| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Roedy Green" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2003 01:27:00 PM |
| Object: |
The Fall Of Clinton |
I supported Clinton all through the Lewinsky thing. I figured it was
no body's damn business who sucked the presidential ***** besides Bill
and Hillary.
However, lost my support rather late in the game with a cheesy little
act -- perhaps one he did not even actually do. He took a
chesterfield from the whitehouse that may have been part of the
Whitehouse collection. This is a crime I can understand. Everyone
has room mates move out and "accidentally" take your stuff.
The other thing he did was much more sleazy that getting a *****.
He arrange that people on welfare would be kicked off, BUT ONLY AFTER
HE HAD LEFT OFFICE. Some other president would end up taking the
flack. He'd get the glory from the rich folk who understood the bill.
Somebody else would get the tomatoes when those affected finally found
out what had happened.
It was an unfair bill. It is completely fair to push someone on the
street for refusing to work, but quite another to do that when they
are willing to work but there are no jobs to be had. The bill did not
that distinction. The poor are not responsible for whether there are
jobs. It in unfair to punish them for that failing.
Whether there will be sufficient jobs or not is immaterial. The bill
says SOMEHOW find a job or die. This will leave many with no other
alternative but to commit a crime to get in jail and get a square
meal. This is not a cost effective way of dealing with the problem.
We have a similar problem here in Canada with Republican wannabees.
All kinds of people wander the streets with signs "Will do anything
for food". Of course there are no takers. Lazy bums all in the eyes
of the government. The problem is made a somewhat worse since
sleeping outside in winter is often fatal in Canada.
But what is the point of all this: It is about how to dethrone Bush.
His supporters love him no matter what. He confesses to lying that
killed thousand of American soldiers, and they tell themselves, "The
president is a good man. He must have had some very good secret
reason for doing that he could not tell us now."
What they need is something very MINOR -- like cheating at golf, that
won't be so at odds with their internal model of what the president is
like. That might seep through their armour of denial.
The was a local conservative TV commentator who was hawkish on Iraq
until the looting of the Baghdad museum. That was IT for her. You
never know what will be the thing that triggers the outrage, that
penetrates the denial. Keep trying new things, including very minor
things.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
| User: "MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 08:38:30 PM |
|
|
In article see mindprod.com wrote:
I supported Clinton all through
...
However, lost my support rather late in the game with a cheesy little
act -- perhaps one he did not even actually do. He took a
chesterfield from the whitehouse that may have been part of the
Whitehouse collection. This is a crime I can understand.
...
Clinton need only be remembered for three things
which he factually DID do:
1. Grant Clemancy to Convicted Terrorists who murdered American Citizens
2. Vandalize the White House.
3. Dare us to stop him.
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton.
For your Culture of Lawlessness
which put Terrorists and their Evil on National TV
while putting legitimate business enterprise in court.
This is Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eltanin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 04:58:07 PM |
|
|
Lewinsky versus Americans dying every day for a war
to make the middle east safer for Haliburton,,,
Yeah all those petty things to quibble about in the roaring 90's.
No surprise folks like to try and tarnish those good times to
make the present seem better.,,,
In article <b3m4svgtljtpq1ol6fg9rkf0qgq54n59rp@4ax.com>, Roedy Green
<roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote:
I supported Clinton all through the Lewinsky thing. I figured it was
no body's damn business who sucked the presidential ***** besides Bill
and Hillary.
However, lost my support rather late in the game with a cheesy little
act -- perhaps one he did not even actually do. He took a
chesterfield from the whitehouse that may have been part of the
Whitehouse collection. This is a crime I can understand. Everyone
has room mates move out and "accidentally" take your stuff.
The other thing he did was much more sleazy that getting a *****.
He arrange that people on welfare would be kicked off, BUT ONLY AFTER
HE HAD LEFT OFFICE. Some other president would end up taking the
flack. He'd get the glory from the rich folk who understood the bill.
Somebody else would get the tomatoes when those affected finally found
out what had happened.
It was an unfair bill. It is completely fair to push someone on the
street for refusing to work, but quite another to do that when they
are willing to work but there are no jobs to be had. The bill did not
that distinction. The poor are not responsible for whether there are
jobs. It in unfair to punish them for that failing.
Whether there will be sufficient jobs or not is immaterial. The bill
says SOMEHOW find a job or die. This will leave many with no other
alternative but to commit a crime to get in jail and get a square
meal. This is not a cost effective way of dealing with the problem.
We have a similar problem here in Canada with Republican wannabees.
All kinds of people wander the streets with signs "Will do anything
for food". Of course there are no takers. Lazy bums all in the eyes
of the government. The problem is made a somewhat worse since
sleeping outside in winter is often fatal in Canada.
But what is the point of all this: It is about how to dethrone Bush.
His supporters love him no matter what. He confesses to lying that
killed thousand of American soldiers, and they tell themselves, "The
president is a good man. He must have had some very good secret
reason for doing that he could not tell us now."
What they need is something very MINOR -- like cheating at golf, that
won't be so at odds with their internal model of what the president is
like. That might seep through their armour of denial.
