| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"nan" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2004 08:13:51 PM |
| Object: |
John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
Significant comments:
"Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany." Not very
idealistic, but realistic and rational.
"What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of
the John Kerry Democrats." The anti-free speech New Fascista!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why John Kerry is a disaster for national security
James Henry
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 20 September 2004
Under Democrats like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc.,
America was being prepared for defeat. Under a John Kerry
administration those preparations would begin again.
What John Kerry and his leftist supporters refuse to accept is that
American power is truly unique in that it springs from a country that
was born into liberty. This uniqueness, however, offers no protection
against aggression. Ultimately, therefore, America has to be defended
by brute force. This is a fact that John Kerry refuses to accept.
Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany.
John Kerry seems unable to grasp the simple fact that any treaty
between a democracy and a tyranny is only as good as the ability and
willingness of that democracy to defend itself. Clinton reduced this
ability and put America in grave peril. He was able to do this because
Democracies are dangerously pacific.
This means that once a democracy runs down its armed forces it can
become politically impossible to raise the necessary funds to restore
them to an appropriate level unless it has been directly attacked.
Even then, as 9/11 proved, a significant number will still oppose
retaliation.
There will always be siren voices telling us that there is no
foreseeable danger, which makes as much sense as saying that one
should try to secure property until after it is stolen. But this is
exactly where John Kerry stands. His twenty years in the senate was
spent trying to gut our defences and destroy our intelligence
agencies.
John Kerry's only complaint about Clinton's savage cuts to military
was that they weren't savage enough. Under Clinton something like
2,000 combat aircraft plus more than 232 bombers which comprised 20
air force and navy air wings were abolished.
The navy was also badly hit with 207 ships including more than 121
combat ships plus of submarines and 4 carrier groups being taken out
of service. The loss of these ships meant that their shipyard
facilities and the trained personnel needed to maintain them had to be
disbanded. But to John Kerry the cuts still did not go deep enough.
Now the same John Kerry who for 20 years used the fallacious argument
to demand that social spending should always take precedence over
defence spending, is doing it again with respect to the war on terror.
That this amounts to really arguing that defence has no social value
does not faze him or his media pals.
That the John Kerry view of defence spending is largely articulated by
the left and its media allies should come as no surprise. This is the
same group that considers America an exploitative, racist and unjust
country. The very same group Kirkpatrick aptly called the
"America-stinks crowd".
The disastrous consequences of the 1922 Washington Conference tells us
what happens when men allow good intentions to supplant political
reality. The Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty was to be renewed in 1922. As
an alternative, the US government proposed the Washington Conference
that would limit armaments.
With a little judicious arm-twisting the US government persuaded
Britain to abandon the Japanese relationship and sign a US treaty that
would limit the capital ship ratio for Britain, America and Japan to
5:5:3. In addition, no new warships over 35,000 tons were to be built
and a massive number of existing warships were to be scrapped.
The result was to break British naval power in the Pacific. There was
no way this ratio would allow Britain to maintain a significant
presence in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Indian
Ocean and the Pacific. Something had to give.
Thanks to this idiocy the British navy was severely weakened while the
American navy became increasingly antiquated. By refusing to prepare
for war America and Britain helped bring it about.
The rise of appeasement in Britain coterminous with the rise of
isolationism in the US persuaded tyrants that the democracies were
morally and militarily too feeble to fight. The results were Dunkirk
and Pearl Harbor. Not that any of this would influence the
historically illiterate Richard Danzig, Clinton's Secretary for the
Navy, and a man noted for his anti-defense views.
At least the men of the '20s and '30s were misguided idealists who
literally did not grasp the nature of the totalitarian threat that was
gradually taking shape in Europe and Japan. They really thought their
actions were contributing to world peace and avoid another "Great
War".
Unlike John Kerry these men did not despise their fellow citizens or
the military. But Kerry has made it clear that he does not care a fig
about his country or its military.
What brought John Kerry to his anti-patriotic state? More than forty
years of leftist ideology that left in its wake the insidious belief
that America is an unjust society that does not deserve to survive.
This belief pervades the media and the three main networks in
particular. Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for
Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of the
military.
What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of the
John Kerry Democrats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
| User: "Catcher" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
23 Oct 2004 08:42:33 PM |
|
|
"nan" <nanleecro@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.0410231713.5b1dd983@posting.google.com...
