What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
posibility of this?

Xomicron wrote:

> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
> least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any
> real posibility of this?

What's up Xomi? Shit your pants in fear of the future or what?
 
-- 
-=Sillicone=-

Xomicron wrote:
> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
> Is there any real posibility of this?

It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November... just need
everyone to do their part.

That Guy wrote:
> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
>> Xomicron wrote:
>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>
>> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
>> just need everyone to do their part.
>
> Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a
> good example with your honesty.

Why do you think I'm conservative? Has it not occurred to you that we just
don't like the American liberals over here?

> If Bush were so honest, I'm sure the
> right man would win the election.

Especially if they follow through on what I said.

-- 
Diogenes

"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
> Xomicron wrote:
> > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> > John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> > recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
> > Is there any real posibility of this?
>
> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November... just
need
> everyone to do their part.


Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a good
example with your honesty.  If Bush were so honest, I'm sure the right man
would win the election.

"That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in news:FY6dnZrMC-Sg6TfdRVn2vA@giganews.com:

> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
>
>> Xomicron wrote:
>>
>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>
>> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
>> just need everyone to do their part.
> 
> Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a good
> example with your honesty.  If Bush were so honest, I'm sure the right
> man would win the election.

Which is why Bush will win in November.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?

no.

Xomicron wrote:

> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real
> posibility of this?

No.

Xomicron wrote:

> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?


Yes, but if anything, it would be Kerry who laid the groundwork for this.

Kerry is quoted as saying that, based on Al Gore's performance, that he 
could win the election without winning a single Southern state -- thus 
writing off the entire south in his campaign.

So he would be a NorthEast/West Coast president.   The Mountain states, 
Central states and Southern states might not appreciate being neglected.

Xomicron wrote:
> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 

Less than if the current president is reelected.

Colin Day

Xomicron wrote:

> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?

No.

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?

JERRY
If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
appointed the loser of the election to the White House, why would
there be armed conflict when someone legally wins the election?

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>> there any real posibility of this?
> 
> JERRY
> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,

Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
appointing anybody president.

Xomicron wrote:

> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
> appointing anybody president.

....but you'll never convince the sore losers.

The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 
> 
>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>
>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>> there any real posibility of this?
>> 
>> JERRY
>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> 
> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
> appointing anybody president.

Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
had wanted to.

ray wrote:

> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
> cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
> legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
> had wanted to.

as is the case with any President

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>:
>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>posibility of this?

no.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:48:03 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
<7Euqc.42832$kc2.642074@nnrp1.uunet.ca>:
>"That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in news:FY6dnZrMC-Sg6TfdRVn2vA@giganews.com:
>> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
>>> just need everyone to do their part.
>> Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a good
>> example with your honesty.  If Bush were so honest, I'm sure the right
>> man would win the election.
>Which is why Bush will win in November.

who knows who will win?

if Bush wins, you will get more of the same.

if Kerry wins, it is uncertain what will happen.

in the light of what Bush has done, it seems to me that the uncertain future
is better than the certain one.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:09:30 GMT, Seeking Twine <any@twine.for.me> wrote in
message <56b62d6d6a1c03785d2d4494a76f2d1b@news.teranews.com>:
>Xomicron wrote:
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>> posibility of this?
>Yes, but if anything, it would be Kerry who laid the groundwork for this.
>Kerry is quoted as saying that, based on Al Gore's performance, that he 
>could win the election without winning a single Southern state -- thus 
>writing off the entire south in his campaign.
>So he would be a NorthEast/West Coast president.   The Mountain states, 
>Central states and Southern states might not appreciate being neglected.

the days of civil war are over. agitators for violence will be ignored by
most people because they have nothing personal at stake.

there is more to gain from unity than from fractiousness.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Mel wrote:

 
> the days of civil war are over. agitators for violence will be ignored by
> most people because they have nothing personal at stake.

And that quote probably was made, in essence, round about 1860 as well....

> there is more to gain from unity than from fractiousness.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.  Yes, but they went ahead and
had a civil war anyway.   Anything can happen, especially if the situation
becomes unstable...and it certainly is unstable:

1. Rising fuel costs
2. Sluggish start/stop recovery
3. 3 years of negative job growth
4. Job exodus
5. Downward mobility; lower salaries for the middle classes
6. potential increasing interest rates now that Alan Greencreep has forced
Bush to reappoint him
7. Volatile world situation.
8. Continued presence of numerous sub-groups, many of which are neutral or
anti- when it comes to centralized government.
9. New technologies taking root in the household -- broadband internet.
10. New work methodologies breaking down old corporate giants: Linux(yes,
you knew it fit in somewhere) -- after 3 years of being beaten down by
management, suddenly the tech worker has a methodology that is
'managementless' -- the whole OSS development process is free of managers,
VPs, CEOs, CIOs, Chief Architects, Marketing Managers, Program Managers,
Product Mangers -- it consists of Developers.   

Now actually these are all unifying things because the whole country has
been feeling them.  BUT -- they lay a groundwork of resentment in general. 
Then, say the recovery starts, but some states or areas are left behind. 
And, how about the EU regulations on things like farm subsidies.  There is
definitely a high degree of potential for friction on a geographical and
class basis in the U.S.

-- 
Valhallah !

"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
: What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John
: Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
least
: one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real
: posibility of this?

Who gives a fuck?

XML Man <xml@xml.xml> wrote in
news:1236594.ITPZeT4lpp@news.west.earthlink.net: 

> Mel wrote:
>
>> the days of civil war are over. agitators for violence will be ignored
>> by most people because they have nothing personal at stake.
> 
> And that quote probably was made, in essence, round about 1860 as
> well.... 
> 
>> there is more to gain from unity than from fractiousness.
> 
> A house divided against itself cannot stand.  Yes, but they went ahead
> and had a civil war anyway.   Anything can happen, especially if the
> situation becomes unstable...and it certainly is unstable:
> 
> 1. Rising fuel costs
> 2. Sluggish start/stop recovery
> 3. 3 years of negative job growth
> 4. Job exodus

Job exodus is a myth. The US imports six times as many jobs as it exports.

> 5. Downward mobility; lower salaries for the middle classes
> 6. potential increasing interest rates now that Alan Greencreep has
> forced Bush to reappoint him
> 7. Volatile world situation.
> 8. Continued presence of numerous sub-groups, many of which are neutral
> or anti- when it comes to centralized government.
> 9. New technologies taking root in the household -- broadband internet.
> 10. New work methodologies breaking down old corporate giants:
> Linux(yes, you knew it fit in somewhere) -- after 3 years of being
> beaten down by management, suddenly the tech worker has a methodology
> that is 'managementless' -- the whole OSS development process is free of
> managers, VPs, CEOs, CIOs, Chief Architects, Marketing Managers, Program
> Managers, Product Mangers -- it consists of Developers.   
> 
> Now actually these are all unifying things because the whole country has
> been feeling them.  BUT -- they lay a groundwork of resentment in
> general. Then, say the recovery starts, but some states or areas are
> left behind. And, how about the EU regulations on things like farm
> subsidies.  There is definitely a high degree of potential for friction
> on a geographical and class basis in the U.S.

The US has been in much worse situations and never had internal conflict.

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<xBAqc.42980$kc2.645206@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> >
> >> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> >> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
> >> there any real posibility of this?
> > 
> > JERRY
> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> 
> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
> appointing anybody president.


JERRY
Except that the recounts weren't illegal.  Even the Supremes didn't
say that the recounts were illegal, only that they were going to
require a deadline that had been slipped twice before to be met this
time.

Then the Miami Herald sued to get the ballots and the Bushies fought
that.  Once they did and the ballots were all counted, what they found
was that, if Gore had gotten only the four counties he had initially
requested, he would have lost anyway (since those were the four
counties that Jeb and Katherine Harris had "scrubbed" and removed
valid voters from) but if the entire state had been recounted, Gore
would have won.

So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
them from voting,
In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.

He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.

And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.

Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Xomicron wrote:
> 
> > Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
> > Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
> > appointing anybody president.
> 
> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> 
> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.

JERRY
Brave talk for a candidate whose approval ratings are sliding downward
faster and faster.  ;-)

There is no way that it would be a landslide.  I live in a heavily
Republican and military area and even the Republicans and the military
members here are bitching constantly about what a terrible President
he's been.  I still think it will be close.

"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
news:02027b97d0f9ed79aaeebc1e4528c084@news.teranews.com...
> That Guy wrote:
> > "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> > news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
> >> Xomicron wrote:
> >>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> >>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
> >>> Is there any real posibility of this?
> >>
> >> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
> >> just need everyone to do their part.
> >
> > Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a
> > good example with your honesty.
>
> Why do you think I'm conservative? Has it not occurred to you that we just
> don't like the American liberals over here?

You Nazis are all the same...  No sense at all, just an endless desire to
blame your problems on someone else in order to justify your lust for
violence.

XML Man <xml@xml.xml> wrote in message news:<1236594.ITPZeT4lpp@news.west.earthlink.net>...
> Mel wrote:
> 
>  
> > the days of civil war are over. agitators for violence will be ignored by
> > most people because they have nothing personal at stake.
> 
> And that quote probably was made, in essence, round about 1860 as well....

JERRY
In 1860 there was a schism in this country called slavery and the
Missouri Compromise, instead of resolving it, had actually made it
worse.  Lincoln was anti-slavery and Southern States attempted to
secede rather than work on the problems.  Those were actions taken by
Southern bureaucrats and until Lincoln attempted to stop the secession
there was no armed conflict.  Certainly there was no armed conflict in
the streets upon hearing that Lincoln had won the election.

Now, are the Mountain states and Southern states going to attempt to
secede?  Not likely.  The only state so far that I am aware of where
there is a strong interest in secession is Vermont. ;-)


> 
> > there is more to gain from unity than from fractiousness.
> 
> A house divided against itself cannot stand.  Yes, but they went ahead and
> had a civil war anyway.   Anything can happen, especially if the situation
> becomes unstable...and it certainly is unstable:
> 
> 1. Rising fuel costs

JERRY
Which started during Bush's administration and which the public would
blame him for.  They would be more inclined to see if Kerry could make
it better.  Of course, according to Woodward the gas prices will drop
just before the election to make things better for Bush.  However,
we've had rising fuel costs before, worse than this, in 1972 (that's
right, during Nixon's administration) that led Carter to put a plan in
place to develop alternate fuel sources.  When Reagan came into
office, one of the first things the Republicans did was to scrap that
plan so that they could keep people dependent on fossil fuels.

> 2. Sluggish start/stop recovery

JERRY
Which started during Bush's administration despite his and Cheney's
claims that it was really Clinton's.  Only those people who get their
facts from talk radio believe it and all the evidence points to this
being "Bush's recession."  In fact, the economic conditions are very
much like they were in the waning days of Bush's daddy's
administration.


> 3. 3 years of negative job growth

JERRY
Again, the result of Bush's economic policies.

> 4. Job exodus

JERRY
Again, the result of Bush's economic policies

> 5. Downward mobility; lower salaries for the middle classes

JERRY
Again, the result of Bush's economic policies.

> 6. potential increasing interest rates now that Alan Greencreep has forced
> Bush to reappoint him

JERRY
Only if the economy does start to creep up again, which the evidence
is kind of contradictory.  It was the major thing that slowed the
recovery from Bush I's recession when Clinton took office.  Every time
the economy started to take off, Greenspan raised rates to try to keep
inflation from rising.  Bush II touted job growth in May but the new
job totals were skewed by the California grocery workers strike being
resolved and in spite of the new jobs, the jobless rate still went up
for that month.  You know your policies are in trouble when you claim
to have created more jobs in a month than ever before and the jobless
rate still goes up that month.


> 7. Volatile world situation.

JERRY
Partly because of Bush's foreign policies.  In South Korea and Spain,
elections were won by candidates who were anti-Bush.  In a worldwide
poll last year, 71% of the European population polled believed that
Bush was a greater threat to the world than the evils in their own
backyard.  When Kerry says that world leaders want him to defeat Bush
in November, he's not kidding.  Tony Blair is in office at the moment
only because he hasn't had to face an election (yet).  Ariel Sharon's
policies took a major hit in the last election held just a few weeks
ago when he allied himself in the voter's minds with Bush.  Meanwhile,
the atrocities in Abu Ghreib are creating new terrorists faster than
we can kill them and makes us hypocrites to the Arab countries.  We've
lost the moral high ground worldwide because Rumsfeld (possibly with
Bush's consent?) ok'd those "interrogation techniques" and caused us
to violate the Geneva Convention.


> 8. Continued presence of numerous sub-groups, many of which are neutral or
> anti- when it comes to centralized government.

JERRY
Which, because Bush's and Ashcroft's Patriot Act puts more illegal
power in the hands of the Federal government, are no friends of the
Bush Administration.


> 9. New technologies taking root in the household -- broadband internet.

JERRY
Making it easier for people to get their news from other news sources
than Fox News  ;-)


> 10. New work methodologies breaking down old corporate giants: Linux(yes,
> you knew it fit in somewhere) -- after 3 years of being beaten down by
> management, suddenly the tech worker has a methodology that is
> 'managementless' -- the whole OSS development process is free of managers,
> VPs, CEOs, CIOs, Chief Architects, Marketing Managers, Program Managers,
> Product Mangers -- it consists of Developers.   


JERRY
I think we are still a ways from seeing it take a strong hold in
industry, though.  With US corporations trying to outsource tech jobs
(particularly help desk and programming) corporations will be slow to
embrace Open Source since any problems in the code they would need to
have developers to write their own fixes, as opposed to going back to
the Development company and trying to get a supported fix.  Of course,
those companies that want to customize the code for their own purpose
will likely embrace it and some are starting to, but right now the
Borg are still winning the fight for corporate networking software.

> 
> Now actually these are all unifying things because the whole country has
> been feeling them.  BUT -- they lay a groundwork of resentment in general. 
> Then, say the recovery starts, but some states or areas are left behind. 
> And, how about the EU regulations on things like farm subsidies.  There is
> definitely a high degree of potential for friction on a geographical and
> class basis in the U.S.


JERRY
But if the voters elect Kerry it's because of those things.  It's
silly to claim that there would be armed conflict in the streets to
remove a legally elected President.


Just my thoughts...

"That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in news:ApydnTbAuvxT_TbdRVn2hw@giganews.com:

> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> news:02027b97d0f9ed79aaeebc1e4528c084@news.teranews.com...
>
>> That Guy wrote:
>>
>>> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
>>> news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>
>>>> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
>>>> just need everyone to do their part.
>>>
>>> Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a
>>> good example with your honesty.
>>
>> Why do you think I'm conservative? Has it not occurred to you that we
>> just don't like the American liberals over here?
> 
> You Nazis are all the same...  No sense at all, just an endless desire
> to blame your problems on someone else in order to justify your lust for
> violence.

That's not it at all. We just know liberalism is a failure.

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405190525.71cba942@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<xBAqc.42980$kc2.645206@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>>
>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>> 
>>> JERRY
>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> 
>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision.
>> The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing
>> to do with appointing anybody president.
>
> JERRY
> Except that the recounts weren't illegal.  Even the Supremes didn't
> say that the recounts were illegal, only that they were going to
> require a deadline that had been slipped twice before to be met this
> time.
> 
> Then the Miami Herald sued to get the ballots and the Bushies fought
> that.  Once they did and the ballots were all counted, what they found
> was that, if Gore had gotten only the four counties he had initially
> requested, he would have lost anyway (since those were the four
> counties that Jeb and Katherine Harris had "scrubbed" and removed
> valid voters from) but if the entire state had been recounted, Gore
> would have won.

All the votes in the state were recounted. Twice. And Gore still lost. Any 
more recounts would have been illegal. Especially after the deadline 
perscribed by Florida law.

> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
> them from voting, In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to
> servicemembers overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
> 
> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.

Strawman.

> And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
> has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
> can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.

That's because you are probably an idiot.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:10 -0700, rogue wrote:

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>> there any real posibility of this?
> 
> JERRY
> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court appointed
> the loser of the election to the White House, why would there be armed
> conflict when someone legally wins the election?

Idiot. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide Presidential
elections. Bush won in the Electoral College, and it wasn't just the
results from Florida that elected him.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 +0000, Ministry Of Jute wrote:

> Xomicron wrote:
> 
>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision.
>> The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing
>> to do with appointing anybody president.
> 
> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.

I am a sore loser, I live in Florida and I recognize the fact that Bush
legally won.


> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.

There will be no landslide. Bailo, you're an idiot.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, ray wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
> 
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>>
>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>>> there any real posibility of this?
>>> 
>>> JERRY
>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> 
>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
>> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
>> appointing anybody president.
> 
> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
> cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
> legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
> had wanted to.

Bailo, you're an idiot.

The laws governing how Electors cast votes are defined by each State.
48 States must cast all there votes for one candidate. Some States have
laws that say the Electors must cast their votes for the popular vote
winner. Do some reading.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, ray wrote:
(snip)
> 
> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
> cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
> legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
> had wanted to.

Opps ... I thought I was reply to Bailo i the last post. Oh, well.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:42:06 +0000, Ministry Of Jute wrote:

> ray wrote:
> 
>> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
>> cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
>> legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
>> had wanted to.
> 
> as is the case with any President

Since his statement is almost entirely incorrect, yours is too.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:25:00 -0700, rogue wrote:

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<xBAqc.42980$kc2.645206@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>> >
>> >> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> >> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> >> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>> >> there any real posibility of this?
>> > 
>> > JERRY
>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> 
>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
>> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
>> appointing anybody president.
> 
> 
> JERRY
> Except that the recounts weren't illegal.  Even the Supremes didn't
> say that the recounts were illegal, only that they were going to
> require a deadline that had been slipped twice before to be met this
> time.
> 
> Then the Miami Herald sued to get the ballots and the Bushies fought
> that.  Once they did and the ballots were all counted, what they found
> was that, if Gore had gotten only the four counties he had initially
> requested, he would have lost anyway (since those were the four
> counties that Jeb and Katherine Harris had "scrubbed" and removed
> valid voters from) but if the entire state had been recounted, Gore
> would have won.
> 
> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
> them from voting,
> In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
> overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.

Bush did NOT lose the election. And if he actually did the things you
claim, we would again be see impeachment hearings on TV.

> 
> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.

That's bullshit. There were voters in Florida that were too stupid to
vote. And that is coming from someone that lives in Florida, is a
registered Republican and voted for Gore. BTW, I think the Supreme Court
Justices know a little more about Constitutional law than you do.

> 
> And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
> has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
> can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.

That we can agree on.

That Guy wrote:
> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> news:02027b97d0f9ed79aaeebc1e4528c084@news.teranews.com...
>> That Guy wrote:
>>> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
>>> news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>
>>>> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
>>>> just need everyone to do their part.
>>>
>>> Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a
>>> good example with your honesty.
>>
>> Why do you think I'm conservative? Has it not occurred to you that
>> we just don't like the American liberals over here?
>
> You Nazis are all the same...  No sense at all, just an endless
> desire to blame your problems on someone else in order to justify
> your lust for violence.

Typical liberal response; try to assinate the people who don't support your
view of what the world should be.

Greece is one of the more liberal, socialistic countries in the world.  It
doesn't work!!

-- 
Diogenes

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?

Besides the obvious answer of "trolling", why are you corssposting to all
these different groups????

I'm in a Linux group.  I don't need to see this shit here.

-- 
    Jeffrey D. Silverman | jeffrey AT jhu DOT edu
                 Website | http://www.wse.jhu.edu/newtnotes/

>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>posibility of this?


Maybe the people of the usa will be as wise as the people of
the USSR were. Wake up one morning, and shrug, and say,
you know, we really don't need no Federal government.

That is my daydream. My nightmare is that we are
very close to civil war. A regime can't long be as oppressive
and brutal as the usa federal government is today
without falling, either from internal or external
forces.

Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

Ministry Of Jute wrote:
> 
> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
> 

Oh, so they /are/ going to use those Windows 0wn3d Diebold machines :)

BushVote_W32

"Jeffrey Silverman" <jeffrey@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.19.16.38.23.612@jhu.edu...
: On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
:
: > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
John
: > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
least
: > one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real
: > posibility of this?
:
: Besides the obvious answer of "trolling", why are you corssposting to all
: these different groups????
:
: I'm in a Linux group.  I don't need to see this shit here.


Tough

Rick <none@notmail.com> wrote:

>> And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
>> has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
>> can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.
>
>That we can agree on.

Me too, although I don't pretend I know who "really" won the
election...

chrisv wrote:

> Rick <none@notmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
>>>has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
>>>can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.
>>
>>That we can agree on.
> 
> 
> Me too, although I don't pretend I know who "really" won the
> election...
> 

Yes, why should you read the newpapers, Plonk Boy.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:46:28 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Rick <none@notmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
>>> has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
>>> can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.
>>
>>That we can agree on.
> 
> Me too, although I don't pretend I know who "really" won the
> election...

Bush 'really' won the election. It was in all the papers.

"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
> Xomicron wrote:
> > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
John
> > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
least
>
> Less than if the current president is reelected.
>
> Colin Day

BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
effete, elite American left taking up arms?
Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?

(In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
FORWARRD - MAARCH!!


..

"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John
> > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least
> > one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real
> > posibility of this?
>
> JERRY
> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,

When did that happen?

> why would
> there be armed conflict when someone legally wins the election?

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
: What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
: John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
: recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
: Is there any real posibility of this?

don't be an idiot

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<WFJqc.43099$kc2.647798@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> >>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
> >>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
> >>> 
> >>> JERRY
> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> >> SNUBIS
> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision.
> >> The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing
> >> to do with appointing anybody president.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Except that the recounts weren't illegal.  Even the Supremes didn't
> > say that the recounts were illegal, only that they were going to
> > require a deadline that had been slipped twice before to be met this
> > time.
> > 
> > Then the Miami Herald sued to get the ballots and the Bushies fought
> > that.  Once they did and the ballots were all counted, what they found
> > was that, if Gore had gotten only the four counties he had initially
> > requested, he would have lost anyway (since those were the four
> > counties that Jeb and Katherine Harris had "scrubbed" and removed
> > valid voters from) but if the entire state had been recounted, Gore
> > would have won.
> SNUBIS
> All the votes in the state were recounted. Twice. And Gore still lost. Any 
> more recounts would have been illegal. Especially after the deadline 
> perscribed by Florida law.

JERRY
Spoken like a man without a clue.  We've gone over this already in
another thread and you ran away from it then.  The second recount was
a machine recount which was triggered automatically.  Gore
petititioned the Florida courts for a hand recount of the four urban
counties that would be most likely to vote Democratic.  He chose four
counties rather than the entire state figuring to save time.  The
Florida courts agreed and the recounts began.  Republicans didn't want
to have the recounts, because they were afraid they would go against
them (and they did, each recount dropped the difference dramatically
between Bush and Gore) so they petitioned the US Supreme Court with a
friend of the court brief.  The supremes stopped the recount and told
Florida that they couldn't recount only the four urban counties but
must recount the entire state.  Florida said, Ok, and started recounts
in all their counties.  Republicans got worried again and went back to
the Supremes who stopped the counts again and kept them stopped over
the weekend

The deadline that the US Supremes held as unslippable was not a
Florida deadline but a US deadline that had been slipped twice before
in our history.

> > JERRY
> > So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
> > them from voting, In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to
> > servicemembers overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
> > In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
> > 
> > He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
> > and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
> > Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.

> SNUBIS
> Strawman.

JERRY
Not a strawman at all.  The Supreme Court vote was 5-4.  The history
was that this wasn't a hard-and-fast deadline since it had precedence
for being slipped twice before.  The Supremes inserted themselves into
a Florida proceeding to stop the recounts even though they were legal
recounts petitioned from the State of Florida legally.  By not
allowing recounts, the Supremes were saying that the voters of Florida
didn't really have a right to have their votes counted and heard.

> >JERRY
> > And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
> > has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
> > can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.

>SNUBIS 
> That's because you are probably an idiot.

JERRY
Oh my!  What an intelligent answer.  Ok, fuckwit, let's examine the 
Bush record:

On the economy:  zero or negative job growth for almost his entire
tenure in office.  Over 3 million jobs lost on his watch.  His own
Secretary of Labor refers to job outsourcing as just another commodity
that can be exported overseas.  Even in the March report where he
claimed over 300,000 new jobs were created, over 24% of those were not
really "new" jobs but a paperwork claim when the California grocery
strike ended and the old workers (whose unemployment had run out) went
back to work the Bush administration counted them as "new" jobs.  On
top of that, in spite of the claim of over 300,000 new jobs created,
unemployment for that month ROSE, not fell.  His administration is
still hemorrhaging jobs faster than they are being created.  You can
easily say that Bush has done the worst performance of job creation
since Herbert Hoover told the homeless in the Great Depression that
it's not the government's place to be involved in the economy. (Sound
familiar?  It's precisely what Bush Sr, who was a few IQ points
sharper than sonny, said in 1992 when he got his ass handed to him in
the election with Clinton.)

Took the largest surplus in our history and turned it into the
greatest deficit in US history.  Now think about this.  When Ronald
Reagan came into office in 1980, he took what was considered the
largest deficit in our history and in four years doubled it.  That was
pretty spectacular, but when you consider that the US Government was
operating in the black when Shrub took over, to take that surplus and
turn it into a much, much larger deficit than Ronnie did was a major,
spectacular bit of financial mismanagement.  Of course, it shouldn't
have surprised anyone.  In less than four years of being governor of
Texas his financial mismanagement there was so spectacular that they
are still trying to dig themselves out, or would be if the Republican
party there weren't pre-occupied with gerrymandering the districts to
stay in power.

On security, ignored the warnings of the security agencies that
something was going to happen, leading up to 9/11.  Check out the
names Sibel Edmonds for some good information.  Then, once 9/11
happened, used it as an excuse to attack a third world country that
posed no threat while ignoring other countries that were and continue
to be threats.  In the end, we are no more safe now than we were
before 9/11, and may actually be less safe because of Bush's actions. 
Do yourself a favor and do some research into the events leading up to
9/11.  Bush had been given a plan to take out a very large bite of
Al-quaida and chose to do nothing.  An FBI whistleblower named Sibel
Edmonds gave testimony to the 9/11 commission of the warnings she sent
up the chain of command of big things about to happen, about airplane
hijackings and major terrorist acts coming up very soon and was
ignored.  Another FBI whistleblower in Minnesota had a flight school
student who didn't want to learn takeoffs and landings, just how to
steer the plane and was blown off so that Ashcroft could prosecute a
guy growing pot in his yard.  Bush was warned of the domestic danger
on Aug 6, 2001 and chose to ignore it.  No warnings sent to the FAA,
nothing sent to the airlines.  Nothing.  Bush's security policy was
"Do Nothing, and hope nothing bad happens."  Now he wants to run for
President on the claim that he will make us SAFER?"  LOL.  When?  He's
the classic case of the guy who closes the barn door after the horses
have all run out.

On liberty:  pushed through the Patriot Act that seriously eroded the
freedoms we are guaranteed by the Constitution and gave security
agencies unchecked powers that are a major invasion of privacy.

On the environment:  he suggested that the Superfund needed to be paid
into not by the polluters, but by the taxpayers.  That means that like
his tenure as Texas governor, he thinks that corporations should be
able to foul the air and water at will and we-the-people should pay
for it.