The was a local conservative TV commentator who was hawkish on Iraq
until the looting of the Baghdad museum. That was IT for her. You
never know what will be the thing that triggers the outrage, that
penetrates the denial. Keep trying new things, including very minor
things.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 01:49:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:27:00 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
I supported Clinton all through the Lewinsky thing. I figured it was
no body's damn business who sucked the presidential ***** besides Bill
and Hillary.
However, lost my support rather late in the game with a cheesy little
act -- perhaps one he did not even actually do. He took a
chesterfield from the whitehouse that may have been part of the
Whitehouse collection. This is a crime I can understand. Everyone
has room mates move out and "accidentally" take your stuff.
The other thing he did was much more sleazy that getting a *****.
He arrange that people on welfare would be kicked off, BUT ONLY AFTER
HE HAD LEFT OFFICE. Some other president would end up taking the
flack. He'd get the glory from the rich folk who understood the bill.
Somebody else would get the tomatoes when those affected finally found
out what had happened.
It was an unfair bill. It is completely fair to push someone on the
street for refusing to work, but quite another to do that when they
are willing to work but there are no jobs to be had. The bill did not
that distinction. The poor are not responsible for whether there are
jobs. It in unfair to punish them for that failing.
Whether there will be sufficient jobs or not is immaterial. The bill
says SOMEHOW find a job or die. This will leave many with no other
alternative but to commit a crime to get in jail and get a square
meal. This is not a cost effective way of dealing with the problem.
We have a similar problem here in Canada with Republican wannabees.
All kinds of people wander the streets with signs "Will do anything
for food". Of course there are no takers. Lazy bums all in the eyes
of the government. The problem is made a somewhat worse since
sleeping outside in winter is often fatal in Canada.
But what is the point of all this: It is about how to dethrone Bush.
His supporters love him no matter what. He confesses to lying that
killed thousand of American soldiers, and they tell themselves, "The
president is a good man. He must have had some very good secret
reason for doing that he could not tell us now."
What they need is something very MINOR -- like cheating at golf, that
won't be so at odds with their internal model of what the president is
like. That might seep through their armour of denial.
The was a local conservative TV commentator who was hawkish on Iraq
until the looting of the Baghdad museum. That was IT for her. You
never know what will be the thing that triggers the outrage, that
penetrates the denial. Keep trying new things, including very minor
things.
How about some ideas......ya' know, ways to solve problems.
You can start on terrorism. I haven't heard one of the Democratic
candidates mention a plan they have to defeat terrorism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 02:34:04 PM |
|
|
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:n3o4svoi03c4fgdg58a8birqlfm762nbcm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:27:00 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
I supported Clinton all through the Lewinsky thing. I figured it was
no body's damn business who sucked the presidential ***** besides Bill
and Hillary.
However, lost my support rather late in the game with a cheesy little
act -- perhaps one he did not even actually do. He took a
chesterfield from the whitehouse that may have been part of the
Whitehouse collection. This is a crime I can understand. Everyone
has room mates move out and "accidentally" take your stuff.
The other thing he did was much more sleazy that getting a *****.
He arrange that people on welfare would be kicked off, BUT ONLY AFTER
HE HAD LEFT OFFICE. Some other president would end up taking the
flack. He'd get the glory from the rich folk who understood the bill.
Somebody else would get the tomatoes when those affected finally found
out what had happened.
It was an unfair bill. It is completely fair to push someone on the
street for refusing to work, but quite another to do that when they
are willing to work but there are no jobs to be had. The bill did not
that distinction. The poor are not responsible for whether there are
jobs. It in unfair to punish them for that failing.
Whether there will be sufficient jobs or not is immaterial. The bill
says SOMEHOW find a job or die. This will leave many with no other
alternative but to commit a crime to get in jail and get a square
meal. This is not a cost effective way of dealing with the problem.
We have a similar problem here in Canada with Republican wannabees.
All kinds of people wander the streets with signs "Will do anything
for food". Of course there are no takers. Lazy bums all in the eyes
of the government. The problem is made a somewhat worse since
sleeping outside in winter is often fatal in Canada.
But what is the point of all this: It is about how to dethrone Bush.
His supporters love him no matter what. He confesses to lying that
killed thousand of American soldiers, and they tell themselves, "The
president is a good man. He must have had some very good secret
reason for doing that he could not tell us now."
What they need is something very MINOR -- like cheating at golf, that
won't be so at odds with their internal model of what the president is
like. That might seep through their armour of denial.
The was a local conservative TV commentator who was hawkish on Iraq
until the looting of the Baghdad museum. That was IT for her. You
never know what will be the thing that triggers the outrage, that
penetrates the denial. Keep trying new things, including very minor
things.
How about some ideas......ya' know, ways to solve problems.
You can start on terrorism. I haven't heard one of the Democratic
candidates mention a plan they have to defeat terrorism.
Stop initiating Terrorism!
That way "payback" won't be such a *****!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 03:22:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:34:04 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote or quoted :
Stop initiating Terrorism!
That way "payback" won't be such a *****!
It usually a revenge spiral. Each act has to be repaid with a sightly
bigger one to "discourage" the other side. Of course it has the exact
opposite effect. THEY have to up the ante a bit to discourage YOU.
Read Axelrod on the Evolution of Cooperation for how negative and
positive spirals form.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/canadianmindprod
His experiments show a strict tit for tat strategy is most effective.