Significant comments:
"Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany." Not very
idealistic, but realistic and rational.
"What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of
the John Kerry Democrats." The anti-free speech New Fascista!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
Why John Kerry is a disaster for national security
James Henry
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 20 September 2004
Under Democrats like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc.,
America was being prepared for defeat. Under a John Kerry
administration those preparations would begin again.
What John Kerry and his leftist supporters refuse to accept is that
American power is truly unique in that it springs from a country that
was born into liberty. This uniqueness, however, offers no protection
against aggression. Ultimately, therefore, America has to be defended
by brute force. This is a fact that John Kerry refuses to accept.
Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany.
John Kerry seems unable to grasp the simple fact that any treaty
between a democracy and a tyranny is only as good as the ability and
willingness of that democracy to defend itself. Clinton reduced this
ability and put America in grave peril. He was able to do this because
Democracies are dangerously pacific.
This means that once a democracy runs down its armed forces it can
become politically impossible to raise the necessary funds to restore
them to an appropriate level unless it has been directly attacked.
Even then, as 9/11 proved, a significant number will still oppose
retaliation.
There will always be siren voices telling us that there is no
foreseeable danger, which makes as much sense as saying that one
should try to secure property until after it is stolen. But this is
exactly where John Kerry stands. His twenty years in the senate was
spent trying to gut our defences and destroy our intelligence
agencies.
John Kerry's only complaint about Clinton's savage cuts to military
was that they weren't savage enough. Under Clinton something like
2,000 combat aircraft plus more than 232 bombers which comprised 20
air force and navy air wings were abolished.
The navy was also badly hit with 207 ships including more than 121
combat ships plus of submarines and 4 carrier groups being taken out
of service. The loss of these ships meant that their shipyard
facilities and the trained personnel needed to maintain them had to be
disbanded. But to John Kerry the cuts still did not go deep enough.
Now the same John Kerry who for 20 years used the fallacious argument
to demand that social spending should always take precedence over
defence spending, is doing it again with respect to the war on terror.
That this amounts to really arguing that defence has no social value
does not faze him or his media pals.
That the John Kerry view of defence spending is largely articulated by
the left and its media allies should come as no surprise. This is the
same group that considers America an exploitative, racist and unjust
country. The very same group Kirkpatrick aptly called the
"America-stinks crowd".
The disastrous consequences of the 1922 Washington Conference tells us
what happens when men allow good intentions to supplant political
reality. The Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty was to be renewed in 1922. As
an alternative, the US government proposed the Washington Conference
that would limit armaments.
With a little judicious arm-twisting the US government persuaded
Britain to abandon the Japanese relationship and sign a US treaty that
would limit the capital ship ratio for Britain, America and Japan to
5:5:3. In addition, no new warships over 35,000 tons were to be built
and a massive number of existing warships were to be scrapped.
The result was to break British naval power in the Pacific. There was
no way this ratio would allow Britain to maintain a significant
presence in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Indian
Ocean and the Pacific. Something had to give.
Thanks to this idiocy the British navy was severely weakened while the
American navy became increasingly antiquated. By refusing to prepare
for war America and Britain helped bring it about.
The rise of appeasement in Britain coterminous with the rise of
isolationism in the US persuaded tyrants that the democracies were
morally and militarily too feeble to fight. The results were Dunkirk
and Pearl Harbor. Not that any of this would influence the
historically illiterate Richard Danzig, Clinton's Secretary for the
Navy, and a man noted for his anti-defense views.
At least the men of the '20s and '30s were misguided idealists who
literally did not grasp the nature of the totalitarian threat that was
gradually taking shape in Europe and Japan. They really thought their
actions were contributing to world peace and avoid another "Great
War".
Unlike John Kerry these men did not despise their fellow citizens or
the military. But Kerry has made it clear that he does not care a fig
about his country or its military.
What brought John Kerry to his anti-patriotic state? More than forty
years of leftist ideology that left in its wake the insidious belief
that America is an unjust society that does not deserve to survive.
This belief pervades the media and the three main networks in
particular. Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for
Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of the
military.
What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of the
John Kerry Democrats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
****
"I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I believe that the
future belongs to freedom, not to fear."
