Rat & Swan wrote:


> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,

Show it, liar.



I see where Howard Dean went down the same dirty road:

Dean's Remarks on 9/11 Stir Furor

By Mark Z. Barabak and John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writers

Howard Dean, whose penchant for off-the-cuff comments
has proved both a strength and political liability, is
facing a new flap over suggestions that President Bush
had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Dean broached the possibility during a radio interview
last week, but dismissed the notion in the same breath.
A spokeswoman said Monday the former Vermont governor
"obviously doesn't believe it's true."

But the fact Dean alluded to a "theory" that Bush had
received prior intelligence from Saudi Arabian sources
— which Dean called "most interesting" — was enough to
incite Republicans. The national party chairman, Ed
Gillespie, issued a blistering attack on Dean over the
weekend, calling his comments "reckless and irresponsible."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation


Dean has a little more to lose than the
self-marginalized Karen Winter, so after getting in his
lick that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks, he
tries to cover his pimply ass. Karen, though, who
*likes* her marginalization and isn't looking to
persuade anyone of anything, is perfectly happy
trotting out a paranoid conspiracy nut's lie, and
leaving it there.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote shit as per ****ing usual
news



**** off ~~jonnie~~ you balding little ****.

Zakhar wrote:

> **** off ~~jonnie~~ you balding little ****.

The best way to counter jonnie is to ignore him -- although I
don't always follow my own advice, I know. You'll notice as
soon as I got into a real discussion with a person who actually
had something meaningful to say, jonnie started stamping his
widdle feet and screaming for me to notice him again. Poor
jonnie -- his life has no meaning unless I pay attention to him, even if
everyone knows he's nothing but a troll.

Rat

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > **** off ~~jonnie~~ you balding little ****.
>
> The best way to counter jonnie is to ignore him -- although I
> don't always follow my own advice, I know.

You're right of course! I had an idle minute, scanned the list of messages
and just had to share my thoughts.

>You'll notice as
> soon as I got into a real discussion with a person who actually
> had something meaningful to say, jonnie started stamping his
> widdle feet and screaming for me to notice him again. Poor
> jonnie -- his life has no meaning unless I pay attention to him, even if
> everyone knows he's nothing but a troll.

He's more than a troll. He a nasty little troll, an evil little shit.

All the best. ;-)

Zak.

>
> Rat
>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Zakhar wrote:
>
>> **** off ~~jonnie~~ you balding little ****.
>
>
> The best way to counter

You made a claim:

Rat & Swan wrote:


> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,


You are a liar. You have no evidence.

>>You are a liar. You have no evidence.

Yeah people living in caves in another part of the world defeated the greatest military in the history of the world. Our military only stand down when ordered to do so.

Why have the planes not been intercepted?

It is standard procedure that unidentified airplanes and hijacked airplanes are intercepted and monitored by fighter-aircrafts. Why has this not be done on 9/11?

FAA Regulations say:
Consider that an aircraft emergency exists and inform the RCC or ARTCC and alert the appropriate DF facility when: .... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any IFR or VFR aircraft.

For example, check this out - Payne Stewart's Learjet got off course, and there were two F-15's, a total of 8 F-16's and a refuelling tanker plane there immediately.

The Air Force is proud to announce their pilots are ready anytime to scramble and intercept "bogies" or "unknown riders" - unidentified or off-course aircraft.

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11

08:13 transponder is switched off

08:14 two controllers are recorded discussing the fact that the pilot is out of contact.

08:24 a hijacker's voice is heard. "We have some planes," it says. "Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport." (Guardian)

A controller asks "Who's trying to call me?"

08:25 air traffic control centres are told that a plane has been hijacked.

08:31 Air National Guard Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins is notified of the hijacking - this time was later corrected to 08:40

08:36 flight attendant Betty Ong reports that the plane tilts all the way on one side and then becomes horizontal again. Flight attendant Amy Sweeney then reports on her phone that the plane has begun a rapid descent.