On Foreign Affairs:  he took the great goodwill of other nations after
9/11 and squandered it so badly that allying yourself with Bush
overseas is the kiss of death.  Spain and South Korea both had
elections in the past year and the Pro-Bush candidate was beaten in
the polls - badly.  Ariel Sharon suggested in the most recent election
that his policies were important to Bush and America as well as for
the future of Israel and was badly voted down.  If Tony Blair had to
run for office right now, he would be on his ass as well.  He's simply
fortunate that his party controls enough seats that he hasn't had to
go through a vote of confidence on his handling of foreign affairs. 
Most countries overseas see us as a greater threat than the
terrorists.

On Education:  Claimed his No Child Left Behind program would
strengthen education, then failed to fund it.  His Education Secretary
refers to teachers who belong to a union as "terrorists."

Violated the Geneva Convention with his handling of Iraq and the
prisoners in Guatanemo Bay and could conceivably stand trial later for
violation of the War Crimes Act.

He thinks stem cell research is bad because it destroys embryos, but
that artificial insemination is ok, despite the fact that it destroys
embryos.  (Okay, we already knew he was a moron)

He sets the standard for mediocrity.  In fact, a very strong case
could be made that Bush is not only the dumbest President ever, he
could very well be the Worst.President.Ever in the history of this
country.  And considering some of the Presidents this country has had,
that's really going some.  You have to go back over 150 years to find
a President who was worse than Bush has been so far, and if you
consider all the indicators, Bush may still be worse.

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The buck stops here." 
Bush has one on his desk that says, "It's not My Fault."

And you think that there might be armed conflict in the streets when
the Shrub is voted out of office, where he was never voted into in the
first place?  LOL.  What are you smoking and where can I get some? 
Not to vote for Bush, of course, but for something that so completely
distorts reality.  It must be really good shit you are smoking. ;-)

Like I said, I live in a very, hardcore military and Republican area
and you can't find many here in the military or non-religious-right
circles that have anything good to say for him.  They will still
likely vote for him, since they would vote for a "yellow dog" if that
dog was Republican.

The polls show it to be a close race still and probably will be just
on the basis of party loyalty.  However, if there is a landslide, it's
not likely to be one where Bush wins.  If the independent and moderate
voters get involved, Bush doesn't really have a chance.  I can tell
you that Bush has polarized people who normally don't care about
politics into getting involved - to get him out of office.  Bush has
polarize military wives and families and many of them that would have
voted for him before will either not vote at all or vote for someone
else than Bush in November.

Personally, I think when historians 50 years from now look back on the
election of 2000 and Bush's actions as President, I suspect they will
wonder why in the world we allowed it to take place.  They may
consider us in the same way that Americans considered non-Nazi Germans
following WW II.  "Surely they knew.  How could they have allowed the
Holocaust to happen?"

"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
> Personally, I think when historians 50 years from now look back on the
> election of 2000 and Bush's actions as President, I suspect they will
> wonder why in the world we allowed it to take place.

I'm wondering that already- why you allowed it. Maybe next time you'll
know better.

> They may
> consider us in the same way that Americans considered non-Nazi Germans
> following WW II.  "Surely they knew.  How could they have allowed the
> Holocaust to happen?"

"Robert" <youcanteducatepork@spamex.com> wrote
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> : What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> : John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> : recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
> : Is there any real posibility of this?
>
> don't be an idiot
>
>
Why not? shouldn't everyone do what they do best?

On Wed, 19 May 2004 11:19:33 +0000, Rick wrote:

> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, ray wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>> 
>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>> news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com: 
>>> 
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>>>
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>>>> there any real posibility of this?
>>>> 
>>>> JERRY
>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>> 
>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
>>> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
>>> appointing anybody president.
>> 
>> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
>> cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
>> legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
>> had wanted to.
> 
> Bailo, you're an idiot.
> 
> The laws governing how Electors cast votes are defined by each State.
> 48 States must cast all there votes for one candidate. Some States have
> laws that say the Electors must cast their votes for the popular vote
> winner. Do some reading.

That may be, but it is still a fact that no one is 'elected' until the
electoral college meets to cast their votes.

On 18 May 2004 19:10:10 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
<6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com>:
>Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>> posibility of this?
>JERRY
>If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>appointed the loser of the election to the White House, why would
>there be armed conflict when someone legally wins the election?

the guy is bored with his nintendo. he wants something interesting to happen
that he can watch on the 7PM news.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>Xomicron wrote:
>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
>> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
>> appointing anybody president.
>...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.

will you cower in shame if he loses?

btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately predict
them beforehand.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
<2h03baF7h9t7U1@uni-berlin.de>:
>On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>>> there any real posibility of this?
>>> JERRY
>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
>> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
>> appointing anybody president.
>Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
>cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
>legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
>had wanted to.

or Nelson Mandela.

you could rename all your cities Nelson Mandela, and all your ball parks and
all your streets. In fact, wherever you turn, everything could be called
Nelson Mandela.

The United States of Nelson Mandela. such a lovely ring to it, don't you
think?

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Mel wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> message <2h03baF7h9t7U1@uni-berlin.de>:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>> JERRY
>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College
>> met and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral
>> College are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have
>> elected Hillary if they had wanted to.
> 
> or Nelson Mandela.

I didn't know he was born in the U.S.A. ??

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>:

>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>posibility of this?

No.  HTH.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:09:30 GMT, Seeking Twine <any@twine.for.me>
wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<56b62d6d6a1c03785d2d4494a76f2d1b@news.teranews.com>:

>Xomicron wrote:
>
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>> posibility of this?
>
>
>Yes, but if anything, it would be Kerry who laid the groundwork for this.
>
>Kerry is quoted as saying that, based on Al Gore's performance, that he 
>could win the election without winning a single Southern state -- thus 
>writing off the entire south in his campaign.
>
>So he would be a NorthEast/West Coast president.   The Mountain states, 
>Central states and Southern states might not appreciate being neglected.

While others of them would greatly appreciate being neglected by
Washington.  Completely, if possible.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
> wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> >Xomicron wrote:
> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The
> >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with
> >> appointing anybody president.
> >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> >The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>
> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>
> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately predict
> them beforehand.
>
Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
about Republicans. Republicans recognize that there must be as much
night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
sunshine up their ass. I thought Kennedy was a good President,
Carter a well intentioned knucklehead, Johnson paranoid and slow on
the draw, but well meaning, (in fact he may have been involved in the
conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy)... if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
have for Republicans. If Gore had really been as popular as sore loser
Democrats seem to imagine, he would have won by a significant majority,
and there would have been no last minute death match. It's also worth
noting that the Nixon-Kennedy race was _far_ closer, with many states
which could have been recounted, but Nixon, being more of a gentleman
than Gore, simply conceded to Kennedy.

Xomicron wrote:
> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in
> news:snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> 
>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>> 
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
>>> <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message
>>> <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>: 
>>> 
>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>>>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>>>> 
>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>> 
>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>> 
>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>>> predict them beforehand.
>> 
>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>> about Republicans. Republicans recognize that there must be as much
>> night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
>> sunshine up their ass. I thought Kennedy was a good President,
> 
> There sure aren't any Democrats like JFK anymore. The Democratic
> party has turned into the party of wierd minorities and terrorist
> apologists. 

Actually, worse!

"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in
news:snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com: 

> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
>> wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>
>> > Xomicron wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>> >> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>> >> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>> >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>> >
>> > The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>
>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>
>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>> predict them beforehand.
>
> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
> about Republicans. Republicans recognize that there must be as much
> night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
> sunshine up their ass. I thought Kennedy was a good President,

There sure aren't any Democrats like JFK anymore. The Democratic party has
turned into the party of wierd minorities and terrorist apologists. 

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
news:bbhma018vaqo75bugg6amq73b76qjqi12u@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> message <2h03baF7h9t7U1@uni-berlin.de>:
>>On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>> JERRY
>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met
>>and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College
>>are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary
>>if they had wanted to.
> 
> or Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela isn't an American.

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in 
news:6e14bcdc.0405191218.16c6b9bb@posting.google.com:

> JERRY
> Spoken like a man without a clue.  We've gone over this already in
> another thread and you ran away from it then.  The second recount was
> a machine recount which was triggered automatically.  Gore
> petititioned the Florida courts for a hand recount of the four urban
> counties that would be most likely to vote Democratic.  He chose four
> counties rather than the entire state figuring to save time.

Must be nice to pick and choose which counties you want to be recounted. Only 
one recount was allowed by law. Gore got two. Gore wouldn't have been 
satisfied until he fished out enough votes to win.

Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@jhu.edu> wrote in
news:pan.2004.05.19.16.38.23.612@jhu.edu: 

> On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
> 
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>> there any real posibility of this?
> 
> Besides the obvious answer of "trolling", why are you corssposting to
> all these different groups????
> 
> I'm in a Linux group.  I don't need to see this shit here.

Why don't you cry about it you little bitch?

absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
news:40ab7031.48103529@news.west.earthlink.net: 

>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>> there any real posibility of this?
> 
> Maybe the people of the usa will be as wise as the people of
> the USSR were. Wake up one morning, and shrug, and say,
> you know, we really don't need no Federal government.
> 
> That is my daydream. My nightmare is that we are
> very close to civil war. A regime can't long be as oppressive
> and brutal as the usa federal government is today
> without falling, either from internal or external
> forces.

Oh brother. You must be kidding yourself. The US federal government is
brutal and oppressive? You must be living in la la land. 

You must think that places like North Korea are utopias. The current
government has been operating there for 50 years and counting. 

On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:44:16 GMT, XML Man <xml@xml.xml> wrote in message
<1236594.ITPZeT4lpp@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>Mel wrote:
>> the days of civil war are over. agitators for violence will be ignored by
>> most people because they have nothing personal at stake.
>And that quote probably was made, in essence, round about 1860 as well....

i doubt it. the South was dependent on slavery to meet their labour
requirements. they certainly felt that their lifestyle was under threat.

>> there is more to gain from unity than from fractiousness.
>A house divided against itself cannot stand.  Yes, but they went ahead and
>had a civil war anyway.   Anything can happen, especially if the situation
>becomes unstable...and it certainly is unstable:

America is not unstable. America is an incredibly strong nation today and
the people of America have never felt more united by a common external
threat.

The chance of civil war in America is zero.

>1. Rising fuel costs

irrelevant.

>2. Sluggish start/stop recovery

America has an extremely strong economy - one of the best in the world.

>3. 3 years of negative job growth
>4. Job exodus
>5. Downward mobility; lower salaries for the middle classes

none of these are a major problem for the vast majority of Americans.

>6. potential increasing interest rates now that Alan Greencreep has forced
>Bush to reappoint him
>7. Volatile world situation.

which is a unifying factor rather than a divisive one.

>8. Continued presence of numerous sub-groups, many of which are neutral or
>anti- when it comes to centralized government.

fringe groups are a joke. a non-threat except to themselves.

>9. New technologies taking root in the household -- broadband internet.

LOL

DDA is gearing up to wage bandwidth war on Cape Town.

>10. New work methodologies breaking down old corporate giants: Linux(yes,
>you knew it fit in somewhere) -- after 3 years of being beaten down by
>management, suddenly the tech worker has a methodology that is
>'managementless' -- the whole OSS development process is free of managers,
>VPs, CEOs, CIOs, Chief Architects, Marketing Managers, Program Managers,
>Product Mangers -- it consists of Developers.

LOL

you could write material for catbert.

>Now actually these are all unifying things because the whole country has
>been feeling them.

LOL (XML suddenly realises he has no argument).

>BUT -- they lay a groundwork of resentment in general.

LOL

>Then, say the recovery starts, but some states or areas are left behind.

LOL (aaah, an idea occurs to XML that maybe he can still salvage this post
by speculating wildly. clue: the only way you could have saved face is by
deleting your post when you realised you had nothing in your favour.)

>And, how about the EU regulations on things like farm subsidies.

LOL (yeah, how about them? wicked aren't they?)

>There is
>definitely a high degree of potential for friction on a geographical and
>class basis in the U.S.

yes, I agree. lots of people in the USA have sex regularly.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
<6e14bcdc.0405190552.64aa4f5a@posting.google.com>:
>Just my thoughts...

too many words, Jerry.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On 19 May 2004 13:18:02 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
<6e14bcdc.0405191218.16c6b9bb@posting.google.com>:
>How could they have allowed the Holocaust to happen?"

Jerry, you need to use fewer words and stay on topic.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:10:23 GMT, "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in
message <9d76341c4e2e7c4b1c28d9384f09c09e@news.teranews.com>:
>Mel wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>> JERRY
>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College
>>> met and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral
>>> College are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have
>>> elected Hillary if they had wanted to.
>> or Nelson Mandela.
>I didn't know he was born in the U.S.A. ??

he wasn't, but Nelson Mandela has been awarded with so many honours that I'm
sure you will declare him officially born in the USA.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:35:05 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
<JaSqc.43377$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>:
>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>> JERRY
>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met
>>>and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College
>>>are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary
>>>if they had wanted to.
>> or Nelson Mandela.
>Nelson Mandela isn't an American.

but he could be.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?


I usually stay out of politics threads but to humor you yes if armed
strife occures it should be easy since Bush and Rummy have most of the
troops over in the middle east

(Sarcasm)


Jim

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:41:28 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:

>
>
>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>>one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>>posibility of this?
>
>
>Maybe the people of the usa will be as wise as the people of
>the USSR were. Wake up one morning, and shrug, and say,
>you know, we really don't need no Federal government.
>
>That is my daydream. My nightmare is that we are
>very close to civil war. A regime can't long be as oppressive
>and brutal as the usa federal government is today
>without falling, either from internal or external
>forces.
 
	Oppressive?  Brutal?  WTF R U talking about?

On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
<dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
<snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com>:
>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
>> >Xomicron wrote:
>> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The
>> >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with
>> >> appointing anybody president.
>> >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>> >The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately predict
>> them beforehand.
>Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>about Republicans.

ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.

>if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
>be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
>have for Republicans.

Bush is judged on his merits.

btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?

>If Gore had really been as popular as sore loser
>Democrats seem to imagine, he would have won by a significant majority,
>and there would have been no last minute death match.

ditto for Bush.

>It's also worth
>noting that the Nixon-Kennedy race was _far_ closer, with many states
>which could have been recounted, but Nixon, being more of a gentleman
>than Gore, simply conceded to Kennedy.

yes, Nixon is someone you can hold up as a paragon of virtue.

Please keep talking.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Mel wrote:


> Bush is judged on his merits.
> 
> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?

Don't 

We don't want to hear it.

Go and enjoy your Euro-Dog and Kremlin Cola or whatever it is you eat in
Commieland.


-- 
Valhallah !

"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John
> > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least
> > > one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real
> > > posibility of this?
> >
> > JERRY
> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> 
> When did that happen?

The 2000 election

Xomicron wrote:

> Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@jhu.edu> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.05.19.16.38.23.612@jhu.edu: 
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>>there any real posibility of this?
>>
>>Besides the obvious answer of "trolling", why are you corssposting to
>>all these different groups????
>>
>>I'm in a Linux group.  I don't need to see this shit here.
> 
> 
> Why don't you cry about it you little bitch?

So, you in prison as well?  Is your bunk mate ol' sore keester??
In for life eh.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
<dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:

>
>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
>> wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>> >Xomicron wrote:
>> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The
>> >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with
>> >> appointing anybody president.
>> >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>> >The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>
>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>
>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately predict
>> them beforehand.
>>
>Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>about Republicans.

Democrats don't ruin the country and betray our trust the way
Republicans do, either.

>Republicans recognize that there must be as much
>night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
>sunshine up their ass.

Bullshit.

>I thought Kennedy was a good President,
>Carter a well intentioned knucklehead, Johnson paranoid and slow on
>the draw, but well meaning, (in fact he may have been involved in the
>conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy)... if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
>be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
>have for Republicans.

What you call "prejudicial hatred", I call judging on the merits.

>If Gore had really been as popular as sore loser
>Democrats seem to imagine, he would have won by a significant majority,
>and there would have been no last minute death match.

Now that's a novel argument I hadn't heard before.  I don't think
anyone ever made any claims about how popular Gore was; I think the
issue is how competent Gore was.  And, yes, he may be incompetent, but
he couldn't possibly come close to how incompetent President Bush is.

>It's also worth
>noting that the Nixon-Kennedy race was _far_ closer, with many states
>which could have been recounted, but Nixon, being more of a gentleman
>than Gore, simply conceded to Kennedy.

Guffaw.  Yeah, Nixon was a paragon of gentility.

EZ2 wrote:
> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
> 
>>Xomicron wrote:
>>
>>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>
> John
> 
>>>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>>
> least
> 
>>Less than if the current president is reelected.
>>
>>Colin Day
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
> effete, elite American left taking up arms?
> Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
> 

Gun-hating? John Kerry hates guns? Then why does he go hunting with one?

And I don't even own a Volvo.

Colin Day

In article <snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
 "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote:

> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
> > On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
> > wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> > >Xomicron wrote:
> > >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. 
> > >> The
> > >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do 
> > >> with
> > >> appointing anybody president.
> > >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> > >The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
> >
> > will you cower in shame if he loses?
> >
> > btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately predict
> > them beforehand.
> >
> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
> about Republicans. Republicans recognize that there must be as much
> night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
> sunshine up their ass. I thought Kennedy was a good President,
> Carter a well intentioned knucklehead, Johnson paranoid and slow on
> the draw, but well meaning, (in fact he may have been involved in the
> conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy)... if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
> have for Republicans. If Gore had really been as popular as sore loser
> Democrats seem to imagine, he would have won by a significant majority,
> and there would have been no last minute death match. It's also worth
> noting that the Nixon-Kennedy race was _far_ closer, with many states
> which could have been recounted, but Nixon, being more of a gentleman
> than Gore, simply conceded to Kennedy.

Can anyone in their right mind say that the Republicans treated Bill 
Clinton fairly?

-- 
Dave Fritzinger

David Fritzinger wrote:


> Can anyone in their right mind say that the Republicans treated Bill
> Clinton fairly?

Dam right.  They treated me bad !

Hey, can you get me her phone number:

http://www.seelai.com/photos/2004_models/areeya_oki.html

Is China long distance ?

-- 
Call Me Bubba !

>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
>> and brutal as the usa federal government is today
>> without falling, either from internal or external
>> forces.
>
>Oh brother. You must be kidding yourself. The US federal government is
>brutal and oppressive? You must be living in la la land. 

Try living without a social security number for a year, and without
any of it's benefits such as driver license or employment, and you
know first hand just how oppressive the usa government is.

>You must think that places like North Korea are utopias. 

I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.

Love,
Absalom


--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
>>and brutal as the usa federal government is today
>>without falling, either from internal or external
>>forces.

>	Oppressive?  Brutal?  WTF R U talking about?

A city I travel to frequently is proposing to condemn
nine city blocks and sell the property to Walmart
for a SuperCenter.  When the Israelis bulldoze a
palestinian city we call it oppressive and brutal. When a
government agency in the usa takes up arms
against a neighborhood to drive the folks there
from their homes we call it progress and a good
thing.

Try living for a year without using a social security
number or any of it's benefits such as bank accounts,
and employment, and driver license and you will
see just how oppressive the usa is.

I think we are worse than the Israelis because what
they are doing is illegal. We have written laws to 
make the brutality legal.

Love,
Absalom

--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>posibility of this?

We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
drugs is the most visible example.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
morality on those who believe differently?

Love,
Absalom

--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will his
predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to turn some
of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a real champ

"rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:6e14bcdc.0405190525.71cba942@posting.google.com...
> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:<xBAqc.42980$kc2.645206@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> > rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> > news:6e14bcdc.0405181810.1c2df57a@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> > >
> > >> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> > >> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> > >> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
Is
> > >> there any real posibility of this?
> > >
> > > JERRY
> > > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> > > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> >
> > Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision.
The
> > Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do
with
> > appointing anybody president.
>
>
> JERRY
> Except that the recounts weren't illegal.  Even the Supremes didn't
> say that the recounts were illegal, only that they were going to
> require a deadline that had been slipped twice before to be met this
> time.
>
> Then the Miami Herald sued to get the ballots and the Bushies fought
> that.  Once they did and the ballots were all counted, what they found
> was that, if Gore had gotten only the four counties he had initially
> requested, he would have lost anyway (since those were the four
> counties that Jeb and Katherine Harris had "scrubbed" and removed
> valid voters from) but if the entire state had been recounted, Gore
> would have won.
>
> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
> them from voting,
> In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
> overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
>
> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.
>
> And boy, what a fuckup did they make, because so far everything Bush
> has turned his attention to as President he has managed to fuck up.  I
> can't see one thing he's done that he hasn't turned to shit.

Americans are fucking sheeple, not people. Apathetic, t.v. /
media-hypnotized morons.

"father of peace" <absalom@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:40ac2f50.97037814@news.west.earthlink.net...
:
: >>A regime can't long be as oppressive
: >> and brutal as the usa federal government is today
: >> without falling, either from internal or external
: >> forces.
: >
: >Oh brother. You must be kidding yourself. The US federal government is
: >brutal and oppressive? You must be living in la la land.
:
: Try living without a social security number for a year, and without
: any of it's benefits such as driver license or employment, and you
: know first hand just how oppressive the usa government is.
:
: >You must think that places like North Korea are utopias.
:
: I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.
:





OK....... WHO INVITED THE GREASER?

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:35:09 -0600, ray wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 11:19:33 +0000, Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, ray wrote:
(snip)
>>> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met
>>> and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College
>>> are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected
>>> Hillary if they had wanted to.
>> 
>> Bailo, you're an idiot.
>> 
>> The laws governing how Electors cast votes are defined by each State. 48
>> States must cast all there votes for one candidate. Some States have
>> laws that say the Electors must cast their votes for the popular vote
>> winner. Do some reading.
> 
> That may be, but it is still a fact that no one is 'elected' until the
> electoral college meets to cast their votes.

I didn't dispute that.
-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2004 01:46:01 +0200, Mel wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:35:05 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
> message <JaSqc.43377$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>:
>>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>>On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>>> JERRY
>>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>>Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met
>>>>and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College
>>>>are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected
>>>>Hillary if they had wanted to.
>>> or Nelson Mandela.
>>Nelson Mandela isn't an American.
> 
> but he could be.

He can't be a native born US citizen.
-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:21:44 +0000, father of peace wrote:

>>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
>>>and brutal as the usa federal government is today without falling,
>>>either from internal or external forces.
> 
>>	Oppressive?  Brutal?  WTF R U talking about?
> 
> A city I travel to frequently is proposing to condemn nine city blocks and
> sell the property to Walmart for a SuperCenter. 

Condemn? Are you sue? Or might you be trying to say the city is abusing
its power of eminent domain.

> When the Israelis
> bulldoze a palestinian city we call it oppressive and brutal. When a
> government agency in the usa takes up arms against a neighborhood to drive
> the folks there from their homes we call it progress and a good thing.
> 
> Try living for a year without using a social security number or any of
> it's benefits such as bank accounts, and employment, and driver license
> and you will see just how oppressive the usa is.

What does any of that have to do with government brutality. BTW, there are
laws that say you do not have to use yout social security number as your
ID if you object to it.

> 
> I think we are worse than the Israelis because what they are doing is
> illegal. We have written laws to make the brutality legal.
> 
I think you don't think very much.

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:24:06 +0000, father of peace wrote:

> 
>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John
>>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>>least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any
>>real posibility of this?
> 
> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on drugs is the
> most visible example.
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition on drugs is
> an even bigger failure today. When are we ever going to learn that we
> can't enforce religious morality on those who believe differently?
> 

The 'war on drugs' has nothing to do with religion. Buy a clue.

-- 
Rick

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:

> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> > > John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> > > recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>> > > Is there any real posibility of this?
>> >
>> > JERRY
>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> 
>> When did that happen?
> 
> The 2000 election

The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
was a clear majority in the Electoral College. 
-- 
Rick

On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:35:07 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

> Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@jhu.edu> wrote in
> news:pan.2004.05.19.16.38.23.612@jhu.edu:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:10:23 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>> 
>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>> there any real posibility of this?
>> 
>> Besides the obvious answer of "trolling", why are you corssposting to
>> all these different groups????
>> 
>> I'm in a Linux group.  I don't need to see this shit here.
> 
> Why don't you cry about it you little bitch?

Does it hurt to have such a small brain?

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:15:48 +0000, father of peace wrote:

> 
>>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
>>> and brutal as the usa federal government is today without falling,
>>> either from internal or external forces.
>>
>>Oh brother. You must be kidding yourself. The US federal government is
>>brutal and oppressive? You must be living in la la land.
> 
> Try living without a social security number for a year, and without any of
> it's benefits such as driver license or employment, and you know first
> hand just how oppressive the usa government is.

What is your problem with having a social security number, and how does it
translate into government brutality?

> 
>>You must think that places like North Korea are utopias.
> 
> I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.
> 

Then stay in Mexico. BTW, old is the current Federal government there, and
how many times has it changed violently?

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2004 02:33:20 GMT, XML Man <xml@xml.xml> wrote in message
<2729819.pbjopuoOIt@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>Mel wrote:
>>Bush is judged on his merits.
>>btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
>Don't 
>We don't want to hear it.
>Go and enjoy your Euro-Dog and Kremlin Cola or whatever it is you eat in
>Commieland.

Ek kom van Suid Afrika / I am a South African.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:30:17 +0200, Mel wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2004 02:33:20 GMT, XML Man <xml@xml.xml> wrote in message
> <2729819.pbjopuoOIt@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>>Mel wrote:
>>>Bush is judged on his merits.
>>>btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
>>Don't
>>We don't want to hear it.
>>Go and enjoy your Euro-Dog and Kremlin Cola or whatever it is you eat in
>>Commieland.
> 
> Ek kom van Suid Afrika / I am a South African.

Cool -- but can you say that in the other 9 official languages!

Actually, I _doubt_ Bush will stay in office if he loses.

But it is almost a sure bet Kerry's impeachment investigation starts
November 3.  How long Democrats and other people who respect the rule of
law will stand for that and what they will do about it is up in the air.
If history is a judge, we'll take it and continue descending into a banana
republic dictatorship.

Rick wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
> 
>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>> > > John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>> > > recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>> > > Is there any real posibility of this?
>>> >
>>> > JERRY
>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>> 
>>> When did that happen?
>> 
>> The 2000 election
> 
> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.

In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have won
Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the state was
Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the integrity of
the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign manager if Florida.

At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped down
and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would not have
let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with much the
same meaning as in "win-dows")

You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
election process in the states.

Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election. It
did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in 
> news:6e14bcdc.0405191218.16c6b9bb@posting.google.com:
> 
> > JERRY
> > Spoken like a man without a clue.  We've gone over this already in
> > another thread and you ran away from it then.  The second recount was
> > a machine recount which was triggered automatically.  Gore
> > petititioned the Florida courts for a hand recount of the four urban
> > counties that would be most likely to vote Democratic.  He chose four
> > counties rather than the entire state figuring to save time.

>SNUBIS 
> Must be nice to pick and choose which counties you want to be recounted. 

JERRY
Which is why he was told he couldn't have it.

>SNUBIS
Only one recount was allowed by law. 

JERRY
Actually, if it was against the law, the courts wouldn't have allowed
it.  Since he went through the legal system to request the hand
recount, he was within the law.

>SNUBIS
Gore got two. 

JERRY
No, he got the machine recount that didn't recount everything
(remember the whole "hanging chad" and "dimpled chad" brouhaha?).  The
US Supremes stopped the Legally requested hand recount.  Gore got one
and not a good one.  The votes weren't all counted.  Different
counties, for example, had different standards for not counting votes.
 Part of the reason for the recount was to apply the same standards to
all counties.