John Kerry
I think that sums up the major differences between the two canidates.
****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy" |
|
| Title: Re: GW Is A Proven Threat To America's National Security |
23 Oct 2004 09:03:29 PM |
|
|
"nan" wrote
Significant comments: None
Humph, so you're another which conviently forgotten 9-11-01. And don't
forget which Selected President was in power in the worst National Security
failure in history. This is the guy saying only he can protect the country.
No thanks, he has proven his failure to the entire world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spellbreaker Look into my eyes..." |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
24 Oct 2004 05:39:25 AM |
|
|
Significant comments:
No he is not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "conservozillarepublican" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
23 Oct 2004 08:21:03 PM |
|
|
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY IT IS A REPUBLICAN FORM
OF GOVERNMENT THE BRAIN WASHERS WANT YOU TO THINK IT IS A DEMOCRACY
WHICH IS ONE OF THE WORST FORMS OF GOVERNMENT CAN'T YOU REMEMBER THE
PLEDGE AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
nan wrote:
Significant comments:
"Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany." Not very
idealistic, but realistic and rational.
"What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of
the John Kerry Democrats." The anti-free speech New Fascista!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why John Kerry is a disaster for national security
James Henry
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 20 September 2004
Under Democrats like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc.,
America was being prepared for defeat. Under a John Kerry
administration those preparations would begin again.
What John Kerry and his leftist supporters refuse to accept is that
American power is truly unique in that it springs from a country that
was born into liberty. This uniqueness, however, offers no protection
against aggression. Ultimately, therefore, America has to be defended
by brute force. This is a fact that John Kerry refuses to accept.
Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany.
John Kerry seems unable to grasp the simple fact that any treaty
between a democracy and a tyranny is only as good as the ability and
willingness of that democracy to defend itself. Clinton reduced this
ability and put America in grave peril. He was able to do this because
Democracies are dangerously pacific.
This means that once a democracy runs down its armed forces it can
become politically impossible to raise the necessary funds to restore
them to an appropriate level unless it has been directly attacked.
Even then, as 9/11 proved, a significant number will still oppose
retaliation.
There will always be siren voices telling us that there is no
foreseeable danger, which makes as much sense as saying that one
should try to secure property until after it is stolen. But this is
exactly where John Kerry stands. His twenty years in the senate was
spent trying to gut our defences and destroy our intelligence
agencies.
John Kerry's only complaint about Clinton's savage cuts to military
was that they weren't savage enough. Under Clinton something like
2,000 combat aircraft plus more than 232 bombers which comprised 20
air force and navy air wings were abolished.
The navy was also badly hit with 207 ships including more than 121
combat ships plus of submarines and 4 carrier groups being taken out
of service. The loss of these ships meant that their shipyard
facilities and the trained personnel needed to maintain them had to be
disbanded. But to John Kerry the cuts still did not go deep enough.
Now the same John Kerry who for 20 years used the fallacious argument
to demand that social spending should always take precedence over
defence spending, is doing it again with respect to the war on terror.
That this amounts to really arguing that defence has no social value
does not faze him or his media pals.
That the John Kerry view of defence spending is largely articulated by
the left and its media allies should come as no surprise. This is the
same group that considers America an exploitative, racist and unjust
country. The very same group Kirkpatrick aptly called the
"America-stinks crowd".
The disastrous consequences of the 1922 Washington Conference tells us
what happens when men allow good intentions to supplant political
reality. The Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty was to be renewed in 1922. As
an alternative, the US government proposed the Washington Conference
that would limit armaments.
With a little judicious arm-twisting the US government persuaded
Britain to abandon the Japanese relationship and sign a US treaty that
would limit the capital ship ratio for Britain, America and Japan to
5:5:3. In addition, no new warships over 35,000 tons were to be built
and a massive number of existing warships were to be scrapped.
The result was to break British naval power in the Pacific. There was
no way this ratio would allow Britain to maintain a significant
presence in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Indian
Ocean and the Pacific. Something had to give.
Thanks to this idiocy the British navy was severely weakened while the
American navy became increasingly antiquated. By refusing to prepare
for war America and Britain helped bring it about.