08:40 FAA alerts NORAD AA11 has been hijacked (now-official version)

08:41 The pilots of Flight 175 tell ground control about Flight 11, "We figured we'd wait to go to your center. We heard a suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston. Someone keyed the mike and said: 'Everyone stay in your seats.' It cut out."

08:45 Just prior to the crash of Flight 11, flight attendant Amy Sweeney is asked on the phone if she can recognize where she is. She says, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings," then after a pause, a quiet "Oh, my God!" Mere seconds later the line goes dead. Meanwhile, flight attendant Betty Ong ends her call repeating the phrase "Pray for us" over and over. Apparently there is quiet instead of screaming in the background

08:46 NORAD orders 2 F-15 jets from Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Mass.

08:47 Plane crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Centre

08:52 the F-15's are airborne

12 minutes from 08:25 when hijacking was confirmed to 08:47 crash, almost half an hour until the F-15's are scrambled after the hijack got reported!

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77

8.50:51 there is the last radio communication with aircraft

08:57 transponder contact is lost.
For some minutes the plane is missing because flight controllers are looking for the radar signal toward the west and don't realize the plane is headed east. Rumors circulate that the plane might have exploded in midair

08:58 Brian Sweeney on Flight 175 tries to call his wife but can only leave a message. "We've been hijacked, and it doesn't look too good." He calls his mother and tells her what's happening onboard

09:05 West Virginia flight control notices a new eastbound plane entering its radar with no radio contact and no transponder identification. They are not sure it is Flight 77. Supposedly they wait another 19 minutes before notifying NORAD about it. (!)

09:24 FAA notifies NORAD about the hijacking

09:25 the controller observes the plane moving towards Washington

09:30 fighters are scrambled

09:38 American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Washington.



08:57 - 09:24 it took half an hour to notify NORAD after the signal was lost, and there were 14 minutes between notification and the crash

Considering what happened just before one would excpect a faster response.



UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175

08:41 The pilots of Flight 175 tell ground control about Flight 11, "We figured we'd wait to go to your center. We heard a suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston. Someone keyed the mike and said: 'Everyone stay in your seats.' It cut out."

08:42 Flight 175 veers from its official course without authorization. A flight controller says of Flight 175, "... looks like he's heading southbound but there's no transponder no nothing and no one's talking to him."

08:43 NORAD, their headsets linked to Boston Center, heard of a second plane, United Flight 175, that also was not responding

08:44 The pilot of US Airlines Flight 583 tells flight control, regarding Flight 175, "I just picked up an ELT [emergency locator transmitter] on 121.5 it was brief but it went off."

08:46 Two F-15 fighters are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts

08:46 Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal (?!) - see 08:42 (!) and starts sending a different one (!) (was that really the same airplane?)

08:53 Controller: "We may have a hijack. We have some problems over here right now."

09:00 Last radar reading is seen at an altitude of 18,000 feet as flight is descending at a ground speed of 480 knots.

09:03 Plane crashes into south tower of World Trade Centre
F-15's still about 70 miles from the WTC


08:43 - 09:03 twenty minutes


UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93

09:00 + (just after 09:00) United warns all of its aircraft of the potential for cockpit intrusion and to take precautions to barricade cockpit doors. Flight 93 pilots acknowledge the message

09:16 FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have been hijacked. (according to CNN)

09:27 Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena and says, "I'm on United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. The plane has been hijacked. We are in the air. They've already knifed a guy. (One of them has a gun - this was later dismissed). There is a bomb on board. Call the FBI." Deena connects to emergency 911

9:28 there are the first audible signs of problems, in background cockpit noise.

09:34 Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena a second time. He says, "They're in the cockpit." He has checked the pulse of the man who was knifed (later identified as Mark Rothenberg, sitting next to him in seat 5B) and determined he is dead. She tells him about the hits on the WTC. He responds, "Oh my God, it's a suicide mission." As they continue to talk, he tells her the plane has turned back. By this time, Deena is in constant communication with the FBI and others, and a policeman is at her house

09:35 the plane climbs without authorisation

09:37 Jeremy Glick calls his wife Lyz from Flight 93. He describes the hijackers as Middle Eastern, Iranian looking. They put on red headbands and the three of them stood up and yelled and ran into the cockpit. He was sitting in the front of the coach section, but was sent to the back with most of the passengers. They claimed to have a bomb, which looked like a box with something red around it. He says the plane has turned around. Family members immediately call emergency 911 on another line.