>SNUBIS
Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough votes to
win.

JERRY
Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the ballots
and did the recount, Gore would have won?  Even with Jeb Bush
scrubbing the four primary urban counties to remove registered and
valid voters to keep them from voting, even after sending out and
giving military members two votes to other people's one vote.

Gore didn't have to keep fishing until he got enough votes-the votes
were there.  The Republicans and the Supreme Court just kept them from
being counted.

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<irrna0hrrs0gg9fcq3r916kjhe1k6vmr7t@4ax.com>...
> On 19 May 2004 13:18:02 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
> <6e14bcdc.0405191218.16c6b9bb@posting.google.com>:
> >How could they have allowed the Holocaust to happen?"
> 
> Jerry, you need to use fewer words and stay on topic.

JERRY
No doubt.  I don't have a lot of time to edit and refine.  Sometimes
just getting the info out there is trying enough.

"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<2h1pagF85ggqU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
> > Xomicron wrote:
> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>  John
> > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>  least
> >
> > Less than if the current president is reelected.
> >
> > Colin Day
> 
> BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
> effete, elite American left taking up arms?
> Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
> 
> (In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
> FORWARRD - MAARCH!!
> 
> 
> .


Here's one tree hugging, queer loving, gun-totin' liberal who teaches
martial arts. And I don't mean sport. Child, where *do you get your
information from?

A handful of inbred dittoheads starting an insurrection because
someone they don't like who gets elected? It's happened before...
with, shall we say, minimal impact.

Unlike the current gang of scoundrals in the White House, *real
conservatives are honest, support the seperation of church and state,
are champions of state rights, loathe unfunded mandates, minimize US
intervention overseas and would never start a war unless attack was
immanent, are strong on national defense, place a high value on honor,
value education, and above all, are fiscally responsible.

But liberals are even better :)

Kermit

"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message news:<snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
> > On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
> > wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
> > >Xomicron wrote:
> > >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The
> > >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with
> > >> appointing anybody president.
> > >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> > >The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
> >
> > will you cower in shame if he loses?
> >
> > btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately predict
> > them beforehand.
> >
> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
> about Republicans. Republicans recognize that there must be as much
> night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
> sunshine up their ass. I thought Kennedy was a good President,
> Carter a well intentioned knucklehead, Johnson paranoid and slow on
> the draw, but well meaning, (in fact he may have been involved in the
> conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy)... if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
> have for Republicans. If Gore had really been as popular as sore loser
> Democrats seem to imagine, he would have won by a significant majority,
> and there would have been no last minute death match. It's also worth
> noting that the Nixon-Kennedy race was _far_ closer, with many states
> which could have been recounted, but Nixon, being more of a gentleman
> than Gore, simply conceded to Kennedy.


Largely true, except for the whining part. That's all I heard from the
neocons (not the true conservatives like Bob Dole) for 8 years while
Clinton was in office.

Kermit

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<bbhma018vaqo75bugg6amq73b76qjqi12u@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> <2h03baF7h9t7U1@uni-berlin.de>:
> >On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> >>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> >>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
> >>>> there any real posibility of this?
> >>> JERRY
> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
> >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
> >> appointing anybody president.
> >Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met and
> >cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College are not
> >legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected Hillary if they
> >had wanted to.
> 
> or Nelson Mandela.
> 
> you could rename all your cities Nelson Mandela, and all your ball parks and
> all your streets. In fact, wherever you turn, everything could be called
> Nelson Mandela.
> 
> The United States of Nelson Mandela. such a lovely ring to it, don't you
> think?


Nope. The US constitution requires the president to be native-born.
Arnold Schwartzenneger cannot be elected president unless there is a
constitutional ammendment.

Kermit

> > > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >  John
> > > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall
at
> >  least
> > >
> > > Less than if the current president is reelected.
> > >
> > > Colin Day
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun
hating,
> > effete, elite American left taking up arms?
> > Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
> >
> > (In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
> > FORWARRD - MAARCH!!
> >

> Here's one tree hugging, queer loving, gun-totin' liberal who teaches
> martial arts. And I don't mean sport. Child, where *do you get your
> information from?
> A handful of inbred dittoheads starting an insurrection because
> someone they don't like who gets elected? It's happened before...
> with, shall we say, minimal impact.

Hey, *child*, I suggest you re-read the thread. My comment was in response
to the notion of an armed insurrection in the event of BUSH's reelection. It
was made in jest, capitalizing on a popular liberal stereotype - one that is
richly deserved.

> Unlike the current gang of scoundrals in the White House, *real
> conservatives are honest, support the seperation of church and state,
> are champions of state rights, loathe unfunded mandates, minimize US
> intervention overseas and would never start a war unless attack was
> immanent, are strong on national defense, place a high value on honor,
> value education, and above all, are fiscally responsible.
>
> But liberals are even better :)

While not conservatives, the current gang of scoundrels in the White House
are still infinitely better than any hand wringing, blame America first,
liberal Democrat. Pity we are forced to choose between the lesser of two
evils but since the modern Democrat party is controlled by radical leftists
who seek to socialize our country and weaken us militarily, we are left with
few choices. John Kerry's idea of foreign policy? (In a whiny, Rodney King
voice) "Why can't we all just get along?"

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 +0000, mlw wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>> 
>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> > > John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> > > recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>> > > Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>> >
>>>> > JERRY
>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>> 
>>>> When did that happen?
>>> 
>>> The 2000 election
>> 
>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
>> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
> 
> In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
> Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
> recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
> ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have won
> Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the state was
> Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the integrity of
> the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign manager if Florida.
> 
> At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped down
> and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would not have
> let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with much the
> same meaning as in "win-dows")
> 
> You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
> president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
> election process in the states.
> 
> Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election. It
> did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.

Everyone seems to forget the close votes and recounts elsewhere, not to
mention the fact that Gore didn't even carry his own state. Florida was
ONE state. ONE. Just because Florida's votes were the last ones counted
and certified does not mean it decide the election.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 GMT, mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote:
>Rick wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>> 
>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> > > John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> > > recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>> > > Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>> >
>>>> > JERRY
>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>> 
>>>> When did that happen?
>>> 
>>> The 2000 election
>> 
>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
>> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
>
>In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
>Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
>recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
>ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have won
>Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the state was
>Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the integrity of
>the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign manager if Florida.
>
>At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped down
>and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would not have
>let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with much the
>same meaning as in "win-dows")
>
>You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
>president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
>election process in the states.
>
>Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election. It
>did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.

I agree very much with your position, but I was under the impression
that the 'unofficial but complete recount' sponsored by some newspaper
(the Miami Herald?) showed that Bush would have won the vote (and
hence the election), thanks to the success of the Republican's
"scrubbing" of the voter rolls and their "assistance" in making sure
that only absentee ballots for Republicans but not Democrats were
[illegally] corrected so that they would be considered valid.

As always, I could be mistaken, but I am quite sure I remember reading
that the extended recount still gave Bush the election.  For all I
know, of course, that could have been yet more dishonest Republican
spin, but it sounded reputable at the time.

T. Max Devlin wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 GMT, mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote:
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>> > > should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>> > > November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>> > > calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > JERRY
>>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>> 
>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>> 
>>>> The 2000 election
>>> 
>>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
>>> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
>>
>>In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
>>Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
>>recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
>>ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have
>>won Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the
>>state was Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the
>>integrity of the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign
>>manager if Florida.
>>
>>At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped
>>down and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would
>>not have let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with
>>much the same meaning as in "win-dows")
>>
>>You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
>>president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
>>election process in the states.
>>
>>Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election.
>>It did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.
> 
> I agree very much with your position, but I was under the impression
> that the 'unofficial but complete recount' sponsored by some newspaper
> (the Miami Herald?) showed that Bush would have won the vote (and
> hence the election), thanks to the success of the Republican's
> "scrubbing" of the voter rolls and their "assistance" in making sure
> that only absentee ballots for Republicans but not Democrats were
> [illegally] corrected so that they would be considered valid.
> 
> As always, I could be mistaken, but I am quite sure I remember reading
> that the extended recount still gave Bush the election.  For all I
> know, of course, that could have been yet more dishonest Republican
> spin, but it sounded reputable at the time.

I remember reading that as well, but a later recount which included the
ballots that were left out for questionable reasons showed Gore won.

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
news:ddsna01r9derhjlk87q58iavmg9b0pbv3d@4ax.com: 

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:35:05 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
> message <JaSqc.43377$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>:
>>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>>On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>>> JERRY
>>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>>Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College met
>>>>and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral College
>>>>are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have elected
>>>>Hillary if they had wanted to.
>>> or Nelson Mandela.
>>Nelson Mandela isn't an American.
> 
> but he could be.

He couldn't be president.

Rick wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 +0000, mlw wrote:
> 
>> Rick wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>> > > should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>> > > November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>> > > calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > JERRY
>>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>> 
>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>> 
>>>> The 2000 election
>>> 
>>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
>>> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
>> 
>> In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
>> Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
>> recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
>> ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have
>> won Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the
>> state was Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the
>> integrity of the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign
>> manager if Florida.
>> 
>> At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped
>> down and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would
>> not have let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with
>> much the same meaning as in "win-dows")
>> 
>> You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
>> president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
>> election process in the states.
>> 
>> Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election.
>> It did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.
> 
> Everyone seems to forget the close votes and recounts elsewhere, not to
> mention the fact that Gore didn't even carry his own state. Florida was
> ONE state. ONE. Just because Florida's votes were the last ones counted
> and certified does not mean it decide the election.

And that ONE state, if allowed to recount accurately and legally, would have
gone to Gore. Gore would have gone on to be president.

We would not be in Iraq. The attack on the world trade center, if we believe
Richard Clark and other such testimony, would have been less likely.

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> 
>>SNUBIS
> Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough votes to
> win.
> 
> JERRY
> Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the ballots
> and did the recount, Gore would have won?

Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html

> Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to remove
> registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even after sending
> out and giving military members two votes to other people's one vote.

The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600 felons
illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the
math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
the Palm Beach Post.

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001

"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that
election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when
unregistered voters presented themselves."

Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

"raja" <raja01@infonie.fr> wrote in news:c8hl63$ie9$1@news.tiscali.fr:

> i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will his
> predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to turn
> some of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a real
> champ 

The US has not lost any allies.

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:10:23 GMT, "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote
> in message <9d76341c4e2e7c4b1c28d9384f09c09e@news.teranews.com>:
>>Mel wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:30 -0600, "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:34:53 +0000, Xomicron wrote:
>>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>>> JERRY
>>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>>>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>> Actually, he was not the legal winner until the Electoral College
>>>> met and cast their votes in January. The members of the Electoral
>>>> College are not legally bound to vote for anyone, and could have
>>>> elected Hillary if they had wanted to.
>>> or Nelson Mandela.
>>I didn't know he was born in the U.S.A. ??
> 
> he wasn't, but Nelson Mandela has been awarded with so many honours that
> I'm sure you will declare him officially born in the USA.

Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
received so much praise. 

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 

> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>
>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>>
>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>
>>> JERRY
>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> 
>> When did that happen?
> 
> The 2000 election

No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the electoral
college. No one was appointed president. 

absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
news:40ac2f50.97037814@news.west.earthlink.net: 

>>> A regime can't long be as oppressive
>>> and brutal as the usa federal government is today
>>> without falling, either from internal or external
>>> forces.
>>
>> Oh brother. You must be kidding yourself. The US federal government is
>> brutal and oppressive? You must be living in la la land. 
> 
> Try living without a social security number for a year, and without
> any of it's benefits such as driver license or employment, and you
> know first hand just how oppressive the usa government is.

If you're too lazy to get a social security number then that's your problem.

It's better than having to carry around a mandatory ID card and not being 
able to work more than 35 hours a week like the French.
 
>> You must think that places like North Korea are utopias. 
> 
> I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.

Millions of Mexican immigrants disagree.

somedude <somedude@somefreakinplace.com> wrote in
news:40AC58ED.DA@somefreakinplace.com: 

> Americans are fucking sheeple, not people. Apathetic, t.v. /
> media-hypnotized morons.

Speak for yourself.

absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 

>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>> there any real posibility of this?
> 
> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
> drugs is the most visible example.
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
> on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
> ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
> morality on those who believe differently?

There is no other kind of morality.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:26:56 +0000, mlw wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 +0000, mlw wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>> > > should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>> > > November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>> > > calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > JERRY
>>>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The 2000 election
>>>> 
>>>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>>>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
>>>> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
>>> 
>>> In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
>>> Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
>>> recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
>>> ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have
>>> won Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the
>>> state was Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the
>>> integrity of the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign
>>> manager if Florida.
>>> 
>>> At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped
>>> down and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would
>>> not have let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with
>>> much the same meaning as in "win-dows")
>>> 
>>> You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
>>> president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
>>> election process in the states.
>>> 
>>> Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election.
>>> It did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.
>> 
>> Everyone seems to forget the close votes and recounts elsewhere, not to
>> mention the fact that Gore didn't even carry his own state. Florida was
>> ONE state. ONE. Just because Florida's votes were the last ones counted
>> and certified does not mean it decide the election.
> 
> And that ONE state, if allowed to recount accurately and legally, would have
> gone to Gore. Gore would have gone on to be president.

.... -might- have gone to Gore. And if other states had been recounted they
might have gone to Gore of Bush.

> 
> We would not be in Iraq. 

We -might- not be in Iraq. Clinton sent troops into Europe.

> The attack on the world trade center, if we believe
> Richard Clark and other such testimony, would have been less likely.

How much 'less likely'? The US would have still supported Israel. What
policies would have changed that would have placated the Muslim extremists?

Xomicron wrote:
> "raja" <raja01@infonie.fr> wrote in news:c8hl63$ie9$1@news.tiscali.fr:
> 
> 
>>i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will his
>>predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to turn
>>some of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a real
>>champ 
> 
> 
> The US has not lost any allies.

Not permanently, but you don't see Canadian soldiers there do you?

>If you're too lazy to get a social security number then that's your problem.

Living without a social security number in the usa is a very hard
and difficult thing to accomplish. It takes effort of heroic
proportions.

>It's better than having to carry around a mandatory ID card and not being 
>able to work more than 35 hours a week like the French.

Try being employed in the usa without a social slavery number.

>> I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.
>
>Millions of Mexican immigrants disagree.


Mexicans come to the usa for money, not for freedom.

Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<rick@none.com>
 wrote
on Thu, 20 May 2004 10:28:20 GMT
<pan.2004.05.20.10.28.20.865105@none.com>:
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:15:48 +0000, father of peace wrote:
>
>> 
>>>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
>>>> and brutal as the usa federal government is today without falling,
>>>> either from internal or external forces.
>>>
>>>Oh brother. You must be kidding yourself. The US federal government is
>>>brutal and oppressive? You must be living in la la land.
>> 
>> Try living without a social security number for a year, and without any of
>> it's benefits such as driver license or employment, and you know first
>> hand just how oppressive the usa government is.
>
> What is your problem with having a social security number, and how does it
> translate into government brutality?
>

SS has been corrupted; the initial intent of a Social
Security number was not to generate a unique identity key
used everywhere -- but that's what it has become.

With that key, one can, at any government agency, pull up records.
These records may be good, bad, or indifferent, but will politicize
the process.

(Especially during an election year!)

Not sure how brutal the US is being -- but the potential will
get increasingly interesting as computers get more and more powerful.
The main drawback is storage space: there are 6 billion worldwide inhabitants,
300 million of them here (roughly).  If one gets a 1K dossier each
thereon, one gets 300 gigabytes of data.  1K would barely
cover the Usenet headers...

The problem from a technical standpoint is an intriguing one, but
from an ethical standpoint raises many questions, which are
even more intriguing.  For example, can DMV use employment records
to deny or allow a driver's license?   How about a credit check when
applying for a government job?  (Would commercial agencies
follow suit?)  Would an ATM notify government authorities when
one uses a card reported stolen?  (Even though it's not?)

>> 
>>>You must think that places like North Korea are utopias.
>> 
>> I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.
>> 
>
> Then stay in Mexico. BTW, old is the current Federal government there, and
> how many times has it changed violently?
>

The last transition was relatively peaceful, actually -- but I can't
say before that; PRI was in power prior thereto a long time.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Rick wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:26:56 +0000, mlw wrote:
> 
>> Rick wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 +0000, mlw wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>>> > > should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>>> > > November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>>> > > calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > JERRY
>>>>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 2000 election
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>>>>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives.
>>>>> There was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
>>>> 
>>>> In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's
>>>> buddy Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the
>>>> Florida recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount
>>>> continued and ballots not originally counted due to various "errors,"
>>>> Gore would have won Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the
>>>> governor of the state was Bush's brother, and the government official
>>>> in charge of the integrity of the election process was Susan Harris,
>>>> Bush's campaign manager if Florida.
>>>> 
>>>> At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped
>>>> down and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would
>>>> not have let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used
>>>> with much the same meaning as in "win-dows")
>>>> 
>>>> You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
>>>> president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
>>>> election process in the states.
>>>> 
>>>> Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the
>>>> election. It did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that
>>>> effect.
>>> 
>>> Everyone seems to forget the close votes and recounts elsewhere, not to
>>> mention the fact that Gore didn't even carry his own state. Florida was
>>> ONE state. ONE. Just because Florida's votes were the last ones counted
>>> and certified does not mean it decide the election.
>> 
>> And that ONE state, if allowed to recount accurately and legally, would
>> have gone to Gore. Gore would have gone on to be president.
> 
> ... -might- have gone to Gore. And if other states had been recounted they
> might have gone to Gore of Bush.

Unlikely. Bush used every method he could to stop the recount and defraud
the election.

> 
>> 
>> We would not be in Iraq.
> 
> We -might- not be in Iraq. Clinton sent troops into Europe.

Yea, to fight Al Queda and support the UN. As we all know, Sadam had nothing
to do with Al Queda and had no weapons of mass distruction. Bush lied,
thousands have died. 

> 
>> The attack on the world trade center, if we believe
>> Richard Clark and other such testimony, would have been less likely.
> 
> How much 'less likely'? 

If we believe the various testimonies, MUCH less likely. Bush ignored
terrorism from day one and only wanted to get into Iraq. Even now, the real
criminal is bin laden, and Bush *never* mentions him, he only mentions
Sadam who has nothing to do with Al Queda or terrorism.

Even worse, the whole bin laden family was allowed to fly out of the country
in the days after WTC, when americans were not allowed to fly. One man died
because a donor heart could not be delivered in time because the air-ways
were shut down, but the bin ladens get to fly out by chartered private jets
approved by the executive office. 


> The US would have still supported Israel. 

Israel needs to be supported.

> What  
> policies would have changed that would have placated the Muslim
> extremists?

Well, we could have avoided killing them by the thousands in Iraq.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:21:44 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:

>>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
>>>and brutal as the usa federal government is today
>>>without falling, either from internal or external
>>>forces.
>
>>	Oppressive?  Brutal?  WTF R U talking about?
>
>A city I travel to frequently is proposing to condemn
>nine city blocks and sell the property to Walmart
>for a SuperCenter.  When the Israelis bulldoze a
>palestinian city we call it oppressive and brutal. When a
>government agency in the usa takes up arms
>against a neighborhood to drive the folks there
>from their homes we call it progress and a good
>thing.

	Maybe it is a good thing.  Your example is pretty vague.
>
>Try living for a year without using a social security
>number or any of it's benefits such as bank accounts,
>and employment, and driver license and you will
>see just how oppressive the usa is.
>
	Why would I not want to have a SSAN, driver's license or bank
account?  Seems what you're calling oppressive is common sense.

>I think we are worse than the Israelis because what
>they are doing is illegal. We have written laws to 
>make the brutality legal.
>
 	My definition of brutality is smashing someone's head in;
yours appears to be an organized society.  Are you an anarchist or
what?

"jimpgh2002" <jimpgh2002@nospamyahoo.com> wrote
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:21:44 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
> peace) wrote:
>
> >>>A regime can't long be as oppressive
> >>>and brutal as the usa federal government is today
> >>>without falling, either from internal or external
> >>>forces.
> >
> >> Oppressive?  Brutal?  WTF R U talking about?
> >
> >A city I travel to frequently is proposing to condemn
> >nine city blocks and sell the property to Walmart
> >for a SuperCenter.  When the Israelis bulldoze a
> >palestinian city we call it oppressive and brutal. When a
> >government agency in the usa takes up arms
> >against a neighborhood to drive the folks there
> >from their homes we call it progress and a good
> >thing.
>
> Maybe it is a good thing.  Your example is pretty vague.
> >
> >Try living for a year without using a social security
> >number or any of it's benefits such as bank accounts,
> >and employment, and driver license and you will
> >see just how oppressive the usa is.
> >
> Why would I not want to have a SSAN, driver's license or bank
> account?  Seems what you're calling oppressive is common sense.
>
> >I think we are worse than the Israelis because what
> >they are doing is illegal. We have written laws to
> >make the brutality legal.
> >
>   My definition of brutality is smashing someone's head in;

What about forcing someone with a severe hangover to listen to
"The Foundations (Simply the Best)" over and over? Does that
qualify as brutality?



> yours appears to be an organized society.  Are you an anarchist or
> what?
>

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:09:36 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<40ace444.143368668@news.west.earthlink.net>:

>
>>If you're too lazy to get a social security number then that's your problem.
>
>Living without a social security number in the usa is a very hard
>and difficult thing to accomplish. It takes effort of heroic
>proportions.
>

Not to mention "monumental stupidity".
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 06:21:44 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<40ac2fc0.97150234@news.west.earthlink.net>:

>Try living for a year without using a social security
>number or any of it's benefits such as bank accounts,
>and employment, and driver license and you will
>see just how oppressive the usa is.

If you don't have a job, the lack of a bank account or driver's
license will be relatively minor inconveniences.

Pay your taxes, FuckHead.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 20:58:08 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
<dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<AZ8rc.225388$M3.193787@twister.nyroc.rr.com>:

>>   My definition of brutality is smashing someone's head in;
>
>What about forcing someone with a severe hangover to listen to
>"The Foundations (Simply the Best)" over and over? Does that
>qualify as brutality?
>

"Muppet's Christmas Album"
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:54:13 GMT, Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca>
wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<p97rc.546153$Ig.304565@pd7tw2no>:

>Xomicron wrote:
>> "raja" <raja01@infonie.fr> wrote in news:c8hl63$ie9$1@news.tiscali.fr:
>> 
>> 
>>>i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will his
>>>predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to turn
>>>some of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a real
>>>champ 
>> 
>> 
>> The US has not lost any allies.
>
>Not permanently, but you don't see Canadian soldiers there do you?

Canadians are not our "allies", any more than the Saudis are.  HTH.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b38d8c5.0405200802.72f0aa1b@posting.google.com...
> "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<2h1pagF85ggqU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
> > > Xomicron wrote:

> > > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
John
> > > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall
at least
> > >
> > > Less than if the current president is reelected.
> > >
> > > Colin Day
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun
hating,
> > effete, elite American left taking up arms?
> > Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
> > (In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
> > FORWARRD - MAARCH!!

> Here's one tree hugging, queer loving, gun-totin' liberal who teaches
> martial arts. And I don't mean sport. Child, where *do you get your
> information from?
> A handful of inbred dittoheads starting an insurrection because
> someone they don't like who gets elected? It's happened before...
> with, shall we say, minimal impact.

While, I see no chance of a war happening over the coming election,
regardless of who wins / loses

I have a number for you 1860

> Unlike the current gang of scoundrals in the White House, *real
> conservatives are honest, support the seperation of church and state,
> are champions of state rights, loathe unfunded mandates, minimize US
> intervention overseas and would never start a war unless attack was
> immanent, are strong on national defense, place a high value on honor,
> value education, and above all, are fiscally responsible.
> But liberals are even better :)
>
> Kermit

Glenn (Christian Mystic)

>>A city I travel to frequently is proposing to condemn
>>nine city blocks and sell the property to Walmart
>>for a SuperCenter.  When the Israelis bulldoze a
>>palestinian city we call it oppressive and brutal. When a
>>government agency in the usa takes up arms
>>against a neighborhood to drive the folks there
>>from their homes we call it progress and a good
>>thing.
>
>	Maybe it is a good thing.  Your example is pretty vague.

Maybe it is a good thing for the Israelis to bulldoze
palistinian villages.

>>Try living for a year without using a social security
>>number or any of it's benefits such as bank accounts,
>>and employment, and driver license and you will
>>see just how oppressive the usa is.
>>
>	Why would I not want to have a SSAN, driver's license or bank
>account?  Seems what you're calling oppressive is common sense.

People think that usa is a free society. It's a sad day in the
history of america when people think that the social slavery
number is common sense.

>>I think we are worse than the Israelis because what
>>they are doing is illegal. We have written laws to 
>>make the brutality legal.
>>
> 	My definition of brutality is smashing someone's head in;
>yours appears to be an organized society.  Are you an anarchist or
>what?

I am most definitely an anarchist. At least in an anarchy you
can fight back when thugs come to take you property. In
your so called organized society, the thuggery has been
codified and it's harder to defend yourself against it.

Love,
Absalom


--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

>If you don't have a job, the lack of a bank account or driver's
>license will be relatively minor inconveniences.
>
>Pay your taxes, FuckHead.

I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have
to feel like government thugs are mugging me.

Love,
Absalom

--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:p97rc.546153$Ig.304565@pd7tw2no: 

> Xomicron wrote:
>
>> "raja" <raja01@infonie.fr> wrote in news:c8hl63$ie9$1@news.tiscali.fr:
>>
>>> i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will
>>> his predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to
>>> turn some of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a
>>> real champ
>> 
>> The US has not lost any allies.
> 
> Not permanently, but you don't see Canadian soldiers there do you?

Since when did Canada stop being our ally?

Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Xomicron wrote:
> 
> > Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The 
> > Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with 
> > appointing anybody president.
> 
> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> 
> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.

If California winds up voting Republican, then something's definitely stinky =)

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
> news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 
> 
[snip]
> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
> received so much praise.

Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
same rights and privileges as white South Africans!

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.0405190525.71cba942@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
> them from voting,
> In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
> overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
> 
> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.
> 

The neocons are learning from the leaders of "democratic" third world
countries under our sphere of influence.

If there's anyone who's got expert knowledge on securing power and
influence within the confines of a democratic government, it'll be
those third world leaders.

The neocons are following their footsteps.

"mvillanu" <mvillanu@hotmail.com> wrote
> Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message
news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > Xomicron wrote:
> >
> > > Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any decision. The
> > > Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing to do with
> > > appointing anybody president.
> >
> > ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> >
> > The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>
> If California winds up voting Republican, then something's definitely stinky =).

Lincoln won California, Grant won California, Hayes won California,
Blaine (lost election) won California, Harrison won California, McKinley won California,
Teddy Roosevelt won California, Taft won California, Harding won California,
Coolidge won California, Hoover won California, Eisenhower won California,
Nixon won California, Ford won California, Reagan won California,
George H.W. Bush won California...
California turned "Red" in 1992, and did when FDR was president as well, but the fact
is they've gone "right" more often than not.

Xomicron wrote:
> Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> wrote in
> news:p97rc.546153$Ig.304565@pd7tw2no: 
> 
> 
>>Xomicron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"raja" <raja01@infonie.fr> wrote in news:c8hl63$ie9$1@news.tiscali.fr:
>>>
>>>
>>>>i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will
>>>>his predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to
>>>>turn some of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a
>>>>real champ
>>>
>>>The US has not lost any allies.
>>
>>Not permanently, but you don't see Canadian soldiers there do you?
> 
> 
> Since when did Canada stop being our ally?

