I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?

Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]

Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

And look what you got. What a moron.

> > I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> > offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> > like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> > elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >
> > Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >
> > Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> > Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
> And look what you got. What a moron.

Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are likely
to respond.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:45:40a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bft4i4$hoair$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
>>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
>>> them all? 
>>>
>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>
>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>> share. 
>>
>> And look what you got. What a moron.
> 
> Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are
> likely to respond.

I know there are uneducated morons out there, but I want to get all
opinions. That's why I tried to get the general gamer population when I
chose the newsgroups to send the original post to.

In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
>Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
>Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has 
these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than 
the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are 
Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton 
in office than Bush. 

Go away with your OT crap.

Omphalos wrote:
> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
> them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.


None of the above

Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.

"Les" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
news:bfti6b$i9rbo$1@ID-179240.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Omphalos wrote:

> None of the above
>
> Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
>
>

Okay then... by your response I guess that you are one of the many people
who lives in a country where you DON'T VOTE AT ALL?

Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in your
country you voted for or wanted to vote for.  If you do, in fact, live in a
country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
feel free to mention that.

Personally, I voted for Gore/Lieberman because though videogames are
important to me, there were a number of other areas where I agreed with
thier policies.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:00d3ffbda50ce6fee886a0f4b23e6661@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:45:40a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bft4i4$hoair$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
> >>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
> >>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
> >>> them all?
> >>>
> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>
> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
> >>> share.
> >>

How do I respond?  If your biggest concern was Lieberman's "crusade" against
Video games, then you need to pull your head out from between your legs and
get a fucking clue... no offense.


> >> And look what you got. What a moron.

I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact that
you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
> >
> > Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are
> > likely to respond.
>
> I know there are uneducated morons out there, but I want to get all
> opinions. That's why I tried to get the general gamer population when I
> chose the newsgroups to send the original post to.

So basically you wanted to get justification for your "so-called" informed
choice... sorry Mr. Howell, it ain't gonna happen... Read a book on
politics, or subscribe to a newpaper... A-hole!

"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> >like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> >elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >
> >Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >
> >Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that
has
> these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship
than
> the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
> Democrats?


 I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
> in office than Bush.

If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve EXACTLY what
you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a dumbass....

"Gourd" <hatespam@so.no.email> wrote in message
news:QIsUa.21$Bg.9@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Les" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
> news:bfti6b$i9rbo$1@ID-179240.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Omphalos wrote:
>
> > None of the above
> >
> > Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
> >
> >
>
> Okay then... by your response I guess that you are one of the many people
> who lives in a country where you DON'T VOTE AT ALL?
>
> Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in
your
> country you voted for or wanted to vote for.  If you do, in fact, live in
a
> country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
> feel free to mention that.
>
> Personally, I voted for Gore/Lieberman because though videogames are
> important to me, there were a number of other areas where I agreed with
> thier policies.
>
>

Well Gourd, While I COMPLETELY disagree with your choice in candidates, I
commend the fact that you stand up for your choice and "stand by it"  Both
Dems and Rep's could learn from your example.... However, I'm going to have
to throw in this one partisan dig- *right now* ALL Dems are cowardly poll
watchers, and that ain't good for Dems

I voted Gore.

If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse. As was
said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been trying to
ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
President combined.

I really hope that next year you vote Democrat, I am a liberal Republican
and I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.


"Gourd" <hatespam@so.no.email> wrote in message
news:QIsUa.21$Bg.9@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Les" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
> news:bfti6b$i9rbo$1@ID-179240.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Omphalos wrote:
>
> > None of the above
> >
> > Like many people in these ng's I DON'T live in the US.
> >
> >
>
> Okay then... by your response I guess that you are one of the many people
> who lives in a country where you DON'T VOTE AT ALL?
>
> Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in
your
> country you voted for or wanted to vote for.  If you do, in fact, live in
a
> country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
> feel free to mention that.
>
> Personally, I voted for Gore/Lieberman because though videogames are
> important to me, there were a number of other areas where I agreed with
> thier policies.
>
>

 We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
> President combined.
>
>

I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:12:11 GMT, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote:


>Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has 
>these censorship ideas.

Not counting Gore's wife of course.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 

> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse. As
> was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been trying
> to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush than any
> other President combined.

Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:42:33 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
<blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
>> President combined.
>>
>>
>
>I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
>

It only took 10 messages for the insults to start. I wouldn't have
bothered posting in this thread if I'd noticed it was crossposted to
all those alt.* groups. 

In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 
>
>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse. As
>> was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been trying
>> to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush than any
>> other President combined.
>
>Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.

Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The Whitehouse 
censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's involvement. Some 
members of Congress have said that it will make many Americans angry to read 
it so the Whitehouse made it classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to 
read the whole report and make up my own mind. 

In article <fju4ivcc9qbafvh8iok8r482d20u61m5pp@4ax.com>, notforme@spam.apk.net 
says...
>
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:12:11 GMT, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote:
>
>
>>Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has 
>>these censorship ideas.
>
>Not counting Gore's wife of course.

Don't recall her running for office?

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 
>>
>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse.
>>> As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush
>>> than any other President combined.
>> 
>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
> 
> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The Whitehouse
> censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's involvement. Some
> members of Congress have said that it will make many Americans angry to
> read it so the Whitehouse made it classified. Bullshit is what I say. I
> want to read the whole report and make up my own mind. 

If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to read
it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put them all
on the internet too! Brother.

You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under Bush
than any other President combined.

In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 
>>>
>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse.
>>>> As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush
>>>> than any other President combined.
>>> 
>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>> 
>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The Whitehouse
>> censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's involvement. Some
>> members of Congress have said that it will make many Americans angry to
>> read it so the Whitehouse made it classified. Bullshit is what I say. I
>> want to read the whole report and make up my own mind. 
>
>If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to read
>it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put them all
>on the internet too! Brother.
>
>You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under Bush
>than any other President combined.

You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you just said. 
Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then just keep drinking 
that Bush koolaid. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:35:12a, Damocles <phaestos2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:q345ivggfuin2aulnj6m3g82k3nje2nlrr@4ax.com: 

> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:42:33 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
> <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
>>> President combined.
>>
>> I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing
>> wacko. 
> 
> It only took 10 messages for the insults to start. I wouldn't have
> bothered posting in this thread if I'd noticed it was crossposted to
> all those alt.* groups. 

There's no differece between an alt.* group and any other hierarchy. Alt.*
groups are just easier to create. 

generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news to
anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
understanding of them all.

never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory doesn't
work.




"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:00d3ffbda50ce6fee886a0f4b23e6661@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:45:40a, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bft4i4$hoair$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
> >>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
> >>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
> >>> them all?
> >>>
> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>
> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
> >>> share.
> >>
> >> And look what you got. What a moron.
> >
> > Yeah, Omphalos, be careful what you post. Morons like Elf Kicker are
> > likely to respond.
>
> I know there are uneducated morons out there, but I want to get all
> opinions. That's why I tried to get the general gamer population when I
> chose the newsgroups to send the original post to.

In article <8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>>>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>>> 
>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make many
>>>> Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it classified.
>>>> Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report and make up my
>>>> own mind. 
>>>
>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put
>>> them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>>
>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under Bush
>>> than any other President combined.
>> 
>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you just
>> said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then just
>> keep drinking that Bush koolaid. 
>
>All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they would be
>stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it now. 

Watch the news friend. Its was all over the news yesterday and many in the 
house and senate including some republicans said it should not be classified. 

You want some good left wing liberal BS---I can fill that gap too---Did you 
hear what George W.'s call sign was when he made his carrier landing? It was 
on the front of his helmet and on the side of the plane. EMPTY TANK. LMAO!

In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>>
>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>
>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>> 
>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the politics
>> newsgroups. 
>
>I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted this
>to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most accurate opinion
>possible.

Re-elect Gore in 2004!

This is being reposted for those in the rec.games.video.sony newsgroup.
The original newsgroup it was posted to was ALT.games.video.sony. This was
an error, namely because the group does not exist.

BEGIN POST
----------

I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?

Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]

Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

In article <b41dfd3c05ee38dd44db0fbe7b667893@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:47:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:JvwUa.81405$R92.35615@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <OztUa.120641$Io.10269999@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
>> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>>>
>>>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
>>>>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
>>>>> them all? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>>> share. 
>>>>
>>>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>>>> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
>>>> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
>>>> actors/artists are Democrats?
>>>
>>> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
>>> in office than Bush.
>>>
>>> If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve EXACTLY
>>> what you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a dumbass....
>>
>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
>> When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just
>> picture Bush sitting there at the frat house in college being told that
>> line "fat,drunk and stupid is a terrible way to go through life son". 
>> Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight and 
>> stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
>
>If you think that Bush is somehow unintelligent, you are very naive. He
>used that to his advantage in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Especially in
>the debates with Gore. In 2002, the Democrats used the 'dumb' tactic
>again, and look how the election turned out. 
>
>The left-wingers always try to paint a Republican president as dumb. They
>even tried it with Reagan. At least Bush didn't flunk out of law school
>like Gore. 

No he just went AWOL when his country and Guard unit called on him to serve.

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>  We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
> > President combined.
> >
> >
>
> I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
>
>

well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't have
links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the press is
dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind, because
it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.

second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
without being knocked down for it.

jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> 
> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> >like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> >elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >
> >Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >
> >Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> 
> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
> these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
> the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
> Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
> in office than Bush.

not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
right?

right??

Liebermann isn't the only one with censorship ideas.

-- 
Gene Poole

Do it. Do it now, kids. Stick it to the man.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> > In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
> >>
> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong horse.
> >>> As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under Bush
> >>> than any other President combined.
> >>
> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
> >
> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The Whitehouse
> > censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's involvement. Some
> > members of Congress have said that it will make many Americans angry to
> > read it so the Whitehouse made it classified. Bullshit is what I say. I
> > want to read the whole report and make up my own mind.
>
> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to read
> it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put them all
> on the internet too! Brother.

LOL!!!!

basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because they did.  they
can't just tell you stuff about your own country, dumbass!  ha ha, you're so
gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you said that.  i hate to insult you,
but that's very moronic --- ask yourself the question: "why are they
controlling the information"?   to protect you?  to protect america?  at
this point?  i don't think so.  look, the information on that document is
already out there.  no 'bad guy' is going to get it and blow up the nation.
when your government deceives you once, it means they've deceived you a
million times.  stop bush from lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat.
vote anything other than bush.  the lies about the iraq war.  the lies about
saddam having anything to do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies the lies
the lies.



>
> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under Bush
> than any other President combined.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> > In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> >> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
> >>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
> >>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
> >>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
> >>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
> >>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
> >>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
> >>>
> >>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
> >>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
> >>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make many
> >>> Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it classified.
> >>> Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report and make up my
> >>> own mind.
> >>
> >> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
> >> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put
> >> them all on the internet too! Brother.
> >>
> >> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under Bush
> >> than any other President combined.
> >
> > You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you just
> > said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then just
> > keep drinking that Bush koolaid.
>
> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they would be
> stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it now.


this person must be 12.

sorry for mouthing you off if you're really young.  you just don't know yet.

but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place?  what is
he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50 years?  i'll
tell you --- so that the people involved that were in government are good
and dead by the time it's released.

"defecto" <defecto@moontan.org> wrote in message
news:llwUa.23297$ib2.7437972@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> > I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> > offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> > like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> > elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >
> > Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >
> > Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> > Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
> ::looks at can of worms::
>
> ::tries to quickly close lid::
>
> ::cries::
>

LOL

>

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>
>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote
>>> in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
>>> all? 
>>>
>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>
>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>>
>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
>> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
>> actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have
>> the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
> 
> yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?

Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy all the
Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in your car, in your
home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you from doing that.

> didn't the republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for his
> anti-war protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get their
> invitation to some baseball thingy revoked because of their anti-war
> stance?  didn't Bill Maher get fired from a conservative stations show
> because he said terrorists certainly weren't cowards?

That's not censorship. Censorship is when a government agency restricts 
speech. Liberals are know for their censorship, especially when it comes
to banning 'sensative' books in the library, like Huckleberry Finn. 

> Didn't Bush say "you're either with us, or against us", leaving no room
> for public dissent, thereby castrating the very essense of democracy?

No. You either support the defense of this country, or you are a traitor.
What problem do you have with defending the US against terrorism? 

> didn't his father, when he was in power, say "athiests are
> anti-patriotic, and against everything american"? 
> 
> stop the deception.  stop the self lies.  it's embarrassing.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:47:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:JvwUa.81405$R92.35615@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <OztUa.120641$Io.10269999@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
> blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
>
>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>>
>>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
>>>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
>>>> them all? 
>>>>
>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>
>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>> share. 
>>>
>>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>>> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
>>> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
>>> actors/artists are Democrats?
>>
>> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
>> in office than Bush.
>>
>> If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve EXACTLY
>> what you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a dumbass....
>
> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
> When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just
> picture Bush sitting there at the frat house in college being told that
> line "fat,drunk and stupid is a terrible way to go through life son". 
> Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight and 
> stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!

If you think that Bush is somehow unintelligent, you are very naive. He
used that to his advantage in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Especially in
the debates with Gore. In 2002, the Democrats used the 'dumb' tactic
again, and look how the election turned out. 

The left-wingers always try to paint a Republican president as dumb. They
even tried it with Reagan. At least Bush didn't flunk out of law school
like Gore. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>
>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>
>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> 
> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the politics
> newsgroups. 

I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted this
to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most accurate opinion
possible.

