what I like doesn't matter...neither does what you like matter.
That's the point, for the US to survive, we must put 'what matters to
our country' on the front burner.
And as our country survives so do we survive.
Alan Watts used to say, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't
matter what you like, it doesn't matter what you hope for...all that
really matters is what IS.
Sure we keep our treasured paper money, our guns, and what have you.
The atheists can still be atheists and the Christians, Muslims and
Jews can still worship as they like...that is why we would be a free
democracy...of sorts.
But the difference is, instead of the ego based decisions that
politicians and the titans of business get sucked into, they will put
the long term viability as top priority over personal profit. We must
all pull together and stop pulling in counterproductive directions.
The gov needs to cut the fat and stop all this foolish sickness that
they are addicted to in Washington. Hire yourself some truth based
philosophers as Socrates suggested in the Republic as an oversight
committee to keep you guys on track. And if you want someone that
'stinks of truth' get my verdict on the subject. Does that mean I am
perfect and live a perfect life? No, but the contemplative life finds
it joy in discovering truth and I do the best I can.
One important thing would be to add an addendum to the constitution or
bill oof rights or whatever other documents that outlines what we are
'now' all about...something that is clear advice that we can all look
to and not the 1000 page BS that politician use to hide their
sickness. Yes,...hiding behavior is a signpost of die-ease. And put it
right upfront in the addendum as to why things changed...we were
energy whores and had no other choice.
But realize this, throughout history many great nations that once were
are not around any longer. Hopefully the US will understand this and
start accepting the truth that something has to give and it can't be
business as usual. it doesn't matter what you like, it doesn't matter
what you hope for...all that really matters is what is.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
.
|
|
|
| User: "mdj" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
15 Oct 2007 01:40:30 AM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 11:35 am, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
Am I as Christian zealot?
No, I am an agnostic freethinker.
Incorrect. You cannot be agnostic and a freethinker, it's a
contradiction in terms.
More likely, you're a freethinker who has decided to push himself as
an agnostic as you think that terminology will make you less
confrontational to Christians.
Which in my book (LOL), makes you an obscurantist and a liar.
If 'spiritual values' matter so much to you, why not chant for one
that supports *your* values?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mdj" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
15 Oct 2007 01:43:30 AM |
|
|
On Oct 14, 11:35 am, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?
Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.
The word you are looking for: Fascism
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
13 Oct 2007 08:38:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:35:39 -0000, in alt.atheism
V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote in
<1192325739.049228.52880@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 12:47?pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
America...a Democratic, Communist Nation Under God....I think that
will be our future. I would not worry about Iraq so much. The oil is
flowing, so just be grateful. After all we are all gas whores, so we
need out pimps to keep the biz running.
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?
Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second. But
with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a spiritual
foundation that supports our country would 'hopefully' separate us
from the atheist based communists that have been run as
dictatorships.
Am I as Christian zealot?
No, I am an agnostic freethinker.
It's best not to offer an opinion on something that you admit you are
ignorant about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
14 Oct 2007 08:04:17 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:38:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:35:39 -0000, in alt.atheism V <vfr44@aol.com>
wrote in
<1192325739.049228.52880@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
On Oct 13, 12:47?pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
America...a Democratic, Communist Nation Under God....I think that will
be our future. I would not worry about Iraq so much. The oil is flowing,
so just be grateful. After all we are all gas whores, so we need out
pimps to keep the biz running.
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?
Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second. But with
the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a spiritual
foundation that supports our country would 'hopefully' separate us from
the atheist based communists that have been run as dictatorships.
Am I as Christian zealot?
No, I am an agnostic freethinker.
It's best not to offer an opinion on something that you admit you are
ignorant about.
But the Vapid would have nothing to say.
(Then again, would that be different?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“It is one of the Christian delusions that Christianity
brought charity into the world. It did no such thing.
There were plenty of agencies for taking care of the
poor and helpless long before Christianity was heard
of, and even before Judaism. Both Christianity and
Judaism have converted charity into a sort of pious racket.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
14 Oct 2007 01:20:45 AM |
|
|
V <vfr44@aol.com> wrote:
America...a Democratic, Communist Nation Under God....I think that
will be our future. I would not worry about Iraq so much. The oil is
flowing, so just be grateful. After all we are all gas whores, so we
need out pimps to keep the biz running.
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?
Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.
A political system that despises liberalism, worships the wealthy
elite, is militaristic, and puts nation above people is known
as fascism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
13 Oct 2007 05:49:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
That is treason in my books.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
13 Oct 2007 08:07:21 PM |
|
|
In article <jpi2h3tdeprii3a5j628eej361k23asvrs@4ax.com>, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
While I agree he should have done more, criticizing him now contradicts
such an argument.