If the enemy backs off, you immediately back off. If the enemy hits
you, you deal him a precisely equal blow. The enemy eventually learns
it is in his best interest to play ball with you.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 04:07:41 PM |
|
|
"Roedy Green" <roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote in message
news:gvs4sv82kk7jperohvqmf7521gfb68jinq@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:34:04 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote or quoted :
Stop initiating Terrorism!
That way "payback" won't be such a *****!
It usually a revenge spiral. Each act has to be repaid with a sightly
bigger one to "discourage" the other side. Of course it has the exact
opposite effect. THEY have to up the ante a bit to discourage YOU.
Read Axelrod on the Evolution of Cooperation for how negative and
positive spirals form.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/canadianmindprod
His experiments show a strict tit for tat strategy is most effective.
If the enemy backs off, you immediately back off. If the enemy hits
you, you deal him a precisely equal blow. The enemy eventually learns
it is in his best interest to play ball with you.
Not sure if you understood my point, I suggest that to battle terrorism
we(us the US) stop initiating terrorism.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 09:17:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:41 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
Not sure if you understood my point, I suggest that to battle terrorism
we(us the US) stop initiating terrorism.
Ohhh we all understood your "point" just fine ...
The US is always to blame, the terrorists are the true victims - we've
heard it all before.
The problem is that you've completely ignored the simple reality that
the acts of those we're fighting now aren't in response to anything
but rather they are part of an ideology that seeks to destroy anything
and anyone who is different than they are.
Oh sure they'll point to specific incidence to try and rally their
followers, and clods like you will get suckered in by their
propaganda, but if the US completely withdrew from the world and did
nothing we'd still not be like them, they would still hate us and they
would still try to destroy all those don't fit their view of the
world.
Lie to yourself all you want, but at the end of the day the only thing
that stands between you being able to post your drivel daily and being
forced to kneel three times a day to east and pray as your told or
take a bullet in the head if you refuse is the unwillingness of some
to buy into you're psycho babble *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 01:09:52 PM |
|
|
"Paul" <nothing_here@4_you_.spammer.boy> wrote in message
news:53s6sv0v7p97ob97ksfi0mf0pc1tmejqd8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:41 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
Not sure if you understood my point, I suggest that to battle terrorism
we(us the US) stop initiating terrorism.
Ohhh we all understood your "point" just fine ...
The US is always to blame, the terrorists are the true victims - we've
heard it all before.
How'd you hear it with your head buried?
The problem is that you've completely ignored the simple reality that
the acts of those we're fighting now aren't in response to anything
but rather they are part of an ideology that seeks to destroy anything
and anyone who is different than they are.
BS!
* Bin Laden's goal: Get US forces out of Muslim lands, 1997 CNN video *
Arnett asks if bin Laden will quit the jihad if US troops leave Saudi
Arabia. Bin Laden replies US troops must leave Arabia and the rest of the
Muslim world. "... we have declared jihad against the US, because in our
religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted
to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim
countries."
So Bin Laden's goal was to get US military forces out of Muslim lands. He
does not say he wants to destroy America. He just wants us to go away, much
like we wanted the British to go away in 1776.
Oh sure they'll point to specific incidence to try and rally their
followers, and clods like you will get suckered in by their
propaganda, but if the US completely withdrew from the world and did
nothing we'd still not be like them, they would still hate us and they
would still try to destroy all those don't fit their view of the
world.
Sounds more like you hate them.
Lie to yourself all you want, but at the end of the day the only thing
that stands between you being able to post your drivel daily and being
forced to kneel three times a day to east and pray as your told or
take a bullet in the head if you refuse is the unwillingness of some
to buy into you're psycho babble *****.
LOL so says the most recent Religious Right propaganda!
Dude, catch a clue!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 01:20:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:09:52 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"Paul" <nothing_here@4_you_.spammer.boy> wrote in message
news:53s6sv0v7p97ob97ksfi0mf0pc1tmejqd8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:41 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
Not sure if you understood my point, I suggest that to battle terrorism
we(us the US) stop initiating terrorism.
Ohhh we all understood your "point" just fine ...
The US is always to blame, the terrorists are the true victims - we've
heard it all before.
How'd you hear it with your head buried?
The problem is that you've completely ignored the simple reality that
the acts of those we're fighting now aren't in response to anything
but rather they are part of an ideology that seeks to destroy anything
and anyone who is different than they are.
BS!
* Bin Laden's goal: Get US forces out of Muslim lands, 1997 CNN video *
Arnett asks if bin Laden will quit the jihad if US troops leave Saudi
Arabia. Bin Laden replies US troops must leave Arabia and the rest of the
Muslim world. "... we have declared jihad against the US, because in our
religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted
to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim
countries."
So Bin Laden's goal was to get US military forces out of Muslim lands. He
does not say he wants to destroy America. He just wants us to go away, much
like we wanted the British to go away in 1776.
He was elected by no one to represent everyone.
He is just a murderer, and not a legitimate representative.
He has declared war on civilization, itself.
Oh sure they'll point to specific incidence to try and rally their
followers, and clods like you will get suckered in by their
propaganda, but if the US completely withdrew from the world and did
nothing we'd still not be like them, they would still hate us and they
would still try to destroy all those don't fit their view of the
world.