In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>>
>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>
>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>> 
>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the politics
>> newsgroups. 
>
>I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted this
>to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most accurate opinion
>possible.

Hey Omphalos. I have a question for you. What coporation was Bush's and the 
GOP's largest campaign contributor in 1999 and 2000?  

What do 50 high-level officials in the Bush administration have in common 
other than the GOP,Bush and the state of Texas?

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:06:03a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:vNwUa.81510$R92.26909@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
>>>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
>>>> them all? 
>>>>
>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>
>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>> share. 
>>> 
>>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the
>>> politics newsgroups. 
>>
>> I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted
>> this to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most accurate
>> opinion possible.
> 
> Re-elect Gore in 2004!

Not likely. No Democrat is going to be elected in 2004.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news
> to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely
> you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more
> likely you are to have interacted with other races and other classes,
> gaining a better understanding of them all.

Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952, the
Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among college
graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher percentage of the
vote among high school graduates than among high school dropouts? The more
educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. In other
words, there is, as you assert, a strong correlation between education and
partisan voting, but it goes in the opposite direction. Not that this is
particularly surprising news, since you guys always like to tell us how
much you're for the "little guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ
meter. (Data from Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see
http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote by 
Groups'). 
 
> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory
> doesn't work.

The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and government
handouts. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:08:58a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>> We have had more censorship under Bush than any other President
>>> combined. 
>>
>> I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing
>> wacko. 
> 
> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
> have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the
> press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful
> kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors
> of omission.

The Pentagon went out of its way to accomodate journalists. I personally
think that there should have been no imbedded reporters. They have no
business being there. They had restrictions on what they could report
because they were in a warzone and if they reported some sensitive
information, lives could have been lost. 

Journalists having such unfettered access to a warzone is a fairly recent
phenomenon. 
 
> second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
> it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
> anymore without being knocked down for it.

True, but they still have freedom of speech. There are some exceptions of
course. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:09:38a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:SQwUa.81530$R92.23881@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>
>> yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?  didn't the
>> republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for his anti-war
>> protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get their invitation to
>> some baseball thingy revoked because of their anti-war stance?  didn't
>> Bill Maher get fired from a conservative stations show because he said
>> terrorists certainly weren't cowards?  Didn't Bush say "you're either
>> with us, or against us", leaving no room for public dissent, thereby
>> castrating the very essense of democracy? didn't his father, when he was
>> in power, say "athiests are anti-patriotic, and against everything
>> american"? 
>>
>> stop the deception.  stop the self lies.  it's embarrassing.
> 
> Damn Nightwriter you had better watch out or the Dixie Chick police are
> going to hunt you down. 

He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for someone to 
prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than all other Presidents 
combined.

Omphalos wrote:
> 
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:11:31a, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3F229A23.EAE6F0F@yahoo.com:
> 
> > jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> >
> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>
> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
> >>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote
> >>> in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
> >>> all?
> >>>
> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>
> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> >>
> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
> >> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
> >> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
> >> actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have
> >> the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
> >
> > not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
> > right?
> >
> > right??
> >
> > Liebermann isn't the only one with censorship ideas.
> 
> Gore's wife didn't run for office, like some other well known politician's
> wife.

heh.

this is true, however having Tipper, of all people, as the first lady...

well she was influential enough on her own in the PMRC. frankly the
concept worried me, to say the least.

-- 
Gene Poole

You deny me Freshmaker?

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:12:16a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:kTwUa.91579$zwL.57666@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>>
>> > In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >
>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>> >>
>> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>> >>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>> >>> Bush than any other President combined.
>> >>
>> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>> >
>> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>> > Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>> > involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>> > many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it classified.
>> > Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report and make up
>> > my own mind. 
>>
>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put
>> them all on the internet too! Brother.
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because they did. 
> they can't just tell you stuff about your own country, dumbass!  ha ha,
> you're so gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you said that.  i hate
> to insult you, but that's very moronic --- ask yourself the question:
> "why are they controlling the information"?   to protect you?  to
> protect america?  at this point?  i don't think so.  look, the
> information on that document is already out there.  no 'bad guy' is
> going to get it and blow up the nation. when your government deceives
> you once, it means they've deceived you a million times.  stop bush from
> lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat. vote anything other than bush. 
> the lies about the iraq war.  the lies about saddam having anything to
> do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies the lies the lies.

Apparently, you don't understand why they classify information.

The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs so
consumed with hatred of Bush? 

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:08e6a14d2aa4289d5f5a8fe7f7103461@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news
> > to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely
> > you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more
> > likely you are to have interacted with other races and other classes,
> > gaining a better understanding of them all.
>
> Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952, the
> Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among college
> graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher percentage of the
> vote among high school graduates than among high school dropouts? The more
> educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. In other
> words, there is, as you assert, a strong correlation between education and
> partisan voting, but it goes in the opposite direction. Not that this is
> particularly surprising news, since you guys always like to tell us how
> much you're for the "little guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ
> meter. (Data from Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote by
> Groups').
>

interesting.  i don't have the link, but i've seen the exact opposite stats.
further proving once again the famous quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and
then, there are statistics".


> > never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> > don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory
> > doesn't work.
>
> The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and government
> handouts.

but i thought social programs were good.  see, in a capitalist society, the
poor are NECESSARY to fuel the machine.  without the poor willing to work at
mcdonalds and sweep floors and do all those terrible jobs that are
absolutely necessary for the machine to function, there'd be no machine.
and in every capitalist society, the poor and downtrodden are there because
they are needed.  making them a bit happier, a bit safer, a bit more pleased
with their lot in life helps ensure the machines survival.  ignoring them
will only hurt the bottom line as they miss days at work, steal, and are
less productive.  so purely, from an economical sense, this makes sense.
then there's the humanity side of it all:  taking care of each other is
important.  life's too short to be greedy.  helping people is a just and
noble cause that i'm proud to be a part of.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:05:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:BMwUa.81506$R92.59892@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>>>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>>>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>>>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>>>>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>>>>> many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
>>>>> classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report
>>>>> and make up my own mind. 
>>>>
>>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and
>>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under
>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>> 
>>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you
>>> just said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then
>>> just keep drinking that Bush koolaid. 
>>
>> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they would
>> be stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it now. 
> 
> Watch the news friend. Its was all over the news yesterday and many in
> the house and senate including some republicans said it should not be
> classified.

If they come to the conclusion that it should be declassified, then it
will be done. Meanwhile, please learn why we classify information. 

[lame joke snipped]

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:09:38a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> news:SQwUa.81530$R92.23881@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> > In article <LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> >
> >> yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?  didn't the
> >> republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for his anti-war
> >> protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get their invitation
to
> >> some baseball thingy revoked because of their anti-war stance?  didn't
> >> Bill Maher get fired from a conservative stations show because he said
> >> terrorists certainly weren't cowards?  Didn't Bush say "you're either
> >> with us, or against us", leaving no room for public dissent, thereby
> >> castrating the very essense of democracy? didn't his father, when he
was
> >> in power, say "athiests are anti-patriotic, and against everything
> >> american"?
> >>
> >> stop the deception.  stop the self lies.  it's embarrassing.
> >
> > Damn Nightwriter you had better watch out or the Dixie Chick police are
> > going to hunt you down.
>
> He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for someone to
> prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than all other
Presidents
> combined.

that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.

we do know the Bush has run up the biggest deficit in the history of
america.  that bush has taken more holidays than any president in the
history of america.  that 'embedding' journalists in a war zone enables
censorship.  that guantonimo bay has a lot of censorship and human rights
violations.  that no president in the history of the united states has made
more global enemies than bush.  ari fleischer told americans "to be very
careful about what they say".  which meant: don't speak out against the
president (this was during the post 9/11 stuff where people were speaking
their minds and getting fired).  Fleischer was effectively clamping down on
public dissent on CNN.  THAT'S censorship.  every time the government hides
information from us: that's censorship.  every time the president opens his
mouth and says "the war on terror is being won", that's a lie.  every time
the president opens his mouth and says "you're either with us or against
us", that's censorship.

In article <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote:
>well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't have
>links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the press is
>dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind, because
>it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.

Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch 
something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper 
incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy 
foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.  

So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And 
they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about 
these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?  
All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you 
would prefer.

>second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
>it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
>without being knocked down for it.

This on a thread where somebody was immediately howled at for being a 
"moron" when he dared to say he voted for Bush.

- Gerry Quinn

Nader.   :)

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:11:31a, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3F229A23.EAE6F0F@yahoo.com: 

> jojoMSfanboy wrote:
>
>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote
>>> in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
>>> all? 
>>>
>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>
>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>> 
>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
>> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
>> actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have
>> the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
> 
> not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
> right?
> 
> right??
> 
> Liebermann isn't the only one with censorship ideas.

Gore's wife didn't run for office, like some other well known politician's
wife.

"Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C472B8FFA5C8@130.133.1.4...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
> >
> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>
> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
> >>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote
> >>> in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
> >>> all?
> >>>
> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>
> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> >>
> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
> >> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
> >> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
> >> actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have
> >> the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
> >
> > yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?
>
> Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy all the
> Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in your car, in your
> home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you from doing that.


the corporation that owns all those stations banned the dixie chix.  it
wasn't until NOW that a democratic senator opened an inquiry into the power
of media control in situations like that one, specifically because of that
scenario.  it's going to change the way those companies do business.  that's
censorship, predicated on the idea that 'you're either with us or against
us'.  they were called traitors.  this is manipulation by the white house at
its finest: put the catchphrase out there, let the public do the rest.


>
> > didn't the republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for his
> > anti-war protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get their
> > invitation to some baseball thingy revoked because of their anti-war
> > stance?  didn't Bill Maher get fired from a conservative stations show
> > because he said terrorists certainly weren't cowards?
>
> That's not censorship. Censorship is when a government agency restricts
> speech. Liberals are know for their censorship, especially when it comes
> to banning 'sensative' books in the library, like Huckleberry Finn.

link?  was it a senator?

>
> > Didn't Bush say "you're either with us, or against us", leaving no room
> > for public dissent, thereby castrating the very essense of democracy?
>
> No. You either support the defense of this country, or you are a traitor.
> What problem do you have with defending the US against terrorism?

i see.  you're already enmeshed in the rhetoric.  if you think that there's
only one way to defend the US from terrorism, and bush has got it right,
then you're mislead.  you want to know the best way to take away power from
terrorist groups?  make them aspire to be middle class.  give them jobs and
debt, give them cars and homes to buy, the gap to shop at.  money is the
great equalizer.  it knows no race, creed, or culture.  not only that, but
do you think that terrorists hate america for no reason?  HAVE YOU EVER
ASKED YOURSELF WHY WHY WHY would they want to do this?  do you ever wonder
if their reasons are at all valid?  american troops in the holiest of muslem
holy lands pisses off a lot of people.  that doesn't make it valid to blow
up buildings and kill innocent people, but you have to wonder what you're
doing to provoke someone this way.  did you see that the troops have finally
been pulled from saudi arabia?  do you know that osama's #1 reason for
hating the US was because of their presence there?  on holy land?

i may be right and wrong about all kinds of things, but i do know this:
blowing up countries, killing innocent civilians, going agaisnt the majority
of the world in an 'illegal' war (that is proving to be more and more clear
as the days go by, isn't it), does NOT endear you to the rest of the world.
so if you think that outright force will get you clear of terrorism, i
suggest you look at all uprisings, all over the world:  israel and
palestine, ireland and england.  it DOESN'T work.  it just makes retaliation
more and more lethal.  if that's how you want to live, fine.  i don't.
fight fire with WATER, not fire.


>
> > didn't his father, when he was in power, say "athiests are
> > anti-patriotic, and against everything american"?
> >
> > stop the deception.  stop the self lies.  it's embarrassing.

"Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bfu6tb$iku8m$3@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:08:58a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>> We have had more censorship under Bush than any other President
> >>> combined.
> >>
> >> I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing
> >> wacko.
> >
> > well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
> > have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the
> > press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful
> > kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors
> > of omission.
>
> The Pentagon went out of its way to accomodate journalists. I personally
> think that there should have been no imbedded reporters. They have no
> business being there. They had restrictions on what they could report
> because they were in a warzone and if they reported some sensitive
> information, lives could have been lost.
>
> Journalists having such unfettered access to a warzone is a fairly recent
> phenomenon.
>
> > second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
> > it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
> > anymore without being knocked down for it.
>
> True, but they still have freedom of speech.

>>There are some exceptions of course.

there is no "half-freedom".  You are either free, or you're not.  it's a
concrete term.

In article <e27c422c002e66aed76d9c1d47ee36a3@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:05:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:BMwUa.81506$R92.59892@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>>>>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>>>>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>>>>>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>>>>>> many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
>>>>>> classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report
>>>>>> and make up my own mind. 
>>>>>
>>>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>>>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and
>>>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under
>>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>> 
>>>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you
>>>> just said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then
>>>> just keep drinking that Bush koolaid. 
>>>
>>> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they would
>>> be stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it now. 
>> 
>> Watch the news friend. Its was all over the news yesterday and many in
>> the house and senate including some republicans said it should not be
>> classified.
>
>If they come to the conclusion that it should be declassified, then it
>will be done. Meanwhile, please learn why we classify information. 
>
>[lame joke snipped]

Boy are you a koolaid drinker. The reason its classified was basically let out 
anyhow. Do you ever watch the news? They said that Bush does not want 
Americans to know how deep Saudi Arabia is involved because of all the aid we 
are sending them.