We haven't.

We just chose not to get dragged into Iraq.

I normally associate 'ally' with a team-mate type situation, where one 
goes they all follow, but we saw where following the US lead some 
countries...

"Philip Callan" <callanca@shaw.ca> wrote
> Xomicron wrote:
> > Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> wrote in
> > news:p97rc.546153$Ig.304565@pd7tw2no:
> >
> >
> >>Xomicron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"raja" <raja01@infonie.fr> wrote in news:c8hl63$ie9$1@news.tiscali.fr:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>i disagree ,, he has done extremely well in losing all the good will
> >>>>his predecessors had won , losing all the usa allies and managing to
> >>>>turn some of them into ennemies and as for bankrupting the nation , a
> >>>>real champ
> >>>
> >>>The US has not lost any allies.
> >>
> >>Not permanently, but you don't see Canadian soldiers there do you?
> >
> >
> > Since when did Canada stop being our ally?
>
> We haven't.
>
> We just chose not to get dragged into Iraq.
>
> I normally associate 'ally' with a team-mate type situation, where one
> goes they all follow, but we saw where following the US lead some
> countries...

Nice theory, but it's seldom actually been like that in history.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:46:35 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<40ad17b7.156541888@news.west.earthlink.net>:

>
>>If you don't have a job, the lack of a bank account or driver's
>>license will be relatively minor inconveniences.
>>
>>Pay your taxes, FuckHead.
>
>I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have
>to feel like government thugs are mugging me.
>
>Love,
>Absalom

Then why are you bitching so much about something you claim to have
done voluntarily?  Shut the fuck up, already, or do something about
it.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
news:aq4oa0dquimh6tcq3sp398f8f0vfshv1tr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
> <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> <snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com>:
> >"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
> >> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
> >> >Xomicron wrote:
> >> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
decision. The
> >> >> Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida had nothing
to do with
> >> >> appointing anybody president.
> >> >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
> >> >The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
> >> will you cower in shame if he loses?
> >> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
predict
> >> them beforehand.
> >Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
> >about Republicans.
>
> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
>
> >if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
> >be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
> >have for Republicans.
>
> Bush is judged on his merits.
>
> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?

Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power. You hate
America's success and influence almost as much as guilt-racked American
liberals do. Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends" would
like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of the
worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the immediate
aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us when we are
"victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left, who, like
leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood". Damn those other
"cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense is
a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned ass-kicking.

On 20 May 2004 09:02:40 -0700, unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com (Kermit)
wrote:

>"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<2h1pagF85ggqU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
>> > Xomicron wrote:
>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>  John
>> > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>>  least
>> >
>> > Less than if the current president is reelected.
>> >
>> > Colin Day
>> 
>> BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
>> effete, elite American left taking up arms?
>> Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
>> 
>> (In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
>> FORWARRD - MAARCH!!
>> 
>> 
>> .
>
>
>Here's one tree hugging, queer loving, gun-totin' liberal who teaches
>martial arts. And I don't mean sport. Child, where *do you get your
>information from?
>
>A handful of inbred dittoheads starting an insurrection because
>someone they don't like who gets elected? It's happened before...
>with, shall we say, minimal impact.
>
>Unlike the current gang of scoundrals in the White House, *real
>conservatives are honest, support the seperation of church and state,
>are champions of state rights, loathe unfunded mandates, minimize US
>intervention overseas and would never start a war unless attack was
>immanent, are strong on national defense, place a high value on honor,
>value education, and above all, are fiscally responsible.
>
>But liberals are even better :)
>
>Kermit

Well, said, amen brother, and thank you very much.  :-D

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:10:47 -0400, "EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote:

>> > > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>> >  John
>> > > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall
>at
>> >  least
>> > >
>> > > Less than if the current president is reelected.
>> > >
>> > > Colin Day
>> >
>> > BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun
>hating,
>> > effete, elite American left taking up arms?
>> > Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
>> >
>> > (In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
>> > FORWARRD - MAARCH!!
>> >
>
>> Here's one tree hugging, queer loving, gun-totin' liberal who teaches
>> martial arts. And I don't mean sport. Child, where *do you get your
>> information from?
>> A handful of inbred dittoheads starting an insurrection because
>> someone they don't like who gets elected? It's happened before...
>> with, shall we say, minimal impact.
>
>Hey, *child*, I suggest you re-read the thread. My comment was in response
>to the notion of an armed insurrection in the event of BUSH's reelection. It
>was made in jest, capitalizing on a popular liberal stereotype - one that is
>richly deserved.

Says you.  Heh.

>> Unlike the current gang of scoundrals in the White House, *real
>> conservatives are honest, support the seperation of church and state,
>> are champions of state rights, loathe unfunded mandates, minimize US
>> intervention overseas and would never start a war unless attack was
>> immanent, are strong on national defense, place a high value on honor,
>> value education, and above all, are fiscally responsible.
>>
>> But liberals are even better :)
>
>While not conservatives, the current gang of scoundrels in the White House

.... are conservative, and in fact represent what 'conservative' means,
these days.

>are still infinitely better than any hand wringing, blame America first,
>liberal Democrat.

Lord knows, we can't possibly think there are any problems that we are
empowered to fix.  No, better to blame everyone else first, and
"America" last.  Guffaw.

>Pity we are forced to choose between the lesser of two
>evils

Been there, done that.  It was called 1972.

>but since the modern Democrat party is controlled by radical leftists
>who seek to socialize our country and weaken us militarily,

What makes you think that?

>we are left with
>few choices. John Kerry's idea of foreign policy? (In a whiny, Rodney King
>voice) "Why can't we all just get along?"

And you know that because he's been president before, I guess?

On 20 May 2004 16:02:29 -0700, mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote:

>Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>> news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 
>> 
>[snip]
>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>> received so much praise.
>
>Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>same rights and privileges as white South Africans!

LOL

Well said.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:24:42 GMT, mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote:

>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 May 2004 12:14:42 GMT, mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote:
>>>Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:33:43 -0700, rogue wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>>>> > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>> > > should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>> > > November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>>> > > calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > JERRY
>>>>>> > If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>> > appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The 2000 election
>>>> 
>>>> The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to decide the Presidential
>>>> Election. You have confused it with the House Of Representatives. There
>>>> was a clear majority in the Electoral College.
>>>
>>>In the case of the 2000 election, James Baker, with Dick Chainey's buddy
>>>Antonin, managed to sway the Supreme court to order a stop to the Florida
>>>recount. Later investigation showed that had the recount continued and
>>>ballots not originally counted due to various "errors," Gore would have
>>>won Florida. It should not be lost on ANYONE that the governor of the
>>>state was Bush's brother, and the government official in charge of the
>>>integrity of the election process was Susan Harris, Bush's campaign
>>>manager if Florida.
>>>
>>>At the very beginning of the whole process, Harris should have stepped
>>>down and let an independent body watch over the recount, but that would
>>>not have let G.W. "win" the election. ("win" in this context is used with
>>>much the same meaning as in "win-dows")
>>>
>>>You are correct, the Supreme Court does not have the power to appoint a
>>>president, per se' it does, however, have the ability to rule on the
>>>election process in the states.
>>>
>>>Had the court not stopped the recount, Gore would have won the election.
>>>It did not appoint G.W. per se', but it's actions had that effect.
>> 
>> I agree very much with your position, but I was under the impression
>> that the 'unofficial but complete recount' sponsored by some newspaper
>> (the Miami Herald?) showed that Bush would have won the vote (and
>> hence the election), thanks to the success of the Republican's
>> "scrubbing" of the voter rolls and their "assistance" in making sure
>> that only absentee ballots for Republicans but not Democrats were
>> [illegally] corrected so that they would be considered valid.
>> 
>> As always, I could be mistaken, but I am quite sure I remember reading
>> that the extended recount still gave Bush the election.  For all I
>> know, of course, that could have been yet more dishonest Republican
>> spin, but it sounded reputable at the time.
>
>I remember reading that as well, but a later recount which included the
>ballots that were left out for questionable reasons showed Gore won.

Given the quote recently posted from the Miami Herald (claiming that
the problem is that not enough felons were scrubbed, ignoring those
who weren't fellons that were scrubbed) I'm inclined to believe that.

On 20 May 2004 18:31:48 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

>rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 
>
>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>
>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>>>
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>>>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>
>>>> JERRY
>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>> 
>>> When did that happen?
>> 
>> The 2000 election
>
>No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the electoral
>college. No one was appointed president. 

While that may be true, to say it is to refute it.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:09:36 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:
>>If you're too lazy to get a social security number then that's your problem.
>
>Living without a social security number in the usa is a very hard
>and difficult thing to accomplish. It takes effort of heroic
>proportions.
>
>>It's better than having to carry around a mandatory ID card and not being 
>>able to work more than 35 hours a week like the French.
>
>Try being employed in the usa without a social slavery number.
>
>>> I feel much more freedom in Mexico than in the usa.
>>
>>Millions of Mexican immigrants disagree.
>
>Mexicans come to the usa for money, not for freedom.

What is freedom, but money or the ability to use money?

Freedom from government bureaucracy and freedom from government
interference aren't necessarily the same thing.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:44:34 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:
   [...]
>> 	My definition of brutality is smashing someone's head in;
>>yours appears to be an organized society.  Are you an anarchist or
>>what?
>
>I am most definitely an anarchist. At least in an anarchy you
>can fight back when thugs come to take you property.

LOL.  Fighting back and winning aren't the same thing.

>In
>your so called organized society, the thuggery has been
>codified and it's harder to defend yourself against it.

It is also not thuggery; just the rule of law.  Go live on an island.

On 20 May 2004 18:31:51 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

>absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
>news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 
>
>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>> there any real posibility of this?
>> 
>> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
>> drugs is the most visible example.
>> 
>> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
>> on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
>> ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
>> morality on those who believe differently?
>
>There is no other kind of morality.

Sure there is.  Even lack of morality is a morality.

Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.  ;-)

Thu, 20 May 2004 05:05:40 GMT was a day just like any other,
until Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>EZ2 wrote:
>> "Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
>> 
>>>Xomicron wrote:
>>>
>>>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>
>> John
>> 
>>>>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>>>
>> least
>> 
>>>Less than if the current president is reelected.
>>>
>>>Colin Day
>> 
>> 
>> BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
>> effete, elite American left taking up arms?
>> Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
>> 
>
>Gun-hating? John Kerry hates guns? Then why does he go hunting with one?

PR value.

>And I don't even own a Volvo.
>
>Colin Day

-- 
Keith E.
Excrementum casus

Wed, 19 May 2004 23:35:04 GMT was a day just like any other,
until Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in
>news:snRqc.288278$e17.152696@twister.nyroc.rr.com: 
>
>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
>>> wrote in message <ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>>
>>> > Xomicron wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>> >> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>>> >> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>> >...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>>> >
>>> > The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>>
>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>>
>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>>> predict them beforehand.
>>
>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>> about Republicans. Republicans recognize that there must be as much
>> night as day. They only get pissed at Democrats who have too much
>> sunshine up their ass. I thought Kennedy was a good President,
>
>There sure aren't any Democrats like JFK anymore. The Democratic party has
>turned into the party of wierd minorities and terrorist apologists. 

JFK wasn't like JFK.  He couldn't live up to his own legend.

-- 
Keith E.
Excrementum casus

On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:44:34 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:

>
>>>A city I travel to frequently is proposing to condemn
>>>nine city blocks and sell the property to Walmart
>>>for a SuperCenter.  When the Israelis bulldoze a
>>>palestinian city we call it oppressive and brutal. When a
>>>government agency in the usa takes up arms
>>>against a neighborhood to drive the folks there
>>>from their homes we call it progress and a good
>>>thing.
>>
>>	Maybe it is a good thing.  Your example is pretty vague.
>
>Maybe it is a good thing for the Israelis to bulldoze
>palistinian villages.
>
>>>Try living for a year without using a social security
>>>number or any of it's benefits such as bank accounts,
>>>and employment, and driver license and you will
>>>see just how oppressive the usa is.
>>>
>>	Why would I not want to have a SSAN, driver's license or bank
>>account?  Seems what you're calling oppressive is common sense.
>
>People think that usa is a free society. It's a sad day in the
>history of america when people think that the social slavery
>number is common sense.
>
>>>I think we are worse than the Israelis because what
>>>they are doing is illegal. We have written laws to 
>>>make the brutality legal.
>>>
>> 	My definition of brutality is smashing someone's head in;
>>yours appears to be an organized society.  Are you an anarchist or
>>what?
>
>I am most definitely an anarchist. At least in an anarchy you
>can fight back when thugs come to take you property. In
>your so called organized society, the thuggery has been
>codified and it's harder to defend yourself against it.
>
 	In another post, you stated that you were a pacifist.  Now you
want to fight thugs.  How does this compute?

begin  <s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com>,
	T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> writes:
> On 20 May 2004 18:31:51 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>>absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
>>news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 
>>
>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>>> there any real posibility of this?
>>> 
>>> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
>>> drugs is the most visible example.
>>> 
>>> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
>>> on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
>>> ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
>>> morality on those who believe differently?
>>
>>There is no other kind of morality.
> 
> Sure there is.  Even lack of morality is a morality.
> 
> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.  ;-)

Smiley noted but religion is certainly not hilarious. If you live in
fear from those who use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities or
in a country where religion restricts your freedom it most certainly
is not hilarious.

Religion is used the world over to suppress people. Most religions
thrive on exploiting the ignorant, the poor and deprived. Having been
educated in Scotland when religious education was forced on me and
affected my way of life I am pleasantly surprised how religion has an
ever weakening effect on the life of people in the UK and western
europe in general.

The opposite appears to be happening in the US. From what I read the
religious right (an oxymoron if ever there was one) appears to gain
more and more support.

Religion is not at all hilarious. Depending on where you live it is a
minor inconvenience to those who do not believe to life threatening.

> 	In another post, you stated that you were a pacifist.  Now you
>want to fight thugs.  How does this compute?

There are many ways for a passivist to fight thugs without
engaging in violence.

Love,
Absalom


--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

>Then why are you bitching so much about something you claim to have
>done voluntarily?  Shut the fuck up, already, or do something about
>it.

Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the 
social security number. And they think that they are free.

Love,
Absalom


--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
news:dc4a405f.0405201510.2f9a40a3@posting.google.com: 

> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
> news:<6e14bcdc.0405190525.71cba942@posting.google.com>...
>
>> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
>> them from voting,
>> In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
>> overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
>> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
>> 
>> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
>> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
>> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.
> 
> The neocons are learning from the leaders of "democratic" third world
> countries under our sphere of influence.
> 
> If there's anyone who's got expert knowledge on securing power and
> influence within the confines of a democratic government, it'll be
> those third world leaders.
> 
> The neocons are following their footsteps.

Your ignorance is astounding.

mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
news:dc4a405f.0405201502.462f7774@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>> news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 
>> 
>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>> received so much praise.
> 
> Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
> same rights and privileges as white South Africans!

And the right to slaughter white South Africans and drive the country into
the ground. As many of Nelson Mandela's ideals of government and the
distribution of land, mirror those of Robert Mugabe 

T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in
news:s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com: 

> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.

Only to the ignorant like yourself.

absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
news:40ad17b7.156541888@news.west.earthlink.net: 

>> If you don't have a job, the lack of a bank account or driver's
>> license will be relatively minor inconveniences.
>>
>> Pay your taxes, FuckHead.
> 
> I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have
> to feel like government thugs are mugging me.

Then quit complaining, you little bitch.

rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) wrote in
news:jn80o1-paq.ln1@nw8000.swissptt.ch: 

> begin  <s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com>,
>      T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> writes:
>> On 20 May 2004 18:31:51 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>> 
>>> absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
>>> news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 
>>>
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>> 
>>>> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
>>>> drugs is the most visible example.
>>>> 
>>>> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
>>>> on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
>>>> ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
>>>> morality on those who believe differently?
>>>
>>> There is no other kind of morality.
>> 
>> Sure there is.  Even lack of morality is a morality.
>> 
>> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.  ;-)
> 
> Smiley noted but religion is certainly not hilarious. If you live in
> fear from those who use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities or
> in a country where religion restricts your freedom it most certainly
> is not hilarious.

Some people use government as an excuse to commit atrocities but that 
doesn't make government a bad thing.

begin  <2h5br6F92ggiU2@uni-berlin.de>,
	Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> writes:
> mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
> news:dc4a405f.0405201502.462f7774@posting.google.com: 
> 
>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>> news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 
>>> 
>>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>>> received so much praise.
>> 
>> Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>> same rights and privileges as white South Africans!
> 
> And the right to slaughter white South Africans and drive the
> country into the ground. As many of Nelson Mandela's ideals of
> government and the distribution of land, mirror those of Robert
> Mugabe

If it hadn't been for Mandela there would have been a blood bath in
SA.  To compare him to Mugabe just shows your ignorance at best. If
only there were more Mandela's the world would be a far better place.

Roy Culley wrote:

> If
> only there were more Mandela's the world would be a far better
> place.

Mandela's, Marx's, Lennin's... A stench by any other thorn would
still not smell of roses.

rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) wrote in
news:gia0o1-paq.ln1@nw8000.swissptt.ch: 

> begin  <2h5br6F92ggiU2@uni-berlin.de>,
>      Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> writes:
>> mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
>> news:dc4a405f.0405201502.462f7774@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>>> news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 
>>>> 
>>>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>>>> received so much praise.
>>> 
>>> Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>>> same rights and privileges as white South Africans!
>> 
>> And the right to slaughter white South Africans and drive the
>> country into the ground. As many of Nelson Mandela's ideals of
>> government and the distribution of land, mirror those of Robert
>> Mugabe
> 
> If it hadn't been for Mandela there would have been a blood bath in
> SA.  To compare him to Mugabe just shows your ignorance at best. If
> only there were more Mandela's the world would be a far better place.

A better place for blacks and a death sentence for whites.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:18:13 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:

>
>> 	In another post, you stated that you were a pacifist.  Now you
>>want to fight thugs.  How does this compute?
>
>There are many ways for a passivist to fight thugs without
>engaging in violence.
>
    Name some.

>>There are many ways for a passivist to fight thugs without
>>engaging in violence.
>>
>    Name some.

http://absalom.com/mormon/parable/garden.htm

And then read a biography of Ghandi.

Love,
Absalom


--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

>> I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have
>> to feel like government thugs are mugging me.
>
>Then quit complaining, you little bitch.

I will continue to complain as long as government
thugs are mugging anyone.

Love,
Absalom



--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

On 20 May 2004 16:02:29 -0700, mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
message <dc4a405f.0405201502.462f7774@posting.google.com>:
>Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
>>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>>received so much praise.
>Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>same rights and privileges as white South Africans!

Apartheid wasn't simply about denying rights to black people. white people
were denied rights too. like, for example, the right to marry a person of
colour.

there were many other problems with Apartheid. there were moral laws. it was
a religious state.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

whozix wrote:
> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net>
>>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in Florida
>>>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>>>> predict them beforehand.
>>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>>> about Republicans.
>> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
>>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
>>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that Dems
>>> have for Republicans.
>> Bush is judged on his merits.
>> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
> Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.

Bush personifies American stupidity.

> You hate America's success and influence almost as much as guilt-racked
> American liberals do.

This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."

no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good thing.

> Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
> party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
> policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends" would
> like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of the
> worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the immediate
> aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us when we are
> "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left, who, like
> leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".

all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.

> Damn those other
> "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
> is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
> ass-kicking.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US should
stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US citizens find
their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils and that if they
do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork, erecting titty bars
and allowing women full human rights, the USA will attack... and you don't
want that!

-- 
zoogar
http://www.atjfaq.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 12/05/04

Xomicron wrote:
> mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>>> received so much praise.
>> Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>> same rights and privileges as white South Africans!
> And the right to slaughter white South Africans and drive the country into
> the ground. As many of Nelson Mandela's ideals of government and the
> distribution of land, mirror those of Robert Mugabe

no, they don't.

-- 
zoogar
http://www.atjfaq.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 12/05/04

Xomicron wrote:
> rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) wrote in
>>>>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>>>>> received so much praise.
>>>> Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>>>> same rights and privileges as white South Africans!
>>> And the right to slaughter white South Africans and drive the
>>> country into the ground. As many of Nelson Mandela's ideals of
>>> government and the distribution of land, mirror those of Robert
>>> Mugabe
>> If it hadn't been for Mandela there would have been a blood bath in
>> SA.  To compare him to Mugabe just shows your ignorance at best. If
>> only there were more Mandela's the world would be a far better place.
> A better place for blacks and a death sentence for whites.

crap.

-- 
zoogar
http://www.atjfaq.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 12/05/04

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?

If the Confederates and Bible Belt fundamentalists are going to make
the same mistake then be my guest.

Fort Sumter
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Fort+Sumter%22&sa=N&tab=gn

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Fort+Sumter%22&sa=N&tab=nw

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Fort+Sumter%22&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Fort%20Sumter&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en

Ft. Sumter
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Ft+Sumter%22&sa=N&tab=nw

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22Ft+Sumter%22&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Ft%20Sumter&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en

In article <18510aff.0405210002.69470d3d@posting.google.com>,
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote:

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
least 
> > one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> > posibility of this?
> 
> If the Confederates and Bible Belt fundamentalists are going to make
> the same mistake then be my guest.
> 
�  What with Kerry being a godamned Catholick (spit), the Knights of the
Ku Klux Klan has gotta figure in there somewhere.

-- 
� R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap

On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:46:35 +0000, father of peace wrote:

> 
>>If you don't have a job, the lack of a bank account or driver's license
>>will be relatively minor inconveniences.
>>
>>Pay your taxes, FuckHead.
> 
> I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have to feel like
> government thugs are mugging me.
> 

Then don't use the roads or drink municipal water, or utilize the police,
fire department or EMS, or go to public schools or ....

Oh... and edit your cross-posting.
-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:19:29 +0000, father of peace wrote:

> 
>>Then why are you bitching so much about something you claim to have done
>>voluntarily?  Shut the fuck up, already, or do something about it.
> 
> Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the social security
> number. And they think that they are free.
> 

You need some serious help. Ask the guys in the black helicopters.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:26:30 +0000, father of peace wrote:

> 
>>> I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have to feel like
>>> government thugs are mugging me.
>>
>>Then quit complaining, you little bitch.
> 
> I will continue to complain as long as government thugs are mugging
> anyone.
> 

You may now show examples of government thugs mugging people.
-- 
Rick

"Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:2h5udeF9frnmU3@uni-berlin.de...
: whozix wrote:
: > "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
: >> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
: >>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
: >>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
<allthings@jute.net>
: >>>>> Xomicron wrote:
: >>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
: >>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
Florida
: >>>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
: >>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
: >>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
: >>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
: >>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
: >>>> predict them beforehand.
: >>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
: >>> about Republicans.
: >> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
: >>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
: >>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that
Dems
: >>> have for Republicans.
: >> Bush is judged on his merits.
: >> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
: > Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.
:
: Bush personifies American stupidity.
:
: > You hate America's success and influence almost as much as guilt-racked
: > American liberals do.
:
: This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."
:
: no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good
thing.
:
: > Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
: > party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
: > policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends"
would
: > like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of the
: > worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the
immediate
: > aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us when we are
: > "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left, who, like
: > leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".
:
: all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.
:
: > Damn those other
: > "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
: > is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
: > ass-kicking.
:
: Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
: Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
: renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
should
: stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US citizens
find
: their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils and that if
they
: do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork, erecting titty
bars
: and allowing women full human rights, the USA will attack... and you don't
: want that!


I quite like the titty bar part

On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:27:47 +1200, "ur_droll" <who.gives@fuck.co> wrote in
message <lSkrc.7990$XI4.294598@news.xtra.co.nz>:
>"Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>: whozix wrote:
>: > "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
>: >> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
>: >>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>: >>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
>: >>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>: >>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>: >>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>Florida
>: >>>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>: >>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>: >>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>: >>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>: >>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>: >>>> predict them beforehand.
>: >>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>: >>> about Republicans.
>: >> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
>: >>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
>: >>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that
>Dems
>: >>> have for Republicans.
>: >> Bush is judged on his merits.
>: >> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
>: > Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.
>: Bush personifies American stupidity.
>: > You hate America's success and influence almost as much as guilt-racked
>: > American liberals do.
>: This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."
>: no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good
>thing.
>: > Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
>: > party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
>: > policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends"
>would
>: > like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of the
>: > worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the
>immediate
>: > aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us when we are
>: > "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left, who, like
>: > leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".
>: all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.
>: > Damn those other
>: > "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
>: > is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
>: > ass-kicking.
>: Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
>: Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
>: renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
>should
>: stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US citizens
>find
>: their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils and that if
>they
>: do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork, erecting titty
>bars
>: and allowing women full human rights, the USA will attack... and you don't
>: want that!
>I quite like the titty bar part

you would. yer a freak! <eg>

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
news:2anra0p965jop25r0f1et7ji8ssc8dqfra@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:27:47 +1200, "ur_droll" <who.gives@fuck.co> wrote
in
: message <lSkrc.7990$XI4.294598@news.xtra.co.nz>:
: >"Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
: >: whozix wrote:
: >: > "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
: >: >> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
: >: >>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
: >: >>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
: >: >>>>> Xomicron wrote:
: >: >>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
: >: >>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
: >Florida
: >: >>>>>> had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
: >: >>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
: >: >>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
: >: >>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
: >: >>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can
accurately
: >: >>>> predict them beforehand.
: >: >>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
: >: >>> about Republicans.
: >: >> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
: >: >>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
: >: >>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that
: >Dems
: >: >>> have for Republicans.
: >: >> Bush is judged on his merits.
: >: >> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an
American?
: >: > Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.
: >: Bush personifies American stupidity.
: >: > You hate America's success and influence almost as much as
guilt-racked
: >: > American liberals do.
: >: This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."
: >: no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good
: >thing.
: >: > Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
: >: > party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
: >: > policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends"
: >would
: >: > like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of the
: >: > worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the
: >immediate
: >: > aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us when we
are
: >: > "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left, who, like
: >: > leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".
: >: all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.
: >: > Damn those other
: >: > "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best
defense
: >: > is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
: >: > ass-kicking.
: >: Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely
overthrown.
: >: Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
: >: renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
: >should
: >: stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US citizens
: >find
: >: their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils and that if
: >they
: >: do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork, erecting titty
: >bars
: >: and allowing women full human rights, the USA will attack... and you
don't
: >: want that!
: >I quite like the titty bar part
:
: you would. yer a freak! <eg>

How strange you are for noticing

ur_droll wrote:
> "Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> whozix wrote:
>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
>>>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
>>>>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>>>>>>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>>>>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>>>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>>>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>>>>>> predict them beforehand.
>>>>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>>>>> about Republicans.
>>>> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
>>>>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
>>>>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that
>>>>> Dems have for Republicans.
>>>> Bush is judged on his merits.
>>>> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
>>> Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.
>> Bush personifies American stupidity.
>>> You hate America's success and influence almost as much as guilt-racked
>>> American liberals do.
>> This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."
>> no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good
>> thing.
>>> Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
>>> party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
>>> policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends"
>>> would like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of
>>> the worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the
>>> immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us
>>> when we are "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left,
>>> who, like leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".
>> all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.
>>> Damn those other
>>> "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
>>> is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
>>> ass-kicking.
>> Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
>> Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
>> renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
>> should stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US
>> citizens find their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils
>> and that if they do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork,
>> erecting titty bars and allowing women full human rights, the USA will
>> attack... and you don't want that!
> I quite like the titty bar part

they'll be special Halaal ones - sultry Arabian sluts rubbed down with pig
lard with hunky young Muslim men licking it off their hot bodies.
mmmmmmmmmm. it's an Iranian Revolution!!!!

