Jack F. Twist > writes:

> America leads the world in only four things these days: murder
> rates, prison population rates, capital punishment rates and
> military adventurism. Even in GDP per capita we're currently
> sixth in the world:
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2004rank.html


Murder obviously aside (I'll come back to that in a moment), what's
wrong with any of those things?

Prison population rates? Yeah, so? I take it you'd rather have
those criminals out on the streets? I realize that liberals are
known for coddling criminals, but that's just silly. (I'm reminded
of the infamous "Treason Times" story about how the crime rate was
dropping, but the prisons [inexplicably] kept filling.)

Capital punishment rates? You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm
*for* capital punishment. Strap 'em and zap 'em, I say, and then
stack the bodies like cordwood. Introduce 'em to Joltin' Josie,
and let 'em "ride the lightning."

Military adventurism? The term is morally neutral in itself. And
I'd say the U.S. had (and has) perfectly valid and defensible reasons
for engaging in what you describe as "adventurism." (Oh, and by the
bye, you liberals didn't seem terribly upset when Clinton intervened
in Kosovo. Funny, that...)

("Adventurism?" That word sounds like an old Red Chinese polemic,
doesn't it? Something along the lines of "Khruschevian adventurers,"
or my personal fave, "running dogs of revisionism." Ah, well; I
suppose it was Mao or never...)

So back to murder rates. As someone else pointed out, I suspect
we're beaten by at least a handful of other nations in that respect.
I'm not terribly concerned about it, at any rate (heh).

But the question stands: Why do you despise your own country so much
that you're so determined to dig up such information, accurate or not?




Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message ...
>
> Jack F. Twist > writes:
>
> > America leads the world in only four things these days: murder
> > rates, prison population rates, capital punishment rates and
> > military adventurism. Even in GDP per capita we're currently
> > sixth in the world:
> > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2004rank.html
>
>
> Murder obviously aside (I'll come back to that in a moment), what's
> wrong with any of those things?

40% of our prison population are there for non-violent drug offenses.
Do you believe that's an enlightened approach? Giving drug users
free room and board at taxpayer expense?

There's never been a single formal study that shows capital punishment
deters crime. All it does is bring our society down to the same pea
brained, revengeful mentality as those we murder.

And finally, welcome to my bozo bin. Try not to wail and gnash your
teeth too hard when you're cast into everlasting hell upon your death.

Jack F. Twist > wrote:

> "Geoff Miller" > wrote
> > Jack F. Twist > writes:
> >
> > > America leads the world in only four things these days: murder
> > > rates, prison population rates, capital punishment rates and
> > > military adventurism. Even in GDP per capita we're currently
> > > sixth in the world:
> > > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2004rank.html
> >
> >
> > Murder obviously aside (I'll come back to that in a moment), what's
> > wrong with any of those things?
>
> 40% of our prison population are there for non-violent drug offenses.
> Do you believe that's an enlightened approach? Giving drug users
> free room and board at taxpayer expense?

That's not the problem. The problem is that these people can't be
paroled, so the violent criminals are getting early release. This is a
double hit - we pay to support prisons that are full of harmless
hippies, while the father rapers and mother stabbers are out on the
streets raping and stabbing.
>
> There's never been a single formal study that shows capital punishment
> deters crime. All it does is bring our society down to the same pea
> brained, revengeful mentality as those we murder.

Ignoring the fact that we occasionally murder an innocent man.
>
> And finally, welcome to my bozo bin. Try not to wail and gnash your
> teeth too hard when you're cast into everlasting hell upon your death.
>
>

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:16:25 GMT, Mark Nobles wrote:

>Jack F. Twist > wrote:
>

>>
>> 40% of our prison population are there for non-violent drug offenses.
Since when are drug offenses non violent. The people in the
penitentiary are not you grass smokers, nor the users of drugs.
>> Do you believe that's an enlightened approach? Giving drug users
>> free room and board at taxpayer expense?
Again not just users.
>
>That's not the problem. The problem is that these people can't be
>paroled, so the violent criminals are getting early release. This is a
>double hit - we pay to support prisons that are full of harmless
>hippies, while the father rapers and mother stabbers are out on the
>streets raping and stabbing.
What a bunch of B.S. Violent criminals are let out to keep harmless
users in ?
>>
>> There's never been a single formal study that shows capital punishment
>> deters crime.
You have never spoken to prisoners have you? But you are right, no
"formal" studies made.
> All it does is bring our society down to the same pea
>> brained, revengeful mentality as those we murder.
No,it removes the mad dogs from society.
>
>Ignoring the fact that we occasionally murder an innocent man.
Who, when?
>>
>> And finally, welcome to my bozo bin. Try not to wail and gnash your
>> teeth too hard when you're cast into everlasting hell upon your death.
>>
>>

--
Pan Ohco
I would like to see the bottom of my monitor, but I have cats.

In article .com>,
blnder wrote:
>
>It will not happen. Bush has set us back to the dark days of Reagan--
>and then some.
>
>And there's no more "voting out" nor "voting in" people. They are all
>one party- The Greed Party.
>
>We live in a country with NO opposition party. It is a joke. The
>"democrat v republican" debate is a charade- to make us think they care
>about us.
>
>And thank the U.S. corporate media (part of the problem) for not
>reporting any of this-- nor exposing it.
>
>An oligarchy. That's what the U.S. is now.
>
>Most Americans are too naive to grasp this reality.

Some hope remains: Primary elections! Where worse offenders lose to
challengers within their parties!
Do you get your butt off the chair or the driver's seat to vote in
those, especially in years other than one that is a multiple of 4 with a
second-termer in the Oval Office?

The good news that I hope catches on comes from *of all places* the US
state that has most of its land area sometimes said to be more like
Alabama than Alabama is, and as far as I have heard the only 1 of all 50
that has no lobbyist disclosure law covering all state politicians!

That state had a sneaky state government pay raise that raises pay of
those who had a chance to vote on it before they survived re-election
(which is against the state constitution), and did so in a convoluted way
that was convoluted ("unvouchered expenses") so as to have some chance of
being upheld by state supreme court judges (who also benefited from this
pay raise legislation).

Last November, a state supreme court judge who voted to uphold that in a
court case lost a retention election - second time in state history.
Another state supreme court judge voting in favor of upholding that pay
raise and being up for a retention election survived it by a historically
low margin.

But back to primary elections: About a dozen state legislators lost to
same-party challengers in these, including the top 2 ranking state
senators!

That state is Pennsylvania.

Oh, the top rank member of PA's lower house of legislative branch?
Survived - and I believe because his district is in Philadelphia.
What else about Philadelphia he
Biggest primary election challenge on the basis of incumbent voting for
this pay raise had the incumbent surviving by a few percent.
The Philadelphia one that looked most likely to go in favor of the
challenger (too close to call for a while and I did not check into late
official/final tallies) was mentioned in the newspapers as being decided
more by race than on the pay raise issue.
And the supreme court judge that lost the retention election had the
votes from Philadelphia being in his favor.
So much for Philadelphia being better than "more like Alabama than
Alabama is"!