>>No. You either support the defense of this country, or you are a traitor.
>
>You would fit right in with the past century's authoritarian regimes,
>which universally suppressed dissent in the name of the flag and the
>struggle against The Enemy. 

What's so disingenuous about the remark is that it's literally correct.
It's literal truth is then twisted, and people attacked, on the grounds
that they "are not supporting the defense of this country." There are
many ways to see to our national interests; military action abroad is but
one of them.

C//

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:42:36 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs so
>consumed with hatred of Bush? 

What is a "lib"? Do you even know what liberal politics are or is it
just a kneejerk insult for you? 

In article <e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
>news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie: 
>
>> In article <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>
>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
>>> have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of
>>> the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most
>>> powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see
>>> the errors of omission. 
>> 
>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch 
>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper 
>> incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy 
>> foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.  
>> 
>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And 
>> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about 
>> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?  
>> All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you
>> would prefer.
>
>I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.

Freaking right wing idiots can't even agree on who is slanting what.

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
have
> >links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the press
is
> >dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind,
because
> >it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>
> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper
> incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy
> foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.


CNN is considered 'the press' although it doesn't actually 'press' anything.
i have no problem with 'a slant', i have a problem with the government using
a newstation as its own pulpit.  having a slant is not the same as being
co-opted.  i suggest you read 'noam chomsky's manufacturing consent'.  all
big business media have become corporations in the business of business, not
the business of factual news.  our media is co-opted by the pressure to meet
the bottom line.  if i might point out: how many big news agencies did
stories on jessica what's-her-name that the marines 'rescued' from the
hospital, who now has amnesia and will 'probably never remember exactly what
happened'?  well, the government needed a hero, an icon, a lightning rod -
jessica was it.  she was never bitch-slapped around by the doctors, and in
fact they performed surgeries on her that american doctors said were
incredible and precise.  she made friends with the nurses in the hospital.
when the husband of one of the nurses tried to return her to a marine
outpost, they shot at the car so they went back to the hospital.  she was
never being held against her will.  this story was all over the news in
other parts of the world (yes, i do get my news from multiple sources, thank
you), but not here.  why not?  you still trust your media?

>
> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And
> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about
> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?
> All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you
> would prefer.
>
> >second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
> >it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
anymore
> >without being knocked down for it.
>
> This on a thread where somebody was immediately howled at for being a
> "moron" when he dared to say he voted for Bush.

doesn't take away from the fact that freedom of speech is still supressed by
the government, covertly, subtly.  if this isn't apparant, i suggest you
return to university.  i'm no conspiracy theorist, but when the government
tells people to 'be very careful about what they say' about the president,
i'm concerned.

>
> - Gerry Quinn

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:14:21a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:hVwUa.91610$zwL.22975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net:
>>
>>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>>>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>>>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>>>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>>>>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>>>>> many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
>>>>> classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report
>>>>> and make up my own mind.
>>>>
>>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and
>>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under
>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>
>>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you
>>> just said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then
>>> just keep drinking that Bush koolaid.
>>
>> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they would
>> be stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it now.
>
> this person must be 12.
> 
> sorry for mouthing you off if you're really young.  you just don't know
> yet. 
> 
> but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place?  what
> is he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50 years? 
> i'll tell you --- so that the people involved that were in government
> are good and dead by the time it's released.

Do you have proof to back up that claim?

In article <4f3851c9c5870ee7a4d28c9ca90c09ec@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:12:16a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
>in news:kTwUa.91579$zwL.57666@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>
>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>>>
>>> > In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>>> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>>> >>
>>> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>> >>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>>> >>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>> >>
>>> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>> >
>>> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>> > Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>> > involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>>> > many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it classified.
>>> > Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report and make up
>>> > my own mind. 
>>>
>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put
>>> them all on the internet too! Brother.
>> 
>> LOL!!!!
>> 
>> basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because they did. 
>> they can't just tell you stuff about your own country, dumbass!  ha ha,
>> you're so gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you said that.  i hate
>> to insult you, but that's very moronic --- ask yourself the question:
>> "why are they controlling the information"?   to protect you?  to
>> protect america?  at this point?  i don't think so.  look, the
>> information on that document is already out there.  no 'bad guy' is
>> going to get it and blow up the nation. when your government deceives
>> you once, it means they've deceived you a million times.  stop bush from
>> lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat. vote anything other than bush. 
>> the lies about the iraq war.  the lies about saddam having anything to
>> do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies the lies the lies.
>
>Apparently, you don't understand why they classify information.
>
>The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs so
>consumed with hatred of Bush? 

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the rest of the world looks at 
us as a rogue nation now and they hate us.  

Nightwing wrote:

> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.

I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is doing
better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power from the
states and expanding the size of the federal government.  Bush can't even lie as
well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's.  Pinhead.)

Clinton/Clinton in 2004!

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
> news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>
> > In article <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> > "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
> >> have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of
> >> the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most
> >> powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see
> >> the errors of omission.
> >
> > Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
> > something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper
> > incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy
> > foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.
> >
> > So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And
> > they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about
> > these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?
> > All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you
> > would prefer.
>
> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.

you're so far right you're a communist!  lol

if CNN is the most liberal, what channel were you watching?  michigan
militia channel?  NEWSCLIP: "Kill everyone! kill everyone!  if they're not
white and don't speak english, kill the terrorists!!"

In article <5_wUa.81587$R92.32907@news2.central.cox.net>, jojo@cox.net says...
>
>In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
>omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>>>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>>>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>>>
>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>
>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>>>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>>> 
>>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the politics
>>> newsgroups. 
>>
>>I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted this
>>to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most accurate opinion
>>possible.
>
>Hey Omphalos. I have a question for you. What coporation was Bush's and the 
>GOP's largest campaign contributor in 1999 and 2000?  
>
>What do 50 high-level officials in the Bush administration have in common 
>other than the GOP,Bush and the state of Texas?
>
Since you don't want to answer my questions I will answer them for you. Enron 
and Enron. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie: 

> In article <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>
>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
>> have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of
>> the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most
>> powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see
>> the errors of omission. 
> 
> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch 
> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper 
> incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy 
> foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.  
> 
> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And 
> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about 
> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?  
> All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that you
> would prefer.

I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.

In article <b3c3564a22af97e7b81129b934631f71@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:08:19a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:DPwUa.81522$R92.19514@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <b41dfd3c05ee38dd44db0fbe7b667893@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:47:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:JvwUa.81405$R92.35615@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <OztUa.120641$Io.10269999@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
>>>> blackhole34@yahoo.com says... 
>>>>
>>>>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>>>>>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>>>>>>> Democrats share. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>>>>>> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do
>>>>>> more censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that
>>>>>> most actors/artists are Democrats?
>>>>>
>>>>> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
>>>>> in office than Bush.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve
>>>>> EXACTLY what you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a
>>>>> dumbass.... 
>>>>
>>>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
>>>> When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just
>>>> picture Bush sitting there at the frat house in college being told
>>>> that line "fat,drunk and stupid is a terrible way to go through life
>>>> son". Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the
>>>> weight and stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
>>>
>>> If you think that Bush is somehow unintelligent, you are very naive. He
>>> used that to his advantage in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Especially
>>> in the debates with Gore. In 2002, the Democrats used the 'dumb' tactic
>>> again, and look how the election turned out. 
>>>
>>> The left-wingers always try to paint a Republican president as dumb.
>>> They even tried it with Reagan. At least Bush didn't flunk out of law
>>> school like Gore. 
>> 
>> No he just went AWOL when his country and Guard unit called on him to
>> serve. 
>
>Sorry, bud. This old and lame assertion has never been proven.

Sorry, bud but its in the records.

jojoMSfanboy wrote:

> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When I
> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just picture Bush
> sitting there at the frat house in college being told that line "fat,drunk and
> stupid is a terrible way to go through life son".
> Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight and
> stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!

Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day.  Did you notice he's lost the
mullet?  Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him to be
remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible.  I'd rather have Sharpton than
Bush, too.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:48:30a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:ipxUa.92000$zwL.27400@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
>
>> He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for someone
>> to prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than all other
>> Presidents combined.
> 
> that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.
> 
> we do know the Bush has run up the biggest deficit in the history of
> america.  that bush has taken more holidays than any president in the
> history of america.  that 'embedding' journalists in a war zone enables
> censorship.  that guantonimo bay has a lot of censorship and human
> rights violations.  that no president in the history of the united
> states has made more global enemies than bush.  ari fleischer told
> americans "to be very careful about what they say".  which meant: don't
> speak out against the president (this was during the post 9/11 stuff
> where people were speaking their minds and getting fired).  Fleischer
> was effectively clamping down on public dissent on CNN.  THAT'S
> censorship.  every time the government hides information from us: that's
> censorship.  every time the president opens his mouth and says "the war
> on terror is being won", that's a lie. 

So are we losing? Is Al Queda winning? Doesn't look like it to me.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:qHxUa.160328$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:14:21a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:hVwUa.91610$zwL.22975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> >> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> >>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
> >>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
> >>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
> >>>>>>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
> >>>>>>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
> >>>>>>> Bush than any other President combined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
> >>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
> >>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
> >>>>> many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
> >>>>> classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report
> >>>>> and make up my own mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
> >>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and
> >>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
> >>>>
> >>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under
> >>>> Bush than any other President combined.
> >>>
> >>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you
> >>> just said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that then
> >>> just keep drinking that Bush koolaid.
> >>
> >> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they would
> >> be stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it now.
> >
> > this person must be 12.
> >
> > sorry for mouthing you off if you're really young.  you just don't know
> > yet.
> >
> > but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place?  what
> > is he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50 years?
> > i'll tell you --- so that the people involved that were in government
> > are good and dead by the time it's released.
>
> Do you have proof to back up that claim?

of course not, but do you have a better answer for why they're locking down
the information relating to the assassination of a president of the united
states??  if you can think of ONE, i'll listen.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:12:17p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:BLxUa.81891$R92.13873@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <b3c3564a22af97e7b81129b934631f71@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:08:19a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:DPwUa.81522$R92.19514@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <b41dfd3c05ee38dd44db0fbe7b667893@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:47:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>> news:JvwUa.81405$R92.35615@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <OztUa.120641$Io.10269999@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
>>>>> blackhole34@yahoo.com says... 
>>>>>
>>>>>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
>>>>>>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>>>>>>>> Democrats share. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only
>>>>>>> Democrats that has these censorship ideas. The
>>>>>>> Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than the Democrats
>>>>>>> do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are Democrats?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
>>>>>> in office than Bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve
>>>>>> EXACTLY what you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a
>>>>>> dumbass.... 
>>>>>
>>>>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
>>>>> When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can
>>>>> just picture Bush sitting there at the frat house in college being
>>>>> told that line "fat,drunk and stupid is a terrible way to go through
>>>>> life son". Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost
>>>>> the weight and stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
>>>>
>>>> If you think that Bush is somehow unintelligent, you are very naive.
>>>> He used that to his advantage in the 2000 and 2002 elections.
>>>> Especially in the debates with Gore. In 2002, the Democrats used the
>>>> 'dumb' tactic again, and look how the election turned out. 
>>>>
>>>> The left-wingers always try to paint a Republican president as dumb.
>>>> They even tried it with Reagan. At least Bush didn't flunk out of law
>>>> school like Gore. 
>>> 
>>> No he just went AWOL when his country and Guard unit called on him to
>>> serve. 
>>
>> Sorry, bud. This old and lame assertion has never been proven.
> 
> Sorry, bud but its in the records.

National Guard units were notorious for keeping shoddy records in the
1960s and 1970s. There isn't enough information to prove anything.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4f3851c9c5870ee7a4d28c9ca90c09ec@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:12:16a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:kTwUa.91579$zwL.57666@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> >> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
> >>
> >> > In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
> >> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
> >> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
> >> >>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
> >> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
> >> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
> >> >>> Bush than any other President combined.
> >> >>
> >> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
> >> >
> >> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
> >> > Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
> >> > involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
> >> > many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it classified.
> >> > Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report and make up
> >> > my own mind.
> >>
> >> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
> >> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and put
> >> them all on the internet too! Brother.
> >
> > LOL!!!!
> >
> > basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because they did.
> > they can't just tell you stuff about your own country, dumbass!  ha ha,
> > you're so gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you said that.  i hate
> > to insult you, but that's very moronic --- ask yourself the question:
> > "why are they controlling the information"?   to protect you?  to
> > protect america?  at this point?  i don't think so.  look, the
> > information on that document is already out there.  no 'bad guy' is
> > going to get it and blow up the nation. when your government deceives
> > you once, it means they've deceived you a million times.  stop bush from
> > lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat. vote anything other than bush.
> > the lies about the iraq war.  the lies about saddam having anything to
> > do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies the lies the lies.
>
> Apparently, you don't understand why they classify information.

i understand why they say they classify information perfectly.  but the room
to abuse that power (see JFK) is infinite because they simply have to say
it's classified because it's classified.  that's it.  end of discussion.
it's 1984 at its best.


>
> The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs so
> consumed with hatred of Bush?

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com: 

> Nader.   :)
> 
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>
>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>
>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>
>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
offense, I am just curious.

In article <6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com>, ashcroft@iswatching.you 
says...
>
>Nader.   :)
>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>
>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>
>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
>
Hey go protect some border or something. LOL!!!! Did not realize we had some 
of the administration in here. 