-- 
zoogar
http://www.atjfaq.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 12/05/04

Hi Xomicron,

You asked,
" What is the likelihood of 
  armed civil strife on American soil 
  should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House
  in November ? "

Turf battles are fought every day here in a America,
  mostly lawyers pimping whores in the courtrooms of America.
  It's not bloody, but it's still quite ugly.

As in every war, both sides are wrong.

"jimpgh2002" <jimpgh2002@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n32ra0htun3qj633223vvq8qphrija9hop@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:18:13 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
> peace) wrote:
>
> >
> >> In another post, you stated that you were a pacifist.  Now you
> >>want to fight thugs.  How does this compute?
> >
> >There are many ways for a passivist to fight thugs without
> >engaging in violence.
> >
>     Name some.

"Would you really beat up on a defenceless cripple?" For example.

Shake their hand. For example.

Hi XML Man,

Kill the ruling class ?  A worker revolt via open source ?

Didn't Che Guevara already try that.
  http://www.resistance.org.au/resrev/people01/che21.gif
  http://www.resistance.org.au/resrev/people01/che10.gif
  http://www.resistance.org.au/resrev/people01/a_che.html

If you want to join the bloody war, become a lawyer.
  Then you can rub shoulders with your fellow creeps.

"ur_droll" <who.gives@fuck.co> wrote:

> H

plonk

"For example: John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:L_lrc.98110$vn.267168@sea-read.news.verio.net...
: "ur_droll" <who.gives@fuck.co> wrote:
:
: > H
:
: plonk

LMFAO

Hi father of peace,

Re: The difference between U.S. and Israeli thuggery.

You noted,
" We have written laws to make the brutality legal. "

We ?  Who is we ?  I didn't do it.

Bush drops a few dozen  Daisy cutters  and it's ok.

  Why ?  Because people think his intentions were pure.

  Saddam kills people by hand and it's Hitlerism.

  Why ?  Because people think his intentions were evil.

But now I ask you, 
  Do you really know what Saddam's intentions were ?

  Can you crawl inside his mind ?

  No you can not.

You'd think that the size of Bush's arsenal 
  would make him more circumspect, but it doesn't.

  It's a turf war, and he intends to reach the goal line.

  Are you impressed by that ?  I'm not.

Hi father of peace,

You wrote,
" Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago.
  Prohibition on drugs is an even bigger failure today. "

All these wars, war on drugs, war on terrorism.

It's a turf war, and the mind is the battle field.

Bush has already lost.

Daisy Cutter's are just the latest admission of defeat.

Jeff Relf wrote:

> Hi father of peace,
> 
> You wrote,
> " Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago.
>   Prohibition on drugs is an even bigger failure today. "

Your presence here confirms that.

> 
> All these wars, war on drugs, war on terrorism.
> 
> It's a turf war, and the mind is the battle field.

No, love is a battlefield.

Don't you know your Pat Benatar lyrics ?

> 
> Bush has already lost.
> 

Once again, you seat yourself squarely in the opposite direction of the
facts.

> Daisy Cutter's are just the latest admission of defeat.

Daisy Cutter's and MOABs are old news.  3 man commercial private rockets are
all the rage.  You need to read the Japanese Schoolgirl Watch in Wired
magaine to /get/ with the trends, piker.  For instance, here's something
for you.  Romance video games:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/play.html?pg=8

-- 
        Arrrrr

Jeff Relf wrote:

> If you want to join the bloody war, become a lawyer.
>   Then you can rub shoulders with your fellow creeps.

When you were here before, couldn't look you in the eye
You're just like an angel, your skin makes me cry
You float like a feather
In a beautiful world
And I wish I was special
You're so fucking special

But I 'm a creep, I 'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doing here
I don't belong here

I don't care if it hurts, I want to have control
I want a perfect body, I want a perfect soul
I want you to notice
When I'm not around
You're so fucking special
I wish I was special

She's running out again
She's running out ....

Whatever makes you happy
Whatever you want
You're so fucking special
I wish I was special...
But I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo
What the hell am I doing here?
I don't belong here
I don't belong here.

-radiohead

-- 
        Arrrrr

Jeff Relf wrote:
 
> As in every war, both sides are wrong.

Both sides were wrong in WWII ?

I don't think so...

-- 
        Arrrrr

Hi Cap't Billy Squall,

You quoted radiohead,
" I'm a creep, I'm a weirdo.
  What the hell am I doing here ?
  I don't belong here.
  I don't belong here. "

Such honesty is not always the best policy.

Hi Cap't Billy Squall,

You inquired, " Both sides were wrong in WWII ? "

Damn toot'n.

Like all wars, it was just a bloody game of football.
  Both sides lost.

Jeff Relf wrote:

>   Both sides lost.

Uh,,,ok,,,what ever you say, Mr. 'Napoleon' as they like to call you at 
the *home*.


http://members.tripod.com/bugsbunnypage/scripts/napoleon.html

As Bugs burrows under the ground, the subtitle says "Headquarters du 
Napoleon".

Burrowing under guards and into headquarters, Bugs comes up out of the 
ground.

"Hey, where am I? One wrong turn off the Hollywood Freeway and I wind up 
in a the-a-tre lobby. Well, as long as I'm here, I might as well see the 
show."

"Eh, don't bother, Mac. I'll find a seat down front."

Napoleon is planning a battle on what looks like a gameboard to Bugs.

"Hey, Doc, where ya puttin' the artillery?"

Bugs tries to make suggestions until Napoleon gets mad.

"The emperor makes the decisions around here!"

Bugs tries some snuff. His nostrils turn bright red and he sneezes 
Napoleon's army men off the board.

"Ze plans are ruined! Guard! Le saboteur, le spy. Arrest le spy!"

"Just a minute, boys. I'll have to run if I'm gonna catch the 5:15," 
says Bugs, looking at his pocket watch.

A guard accidentally stabs Napoleon with his bayonet instead of Bugs.

"Get that rabbit!" screams Napoleon.

"Hey, Nappy," says Bugs, wrecking the emperor's war game, "this has got 
Scrabble bat by a mile. You oughta patent it."

On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:24:59 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:

>
>>>There are many ways for a passivist to fight thugs without
>>>engaging in violence.
>>>
>>    Name some.
>
>http://absalom.com/mormon/parable/garden.htm
>
 Your example is flawed.  If you really believe what you're espousing,
you're terribly naive.   

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:19:29 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<40ad57a2.172907643@news.west.earthlink.net>:

>
>>Then why are you bitching so much about something you claim to have
>>done voluntarily?  Shut the fuck up, already, or do something about
>>it.
>
>Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the 
>social security number. And they think that they are free.
>
>Love,
>Absalom

So, you bitch about it on Usenet to set them free?  Brilliant plan,
Einstein.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:13:23 +0200, rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley)
wrote:

>begin  <s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com>,
>	T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> writes:
>> On 20 May 2004 18:31:51 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>> 
>>>absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
>>>news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 
>>>
>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
>>>>> there any real posibility of this?
>>>> 
>>>> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
>>>> drugs is the most visible example.
>>>> 
>>>> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
>>>> on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
>>>> ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
>>>> morality on those who believe differently?
>>>
>>>There is no other kind of morality.
>> 
>> Sure there is.  Even lack of morality is a morality.
>> 
>> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.  ;-)
>
>Smiley noted but religion is certainly not hilarious. If you live in
>fear from those who use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities or
>in a country where religion restricts your freedom it most certainly
>is not hilarious.
>
>Religion is used the world over to suppress people. Most religions
>thrive on exploiting the ignorant, the poor and deprived. Having been
>educated in Scotland when religious education was forced on me and
>affected my way of life I am pleasantly surprised how religion has an
>ever weakening effect on the life of people in the UK and western
>europe in general.
>
>The opposite appears to be happening in the US. From what I read the
>religious right (an oxymoron if ever there was one) appears to gain
>more and more support.
>
>Religion is not at all hilarious. Depending on where you live it is a
>minor inconvenience to those who do not believe to life threatening.

Well, ultimately I agree with your opinion, but it was just a turn of
phrase, and an appropriate one at that.

On 21 May 2004 03:37:39 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

>rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) wrote in
>news:jn80o1-paq.ln1@nw8000.swissptt.ch: 
>
>> begin  <s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com>,
>>      T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> writes:
>>> On 20 May 2004 18:31:51 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
>>>> news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 
>>>>
>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
>>>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
>>>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
>>>>> drugs is the most visible example.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
>>>>> on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
>>>>> ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
>>>>> morality on those who believe differently?
>>>>
>>>> There is no other kind of morality.
>>> 
>>> Sure there is.  Even lack of morality is a morality.
>>> 
>>> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.  ;-)
>> 
>> Smiley noted but religion is certainly not hilarious. If you live in
>> fear from those who use religion as an excuse to commit atrocities or
>> in a country where religion restricts your freedom it most certainly
>> is not hilarious.
>
>Some people use government as an excuse to commit atrocities but that 
>doesn't make government a bad thing.

Well said.  Good point.

On 21 May 2004 03:37:21 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

>T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in
>news:s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com: 
>
>> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.
>
>Only to the ignorant like yourself.

Stop playing the fool, and maybe some day you'll have some integrity.

T. Max Devlin wrote:
> On 21 May 2004 03:37:21 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> T. Max Devlin <tmax@localnet.com> wrote in
>> news:s4pqa0tt3dne0vk2vdop31v2gpug8uquni@4ax.com:
>> 
>>> Language is funny, but religion is just hilarious.
>> 
>> Only to the ignorant like yourself.
> 
> Stop playing the fool, and maybe some day you'll have some integrity.

PKB, fool.

"father of peace" <absalom@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:40ad8366.184113113@news.west.earthlink.net...
:
: >> I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have
: >> to feel like government thugs are mugging me.
: >
: >Then quit complaining, you little bitch.
:
: I will continue to complain as long as government
: thugs are mugging anyone.


Hey! "father"............ FUCK OFF before I rip yer heart out
and stab it with my cock.

> > Damn those other
> > "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
> > is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
> > ass-kicking.
>
> Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
> Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
> renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
should
> stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US citizens
find
> their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils and that if
they
> do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork, erecting titty
bars
> and allowing women full human rights, the USA will attack... and you don't
> want that!

Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine that
"culture".
In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:

1. Not a single one that is a Democracy
2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.
3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for women
4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for anyone
5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
oil, in sufficient quantity to export
6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University

This, from a region with vast natural resources capable of producing wealth
and a high standard of living for most, if not all it's citizens. Arabs
suffer from an enormous, richly deserved inferiority complex - an outgrowth
of their obvious and total failure to compete on any level with the West. In
their profound ignorance, instead of some honest introspection and a
rational plan to improve their sorry existence, they have chosen instead to
embrace a ludicrous vision that imagines a triumphant Islamic victory over
western infidels. The fabulously wealthy oil sheiks and other despots and
tyrants that horde the wealth and rule through fear and intimidation would
themselves still be living in tents and riding camels if it were not for
American technology and engineering skills employed to extract the oil from
their lands.

Personally, I don't care if these people shit on their women or stick their
asses in the air five times a day, facing Mecca. But, I do have a problem
with them attacking and killing my countrymen both home and abroad. Every
American has seen the images of Muslims throughout the Arab world, dancing
in the streets in celebration of 9/11. Now, Arabs are paying the piper for
that dance. The ultimate irony of course, is that with a little luck, they
will emerge infinitely better off both socially and economically after an
American ass-kicking, just as most of our other previous adversaries have.

"whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com> wrote
> Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
> tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine that
> "culture".
> In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:
>
> 1. Not a single one that is a Democracy
> 2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.
> 3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for women
> 4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for anyone
> 5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
> oil, in sufficient quantity to export
> 6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University
>

There's nothing in your list that has much to do with culture, just politics
and economy. And when it comes to politics, democracy is only the best
form of government if everyone in that society agrees it is. If a society
_prefers_  to bow down before a monarch, aren't they free to do so?
And culture has little to do with economy and politics, but represents
the lives of thousands or millions of microorganisms inhabiting yogurt or
cheese, and the Arabs have both of these. In fact Yasser Arafat has
yogurt growing under his armpits and cheese growing between his toes.

In alt.talk.creationism, "whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com> wrote in
<2h76lfF9prfcU1@uni-berlin.de>:
>> > Damn those other
>> > "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
>> > is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
>> > ass-kicking.
>>
>> Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
>> Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
>> renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US should
>> stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US citizens find
>> their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils and that if they
>> do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork, erecting titty bars
>> and allowing women full human rights, the USA will attack... and you don't
>> want that!
>
>Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
>tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine that
>"culture".
>In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:
>
>1. Not a single one that is a Democracy
>2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.
>3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for women
>4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for anyone
>5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
>oil, in sufficient quantity to export
>6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University

Have you heard of Turkey or just selectively ignored them for your rant.

By the way, if these cultures are so worthless, why would any
self-respecting country have a President and Secretary of Defense
defending the behavior of their troops by saying that we aren't quite as
bad as the last bastards. 

>This, from a region with vast natural resources capable of producing wealth
>and a high standard of living for most, if not all it's citizens. Arabs
>suffer from an enormous, richly deserved inferiority complex - an outgrowth
>of their obvious and total failure to compete on any level with the West. In
>their profound ignorance, instead of some honest introspection and a
>rational plan to improve their sorry existence, they have chosen instead to
>embrace a ludicrous vision that imagines a triumphant Islamic victory over
>western infidels. The fabulously wealthy oil sheiks and other despots and
>tyrants that horde the wealth and rule through fear and intimidation would
>themselves still be living in tents and riding camels if it were not for
>American technology and engineering skills employed to extract the oil from
>their lands.
>
>Personally, I don't care if these people shit on their women or stick their
>asses in the air five times a day, facing Mecca. But, I do have a problem
>with them attacking and killing my countrymen both home and abroad. Every
>American has seen the images of Muslims throughout the Arab world, dancing
>in the streets in celebration of 9/11. Now, Arabs are paying the piper for
>that dance. The ultimate irony of course, is that with a little luck, they
>will emerge infinitely better off both socially and economically after an
>American ass-kicking, just as most of our other previous adversaries have.

Only a totally ignorant bigot would presume that all Arabs are the same
and that there is collective guilt. Are you a member of the Bush
Administration?

In alt.talk.creationism, maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in
<18510aff.0405210002.69470d3d@posting.google.com>:
>Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>> posibility of this?
>
>If the Confederates and Bible Belt fundamentalists are going to make
>the same mistake then be my guest.

I'm sure there's some mystical explanation that we see the rise of the
defense of evil coming 144 years after the last time the South fought
for the right to be evil.

"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:xItrc.65346$hY.38067@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
> > tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine
that
> > "culture".
> > In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:
> >
> > 1. Not a single one that is a Democracy
> > 2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.
> > 3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for
women
> > 4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for
anyone
> > 5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
> > oil, in sufficient quantity to export
> > 6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University
> >
>
> There's nothing in your list that has much to do with culture, just
politics
> and economy. And when it comes to politics, democracy is only the best
> form of government if everyone in that society agrees it is. If a society
> _prefers_  to bow down before a monarch, aren't they free to do so?
> And culture has little to do with economy and politics, but represents
> the lives of thousands or millions of microorganisms inhabiting yogurt or
> cheese, and the Arabs have both of these. In fact Yasser Arafat has
> yogurt growing under his armpits and cheese growing between his toes.

Copied & pasted:
A people's culture includes their beliefs, rules of behavior, language,
rituals, art, technology, styles of dress, ways of producing and cooking
food, religion, and political and economic systems.
Microsoft� Encarta� Encyclopedia 2002. � 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.

In answer to your question, yes, societies are indeed free to bow down
before a monarch, if they choose to do so. Are the Arabs in question free to
choose? I think not, but if they were, it would seem they have made some
very poor choices. Their choices are their prerogative, unless and until
their resulting frustration results in terrorism directed toward innocents
in the West, instead of the monarchs they "chose".

I've read that Yassir Arafat is worth an estimated 300 million dollars; I
didn't realize he made it in cheese.

Great Lord "whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Fri, 21 May 2004 16:21:00
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.

>Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
>tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine that
>"culture".
>In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:
>
>1. Not a single one that is a Democracy

Really?  That will be news to Jordan (a constitutional monarchy
similar to Britain, the current Prime Minsiter is Faisal al-Fayez.)
Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria.. all republics with elected
governments.

>2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.

Lebanon has no official religion.  Neither did Iraq.

>3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for women

Try Egypt and Lebanon.  Jordan, as well, thanks to the influence of
Queen Noor.

>4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for anyone

LOL!  The UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan.. all signatories to the UN
Declaration on Human Rights, and all do a pretty good job.

>5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
>oil, in sufficient quantity to export

Egypt exports  crude oil and petroleum products, cotton, textiles,
metal products, chemicals

Jordan:  phosphates, fertilizers, potash, agricultural products,
manufactures, pharmaceuticals.. but no oil.

>6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University

Cairo University.  Egypt.  You know, one of those non-existant Arab
nations with equal rights, religious diversity, exports other than
oil.

Oh, and the Arabs named most of the stars in the sky, and I bet you
took algebra in high school.  Arab math.  We can also thank them for
"0".

Arab writings have been translated into common legends.. or did you
think "Aladdin" took p[lace in New Jersey?  The Thousand and One
Nights is ranked as one of the greatest books ever.  Arab architecture
and art is beautiful, and the cooking is pretty good as well.
-- 

Douglas E. Berry  Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
 when they do it from religious conviction."
        Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote
> Great Lord "whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com>, braving the raging storm,
> scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Fri, 21 May 2004 16:21:00
> -0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
>
> >Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
> >tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine that
> >"culture".
> >In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:
> >
> >1. Not a single one that is a Democracy
>
> Really?  That will be news to Jordan (a constitutional monarchy
> similar to Britain, the current Prime Minsiter is Faisal al-Fayez.)
> Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria.. all republics with elected
> governments.
>
> >2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.
>
> Lebanon has no official religion.  Neither did Iraq.
>
> >3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for women
>
> Try Egypt and Lebanon.  Jordan, as well, thanks to the influence of
> Queen Noor.
>
> >4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for anyone
>
> LOL!  The UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan.. all signatories to the UN
> Declaration on Human Rights, and all do a pretty good job.
>
> >5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
> >oil, in sufficient quantity to export
>
> Egypt exports  crude oil and petroleum products, cotton, textiles,
> metal products, chemicals
>
> Jordan:  phosphates, fertilizers, potash, agricultural products,
> manufactures, pharmaceuticals.. but no oil.
>
> >6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University
>
> Cairo University.  Egypt.  You know, one of those non-existant Arab
> nations with equal rights, religious diversity, exports other than
> oil.
>
> Oh, and the Arabs named most of the stars in the sky, and I bet you
> took algebra in high school.  Arab math.  We can also thank them for
> "0".

Actually what we call "Arabic" numerals (including the place holder 0)
originated with the Indian Hindus. They were adopted by the Arabs,
and the great mathematician of Baghdad, Mohammed ibn-Musa
al-Khowarizmi introduced them to the Europeans.One of his books,
called His�b al-jabr w'al-muq�bala "Calculation of reduction and
restoration", a large tretise incorporating arithmetical and numerical
methods probably of Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian and Chinese methods,
is the origin of the European word "algebra", and this vector is the
origin of the ancient urban legend of Arabs "inventing" our numbers.


>
> Arab writings have been translated into common legends.. or did you
> think "Aladdin" took p[lace in New Jersey?  The Thousand and One
> Nights is ranked as one of the greatest books ever.  Arab architecture
> and art is beautiful, and the cooking is pretty good as well.
> --
>
> Douglas E. Berry  Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
>
> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
>  when they do it from religious conviction."
>         Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<rick@none.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 21 May 2004 09:41:47 GMT
<pan.2004.05.21.09.41.45.877601@none.com>:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:26:30 +0000, father of peace wrote:
>
>> 
>>>> I prefer to live under a vow of poverty. Then I don't have to feel like
>>>> government thugs are mugging me.
>>>
>>>Then quit complaining, you little bitch.
>> 
>> I will continue to complain as long as government thugs are mugging
>> anyone.
>> 
>
> You may now show examples of government thugs mugging people.

Correction: US government thugs.  :-)  It's easy enough to
find government thugs mugging people in, say, Iraq
(pre-invasion), Chile (pre-election), or Argentina
(I forget exactly when but a lot of people "disappeared").

As it is, money is a funny concept nowadays.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

> >Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
> >tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine
that
> >"culture".
> >In the 22 Arab nations in our world, we have:
> >
> >1. Not a single one that is a Democracy
> >2. Not a single one that permits religious freedom.
> >3. Not a single one that provides anything even close to rights for women
> >4. Not a single one that provides any semblance of human rights for
anyone
> >5. Not a single one that produces, grows or manufactures ANYTHING except
> >oil, in sufficient quantity to export
> >6. Not a single one that has produced a world-class University
>
> Have you heard of Turkey or just selectively ignored them for your rant.

Have YOU heard, Turkey is not an Arab country. It's full of TURKS (80%) and
Kurds (20%). Iran is not included in that list either, because it is
populated primarily by ethnic Persians, although there are a large number of
nutty, violent radical Muslim extremists there as well.

> By the way, if these cultures are so worthless, why would any
> self-respecting country have a President and Secretary of Defense
> defending the behavior of their troops by saying that we aren't quite as
> bad as the last bastards.

The above statement is incoherent in that, the "last bastards" WERE Arabs.
Bush and Rumsfeld NEVER defended the behavior of the troops responsible for
prison abuse. In response to politically motivated attacks by some Democrats
and the hyenas in the press, Republican officials were correct to point out
that there is a HUGE difference between the hazing and humiliation of Iraqi
prisoners by eight US soldiers and the systematic rape, torture and murder
of 300,000 Iraqis at the hands of  Saddam's thugs.


> Only a totally ignorant bigot would presume that all Arabs are the same
> and that there is collective guilt. Are you a member of the Bush
> Administration?

Only a totally clueless jackass would fail to understand the nature of the
war we are waging and how firmly it is rooted in the mindset of frustrated,
impotent and childish Arab fantasy. The victory in the war against
Arab/Islamic terror is not unlike victory in any other war - in order to
secure a permanent peace, we must assault the pride and break the will of
our enemies. BTW, since it was Arab terrorists that attacked my country, and
not the other way around, feel free to shove your politically correct
sensibilities.

In article <2h5br1F92ggiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> 
wrote:

> mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
> news:dc4a405f.0405201510.2f9a40a3@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
> > news:<6e14bcdc.0405190525.71cba942@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
> >> them from voting,
> >> In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
> >> overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
> >> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
> >> 
> >> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
> >> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
> >> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.
> > 
> > The neocons are learning from the leaders of "democratic" third world
> > countries under our sphere of influence.
> > 
> > If there's anyone who's got expert knowledge on securing power and
> > influence within the confines of a democratic government, it'll be
> > those third world leaders.
> > 
> > The neocons are following their footsteps.
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding.

How? Why? 

Why don't you ever back up what you say?

-- 
Dave Fritzinger

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2h4bsmF8ljh4U11@uni-berlin.de>...
> absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
> news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net: 
> 
> >> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> >> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is
> >> there any real posibility of this?
> > 
> > We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on 
> > drugs is the most visible example.
> > 
> > Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
> > on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
> > ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
> > morality on those who believe differently?
> 
> There is no other kind of morality.

Thats too bad since your morality is focused on annoying anyone not
yourself, spiting them despite their more peaceful and charismatic
nature.  Having no knowledge of other morality means you have nothing
to contrast to your own, leaving it impossible for you to judge its
usefulness or viability. You really ought to learn some more, because
as of this moment, your morals resemble that of a spoiled poodle. Get
the picture fuckhead?

-------------
-Mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------

"David Fritzinger" <dfritzin@macNoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzin-2BD6FC.16021821052004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
: In article <2h5br1F92ggiU1@uni-berlin.de>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl>
: wrote:
:
: > mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
: > news:dc4a405f.0405201510.2f9a40a3@posting.google.com:
: >
: > > rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
: > > news:<6e14bcdc.0405190525.71cba942@posting.google.com>...
: > >
: > >> So, in spite of Bush removing valid voters from the rolls and keeping
: > >> them from voting,
: > >> In spite of Bush sending out duplicate ballots to servicemembers
: > >> overseas to let them vote Republican twice.
: > >> In spite of all of that nonsense, Bush really lost the election.
: > >>
: > >> He is in office because five Supreme Court justices ignored the law
: > >> and ignored history and decided that the votes of the citizens of
: > >> Florida and the rest of the country didn't count.
: > >
: > > The neocons are learning from the leaders of "democratic" third world
: > > countries under our sphere of influence.
: > >
: > > If there's anyone who's got expert knowledge on securing power and
: > > influence within the confines of a democratic government, it'll be
: > > those third world leaders.
: > >
: > > The neocons are following their footsteps.
: >
: > Your ignorance is astounding.
:
: How? Why?
:
: Why don't you ever back up what you say?

As hard as it may be to believe...... he talks even more shit than
the total sum of his composition

"dummie" <das_dummie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37164aa9.0405211806.7d1eddd7@posting.google.com...
: Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:<2h4bsmF8ljh4U11@uni-berlin.de>...
: > absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote in
: > news:40ac3120.97502424@news.west.earthlink.net:
: >
: > >> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
: > >> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
: > >> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
Is
: > >> there any real posibility of this?
: > >
: > > We are already in armed civil strife in the usa. The war on
: > > drugs is the most visible example.
: > >
: > > Prohibition of alcohol didn't work 100 years ago. Prohibition
: > > on drugs is an even bigger failure today. When are we
: > > ever going to learn that we can't enforce religious
: > > morality on those who believe differently?
: >
: > There is no other kind of morality.
:
: Thats too bad since your morality is focused on annoying anyone not
: yourself, spiting them despite their more peaceful and charismatic
: nature.  Having no knowledge of other morality means you have nothing
: to contrast to your own, leaving it impossible for you to judge its
: usefulness or viability. You really ought to learn some more, because
: as of this moment, your morals resemble that of a *spoiled poodle*. Get
: the picture fuckhead?


misspelled..... 'muddied puddle'

"Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:2h7sr8Fa6c1bU2@uni-berlin.de...
: ur_droll wrote:
: > "Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
: >> whozix wrote:
: >>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
: >>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
: >>>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
: >>>>>>> Xomicron wrote:
: >>>>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
: >>>>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
: >>>>>>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
: >>>>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
: >>>>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
: >>>>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
: >>>>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
: >>>>>> predict them beforehand.
: >>>>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
: >>>>> about Republicans.
: >>>> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
: >>>>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
: >>>>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that
: >>>>> Dems have for Republicans.
: >>>> Bush is judged on his merits.
: >>>> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
: >>> Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.
: >> Bush personifies American stupidity.
: >>> You hate America's success and influence almost as much as
guilt-racked
: >>> American liberals do.
: >> This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."
: >> no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good
: >> thing.
: >>> Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
: >>> party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
: >>> policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends"
: >>> would like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of
: >>> the worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the
: >>> immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us
: >>> when we are "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American
left,
: >>> who, like leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".
: >> all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.
: >>> Damn those other
: >>> "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best
defense
: >>> is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
: >>> ass-kicking.
: >> Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely
overthrown.
: >> Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
: >> renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
: >> should stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US
: >> citizens find their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their
nostrils
: >> and that if they do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating
pork,
: >> erecting titty bars and allowing women full human rights, the USA will
: >> attack... and you don't want that!
: > I quite like the titty bar part
:
: they'll be special Halaal ones - sultry Arabian sluts rubbed down with pig
: lard with hunky young Muslim men licking it off their hot bodies.
: mmmmmmmmmm. it's an Iranian Revolution!!!!