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, Mark Nobles wrote:
>Geoff Miller > wrote:
>
>> Mark Nobles > writes:
>>
>...
>> > And they all exhibited a degree of hubris that led to their downfall.
>>
>> Therefore all empires will exhibit the same flaw?
>
>History has never produced a single counterexample. Every great nation
>has been reduced eventually. While past performance is not a guarantee
>of future performance, it is a pretty good indicator.
>>
>> Not that the U.S. is an empire, contrary to popular assertion. Leftists
>> love to play the "all empires fall, and America will, too" card. But it
>> doesn't apply to America.
>>
>> Countries with empires seize and hold territory and integrate the terri-
>> tories' economies into that of the mother country. While we've done
>> occupations, we've gotten out of them as soon as doing so was practicable.
>
>
>Gosh, I wonder if the Cherokee and Seminole and Iroquois Nations would
>agree with that assertion?
>
>> We've never held onto any more land in foreign countries than we've needed
>> to bury our dead. Having military strength and cultural reach isn't the
>> same as having an empire.
>
>Yes, you got something right. But US power doesn't rest on military or
>cultural strength, it is economic strength. The weakness of empire is
>that nations become dependent on wealth being imported from the
>colonies to the motherland. The US has been different in that we have
>produced enough wealth internally that we have not become dependent,
>and have, in fact, been sharing the wealth.

What? Say what?

How do you measure national wealth?

Most optimistically - growth in market prices of assets after paying
bills and liabilities? Discount major bubbles (like a major recent-year
housing one), and how much wealth did USA gain after discounting value of
assets for inflation?
USA has huge trade deficits! Consider how much money the USA is
exporting for oil and petroleum products, manufactured goods and cocaine!

I dare to hazard to guess that a majority of the USA's collective
individual income is in a group consisting of:
* Officers, directors, & named executives in publically traded corporations
* Government employees including law enforcement
* Anyone not named above fighting either side of the "war on drugs"
* Employees of government-owned corporations such as port authorities,
transportation authorities, government-owned bridges, "Fany Mae", etc.
* Financial service industry - tax advisers, credit/debt counselors, MORE!
* Lawyers and employees of lawyers and/or law offices
* Scammers, criminals, and those whose job is to catch them, and
* Employees of prisons and eployees and contractors and shareholders of
prison builders

Sure sounds to me like largely pie-cutters and a few to maybe more than
a few leeches!

Back when Japan was the latest "rising sun" and Reagan was still in
office, and with his presidency covering the awfully brief period that had
USA going from "world's greatest creditor nation" to "world's greatest
debtor nation", Japan and not China was the "economic enemy" (my words).
Back then, a columnist in one of the two major big-city-metropolitan-area
newspapers my way said something along the lines of USA producing
pie-cutters and leaving the baking to the Japanese! (I paraphrase whoever
that was here with condensation, although I do note a quip in that
relevant article being somewhat along the line of USA's response [to
economic challenges of the 1980's] to be producing a bumper crop of
lawyers! That columnist in that article saying that said that [with
wording that I cannot rember word-for-word about 20 years later] the
USA was shifting towards pie-cutting industries while leaving the baking
to the Japan!)

- Don Klipstein )

LucasP wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in
> k:
>
>
> >>>But what on spinning Earth does the British gecko mean in those tv
> >>>commercials when saying that insurance quotes are as popular as "pie
> >>>and chips"?!
> >>>
> >>>I have some fondness of British culture, accents and language, and
> >>>while I've heard of British cuisine as being, um, let us say ...
> >>>exotic ... I've never heard of "pie AND chips" as some kind of meal,
> >>>desert or side dish.
> >>>
> >>>Unless, does "pie" mean something different in English than it does
> >>>in American?
>
>
> Well....... DUH!!!
>
> Is the most used language on the planet 'American'...... or English??
>
>
> >>>
> >>>I mean I've enjoyed a Big Mac, fries and apple pie from McDonalds but
> >>>I never thought of the "fries and pie" as its own entity. "Burger
> >>>and fries",
> >>>sure, like "ham and eggs" or "eggs and grits" or "toast and coffee",
> >>>but "pie and chips"?
> >>>
> >>>-- Anglophile Ken from Chicago
>
>
> http://www.australianpieco.com/
>
> Go buy a pie and chips, and find out for yourself.
>
>
>
> I really wish these Yanks would stop thinking that their
> language/culture is the be all to end all.
>
> Here in Oz, if you ask for a pie, you get asked..... " What sort? Plain,
> steak and onion, steak and mushroom, pie and peas, chicken pie.... etc,
> etc."
>
> We all know that the namby pamby Yanks view a 'pie' as something with
> fruit in it, or maybe some tinned pumpkin (BLECH!!!!)......... but for
> fricks sake..... at least try to learn that not every country in the
> world speaks 'American', and not every country in the world has the same
> crap food that you do.
>
> A pie and chips is regarded as staple food in some parts of Oz (usually
> as a counter meal in some backwater Pub, but even so........).
>
> So...... Ken from Shitcargo........ pull your head out of your arse and
> learn about other cultures rather than sit there and slag off about
> something you know nothing of.
>
>
> BTW, my American wife was from Shitcargo...... no wonder I took full
> advantage of the Californian divorce laws!!
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Lucas
> Brisbane
> Australia
>
> At this spectacle even the most gentle must feel savage, and the most
> savage must weep.
>
> Turkish Officer
> 400 Plateau
> 24May1915


Takes hat off and bows to Peter ..... well said my freind

and what i want to know is where did the sexual references come from
....... when ever i have heard of pie and chips its always meaning a
meaty type of pie with fries...... the phrase as common as pie and
chips is meaning you can get it readily available .
You can not beat the taste of a great meat pie

tessa

Don Klipstein > wrote:

> Mark Nobles wrote:
> >Geoff Miller wrote:
> >> Mark Nobles writes:
> >>
> >...
> >> > And they all exhibited a degree of hubris that led to their downfall.
> >>
> >> Therefore all empires will exhibit the same flaw?
> >
> >History has never produced a single counterexample. Every great nation
> >has been reduced eventually. While past performance is not a guarantee
> >of future performance, it is a pretty good indicator.
> >>
> >> Not that the U.S. is an empire, contrary to popular assertion. Leftists
> >> love to play the "all empires fall, and America will, too" card. But it
> >> doesn't apply to America.
> >>
> >> Countries with empires seize and hold territory and integrate the terri-
> >> tories' economies into that of the mother country. While we've done
> >> occupations, we've gotten out of them as soon as doing so was practicable.
> >
> >
> >Gosh, I wonder if the Cherokee and Seminole and Iroquois Nations would
> >agree with that assertion?
> >
> >> We've never held onto any more land in foreign countries than we've needed
> >> to bury our dead. Having military strength and cultural reach isn't the
> >> same as having an empire.
> >
> >Yes, you got something right. But US power doesn't rest on military or
> >cultural strength, it is economic strength. The weakness of empire is
> >that nations become dependent on wealth being imported from the
> >colonies to the motherland. The US has been different in that we have
> >produced enough wealth internally that we have not become dependent,
> >and have, in fact, been sharing the wealth.
>
> What? Say what?
>
> How do you measure national wealth?
>
> Most optimistically - growth in market prices of assets after paying
> bills and liabilities? Discount major bubbles (like a major recent-year
> housing one), and how much wealth did USA gain after discounting value of
> assets for inflation?