In article <uQxUa.160377$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, omphalos@wp.pl 
says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
>wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com: 
>
>> Nader.   :)
>> 
>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>>
>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>>
>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>
>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
>Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
>offense, I am just curious.

Its called not drinking the koolaid. 

In article <0KxUa.81881$R92.62564@news2.central.cox.net>, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote:
>>Hey Omphalos. I have a question for you. What coporation was Bush's and the 
>>GOP's largest campaign contributor in 1999 and 2000?  
>>
>>What do 50 high-level officials in the Bush administration have in common 
>>other than the GOP,Bush and the state of Texas?
>>
>Since you don't want to answer my questions I will answer them for you. Enron 
>and Enron. 

What's your point, exactly?  The false accounting of Enron and many 
other companies were committed during Clinton's term, fuelling the 
disastrous economic bubble that is still collapsing.  But if they 
thought they were buying immunity with their contributions they were 
obviously wrong, as a number of company executives are now being brought 
to justice for their crimes against capital providers.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>
>Nightwing wrote:
>
>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>
>I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is doing
>better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power from the
>states and expanding the size of the federal government.  Bush can't even lie 
as
>well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's.  Pinhead.)
>
>Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>
Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't resist 
this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped. LOL!!! Maybe if he 
was getting a little something on the side we would not be in this mess in 
Iraq. 

In article <kNxUa.160359$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, omphalos@wp.pl 
says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:48:30a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
>in news:ipxUa.92000$zwL.27400@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>
>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
>>
>>> He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for someone
>>> to prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than all other
>>> Presidents combined.
>> 
>> that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.
>> 
>> we do know the Bush has run up the biggest deficit in the history of
>> america.  that bush has taken more holidays than any president in the
>> history of america.  that 'embedding' journalists in a war zone enables
>> censorship.  that guantonimo bay has a lot of censorship and human
>> rights violations.  that no president in the history of the united
>> states has made more global enemies than bush.  ari fleischer told
>> americans "to be very careful about what they say".  which meant: don't
>> speak out against the president (this was during the post 9/11 stuff
>> where people were speaking their minds and getting fired).  Fleischer
>> was effectively clamping down on public dissent on CNN.  THAT'S
>> censorship.  every time the government hides information from us: that's
>> censorship.  every time the president opens his mouth and says "the war
>> on terror is being won", that's a lie. 
>
>So are we losing? Is Al Queda winning? Doesn't look like it to me.

Just check your taxes in ten years when we have to start paying for all this 
crap and then talk to me about losing. I wonder what these middle eastern 
nations will look like then too. If your drinking that Bush koolaid you 
probably think they will be a bunch of little democracies...yeah right and I 
am John Glenn emailing you from the moon. 

In article <TOxUa.160368$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, omphalos@wp.pl 
says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:12:17p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:BLxUa.81891$R92.13873@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <b3c3564a22af97e7b81129b934631f71@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:08:19a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:DPwUa.81522$R92.19514@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <b41dfd3c05ee38dd44db0fbe7b667893@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:47:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>>> news:JvwUa.81405$R92.35615@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <OztUa.120641$Io.10269999@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
>>>>>> blackhole34@yahoo.com says... 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
>>>>>>>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>>>>>>>>> Democrats share. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only
>>>>>>>> Democrats that has these censorship ideas. The
>>>>>>>> Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than the Democrats
>>>>>>>> do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are Democrats?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
>>>>>>> in office than Bush.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve
>>>>>>> EXACTLY what you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a
>>>>>>> dumbass.... 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
>>>>>> When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can
>>>>>> just picture Bush sitting there at the frat house in college being
>>>>>> told that line "fat,drunk and stupid is a terrible way to go through
>>>>>> life son". Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost
>>>>>> the weight and stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think that Bush is somehow unintelligent, you are very naive.
>>>>> He used that to his advantage in the 2000 and 2002 elections.
>>>>> Especially in the debates with Gore. In 2002, the Democrats used the
>>>>> 'dumb' tactic again, and look how the election turned out. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The left-wingers always try to paint a Republican president as dumb.
>>>>> They even tried it with Reagan. At least Bush didn't flunk out of law
>>>>> school like Gore. 
>>>> 
>>>> No he just went AWOL when his country and Guard unit called on him to
>>>> serve. 
>>>
>>> Sorry, bud. This old and lame assertion has never been proven.
>> 
>> Sorry, bud but its in the records.
>
>National Guard units were notorious for keeping shoddy records in the
>1960s and 1970s. There isn't enough information to prove anything.

Would a Bush not tell the truth? His brother and a fellow soldier said he had 
to report to a punishment detail in Colorado for not showing up. 

jojoMSfanboy wrote:

> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't resist
> this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped. LOL!!! Maybe if he
> was getting a little something on the side we would not be in this mess in
> Iraq.

Perhaps he's just a bit more descrete?  Or perhaps no interns will go down on
him?  I'd believe either theory.

jojoMSfanboy wrote:

>
> Wake up and smell the coffee.

Mmmmm . . . coffee

nightwriter wrote:
> 
> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news to
> anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
> to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
> understanding of them all.
> 
> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory doesn't
> work.


> i have an economics degree

Translation:  Do you want fries with that?

nightwriter wrote:
> 
> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't have
> links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the press is
> dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind, because
> it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.

LOL what planet are you from?  You certainly haven't been watching
the news lately!

 
> second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
> it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say anymore
> without being knocked down for it.

LOL  Where are you from?

Omphalos wrote:
> 
> 
> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.

Heh.  You haven't been watching CBS!

jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> 
> Boy are you a koolaid drinker. The reason its classified was basically let out
> anyhow. Do you ever watch the news? They said that Bush does not want
> Americans to know how deep Saudi Arabia is involved because of all the aid we
> are sending them.

It's not the aid we're sending them, it the oil they
sending us.

Buckwheat wrote:
> 
> Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day.  Did you notice he's lost the
> mullet?  Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him to be
> remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible.  I'd rather have Sharpton than
> Bush, too.

I bet Sharpton would find your name offensive.
Not that I care all that much!  ;-)

Briarroot wrote:

> I bet Sharpton would find your name offensive.
> Not that I care all that much!  ;-)

I got my nic legitimately:  http://www.fadetoblack.com/namegenerator/

I voted for Bush. Algore is an android.


"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

Omphalos wrote:

> The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs so
> consumed with hatred of Bush?

Hmm.  Let's see:
-Is it the war-mongering?
-Is it the fact (yes, fact, read up on it) that he went AWOL and nothing was
said because of daddy?
-Is it the lying about the WMD report, or perhaps the willingness to let
everyone else take the fall for it? (whatever happened to The Buck Stops
Here?)
-Is it because he says Iraq needed to be liberated from an evil dictator while
similar countries (with no oil, of course) are suffering just as badly and
nothing is done?
-Is it because Haliburton (sic) was given control of the Iraqi oil production
without any bidding process whatsoever?
-Is it because his tax cuts have done exactly what the dems have said they
would, that is help the rich 1000X more than the poor?
-Is it because his latest tax proposals did absolutely nothing to help the
poor, until he was pressured into it and gave in?
-Is it because he is insisting on tax cuts while the country falls the
furthest into debt it has ever been?
-Is it because North Korea has stared him down because A.) they didn't blink
when we threatened them or B.) they knew they were safe because they have
nothing (as in oil) that we want?
-Is it because he campaigned that he was "just a regular guy like you and
me"?  Sure, he is just like you and me, as long as our daddies were rich Texas
oil men who were American ambassadors, then Vice President for 8 years, then
President for 4 years, got us into Yale, got us out of trouble for going AWOL
and doing drugs, and who helped us buy a major league baseball team?
-Is it because he bought the Texas Rangers, had the community pay for his
brand new stadium and then turned and sold the franchise for about 4X what he
paid?  He profited because the taxpayers bought him a brand new stadium.  Hmm.

-Is it because this coward of a man uses phrases like "Frontier Justice,
Wanted Dead Or Alive and Bring 'Em On when HIS ass is safe and sound and
American soldiers are being killed?  Nice cowboy, macho rhetoric, Georgey-Boy.

-Maybe it's because this papa's boy who went AWOL has dared to question the
patriotism of former military men like John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam
while Georgey was safe in the reserves and even THEN went AWOL?
-Maybe it's because he appointed a fundamentalist Christian wacko (and I mean
wacko, I am from Missouri and saw this first hand) as Attorney General, who
has since used the events of 9-11 to take away your basic rights of privacy?
-Is it because anyone who dared to say anything against the post 9-11 policies
was shouted down as unpatriotic by the freaking Attorney General and the Bush
administration
-Is it because Cheney's connections to Haliburton and Enron have never been
fully investigated while Kenneth Starr pounded the fuck out of the Clinton's
(and dug WAY unnecessarily into their personal lives) for Whitewater?
-Is it because my phones will probably be tapped now and I am on Bush and
Ashcroft's shit list for typing this?
-Because Rumsfeld will say this post is a threat to national security and is
endangering our troops?

I don't know for sure, I am just saying it could be one of those things...
--
Jim S.

good points.


"Jim S." <quint_75@nowayinhellswbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F22CF7F.BF62A3E0@nowayinhellswbell.net...
> Omphalos wrote:
>
> > The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs
so
> > consumed with hatred of Bush?
>
> Hmm.  Let's see:
> -Is it the war-mongering?
> -Is it the fact (yes, fact, read up on it) that he went AWOL and nothing
was
> said because of daddy?
> -Is it the lying about the WMD report, or perhaps the willingness to let
> everyone else take the fall for it? (whatever happened to The Buck Stops
> Here?)
> -Is it because he says Iraq needed to be liberated from an evil dictator
while
> similar countries (with no oil, of course) are suffering just as badly and
> nothing is done?
> -Is it because Haliburton (sic) was given control of the Iraqi oil
production
> without any bidding process whatsoever?
> -Is it because his tax cuts have done exactly what the dems have said they
> would, that is help the rich 1000X more than the poor?
> -Is it because his latest tax proposals did absolutely nothing to help the
> poor, until he was pressured into it and gave in?
> -Is it because he is insisting on tax cuts while the country falls the
> furthest into debt it has ever been?
> -Is it because North Korea has stared him down because A.) they didn't
blink
> when we threatened them or B.) they knew they were safe because they have
> nothing (as in oil) that we want?
> -Is it because he campaigned that he was "just a regular guy like you and
> me"?  Sure, he is just like you and me, as long as our daddies were rich
Texas
> oil men who were American ambassadors, then Vice President for 8 years,
then
> President for 4 years, got us into Yale, got us out of trouble for going
AWOL
> and doing drugs, and who helped us buy a major league baseball team?
> -Is it because he bought the Texas Rangers, had the community pay for his
> brand new stadium and then turned and sold the franchise for about 4X what
he
> paid?  He profited because the taxpayers bought him a brand new stadium.
Hmm.
>
> -Is it because this coward of a man uses phrases like "Frontier Justice,
> Wanted Dead Or Alive and Bring 'Em On when HIS ass is safe and sound and
> American soldiers are being killed?  Nice cowboy, macho rhetoric,
Georgey-Boy.
>
> -Maybe it's because this papa's boy who went AWOL has dared to question
the
> patriotism of former military men like John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam
> while Georgey was safe in the reserves and even THEN went AWOL?
> -Maybe it's because he appointed a fundamentalist Christian wacko (and I
mean
> wacko, I am from Missouri and saw this first hand) as Attorney General,
who
> has since used the events of 9-11 to take away your basic rights of
privacy?
> -Is it because anyone who dared to say anything against the post 9-11
policies
> was shouted down as unpatriotic by the freaking Attorney General and the
Bush
> administration
> -Is it because Cheney's connections to Haliburton and Enron have never
been
> fully investigated while Kenneth Starr pounded the fuck out of the
Clinton's
> (and dug WAY unnecessarily into their personal lives) for Whitewater?
> -Is it because my phones will probably be tapped now and I am on Bush and
> Ashcroft's shit list for typing this?
> -Because Rumsfeld will say this post is a threat to national security and
is
> endangering our troops?
>
> I don't know for sure, I am just saying it could be one of those things...
> --
> Jim S.
>
>

In article <3F22B955.B6C15544@iwon.com>, woodsyl@iwon.com says...
>
>jojoMSfanboy wrote:
>> 
>> Boy are you a koolaid drinker. The reason its classified was basically let 
out
>> anyhow. Do you ever watch the news? They said that Bush does not want
>> Americans to know how deep Saudi Arabia is involved because of all the aid 
we
>> are sending them.
>
>It's not the aid we're sending them, it the oil they
>sending us.

Give a little, take alot!

I thought that was Al Gore I saw in KOTOR. He was holding the chit force card.
>
>I voted for Bush. Algore is an android.
>
>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>
>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>
>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
>

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news to
> anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
> to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
> understanding of them all.
> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory doesn't
> work.