Thanks...... yer've just put me off

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
> posibility of this?

No. Another militant fundie groupie is moaning about his percieved
loss of freedom because his nazi figurehead Bush lost. They've been
whining like a bitch ever since the country was born and their screams
have gradually gotten quieter. They're never martyred, oppressed, or
treated as second class citizens even while they provoke it as they
preach to do it on others. This call to arms is ignorable nonsense,
and if you weren't so damn enthusiastic for this very thing to happen
such messages would quickly pass you by with a chortle, like it does
with almost everyone else in this country. And no offense intended to
you, shithead. Its merely the way it is.

Oh shithead: *You* are on the FBI watch list. ;)

-------------
-Mike#1375
BAAWA Knight!
-------------

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<WFJqc.43098$kc2.647798@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in news:ApydnTbAuvxT_TbdRVn2hw@giganews.com:
> 
> > "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> > news:02027b97d0f9ed79aaeebc1e4528c084@news.teranews.com...
> >
> >> That Guy wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> >>> news:bd9bc34f9c07fec4ecfd74b78e5a8471@news.teranews.com...
> >>>
> >>>> Xomicron wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
> >>>>> John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I
> >>>>> recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it.
> >>>>> Is there any real posibility of this?
> >>>>
> >>>> It can be avoided. If all the liberals were dead before November...
> >>>> just need everyone to do their part.
> >>>
> >>> Conservatives aren't usually so open about how they feel, you set a
> >>> good example with your honesty.
> >>
> >> Why do you think I'm conservative? Has it not occurred to you that we
> >> just don't like the American liberals over here?
> > 
> > You Nazis are all the same...  No sense at all, just an endless desire
> > to blame your problems on someone else in order to justify your lust for
> > violence.
> 
> That's not it at all. We just know liberalism is a failure.

That must be why the GOP is liberal with its drug policy and freedoms
guaranteed in the constitution.

"EZ2" <ez2lite@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<2h474vF8j53kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>  John
> > > > > Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall
>  at
>  least
> > > >
> > > > Less than if the current president is reelected.
> > > >
> > > > Colin Day
> > >
> > > BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun
>  hating,
> > > effete, elite American left taking up arms?
> > > Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
> > >
> > > (In a Charlie's Angel voice) ATTENNNNN - SHUN!
> > > FORWARRD - MAARCH!!
> > >
>  
> > Here's one tree hugging, queer loving, gun-totin' liberal who teaches
> > martial arts. And I don't mean sport. Child, where *do you get your
> > information from?
> > A handful of inbred dittoheads starting an insurrection because
> > someone they don't like who gets elected? It's happened before...
> > with, shall we say, minimal impact.
> 
> Hey, *child*,

That's *geezer to you, neighbor.

> I suggest you re-read the thread. My comment was in response
> to the notion of an armed insurrection in the event of BUSH's reelection. It
> was made in jest, capitalizing on a popular liberal stereotype - one that is
> richly deserved.

OK. I would like to withdraw my second comment above - it seemed to
make sense at the time.

I assure you that discussing how I teach my daughter knifefighting
techniques goes over quite well in liberal parties... ahem. Well, OK,
it kills the conversation as fast as talk of transparency and
accountablility would in the Oval Office.

> 
> > Unlike the current gang of scoundrals in the White House, *real
> > conservatives are honest, support the seperation of church and state,
> > are champions of state rights, loathe unfunded mandates, minimize US
> > intervention overseas and would never start a war unless attack was
> > immanent, are strong on national defense, place a high value on honor,
> > value education, and above all, are fiscally responsible.
> >
> > But liberals are even better :)
> 
> While not conservatives, the current gang of scoundrels in the White House
> are still infinitely better than any hand wringing, blame America first,
> liberal Democrat.

Perhaps.
And Kerry would be better than any thuggery of murderous Fascists,
yes?
Or no?

> Pity we are forced to choose between the lesser of two
> evils but since the modern Democrat party is controlled by radical leftists
> who seek to socialize our country and weaken us militarily,

Really? How? By spreading us too thin? By pulling 800 commandos off
the hunt for bin Ladin and sending them to Iraq? By disbanding the
Muslim coalition against terrorism and alienating the entire MidEast?
By invading a country which was no  immediate threat to us and had
nothing to do with Sept. 11? By polarizing the country? By ignoring
all bounds of decency and American law and turning any  undecided
Muslims in Iraq into ferocious enemies (I mean, how would *you react
after release if you had been raped, or your brother tortured to death
by, say, Muslim invaders? You wouldn't whine like a "liberal", right?)

How is blustering and beating your head against a wall and beating up
irrelevant but easy targets and starting fights without thinking about
the consequnces *strengthening us militarily?

What would happen right now if North Korea invaded the South?

> we are left with
> few choices. John Kerry's idea of foreign policy?

Bush has no foreign policy except contempt and bullying and bluster.
What do you think that will get us?

> (In a whiny, Rodney King
> voice) "Why can't we all just get along?"

Please explain what - given the circumstances - you think Mr. King
should have said? "Burn the city down?"

We have a secretary of defense who probably OKed the policy of
torture, certainly set the tone for it, and claimed he had no idea it
was happening even tho the military had the report in January. He said
that people who disagree with White House policy are traitors.

We have an Attorney General who drapes curtains over the bare breast
of the statue of Justice.

We have a president who thinks Jesus told him to start a war in Iraq.
This is the most surreal and disastrous administration we have ever
had.

Kermit

>>Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the 
>>social security number. And they think that they are free.

>So, you bitch about it on Usenet to set them free?  Brilliant plan,
>Einstein.

Usenet is one venue I use to spread my message.

My whole life was changed on several occasions
by messages I read on Usenet.

Love,
Absalom

--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

"ur_droll" <who.gives@fuck.co> wrote:

>Hey! "father"............ FUCK OFF before I rip yer heart out
>and stab it with my cock.

Is the philosophy expressed above typical of
Americans?

Can't tolerate a peaceable exchange of ideas so you
threaten to kill me and sodomize me? 

Is that really the kind of life you want for youself?

Love,
Absalom

--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

> > While not conservatives, the current gang of scoundrels in the White
House
> > are still infinitely better than any hand wringing, blame America first,
> > liberal Democrat.
>
> Perhaps.
> And Kerry would be better than any thuggery of murderous Fascists,
> yes?
> Or no?

A hypothetical question in as much as there are no fascists in the
Republican party. Conversely, however, there are few non-leftists among
Democrats and none who would get the support of the power base that controls
the party.

> > Pity we are forced to choose between the lesser of two
> > evils but since the modern Democrat party is controlled by radical
leftists
> > who seek to socialize our country and weaken us militarily,
>
> Really? How? By spreading us too thin? By pulling 800 commandos off
> the hunt for bin Ladin and sending them to Iraq? By disbanding the
> Muslim coalition against terrorism and alienating the entire MidEast?
> By invading a country which was no  immediate threat to us and had
> nothing to do with Sept. 11? By polarizing the country?

Oh please, not another arm-chair general and Monday-morning quarterback.
"Polarizing the country" is precisely what Bush's political opponents have
chosen to do. Remember, an overwhelming majority in congress, including a
majority of Democrats gave Bush the authority to wage this war. These same
Democrats who voted to placate an angry American constituency in the
aftermath of 9/11 are now waging a war of political opportunism because for
these unpatriotic fools, beating Bush is more important than winning the
war.

> By ignoring
> all bounds of decency and American law and turning any  undecided
> Muslims in Iraq into ferocious enemies (I mean, how would *you react
> after release if you had been raped, or your brother tortured to death
> by, say, Muslim invaders? You wouldn't whine like a "liberal", right?)

Actually, polls conducted in Iraq have concluded that Iraqis met this news
with a big yawn. The hazing and humiliation of prisoners was small potatoes
in contrast to Saddam's track record and evidently the Iraqis are a good
deal more mature about it than American liberals.


> How is blustering and beating your head against a wall and beating up
> irrelevant but easy targets and starting fights without thinking about
> the consequnces *strengthening us militarily?

Assuming that this senseless rant refers to the war in Iraq, the purpose of
the war is not to strengthen us militarily; that is usually accomplished
with research and development of weapons systems, recruitment and training,
etc.

Here are some of the reasons we went to war with Iraq:
1. Iraq was regularly engaging and shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly
zones, a violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
2. Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire agreement and
numerous UN resolutions which placed the burden of proof on them to fully
disclose and disarm of all WMD and missile programs - they did not.
3. Iraq was supporting Palestinian terrorists by awarding $25,000 to the
family of every suicide bomber.
4. Iraq provided asylum for the notorious terrorist Abu Nidal.
5. Iraq fomented an unsuccessful plot to assassinate Bush 41
6. Iraq was stealing the funds from the oil-for-food program to enrich
Saddam's family and it was feared, to fund weapons. This ultimately became
known by UN critics as the Oil-For-Palaces program and Kofi Annan as well as
French and Russian interests are currently under investigation for
widespread corruption and theft. (Read William Saffire - NY Times)
7. Iraq was a destabilizing, belligerent power that had waged aggressive war
against defenseless Kuwait.
8. Iraq developed, built and used WMD in it's war with Iran and against it's
own Kurdish population.
9. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Iraq still possessed WMD.
(Our failure to find them is not conclusive proof that they are not still
hidden or were transported out of the country prior to our invasion)
10. "Regime Change" has been the official US policy for Iraq since the
Clinton Administration.
11. Finally, Iraq was America's best opportunity to plant the seed of
democracy in the Middle East. The hope is that freedom, coupled with a
market economy can turn this region away from it's destructive commitment to
terror. If Iraq can emerge from the shadow of Saddam as a modern, prosperous
Arab state, perhaps they can set the example for other nations in the
region. Undoubtedly, the terrorists recognize this also, which is why they
are fighting desperately to defeat us.


> What would happen right now if North Korea invaded the South?

We would be in deep shit. America's national security policy calls for a
standing military that is capable of conducting two regional wars
simultaneously. I personally don't think we could do that very effectively.
Who is to blame? Well in fairness, both political parties must bear some
responsibility for this but the lion's share goes to Clinton/Gore. When Al
Gore, in charge of "reinventing government", claimed credit for reducing the
federal payroll by 309,000 employees, he conveniently forgot to tell us that
300,000 were from the US military. Bear in mind that after Ronald Regan
presided over the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Bush 41 had already
reduced America's military budget to a post WWII low, as a percentage of
GDP.


> > we are left with
> > few choices. John Kerry's idea of foreign policy?
>
> Bush has no foreign policy except contempt and bullying and bluster.
> What do you think that will get us?

You obviously don't agree with it, but Bush has a very clear, concise
foreign policy. He aims to fight terrorists and the rogue states that
sponsor them. Unlike appeasement-oriented liberals, Bush understands that
peace can only be achieved through strength and that Liberty is not free -
every generation is usually called upon to defend it.


> > (In a whiny, Rodney King
> > voice) "Why can't we all just get along?"
>
> Please explain what - given the circumstances - you think Mr. King
> should have said? "Burn the city down?"
>
> We have a secretary of defense who probably OKed the policy of
> torture, certainly set the tone for it, and claimed he had no idea it
> was happening even tho the military had the report in January. He said
> that people who disagree with White House policy are traitors.

 "Probably" doesn't cut it. Anyone can make gratuitous accusations, in fact
it is a specialty of the hysterical left.

> We have an Attorney General who drapes curtains over the bare breast
> of the statue of Justice.

Silly, I agree. But better than Janet Reno, who admitted before congress to
giving the order that took the lives of 80 American citizens, including 20
innocent children in Waco Texas. Funny, I don't recall the press or any
bleeding heart liberals calling for Clinton to fire her.

> We have a president who thinks Jesus told him to start a war in Iraq.
> This is the most surreal and disastrous administration we have ever
> had.

We should be thankful to have a President grounded in his faith who has the
political courage and will to conduct this necessary war in spite of the
firestorm of unjustified, leftist political criticism.

Bill Clinton, the boy President, took an eight year vacation from reality
and did NOTHING to enhance American security. He refused repeated offers
from the Sudanese to take custody of bin Laden because in his lawyerly mind,
he couldn't think of a legal justification. He refused to provide necessary
air support for Delta Force in Somalia and ordered withdrawal after their
humiliating defeat. He allowed the first attack on the World Trade Center,
the attack on two American Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS
Cole to go unanswered and unpunished. No wonder we were attacked on 9/11 -
The 9/11 plot was hatched and planned by al Qaeda on his watch. The ultimate
political animal, his principles changed with the weekly polls. He may have
found it easier to think on his feet if his pants weren't always down around
his ankles.

Hi The Ghost In The Machine, a.k.a. Spooky,

You noted, " money is a funny concept nowadays ".

The U.S. dollar is one share in the U.S. government.

How complex is that ?

Bring down the U.S. dollar and the government is defeated.

Don't invest your time and energy accumulating it's stock,
  I say.

Oil is the measure of the dollar's worth.
  It was under 11 dollars per barrel at the start of 1999,
  It's now over 40 dollars in the futures market.

  What could be simpler than that ?

I'm not just talking about volatility either,
  volatility is bad enough by itself,
  but a long-term drop in the value of the dollar
  is in the works ...  I'm talking decades.

  When the inflation spreads from high priced assets
  to everyday consumables ...  Then you'll see what I mean.
  But the momentum is high, it happens very slowly.

begin  <2h5d8sF9dqvnU1@uni-berlin.de>,
	Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> writes:
> rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) wrote in
> news:gia0o1-paq.ln1@nw8000.swissptt.ch: 
> 
>> begin  <2h5br6F92ggiU2@uni-berlin.de>,
>>      Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> writes:
>>> mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in
>>> news:dc4a405f.0405201502.462f7774@posting.google.com: 
>>> 
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:<2h4bsiF8ljh4U7@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>>
>>>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:nbsna0dfpadgseuq54dt5vl6s9l7errud7@4ax.com: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mandela is nothing more than a communist. I never understood why he
>>>>> received so much praise.
>>>> 
>>>> Damn those commies for demanding that black South Africans deserve the
>>>> same rights and privileges as white South Africans!
>>> 
>>> And the right to slaughter white South Africans and drive the
>>> country into the ground. As many of Nelson Mandela's ideals of
>>> government and the distribution of land, mirror those of Robert
>>> Mugabe
>> 
>> If it hadn't been for Mandela there would have been a blood bath in
>> SA.  To compare him to Mugabe just shows your ignorance at best. If
>> only there were more Mandela's the world would be a far better place.
> 
> A better place for blacks and a death sentence for whites.

Considering how the blacks had suffered under aparteid the relatively
peaceful transition to majority rule has been astounding. This was in
no small part due to Mandela not wanting revenge for all the wrongs
the blacks suffered under aparteid.

Before replying with such unsubstantiated nonsense please do yourself
a favour and learn something about that which you write.

Best be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and let out all
shadow of doubt.

"father of peace" <absalom@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:40aebe09.264672683@news.west.earthlink.net...
:
: "ur_droll" <who.gives@fuck.co> wrote:
:
: >Hey! "father"............ FUCK OFF before I rip yer heart out
: >and stab it with my cock.
:
: Is the philosophy expressed above typical of
: Americans?
:
: Can't tolerate a peaceable exchange of ideas so you
: threaten to kill me and sodomize me?
:
: Is that really the kind of life you want for youself?

Listen here you perverted little kiddie fucker.......
Take your bullshit whiney arse claptrap to a forum
where people can better express their interest in
your opinions, by throwing more petrol on you.

whozix wrote:
>> Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
>> Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
>> renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
>> should stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US
>> citizens find their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils
>> and that if they do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork,
>> erecting titty bars and allowing women full human rights, the USA will
>> attack... and you don't want that!
> Arab culture? What culture? Do you mean the primitive, brutal and cruel
> tribal existence wound around a sixth century religion? Let's examine that
> "culture".

i pity your ignorance.

> Personally, I don't care if these people shit on their women or stick
> their asses in the air five times a day, facing Mecca. But, I do have a
> problem with them attacking and killing my countrymen both home and
> abroad.

they have a problem with Israel killing their people using American weapons.

munitions manufactured in the USA kill little children in Palestine.

America is a baby killing nation.

> Every American has seen the images of Muslims throughout the Arab
> world, dancing in the streets in celebration of 9/11.

i was pretty happy myself and i'm not an Arab. I just understand that
America needed its arse kicked so that they could catch a wake up.

> Now, Arabs are paying the piper for that dance.

to date, i have got off scot free for doing my little dance of joy on
2001.09.11.

> The ultimate irony of course, is that
> with a little luck, they will emerge infinitely better off both socially
> and economically after an American ass-kicking, just as most of our other
> previous adversaries have.

uh huh. sure. whatever. you can go now.

-- 
zoogar
http://www.atjfaq.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 12/05/04

On Sat, 22 May 2004 02:35:50 -0400, "whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> > While not conservatives, the current gang of scoundrels in the White House
>> > are still infinitely better than any hand wringing, blame America first,
>> > liberal Democrat.
>>
>> Perhaps.
>> And Kerry would be better than any thuggery of murderous Fascists,
>> yes?
>> Or no?
>
>A hypothetical question in as much as there are no fascists in the
>Republican party.

I'm not at all sure that is true.

>Conversely, however, there are few non-leftists among
>Democrats and none who would get the support of the power base that controls
>the party.
>
>> > Pity we are forced to choose between the lesser of two
>> > evils but since the modern Democrat party is controlled by radical leftists
>> > who seek to socialize our country and weaken us militarily,
>>
>> Really? How? By spreading us too thin? By pulling 800 commandos off
>> the hunt for bin Ladin and sending them to Iraq? By disbanding the
>> Muslim coalition against terrorism and alienating the entire MidEast?
>> By invading a country which was no  immediate threat to us and had
>> nothing to do with Sept. 11? By polarizing the country?
>
>Oh please, not another arm-chair general and Monday-morning quarterback.
>"Polarizing the country" is precisely what Bush's political opponents have
>chosen to do.

Oh, please.  Criticizing the president is 'polarizing the country'?
Are you on drugs?

>Remember, an overwhelming majority in congress, including a
>majority of Democrats gave Bush the authority to wage this war.

An overwhelming majority of the populace, including Democrats, gave
Bush their full support after 9/11.  And Bush betrayed us all.  Now,
even some Republicans are waking up and noticing.

>These same
>Democrats who voted to placate an angry American constituency in the
>aftermath of 9/11 are now waging a war of political opportunism because for
>these unpatriotic fools, beating Bush is more important than winning the
>war.

You seem to be suggesting that re-electing Bush is more important that
winning the peace.  Check out Thomas Friedman's recent column entitled
"Dancing Alone" on nytimes.com for a more complete explanation of this
phenomenon.

>> By ignoring
>> all bounds of decency and American law and turning any  undecided
>> Muslims in Iraq into ferocious enemies (I mean, how would *you react
>> after release if you had been raped, or your brother tortured to death
>> by, say, Muslim invaders? You wouldn't whine like a "liberal", right?)
>
>Actually, polls conducted in Iraq have concluded that Iraqis met this news
>with a big yawn.

Wow.  Those are some pretty crafty Republican polling experts, I'd
say.

>The hazing and humiliation of prisoners was small potatoes
>in contrast to Saddam's track record and evidently the Iraqis are a good
>deal more mature about it than American liberals.

Once again, the "at least we aren't as bad as Saddam" argument is used
to support President Bush's pathetic handling of this entirely
unjustified war.

>> How is blustering and beating your head against a wall and beating up
>> irrelevant but easy targets and starting fights without thinking about
>> the consequnces *strengthening us militarily?
>
>Assuming that this senseless rant refers to the war in Iraq, the purpose of
>the war is not to strengthen us militarily; that is usually accomplished
>with research and development of weapons systems, recruitment and training,
>etc.
>
>Here are some of the reasons we went to war with Iraq:
>1. Iraq was regularly engaging and shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly
>zones, a violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.
>2. Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire agreement and
>numerous UN resolutions which placed the burden of proof on them to fully
>disclose and disarm of all WMD and missile programs - they did not.
>3. Iraq was supporting Palestinian terrorists by awarding $25,000 to the
>family of every suicide bomber.
>4. Iraq provided asylum for the notorious terrorist Abu Nidal.
>5. Iraq fomented an unsuccessful plot to assassinate Bush 41
>6. Iraq was stealing the funds from the oil-for-food program to enrich
>Saddam's family and it was feared, to fund weapons. This ultimately became
>known by UN critics as the Oil-For-Palaces program and Kofi Annan as well as
>French and Russian interests are currently under investigation for
>widespread corruption and theft. (Read William Saffire - NY Times)
>7. Iraq was a destabilizing, belligerent power that had waged aggressive war
>against defenseless Kuwait.
>8. Iraq developed, built and used WMD in it's war with Iran and against it's
>own Kurdish population.
>9. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Iraq still possessed WMD.
>(Our failure to find them is not conclusive proof that they are not still
>hidden or were transported out of the country prior to our invasion)
>10. "Regime Change" has been the official US policy for Iraq since the
>Clinton Administration.
>11. Finally, Iraq was America's best opportunity to plant the seed of
>democracy in the Middle East. The hope is that freedom, coupled with a
>market economy can turn this region away from it's destructive commitment to
>terror. If Iraq can emerge from the shadow of Saddam as a modern, prosperous
>Arab state, perhaps they can set the example for other nations in the
>region. Undoubtedly, the terrorists recognize this also, which is why they
>are fighting desperately to defeat us.

You can come up with as many /justifications/ as you want, the reason
we went to war is because God told Bush to invade Iraq.

>> What would happen right now if North Korea invaded the South?
>
>We would be in deep shit. America's national security policy calls for a
>standing military that is capable of conducting two regional wars
>simultaneously. I personally don't think we could do that very effectively.
>Who is to blame? Well in fairness, both political parties must bear some
>responsibility for this but the lion's share goes to Clinton/Gore.

Yes, of course it does.

   [...]
>You obviously don't agree with it, but Bush has a very clear, concise
>foreign policy.

Now if only it were effective, too.  Or at least not pathetically
flawed.

>He aims to fight terrorists and the rogue states that
>sponsor them.

And he aims to keep fighting them, even if we have to make new
terrorists and rogue states to fight, until he succeeds in losing
completely enough that we are unable to continue.

>Unlike appeasement-oriented liberals, Bush understands that
>peace can only be achieved through strength and that Liberty is not free -
>every generation is usually called upon to defend it.

So why was the generation that was defending it in Afghanistan pulled
off to defend it in Iraq?  Unlike "anything but a stupid response is
appeasment"-oriented Republicans, most people understand that you
cannot earn someone else's freedom by destroying their government.
Bush is playing craps with our very lives.

>> > (In a whiny, Rodney King
>> > voice) "Why can't we all just get along?"
>>
>> Please explain what - given the circumstances - you think Mr. King
>> should have said? "Burn the city down?"
>>
>> We have a secretary of defense who probably OKed the policy of
>> torture, certainly set the tone for it, and claimed he had no idea it
>> was happening even tho the military had the report in January. He said
>> that people who disagree with White House policy are traitors.
>
> "Probably" doesn't cut it. Anyone can make gratuitous accusations, in fact
>it is a specialty of the hysterical left.

Probably does cut it.  It doesn't matter if Rumsfeld OK'd the policy,
he is the one responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen unless he did
OK the policy.  Anyone concerned for our country's welfare is
'hysterical'?  Anyone who criticizes bush is from the left?

So why is it the pro-Bush right that is consistently calling those who
criticize the administration as traitors, or hysterical, or
'appeasement-oriented'?  You'd have to be /brain-dead/ not to notice
that things aren't working out very well for the 'Bush doctrine' of
indiscriminate aggression as a response to terrorism (or anyone who
can be gratiutously accused of terrorism).  But we're not allowed to
wonder if there is a better approach, because any other approach would
be surrender?

>> We have an Attorney General who drapes curtains over the bare breast
>> of the statue of Justice.
>
>Silly, I agree. But better than Janet Reno, who admitted before congress to
>giving the order that took the lives of 80 American citizens, including 20
>innocent children in Waco Texas.

Lord knows, it wasn't the Jesus freaks with the grenade launchers
holed up in their compound who refused to surrender that were at
fault.  Couldn't have been; Reno was a Democrat.

>Funny, I don't recall the press or any
>bleeding heart liberals calling for Clinton to fire her.

That's because she gave the order to take the compound, and the people
died.  She never gave any order to kill anyone.

>> We have a president who thinks Jesus told him to start a war in Iraq.
>> This is the most surreal and disastrous administration we have ever
>> had.
>
>We should be thankful to have a President grounded in his faith who has the
>political courage and will to conduct this necessary war in spite of the
>firestorm of unjustified, leftist political criticism.

Yes, we should all thank God for this test of faith.

It never occured to you that maybe a religiously-inspired reaction to
religiously-inspired terrorism isn't necessarily the best approach?

>Bill Clinton, the boy President, took an eight year vacation from reality
>and did NOTHING to enhance American security.

Except keep us secure, you mean.

>He refused repeated offers
>from the Sudanese to take custody of bin Laden because in his lawyerly mind,
>he couldn't think of a legal justification.

Actually, it was a lack of actionable intelligence.  The several
attempts we did make proves that it wasn't lack of legal justification
that stopped him.  You really should have paid more attention during
the 9/11 hearings.

>He refused to provide necessary
>air support for Delta Force in Somalia and ordered withdrawal after their
>humiliating defeat. He allowed the first attack on the World Trade Center,
>the attack on two American Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS
>Cole to go unanswered and unpunished. No wonder we were attacked on 9/11 -
>The 9/11 plot was hatched and planned by al Qaeda on his watch. The ultimate
>political animal, his principles changed with the weekly polls. He may have
>found it easier to think on his feet if his pants weren't always down around
>his ankles.

"Clinton wasn't perfect either."  That's the best you can do to defend
Bush Jr.?  Hell, his father was five times the President he is, and
his father sucked as President.  At least he didn't needlessly embroil
our nation in a war that may last centuries because God told him to.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:45:05 -0700, Jeff Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote:

>Oil is the measure of the dollar's worth.
>  It was under 11 dollars per barrel at the start of 1999,
>  It's now over 40 dollars in the futures market.
>
>  What could be simpler than that ?

What a business "genius"... 

Tell us about supply and demand next Mr. Buffett....