Close, but you are describing income, not wealth. Wealth has nothing to
do with growth, but with the mere value. Even a beater car counts as
wealth, not just (as you would have it) the profit taken by the dealer
when he resells it.

> USA has huge trade deficits! Consider how much money the USA is
> exporting for oil and petroleum products, manufactured goods and cocaine!
>
> I dare to hazard to guess that a majority of the USA's collective
> individual income is in a group consisting of:

Here you even admit you are talking about income, not wealth.

[irrelevant examples deleted]

> Back when Japan was the latest "rising sun" and Reagan was still in
> office, and with his presidency covering the awfully brief period that had
> USA going from "world's greatest creditor nation" to "world's greatest
> debtor nation", Japan and not China was the "economic enemy" (my words).
> Back then, a columnist in one of the two major big-city-metropolitan-area
> newspapers my way said something along the lines of USA producing
> pie-cutters and leaving the baking to the Japanese! (I paraphrase whoever
> that was here with condensation, although I do note a quip in that
> relevant article being somewhat along the line of USA's response [to
> economic challenges of the 1980's] to be producing a bumper crop of
> lawyers! That columnist in that article saying that said that [with
> wording that I cannot rember word-for-word about 20 years later] the
> USA was shifting towards pie-cutting industries while leaving the baking
> to the Japan!)

You have a point here, but not quite the one you seem to intend. China
does have enormous _potential_ wealth. Huge, smart and educated
population and enormous natural resources. We could even use this to
predict that the next superpower will be China. But they aren't quite
there yet.

butterflyangel > wrote:

> Takes hat off and bows to Peter ..... well said my freind

No it is not "well said". It was ignorant, rude and bigoted. Ken asked
a question about the difference between American usage and English
usage. For _asking_ the question in order to _learn_ something, he was
berated to "learn something about other cultures". What do you think he
was doing when he asked about English usage?

Dave Frightens Me > writes:

[to Dave Hatunen]

> Dave, I know you don't like to interact in this stuff, but does it
> really bother you when this shit comes out?


He "doesn't like to interact in this stuff" because he's a leftist
asswipe to whom evasiveness comes more instinctively than being open
and up-front and telling the truth.




Geoff

--
"How is it that presumably rational people -- indeed, compassionate
people who weep over lost terriers and felled oaks -- blink not an
eye and shed not a tear over the massive brutality of abortion?"
-- Michael M. Uhlmann, National Review, June 6, 2006

[posted and mailed]

Jack F. Twist > writes:

> 40% of our prison population are there for non-violent drug
> offenses. Do you believe that's an enlightened approach?
> Giving drug users free room and board at taxpayer expense?

There's a bit more to being incarcerated than receiving free
room and board. I'm sure that if offered a choice, most con-
victs would gladly choose an opportunity to arrange for their
own lodging and meals on the outside, don't you? :^>

Furthermore, where is it written that only violent criminals
should be incarcerated? How about Ken Lay of Enron? Would
you have him go free simply because his crime was nonviolent?


> There's never been a single formal study that shows capital
> punishment deters crime. All it does is bring our society
> down to the same pea brained, revengeful mentality as those
> we murder.

Deterrence isn't the primary purpose of the death penalty:
*punishment* is. Any deterrent effect is a byproduct, merely
icing on the proverbial cake. That's why the practice is called
"capital punishment" and not "capital deterrence," in case you
may have wondered.

As Dennis Prager put it in his Nov. 4, 2003 column:

"And, in any event, the primary purpose of capital
punishment is not deterrence. It is to prevent
the greatest conceivable injustice -- allowing a
person who deliberately takes an innocent person's
life to keep his own."

In a way, it's unfortunate that the punishment (death) is the same
as the crime the commission of which typically leads to that pun-
ishment (murder). The less intellectually sophisticated among us,
looking at the issue superficially, will neglect to consider the
difference in context and will -- wrongly -- see hypocrisy.


> And finally, welcome to my bozo bin. Try not to wail and gnash
> your teeth too hard when you're cast into everlasting hell upon
> your death.

Ahh, this must be an example of that famous liberal tolerance I've
heard so much about.

I wasn't insulting to Jack, nor did I attack him. All I did was
hold and effectively defend ideas with which he happened to disagree.
And yet, in high dudgeon, he killfiled me when my only "crime" was
sticking to my guns and winning an argument with him. He seems to
place a high value on principle, but only when it's his own.

It would appear that the liberal reverence for diversity doesn't
extend to a diversity of views. Jack even predicted that I'd go
to Hell merely for having certain opinions. Even setting aside the
fact that most people with Jack's general worldview are atheists
(which is why they're typically moral relativists who reject the
notion of absolute right and wrong), that's pretty amazing. And
not in a good way, either. I find Jack's attitude more than a
little bit childish.

If Jack (and the two others who've announced their killfiling of
me during the course of this thread) had the strength of their
convictions, they wouldn't feel so threatened by challenges to
their own views.



Geoff

--
"So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent.
Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist."
-- David Harsanyi

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> [posted and mailed]
>
> Jack F. Twist > writes:
>
> > 40% of our prison population are there for non-violent drug
> > offenses. Do you believe that's an enlightened approach?
> > Giving drug users free room and board at taxpayer expense?
>
> There's a bit more to being incarcerated than receiving free
> room and board. I'm sure that if offered a choice, most con-
> victs would gladly choose an opportunity to arrange for their
> own lodging and meals on the outside, don't you? :^>
>
> Furthermore, where is it written that only violent criminals
> should be incarcerated? How about Ken Lay of Enron? Would
> you have him go free simply because his crime was nonviolent?
>
>
I would have him forced to disgorge all funds accumulated since he was
associated with Enron, and ordered to pay restitution to all the people who
lost their life savings, and sentenced to a few thousand hours doing
community service in government-run rest homes.

aem sends....

Geoff Miller wrote:
> ~* Magda ~* <> writes:
>
> > Not only you took your sweet time to come to "help" Europe,
>
> So let the other shoe drop: When do you think we should've gotten
> involved, and why? Germany declared war on the U.S. the day after
> Pearl Harbor was bombed, and that strikes me as a reasonable time
> for American involvement in the European war to have begun.
>
> Of course, we'd been supplying munitions to Britain for some time
> before that. Didn't know that, did you? In fact, a U.S. Coast
> Guard cutter on convoy escort duty even rammed and sank a U-boat
> during that period.
>
> You know, it's funny: these days we get raked over the coals pretty
> mercilessly for intervention. But here you are, saying that we
> didn't get involved soon enough. You encapsulate the incoherent,
> contradictory, and fundamentally irrational attitude of much of
> the world toward the U.S.
>
You really aren't naive enough to compare WWII with our current war of
choice?

We should be involved heavily in many countries, but Iraq is not one of
them.

Jack F. Twist > wrote:

>> 40% of our prison population are there for non-violent drug offenses.
>> Do you believe that's an enlightened approach? Giving drug users
>> free room and board at taxpayer expense?


Mark Nobles > responds:

> That's not the problem. The problem is that these people can't be
> paroled, so the violent criminals are getting early release. This is a
> double hit - we pay to support prisons that are full of harmless
> hippies, while the father rapers and mother stabbers are out on the
> streets raping and stabbing.