Sounds more like you hate them.
Lie to yourself all you want, but at the end of the day the only thing
that stands between you being able to post your drivel daily and being
forced to kneel three times a day to east and pray as your told or
take a bullet in the head if you refuse is the unwillingness of some
to buy into you're psycho babble *****.
LOL so says the most recent Religious Right propaganda!
Dude, catch a clue!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 10:53:21 PM |
|
|
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:3qa7svsp7ufknhs3t5ulmudl7rcm2nouoh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:09:52 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"Paul" <nothing_here@4_you_.spammer.boy> wrote in message
news:53s6sv0v7p97ob97ksfi0mf0pc1tmejqd8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:41 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
Not sure if you understood my point, I suggest that to battle
terrorism
we(us the US) stop initiating terrorism.
Ohhh we all understood your "point" just fine ...
The US is always to blame, the terrorists are the true victims - we've
heard it all before.
How'd you hear it with your head buried?
The problem is that you've completely ignored the simple reality that
the acts of those we're fighting now aren't in response to anything
but rather they are part of an ideology that seeks to destroy anything
and anyone who is different than they are.
BS!
* Bin Laden's goal: Get US forces out of Muslim lands, 1997 CNN video *
Arnett asks if bin Laden will quit the jihad if US troops leave Saudi
Arabia. Bin Laden replies US troops must leave Arabia and the rest of
the
Muslim world. "... we have declared jihad against the US, because in our
religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one
exalted
to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim
countries."
So Bin Laden's goal was to get US military forces out of Muslim lands.
He
does not say he wants to destroy America. He just wants us to go away,
much
like we wanted the British to go away in 1776.
He was elected by no one to represent everyone.
Nor were the founding fathers!
He is just a murderer, and not a legitimate representative.
Sounds like what the King said about the founding fathers!
He has declared war on civilization, itself.
No, that was shrub!
Oh sure they'll point to specific incidence to try and rally their
followers, and clods like you will get suckered in by their
propaganda, but if the US completely withdrew from the world and did
nothing we'd still not be like them, they would still hate us and they
would still try to destroy all those don't fit their view of the
world.
Sounds more like you hate them.
Lie to yourself all you want, but at the end of the day the only thing
that stands between you being able to post your drivel daily and being
forced to kneel three times a day to east and pray as your told or
take a bullet in the head if you refuse is the unwillingness of some
to buy into you're psycho babble *****.
LOL so says the most recent Religious Right propaganda!
Dude, catch a clue!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hogans Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 03:00:01 PM |
|
|
Here's a cheerful little earful from The Frog:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:09:52 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"Paul" <nothing_here@4_you_.spammer.boy> wrote in message
news:53s6sv0v7p97ob97ksfi0mf0pc1tmejqd8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:07:41 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
Not sure if you understood my point, I suggest that to battle
terrorism we(us the US) stop initiating terrorism.
Ohhh we all understood your "point" just fine ...
The US is always to blame, the terrorists are the true victims -
we've heard it all before.
How'd you hear it with your head buried?
The problem is that you've completely ignored the simple reality
that the acts of those we're fighting now aren't in response to
anything but rather they are part of an ideology that seeks to
destroy anything and anyone who is different than they are.
BS!
* Bin Laden's goal: Get US forces out of Muslim lands, 1997 CNN video
*
Arnett asks if bin Laden will quit the jihad if US troops leave Saudi
Arabia. Bin Laden replies US troops must leave Arabia and the rest of
the Muslim world. "... we have declared jihad against the US, because
in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the
one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away
from all Muslim countries."
So Bin Laden's goal was to get US military forces out of Muslim lands.
He does not say he wants to destroy America. He just wants us to go
away, much like we wanted the British to go away in 1776.
He was elected by no one to represent everyone.
He is just a murderer, and not a legitimate representative.
He has declared war on civilization, itself.
Now I *know* you're talking about Bush! LOL
Hogan out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 01:46:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:09:52 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
How'd you hear it with your head buried?
Judging by the content of your posts, it's you that need help
extracting your head out of your *****.
* Bin Laden's goal: Get US forces out of Muslim lands, 1997 CNN video *
You know it's really sad enough that there are whole parts of the
world where information is restricted to the general public and
they're raised to believe certain things - those people you have to
feel sorry for ...
But you, what is your excuse?
Bin Laden says? So now we take the word of bin Laden at face value do
we? So when a rapist says he did it 'cause the ***** was asking for
it - that covers him as well?
So tell me then, before US troops were in Saudi Arabia and bin laden
was carrying the banner of Islamic extremism - what was the excuse
that Abu Nidal used for his attacks on American's? What was Libya and
Iraq's excuse for funding ANO supporting terrorist's activities aimed
at American's during the 80's? What about Syria, Libya and Black
September in the 70's?
What US policy is responsible for the attacks in India the past 100
years or so? What excuse do they use when they engage is wholesale
slaughter of African's who refuse to convert?
Look around the world you moron, the people we're going after haven't
just been attacking Americans they're attacking everyone and anyone
who is different using the same methods and using any rationalization
they need to in order to justify actions and they've been doing it for
decades and loooooong before bin Laden decide to use the presence of
Americans in Muslim countries as this decades excuse.