The rise of appeasement in Britain coterminous with the rise of
isolationism in the US persuaded tyrants that the democracies were
morally and militarily too feeble to fight. The results were Dunkirk
and Pearl Harbor. Not that any of this would influence the
historically illiterate Richard Danzig, Clinton's Secretary for the
Navy, and a man noted for his anti-defense views.
At least the men of the '20s and '30s were misguided idealists who
literally did not grasp the nature of the totalitarian threat that was
gradually taking shape in Europe and Japan. They really thought their
actions were contributing to world peace and avoid another "Great
War".
Unlike John Kerry these men did not despise their fellow citizens or
the military. But Kerry has made it clear that he does not care a fig
about his country or its military.
What brought John Kerry to his anti-patriotic state? More than forty
years of leftist ideology that left in its wake the insidious belief
that America is an unjust society that does not deserve to survive.
This belief pervades the media and the three main networks in
particular. Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for
Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of the
military.
What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of the
John Kerry Democrats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
23 Oct 2004 08:39:18 PM |
|
|
nan wrote:
Significant comments:
"Another fact
WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!
--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas -- that says, fool
me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
http://www.diymedia.net/audio/mp3/tdntb-bushwack2.mp3
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
24 Oct 2004 02:58:40 PM |
|
|
GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla <patriot-for-cash@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aJDed.304878$D%.24835@attbi_s51>...
nan wrote:
Nan posted:
Significant comments:
"Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany." Not very
idealistic, but realistic and rational.
"What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of
the John Kerry Democrats." The anti-free speech New Fascista!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why John Kerry is a disaster for national security
James Henry
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 20 September 2004
Under Democrats like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc.,
America was being prepared for defeat. Under a John Kerry
administration those preparations would begin again.
What John Kerry and his leftist supporters refuse to accept is that
American power is truly unique in that it springs from a country that
was born into liberty. This uniqueness, however, offers no protection
against aggression. Ultimately, therefore, America has to be defended
by brute force. This is a fact that John Kerry refuses to accept.
Another fact that Kerry refuses to even consider is that America's
success in defending itself against potential aggressors can only come
from fear. Make no mistake: might is fear and it is fear that keeps
democracy safe. It is fear that keeps potential enemies at bay, not
treaties or grovelling to the UN or France and Germany.
John Kerry seems unable to grasp the simple fact that any treaty
between a democracy and a tyranny is only as good as the ability and
willingness of that democracy to defend itself. Clinton reduced this
ability and put America in grave peril. He was able to do this because
Democracies are dangerously pacific.
This means that once a democracy runs down its armed forces it can
become politically impossible to raise the necessary funds to restore
them to an appropriate level unless it has been directly attacked.
Even then, as 9/11 proved, a significant number will still oppose
retaliation.
There will always be siren voices telling us that there is no
foreseeable danger, which makes as much sense as saying that one
should try to secure property until after it is stolen. But this is
exactly where John Kerry stands. His twenty years in the senate was
spent trying to gut our defences and destroy our intelligence
agencies.
John Kerry's only complaint about Clinton's savage cuts to military
was that they weren't savage enough. Under Clinton something like
2,000 combat aircraft plus more than 232 bombers which comprised 20
air force and navy air wings were abolished.
The navy was also badly hit with 207 ships including more than 121
combat ships plus of submarines and 4 carrier groups being taken out
of service. The loss of these ships meant that their shipyard
facilities and the trained personnel needed to maintain them had to be
disbanded. But to John Kerry the cuts still did not go deep enough.
Now the same John Kerry who for 20 years used the fallacious argument
to demand that social spending should always take precedence over
defence spending, is doing it again with respect to the war on terror.
That this amounts to really arguing that defence has no social value
does not faze him or his media pals.
That the John Kerry view of defence spending is largely articulated by
the left and its media allies should come as no surprise. This is the
same group that considers America an exploitative, racist and unjust
country. The very same group Kirkpatrick aptly called the
"America-stinks crowd".
The disastrous consequences of the 1922 Washington Conference tells us
what happens when men allow good intentions to supplant political
reality. The Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty was to be renewed in 1922. As
an alternative, the US government proposed the Washington Conference
that would limit armaments.
With a little judicious arm-twisting the US government persuaded
Britain to abandon the Japanese relationship and sign a US treaty that
would limit the capital ship ratio for Britain, America and Japan to
5:5:3. In addition, no new warships over 35,000 tons were to be built
and a massive number of existing warships were to be scrapped.