09:39 The hijackers probably inadvertently transmit over radio: ''Hi, this is the captain. We'd like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board. And we are going to turn back to the airport. And they had our demands, so please remain quiet.''

09:41 From Flight 93, Marion Birtton calls a friend. She tells him two people have been killed and the plane has been turned around

09:40 Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and radar contact is lost.

09:42 The Mark-Bingham phone call according to the Post Gazette:
"Mom? This is Mark Bingham," the voice said. It sounded strange for her son to introduce himself by his full name. She knew he was flustered.
"I want to let you know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb," he said.
"Who are these guys?" Alice Hoglan asked.
There was a pause. Hoglan heard murmurs of conversation in English. Mark's voice came back.
"You believe me, don't you?" he asked.
"Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?"
There was a pause. Alice heard background noise. The line went dead.

09:45 Tom Burnett calls his wife Deena for the third time. She tells him about the crash into the Pentagon. Tom speaks about the bomb he'd mentioned earlier, saying, "I don't think they have one. I think they're just telling us that." He says the hijackers are talking about crashing the plane into the ground. "We have to do something." He says that he and others are making a plan. "A group of us."

09:45 - 10:00 The "Let's Roll" Todd Beamer phone call

09:47 Jeremy Glick is still on the phone with his wife Lyz. He tells her that the passengers are taking a vote if they should try to take over the plane or not, and that the hijackers are only armed with knives - no guns

09:49 flight controllers called Pittsburgh flight control and said a plane was heading toward Pittsburgh and refusing to communicate

09:50 Sandra Bradshaw calls her husband from Flight 93. She says, ''Have you heard what's going on? My flight has been hijacked. My flight has been hijacked with three guys with knives."

09:54 the Thomas Burnett phone call

09:57 supposed start of the fight of the passengers against the terrorists. they may have used a fire extinguisher and the food cart as weapons / for ramming

09:57 - 10:00 several cell-phone calls from passengers saying "they are storming the cockpit", "everybody is running to first class", "they are doing it, they are doing it!"

09:58 phone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom aboard United Flight 93, said dispatch supervisor Glenn Cramer in neighboring Westmoreland County. The man repeatedly told officials the call was not a hoax. "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!" Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him," Cramer said. (there never was an explanation for the explosion and smoke)


10:02 After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected near Shanksville, Pennsylvania

10:03 According to the US government, Flight 93 crashes at 10:03

10:06 a seismic study authorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concludes the crash happens at 10:06:05

When or if fighters have been dispatched at all, remains a mystery. There have been reportings of fighters that where later denied. Eyewitnesses talked of a second plane and explosion(s) before the plane hit the ground bot those reports have been dimissed. The last 5-6 minutes of the voice-recorder tape are kept secret.

The NORAD statement is also strangely unspecific about this flight.

http://www.utopiax.org/airdefense.html

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Zakhar wrote:
>
>> **** off ~~jonnie~~ you balding little ****.
>
>
> The best way to counter

You made a claim:

Rat & Swan wrote:


> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,

"born free" > wrote in message news:__ACb.531864$Tr4.1459893@attbi_s03...
<..>
> http://www.utopiax.org/airdefense.html

Hunt the Boeing!
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm


http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings...hole-photo.htm


Attack On The Pentagon & World Trade Center
http://www.thepowerhour.com/pentagon-911.htm

born free wrote:
> >>You are a liar. You have no evidence.
> Yeah people living in caves in another part of the world defeated the
> greatest military in the history of the world.