We obviously need to build more prisons, then. Maybe Halliburton could
be persuaded to take up the contract.


>> There's never been a single formal study that shows capital punishment
>> deters crime. All it does is bring our society down to the same pea
>> brained, revengeful mentality as those we murder.

> Ignoring the fact that we occasionally murder an innocent man.

Contrary to popular belief, "killing" != "murder."

murder, n.: the crime of unlawfully killing a person,
especially with malice aforethought

-- http://www.webster.com/dictionary/murder

So mistakenly executing the wrong person, while regrettable, isn't
murder: it's done neither illegally nor with malice aforethought.

As Dennis Prager explained it in the same column I excerpted the
other day:

"An innocent may be killed? Many moral social policies
have the possibility and even the inevitability of the
death of innocents. As I noted in a previous column on
this very issue, even if raising speed limits means an
inevitable increase in innocents' deaths, the greater
good of higher speed limits will still prevail.

"In fact, if preventing the killing of innocents is what
should determine capital punishment policy, one should
support capital punishment. It is the absence of the
death penalty that leads to more innocent people being
killed. When there is no death penalty, convicted mur-
derers kill other prisoners and guards; and, when these
murderers escape, they kill innocent civilians. If those
of us who are for the death penalty have blood on our
hands when the state executes an innocent man, abolition-
ists [...] have the blood of innocents on their hands
every time a convicted murderer murders again."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...04/170335.html




Geoff

--
"And finally, welcome to my bozo bin. Try not to wail and gnash
your teeth too hard when you're cast into everlasting hell upon
your death." -- Jack F. Twist displays Christian forgiveness

"ameijers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Peter A > blathers:
>>
>> : We're the most dominant nation in the history of the planet.
>>
> (diatribe snipped)
> Pax Romana came to an end, Pax Brittania came to an end, even Pax
> Sovieticus
> came to an end. Pax Americanus can't last forever. Sure, under current
> condition, the US military, and the US economy/culture can subvert or
> destroy anything in the world. Blowing something away is easy. Holding
> another country without destroying it is much harder.
>
> The finest structures in the world succumb to the lowly termite. Stone is
> eventually ground away by the wind. If and when the US falls, or merely
> goes
> lower on empire food chain like UK did, the odds are it won't be due to an
> overt outside enemy on an actual attack. It will fall like most previous
> empires, from within, from lack of money or interest, or from the social
> contract breaking down due to a marginalized middle class, a small
> uber-rich
> class of haves, and a honking big crowd of have-nots.
>
> (standard disclaimer- I hope it lasts till I am worm food, and I'm trying
> very hard to not contribute to entropy.)
>
> aem sends....
>
>

Ask Ozymandus.

Then American pop culture can subvert nations from within:

Behold the McD / MTV / Hollywood invaders!

-- Ken from Chicago

"Grizzman" > wrote in message
...
> ameijers wrote:
>>
>> Pax Romana came to an end, Pax Brittania came to an end, even Pax
>> Sovieticus
>> came to an end.
>
> now if only the PAX network would end!!! they have the WORSE show on cable
>
> Grizzman

I'll bite, which show is it?

-- Ken from Chicago

in article , Ken from Chicago at
wrote on 6/9/06 4:30 AM:

>
> "ameijers" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter A > blathers:
>>>
>>> : We're the most dominant nation in the history of the planet.
>>>
>> (diatribe snipped)
>> Pax Romana came to an end, Pax Brittania came to an end, even Pax
>> Sovieticus
>> came to an end. Pax Americanus can't last forever. Sure, under current
>> condition, the US military, and the US economy/culture can subvert or
>> destroy anything in the world. Blowing something away is easy. Holding
>> another country without destroying it is much harder.
>>
>> The finest structures in the world succumb to the lowly termite. Stone is
>> eventually ground away by the wind. If and when the US falls, or merely
>> goes
>> lower on empire food chain like UK did, the odds are it won't be due to an
>> overt outside enemy on an actual attack. It will fall like most previous
>> empires, from within, from lack of money or interest, or from the social
>> contract breaking down due to a marginalized middle class, a small
>> uber-rich
>> class of haves, and a honking big crowd of have-nots.
>>
>> (standard disclaimer- I hope it lasts till I am worm food, and I'm trying
>> very hard to not contribute to entropy.)
>>
>> aem sends....
>>
>>
>
> Ask Ozymandus.

The guy at the end of that great Avengers comic with the final defeat of
Ultron?

"ANIM8Rfsk" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Ken from Chicago
> at
> wrote on 6/9/06 4:30 AM:
>
>>
>> "ameijers" > wrote in message
>> ...

<snip>

>>> The finest structures in the world succumb to the lowly termite. Stone
>>> is
>>> eventually ground away by the wind. If and when the US falls, or merely
>>> goes
>>> lower on empire food chain like UK did, the odds are it won't be due to
>>> an
>>> overt outside enemy on an actual attack. It will fall like most previous
>>> empires, from within, from lack of money or interest, or from the social
>>> contract breaking down due to a marginalized middle class, a small
>>> uber-rich
>>> class of haves, and a honking big crowd of have-nots.
>>>
>>> (standard disclaimer- I hope it lasts till I am worm food, and I'm
>>> trying
>>> very hard to not contribute to entropy.)
>>>
>>> aem sends....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ask Ozymandus.
>
> The guy at the end of that great Avengers comic with the final defeat of
> Ultron?
>

Yes.

-- Ken from Chicago

geoffm u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:

> Peter A <paitken CRAPnc.rr.com> writes"
>
>> More likely, Rush and O'Reilly.
>
>
> What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
> with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.

Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
them look like tough guys.

>
> Or are you just doing the standard, brainless liberal _ad hominem_
> thing?

Message-ID: <geoffmE8JEMt.Bs2 netcom.com>

I could have guessed you like that expression, you're just a troll
talking tough on the Internet.



>
>
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
> Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
> You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn
>
>
>
> Path: newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy .com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodig y.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!news.astraweb.com!router2.a straweb.com!216.168.1.164.MISMATCH!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-07!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!u1.netgate.net !not-for-mail
> From: geoffm u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller)
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,soc.culture.british,rec.food.cooking,m isc.consumers,rec.travel.europe
> Subject: "Pie and chips"???!! Those *** Brits!!!
> Followup-To: rec.arts.tv,soc.culture.british,rec.food.cooking,m isc.consumers,rec.travel.europe
> Date: 1 Jun 2006 07:55:16 -0700
> Organization: Lonesome Cantaloupe Music
> Message-ID: <e5mv4k$17e u1.netgate.net>
> Sender: geoffm netgate.net
> References: <7dmdnRucV81b3eXZRVn-vQ comcast.com> <MPG.1ee7874d4fdbfb84989779 news-server.nc.rr.com> <1149094638.163922.327560 i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <MPG.1ee79e537b2c9cad98977c news-server.nc.rr.com>
> Reply-To: geoffm netgate.net
> X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
> Lines: 22
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.arts.tv:1137891 soc.culture.british:1212237 rec.food.cooking:1474218 misc.consumers:404877 rec.travel.europe:924807
>
>
>

John Doe > writes:

: What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
: with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.

> Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
> the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
> them look like tough guys.

Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
merit of their positions Iraq? I've long been struck by how
often liberals attack Limbaugh for being overweight instead of
rebutting what he says. That's pretty damned childish, I have to
say. If a conservative attacked a liberal pundit for a physical
shortcoming, he'd be derided as a bigot in a metric heartbeat.

But then, these are the same people so much of whose political
rhetoric boils down to "Yer stupid," so maybe I shouldn't be so
surprised.

And as far as their "looking like tough guys" is concerned, what
makes you so certain that has anything to do with their position?
You seem to be a bit conflicted where masculinity is concerned.
Not surprising, really, since liberalism is based on feminine
emotionalism rather than on masculine rationality.


: Or are you just doing the standard, brainless liberal _ad hominem_
: thing?

> I could have guessed you like that expression, you're just a troll
> talking tough on the Internet.

Liberals often use accusations of trolling as a pretext to avoid
substantive debate. The assumption is that no one would actually
hold certain positions sincerely. Which is an interesting idea,
seeing as how liberals _know_ that people who hold those ideas
are Out There -- so why wouldn't they encounter them on Usenet
now and again?



Geoff

--
We don't care what you think.
We don't have to.
We're the Hyperpower.
Don't like it? Too bad.

A troll who apparently has nothing better to do than sit on his fat
ass all day pretending to be a tough guy on the Internet.


Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon 06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.g iganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com! news4.google.com!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-07!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!u1.netgate.net !not-for-mail
From: geoffm u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,soc.culture.british,rec.food.cooking,m isc.consumers,rec.travel.europe
Subject: "Pie and chips"???!! Those *** Brits!!!
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv,soc.culture.british,rec.food.cooking,m isc.consumers,rec.travel.europe
Date: 20 Jun 2006 06:19:42 -0700
Organization: The Patriarchy
Message-ID: <e78sle$s8q u1.netgate.net>
Sender: geoffm netgate.net
References: <7dmdnRucV81b3eXZRVn-vQ comcast.com> <MPG.1ee79e537b2c9cad98977c news-server.nc.rr.com> <e5mv4k$17e u1.netgate.net> <Xns97E7B57D541F50123456789 207.115.17.102>
Reply-To: geoffm netgate.net
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 52



John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> writes:

: What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
: with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.

> Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
> the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
> them look like tough guys.

Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
merit of their positions Iraq? I've long been struck by how
often liberals attack Limbaugh for being overweight instead of
rebutting what he says. That's pretty damned childish, I have to
say. If a conservative attacked a liberal pundit for a physical
shortcoming, he'd be derided as a bigot in a metric heartbeat.

But then, these are the same people so much of whose political
rhetoric boils down to "Yer stupid," so maybe I shouldn't be so
surprised.

And as far as their "looking like tough guys" is concerned, what
makes you so certain that has anything to do with their position?
You seem to be a bit conflicted where masculinity is concerned.
Not surprising, really, since liberalism is based on feminine
emotionalism rather than on masculine rationality.


: Or are you just doing the standard, brainless liberal _ad hominem_
: thing?

> I could have guessed you like that expression, you're just a troll
> talking tough on the Internet.

Liberals often use accusations of trolling as a pretext to avoid
substantive debate. The assumption is that no one would actually
hold certain positions sincerely. Which is an interesting idea,
seeing as how liberals _know_ that people who hold those ideas
are Out There -- so why wouldn't they encounter them on Usenet
now and again?



Geoff

--
We don't care what you think.
We don't have to.
We're the Hyperpower.
Don't like it? Too bad.

John Doe > writes:

> A troll who apparently has nothing better to do than sit on his fat
> ass all day pretending to be a tough guy on the Internet.


Ahh, so we're into _this_ phase of the flamewar, are we? I call this
the "nyash nyaah" phase.

Anyhoo...

How do you my my ass is fat?

How do you know I'm not really a tough guy?

Seems to me that if you think I'm a troll but you contine to respond
to my posts, that says far worse things about you than anything you
write says about me.




Geoff

--
"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime
their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening." -- Ann Coulter

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> John Doe > writes:
>
> : What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
> : with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.
>
> > Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
> > the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
> > them look like tough guys.
>
> Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
> weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
> merit of their positions Iraq?

That first part has everything to do with it. If somehow it was
constitutional to pass a law which requires members of our
Executive and Legislative branches of government to send
their own kids to war before anyone else's, it would put an
end to military adventurism immediately, and forever. Mr.
Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's
kids to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the
trigger if their own kids' lives were at stake.

Jack F. Twist > writes:

: Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
: weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
: merit of their positions Iraq?

> That first part has everything to do with it. If somehow it was
> constitutional to pass a law which requires members of our Executive
> and Legislative branches of government to send their own kids to war
> before anyone else's, it would put an end to military adventurism
> immediately, and forever.

But in fact it isn't that way. Therefore that first part had nothing
to do with it.

Your suggestion reminds me of an old bumper sticker: "What If They Gave
A War And Nobody Came?" In both cases, I'm not sure whether "navel
gazing" or "mental masturbation" is the more appropriate metaphor.


> Mr. Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's kids
> to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if
> their own kids' lives were at stake.

Speculation.

Do you really believe that the nation's leaders are so small-minded
that they're insensitive to other people's kids being killed and
maimed in wars, or that in the context of formulating national policy,
they'd differentiate between their children and those of others when
it came to placing lives at risk? Do you seriously think that awful
burden wouldn't weigh heavily on _anyone's_ shoulders?

And what about cases where kids of members of the Executive and Leg-
islative branches actually support the war in question? How does that
affect your calculus?

(Didn't you announce your killfiling of me last week, by the way?)



Geoff

--
"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime
their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening." -- Ann Coulter

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Jack F. Twist > writes:
>
> : Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
> : weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
> : merit of their positions Iraq?
>
> > That first part has everything to do with it. If somehow it was
> > constitutional to pass a law which requires members of our Executive
> > and Legislative branches of government to send their own kids to war
> > before anyone else's, it would put an end to military adventurism
> > immediately, and forever.
>
> But in fact it isn't that way. Therefore that first part had nothing
> to do with it.

Only inside your pea brain.

> > Mr. Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's kids
> > to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if
> > their own kids' lives were at stake.
>
> Speculation.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

> Do you really believe that the nation's leaders are so small-minded
> that they're insensitive to other people's kids being killed and
> maimed in wars, or that in the context of formulating national policy,
> they'd differentiate between their children and those of others when
> it came to placing lives at risk? Do you seriously think that awful
> burden wouldn't weigh heavily on _anyone's_ shoulders?

It's been a trend with Mr. Bush ever since he was a kid, when
his idea of "fun" was shoving firecrackers down the throats of
small animals and watching them explode. Now he's doing
the same thing to our children. But his own amoral ass? He
went running under his daddy's coat at the very prospect of
serving combat duty in Vietnam.

Jack F. Twist > writes:

: But in fact it isn't that way. Therefore that first part had nothing
: to do with it.

> Only inside your pea brain.

It says a lot about the collective intellectual development of liberals
that they're so quick to veer off from the topic of debate, and to get
nasty and personal and resort to insult. None of it good.