Fri, 21 May 2004 12:58:50 +0200 was a day just like any other,
until "Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote:
>ur_droll wrote:
>> "Zoogar, ruler of the Zerg" <zoogar@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>> whozix wrote:
>>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:24 GMT, "Douglas D. Anderson"
>>>>>> "Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:04 GMT, Ministry Of Jute
>>>>>>>> Xomicron wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bush was legally the winner before the Supreme Court made any
>>>>>>>>> decision. The Supreme Court stopping the illegal recounts in
>>>>>>>>> Florida had nothing to do with appointing anybody president.
>>>>>>>> ...but you'll never convince the sore losers.
>>>>>>>> The Bush Landslide in 2004 will.
>>>>>>> will you cower in shame if he loses?
>>>>>>> btw the reason they hold elections is because no one can accurately
>>>>>>> predict them beforehand.
>>>>>> Republicans don't whine about Democrats the way Democrats whine
>>>>>> about Republicans.
>>>>> ag, DDA, you've shot your bolt and nothing has come of it.
>>>>>> if Kerry gets elected he'll simply
>>>>>> be judged on his merits, not with the same prejudicial hatred that
>>>>>> Dems have for Republicans.
>>>>> Bush is judged on his merits.
>>>>> btw how to describe my anti-pathy for him since I am not an American?
>>>> Easy, Bush personifies American independence, resolve and power.
>>> Bush personifies American stupidity.
>>>> You hate America's success and influence almost as much as guilt-racked
>>>> American liberals do.
>>> This is similar to the Bush lie, "they hate our freedom."
>>> no, I don't hate America's success or influence. I think it's a good
>>> thing.
>>>> Why don't you emigrate, you could be a star in the Democrat
>>>> party. You could help them to craft an apologist, appeasement foreign
>>>> policy - more humble - like Clinton - so that our European "friends"
>>>> would like us again. The American left longs for the good old days of
>>>> the worldwide sympathy that was generated toward our country, in the
>>>> immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Apparently the world loves us
>>>> when we are "victims" and this dovetails nicely with the American left,
>>>> who, like leftists the world over, specialize in "victimhood".
>>> all you have in that brain of yours is idle speculation and zero facts.
>>>> Damn those other
>>>> "cowboy" Americans who are boorish enough to think that the best defense
>>>> is a good offense and that Mohammed needs a good old-fashioned
>>>> ass-kicking.
>>> Maybe you're right. Maybe Arab culture needs to be completely overthrown.
>>> Maybe all their weird religious ideas and their ill treatment of women
>>> renders them in dire need of a thorough arse kicking. Perhaps the US
>>> should stop pussy footing around and state that equivocally - that US
>>> citizens find their abhorrent behaviour to be a stench in their nostrils
>>> and that if they do not immediately start drinking alcohol, eating pork,
>>> erecting titty bars and allowing women full human rights, the USA will
>>> attack... and you don't want that!
>> I quite like the titty bar part
>
>they'll be special Halaal ones - sultry Arabian sluts rubbed down with pig
>lard with hunky young Muslim men licking it off their hot bodies.
>mmmmmmmmmm. it's an Iranian Revolution!!!!

Something about that just ain't kosher.

-- 
Keith E.
Excrementum casus

On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:43:09 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace)
wrote in message <40aebc8d.264292473@news.west.earthlink.net>:
>>>Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the 
>>>social security number. And they think that they are free.
>>So, you bitch about it on Usenet to set them free?  Brilliant plan,
>>Einstein.
>Usenet is one venue I use to spread my message.

you have a good message.

>My whole life was changed on several occasions
>by messages I read on Usenet.

i agree. Usenet is not all garbage.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

On 21 May 2004 19:59:19 -0700, das_dummie@yahoo.com (dummie) wrote in
message <37164aa9.0405211859.1dc17c8@posting.google.com>:
>Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should John 
>> Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at least 
>> one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real 
>> posibility of this?
>No. Another militant fundie groupie is moaning about his percieved
>loss of freedom because his nazi figurehead Bush lost. They've been
>whining like a bitch ever since the country was born and their screams
>have gradually gotten quieter. They're never martyred, oppressed, or
>treated as second class citizens even while they provoke it as they
>preach to do it on others. This call to arms is ignorable nonsense,
>and if you weren't so damn enthusiastic for this very thing to happen
>such messages would quickly pass you by with a chortle, like it does
>with almost everyone else in this country. And no offense intended to
>you, shithead. Its merely the way it is.
>Oh shithead: *You* are on the FBI watch list. ;)

so are you. i put you there.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Keith E. wrote:
> Thu, 20 May 2004 05:05:40 GMT was a day just like any other,
> until Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>EZ2 wrote:
>>
>>>"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Xomicron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>>>>
>>>least
>>>
>>>
>>>>Less than if the current president is reelected.
>>>>
>>>>Colin Day
>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
>>>effete, elite American left taking up arms?
>>>Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
>>>
>>
>>Gun-hating? John Kerry hates guns? Then why does he go hunting with one?
> 
> 
> PR value.

Now if only the Bush administration could grasp the PR value
of having an actual policy in Iraq . . .

> 
> 
>>And I don't even own a Volvo.
>>
>>Colin Day
> 
> 

Colin Day

In alt.talk.creationism, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in
<40AFB941.3020308@sc.rr.com>:
>Keith E. wrote:
>> Thu, 20 May 2004 05:05:40 GMT was a day just like any other,
>> until Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>EZ2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:40AA9204.3070208@sc.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Xomicron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil should
>>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Kerry actually manage to take the White House in November? I recall at
>>>>>
>>>>least
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Less than if the current president is reelected.
>>>>>
>>>>>Colin Day
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA. That's rich. The tree hugging, queer loving, gun hating,
>>>>effete, elite American left taking up arms?
>>>>Good grief, who would look after their Volvo's?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Gun-hating? John Kerry hates guns? Then why does he go hunting with one?
>> 
>> 
>> PR value.
>
>Now if only the Bush administration could grasp the PR value
>of having an actual policy in Iraq . . .

All will be revealed Monday.

>>My whole life was changed on several occasions
>>by messages I read on Usenet.
>
>i agree. Usenet is not all garbage.

I gotta say though that I have been a bit taken-aback
by how foul some of the people have been in this
thread that got spammed into my regularly scheduled
newsgroup. Death threats? Sheesh!!!

In my normal haunts I know which posters to ignore.

Love,
Absalom


--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:54:53 +0000, father of peace wrote:

> 
>>>My whole life was changed on several occasions by messages I read on
>>>Usenet.
>>
>>i agree. Usenet is not all garbage.
> 
> I gotta say though that I have been a bit taken-aback by how foul some of
> the people have been in this thread that got spammed into my regularly
> scheduled newsgroup. Death threats? Sheesh!!!
> 
> In my normal haunts I know which posters to ignore.

YOU are complaining about spamming? Hypocrite.

-- 
Rick

"father of peace" <absalom@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:40afbc28.329737195@news.west.earthlink.net...
:
: >>My whole life was changed on several occasions
: >>by messages I read on Usenet.
: >
: >i agree. Usenet is not all garbage.
:
: I gotta say though that I have been a bit taken-aback
: by how foul some of the people have been in this
: thread that got spammed into my regularly scheduled
: newsgroup. Death threats? Sheesh!!!
:
: In my normal haunts I know which posters to ignore.


BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

> > Every American has seen the images of Muslims throughout the Arab
> > world, dancing in the streets in celebration of 9/11.
>
> i was pretty happy myself and i'm not an Arab. I just understand that
> America needed its arse kicked so that they could catch a wake up.

> to date, i have got off scot free for doing my little dance of joy on
> 2001.09.11.

Sorry, we didn't get your address?

>You really ought to think more charitably about that SSN... it's not *all*
>bad.

I lived in a county in Missouri that didn't have zoning ordinances,
building codes, or business licenses, and where most of the
people refused to use a SSN thinking that to do so would be
SIN. Many of the streets were maintained privately.

The buildings didn't collapse on us, we didn't die for lack
of a health code. We didn't defraud each other for lack
of business licensing. We didn't die in droves when we
got sick or old. We cared for each other.

Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon

Sat, 22 May 2004 04:43:09 GMT was a day just like any other,
until absalom@pipeline.com (father of peace) wrote:
>
>>>Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the 
>>>social security number. And they think that they are free.
>
>>So, you bitch about it on Usenet to set them free?  Brilliant plan,
>>Einstein.
>
>Usenet is one venue I use to spread my message.
>
>My whole life was changed on several occasions
>by messages I read on Usenet.

You don't get out much, do you.

-- 
Keith E.
Excrementum casus

On Sun, 23 May 2004 06:19:43 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote:

>
>
>>You really ought to think more charitably about that SSN... it's not *all*
>>bad.
>
>I lived in a county in Missouri that didn't have zoning ordinances,
>building codes, or business licenses, and where most of the
>people refused to use a SSN thinking that to do so would be
>SIN. Many of the streets were maintained privately.
>
>The buildings didn't collapse on us, we didn't die for lack
>of a health code. We didn't defraud each other for lack
>of business licensing. We didn't die in droves when we
>got sick or old. We cared for each other.

That's easy enough to do when you live in a county in Missouri.  But
unfortunately there are no fences separating you from the rest of the
world.  (And what does "defraud each other for lack of business
licensing" mean?)

On Sat, 22 May 2004 04:43:09 GMT, absalom@pipeline.com (father of
peace) wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<40aebc8d.264292473@news.west.earthlink.net>:

>
>>>Because my brothers, and sisters are enslaved by the 
>>>social security number. And they think that they are free.
>
>>So, you bitch about it on Usenet to set them free?  Brilliant plan,
>>Einstein.
>
>Usenet is one venue I use to spread my message.

http://www.mytscstore.com/detail.asp?pcID=4&paID=1029&sonID=9304&page=&productID=9304
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:06:52 -0400, "whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com> wrote in
message <2haiq8Fahf18U1@uni-berlin.de>:
>> > Every American has seen the images of Muslims throughout the Arab
>> > world, dancing in the streets in celebration of 9/11.
>> i was pretty happy myself and i'm not an Arab. I just understand that
>> America needed its arse kicked so that they could catch a wake up.
>> to date, i have got off scot free for doing my little dance of joy on
>> 2001.09.11.
>Sorry, we didn't get your address?

correct.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> > news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> >
> >> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> >>>
> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
> >>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
> >>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
> >>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
> >>>
> >>> JERRY
> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> >> 
> >> When did that happen?
> > 
> > The 2000 election
> 
> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the electoral
> college. No one was appointed president.

JERRY
And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
election.

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>... 
>
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>> >
>> >> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>> >>>
>> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>> >>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>> >>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
>> >>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>> >>>
>> >>> JERRY
>> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> >> 
>> >> When did that happen?
>> > 
>> > The 2000 election
>> 
>> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
>> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
> 
> JERRY
> And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> election.

After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida before 
the Supreme Court ever made their ruling. 

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2h4bsbF8ljh4U5@uni-berlin.de>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> > 
> >>SNUBIS
> > Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough votes to
> > win.
> > 
> > JERRY
> > Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the ballots
> > and did the recount, Gore would have won?
> 
> Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html
> 
> > Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to remove
> > registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even after sending
> > out and giving military members two votes to other people's one vote.
> 
> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600 felons
> illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the
> math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
> net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
> the Palm Beach Post.
> 
> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
> 5/28/2001
> 
> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that
> election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when
> unregistered voters presented themselves."
> 
> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

JERRY

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Details on the voter scrub of the rolls.

More details.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2

and this:

Duplicate ballots for the military members overseas:

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/09/duplicate/index.html

And in addition, there was this:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election
night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia
County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and
learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to
62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half
an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had
dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had
picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600
voters."
- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405240724.2d4af0fb@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2h4bsbF8ljh4U5@uni-berlin.de>... 
>
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>> > 
>> >> SNUBIS
>> >> Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough votes
>> >> to win.
>> > 
>> > JERRY
>> > Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the ballots
>> > and did the recount, Gore would have won?
>> 
>> Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.
>> 
>> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.h
>> tml 
>> 
>> > Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to
>> > remove registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even
>> > after sending out and giving military members two votes to other
>> > people's one vote. 
>> 
>> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
>> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600
>> felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
>> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
>> illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats
>> the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
>> 
>> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
>> 5/28/2001
>> 
>> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
>> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
>> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
>> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
>> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
>> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
>> 
>> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
> 
> JERRY
> 
> http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
> 
> Details on the voter scrub of the rolls.
> 
> More details.
> 
> http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2

The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600 felons
illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the
math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
the Palm Beach Post.

Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
5/28/2001

"Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that
election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when
unregistered voters presented themselves."

Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

In article <2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:

> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > ...
> > JERRY
> > And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> > who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> > recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> > election.
> 
> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida before 
> the Supreme Court ever made their ruling. 

�  "Certified winner of Florida" is undoubtedly an oxymoron.

-- 
� R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap

 JERRY
 If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
 appointed the loser of the election to the White House,

 When did that happen?

 The 2000 election

 No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the electoral
college. No one was appointed president.

> JERRY
> And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> election.

No The supreme court said that the Florida Supreme court could not change
the rules after the votes had been cast.  Gore's lawyers wanted recounts in
only the counties that he may have won if the rules were changed.  All they
did was uphold the laws that the florida lawmakers had made...  so get over
it already  Gore lost  and Thank God for that. and no I dont think God reads
this from his pc its a figure of speech ...

"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<nprna09q59kn72tnp9glo13go6rfh4aegi@4ax.com>...
> On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
> <6e14bcdc.0405190552.64aa4f5a@posting.google.com>:
> >Just my thoughts...
> 
> too many words, Jerry.

JERRY
Then don't read 'em, Mel.

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2hej4hF8u18bU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405240724.2d4af0fb@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<2h4bsbF8ljh4U5@uni-berlin.de>... 
> >
> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> >> > 
> >> >> SNUBIS
> >> >> Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough votes
> >> >> to win.
> >> > 
> >> > JERRY
> >> > Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the ballots
> >> > and did the recount, Gore would have won?
> >> 
> >> Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.
> >> 
> >> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.h
> >> tml 
> >> 
> >> > Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to
> >> > remove registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even
> >> > after sending out and giving military members two votes to other
> >> > people's one vote. 
> >> 
> >> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> >> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600
> >> felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
> >> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
> >> illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats
> >> the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
> >> 
> >> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
> >> 5/28/2001
> >> 
> >> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
> >> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
> >> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
> >> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
> >> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
> >> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
> >> 
> >> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
> > 
> > JERRY
> > 
> > http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
> > 
> > Details on the voter scrub of the rolls.
> > 
> > More details.
> > 
> > http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
> 
> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600 felons
> illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the
> math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
> net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
> the Palm Beach Post.
> 
> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
> 5/28/2001
> 
> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that
> election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when
> unregistered voters presented themselves."
> 
> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105

JERRY
"Over 55,000 legitimate voters scrubbed from the rolls."

So far you haven't proven that it didn't happen, and you haven't
addressed the issue of the duplicate absentee ballots.

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>... 
> >
> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> >> >
> >> >> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
> >> >>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
> >> >>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics (GOP-USA)
> >> >>>> calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> JERRY
> >> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> >> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> >> >> 
> >> >> When did that happen?
> >> > 
> >> > The 2000 election
> >> 
> >> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
> >> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
> > 
> > JERRY
> > And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> > who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> > recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> > election.
> 
> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida before 
> the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.

JERRY
Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
having their ballots counted, Snubis?

"cwbyfan" <cwbyfan8@cox.net> wrote in message news:<JGosc.37238$bS1.7681@okepread02>...
> JERRY
>  If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>  appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> 
>  When did that happen?
> 
>  The 2000 election
> 
>  No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the electoral
> college. No one was appointed president.
> 
> > JERRY
> > And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> > who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> > recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> > election.

>CWBYfan 
> No The supreme court said that the Florida Supreme court could not change
> the rules after the votes had been cast.  Gore's lawyers wanted recounts in
> only the counties that he may have won if the rules were changed.  All they
> did was uphold the laws that the florida lawmakers had made...  

JERRY
And there was still plenty of time to recount the entire state until
the Supremes stopped the recounts again over the weekend, then told
the state of Florida it could continue, but that they would hold a
deadline the following day as a hard and fast deadline, despite the
fact that this deadline had been slipped twice before in our nation's
history.  The Supremes, by a 5-4 vote, decided that this deadline was
more important than the process of getting the votes counted.



so get over
> it already  Gore lost  and Thank God for that. and no I dont think God reads
> this from his pc its a figure of speech ...

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405250627.1862d506@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2hej4hF8u18bU1@uni-berlin.de>... 
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240724.2d4af0fb@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<2h4bsbF8ljh4U5@uni-berlin.de>... 
>> >
>> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 
>> >> 
>> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>> >> > 
>> >> >> SNUBIS
>> >> >> Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough
>> >> >> votes to win.
>> >> > 
>> >> > JERRY
>> >> > Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the
>> >> > ballots and did the recount, Gore would have won?
>> >> 
>> >> Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.
>> >> 
>> >> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots01022
>> >> 6.h tml 
>> >> 
>> >> > Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to
>> >> > remove registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even
>> >> > after sending out and giving military members two votes to other
>> >> > people's one vote. 
>> >> 
>> >> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact
>> >> that thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found
>> >> 5,600 felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
>> >> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from
>> >> these illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number
>> >> clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
>> >> 
>> >> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite
>> >> Purge, 5/28/2001
>> >> 
>> >> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
>> >> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
>> >> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
>> >> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
>> >> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
>> >> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
>> >> 
>> >> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
>> > 
>> > JERRY
>> > 
>> > http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
>> > 
>> > Details on the voter scrub of the rolls.
>> > 
>> > More details.
>> > 
>> > http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
>> 
>> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
>> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600
>> felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
>> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
>> illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats
>> the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
>> 
>> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
>> 5/28/2001
>> 
>> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
>> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
>> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
>> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
>> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
>> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
>> 
>> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
> 
> JERRY
> "Over 55,000 legitimate voters scrubbed from the rolls."
> 
> So far you haven't proven that it didn't happen, 

I don't need to prove that it didn't happen when you never proved that it
did. 

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405250628.58d77e1a@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>... 
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>... 
>> >
>> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 
>> >> 
>> >> > "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>> >> >
>> >> >> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>> >> >>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>> >> >>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics
>> >> >>>> (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> JERRY
>> >> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>> >> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> When did that happen?
>> >> > 
>> >> > The 2000 election
>> >> 
>> >> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
>> >> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
>> > 
>> > JERRY
>> > And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
>> > who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
>> > recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
>> > election.
>> 
>> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida
>> before the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.
> 
> JERRY
> Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
> having their ballots counted, Snubis?

Whose ballots weren't counted?

Xomicron wrote:
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405250628.58d77e1a@posting.google.com:
> 
>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:<2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com:
>>> 
>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>> 
>>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>>>> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>>>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>>>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics
>>>>>>>>> (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real posibility of
>>>>>>>>> this? 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> JERRY
>>>>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>>>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The 2000 election
>>>>> 
>>>>> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
>>>>> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
>>>> 
>>>> JERRY
>>>> And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
>>>> who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
>>>> recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
>>>> election.
>>> 
>>> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida
>>> before the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.
>> 
>> JERRY
>> Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
>> having their ballots counted, Snubis?
> 
> Whose ballots weren't counted?

The republicans in the military who sent in absentee ballots.

-- 
Diogenes

"whozix" <whozix@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2h8alaF9bcp3U1@uni-berlin.de>...

Thank you for an intelligent - if misguided - reply.

> > > While not conservatives, the current gang of scoundrels in the White
>  House
> > > are still infinitely better than any hand wringing, blame America first,
> > > liberal Democrat.
> >
> > Perhaps.
> > And Kerry would be better than any thuggery of murderous Fascists,
> > yes?
> > Or no?
> 
> A hypothetical question in as much as there are no fascists in the
> Republican party. Conversely, however, there are few non-leftists among
> Democrats and none who would get the support of the power base that controls
> the party.
> 

Pretty much *everybody is left of the current crop of neocons. In
Europe, Kerry would be seen as a moderate conservative. For what it's
worth, Kerry would not be my first choice, or even my third. Clark
caught my attention. Strange days when the liberals are the ones with
the war records.

> > > Pity we are forced to choose between the lesser of two
> > > evils but since the modern Democrat party is controlled by radical
>  leftists
> > > who seek to socialize our country and weaken us militarily,
> >
> > Really? How? By spreading us too thin? By pulling 800 commandos off
> > the hunt for bin Ladin and sending them to Iraq? By disbanding the
> > Muslim coalition against terrorism and alienating the entire MidEast?
> > By invading a country which was no  immediate threat to us and had
> > nothing to do with Sept. 11? By polarizing the country?
> 
> Oh please, not another arm-chair general and Monday-morning quarterback.
> "Polarizing the country" is precisely what Bush's political opponents have
> chosen to do. Remember, an overwhelming majority in congress, including a
> majority of Democrats gave Bush the authority to wage this war. These same
> Democrats who voted to placate an angry American constituency in the
> aftermath of 9/11 are now waging a war of political opportunism because for
> these unpatriotic fools, beating Bush is more important than winning the
> war.
> 

Yes, polarizing. During the Clinton administration, it was the new
neocons who ignored national security and global properity to drag our
national linen thru the mud. The Japanese, then Russian economies had
imploded, and nobody knew how far it was going, but all we could hear
from the far right was obssessive talk about Monica's thong bikini
underwear. This was a *big yawn to the rest of the world.

> > By ignoring
> > all bounds of decency and American law and turning any  undecided
> > Muslims in Iraq into ferocious enemies (I mean, how would *you react
> > after release if you had been raped, or your brother tortured to death
> > by, say, Muslim invaders? You wouldn't whine like a "liberal", right?)
> 
> Actually, polls conducted in Iraq have concluded that Iraqis met this news
> with a big yawn. The hazing and humiliation of prisoners was small potatoes
> in contrast to Saddam's track record and evidently the Iraqis are a good
> deal more mature about it than American liberals.
> 
> 
It was a big yawn because it confirmed their image of America, the
crass, impious, perverted imperialist. I would like to think they were
wrong, but if you think this was business as usual, perhaps they are
not.

> > How is blustering and beating your head against a wall and beating up
> > irrelevant but easy targets and starting fights without thinking about
> > the consequnces *strengthening us militarily?
> 
> Assuming that this senseless rant refers to the war in Iraq, the purpose of
> the war is not to strengthen us militarily; that is usually accomplished
> with research and development of weapons systems, recruitment and training,
> etc.

I was responding to the previous poster, who *did indicate that Bush
was strengthening the US militarily.

> 
> Here are some of the reasons we went to war with Iraq:
> 1. Iraq was regularly engaging and shooting at our aircraft in the no-fly
> zones, a violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

IIRC, we were routinely responding by blowing up their air bases.

> 2. Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire agreement and
> numerous UN resolutions which placed the burden of proof on them to fully
> disclose and disarm of all WMD and missile programs - they did not.

It's true that Sadaam played a suicidal passive-aggressive game, but
he really didn't have any WMD programs at the end, did he? I assumed
he did, anyway; I never thought it a good reason to go to war. Why him
and not, say, Kim (y'know, the loathesome dwarf)? Bad precedent. Match
in a powderkeg, and all that.

> 3. Iraq was supporting Palestinian terrorists by awarding $25,000 to the
> family of every suicide bomber.

Point. Not a very big one for going to war, though. Any others?

> 4. Iraq provided asylum for the notorious terrorist Abu Nidal.
> 5. Iraq fomented an unsuccessful plot to assassinate Bush 41
> 6. Iraq was stealing the funds from the oil-for-food program to enrich
> Saddam's family and it was feared, to fund weapons. This ultimately became
> known by UN critics as the Oil-For-Palaces program and Kofi Annan as well as
> French and Russian interests are currently under investigation for
> widespread corruption and theft. (Read William Saffire - NY Times)

Yup. where's there's money, there are thieves.

> 7. Iraq was a destabilizing, belligerent power that had waged aggressive war
> against defenseless Kuwait.

Had. WE stoped the, remember, with the help and agreement of the UN?

> 8. Iraq developed, built and used WMD in it's war with Iran and against it's
> own Kurdish population.

Ummm... they were gone. And much of their military strength *we gave
them. Cheney had a large hand in that, IIRC.

> 9. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Iraq still possessed WMD.
> (Our failure to find them is not conclusive proof that they are not still
> hidden or were transported out of the country prior to our invasion)

Why didn't *we co-operate with the weapons inspectors, when they asked
for more time?

> 10. "Regime Change" has been the official US policy for Iraq since the
> Clinton Administration.

There are ways other than military invasion to influence countries,
believe it or not.

> 11. Finally, Iraq was America's best opportunity to plant the seed of
> democracy in the Middle East. The hope is that freedom, coupled with a
> market economy can turn this region away from it's destructive commitment to
> terror. If Iraq can emerge from the shadow of Saddam as a modern, prosperous
> Arab state, perhaps they can set the example for other nations in the
> region. Undoubtedly, the terrorists recognize this also, which is why they
> are fighting desperately to defeat us.

We thought that about Iran, too. So we fomented a revolution,
overthrew a democracy, and set up a monarchy. A generation later, the
people revolted and were so angry they set up an anti-American
theocracy. This was a change of pace, before that all the countries we
had done this to went Communist. I guess communism is passe now.

> 
> 
> > What would happen right now if North Korea invaded the South?
> 
> We would be in deep shit. America's national security policy calls for a
> standing military that is capable of conducting two regional wars
> simultaneously. I personally don't think we could do that very effectively.
> Who is to blame? Well in fairness, both political parties must bear some
> responsibility for this but the lion's share goes to Clinton/Gore. When Al
> Gore, in charge of "reinventing government", claimed credit for reducing the
> federal payroll by 309,000 employees, he conveniently forgot to tell us that
> 300,000 were from the US military. Bear in mind that after Ronald Regan
> presided over the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Bush 41 had already
> reduced America's military budget to a post WWII low, as a percentage of
> GDP.
> 

If we had stayed with bringing democracy to Afghanistan (the country
that actually attacked us), we would have a better chance of
succeeding there and not being so overextended. The groundwork is
bipartisan and decades in the making, yes.

> 
> > > we are left with
> > > few choices. John Kerry's idea of foreign policy?
> >
> > Bush has no foreign policy except contempt and bullying and bluster.
> > What do you think that will get us?
> 
> You obviously don't agree with it, but Bush has a very clear, concise
> foreign policy.

"I'm right and you're stupid"?
He has established america and a blustering, unsubtle bully.

> He aims to fight terrorists and the rogue states that
> sponsor them.

Like Saudi Arabia?

> Unlike appeasement-oriented liberals, Bush understands that
> peace can only be achieved through strength and that Liberty is not free -
> every generation is usually called upon to defend it.

Strength at the personal level means being strong enough to ignore
insults, to try to reason with people, and to get along with your
neighbors. And if absolutely necessary, to whip out the knife and go
at it. And I believe in first strike. But the enemy has to be
*reaching for his weapon. There are serious problems with attacking a
gangster in the neighborhood who may, possibly, conceivably, be a
threat someday.

The knife should *never be the preferred means of conflict resulution,
and it has *serious repercussions - especially the hard to measure
ones.

Do you think this might apply to countries, also?

> 
> 
> > > (In a whiny, Rodney King
> > > voice) "Why can't we all just get along?"
> >
> > Please explain what - given the circumstances - you think Mr. King
> > should have said? "Burn the city down?"
> >
> > We have a secretary of defense who probably OKed the policy of
> > torture, certainly set the tone for it, and claimed he had no idea it
> > was happening even tho the military had the report in January. He said
> > that people who disagree with White House policy are traitors.
> 
>  "Probably" doesn't cut it. Anyone can make gratuitous accusations, in fact
> it is a specialty of the hysterical left.