We're bearing the brunt of the fighting because we've started fighting
back now, but if you think that this an American -vs the radicals then
you just haven't been paying attention the past 50 years.
If you don't understand that Bin Laden's comments are intended for
propagandizing certain people and not worth the time it takes to
listen to them, if you don't understand this is a global problem that
affects many countries and cultures, that it is a problem that has
existed for decades and Bin Laden will say anything to justify what he
does, just as his predecessors did...
If you don't understand that they hate you as much as they hate me and
much as they hate the Jews, as much as they hate the Hindus, as much
as they hate the capitalists and the socialist and they kill us all
given the chance and they will ALWAYS find an excuse for what they do
until they've created the world they want.
Then you don't understand anything and are worth the effort to talk
to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 11:11:50 PM |
|
|
"Paul" <nothing_here@4_you_.spammer.boy> wrote in message
news:aia7svgei2desh9cg70tk83fl6k22e8ifq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:09:52 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
How'd you hear it with your head buried?
Judging by the content of your posts, it's you that need help
extracting your head out of your *****.
Doctor heal thyself!
* Bin Laden's goal: Get US forces out of Muslim lands, 1997 CNN video *
You know it's really sad enough that there are whole parts of the
world where information is restricted to the general public and
they're raised to believe certain things - those people you have to
feel sorry for ...
But you, what is your excuse?
Your babbling. If you are going to spew propaganda, try and be coherent!
Bin Laden says? So now we take the word of bin Laden at face value do
we?
D"W"LIE and his threat of the Mushroom cloud is credible?
So when a rapist says he did it 'cause the ***** was asking for
it - that covers him as well?
No but I'm sure that you bought the LIE that shrub lied about his arrest
record to protect his drunk daughters.
So tell me then, before US troops were in Saudi Arabia and bin laden
was carrying the banner of Islamic extremism - what was the excuse
that Abu Nidal used for his attacks on American's? What was Libya and
Iraq's excuse for funding ANO supporting terrorist's activities aimed
at American's during the 80's? What about Syria, Libya and Black
September in the 70's?
What was the excuse for iran contra?
What US policy is responsible for the attacks in India the past 100
years or so? What excuse do they use when they engage is wholesale
slaughter of African's who refuse to convert?
You need to be more specific, 100 years is a long time!
Look around the world you moron, the people we're going after haven't
just been attacking Americans they're attacking everyone and anyone
who is different using the same methods and using any rationalization
they need to in order to justify actions and they've been doing it for
decades and loooooong before bin Laden decide to use the presence of
Americans in Muslim countries as this decades excuse.
*****, the problem was strarted On the 29th November, 1947.
We're bearing the brunt of the fighting because we've started fighting
back now, but if you think that this an American -vs the radicals then
you just haven't been paying attention the past 50 years.
If you don't understand that Bin Laden's comments are intended for
propagandizing certain people and not worth the time it takes to
listen to them,
Just as yours are.
if you don't understand this is a global problem that
affects many countries and cultures, that it is a problem that has
existed for decades and Bin Laden will say anything to justify what he
does, just as his predecessors did...
You're the one that fails to understand the root of the problem.
If you don't understand that they hate you as much as they hate me and
much as they hate the Jews, as much as they hate the Hindus, as much
as they hate the capitalists and the socialist and they kill us all
given the chance and they will ALWAYS find an excuse for what they do
until they've created the world they want.
Funny but I know many Muslims and haven't been killed yet!
Then you don't understand anything and are worth the effort to talk
to.
Because I won't accept you propaganda, oh well I really didn't expect you to
be able to
debate honestly!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 02:04:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:49:19 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
How about some ideas......ya' know, ways to solve problems.
You can start on terrorism. I haven't heard one of the Democratic
candidates mention a plan they have to defeat terrorism.
My solution is this. First you get into the heads of the terrorists
and figure out WHY they are willing to blow themselves up. What are
they REALLY thinking that made them do that?
Just what injustices or evils do they think they are correcting? This
requires incredible mental discipline. In your anger, it is so easy
to paint silly motivations on them to discredit them.
Then you start treating everyone fairly, friend and enemy alike. No
point in giving your enemies more fuel to besmirch your reputation.
We know the Bush approach, which is copied straight from Israel, does
not work. We should be looking instead to places where terrorism was
successfully curbed, e.g. Northern Ireland, and copy what they did.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 02:17:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:04:28 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:49:19 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
How about some ideas......ya' know, ways to solve problems.
You can start on terrorism. I haven't heard one of the Democratic
candidates mention a plan they have to defeat terrorism.
My solution is this. First you get into the heads of the terrorists
and figure out WHY they are willing to blow themselves up. What are
they REALLY thinking that made them do that?
Just what injustices or evils do they think they are correcting? This
requires incredible mental discipline. In your anger, it is so easy
to paint silly motivations on them to discredit them.
Then you start treating everyone fairly, friend and enemy alike. No
point in giving your enemies more fuel to besmirch your reputation.
We know the Bush approach, which is copied straight from Israel, does
not work. We should be looking instead to places where terrorism was
successfully curbed, e.g. Northern Ireland, and copy what they did.