   What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
intelligent people (like myself :)  have figured out that all
politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc.  They're all cut
from the same cloth, just opposite ends.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:0273f49b6e6e7142102d7e61f8a13cbf@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:21:01p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:NTxUa.92295$zwL.9312@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:kNxUa.160359$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:48:30a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> news:ipxUa.92000$zwL.27400@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >>
> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>> news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
> >>>
> >>>> He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for
> >>>> someone to prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than
> >>>> all other Presidents combined.
> >>>
> >>> that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.
> >>>
> >>> we do know the Bush has run up the biggest deficit in the history of
> >>> america.  that bush has taken more holidays than any president in the
> >>> history of america.  that 'embedding' journalists in a war zone
> >>> enables censorship.  that guantonimo bay has a lot of censorship and
> >>> human rights violations.  that no president in the history of the
> >>> united states has made more global enemies than bush.  ari fleischer
> >>> told americans "to be very careful about what they say".  which
> >>> meant: don't speak out against the president (this was during the
> >>> post 9/11 stuff where people were speaking their minds and getting
> >>> fired).  Fleischer was effectively clamping down on public dissent on
> >>> CNN.  THAT'S censorship.  every time the government hides information
> >>> from us: that's censorship.  every time the president opens his mouth
> >>> and says "the war on terror is being won", that's a lie.
> >>
> >> So are we losing? Is Al Queda winning? Doesn't look like it to me.
> >
> > ??
> >
> > how the hell do you know what's festering over there?  because bush said
> > so? i'll give it 5 years before something monstrous happens.  the last
> > osama attack on US soil was in 1993 (wtc bombing).  he was patient
> > enough to wait that long before he orchestrated that rallying cry to
> > other terrorists that the US was vunerable.  if you think you're winning
> > because you're drinking a starbucks coffee in your suburban backyard, i
> > ask you:  is air travel still a good business?  do people travel
> > overseas as much?  how much is bush spending on weapons programs?  how
> > much is bush spending on the department of homeland security?  how much
> > are bush's friends making on all this?  do you really really feel safe?
> > safer than you did pre-9/11?
>
> So basically you don't know shit.


exactly.

and it's the not knowing that is the basis of all fear.

fear is what bush has predicated his government on.

fear enables the leaders to manipulate the people.

and living in fear is a terrible way to live.  i blame bush for that.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:10:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:0KxUa.81881$R92.62564@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <5_wUa.81587$R92.32907@news2.central.cox.net>, jojo@cox.net
> says... 
>
>> In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>>>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>>> share. 
>>>> 
>>>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the
>>>> politics newsgroups. 
>>>
>>> I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted
>>> this to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most
>>> accurate opinion possible.
>>
>> Hey Omphalos. I have a question for you. What coporation was Bush's and
>> the GOP's largest campaign contributor in 1999 and 2000?  
>>
>> What do 50 high-level officials in the Bush administration have in
>> common other than the GOP,Bush and the state of Texas?
>
> Since you don't want to answer my questions I will answer them for you.

I don't spend every waking moment on usenet like yourself.

> Enron and Enron. 

So what? The bad accounting at Enron was going on for years before Bush
was elected and the Enron executives sure didn't get away with it. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:21:01p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:NTxUa.92295$zwL.9312@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
 
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:kNxUa.160359$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:48:30a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:ipxUa.92000$zwL.27400@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>> He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for
>>>> someone to prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than
>>>> all other Presidents combined.
>>>
>>> that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.
>>>
>>> we do know the Bush has run up the biggest deficit in the history of
>>> america.  that bush has taken more holidays than any president in the
>>> history of america.  that 'embedding' journalists in a war zone
>>> enables censorship.  that guantonimo bay has a lot of censorship and
>>> human rights violations.  that no president in the history of the
>>> united states has made more global enemies than bush.  ari fleischer
>>> told americans "to be very careful about what they say".  which
>>> meant: don't speak out against the president (this was during the
>>> post 9/11 stuff where people were speaking their minds and getting
>>> fired).  Fleischer was effectively clamping down on public dissent on
>>> CNN.  THAT'S censorship.  every time the government hides information
>>> from us: that's censorship.  every time the president opens his mouth
>>> and says "the war on terror is being won", that's a lie.
>>
>> So are we losing? Is Al Queda winning? Doesn't look like it to me.
> 
> ??
> 
> how the hell do you know what's festering over there?  because bush said
> so? i'll give it 5 years before something monstrous happens.  the last
> osama attack on US soil was in 1993 (wtc bombing).  he was patient
> enough to wait that long before he orchestrated that rallying cry to
> other terrorists that the US was vunerable.  if you think you're winning
> because you're drinking a starbucks coffee in your suburban backyard, i
> ask you:  is air travel still a good business?  do people travel
> overseas as much?  how much is bush spending on weapons programs?  how
> much is bush spending on the department of homeland security?  how much
> are bush's friends making on all this?  do you really really feel safe? 
> safer than you did pre-9/11? 

So basically you don't know shit.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:58:43a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:TyxUa.92091$zwL.83909@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93C472B8FFA5C8@130.133.1.4...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>> >
>> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >>
>> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>> >>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>> >>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>> >>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>> >>> mixture of them all?
>> >>>
>> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>> >>>
>> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>> >>> Democrats share. 
>> >>
>> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>> >> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do
>> >> more censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that
>> >> most actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would
>> >> rather have the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
>> >
>> > yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?
>>
>> Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy all
>> the Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in your car,
>> in your home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you from doing
>> that. 
> 
> 
> the corporation that owns all those stations banned the dixie chix.  it
> wasn't until NOW that a democratic senator opened an inquiry into the
> power of media control in situations like that one, specifically because
> of that scenario.  it's going to change the way those companies do
> business.  that's censorship, predicated on the idea that 'you're either
> with us or against us'.  they were called traitors.  this is
> manipulation by the white house at its finest: put the catchphrase out
> there, let the public do the rest. 

The government isn't forcing censorship. Radio stations have the right to
do whatever they want. No one says you can't listen do the Dixie Chicks.

"Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message
news:37cabe21.0307261156.d1ea22d@posting.google.com...
> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news
to
> > anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you
are
> > to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you
are to
> > have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
> > understanding of them all.
> > never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> > don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory
doesn't
> > work.
>
>
>    What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
> intelligent people (like myself :)  have figured out that all
> politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
> Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc.  They're all cut
> from the same cloth, just opposite ends.


this is true.  the majority of people who aspire towards that type of power
are not the kind of people you want at your house, unless you're also a
power-sucker.  but in politics, it's usually a case of picking the lesser
evil, and as far as republicans go, old saddam himself would probably have
been one had he lived here.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:58:43a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:TyxUa.92091$zwL.83909@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93C472B8FFA5C8@130.133.1.4...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>> >
>> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >>
>> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>> >>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>> >>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>> >>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>> >>> mixture of them all?
>> >>>
>> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>> >>>
>> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>> >>> Democrats share. 
>> >>
>> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
>> >> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do
>> >> more censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that
>> >> most actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would
>> >> rather have the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
>> >
>> > yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?
>>
>> Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy all
>> the Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in your car,
>> in your home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you from doing
>> that. 
> 
> 
> the corporation that owns all those stations banned the dixie chix.  it
> wasn't until NOW that a democratic senator opened an inquiry into the
> power of media control in situations like that one, specifically because
> of that scenario.  it's going to change the way those companies do
> business.  that's censorship, predicated on the idea that 'you're either
> with us or against us'.  they were called traitors.  this is
> manipulation by the white house at its finest: put the catchphrase out
> there, let the public do the rest. 
> 
> 
>>
>> > didn't the republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for
>> > his anti-war protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get
>> > their invitation to some baseball thingy revoked because of their
>> > anti-war stance?  didn't Bill Maher get fired from a conservative
>> > stations show because he said terrorists certainly weren't cowards?
>>
>> That's not censorship. Censorship is when a government agency restricts
>> speech. Liberals are know for their censorship, especially when it
>> comes to banning 'sensative' books in the library, like Huckleberry
>> Finn. 
> 
> link?  was it a senator?
> 
>>
>> > Didn't Bush say "you're either with us, or against us", leaving no
>> > room for public dissent, thereby castrating the very essense of
>> > democracy? 
>>
>> No. You either support the defense of this country, or you are a
>> traitor. What problem do you have with defending the US against
>> terrorism? 
> 
> i see.  you're already enmeshed in the rhetoric.  if you think that
> there's only one way to defend the US from terrorism, and bush has got
> it right, then you're mislead.  you want to know the best way to take
> away power from terrorist groups?  make them aspire to be middle class. 
> give them jobs and debt, give them cars and homes to buy, the gap to
> shop at.  money is the great equalizer.  it knows no race, creed, or
> culture.  not only that, but do you think that terrorists hate america
> for no reason?  HAVE YOU EVER ASKED YOURSELF WHY WHY WHY would they want
> to do this?  do you ever wonder if their reasons are at all valid? 
> american troops in the holiest of muslem holy lands pisses off a lot of
> people.  that doesn't make it valid to blow up buildings and kill
> innocent people, but you have to wonder what you're doing to provoke
> someone this way.  did you see that the troops have finally been pulled
> from saudi arabia?  do you know that osama's #1 reason for hating the US
> was because of their presence there?  on holy land? 

When will all these anti-patriotic America-hating, freedom-hating, class
warfare, anti-constitution radical leftwing Hollywood limousine liberals
leave this country like they promised??? Alec Baldwin, Blabra Streisand,
Horseface Julia Home-wrecker Roberts, Cher, Richard "the gerbil" Gere,
lesbian Rosie O'Donnell and her store-bought children.. They all promised
to leave if George Bush became president and they're all still here.

They all promised to move to Europe. Notice that NONE of these leftwing
race-baiting bigots said they would move to Africa. Liberals only love
blacks when they are on welfare and dependent on government handouts. If a
black makes it on his own and dares to think for himself then he'll be
politically assassinated. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas.

Maybe they changed their minds after 9-11 so they can stay here and bash
America, blame America for everything that's happened. We are a nation at
war and this crowd is trying to tear our country apart and undermining our
national security. JR and her crowd even refuses to call these mad bombers
terrorists. As Richard Gere said after he pulled another gerbil from his
ass... "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." CNN
(Communist News Network) refuses to label them as terrorists as well.

When have you ever heard a liberal say something good about America? When
have we seen even a shred of patriotism from the left? When will they
leave so that those of us who love our country can stand together and
fight terrorism?

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:04:47p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:zExUa.81846$R92.40065@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie
> says... 
>
>> In article
>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>
>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
>>> have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of
>>> the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most
>>> powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see
>>> the errors of omission. 
>>
>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch 
>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper 
>> incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy 
>> foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.  
>>
>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And 
>> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about 
>> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?  
>> All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that
>> you would prefer.
>>
>>> second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain
>>> this, it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to
>>> say anymore without being knocked down for it.
>>
>> This on a thread where somebody was immediately howled at for being a 
>> "moron" when he dared to say he voted for Bush.
>>
> The truth hurts!

Clinton is a moron.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:58:43a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:TyxUa.92091$zwL.83909@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

>> No. You either support the defense of this country, or you are a
>> traitor. What problem do you have with defending the US against
>> terrorism? 
> 
> i see.  you're already enmeshed in the rhetoric.  if you think that
> there's only one way to defend the US from terrorism, and bush has got
> it right, then you're mislead.  you want to know the best way to take
> away power from terrorist groups?  make them aspire to be middle class. 
> give them jobs and debt, give them cars and homes to buy, the gap to
> shop at.  money is the great equalizer.  it knows no race, creed, or
> culture.

Yeah right. Osama bin Laden is a millionaire and he still wants to blow up
America. The only proven method to dealing with terrorists is to kill them
before they kill you. We have already tried to help them financially and
economically and it backfired. They resent you for it.

Ok...so Bush ends the war on terror.  The terrorists, now emboldened
because Bush caved in to Democrat pressure, decide to attack us again.
Now of course you loser-liberals are not going to blame Bush, correct?
As long as we have a Reaganesqe style President scaring the shit out
of terrorists and the countries that like to harbor them, the chances
it'll happen again is diminished.

Flowers and sunshine spread to these countries by us will be seen as a
weakness to these dirbag terrorists.  The world is not all reasonable
and polite as liberals would have it be. The only way to keep the US
safe is to threaten and carry out our threats to those who hate and would
do harm to the United States.

The thin-skinned blame-America-first crowd of liberals best realize
this or Osama will teach you himself.

The crazies can hate America all they want, but America is not to blame
when they fly planes into civilian buildings and murder thousands of
innocent people who have nothing to do with their government's policies. 

> not only that, but do you think that terrorists hate america
> for no reason?  HAVE YOU EVER ASKED YOURSELF WHY WHY WHY would they want
> to do this?  do you ever wonder if their reasons are at all valid? 
> american troops in the holiest of muslem holy lands pisses off a lot of
> people.  that doesn't make it valid to blow up buildings and kill
> innocent people, but you have to wonder what you're doing to provoke
> someone this way.  did you see that the troops have finally been pulled
> from saudi arabia?  do you know that osama's #1 reason for hating the US
> was because of their presence there?  on holy land?

The Saudis asked us to be there in the first place. Why should we cater to
Osama bin Laden's beliefs? 
 
> i may be right and wrong about all kinds of things, but i do know this:
> blowing up countries, killing innocent civilians, going agaisnt the
> majority of the world in an 'illegal' war (that is proving to be more
> and more clear as the days go by, isn't it), 

> does NOT endear you to the rest of the world.

If we had to make the world happy all the time, we would never get
anything done. 

> so if you think that outright force will get you clear of terrorism, i
> suggest you look at all uprisings, all over the world:  israel and
> palestine, ireland and england.  it DOESN'T work.

It didn't work because none of them did what was neccessary to wipe them
out. With the Israelis, Clinton wouldn't let Israel do the job of wiping
out the terrorist threat. Now Bush is making the same mistake. I support
Bush but I think he is making a mistake in that situation. 