Wrong.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> > evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
>
> Show it, liar.
>
>
>
> I see where Howard Dean went down the same dirty road:
>
> Dean's Remarks on 9/11 Stir Furor
>
> By Mark Z. Barabak and John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writers
>
> Howard Dean, whose penchant for off-the-cuff comments
> has proved both a strength and political liability, is
> facing a new flap over suggestions that President Bush
> had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
>
> Dean broached the possibility during a radio interview
> last week, but dismissed the notion in the same breath.
> A spokeswoman said Monday the former Vermont governor
> "obviously doesn't believe it's true."
>
> But the fact Dean alluded to a "theory" that Bush had
> received prior intelligence from Saudi Arabian sources
> — which Dean called "most interesting" — was enough to
> incite Republicans. The national party chairman, Ed
> Gillespie, issued a blistering attack on Dean over the
> weekend, calling his comments "reckless and irresponsible."
>
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
>
>
> Dean has a little more to lose than the
> self-marginalized Karen Winter, so after getting in his
> lick that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks, he
> tries to cover his pimply ass. Karen, though, who
> *likes* her marginalization and isn't looking to
> persuade anyone of anything, is perfectly happy
> trotting out a paranoid conspiracy nut's lie, and
> leaving it there.

--------



There you go again ~~jonnie~~ Politics
These are not a political NGs - **** off you little ****.
If you feel so strongly, go and join the army - (oh sorry I forgot:-) But
you could be a suicide bomber.
Your Christmas gift to mankind.
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> > evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
>
> Show it,

Plenty to chew on (and spit out), here;

http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/91...ush/index.html

pearl wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>
>>
>> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
>> > evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
>>
>>Show it,
>
>
> Plenty to chew on (and spit out), here;
>
> http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/91...ush/index.html

Wild, conspiratorial bullshit; not a shred of evidence.
I'm sure it's good enough for Karen, though.

Thanks for the new item to add to your growing list.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > news > >
> >>Rat & Swan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> >> > evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
> >>
> >>Show it,
> >
> >
> > Plenty to chew on (and spit out), here;
> >
> > http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/91...ush/index.html
>
> Wild, conspiratorial bullshit; not a shred of evidence.

Wild, shameless, ballshite ipse dixit.

> Thanks for the new item to add to your growing list.

An invaluable service in helping to spread the word.
Be sure to include these links as well;
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...=bush+knew+911
http://www.activeopposition.com/911exposed.htm

pearl wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
>>>>> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
>>>>
>>>>Show it,
>>>
>>>
>>>Plenty to chew on (and spit out), here;
>>>
>>>http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/91...ush/index.html
>>
>>Wild, conspiratorial bullshit; not a shred of evidence.
>
>
> Wild, shameless, ballshite ipse dixit.

Your page was bullshit. There was no evidence; not
anything even close. It was nothing but wild
allegations by a crackpot.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> >>>news > >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> >>>>> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
> >>>>
> >>>>Show it,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Plenty to chew on (and spit out), here;
> >>>
> >>>http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/91...ush/index.html
> >>
> >>Wild, conspiratorial bullshit; not a shred of evidence.
> >
> > Wild, shameless, ballshite ipse dixit.
>
> Your page was bullshit. There was no evidence; not
> anything even close. It was nothing but wild
> allegations by a crackpot.

And again.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> > evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,
>
> Show it, liar.
>
>
>
> I see where Howard Dean went down the same dirty road:
>
> Dean's Remarks on 9/11 Stir Furor


And here's Howard Dean sharing his feelings on the 1st Amendment:

"On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I don't want to answer
whether I would break up Fox or not."
--Howard Dean, when asked by Chris Matthews whether he would break up
Fox

Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of speech,
it would seem.

Karl Hungus wrote:

<snip>

> Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of speech,
> it would seem.

That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Karl Hungus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of
>> speech,
>> it would seem.
>
>
> That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
> The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.

You support freedom of expression of
leftist/collectivist ideas, and suppression of speech
that extols individual liberty and the market.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> You support freedom of expression of leftist/collectivist ideas, and
> suppression of speech that extols individual liberty and the market.

Quote, jonnie?

No, I didn't think so.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You support freedom of expression of leftist/collectivist ideas, and
>> suppression of speech that extols individual liberty and the market.
>
>
> Quote, jonnie?

There isn't the one smoking gun quote from you, you
stupid bitch; there doesn't need to be. It's the
consensus about you, based on years of keen observation.