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy. I
no longer believe that.
These people are willing to do what they do, not because of injustice,
but because they are indoctrinated into a culture of hate. Hate for
Christians and Hate for Jews. Ever seen the gov't textbooks from some
of these Arab countires?
With your "plan", you could have stopped the D.C. snipers. Just reason
with them.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 03:11:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy. I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 03:15:37 PM |
|
|
In news:tps4sv4erkgu89hst8dqtmhtgsvut22qlv@4ax.com Roedy Green
<roedy@seewebsite.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy. I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption.
The ->Jewish assumption? Really? It's a religious thing?
Or is it just that you're an idiot?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 09:45:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy. I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 07:49:51 AM |
|
|
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy. I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 07:59:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:49:51 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy. I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
Fine as long as they don't teach that others are pigs and deserve to
die and that they will go to heaven for killing the enemies of the
Catholic Church.
When that happens, I will agree with you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 01:03:54 PM |
|
|
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:f0o6sv0hncorq5635bjob6ticum1ksqr3d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:49:51 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy.
I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
Fine as long as they don't teach that others are pigs and deserve to
die and that they will go to heaven for killing the enemies of the
Catholic Church.
When that happens, I will agree with you.
Not that grand of a leap to murdering family planning doctors.
You see not ALL Islamic teachings go down the road that you describe, just
as not all Catholic teachings
go down the road that I described!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 01:19:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:03:54 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:f0o6sv0hncorq5635bjob6ticum1ksqr3d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:49:51 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the enemy.
I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
Fine as long as they don't teach that others are pigs and deserve to
die and that they will go to heaven for killing the enemies of the
Catholic Church.
When that happens, I will agree with you.
Not that grand of a leap to murdering family planning doctors.
You see not ALL Islamic teachings go down the road that you describe, just
as not all Catholic teachings
go down the road that I described!
Yes, but all of the suicide bombers are Muslim.
Yes, but all those who fly planes into buildings are Muslims.
Yes, but all those who dance in the streets when Americans die are
Muslims.
Now, what were you saying about Catholics?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Q Public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 10:51:32 PM |
|
|
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:oma7svcfisq4ttksusftr4cjtvq3tk50na@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:03:54 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:f0o6sv0hncorq5635bjob6ticum1ksqr3d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:49:51 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog
<jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the
enemy.
I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about
the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers
want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in
indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
Fine as long as they don't teach that others are pigs and deserve to
die and that they will go to heaven for killing the enemies of the
Catholic Church.
When that happens, I will agree with you.
Not that grand of a leap to murdering family planning doctors.
You see not ALL Islamic teachings go down the road that you describe,
just
as not all Catholic teachings
go down the road that I described!
Yes, but all of the suicide bombers are Muslim.
Yes, but all those who fly planes into buildings are Muslims.
Yes, but all those who dance in the streets when Americans die are
Muslims.
Now, what were you saying about Catholics?
The Muslim religion much like Christianity has extremists.
So lets say this
All family planning doctor murderers are Christian.
All Family Planning site bombers are Christian.
And we don't even want to go into the crusades!
Face it you are the one that hates and wants to eliminate the Muslim people.
Not the other way around.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Frog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
26 Nov 2003 07:18:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:51:32 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:oma7svcfisq4ttksusftr4cjtvq3tk50na@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:03:54 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:f0o6sv0hncorq5635bjob6ticum1ksqr3d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:49:51 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog
<jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the
enemy.
I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption about
the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers
want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in
indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
Fine as long as they don't teach that others are pigs and deserve to
die and that they will go to heaven for killing the enemies of the
Catholic Church.
When that happens, I will agree with you.
Not that grand of a leap to murdering family planning doctors.
You see not ALL Islamic teachings go down the road that you describe,
just
as not all Catholic teachings
go down the road that I described!
Yes, but all of the suicide bombers are Muslim.
Yes, but all those who fly planes into buildings are Muslims.
Yes, but all those who dance in the streets when Americans die are
Muslims.
Now, what were you saying about Catholics?
The Muslim religion much like Christianity has extremists.
So lets say this
All family planning doctor murderers are Christian.
All Family Planning site bombers are Christian.
And we don't even want to go into the crusades!
Face it you are the one that hates and wants to eliminate the Muslim people.
Not the other way around.
Really?
Why don't you ask the Waahabees.....or the Sunnis
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john q public" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
26 Nov 2003 09:31:13 AM |
|
|
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:rv99svkiv0lbip3kctolhlcafdirumbca4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:51:32 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:oma7svcfisq4ttksusftr4cjtvq3tk50na@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:03:54 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:f0o6sv0hncorq5635bjob6ticum1ksqr3d@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:49:51 -0500, "John Q Public"
<kysdaddy@putermail.net> wrote:
"The Frog" <jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:32k5svggorshbsb3uup4tkuui7d00tns2k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green
<roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:17:22 -0600, The Frog
<jmattNOSPAM@ticnet.com>
wrote or quoted :
Your 'plan' makes the assumption that you can reason with the
enemy.
I
no longer believe that.
That's the Jewish assumption. That's the British assumption
about
the
IRA. It is comforting, but it leads nowhere.
The Brits only saw improvement once they swallowed their pride
and
tried a radically different approach.