> it just makes retaliation more and more lethal.  if that's how you want
> to live, fine. i don't. fight fire with WATER, not fire.

In World War II, we fought fire with fire and defeated our enemies. That's
usually how it works. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:43:44a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:QkxUa.91956$zwL.5315@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> 
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:08e6a14d2aa4289d5f5a8fe7f7103461@free.teranews.com...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not
>>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less
>>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the
>>> more likely you are to have interacted with other races and other
>>> classes, gaining a better understanding of them all.
>>
>> Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952, the
>> Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among college
>> graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher percentage of
>> the vote among high school graduates than among high school dropouts?
>> The more educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote
>> Republican. In other words, there is, as you assert, a strong
>> correlation between education and partisan voting, but it goes in the
>> opposite direction. Not that this is particularly surprising news,
>> since you guys always like to tell us how much you're for the "little
>> guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ meter. (Data from
>> Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see 
>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote by 
>> Groups').
>>
> 
> interesting.  i don't have the link, but i've seen the exact opposite
> stats. further proving once again the famous quote: "There are lies,
> damn lies, and then, there are statistics".
>
>
>>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
>>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down
>>> theory doesn't work.
>>
>> The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and government
>> handouts.
> 
> but i thought social programs were good.  see, in a capitalist society,
> the poor are NECESSARY to fuel the machine.  without the poor willing to
> work at mcdonalds and sweep floors and do all those terrible jobs that
> are absolutely necessary for the machine to function, there'd be no
> machine. and in every capitalist society, the poor and downtrodden are
> there because they are needed.  making them a bit happier, a bit safer,
> a bit more pleased with their lot in life helps ensure the machines
> survival.  ignoring them will only hurt the bottom line as they miss
> days at work, steal, and are less productive.  so purely, from an
> economical sense, this makes sense. then there's the humanity side of it
> all:  taking care of each other is important.  life's too short to be
> greedy.  helping people is a just and noble cause that i'm proud to be a
> part of. 

The government isn't supposed to forcibly take money from those who have
it and give it to those who don't work. There are plenty of charities,
churches, and religious organizations that do that already.

The government is there to protect it's citizens and keep order. Not to
give out handouts.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:15:39p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:LOxUa.92249$zwL.89644@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
 
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:qHxUa.160328$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:14:21a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:hVwUa.91610$zwL.22975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com...
>> >
>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> >> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> >>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>> >>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote
>> >>>>>> in news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>> >>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst
>> >>>>>>> Dems groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition)
>> >>>>>>> have been trying to ban things for years. We have had more
>> >>>>>>> censorship under Bush than any other President combined.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>> >>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>> >>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>> >>>>> many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
>> >>>>> classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole
>> >>>>> report and make up my own mind.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able
>> >>>> to read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents
>> >>>> and put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under
>> >>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>> >>>
>> >>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you
>> >>> just said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that
>> >>> then just keep drinking that Bush koolaid.
>> >>
>> >> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they
>> >> would be stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it
>> >> now. 
>> >
>> > this person must be 12.
>> >
>> > sorry for mouthing you off if you're really young.  you just don't
>> > know yet.
>> >
>> > but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place? 
>> > what is he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50
>> > years? i'll tell you --- so that the people involved that were in
>> > government are good and dead by the time it's released.
>>
>> Do you have proof to back up that claim?
> 
> of course not, but do you have a better answer for why they're locking
> down the information relating to the assassination of a president of the
> united states??  if you can think of ONE, i'll listen.

Without proof, any wacko can make up a theory.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:14p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:OHxUa.81867$R92.56805@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <4f3851c9c5870ee7a4d28c9ca90c09ec@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:12:16a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:kTwUa.91579$zwL.57666@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>>>> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>>> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>>> >>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst Dems
>>>> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) have been
>>>> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more censorship under
>>>> >>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>>> > Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>>> > involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>>>> > many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
>>>> > classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole report
>>>> > and make up my own mind. 
>>>>
>>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able to
>>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents and
>>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>> 
>>> LOL!!!!
>>> 
>>> basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because they did. 
>>> they can't just tell you stuff about your own country, dumbass!  ha
>>> ha, you're so gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you said that.  i
>>> hate to insult you, but that's very moronic --- ask yourself the
>>> question: "why are they controlling the information"?   to protect
>>> you?  to protect america?  at this point?  i don't think so.  look,
>>> the information on that document is already out there.  no 'bad guy'
>>> is going to get it and blow up the nation. when your government
>>> deceives you once, it means they've deceived you a million times. 
>>> stop bush from lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat. vote anything
>>> other than bush. the lies about the iraq war.  the lies about saddam
>>> having anything to do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies the lies
>>> the lies. 
>>
>> Apparently, you don't understand why they classify information.
>>
>> The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs
>> so consumed with hatred of Bush? 
> 
> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the rest of the world
> looks at us as a rogue nation now and they hate us.  

If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made, we would
become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing would get
done. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:22:46p, Briarroot <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in
news:3F22B8E6.B0B6FEA1@iwon.com: 

> Omphalos wrote:
>
>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
> 
> Heh.  You haven't been watching CBS!

Forgot about them. They have Dan Rather. I think he's bottomed out on the
ratings. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:25:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:4YxUa.81969$R92.53239@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>
>> Nightwing wrote:
>>
>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>
>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
>>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
>> WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>
>> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>
> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
> not be in this mess in Iraq. 

Clinton didn't do jack shit in office except get a blowjob from an
intern. 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:21:00p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:MTxUa.81943$R92.33186@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <uQxUa.160377$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
>> wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com: 
>>
>>> Nader.   :)
>>> 
>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
>>>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
>>>> them all? 
>>>>
>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>
>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>> share. 
>>
>> Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
>> offense, I am just curious.
> 
> Its called not drinking the koolaid. 

Since you have some strange kool-aid fetish, why don't you drink some
yourself. 

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> thought hard and said:

>Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]

I would have voted Bush.

--
-Kolle; 15                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 05:08:37p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:p5CUa.93579$zwL.86362@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> 
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:a5c251ba89a3c64b313ec3f5ba27db46@free.teranews.com...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:58:43a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:TyxUa.92091$zwL.83909@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns93C472B8FFA5C8@130.133.1.4...
>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote in
>> >> news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>> >>
>> >> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>> >> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
>> >> >>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just
>> >> >>> too great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how
>> >> >>> you tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat,
>> >> >>> Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>> >> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>> >> >>> Democrats share.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only
>> >> >> Democrats that has these censorship ideas. The
>> >> >> Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than the Democrats
>> >> >> do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are Democrats?
>> >> >> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand
>> >> >> Sharpton in office than Bush. 
>> >> >
>> >> > yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy
>> >> all the Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in
>> >> your car, in your home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you
>> >> from doing that.
>> >
>> >
>> > the corporation that owns all those stations banned the dixie chix. 
>> > it wasn't until NOW that a democratic senator opened an inquiry into
>> > the power of media control in situations like that one, specifically
>> > because of that scenario.  it's going to change the way those
>> > companies do business.  that's censorship, predicated on the idea
>> > that 'you're either with us or against us'.  they were called
>> > traitors.  this is manipulation by the white house at its finest: put
>> > the catchphrase out there, let the public do the rest.
>>
>> The government isn't forcing censorship. Radio stations have the right
>> to do whatever they want. No one says you can't listen do the Dixie
>> Chicks. 
> 
> nice and simple argument, indeed.  but the government helped establish a
> public arena where banning someone for saying they're embarrassed that W
> is from texas is okay.  why weren't more people livid about this?  fine,
> if the chix had come out and said "kill americans", i'd get it.  but
> they said "we're embarrassed".  the public outcry against this was
> where, exactly? nowhere, because washington has created a vacuum for
> discourse.

American companies have always been free to play or not play what they 
choose. They have the freedom to do that in America.

Most stations don't play Milli Vinilli anyone. Are they censoring them?

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
I don't vote.

On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:


>I would have voted Bush.

Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
-- 
The Immoralist

"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message news:JvwUa.81405
> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When
I
> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.

When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"

"Gene Poole" <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F229A23.EAE6F0F@yahoo.com...
> jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> >
> > In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> > >
> > >I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> > >offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> > >like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> > >elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> > >
> > >Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> > >
> > >Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> > >Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> >
> > Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that
has
> > these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship
than
> > the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
> > Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand
Sharpton
> > in office than Bush.
>
> not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
> right?
>
> right??
I think Tipper should be @$$ phucked.  Talk about your white trash.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com: 

> On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
> <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
>
>> I would have voted Bush.
> 
> Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.

Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.

Omphalos wrote:
> 
> Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
> offense, I am just curious.

So that I can point at the asshole who got elected and say "not my
fault."  I can't have a weasel in office on my conscience (they're all
weasels, just so you know.)

stePH
-- 
Today's waste is tomorrow's overtime.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
hole@suck.com> wrote in
news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>
>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>
>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>
>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
> I don't vote.

Foolish.

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com: 

> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>
>> Nightwing wrote:
>>
>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>
>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
>>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
>> WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>
>> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>
> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
> not be in this mess in Iraq. 

I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc.... 

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 09:13:32p, stePH <acetheta@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:3F23273C.B3F70AEF@earthlink.net: 

> Omphalos wrote:
>> 
>> Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
>> offense, I am just curious.
> 
> So that I can point at the asshole who got elected and say "not my
> fault."  I can't have a weasel in office on my conscience (they're all
> weasels, just so you know.)

Then why vote at all? If you vote for a guy that you know will not win
just because you don't want a guilty conscience then you deserve whatever
crap you get. 

"Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bfurv6$ja411$5@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:43:44a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:QkxUa.91956$zwL.5315@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> >
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:08e6a14d2aa4289d5f5a8fe7f7103461@free.teranews.com...
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >>
> >>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not
> >>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less
> >>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the
> >>> more likely you are to have interacted with other races and other
> >>> classes, gaining a better understanding of them all.
> >>
> >> Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952, the
> >> Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among college
> >> graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher percentage of
> >> the vote among high school graduates than among high school dropouts?
> >> The more educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote
> >> Republican. In other words, there is, as you assert, a strong
> >> correlation between education and partisan voting, but it goes in the
> >> opposite direction. Not that this is particularly surprising news,
> >> since you guys always like to tell us how much you're for the "little
> >> guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ meter. (Data from
> >> Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see
> >> http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote by
> >> Groups').
> >>
> >
> > interesting.  i don't have the link, but i've seen the exact opposite
> > stats. further proving once again the famous quote: "There are lies,
> > damn lies, and then, there are statistics".
> >
> >
> >>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
> >>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down
> >>> theory doesn't work.
> >>
> >> The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and government
> >> handouts.
> >
> > but i thought social programs were good.  see, in a capitalist society,
> > the poor are NECESSARY to fuel the machine.  without the poor willing to
> > work at mcdonalds and sweep floors and do all those terrible jobs that
> > are absolutely necessary for the machine to function, there'd be no
> > machine. and in every capitalist society, the poor and downtrodden are
> > there because they are needed.  making them a bit happier, a bit safer,
> > a bit more pleased with their lot in life helps ensure the machines
> > survival.  ignoring them will only hurt the bottom line as they miss
> > days at work, steal, and are less productive.  so purely, from an
> > economical sense, this makes sense. then there's the humanity side of it
> > all:  taking care of each other is important.  life's too short to be
> > greedy.  helping people is a just and noble cause that i'm proud to be a
> > part of.
>
> The government isn't supposed to forcibly take money from those who have
> it and give it to those who don't work. There are plenty of charities,
> churches, and religious organizations that do that already.
>
> The government is there to protect it's citizens

good point.  by assisting the unemployed, helping the disabled, the war
veterans, etc. they ARE doing just that: protecting their citizens.

>and keep order. Not to
> give out handouts.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:612d2c0b81a6c7e1465279049372ea0f@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 05:08:37p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:p5CUa.93579$zwL.86362@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> >
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:a5c251ba89a3c64b313ec3f5ba27db46@free.teranews.com...
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:58:43a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> news:TyxUa.92091$zwL.83909@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >>
> >> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns93C472B8FFA5C8@130.133.1.4...
> >> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote in
> >> >> news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> >> >> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
> >> >> >>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just
> >> >> >>> too great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how
> >> >> >>> you tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat,
> >> >> >>> Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >> >> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
> >> >> >>> Democrats share.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only
> >> >> >> Democrats that has these censorship ideas. The
> >> >> >> Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than the Democrats
> >> >> >> do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are Democrats?
> >> >> >> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand
> >> >> >> Sharpton in office than Bush.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy
> >> >> all the Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in
> >> >> your car, in your home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you
> >> >> from doing that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > the corporation that owns all those stations banned the dixie chix.
> >> > it wasn't until NOW that a democratic senator opened an inquiry into
> >> > the power of media control in situations like that one, specifically
> >> > because of that scenario.  it's going to change the way those
> >> > companies do business.  that's censorship, predicated on the idea
> >> > that 'you're either with us or against us'.  they were called
> >> > traitors.  this is manipulation by the white house at its finest: put
> >> > the catchphrase out there, let the public do the rest.
> >>
> >> The government isn't forcing censorship. Radio stations have the right
> >> to do whatever they want. No one says you can't listen do the Dixie
> >> Chicks.
> >
> > nice and simple argument, indeed.  but the government helped establish a
> > public arena where banning someone for saying they're embarrassed that W
> > is from texas is okay.  why weren't more people livid about this?  fine,
> > if the chix had come out and said "kill americans", i'd get it.  but
> > they said "we're embarrassed".  the public outcry against this was
> > where, exactly? nowhere, because washington has created a vacuum for
> > discourse.
>
> American companies have always been free to play or not play what they
> choose. They have the freedom to do that in America.
>
> Most stations don't play Milli Vinilli anyone. Are they censoring them?


the dixie chix was a politically motivated ban.  POLITICALLY motivated.  and
they did this because the public supported this.  and the public supported
it because washington has whipped its people up to believe that "you are
either with us, or against us".  that's how the worm turns, my friend.  of
course, if you're looking for pat answers, black and white, simplicity, this
is not the issue.  if you're looking to discuss the issues, fine, let's open
it up.

let me start:  can washington be held, in any part, responsible for the
public backlash at anyone against the war based on its warcry of 'with us or
against us'?   discuss.