In fact, it can be stated as a corollary to Godwin's Law: As an online
political debate between a liberal and a conservative grows longer, the
probability that the liberal will stoop to insult approaches one.

True or False: It's constitutional to pass a law which requires members
of our Executive and Legislative branches of government to
send their own kids to war before anyone else's, and such
a law is in fact extant?

Since both of those things are (a) obviously false, and (b) in fact have
nothing to do with the size of Rush Limbaugh's or Bill O'Reilly's ass or
their sitting in air-conditioned rooms, your insistence that the size of
those gentlemen's asses or their sitting in air-conditioned rooms ("it")
has anything at all to do with the merit of their positions regarding
Iraq falls rather flat. Patently, objectively and demonstrably so, in
fact. Q.E. effin' D. And the size of my brain is quite immaterial,
I'm afraid.


>> Mr. Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's kids
>> to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if
>> their own kids' lives were at stake.

: Speculation.

> Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

HAW HAW HAW! That's great. I'm sure it's original; can I use it?

Since thelives of Bush's own kids aren't in fact at stake, you don't
actually know how he'd behave in the situation you posited. Therefore,
you're engaging in speculation. Again, Q.E.D.

You've gotta think this stuff _through_, dude. Otherwise you just end
up stepping on your crank. With track shoes.


: Do you really believe that the nation's leaders are so small-minded
: that they're insensitive to other people's kids being killed and
: maimed in wars, or that in the context of formulating national policy,
: they'd differentiate between their children and those of others when
: it came to placing lives at risk? Do you seriously think that awful
: burden wouldn't weigh heavily on _anyone's_ shoulders?

> It's been a trend with Mr. Bush ever since he was a kid, when his
> idea of "fun" was shoving firecrackers down the throats of small
> animals and watching them explode.

What?! Is the left's hatred of George W. Bush so profound that it's
become acceptable to make things up about him? So much for that
liberal commitment to morality 'n' truth 'n' stuff that we keep
hearing about. Even if Bush really did that, I rather doubt he'd
admit to it as an adult. The guy's a politician, after all.


> Now he's doing the same thing to our children. But his own amoral
> ass? He went running under his daddy's coat at the very prospect of
> serving combat duty in Vietnam.

He served his country...unlike, say, the draft dodgers who avoided the
military entirely and went running to Canada. Being in the military
counts, even if it's stateside. Speaking of which, I suspect that
you'd be among the first to defend those who joined the Coast Guard
(AKA "the Draft Dodgers' Yacht Club") during Vietnam in order to avoid
the draft, on the same basis.

And unlike, say, John "the Talking Tree" Kerry, Bush didn't finish his
service and then malign his former comrades as war criminals.



Geoff

--
"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime
their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening." -- Ann Coulter

>John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> writes:
>
>: What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
>: with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.
>
>> Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
>> the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
>> them look like tough guys.
>
>Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
>weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
>merit of their positions Iraq? I've long been struck by how
>often liberals attack Limbaugh for being overweight instead of
>rebutting what he says. That's pretty damned childish, I have to
>say. If a conservative attacked a liberal pundit for a physical
>shortcoming, he'd be derided as a bigot in a metric heartbeat.
>
>But then, these are the same people so much of whose political
>rhetoric boils down to "Yer stupid," so maybe I shouldn't be so
>surprised.
>
>And as far as their "looking like tough guys" is concerned, what
>makes you so certain that has anything to do with their position?
>You seem to be a bit conflicted where masculinity is concerned.
>Not surprising, really, since liberalism is based on feminine
>emotionalism rather than on masculine rationality.
>
>
>: Or are you just doing the standard, brainless liberal _ad hominem_
>: thing?
>
>> I could have guessed you like that expression, you're just a troll
>> talking tough on the Internet.
>
>Liberals often use accusations of trolling as a pretext to avoid
>substantive debate. The assumption is that no one would actually
>hold certain positions sincerely. Which is an interesting idea,
>seeing as how liberals _know_ that people who hold those ideas
>are Out There -- so why wouldn't they encounter them on Usenet
>now and again?

In article >, lid
wrote:

>A troll who apparently has nothing better to do than sit on his fat
>ass all day pretending to be a tough guy on the Internet.

Wow, thanks for making Geoff's points in one sentence.

BTW, do learn how to properly quote articles before following up on any more,
mmkay?

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the liberal
media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military victory in
Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's failing.

Following up to Ubiquitous

>It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the liberal
>media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military victory in
>Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's failing.

really?
--
Mike Reid
Shetland, Yell and Unst
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/skyepics.htm#shetland"

Geoff Miller wrote:
I've long been struck by how
> often liberals attack Limbaugh for being overweight instead of
> rebutting what he says. That's pretty damned childish, I have to
> say. If a conservative attacked a liberal pundit for a physical
> shortcoming, he'd be derided as a bigot in a metric heartbeat.

You've got to be kidding. Don't you remember the constant harping on Bill
Clinton's weight by your right wing friends?

in article ASbmg.14016$XJ4.3418@trndny02, Janet Puistonen at
wrote on 6/21/06 6:31 AM:

> Geoff Miller wrote:
> I've long been struck by how
>> often liberals attack Limbaugh for being overweight instead of
>> rebutting what he says. That's pretty damned childish, I have to
>> say. If a conservative attacked a liberal pundit for a physical
>> shortcoming, he'd be derided as a bigot in a metric heartbeat.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Don't you remember the constant harping on Bill
> Clinton's weight by your right wing friends?
>
>
I remember his phony jogging, staged for the cameras. A friend of mine got
to participate in that when she was invited to the White House. She was
****ed, 'cause she DOES run pretty much every morning, and with porky Bill
they just ran past the press and back inside; all a photo op. She didn't
even get to break a sweat.

Janet Puistonen > writes:

> You've got to be kidding. Don't you remember the constant harping
> on Bill Clinton's weight by your right wing friends?


I remember it being mentioned as an aside, never as a primary
criticism of the man like the way the Left has always harped
on Rush Limbaugh's weight.




Geoff

--
Miller's Law: "As an online political debate between a liberal and
a conservative grows longer, the probability that the liberal will
stoop to insult approaches one."

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Janet Puistonen > writes:
>
>> You've got to be kidding. Don't you remember the constant harping
>> on Bill Clinton's weight by your right wing friends?
>
> I remember it being mentioned as an aside, never as a primary
> criticism of the man like the way the Left has always harped
> on Rush Limbaugh's weight.

The following is no reflection on any person posting here, or on the
actual matter under discussion.

I must say: it's sometimes fascinating to see the subject line, a
holdover from the original conversation, and compare it to what the
conversation has evolved into.

Someone entering right now could, I think, never reconstruct the thread
out of logical guesswork. But it might be fun to try.