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is
of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from
the
other end.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you
were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Lifelong indoctrination......such as Islamic teachings.....
No, such as Catholic school the one that you cheap ***** RWingers
want
every one else to pay for you.
BTW I can speak to this as both of my kids are enrolled in
indoctrination
courses at the local "re-education "site.
Fine as long as they don't teach that others are pigs and deserve to
die and that they will go to heaven for killing the enemies of the
Catholic Church.
When that happens, I will agree with you.
Not that grand of a leap to murdering family planning doctors.
You see not ALL Islamic teachings go down the road that you describe,
just
as not all Catholic teachings
go down the road that I described!
Yes, but all of the suicide bombers are Muslim.
Yes, but all those who fly planes into buildings are Muslims.
Yes, but all those who dance in the streets when Americans die are
Muslims.
Now, what were you saying about Catholics?
The Muslim religion much like Christianity has extremists.
So lets say this
All family planning doctor murderers are Christian.
All Family Planning site bombers are Christian.
And we don't even want to go into the crusades!
Face it you are the one that hates and wants to eliminate the Muslim
people.
Not the other way around.
Really?
Why don't you ask the Waahabees.....or the Sunnis
What are you trying to tell me, that you hate the Waahabees......and the
Sunnis
as well.
No surprise there, big fella!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 03:45:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Gee, what a brilliant piece of analysis. They are not just like me,
or a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu because none of those people are
working on the same problem the terrorist are - the problem of how to
force the conversion of everyone to their version of Islam or kill
those they can't force.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Absolute nonsense. The suicide bombers do what they do believing
they'll be rewarded, not because they're driven to it. Until you
understand that and factor it into your fantasy view of the world,
you'll never be taken seriously.
You ridiculous assertions ignore more than a few pertinent realities
about the goals of those were fighting. Par for the course and those
on the left.
Man, you know in my most cynical moments I almost hope we lose the war
on terroirsm just so idiots like you can get what you have coming to
you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hogans Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
24 Nov 2003 04:30:08 PM |
|
|
Here's a cheerful little earful from Paul:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:11:12 GMT, Roedy Green <roedy@seewebsite.com>
wrote:
This whole we vs them stuff is based on the notion your enemy is of
another species working from alien motivation. That is simply
nonsense. They are just like you, but viewing the problem from the
other end.
Gee, what a brilliant piece of analysis. They are not just like me,
or a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu because none of those people are
working on the same problem the terrorist are - the problem of how to
force the conversion of everyone to their version of Islam or kill
those they can't force.
Ask yourself, what would have to happen to get you so mad you were
willing to do suicide bombing.
Absolute nonsense. The suicide bombers do what they do believing
they'll be rewarded, not because they're driven to it. Until you
understand that and factor it into your fantasy view of the world,
you'll never be taken seriously.
You ridiculous assertions ignore more than a few pertinent realities
about the goals of those were fighting. Par for the course and those
on the left.
Man, you know in my most cynical moments I almost hope we lose the war
on terroirsm just so idiots like you can get what you have coming to
you.
So what's your solution here, Paul? That we kill all 1 BILLION Muslims
because some of them interpret the Koran in this way? If so, can we also
kill the evangelical Christians who keep wanting to save my soul from
eternal damnation?
I'll go ahead and answer that for you - we're learning that $200B barely
makes a down payment on that process.
Hogan out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 10:37:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:08 GMT, "Hogan's Goat" <yeah@right.com>
wrote:
So what's your solution here, Paul? That we kill all 1 BILLION Muslims
because some of them interpret the Koran in this way?
Fortunately not all 1 billion Muslims believe it's their duty to kill
everyone who isn't like them, if fact those that don't are in as much
peril as the rest of the world.
We only need to kill the ones who are trying to harm us or inflict
enough pain on them to make it clear they're not going to win and
punish those who help them.
If so, can we also
kill the evangelical Christians who keep wanting to save my soul from
eternal damnation?
Quite a leap from wanting to convert someone to demanding they convert
and killing them if they don't.
If some Christian tries to kill you for refuse to convert, guess what;
that's exactly what the authorities are going to do.
And I got news for you - even if you don't like my solution, running
and hiding like the twits on the left want to do won't work either.
Better face up to the fact that we're at war - a war not over
boundaries, or possessions or any of the stuff that can be negotiated
over.
Your demise or theirs is the only way this war is going to end,
because that's the way they want it.
Pick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hogans Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 01:26:33 PM |
|
|
Here's a cheerful little earful from Paul:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:08 GMT, "Hogan's Goat" <yeah@right.com>
wrote:
So what's your solution here, Paul? That we kill all 1 BILLION Muslims
because some of them interpret the Koran in this way?
Fortunately not all 1 billion Muslims believe it's their duty to kill
everyone who isn't like them, if fact those that don't are in as much
peril as the rest of the world.
We only need to kill the ones who are trying to harm us or inflict
enough pain on them to make it clear they're not going to win and
punish those who help them.
If so, can we also
kill the evangelical Christians who keep wanting to save my soul from
eternal damnation?
Quite a leap from wanting to convert someone to demanding they convert
and killing them if they don't.
If some Christian tries to kill you for refuse to convert, guess what;
that's exactly what the authorities are going to do.