You are a leftist/collectivist totalitarian. It just
isn't reasonable for you to deny it.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Karl Hungus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of
speech,
> > it would seem.
>
> That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
> The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.
>
> Rat


Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Anyway, I'd like to hear Swan's take on this before I offer my rebuttal.

Karl Hungus wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Karl Hungus wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Freedom of speech to the Left means freedom of the right *kind* of
>
> speech,
>
>>>it would seem.
>>
>>That, of course, depends on which individual you are discussing.
>>The Left is no more monolithic than the Right.
>>
>>Rat
>
>
>
> Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to hear Swan's take on this before I offer my rebuttal.

Swan here. Rat's partner. The terms "left" and "right" are relative on
a continuum. What is hard line left to one person can be interpreted as
hard line right by another. Even in one given individual, political
stances can be all over the map. Take myself, for instance. I am pro
death penalty, pro-choice and favor language requirements in certain
professions. Rat and I do not agree on certain areas, politically, yet
we are both seen as liberals. While socially liberal, I am flatly
against gun control and would favor restrictions on immigration. I
think society has placed TOO much emphasis on "family values" as opposed
to simple "human values" and I'd like to see an end to subsidised
childbearing in *all* strata of society. Rat and I are *not*
"monolithic" and I can say with confidence that the same is true of
conservatives, liberals, everyone. we are *people* first and foremost,
and only an idiot or a lazy person blindly follows a "party line"
without thinking for him or herself.

as for the idea that liberals only tolerate "certain kinds" of freedom
of speech... Hardly. The "right" wants it both ways. "Liberals are so
mushy on values!" "The left wants you to have a mind so open, your
brains fall out!" etc... but then... "The left only allows certain
kinds of speech!"

Well which IS it? Remember, it was a LIBERAL organisation, the ACLU,
that *defended* the right of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie
Illinois! Are there leftists who won't tolerate true freedom os speech?
Hell, YES! I got whacked with a thrown (full) Coke can thrown by a
radical anti-Nazi protester at a rally once. OW! And the people who had
come to speak were shouted down and driven from the hall. NOT a shining
example of freedom of speech and assembly, that's for damn sure! But
there are more liberals DEFENDING freedom of speech as there are
attacking it. I defend it!

I DESPISE Fred Phelps and his disgusting webpages godhatesfags.com and
godhatesamerica.com and I think he's a pig. But if I heard that someone
was trying to burn down his church, I'd be on the front steps BESIDE
him, defending the place! he has a RIGHT to spew his bile and I have the
SAME right to tell him he's an ass. I do NOT have the right to shut him
up, nor he, me.

The cold hard fact is this: Freedom is damned hard, but it is worth
EVERY drop of blood spilled defending it! It is difficult to have the
moral STRENGTH *not* to shout down and shut down those you think are
wrong. Freedom takes strength, trust, brains, forbearance, courage and
hard work to safeguard. There is a basic truth that freedom CANNOT be
given... it must be taken by force and it must be earned, and
maintained, by hard work. Once lost, it can only be regained by the same
force with which it was once won. Freedom exists for you, me, Michael
Jackson, Oral Roberts, George Bush, Rat, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tim
LeHay, Fred Phelps, Jane Fonda, PETA, the ACLU, the KKK, AARP, EVERYONE.
But it only exists so long as we have the GUTS to defend it and allow it
for EVERYONE, even the ones we violently disagree with. As a matter of
fact... ESPECIALLY the ones we disagree with.

Swan
>
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Yeah? Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to hear Swan's take on this before I offer my rebuttal.
>
> Swan here. Rat's partner. The terms "left" and "right" are relative on
> a continuum. What is hard line left to one person can be interpreted as
> hard line right by another. Even in one given individual, political
> stances can be all over the map. Take myself, for instance. I am pro
> death penalty, pro-choice and favor language requirements in certain
> professions. Rat and I do not agree on certain areas, politically, yet
> we are both seen as liberals. While socially liberal, I am flatly
> against gun control and would favor restrictions on immigration. I
> think society has placed TOO much emphasis on "family values" as opposed
> to simple "human values" and I'd like to see an end to subsidised
> childbearing in *all* strata of society.