Mordechai

In article >, wrote:
>Jack F. Twist > writes:
>
>: But in fact it isn't that way. Therefore that first part had nothing
>: to do with it.
>
>> Only inside your pea brain.
>
>It says a lot about the collective intellectual development of liberals
>that they're so quick to veer off from the topic of debate, and to get
>nasty and personal and resort to insult. None of it good.
>
>In fact, it can be stated as a corollary to Godwin's Law: As an online
>political debate between a liberal and a conservative grows longer, the
>probability that the liberal will stoop to insult approaches one.
>
>True or False: It's constitutional to pass a law which requires members
> of our Executive and Legislative branches of government to
> send their own kids to war before anyone else's, and such
> a law is in fact extant?
>
>Since both of those things are (a) obviously false, and (b) in fact have
>nothing to do with the size of Rush Limbaugh's or Bill O'Reilly's ass or
>their sitting in air-conditioned rooms, your insistence that the size of
>those gentlemen's asses or their sitting in air-conditioned rooms ("it")
>has anything at all to do with the merit of their positions regarding
>Iraq falls rather flat. Patently, objectively and demonstrably so, in
>fact. Q.E. effin' D. And the size of my brain is quite immaterial,
>I'm afraid.
>
>
>>> Mr. Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's kids
>>> to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if
>>> their own kids' lives were at stake.
>
>: Speculation.
>
>> Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
>
>HAW HAW HAW! That's great. I'm sure it's original; can I use it?
>
>Since thelives of Bush's own kids aren't in fact at stake, you don't
>actually know how he'd behave in the situation you posited. Therefore,
>you're engaging in speculation. Again, Q.E.D.
>
>You've gotta think this stuff _through_, dude. Otherwise you just end
>up stepping on your crank. With track shoes.
>
>
>: Do you really believe that the nation's leaders are so small-minded
>: that they're insensitive to other people's kids being killed and
>: maimed in wars, or that in the context of formulating national policy,
>: they'd differentiate between their children and those of others when
>: it came to placing lives at risk? Do you seriously think that awful
>: burden wouldn't weigh heavily on _anyone's_ shoulders?
>
>> It's been a trend with Mr. Bush ever since he was a kid, when his
>> idea of "fun" was shoving firecrackers down the throats of small
>> animals and watching them explode.
>
>What?! Is the left's hatred of George W. Bush so profound that it's
>become acceptable to make things up about him? So much for that
>liberal commitment to morality 'n' truth 'n' stuff that we keep
>hearing about. Even if Bush really did that, I rather doubt he'd
>admit to it as an adult. The guy's a politician, after all.
>
>
>> Now he's doing the same thing to our children. But his own amoral
>> ass? He went running under his daddy's coat at the very prospect of
>> serving combat duty in Vietnam.
>
>He served his country...unlike, say, the draft dodgers who avoided the
>military entirely and went running to Canada. Being in the military
>counts, even if it's stateside. Speaking of which, I suspect that
>you'd be among the first to defend those who joined the Coast Guard
>(AKA "the Draft Dodgers' Yacht Club") during Vietnam in order to avoid
>the draft, on the same basis.
>
>And unlike, say, John "the Talking Tree" Kerry, Bush didn't finish his
>service and then malign his former comrades as war criminals.

How about you really "support the troops" by doing something more than
posting Repug nonsense and enlist? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!

"Ghislain" > wrote in message news:002601c695b0$110351d0$e33f300a@rugeqi...
> How about you really "support the troops" by doing something more than
> posting Repug nonsense and enlist? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
> Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!

Ain't it the truth. And if you ask the same question of most congress
critters (or our fake war hero president/VP, or most of the war hawk
Jews who run Fox News etc) and you'll get the exact same look of
anger, if not panic.

"Jack F. Twist" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> > John Doe > writes:
> >
> > : What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
> > : with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.
> >
> > > Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
> > > the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
> > > them look like tough guys.
> >
> > Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
> > weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
> > merit of their positions Iraq?
>
> That first part has everything to do with it. If somehow it was
> constitutional to pass a law which requires members of our
> Executive and Legislative branches of government to send
> their own kids to war before anyone else's, it would put an
> end to military adventurism immediately, and forever. Mr.
> Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's
> kids to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the
> trigger if their own kids' lives were at stake.
>
Nobody has the right to send ANYBODY's kids to war. If fat old men wanna
prove how tough they are, let them go fight the war their own damn selves.

And replying to another poster who implied that not obediently putting on a
uniform meant you did not serve your country- they also serve who shine a
light on the stupid decisions the Powers That Be keep making. Defending the
country is one thing- allowing oneself to be drafted, or even volunteering,
to go in harm's way, for some rah-rah ego exercise, is not serving your
country- it is being a fool. Just because they are in charge does not make
them right, or deserving of obedience. If a war is justified, there will be
enough volunteers. If it isn't, there won't, as they are discovering now,
and covering up with a back-door draft of repeated long-term deployments of
people who thought 2 weeks a year and every other weekend would be it,
unless there was a hurricane or something.

If somebody makes a well-informed decision to go off and fight for some
foreign cause they find noble, for whatever country or quasi-country
mutinational they beleive in, well, more power to them. I firmly believe
that nobody below, say, 25 or so, should be ALLOWED to serve in a hot zone
in the military- the are still young, horny, and immortal. They don't have
the life experience to make an informed decision to volunteer.

aem sends....

"ameijers" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Jack F. Twist" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >
> > > John Doe > writes:
> > >
> > > : What specifically have Rush and O'Reilly said that you take issue
> > > : with, and why? Let's have some details and a bit of elucidation.
> > >
> > > > Sitting on their fat asses in an air-conditioned room far away from
> > > > the action in Iraq saying "we don't cut and run" as if that makes
> > > > them look like tough guys.
> > >
> > > Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
> > > weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
> > > merit of their positions Iraq?
> >
> > That first part has everything to do with it. If somehow it was
> > constitutional to pass a law which requires members of our
> > Executive and Legislative branches of government to send
> > their own kids to war before anyone else's, it would put an
> > end to military adventurism immediately, and forever. Mr.
> > Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's
> > kids to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the
> > trigger if their own kids' lives were at stake.
> >
> Nobody has the right to send ANYBODY's kids to war. If fat old men wanna
> prove how tough they are, let them go fight the war their own damn selves.
>
> And replying to another poster who implied that not obediently putting on a
> uniform meant you did not serve your country- they also serve who shine a
> light on the stupid decisions the Powers That Be keep making. Defending the
> country is one thing- allowing oneself to be drafted, or even volunteering,
> to go in harm's way, for some rah-rah ego exercise, is not serving your
> country- it is being a fool. Just because they are in charge does not make
> them right, or deserving of obedience. If a war is justified, there will be
> enough volunteers. If it isn't, there won't, as they are discovering now,
> and covering up with a back-door draft of repeated long-term deployments of
> people who thought 2 weeks a year and every other weekend would be it,
> unless there was a hurricane or something.
>
> If somebody makes a well-informed decision to go off and fight for some
> foreign cause they find noble, for whatever country or quasi-country
> mutinational they beleive in, well, more power to them. I firmly believe
> that nobody below, say, 25 or so, should be ALLOWED to serve in a hot zone
> in the military- the are still young, horny, and immortal. They don't have
> the life experience to make an informed decision to volunteer.
>
> aem sends....

Stunningly accurate post. The last noble use of our armed forces
was during WWII. Everything since has been military adventurism
and Executive Branch penis waving.

Did you know the average age of the 58,000+ Americans who
were slaughtered in Vietnam? 19. Freaking NINETEEN.

You can make a case for natural selection hard at work here, but
it's still tragic beyond words. Fake patriotism or not, there's a
very special place in hell reserved for those who kill against their
own consciences.