And I got news for you - even if you don't like my solution, running
and hiding like the twits on the left want to do won't work either.
Better face up to the fact that we're at war - a war not over
boundaries, or possessions or any of the stuff that can be negotiated
over.
Your demise or theirs is the only way this war is going to end,
because that's the way they want it.
Pick.
I didn't catch which branch of the military you're currently serving in,
General Armchair, but I don't see anyone wanting to run and hide.
What about listening to them? I don't think they gave NYC a new skyline
just because they're Muslims. There's something about us they don't
like, and we haven't bothered to listen to what they have to say. If
they find our way of life deplorable (which is not a great stretch of the
imagination, all things considered), why don't we try opening a dialogue
with them to see how we can come to an agreement about that, rather than
destroying an entire country? Why does Fuhrerpants automatically think
to send young women and men to kill and die? That's a rhetorical
question since I don't expect you to take Dim Son's personal inventory,
but maybe you could tell me the logic behind that as you see it.
One of bin Laden's issues is that we infidel Americans are on holy soil.
Surprise, surprise! ObL's gooooood buddies and longtime business
partners the BFEE did just that, recently and silently. Maybe we just
have selective hearing.
Hogan out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fall Of Clinton |
25 Nov 2003 02:49:54 PM |
|
|
I didn't catch which branch of the military you're currently serving in,
Sorry, my service days are 20 years behind me...
General Armchair, but I don't see anyone wanting to run and hide.
Really? Then you're not looking hard enough.
What about listening to them?
We have listened to them, but unlike you who only want to hear their
pathetic excuses for their actions we also hear them talking about
their desire to drive us out as part of their desire to create a
single Muslim state so they can carry their war across the globe more
effectively. We also hear their desire to purge the planet of every
Jew, Hindu or anyone else who stands in their way of their idea of a
perfect Muslim world.
The problem hear is we're all listening to them, but sack-less cowards
like you are only hearing what you want to hear - their pathetic
justifications and rationalizations.
I don't think they gave NYC a new skyline just because they're Muslims.
Of course not; because they're a particular sect of Muslim who have
perverted their religion and are using it to justify their murderous
activities.
There's something about us they don't
like, and we haven't bothered to listen to what they have to say. If
they find our way of life deplorable (which is not a great stretch of the
imagination, all things considered), why don't we try opening a dialogue
with them to see how we can come to an agreement about that, rather than
destroying an entire country? Why does Fuhrerpants automatically think
to send young women and men to kill and die? That's a rhetorical
question since I don't expect you to take Dim Son's personal inventory,
but maybe you could tell me the logic behind that as you see it.
You know I could go into a whole thing again about how your silly,
childish view of the situation depends on one's willingness to
completely ignore the activities of these maniacs directed not at us,
but at others around the world, in India, in Nigeria, in every part of
the world wherever someone threatens their expansion just at it has
been the case for decades...
But instead I'll point out the absolute irony of your ridiculous
suggestion as it stands.
Judging by your use of the language and the place you're posting from
chances are good that you live in a country that has laws preventing
any sort of legal discrimination by one person against another based
on race, religion, ethnicity or perhaps even sexual orientation.
You've probably supported, voted for and promoted "diversity"
programs, politicians and insist that immigrants from any country be
given access to your country and its benefits, even immigrants from
Muslims countries. You probably benefit daily from a culture, country
and government that stands diametrically opposed to what you've
described as the desires of bin Laden and his thugs...
And yet you want the very same government you live under to sit down
and negotiate some hypothetical peace and excuse the murderous
activities of those they'd negotiate with in order to allow them to
purge their nations of our presence and any other they don't approve
of and create places where one, only one, religion, race or ethnicity
is tolerated.
Even if we take your argument at face value and concede every one of
you points, that still means you're a person who's willing to subject
an entire part of the world to a vicious, tyrannical form of
government you wouldn't tolerate yourself, just so you don't have to
suffer any inconveniences. If that's not the definition of a coward,
I don't know what is.
I don't know whether to vomit at they thought that I might live within
a thousand miles of a puke like you or offer to take you side on the
condition that if we let them do it I get to take my guns and purge my
country of every freak like you and build my own perfect like me place
to live.
One of bin Laden's issues is that we infidel Americans are on holy soil.
Yeah well every time some homo or atheist walks buy my church the holy
soil there has been defiled IMO, every time my food has been touched
by some HIV infected creep in a restaurant or store my body has been
defiled IMO, there are people who think blacks are the physical
embodiment of Cain's sin and unfit to be in the same public space as
whites...
You going to allow us to start blowing people away until there's a
sufficient buffer zone between us as well?
Cheap, sleazy rationalizations that's all you and bin Laden have.
Surprise, surprise! ObL's gooooood buddies and longtime business
partners the BFEE did just that, recently and silently.
Not sure which incarnation of the BFEE you're referring to, but
history shows time and time again when you make deals with people like
bin Laden you're only delaying the inevitable.
Maybe we just have selective hearing.
No we about it buddy, YOU have the selective hearing. You only want
to hear the excuses they use and you're selectively filtering the
parts about what they plan to do AFTER we've "left them alone" and
hoping you can avoid the final expression of it and let future
generations deal with it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