"Guybrush" <guybrush@7-11.com> wrote in message
news:bfuras$ja411$3@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:58:43a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:TyxUa.92091$zwL.83909@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>
> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93C472B8FFA5C8@130.133.1.4...
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:04:11a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> news:LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >>
> >> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
> >> >
> >> >> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> >> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >> >>
> >> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
> >> >>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
> >> >>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
> >> >>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
> >> >>> mixture of them all?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >> >>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
> >> >>> Democrats share.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
> >> >> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do
> >> >> more censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that
> >> >> most actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would
> >> >> rather have the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
> >> >
> >> > yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?
> >>
> >> Nope. Although some radio stations may not play them, you can buy all
> >> the Dixie Chicks CDs you want, and listen to them nonstop in your car,
> >> in your home, or on your walkman. No one's stopping you from doing
> >> that.
> >
> >
> > the corporation that owns all those stations banned the dixie chix.  it
> > wasn't until NOW that a democratic senator opened an inquiry into the
> > power of media control in situations like that one, specifically because
> > of that scenario.  it's going to change the way those companies do
> > business.  that's censorship, predicated on the idea that 'you're either
> > with us or against us'.  they were called traitors.  this is
> > manipulation by the white house at its finest: put the catchphrase out
> > there, let the public do the rest.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > didn't the republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for
> >> > his anti-war protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get
> >> > their invitation to some baseball thingy revoked because of their
> >> > anti-war stance?  didn't Bill Maher get fired from a conservative
> >> > stations show because he said terrorists certainly weren't cowards?
> >>
> >> That's not censorship. Censorship is when a government agency restricts
> >> speech. Liberals are know for their censorship, especially when it
> >> comes to banning 'sensative' books in the library, like Huckleberry
> >> Finn.
> >
> > link?  was it a senator?
> >
> >>
> >> > Didn't Bush say "you're either with us, or against us", leaving no
> >> > room for public dissent, thereby castrating the very essense of
> >> > democracy?
> >>
> >> No. You either support the defense of this country, or you are a
> >> traitor. What problem do you have with defending the US against
> >> terrorism?
> >
> > i see.  you're already enmeshed in the rhetoric.  if you think that
> > there's only one way to defend the US from terrorism, and bush has got
> > it right, then you're mislead.  you want to know the best way to take
> > away power from terrorist groups?  make them aspire to be middle class.
> > give them jobs and debt, give them cars and homes to buy, the gap to
> > shop at.  money is the great equalizer.  it knows no race, creed, or
> > culture.  not only that, but do you think that terrorists hate america
> > for no reason?  HAVE YOU EVER ASKED YOURSELF WHY WHY WHY would they want
> > to do this?  do you ever wonder if their reasons are at all valid?
> > american troops in the holiest of muslem holy lands pisses off a lot of
> > people.  that doesn't make it valid to blow up buildings and kill
> > innocent people, but you have to wonder what you're doing to provoke
> > someone this way.  did you see that the troops have finally been pulled
> > from saudi arabia?  do you know that osama's #1 reason for hating the US
> > was because of their presence there?  on holy land?
>
> When will all these anti-patriotic America-hating, freedom-hating, class
> warfare, anti-constitution radical leftwing Hollywood limousine liberals
> leave this country like they promised??? Alec Baldwin, Blabra Streisand,
> Horseface Julia Home-wrecker Roberts, Cher, Richard "the gerbil" Gere,
> lesbian Rosie O'Donnell and her store-bought children.. They all promised
> to leave if George Bush became president and they're all still here.
>
> They all promised to move to Europe. Notice that NONE of these leftwing
> race-baiting bigots said they would move to Africa. Liberals only love
> blacks when they are on welfare and dependent on government handouts. If a
> black makes it on his own and dares to think for himself then he'll be
> politically assassinated. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas.
>
> Maybe they changed their minds after 9-11 so they can stay here and bash
> America, blame America for everything that's happened. We are a nation at
> war and this crowd is trying to tear our country apart and undermining our
> national security. JR and her crowd even refuses to call these mad bombers
> terrorists. As Richard Gere said after he pulled another gerbil from his
> ass... "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." CNN
> (Communist News Network) refuses to label them as terrorists as well.
>
> When have you ever heard a liberal say something good about America? When
> have we seen even a shred of patriotism from the left? When will they
> leave so that those of us who love our country can stand together and
> fight terrorism?

hahahah!

the best part is, you don't understand the concept that 'one man's terrorist
is another man's freedom fighter'.

liberals say good stuff about america all the time.  that's why they're
putting their necks on the line trying to change it.  the only anti-patriots
are the hitler-esque bushies.  the third reich has many political tactics
and motivations as bush.  it's repulsive.  the 'anti-war' people are the
real heroes in all this.  bush is destroying "his" country.

"ChojinTeki" <chojintekii@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kXCUa.5237$5b7.3735@lakeread01...
> > > > second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain
> this,
> > > > it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
> > > > anymore without being knocked down for it.
> > >
> > > True, but they still have freedom of speech.
> >
> > >>There are some exceptions of course.
> >
> > there is no "half-freedom".  You are either free, or you're not.  it's a
> > concrete term.
> >
> >
>
> If you consider the things that happened to the anti-war celebs such as
the
> dixie chicks an infringment on freedom of speech than you are pretty
> clueless. They had complete freedom as provided by our constitution to say
> what they wanted. The problem spawns due to the fact that their comments
did
> not agree with a majority of their fans, and those people then exercised
> their freedom by choosing to stop listening and purchasing Dixie chicks
> albums. No one is stopping anyone from saying what they want. Are the
police
> breaking down your door because of your comments? NO they are not. Where
> these celebs dragged away to some prison as would happen in China and
would
> have happened in Iraq under it's former leadership? NO. NO. and NO. Martin
> Sheen, Tim Robbins, and Susan Serandon have every right to state their
> opinions, but they need to understand that the people that generate their
> income (everyone who purchases/watches their various TV/Movies) also have
a
> right, to not support them by deciding not to watch their various movies,
> shows, etc...
>
>

see my post a few threads above as to why your assumption (while true in
many respects) doesn't include the culpability of the bush administration's
"with us or against us" mandate that labels all non-chicken hawks as
'traitors', creating a climate in which it is okay for a massive radio
station to ban a band simply because they're embarrassed that they live in
the same state as the president:  because in REAL terms, that statement is a
big fat fucking 'big whoop' on the richter scale.  and yet, the public got
all freaked out about it.  yes, the bush administration is culpable.  yes,
they know what they're doing.  they have some of the best PR people i've
ever seen working their angles to perfection.  but it's all bullshit.
history will show that bush was the second coming of hitler.  i've never
been as afraid of a man in my life.

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OcFUa.121255$Io.10339264@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >  We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
> > > > President combined.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing
wacko.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
> have
> > links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the
press
> is
> > dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind,
> because
> > it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
> >
> > second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
> > it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
> anymore
> > without being knocked down for it.
> >
> >
> >
>
> So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts.  And BTW,
I
> watched the war on FOX.

as i'm not defending my thesis here, i don't see the need for facts, i see
the need for ideas, thought, expression, possibility:  chiefly, everything
the bush administration is against.

>
>

"Gourd" <hatespam@so.no.email> wrote

> Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in
your
> country you voted for or wanted to vote for.  If you do, in fact, live in
a
> country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
> feel free to mention that.

   Perhaps he didn't feel inclined to because the original question, as
posed, discouraged it.  Here it is again:

"I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?"

   The question was clearly U.S. centric in context, IMO.  Also, many
(most?) countries don't have prominent politicians attacking gaming as
Liebermann has done in the U.S. (Greece and Thailand are the only other
examples that I'm aware of).

   However, if anyone's truly curious about my vote, the candidate I
selected when voting in the last federal election was Keith Martin of the
Canadian Alliance, someone who I don't expect would ever advocate
restrictions on video games.  :)

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> thought hard and said:

>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
>news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com: 
>
>> On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
>> <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
>>
>>> I would have voted Bush.
>> 
>> Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
>
>Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.

Ouch.

--
-Kolle; 15                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com:
>
> > In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
> >
> >> Nightwing wrote:
> >>
> >>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
> >>
> >> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
> >> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
> >> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
> >>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
> >> WMD's. Pinhead.)
> >>
> >> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
> >>
> > Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
> > resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
> > LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
> > not be in this mess in Iraq.
>
> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
> foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....

He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
and as a result we got 9/11.
-- 
TheAlternativeMind�

No one gives a flying fuck about any of your shitty politics.

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2_FUa.94143$zwL.88784@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:bfurv6$ja411$5@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:43:44a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in news:QkxUa.91956$zwL.5315@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >
> > >
> > > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:08e6a14d2aa4289d5f5a8fe7f7103461@free.teranews.com...
> > >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote in
> > >> news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> > >>
> > >>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not
> > >>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less
> > >>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the
> > >>> more likely you are to have interacted with other races and other
> > >>> classes, gaining a better understanding of them all.
> > >>
> > >> Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952, the
> > >> Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among college
> > >> graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher percentage
of
> > >> the vote among high school graduates than among high school dropouts?
> > >> The more educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote
> > >> Republican. In other words, there is, as you assert, a strong
> > >> correlation between education and partisan voting, but it goes in the
> > >> opposite direction. Not that this is particularly surprising news,
> > >> since you guys always like to tell us how much you're for the "little
> > >> guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ meter. (Data from
> > >> Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see
> > >> http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote by
> > >> Groups').
> > >>
> > >
> > > interesting.  i don't have the link, but i've seen the exact opposite
> > > stats. further proving once again the famous quote: "There are lies,
> > > damn lies, and then, there are statistics".
> > >
> > >
> > >>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
> > >>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down
> > >>> theory doesn't work.
> > >>
> > >> The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and government
> > >> handouts.
> > >
> > > but i thought social programs were good.  see, in a capitalist
society,
> > > the poor are NECESSARY to fuel the machine.  without the poor willing
to
> > > work at mcdonalds and sweep floors and do all those terrible jobs that
> > > are absolutely necessary for the machine to function, there'd be no
> > > machine. and in every capitalist society, the poor and downtrodden are
> > > there because they are needed.  making them a bit happier, a bit
safer,
> > > a bit more pleased with their lot in life helps ensure the machines
> > > survival.  ignoring them will only hurt the bottom line as they miss
> > > days at work, steal, and are less productive.  so purely, from an
> > > economical sense, this makes sense. then there's the humanity side of
it
> > > all:  taking care of each other is important.  life's too short to be
> > > greedy.  helping people is a just and noble cause that i'm proud to be
a
> > > part of.
> >
> > The government isn't supposed to forcibly take money from those who have
> > it and give it to those who don't work. There are plenty of charities,
> > churches, and religious organizations that do that already.
> >
> > The government is there to protect it's citizens
>
> good point.  by assisting the unemployed, helping the disabled, the war
> veterans, etc. they ARE doing just that: protecting their citizens.

 IN OTHER WORDS, BIG BROTHER IS DOING IT'S JOB.....


Well, it's time for a liberal to face the dictionary...

Main Entry: pro�tect
Pronunciation: pr&-'tekt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover -- more at PRO-, THATCH
Date: 15th century
Definition: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction : GUARD


Exposure, Injury or Destruction.  ALL physical consequences.  *That's* what
our government is here for, not to dole out government cheese...

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CcCUa.93602$zwL.56266@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Jason Costa" <jcwatchdog@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:37cabe21.0307261156.d1ea22d@posting.google.com...
> > "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > > generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not
news
> to
> > > anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely
you
> are
> > > to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you
> are to
> > > have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
> > > understanding of them all.
> > > never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
country.
> > > don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory
> doesn't
> > > work.
> >
> >
> >    What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
> > intelligent people (like myself :)  have figured out that all
> > politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
> > Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc.  They're all cut
> > from the same cloth, just opposite ends.
>
>
> this is true.  the majority of people who aspire towards that type of
power
> are not the kind of people you want at your house, unless you're also a
> power-sucker.  but in politics, it's usually a case of picking the lesser
> evil, and as far as republicans go, old saddam himself would probably have
> been one had he lived here.
>
>

Gee, and I thought birds of a feather, flock together... and who has made
the biggest stink about the "illegality" of this war????  THAT'S WHAT I
THOUGHT!!!!!!   Get a clue- You and your ilk are on the wrong side of this
war, buddy boy...