The result was to break British naval power in the Pacific. There was
no way this ratio would allow Britain to maintain a significant
presence in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Indian
Ocean and the Pacific. Something had to give.
Thanks to this idiocy the British navy was severely weakened while the
American navy became increasingly antiquated. By refusing to prepare
for war America and Britain helped bring it about.
The rise of appeasement in Britain coterminous with the rise of
isolationism in the US persuaded tyrants that the democracies were
morally and militarily too feeble to fight. The results were Dunkirk
and Pearl Harbor. Not that any of this would influence the
historically illiterate Richard Danzig, Clinton's Secretary for the
Navy, and a man noted for his anti-defense views.
At least the men of the '20s and '30s were misguided idealists who
literally did not grasp the nature of the totalitarian threat that was
gradually taking shape in Europe and Japan. They really thought their
actions were contributing to world peace and avoid another "Great
War".
Unlike John Kerry these men did not despise their fellow citizens or
the military. But Kerry has made it clear that he does not care a fig
about his country or its military.
What brought John Kerry to his anti-patriotic state? More than forty
years of leftist ideology that left in its wake the insidious belief
that America is an unjust society that does not deserve to survive.
This belief pervades the media and the three main networks in
particular. Remember: 89 per cent of Washington journalists voted for
Clinton and everything he stands for, including the destruction of the
military.
What America needs right now is an honest media and a rejection of the
John Kerry Democrats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Significant comments:
"Another fact
A dysgenetic specimen from Bokanovsky's lab, the regressed primate squealed:
WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!
from Nan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "conservozillarepublican" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
24 Oct 2004 05:13:30 AM |
|
|
where are the manners your parents were supposed to teach you show some
respect he is still the president no matter what his downfalls are his
office alone demands respect you don't have to respect the man but you
must respect the office of president of the united states another fact
that the education system is broken down and a total waste of tax payer
moneyvote for vouchers a public high school degree isn't worth the paper
it is printed on they are turning the kids into homosexual
athiestscommunists crack heads
GW *AWOL* Chimpzilla wrote:
nan wrote:
Significant comments:
"Another fact
WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
24 Oct 2004 07:42:27 AM |
|
|
conservozillarepublican <tshaw9@houston.rr.com> wrote:
where are the manners your parents were supposed to teach you show some
respect he is still the president no matter what his downfalls are his
office alone demands respect you don't have to respect the man but you
must respect the office of president of the united states another fact
that the education system is broken down and a total waste of tax payer
moneyvote for vouchers a public high school degree isn't worth the paper
it is printed on they are turning the kids into homosexual
athiestscommunists crack heads
Where is the English punctuation your school was supposed to teach
you? We respect the office of the President, which is demeaned by the
idiot that holds it. If you were educated in public schools, you
would be an excellent case for the public schools to be broken, but of
course there is no single "education system". And only an utter idiot
could imagine (much less utter) that anyone could be turned into a
"homosexual athiestscommunist crack head".
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
24 Oct 2004 02:48:45 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<5h8nn0p5g3u7qn5u39k829m2kpioba0de5@4ax.com>...
conservozillarepublican <tshaw9@houston.rr.com> wrote:
where are the manners your parents were supposed to teach you show some
respect he is still the president no matter what his downfalls are his
office alone demands respect you don't have to respect the man but you
must respect the office of president of the united states another fact
that the education system is broken down and a total waste of tax payer
moneyvote for vouchers a public high school degree isn't worth the paper
it is printed on they are turning the kids into homosexual
athiestscommunists crack heads
Where is the English punctuation your school was supposed to teach
you?
Plonk on Bob! Bob pollutes the environment with arrogant fumes
emitting from his self-appointed superiority. You merely prove the
SNOTTY tyranny of egocentric pseudo-liberal, pseudo-humanist Democrat
elites - for whom John Kerry is the idolic icon.
You phoney liberals don't have to bother telling us you CARE about the
American people as fan your vanity by grandstanding on causes because
we know how you really treat us, what you REALLY think of us, and what
you REALLY want to take away from us. We hear it loud and clear in
the offensive manner which you choose and the convoluted reasoning you
use to "persuade" us.