Ghislain > bottom-posts:

[my ENTIRE POST quoted]

> How about you really "support the troops" by doing something more than
> posting Repug nonsense and enlist? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
> Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!


Why don't I just enlist? For the following reasons, in ascending order
of importance:

Because first of all, I'm past the maximum age for enlistment.

Second, because even if I weren't, I probably wouldn't be able to make
my mortgage payments on an Army salary, and I think it's a bit much to
expect a person to lose his home as the price for holding a political
opinion in this 'ere land of the free, even if you don't.

Third, I've already served my country, and for longer than the minimum
commitment, at that. And I'm proud to say that I did so when the great-
est American President of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, was Commander
In Chief. (When and where did *you* serve, by the bye? Hmmm? Have you
ever done anything but snivel?)

Fourth, and most importantly: because the idea that a person who supports
a war should be required to fight it himself is childish and idiotic almost
beyond the power of words to express -- and you ought to be ashamed of your-
self for even suggesting such a thing. I suppose that by the same token,
if I support federal highway spending, I should be required to quit my
profession, give up the lifestyle and level of affluence I've worked so
hard to achieve, and go join a road crew?

You liberals are obsessed with rights, so I'll express this in language
that you can relate to: The fact that I'm a citizen of the United States
gives me the right to an opinion on any war my country is involved in.
Even if that opinion differs from yours. And the nature of democracy
being what it is, there's no associated requirement for me to pitch in
personally to effect whatever policies I happen to support.

You leftist assholes are doomed, you know that? The angrier and more
shrill you become, and the stupider and more addlepated the rhetoric
you spout, the more of the electorate you alienate. And as the con-
ceptual cherry atop that sundae of disarray, you allow the abrasive,
the feebleminded, and the insane as your spokesmen -- people like
Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Berg, respectively.

Keep on digging, by all means. When you get to China, maybe you can
order takeout. *snork*

You're already to the point where you have no cogent, constructive posi-
tions on anything, but are reduced to just being against anything and
everything the Republicans are for. You're in perpetual reaction mode.

And to make matters worse for you, your anti-Americanism has become plain
for all to see. It's abundantly clear that you hate your country and
would like nothing better than to see America humiliated and taken down
a peg on the world stage, which is why you oppose the war on terrorism
at every turn and whenever possible, as in the case of the New York Times,
actively try to sabotage it.

"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute,
but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-
threatening." -- Ann Coulter

We "Repugs" and Red Staters won't allow you to destroy this country, though.
You'd do well to remember that if it ever came down to brass tacks, *we're*
the ones with the guns; it's your side that's made up of pacifists. Whoops!
Quite a sobering thought, eh?

Now run along and go jerk off to the Daily Kos. We "Repugs" have a world
to run, and punks like you just get underfoot when you try to be serious.




Geoff

--
"Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference
between us and [leftists] is that we can argue as well as inveigh.
They can only hurl invectives." -- Don Feder

Geoff Miller wrote:


> Fourth, and most importantly: because the idea that a person who supports
> a war should be required to fight it himself is childish and idiotic almost
> beyond the power of words to express -- and you ought to be ashamed of your-
> self for even suggesting such a thing. I suppose that by the same token,
> if I support federal highway spending, I should be required to quit my
> profession, give up the lifestyle and level of affluence I've worked so
> hard to achieve, and go join a road crew?

[snip]

> You leftist assholes are doomed, you know that? The angrier and more
> shrill you become, and the stupider and more addlepated the rhetoric
> you spout, the more of the electorate you alienate. And as the con-
> ceptual cherry atop that sundae of disarray, you allow the abrasive,
> the feebleminded, and the insane as your spokesmen -- people like
> Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Berg, respectively.

[snip]

> And to make matters worse for you, your anti-Americanism has become plain
> for all to see. It's abundantly clear that you hate your country and
> would like nothing better than to see America humiliated and taken down
> a peg on the world stage, which is why you oppose the war on terrorism
> at every turn and whenever possible, as in the case of the New York Times,
> actively try to sabotage it.

Bravo for the above. Well written and expressed.

"Ghislain" > wrote:

>> How about you really "support the troops" by doing something more than
>> posting Repug nonsense and enlist? GoArmy.com -- or are you just another
>> Yellow Elephant? If you like that war so much, go fight it!


Jack F. Twist > responds:

> Ain't it the truth. And if you ask the same question of most congress
> critters (or our fake war hero president/VP, or most of the war hawk
> Jews who run Fox News etc) and you'll get the exact same look of
> anger, if not panic.


Oh, bullshit. Not only are anger and panic completely disjoint
emotions, but what you're likely to see is neither of those things
but expressions that are evidence of contempt and dismissal...for
the reasons I expressed in my pevious post in this thread.

It's never been claimed that either George W. Bush or Dick Cheney is
a war hero, so your calling them "fake war hero[es]" is disingenuous.

"War hawk Jews?" If a conservative Republican said something like
that, he'd be set upon and denounced as an anti-Semite. At least
you're forthright (or careless) enough to admit your anti-Semitism.



Geoff

--
"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism,
but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion
for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their
country and hate the enemy." -- Ann Coulter

"P No Gree G O" > wrote in message
...
> Geoff Miller wrote:
>
>
> > Fourth, and most importantly: because the idea that a person who
supports
> > a war should be required to fight it himself is childish and idiotic
almost
> > beyond the power of words to express -- and you ought to be ashamed of
your-
> > self for even suggesting such a thing. I suppose that by the same
token,
> > if I support federal highway spending, I should be required to quit my
> > profession, give up the lifestyle and level of affluence I've worked so
> > hard to achieve, and go join a road crew?
>
> [snip]
>
> > You leftist assholes are doomed, you know that? The angrier and more
> > shrill you become, and the stupider and more addlepated the rhetoric
> > you spout, the more of the electorate you alienate. And as the con-
> > ceptual cherry atop that sundae of disarray, you allow the abrasive,
> > the feebleminded, and the insane as your spokesmen -- people like
> > Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Berg, respectively.
>
> [snip]
>
> > And to make matters worse for you, your anti-Americanism has become
plain
> > for all to see. It's abundantly clear that you hate your country and
> > would like nothing better than to see America humiliated and taken down
> > a peg on the world stage, which is why you oppose the war on terrorism
> > at every turn and whenever possible, as in the case of the New York
Times,
> > actively try to sabotage it.
>
> Bravo for the above. Well written and expressed.
>
>

As in, "bravo for the cretin who managed to stop dragging his knuckles
and drooling long enough to transfer a moronic rant to type?"

You're an idiot and so is "Geoff."

The war itself is anti-American in the truest sense of the word.

I am not a pacifist. I recognize the need for war. There was a need
for us to stay in Afghanistan until we found Bin Laden, but instead
that chimp in the white house pulled out and unleashed American
forces on the madman who dissed his daddy. And we still don't
have Bin Laden. And Iraq still does not equal Afghanistan, it does
not even equal terrorism, terrorism is all over the world.

And you are still an idiot. A right-wing, knee-jerk bush defending
brain-dead advocate of sending our best and brightest to slaughter
day after day. Without proper armored vehicles. Now that is pretty
****ing un-American if you ask me.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com