Then, by contemporary American standards, you could be acurately described
as a liberatian. Something to be proud of.

> Rat and I are *not*
> "monolithic"


> and I can say with confidence that the same is true of
> conservatives, liberals, everyone. we are *people* first and foremost,

I disagree. Too many Americans are all too willing to swallow the party
line hook, line, and sinker. I know--and I'll bet you do, too--many, many
people who not only vote a straight Republican or Democratic ticket, but
allow their party to dictate their values to them. For example, if GWB came
out tomorrow and said that no one should ever again own a vehicle made by
Chrylser, that company's stock would take a nasty tumble, because many of
the Kool-Aid drinking Republican faithful would henceforth eschew Chrysler
products.

> and only an idiot or a lazy person blindly follows a "party line"
> without thinking for him or herself.

Then there a lot of idiots out there.


> as for the idea that liberals only tolerate "certain kinds" of freedom
> of speech... Hardly. The "right" wants it both ways. "Liberals are so
> mushy on values!" "The left wants you to have a mind so open, your
> brains fall out!" etc... but then... "The left only allows certain
> kinds of speech!"

Look to the recent SCOTUS decision on campaign finance law; the liberal bloc
(along with swing voter O'Connor) voted to uphold McCain-Feingold. In a
sweeping repudiation of the 1st Amendment, those guardians of free speech
decided that the 1st Amendment, which was drafted primarily to protect
political speech, no longer applies to political speech.

> Well which IS it? Remember, it was a LIBERAL organisation, the ACLU,
> that *defended* the right of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie
> Illinois! Are there leftists who won't tolerate true freedom os speech?
> Hell, YES! I got whacked with a thrown (full) Coke can thrown by a
> radical anti-Nazi protester at a rally once. OW!

Why would the anti-Nazis ping you with a Coke can? You weren't marching
with the skinheads, were you? :^)


> And the people who had
> come to speak were shouted down and driven from the hall. NOT a shining
> example of freedom of speech and assembly, that's for damn sure!

Sure it is. Remember, your right to speak your mind does not entail a
concomitant right to be heard. If people don't like your message, expect to
be shouted down. When it comes to expressing a controversial or contentious
point of view . . . well, it's a jungle out there. As long as the force of
law isn't being brought to bear on the situation, anything goes.

> But
> there are more liberals DEFENDING freedom of speech as there are
> attacking it. I defend it!
>
> I DESPISE Fred Phelps and his disgusting webpages godhatesfags.com and
> godhatesamerica.com and I think he's a pig.

Man, I've seen that. That ****er's got some issues. No doubt ****ed in the
ass as a tot by his hermaphrodite mom. Sad, really . . .

> But if I heard that someone
> was trying to burn down his church, I'd be on the front steps BESIDE
> him, defending the place! he has a RIGHT to spew his bile and I have the
> SAME right to tell him he's an ass. I do NOT have the right to shut him
> up, nor he, me.

I'm thinking that arson is juuuuuuust a bit outside the purview of the 1st
Amendment . . .


> The cold hard fact is this: Freedom is damned hard, but it is worth
> EVERY drop of blood spilled defending it! It is difficult to have the
> moral STRENGTH *not* to shout down and shut down those you think are
> wrong. Freedom takes strength, trust, brains, forbearance, courage and
> hard work to safeguard. There is a basic truth that freedom CANNOT be
> given... it must be taken by force and it must be earned, and
> maintained, by hard work. Once lost, it can only be regained by the same
> force with which it was once won. Freedom exists for you, me, Michael
> Jackson, Oral Roberts, George Bush, Rat, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tim
> LeHay, Fred Phelps, Jane Fonda, PETA, the ACLU, the KKK, AARP, EVERYONE.
> But it only exists so long as we have the GUTS to defend it and allow it
> for EVERYONE, even the ones we violently disagree with. As a matter of
> fact... ESPECIALLY the ones we disagree with.

Hear! Hear! Nice soliloquy, Swan! :^)