That is treason in my books.
Military officers are in a tough position. It is difficult for
military personnel to criticize the government.
But, right wrong on that front, what he says about the war and the
people running it is more interesting and relevant than him,
personally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
13 Oct 2007 08:23:26 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 9:07 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <jpi2h3tdeprii3a5j628eej361k23as...@4ax.com>, Michael Gray
<mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
While I agree he should have done more, criticizing him now contradicts
such an argument.
That is treason in my books.
Military officers are in a tough position. It is difficult for
military personnel to criticize the government.
But, right wrong on that front, what he says about the war and the
people running it is more interesting and relevant than him,
personally.
True. But I'm interested in seeing what the propoganda machine will
crank out now to try and discredit him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
13 Oct 2007 10:26:31 PM |
|
|
In article <1192325006.793563.243930@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Pr0r3p <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:07 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <jpi2h3tdeprii3a5j628eej361k23as...@4ax.com>, Michael Gray
<mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
"While the politicians espouse a rhetoric designed to preserve their
reputations and their political power, our soldiers die," he said.
And just as Bush and his cronies refuse to accept responsibility for
this incompetence, those who voted for him make excuses. How do you
people sleep at night?
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
While I agree he should have done more, criticizing him now contradicts
such an argument.
That is treason in my books.
Military officers are in a tough position. It is difficult for
military personnel to criticize the government.
But, right wrong on that front, what he says about the war and the
people running it is more interesting and relevant than him,
personally.
True. But I'm interested in seeing what the propoganda machine will
crank out now to try and discredit him.
Yeah - They will tell the simple minded that he is a łpracticing
heterosexual,˛ or a łcard carrying member of the ACLU.ł Or, maybe we
will find out his wife is a spy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
16 Oct 2007 11:38:27 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
That is treason in my books.
Unfortunately, it's *extremely* difficult to prove that the
President of the United States issued an illegal order, and even if he
did, the only recourse is for the Congress to try and impeach the
President.
You do know what it's called when a military general refuses
to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief, right?
"Coup d'etat."
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
16 Oct 2007 08:45:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:38:27 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
<elf@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
That is treason in my books.
Unfortunately, it's *extremely* difficult to prove that the
President of the United States issued an illegal order, and even if he
did, the only recourse is for the Congress to try and impeach the
President.
Extremely Difficult does not equate with impossible, especially as it
is his sworn duty to do so.
You do know what it's called when a military general refuses
to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief, right?
"Coup d'etat."
Not neccessarilly at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "•R L Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
17 Oct 2007 04:36:19 AM |
|
|
In article <87qah3pbifeq2jsqs48npnb0nl9pe2belo@4ax.com>,
mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:38:27 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
<elf@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:47:42 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
<davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/13/iraq.sanchez/index.html>
A former commander of coalition forces in Iraq issued a harsh
assessment of U.S. management of the war, saying that American
political leaders cost American lives on the battlefield with their
"lust for power."
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
That is treason in my books.
Unfortunately, it's *extremely* difficult to prove that the
President of the United States issued an illegal order, and even if he
did, the only recourse is for the Congress to try and impeach the
President.
Extremely Difficult does not equate with impossible, especially as it
is his sworn duty to do so.
You do know what it's called when a military general refuses
to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief, right?
"Coup d'etat."
Not neccessarilly at all.
** Indeed. Generals who follow illegal and clearly unconscionable orders
from their Commander in Chief are called war criminals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
14 Oct 2007 02:29:09 AM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 3:49 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
That is treason in my books.
Your statement indicates how little you know about the military.
While wearing the uniform, a soldier isn't allowed to criticize the
president. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which
says that any commissioned officer who uses ``contemptuous words''
against the president or other senior officials may be punished by a
court-martial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Well Worth Reading |
14 Oct 2007 02:59:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:29:09 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 13, 3:49 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
He should have done something about it whilst in power, but no, he
waited until he had none, and could do nothing but complain!
That is treason in my books.
Your statement indicates how little you know about the military.
While wearing the uniform, a soldier isn't allowed to criticize the
president. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which
says that any commissioned officer who uses ``contemptuous words''
against the president or other senior officials may be punished by a
court-martial.
He is not required to employ "contemptuous words" to plainly state the
truth.
You, yourself, display how little you know of the military by
suggesting that a court martial equates to a 'punishment'.
It is a military judicial enquiry, pure and simple.
Any punishment comes if and when the defendant is found guilty of any
charges.
Get an education please, before responding.
(Although I forlornly expect that you shall do no such thing, and in
its stead offer a vapid robotic knee-jerk reactionary lie, or lies.)
P.S. What was your rank?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