I said probably because it has not yet been proven, or even a legal
charge. But he still bears responsibility. There are dittoheads who
"know" that Hillary had the Secret Service murder Foster and dump his
body inthe park. A feeling of certainty does not mean one is more
likely to be correct.

Rumsfeld has been accused by a senior intelligence official. This is
one accusation which is art of an overwhelming picture of a rogue
administration: hostile, violent, secretive, and contemptuous of the
rule of law.

> 
> > We have an Attorney General who drapes curtains over the bare breast
> > of the statue of Justice.
> 
> Silly, I agree. But better than Janet Reno, who admitted before congress to
> giving the order that took the lives of 80 American citizens, including 20
> innocent children in Waco Texas. Funny, I don't recall the press or any
> bleeding heart liberals calling for Clinton to fire her.

Reno had been in office only a couple of weeks. She had been told
(correctly, apparently) that children were being sexually abused on a
routine level, and there were people who wanted to leave who could
not. The ATF did not tell her that they could have confronted Koresh
in town and picked him up fairly quietly.  This scenario had been set
up before she took the reins.

But she assumed responsibility, and would have had to take whatever
punishment was called for. I heard Rumsfeld a couple weeks ago try to
blame our military troubles in Iraq on Clinton (altho he subsequently
backed off).

> 
> > We have a president who thinks Jesus told him to start a war in Iraq.
> > This is the most surreal and disastrous administration we have ever
> > had.
> 
> We should be thankful to have a President grounded in his faith who has the
> political courage and will to conduct this necessary war in spite of the
> firestorm of unjustified, leftist political criticism.

I am not impressed by people's faith, especially when it leads them to
start wars they already wanted to start, and leads them to think that
they can't lose or must be right.

If I had to fight someone with my hands, I would want to be attacked
by the overconfident, underestimating fool. Worst would be the
somewhat cautious, experienced mugger.

> 
> Bill Clinton, the boy President, took an eight year vacation from reality
> and did NOTHING to enhance American security. He refused repeated offers
> from the Sudanese to take custody of bin Laden because in his lawyerly mind,
> he couldn't think of a legal justification.

There are reasons for rule of law. Certainly the process needs to be
streamlined somewhat. Analogous to a cop's "hot pursuit" of "immediate
threat" guidelines. I recall a few bombing raids. More than a few.

> He refused to provide necessary
> air support for Delta Force in Somalia and ordered withdrawal after their
> humiliating defeat. He allowed the first attack on the World Trade Center,
> the attack on two American Embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS
> Cole to go unanswered and unpunished.

So did Bush. Or are you saying that we captured bin Ladin? Are you
saying that if terrorists from Berlin blow up a US building we should
go to war with Germany? (Or is it Germany-France?)

Clinton was preparing a military incursion into Pakistan to look for
bin Ladin, with the support of Pakistan's president, but then
Musharraf took over in a military coup. They didn't get along for some
reason. Bush gets along very well with the self-elected Musarraf, but
I don't see them preparing a joint venture into NW Pakistan, where bin
Ladin probably is hiding.

> No wonder we were attacked on 9/11 -
> The 9/11 plot was hatched and planned by al Qaeda on his watch. The ultimate
> political animal, his principles changed with the weekly polls. He may have
> found it easier to think on his feet if his pants weren't always down around
> his ankles.

I'd rather have a president that cheats on his wife than starts
unnecessary wars. Gore would have done neither. Nor would Dole.
Neither did Bush the Elder.

Kermit

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2hej4hF8u18bU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> news:6e14bcdc.0405240724.2d4af0fb@posting.google.com: 
> 
> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:<2h4bsbF8ljh4U5@uni-berlin.de>... 
> >
> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 
> >> 
> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> > news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
> >> > 
> >> >> SNUBIS
> >> >> Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough votes
> >> >> to win.
> >> > 
> >> > JERRY
> >> > Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the ballots
> >> > and did the recount, Gore would have won?
> >> 
> >> Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.
> >> 
> >> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.h
> >> tml 
> >> 
> >> > Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to
> >> > remove registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even
> >> > after sending out and giving military members two votes to other
> >> > people's one vote. 
> >> 
> >> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> >> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600
> >> felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
> >> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
> >> illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats
> >> the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
> >> 
> >> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
> >> 5/28/2001
> >> 
> >> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
> >> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
> >> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
> >> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
> >> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
> >> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
> >> 
> >> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
> > 
> > JERRY
> > 
> > http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
> > 
> > Details on the voter scrub of the rolls.
> > 
> > More details.
> > 
> > http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
> 
> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600 felons
> illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68% Democrat. Do the
> math and you will see that Gore benefited from these illegal votes by a
> net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by
> the Palm Beach Post.
> 
> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
> 5/28/2001
> 
> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite, that
> election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist, when
> unregistered voters presented themselves."
> 
> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105


Why don't you include a link ya little fairy?
Cause y'all full 'o' shit ya freakin irrelevant.
Go pass your shared tooth to Jethro ya redneck filth


Alan C.

mlmr11@yahoo.com (Alan) wrote in
news:12664237.0405251117.3b524d3f@posting.google.com: 

> Why don't you include a link ya little fairy?
> Cause y'all full 'o' shit ya freakin irrelevant.
> Go pass your shared tooth to Jethro ya redneck filth

The extent of the intellect of the far left is presented above.

mlmr11@yahoo.com (Alan) wrote in
news:12664237.0405251117.3b524d3f@posting.google.com: 

> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2hej4hF8u18bU1@uni-berlin.de>... 
>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240724.2d4af0fb@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:<2h4bsbF8ljh4U5@uni-berlin.de>... 
>> >
>> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405200527.710c7101@posting.google.com: 
>> >> 
>> >> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> > news:<KaSqc.43378$kc2.650830@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>> >> > 
>> >> >> SNUBIS
>> >> >> Gore wouldn't have been satisfied until he fished out enough
>> >> >> votes to win.
>> >> > 
>> >> > JERRY
>> >> > Interesting, isn't it, that once the Miami Herald got all the
>> >> > ballots and did the recount, Gore would have won?
>> >> 
>> >> Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.
>> >> 
>> >> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots01022
>> >> 6.h tml 
>> >> 
>> >> > Even with Jeb Bush scrubbing the four primary urban counties to
>> >> > remove registered and valid voters to keep them from voting, even
>> >> > after sending out and giving military members two votes to other
>> >> > people's one vote. 
>> >> 
>> >> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact
>> >> that thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found
>> >> 5,600 felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
>> >> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from
>> >> these illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number
>> >> clearly defeats the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
>> >> 
>> >> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite
>> >> Purge, 5/28/2001
>> >> 
>> >> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
>> >> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
>> >> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
>> >> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
>> >> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
>> >> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
>> >> 
>> >> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
>> > 
>> > JERRY
>> > 
>> > http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
>> > 
>> > Details on the voter scrub of the rolls.
>> > 
>> > More details.
>> > 
>> > http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2
>> 
>> The actual voter fraud was not the felon scrub list, but the fact that
>> thousand of felons illegally voted. The Palm Beach Post found 5,600
>> felons illegally cast ballots. The registrations came down 68%
>> Democrat. Do the math and you will see that Gore benefited from these
>> illegal votes by a net of some 2,000 votes. This number clearly defeats
>> the claim of 1,104 by the Palm Beach Post.
>> 
>> Source: The Palm Beach Post, Thousands of Felons Voted Despite Purge,
>> 5/28/2001
>> 
>> "Some... claim that many legitimate voters "of all ethnic and racial
>> groups, but particularly blacks" were illegally swept from the rolls
>> through the state's efforts to ban felons from voting. There is no
>> evidence of that. Instead, the evidence points to just the opposite,
>> that election officials were mostly permissive, not obstructionist,
>> when unregistered voters presented themselves."
>> 
>> Source: Miami Herald Report, Democracy Held Hostage p. 105
> 
> Why don't you include a link ya little fairy?

I cited the source. Do your own homework.

"Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message news:<d7brc.61611$hY.44031@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> "mvillanu" <mvillanu@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message
>  news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> 
> Lincoln won California, Grant won California, Hayes won California,
> Blaine (lost election) won California, Harrison won California, McKinley won California,
> Teddy Roosevelt won California, Taft won California, Harding won California,
> Coolidge won California, Hoover won California, Eisenhower won California,
> Nixon won California, Ford won California, Reagan won California,
> George H.W. Bush won California...
> California turned "Red" in 1992, and did when FDR was president as well, but the fact
> is they've gone "right" more often than not.

And so?  Are you trying to imply some sort of hysteresis?

Most of California is anti-Bush.  I would be very suprised if
California votes Republican this november.

On 25 May 2004 18:12:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in
alt.tasteless.jokes in message <2hhgjmFd2jsnU3@uni-berlin.de>:

>rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>news:6e14bcdc.0405250628.58d77e1a@posting.google.com: 
>
>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:<2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>... 
>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com: 
>>> 
>>> > Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> > news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>... 
>>> >
>>> >> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>> >> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com: 
>>> >> 
>>> >> > "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>>> >> > news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> >> >>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>... 
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>>> >> >>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>>> >> >>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics
>>> >> >>>> (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real posibility of this?
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> JERRY
>>> >> >>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>>> >> >>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> When did that happen?
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > The 2000 election
>>> >> 
>>> >> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
>>> >> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
>>> > 
>>> > JERRY
>>> > And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
>>> > who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
>>> > recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
>>> > election.
>>> 
>>> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida
>>> before the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.
>> 
>> JERRY
>> Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
>> having their ballots counted, Snubis?
>
>Whose ballots weren't counted?

Well, there are all those people who were to mentally or physically
weak to punch their ballots all the way through, in spite of Gore
wanting them all counted as votes for him.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

In article <dc4a405f.0405251249.38a2faea@posting.google.com>,
mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote:

> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:<d7brc.61611$hY.44031@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > "mvillanu" <mvillanu@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message
> >  news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > 
> > Lincoln won California, Grant won California, Hayes won California,
> > Blaine (lost election) won California, Harrison won California,
McKinley won California,
> > Teddy Roosevelt won California, Taft won California, Harding won California,
> > Coolidge won California, Hoover won California, Eisenhower won California,
> > Nixon won California, Ford won California, Reagan won California,
> > George H.W. Bush won California...
> > California turned "Red" in 1992, and did when FDR was president as
well, but the fact
> > is they've gone "right" more often than not.
> 
> And so?  Are you trying to imply some sort of hysteresis?
> 
> Most of California is anti-Bush.  I would be very suprised if
> California votes Republican this november.

�  California has a well deserved reputation for dumping unsatisfactory
political-office holders, so G. W. would do well to spend time campaigning
elsewhere.

-- 
� R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap

.. R.L. Measures wrote:
> In article <dc4a405f.0405251249.38a2faea@posting.google.com>,
> mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote:
>
>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> news:<d7brc.61611$hY.44031@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>>> "mvillanu" <mvillanu@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message
>>>  news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>>
>>> Lincoln won California, Grant won California, Hayes won California,
>>> Blaine (lost election) won California, Harrison won California,
> McKinley won California,
>>> Teddy Roosevelt won California, Taft won California, Harding won
>>> California, Coolidge won California, Hoover won California,
>>> Eisenhower won California, Nixon won California, Ford won
>>> California, Reagan won California,
>>> George H.W. Bush won California...
>>> California turned "Red" in 1992, and did when FDR was president as
> well, but the fact
>>> is they've gone "right" more often than not.
>>
>> And so?  Are you trying to imply some sort of hysteresis?
>>
>> Most of California is anti-Bush.  I would be very suprised if
>> California votes Republican this november.
>
> .  California has a well deserved reputation for dumping
> unsatisfactory political-office holders, so G. W. would do well to
> spend time campaigning elsewhere.

No, Kalifornia does not.  If the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia _did_ do that,
Feinstein and Boxer would not be in office, and they wouldn't have voted for
Clinton.  Kalifornia and China represent the last of the Communist r�gimes.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jeff Relf
<Me@Privacy.NET>
 wrote
on Sat, 22 May 2004 03:45:05 -0700
<1sg242un6afiu.dlg@x.Jeff.Relf>:
> Hi The Ghost In The Machine, a.k.a. Spooky,
>
> You noted, " money is a funny concept nowadays ".
>
> The U.S. dollar is one share in the U.S. government.
>
> How complex is that ?
>
> Bring down the U.S. dollar and the government is defeated.

Try sticking one's finger in a dam with the sluice(s) open.
If you're lucky, the finger will just get wet.  If
you're unlucky, the finger will either be sliced off (ow)
or be taken downstream, with the rest of the person's
body for good measure.  :-)  (If one's lucky in the latter
case one can swim to shore.  If not...well...)

In order to bring down the U.S. dollar, one has to consider
that there are billions, if not trillions, of them out there
(I'd have to look regarding the M1 and M2 figures, if the
statisticians are even still using them nowadays).

That said, the current Administration's doing a fine job of
reducing confidence therein, if only because of the
deficit spending of the Democrats going on now.

Oh, wait, it's the *Republicans* doing the deficit
spending, even though they claim the Dems are the
irresponsible "tax and spend" party.

It's enough to make me wonder what the Repubs stand for.
My brain hurts, and I'm one of them.  (No, I am not
planning on voting for Bush.  Bleah.  The term "GOP"
is not supposed to stand for "Goofy Official Policies"!
If this keeps up I might reregister Libertarian, although
I can't say they've been all that effective a 3rd party.
But I can't say the Republicans have been all that
effective a 1st party, either.)

>
> Don't invest your time and energy accumulating it's stock,
>   I say.
>
> Oil is the measure of the dollar's worth.
>   It was under 11 dollars per barrel at the start of 1999,
>   It's now over 40 dollars in the futures market.
>
>   What could be simpler than that ?

Gas stocks look *real* good right now, methinks. :-)  Then again,
I'm not an investment adviser.

>
> I'm not just talking about volatility either,
>   volatility is bad enough by itself,
>   but a long-term drop in the value of the dollar
>   is in the works ...  I'm talking decades.

Were the Feds truly commited to removing inflation as a
threat they'd do far more frequent adjustments, with a
target of zero in the price growth -- not just trying to
control inflation to "acceptable levels" (which appears to
be about 2-3%, meaning a halving of the dollar's absolute
worth every 30-50 years or so).  While deflation is a
hazard (it means the economy is *shrinking*) neither it
nor inflation are good for the economy if done in excess.

Ideally, we'd have everyone go by the communistic ideal:

   "from each according to his abilities, to each according
   to his needs"

established by a rather roundabout process.  Of course with
our luck people won't be able to retire as they'll be working
too hard; they'll just drop dead.  (No doubt the streetcleaners
will want hazard pay; some of the dead might harbor various
nasty communicable diseases.  However, that's a side issue.)

As a side benefit we probably should have just about
everyone getting the GDP/cap, if we can.  (Currently,
that's about $36K.  Of course, that doesn't mean we need
to soak the rich with high taxes; we merely need to ensure
that there are no protectionist sentiments in industries
with relatively high wages, and that there are sufficient
advancement opportunities in industries with low wages.
How we manage that, I'm not certain.)

>
>   When the inflation spreads from high priced assets
>   to everyday consumables ...  Then you'll see what I mean.
>   But the momentum is high, it happens very slowly.

Well, if gas rises to $3.00 a gallon (the summer driving
season is just around the corner!!) expect a surcharge
on just about everything; food in particular is produced
using a large combination of oil-based products.

If we're lucky we can replace the combines, harvesters,
tree-shakers, and other such with manual labor from Mexico. :-)
But one can't replace plastic wrap therewith -- unless one
really wants "Soylent Green Plastic Wrap"... :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2hhgjmFd2jsnU3@uni-berlin.de>...
> >> >> 
> >> >> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
> >> >> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
> >> > 
> >> > JERRY
> >> > And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> >> > who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> >> > recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> >> > election.
> >> 
> >> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida
> >> before the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.
> > 
> > JERRY
> > Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
> > having their ballots counted, Snubis?
> SNUBIS
> Whose ballots weren't counted?

JERRY
From http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2

The biggest wholesale theft occurred inside the voting booths in black
rural counties. In Gadsden County, one of the blackest in the state,
thousands of votes were simply thrown away. Gadsden used paper ballots
which are read by an optical reader. Ballots with a single extra mark
were considered "spoiled" and not counted. The buttons used to fill
out the ballots were set up � with approval from Bush and Harris � to
make votes appear unclear to the machine. One in eight ballots in
Gadsden was voided by the state.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3798.html
Al Gore lost Florida's presidential vote because electoral officials
tossed into the trashcan as invalid more than one out of every ten
ballots cast by African-Americans throughout the state. In some
counties, nearly 25 percent of ballots cast by blacks were set aside
as invalid. In contrast, officials rejected less than one out of every
fifty ballots cast by whites statewide. If black ballots had been
rejected at the same minimal rate as white ballots, more than 50,000
additional black votes would have been counted in Florida's
presidential election. Given that more than 90 percent of blacks
favored Gore over Bush, Gore would have won Florida by at least 40,000
votes.

These were the results of a statistical study that I was commissioned
to conduct for the United States Commission on Civil Rights and a
subsequent analysis published in the Journal of Legal Studies (January
2003). Independent studies by Professors Phil Klinkner of Hamilton
College and Anthony Salvanto of the University of California, the New
York Times and the Washington Post confirmed the finding of major
racial disparities in ballot rejection rates.

http://www.geocities.com/walrus95482/eagle2-nov2.html

US ELECTION 2000  9.11.00  
  
Did Wrongful Disenfranchisement Cost Gore Florida? 
UPDATE 9.11.00 10pm EST: According to the AP, the vote split between
Bush and Gore has narrowed to less than 300 votes favoring Bush. The
official numbers put the divide at 1784.

Jesse Jackson got calls on Election Day complaining that blacks had
difficulty voting in Florida and other Southern states. Jackson said
some voters were told there were no more ballots, or that polls were
closed. A judge has declared some ballots illegal. Democratic
officials and hundreds of voters complained about the way the ballots
were arranged, causing many to believe they mistakenly voted for
Buchanan. Thousands of Florida residents were struck from the voter
lists because they were mistakenly identified as ex-felons, just
months before what has become the closest election in US history.
There have also been reports of voter intimidation , and misplaced
ballots. With Bush apparently leading Gore by only hundreds of votes,
in a state with hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised voters, could
similar errors be tipping the race? Of course, some are blaming the
Greens. Read the MotherJones article

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/11/floridavote.html

Officials of both major parties also reported that many voters were
apparently turned away from the polls and that some precints ran out
of ballots. Several papers reported that white state Highway Patrol
officers set up a checkpoint near a balloting site in a heavily black
district in Broward County, allegedly prompting state and federal
officials to investigate whether the incident amounted to intimidation
against African-American voters.

"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message news:<f649540f9a7fe2845522a0456f2702b6@news.teranews.com>...
> Xomicron wrote:
> > rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> > news:6e14bcdc.0405250628.58d77e1a@posting.google.com:
> > 
> >> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> news:<2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> >>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> >>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com:
> >>> 
> >>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>>> news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>...
> >>>> 
> >>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> >>>>> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
> >>>>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
> >>>>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics
> >>>>>>>>> (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real posibility of
> >>>>>>>>> this? 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> JERRY
> >>>>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
> >>>>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> When did that happen?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The 2000 election
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
> >>>>> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
> >>>> 
> >>>> JERRY
> >>>> And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance with
> >>>> who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court stopping the
> >>>> recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that state and the
> >>>> election.
> >>> 
> >>> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of Florida
> >>> before the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.
> >> 
> >> JERRY
> >> Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
> >> having their ballots counted, Snubis?
> > 
> > Whose ballots weren't counted?
> 
> The republicans in the military who sent in absentee ballots.


JERRY
No, actually a large number of those got counted twice. ;-)

Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<2hhgifFd2jsnU2@uni-berlin.de>...
> > 
> > JERRY
> > "Over 55,000 legitimate voters scrubbed from the rolls."
> > 
> > So far you haven't proven that it didn't happen, 
> 
> I don't need to prove that it didn't happen when you never proved that it
> did.

JERRY
Check further down in this thread

rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
news:6e14bcdc.0405251720.585dc26a@posting.google.com: 

> "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote in message
> news:<f649540f9a7fe2845522a0456f2702b6@news.teranews.com>... 
>> Xomicron wrote:
>> > rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> > news:6e14bcdc.0405250628.58d77e1a@posting.google.com:
>> > 
>> >> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> news:<2hehqvFc601eU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> >>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> >>> news:6e14bcdc.0405240652.15cc997c@posting.google.com:
>> >>> 
>> >>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:<2h4bsjF8ljh4U8@uni-berlin.de>...
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>> rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>> >>>>> news:6e14bcdc.0405191833.1903bcdb@posting.google.com:
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>>> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:<JAOqc.59898$hY.8746@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>>> Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>> news:<zctqc.42777$kc2.641424@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>> >>>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>>>> What is the likelyhood of armed civil strife on American soil
>> >>>>>>>>> should John Kerry actually manage to take the White House in
>> >>>>>>>>> November? I recall at least one poster to alt.potitics
>> >>>>>>>>> (GOP-USA) calling for it. Is there any real posibility of
>> >>>>>>>>> this? 
>> >>>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>>> JERRY
>> >>>>>>>> If they didn't have armed civil strife when the Supreme Court
>> >>>>>>>> appointed the loser of the election to the White House,
>> >>>>>>> 
>> >>>>>>> When did that happen?
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>>> The 2000 election
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> No it didn't. Bush received 271 votes from the electors of the
>> >>>>> electoral college. No one was appointed president.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> JERRY
>> >>>> And the electors for the electoral college voted in accordance
>> >>>> with who "won" the individual states.  By the Supreme Court
>> >>>> stopping the recounts, they appointed Bush the winner of that
>> >>>> state and the election.
>> >>> 
>> >>> After two recounts, Bush was already the certified winner of
>> >>> Florida before the Supreme Court ever made their ruling.
>> >> 
>> >> JERRY
>> >> Why did the Republicans try so hard to disenfranchise voters by not
>> >> having their ballots counted, Snubis?
>> > 
>> > Whose ballots weren't counted?
>> 
>> The republicans in the military who sent in absentee ballots.
> 
> JERRY
> No, actually a large number of those got counted twice. ;-)

Every ballot in Florida was counted twice.

In article <475e83a93940002f4b847e00ec5fc36c@news.teranews.com>,
"Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr> wrote:

> . R.L. Measures wrote:
> > In article <dc4a405f.0405251249.38a2faea@posting.google.com>,
> > mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote:
> >
> >> "Douglas D. Anderson" <dda@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
> > news:<d7brc.61611$hY.44031@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> >>> "mvillanu" <mvillanu@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Ministry Of Jute <allthings@jute.net> wrote in message
> >>>  news:<ECAqc.928$Tn6.809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >>>
> >>> Lincoln won California, Grant won California, Hayes won California,
> >>> Blaine (lost election) won California, Harrison won California,
> > McKinley won California,
> >>> Teddy Roosevelt won California, Taft won California, Harding won
> >>> California, Coolidge won California, Hoover won California,
> >>> Eisenhower won California, Nixon won California, Ford won
> >>> California, Reagan won California,
> >>> George H.W. Bush won California...
> >>> California turned "Red" in 1992, and did when FDR was president as
> > well, but the fact
> >>> is they've gone "right" more often than not.
> >>
> >> And so?  Are you trying to imply some sort of hysteresis?
> >>
> >> Most of California is anti-Bush.  I would be very suprised if
> >> California votes Republican this november.
> >
> > .  California has a well deserved reputation for dumping
> > unsatisfactory political-office holders, so G. W. would do well to
> > spend time campaigning elsewhere.
> 
> No, Kalifornia does not. 

�  I thought we dumped Gov. Gray Davis.

 If the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia _did_ do that,
> Feinstein and Boxer would not be in office, and they wouldn't have voted for
> Clinton.  Kalifornia and China represent the last of the Communist r�gimes.

-- 
� R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap

On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:20:34 GMT, "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr>
wrote in alt.tasteless.jokes in message
<475e83a93940002f4b847e00ec5fc36c@news.teranews.com>:

>No, Kalifornia does not.  If the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia _did_ do that,
>Feinstein and Boxer would not be in office, and they wouldn't have voted for
>Clinton.  Kalifornia and China represent the last of the Communist r�gimes.

No, there's also Massachusetts, too.
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I are so sure of yourself don't you .. (ehe ehe ehe)" - Peitro Alitardia (67d7a369.0404071016.2364431d@posting.google.com)
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On 25 May 2004 07:24:40 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
<6e14bcdc.0405250624.302805ed@posting.google.com>:
>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message news:<nprna09q59kn72tnp9glo13go6rfh4aegi@4ax.com>...
>> On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message
>> >Just my thoughts...
>> too many words, Jerry.
>JERRY
>Then don't read 'em, Mel.

i didn't, Kraut.

-- 
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/

Mel wrote:

> On 25 May 2004 07:24:40 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> message <6e14bcdc.0405250624.302805ed@posting.google.com>:
>>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
>>news:<nprna09q59kn72tnp9glo13go6rfh4aegi@4ax.com>...
>>> On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
>>> message
>>> >Just my thoughts...
>>> too many words, Jerry.
>>JERRY
>>Then don't read 'em, Mel.
> 
> i didn't, Kraut.

You can't. 

-- 
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux user #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c92mau.3ck.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
: Mel wrote:
:
: > On 25 May 2004 07:24:40 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
: > message <6e14bcdc.0405250624.302805ed@posting.google.com>:
: >>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
: >>news:<nprna09q59kn72tnp9glo13go6rfh4aegi@4ax.com>...
: >>> On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
: >>> message
: >>> >Just my thoughts...
: >>> too many words, Jerry.
: >>JERRY
: >>Then don't read 'em, Mel.
: >
: > i didn't, Kraut.
:
: You can't.
:


You can't spell for shit

ur_droll wrote:

> 
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> news:c92mau.3ck.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> : Mel wrote:
> :
> : > On 25 May 2004 07:24:40 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> : > message <6e14bcdc.0405250624.302805ed@posting.google.com>:
> : >>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
> : >>news:<nprna09q59kn72tnp9glo13go6rfh4aegi@4ax.com>...
> : >>> On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
> : >>> message
> : >>> >Just my thoughts...
> : >>> too many words, Jerry.
> : >>JERRY
> : >>Then don't read 'em, Mel.
> : >
> : > i didn't, Kraut.
> :
> : You can't.
> :
> 
> 
> You can't spell for shit

You're very good at shit and groin lames.

-- 
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux user #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c92nbm.3ck.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
: ur_droll wrote:
:
: >
: > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
: > news:c92mau.3ck.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
: > : Mel wrote:
: > :
: > : > On 25 May 2004 07:24:40 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in
: > : > message <6e14bcdc.0405250624.302805ed@posting.google.com>:
: > : >>"Mel" <mel@atj.faq.com> wrote in message
: > : >>news:<nprna09q59kn72tnp9glo13go6rfh4aegi@4ax.com>...
: > : >>> On 19 May 2004 06:52:34 -0700, rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote
in
: > : >>> message
: > : >>> >Just my thoughts...
: > : >>> too many words, Jerry.
: > : >>JERRY
: > : >>Then don't read 'em, Mel.
: > : >
: > : > i didn't, Kraut.
: > :
: > : You can't.
: > :
: >
: >
: > You can't spell for shit
:
: You're very good at shit and groin lames.

Do you even know what a cunt is?