Who in the frig hell would believe you to be anything but a
dehumanized leftist snot-bot spewing the same old leftover class
warfare (homophobia)cliches in the same old leftover antagonistic and
intimidating manner?
I knew you weren't human - just a politically and grammer correct
computer program responding to code words with prescripted cliches.
Isn't that what *LogLan* is all about? Both you and Nancy Rudins
respond like programmed machines - dehumanized artificial
intelligence.
from Nan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
24 Oct 2004 10:35:13 PM |
|
|
(nan) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote in message news:<5h8nn0p5g3u7qn5u39k829m2kpioba0de5@4ax.com>...
conservozillarepublican <tshaw9@houston.rr.com> wrote:
where are the manners your parents were supposed to teach you show some
respect he is still the president no matter what his downfalls are his
office alone demands respect you don't have to respect the man but you
must respect the office of president of the united states another fact
that the education system is broken down and a total waste of tax payer
moneyvote for vouchers a public high school degree isn't worth the paper
it is printed on they are turning the kids into homosexual
athiestscommunists crack heads
Where is the English punctuation your school was supposed to teach
you?
Plonk on Bob!
Plonk me all you want.
Bob pollutes the environment with arrogant fumes
emitting from his self-appointed superiority.
Nope. That's you, nancompoop.
I knew you weren't human - just a politically and grammer correct
computer program responding to code words with prescripted cliches.
If you want to think so, it doesn't much matter to me.
Isn't that what *LogLan* is all about?
No.
Both you and Nancy Rudins
respond like programmed machines - dehumanized artificial
intelligence.
Whereas you respond like dehumanized artificial iNANity.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
25 Oct 2004 09:18:27 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<krson0dq31c3ak0jt0aqub1funs81rum2r@4ax.com>...
Re Bob's snotty responses to those he deems as his "inferiors"
typifies dehumanized "enlightened humanistic liberal" attitudes. Bob
resents (my) intrusion into his "alt.education" where he presides as
"controller" who, as prime dissimulating apologist, defends leftist
agenda of the NEdA and the ACLU.
Reformation To Cure Systemic Academia's Curricula of Arrogance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3/25/2002 - Philadelphia
The New Age of Darkness
Thomas Jefferson and Voltaire, the two giants of the Age of
Enlightenment and champions of freedom, would weep at how their
movement has been perverted by the ruling and intellectual elites of
today. A new darkness is slowly covering the West that threatens to
end two hundred years of social progress for individual citizens.
In the corporatist environment of our age, the concept of the
individual citizenry is in danger of becoming debased to the point of
irrelevance. Individual voices are drowned amid the massive deluge
of amoral mass marketing, corporate knavery, arrogant academic
sophism, and petulant political and religious polarization. The goal
of corporatists is to remove the individual citizenry from political
power structures. As I look at the world today in 2002, I would say
the corporatists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.
Voltaire was a political agitator, man of letters, and polemicist who
usurped the official language of the royal elites and Christian clergy
of his time and returned it to the people. Before Voltaire, public
dialogue began at the elite level of society and filtered down to the
masses in controlled releases. Since most people were illiterate,
language was controlled by the elites, who created a self-promoting
mythology based on deliberate and insidious lies that served to
protect the power and authority of the elites over the people..
Voltaire shattered this control of language by voicing his doubt and
skepticism of the ruling elites in pamphlets and letters that were
distributed among the people. Since Voltaire wrote in a simple
language that common people could understand, his message reached the
people unfiltered. He took the arguments of the day directly to the
people and bypassed the elitist structures. His goal was to free the
people from tyranny through free speech, criticism, and doubt, the
main weapons unarmed and subservient people possess. Truth and
justice would set them free.
Voltaire would be horrified at the utter incomprehensibility of modern
academic obscurism and specialization. Modern academics are
self-serving sophists who have created a wall of intellectual
separation between academia and the people. These intellectual elites
in academia control language to preserve their power in society.
They do this by removing any linguistic commonality that once existed
with the less educated. They also control knowledge like it is a
commodity, exclusively dispensing it to their paying customers—college
students—and ignoring the educational needs of citizens unable to
afford or attend universities.
This academic elitism produces an educated meritocracy of degreed
individuals who further remove themselves from the general population
when they enter the work force. They become professionals or
specialists—doctors, lawyers, financiers, accountants, therapists,
professors, military officers, corporate managers, engineers, and
management and political consultants—who hide behind their
specialization, obscure professional jargon, and glad-handing
credentialing system.
They are the managerial class--the new princes and bishops of our
society--and have placed themselves in positions of power in every
organization, creating a bloated layer of technocrats and bureaucrats
that inhibits and often prevents organizations from working well.
Scientific management has become their dogma, and yet common sense
should be their first and foremost guiding mechanism. They are ill
prepared in their education in such areas as morality, ethics, and
civic responsibility. Blind self-interest and the perpetuation of
elitist structures are their causes.
Only these so-called "experts" are allowed to debate on public issues,
and only in their specific fields. Rarely will doctors argue law,
lawyers argue medicine, engineers argue education, teachers argue
finance and commerce, and so forth. Common folk, having no access to
the obscure academic language and jargon, have no place in any public
debate, and are therefore considered irrelevant. Like the Christian
clergy and royals of Voltaire's era, these modern academic elites have
destroyed the common dialogue and egalitarian spirit of democracy.
Voltaire wrote in a simple and pragmatic language that everyone—common
or elite—could read and understand. Yet today even the academic
writings about Voltaire or Voltaire's work are so filled with obscure
jargon and incomprehensible terminology that no one outside academia
would want to read them, let alone understand them. Voltaire would be
both incredulous and indignant at what academia has done to language.
He would attack academia with the same acidic doubt and skepticism he
once directed at the royals and clergy of his time. Elitism,
regardless of what form it takes, is what he despised.
Thomas Jefferson, the diligent champion of individual rights and
outspoken enemy of tyrants, would fight to crush the immense power and
decadence of the corporate culture. Corporations have replaced the
nation-state as the most prevalent power structure in the world today.
Corporations are not democratic institutions like most Western
nation-states, so they have no responsibility or connection to the
people. Unlike democratic nation-states, which must debate openly
over every policy or law they create, a corporation can implement
policies without regard to their effect upon citizens. Indeed,
corporations often act like feudal dominions in their self-absorbed
quest to increase profits without taking into account the effect this
will have on local citizens.
Multi-national corporations are not bound by the rule of law because
few laws are capable of regulating the "free market" or "global
market" in which corporate power exists. So if one nation-state tries
to regulate corporate activity within its borders, the multi-national
corporation simply packs up and moves to a more favorable environment.
Corporations pollute with impunity; exploit workers in terms of
compensation and safety; slash jobs in high wage areas to move them to
low wage areas in order to increase profits; collude to fix the prices
of commodities, finished goods and services; pervert political systems
through gratuitous corruption and political lobbying; and in some
instances simply buy out dictators or entire governments in Third
World countries, like Shell Oil has done in Nigeria or many
multinationals have done in Mexico, Indonesia, and Pakistan, among
others.
All of this corporate amorality leads to a severe breakdown of
democracy and egalitarianism in the West; in the Third World it
creates chaos, anarchy and destruction on a grand scale. Jefferson
would therefore attack corporations as a serious threat to humanity.
The Age of Enlightenment is dying because those who possess the
intellect and drive to force change have sold out to corporatism. For
example:
Journalists are no longer independent voices, but instead are
corporate employees who must dispense the corporate creed to the
masses; indeed, nearly fifty percent of all newspapers, publishing
houses, broadcast media and magazines are owned and controlled by
twenty corporations.
Academic scholars are no longer independent because a vast amount of
university funding comes from corporations; to achieve tenure—and
therefore a guaranteed lifetime comfort level—university scholars are
less likely to buck the system in which they exist. Also, academia is
mired in confusing and irrelevant arguments and studies of political
correctness, gender and sexual identity, multiculturalism, historical
revisionism, and deconstructionism.
Think tanks serve to directly promote the interest of the corporate or
ideological organization that funds them, and therefore have no
connection or responsibility to the people.
Aspiring politicians fund their candidacy for office with corporate
money. Once elected, they serve their benefactors more than they
serve their constituents. Who serves the people? Who speaks for the
people?
The individual citizen only has power if he or she has a part in the
process of governance. Citizens need to be relevant in public debate.
When they become removed from the system, or are no longer allowed to
be part of the debate, they lose faith in their society. Worse,
however is this: if citizens lose their place in the power
structures, we no longer have a democracy.
Today the people are as far removed from the power structures as ever.
They don't vote because they know politicians no longer serve their
interest. They fear speaking out or fighting the system because they
are deeply in debt (their mortgages, car payments, and health care
costs soak up a majority of their cash flow) and fear losing their
jobs. They often feel trapped, powerless, and neglected by the
elites. They cry for change. They demand power. They want to be
heard. Yet they are not. Since no leader—corporate, educational, or
political—serves them, they despise the power structures surrounding
them. They no longer trust the government, corporations or the
educational system in their locale.
Today people often turn to churches and religion for guidance. The
only problem is that churches and religions are power structures not
that different from corporations or universities in how they
distribute power and control language to serve their narrow purpose.
Indeed, modern churches are corporations in terms of size,
organization, scope and execution of power. They control language
through the selective interpretation of ancient scriptures and holy
writings. They make the church and its leaders the supreme
interpretive power and leave people little—if any—room for doubt,
critique or debate; either one accepts and follows the doctrine and
dogma of a church or one is cast out in shame. Change is only
acceptable to religions or churches if it is applied to secular
institutions in society, and only then if it serves the self-interest
of the specific church or religion. Therefore churches and religions
are as anti-democratic as corporations.
Like Voltaire and Jefferson, those who are enlightened but haven't
sold out to corporatism must first usurp language from the power
elites. Language and dialogue must be returned to the people. That
is where language belongs in a democracy. Independent writers must
write in a clear, plain language that is informative and substantive
without sounding condescending or insulting to the intelligence and
values of the average man or woman. Writers must attack the power
structures in society with a deluge of doubt and informed skepticism.
Thinkers and communicators must cast aside self-interest and serve the
interests of all people—after all, without the will of the people
guiding them, no government or power structure has a chance to survive
very long. Since our present power structures no longer serve the
people, how much longer can we survive?
This is the goal of the enlightened. No longer should we sit in
obedient silence or sell our souls to the highest bidder. No longer
should we go along with the system if the system is corrupt and
decadent. No longer should we mire ourselves in vacuous
self-absorption and the unbridled, amoral pursuit of self-interest and
ego. We must define ourselves by how we can best serve the people and
not the power elites. No longer should we accept the present system
as inevitable or unchangeable. Jefferson and Voltaire didn't, and
look how much they accomplished.
The time has come for modern-day Voltaires and Jeffersons to fight for
what is right and what is just. If not, we are all doomed to
irrelevance and ultimately self-destruction.
journalofdoubt.com Matthew C. Scheck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jingo" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
25 Oct 2004 05:48:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:35:13 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
nanleecro@hotmail.com (nan) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<5h8nn0p5g3u7qn5u39k829m2kpioba0de5@4ax.com>...
conservozillarepublican <tshaw9@houston.rr.com> wrote:
where are the manners your parents were supposed to teach you show some
respect he is still the president no matter what his downfalls are his
office alone demands respect you don't have to respect the man but you
must respect the office of president of the united states another fact
that the education system is broken down and a total waste of tax payer
moneyvote for vouchers a public high school degree isn't worth the paper
it is printed on they are turning the kids into homosexual
athiestscommunists crack heads
Where is the English punctuation your school was supposed to teach
you?
Plonk on Bob!
Plonk me all you want.
Why don't you just plonk yourself with your Faux Brand "O'Reilly"
vibrator, Bob.
Jingo
***
"GOP officials who talked to Bush-Cheney campaign leaders said the leaders have grown more worried about Ohio, Florida and other key states where Bush
lacks a lead with just 10 days until the election. A poll by Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center, completed Thursday night, found Kerry
leading 49 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, with a margin of error of five percentage points.
One Republican official described the mood at the top of the campaign as apprehensive. 'Grim' is too strong," the official said. "If we feel this way
a week from now, that will be grim."
--The Washington Post, October 24, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57458-2004Oct23.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: John Kerry Is A Threat To America's National Security |
23 Oct 2004 08:46:12 PM |
|
|
nan wrote:
Significant comments:
More right wing extremist crap from one of our very own right wing extremist
Nan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