In article <d7ece2d93839ce5c13516db49fd0c2d0@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:10:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:0KxUa.81881$R92.62564@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <5_wUa.81587$R92.32907@news2.central.cox.net>, jojo@cox.net
>> says... 
>>
>>> In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>> news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>>>>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>>>> share. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the
>>>>> politics newsgroups. 
>>>>
>>>> I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I posted
>>>> this to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the most
>>>> accurate opinion possible.
>>>
>>> Hey Omphalos. I have a question for you. What coporation was Bush's and
>>> the GOP's largest campaign contributor in 1999 and 2000?  
>>>
>>> What do 50 high-level officials in the Bush administration have in
>>> common other than the GOP,Bush and the state of Texas?
>>
>> Since you don't want to answer my questions I will answer them for you.
>
>I don't spend every waking moment on usenet like yourself.
>
Sure seems like you do.

>> Enron and Enron. 
>
>So what? The bad accounting at Enron was going on for years before Bush
>was elected and the Enron executives sure didn't get away with it. 

Bush got away with it. 

In article <4bf2e77b8a7223dc21541343bdd88290@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:25:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:4YxUa.81969$R92.53239@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>>
>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>
>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
>>>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
>>> WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>>
>>> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>
>> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
>> not be in this mess in Iraq. 
>
>Clinton didn't do jack shit in office except get a blowjob from an
>intern. 

I wonder why things  were going so smooth than. Nothing like a good old boy 
from Arkansas to get things smoothed out.

In article <3caffc43e66ff72f0ae84cbc62eef217@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:30p, Buckwheat <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in
>news:3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net: 
>
>> Nightwing wrote:
>> 
>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>> 
>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power
>> from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.  Bush
>> can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's. 
>> Pinhead.) 
>
>Clinton said Iraq had WMD. Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMD. Germany,
>France, and the UN said that Iraq had WMD. Were they all lying too? Before
>the war, there was never a question about whether Iraq had WMD. It was
>just that no one had the balls to do anything about it except Bush and
>Blair.
>
>They will find WMD in Iraq. And when they do, then you can cry.

So why are we not invading Iran, North Korea and all the other nations with 
WMD and terrible leaders?

In article <34df576a8f2a1a004ae765504f6e74ef@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:14p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote 
in
>news:OHxUa.81867$R92.56805@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article 
<4f3851c9c5870ee7a4d28c9ca90c09ec@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:12:16a, "nightwriter" 
<spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote in
>>> 
news:kTwUa.91579$zwL.57666@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>
>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) 
wrote in
>>>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>>>>>
>>>>> > In article 
<d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" 
<dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
>>>>> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked 
the wrong
>>>>> >>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views 
amongst Dems
>>>>> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition) 
have been
>>>>> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more 
censorship under
>>>>> >>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 
report. The
>>>>> > Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi 
Arabia's
>>>>> > involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it 
will make
>>>>> > many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made 
it
>>>>> > classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the 
whole report
>>>>> > and make up my own mind. 
>>>>>
>>>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should 
be able to
>>>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government 
documents and
>>>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>>> 
>>>> LOL!!!!
>>>> 
>>>> basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because 
they did. 
>>>> they can't just tell you stuff about your own country, 
dumbass!  ha
>>>> ha, you're so gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you 
said that.  i
>>>> hate to insult you, but that's very moronic --- ask 
yourself the
>>>> question: "why are they controlling the information"?   to 
protect
>>>> you?  to protect america?  at this point?  i don't think 
so.  look,
>>>> the information on that document is already out there.  no 
'bad guy'
>>>> is going to get it and blow up the nation. when your 
government
>>>> deceives you once, it means they've deceived you a million 
times. 
>>>> stop bush from lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat. 
vote anything
>>>> other than bush. the lies about the iraq war.  the lies 
about saddam
>>>> having anything to do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies 
the lies
>>>> the lies. 
>>>
>>> Apparently, you don't understand why they classify 
information.
>>>
>>> The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why 
are the libs
>>> so consumed with hatred of Bush? 
>> 
>> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the rest of 
the world
>> looks at us as a rogue nation now and they hate us.  
>
>If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made, 
we would
>become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing 
would get
>done. 

Why not? His dad got a huge coalition because he did the 
footwork that was needed. What was so urgent that we could not 
build a coalition? Go ahead and cry me a river. 

In article <b218b2b96255130b62b9659153b3503b@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:15:39p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
>in news:LOxUa.92249$zwL.89644@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
> 
>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:qHxUa.160328$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:14:21a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote in
>>> news:hVwUa.91610$zwL.22975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>
>>> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> > news:8dcce3318341b2a57999a92136c12c95@free.teranews.com...
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:51:06a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> >> news:uzwUa.81429$R92.35319@news2.central.cox.net:
>>> >>
>>> >>> In article <Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4>, omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> >>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> In article <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
>>> >>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing" <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote
>>> >>>>>> in news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked the wrong
>>> >>>>>>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views amongst
>>> >>>>>>> Dems groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition)
>>> >>>>>>> have been trying to ban things for years. We have had more
>>> >>>>>>> censorship under Bush than any other President combined.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11 report. The
>>> >>>>> Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia's
>>> >>>>> involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it will make
>>> >>>>> many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made it
>>> >>>>> classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the whole
>>> >>>>> report and make up my own mind.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should be able
>>> >>>> to read it? Why don't we just declassify all government documents
>>> >>>> and put them all on the internet too! Brother.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> You didn't prove the claim that we have had more censorship under
>>> >>>> Bush than any other President combined.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You asked for examples and here is one. I never made that claim you
>>> >>> just said. Classified=censorship...if you don't understand that
>>> >>> then just keep drinking that Bush koolaid.
>>> >>
>>> >> All presidents censor classified material. If they didn't, they
>>> >> would be stupid and the material wouldn't be classified, would it
>>> >> now. 
>>> >
>>> > this person must be 12.
>>> >
>>> > sorry for mouthing you off if you're really young.  you just don't
>>> > know yet.
>>> >
>>> > but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place? 
>>> > what is he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50
>>> > years? i'll tell you --- so that the people involved that were in
>>> > government are good and dead by the time it's released.
>>>
>>> Do you have proof to back up that claim?
>> 
>> of course not, but do you have a better answer for why they're locking
>> down the information relating to the assassination of a president of the
>> united states??  if you can think of ONE, i'll listen.
>
>Without proof, any wacko can make up a theory.

Yeah like that wacko in office and his big bad Iraq theory. 

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qJLUa.23591$Mc.1824861@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "The Doomster" <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote in message
> news:3F238519.98C8E602@netgate.net...
> >
> >
> > Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> >
> > > > >> And look what you got. What a moron.
> > >
> > > I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact
> that
> > > you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
> >
> > My feelings exactly.  Bush had better academic grades than the Robot and
> people
> > think Bush is a moron while Gore is some kind of genius because he had a
> book
> > ghostwritten.  I'm sure Bush isn't the sharpest guy we had as president
> but
> > neither is Gore.
> >
>
> Thank you, Doomster!
>
> Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
democrat
> and the decision is childsplay...  This is what we are voting for in this
> day and age- the lesser of two evils.  Democrats like to brag that they
are
> so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
> simply more morally corrupted.  I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
> Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
>

Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...

> >
> > Thank you, Doomster!
> >
> > Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
democrat
> > and the decision is childsplay...  This is what we are voting for in
this
> > day and age- the lesser of two evils.  Democrats like to brag that they
are
> > so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
> > simply more morally corrupted.  I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
> > Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
> >
> >
> uh, have you looked at the case against gray davis.

Yeah buddy, I have...


> I think you can
> make a fill in the blank here as whoever is governor would have taken
> the hit.

That's because you're a liberal sycophant.


> republican democrat, libertarian, or green.  He is
> goevernor during a serious economic downturn.

No, he's a Democrat Governer, who either couldn't see that we were headed
for an economic downturn or didn't care, and instead of taking measures to
weather the storm, increased Govt spending 30% while fostering no new
sources of revenue, then hid under a rock during the electricity crisis, and
finally locked Californians into 20 years of inflated electricity prices
during "backroom" deals that still haven't been accounted for, after that,
during his re-election campaign, he understated the state's defecit by 10
BILLION dollars.  Liberals are more interested in towing the party line than
doing what's best for California... and the Country. Typical!


> It's not like he broke the law.

HEY!, the new Democratic re-election campaign slogan!!!!


  I think the president during the great wall street crash v
> 1.0 was booted as well.


uh, which President was that???

In article <75bd5d8f27f552d8aa4d8bc28d16b6dd@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:21:00p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:MTxUa.81943$R92.33186@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <uQxUa.160377$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
>>> wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com: 
>>>
>>>> Nader.   :)
>>>> 
>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>>>>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>>>>> I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
>>>>> vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of
>>>>> them all? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>>> share. 
>>>
>>> Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
>>> offense, I am just curious.
>> 
>> Its called not drinking the koolaid. 
>
>Since you have some strange kool-aid fetish, why don't you drink some
>yourself. 

I dont drink Bush koolaid. Sorry.

In article <7035a0e1b4f539970a7c218731ff41f3@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
>news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com: 
>
>> On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
>> <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
>>
>>> I would have voted Bush.
>> 
>> Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
>
>Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.

Damn proud to have him.

In article <4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com: 
>
>> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>>
>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>
>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
>>>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
>>> WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>>
>>> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>>
>> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
>> not be in this mess in Iraq. 
>
>I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
>foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc.... 

You talking Bush or Clinton? Both are guilty of these things. Sorry try again. 

In article <KQKUa.388$5E6.205333606@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, 
thealternativemind@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com:
>>
>> > In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>> >
>> >> Nightwing wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>> >>
>> >> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>> >> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>> >> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal government.
>> >>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
>> >> WMD's. Pinhead.)
>> >>
>> >> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>> >>
>> > Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>> > resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>> > LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
>> > not be in this mess in Iraq.
>>
>> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
>> foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
>
>He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
>foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
>and as a result we got 9/11.
>-- 
>TheAlternativeMind�
>
So by your thinking Bush's daddy was responsible for the first attack on the 
World Trade Center? Wake the hell up and think on your own. 

In article <_1DUa.24855$pK2.39322@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie says...
>
>In article <g_xUa.81985$R92.10287@news2.central.cox.net>, jojo@cox.net 
(jojoMSfanboy) wrote:
>>In article <NTxUa.24803$pK2.39197@news.indigo.ie>, gerryq@indigo.ie says...
>
>>>>Since you don't want to answer my questions I will answer them for you. 
>>Enron 
>>>>and Enron. 
>>>
>>>What's your point, exactly?  The false accounting of Enron and many 
>>>other companies were committed during Clinton's term, fuelling the 
>>>disastrous economic bubble that is still collapsing.  But if they 
>>>thought they were buying immunity with their contributions they were 
>>>obviously wrong, as a number of company executives are now being brought 
>>>to justice for their crimes against capital providers.
>>
>>You mean Enron was not under Bush's term as Governor of Texas? You mean 
Enron 
>>pumped money into Clintons campaign? You mean Enron pumped money into the 
DNC? 
>>Wake up and smell the coffee. 
>
>Enron was a national concern albeit with Texas connections, and it was 
>only one of many companies that presented forged accounts during 
>Clinton's second term.  Most of them had no particular connection to 
>Texas.
>
>And Enron did in fact pump large amounts of money into the coffers of 
>many Democratic senators, although overall it favoured Republicans.  
>
>Anyway, now that the execs of these companies are turning into convicted 
>felons, they will be more in the Democratic catchment demographic in 
>future...
>
>- Gerry Quinn
>
Enron execs are in the Bush demographic. Sorry that the truth hurts so much. 
Bush called Kenneth Lay by the nickname Kenny Boy. Anybody that close to this 
criminal is a jerk. 

In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
>in news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>
>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
>>> news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.  
>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is
>>>>> the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and most
>>>>> dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>
>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a newspaper
>>>> incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can even buy
>>>> foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.
>>>>
>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And
>>>> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about
>>>> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the news?
>>>> All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing slant that
>>>> you would prefer.
>>>
>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>> 
>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>
>It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you get to
>communism. 
>
>Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and they are 
>closer to anarchy than communism.

Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets he has 
passed in the last three years and you will see that we are closer to 
communism now than we ever were with Clinton.

In article <OcFUa.121255$Io.10339264@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
blackhole34@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> >  We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
>> > > President combined.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing wacko.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i don't
>have
>> links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the press
>is
>> dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind,
>because
>> it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>
>> second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain this,
>> it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
>anymore
>> without being knocked down for it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts.  And BTW, I
>watched the war on FOX.
>
The only channel any self respecting war monger would watch. Next you will 
start ranting and raving about ratings. I guess if liberals only had once 
choice of tv it would have incredible ratings too. 

Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>
> uh, which President was that???

Hoover. Then Roosevelt, after failing to restart the economy over the next 9
or so years, got us into WWII to try that as an economic stimulus.

Well, it was a lot better than vile clinton bombing everything from aspirin
factories to whatnot just to disrupt the focus from what he was doing.

-paul

In article <bfuqvs$ja411$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, snubis@aol.com 
says...
>
>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:35:18p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:a5yUa.82027$R92.53572@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <TOxUa.160368$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:12:17p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>news:BLxUa.81891$R92.13873@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <b3c3564a22af97e7b81129b934631f71@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:08:19a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>>> news:DPwUa.81522$R92.19514@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <b41dfd3c05ee38dd44db0fbe7b667893@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:47:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>>>>> news:JvwUa.81405$R92.35615@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <OztUa.120641$Io.10269999@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
>>>>>>>> blackhole34@yahoo.com says... 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:fRpUa.80927$R92.43412@news2.central.cox.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost,
>>>>>>>>>>> and if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is
>>>>>>>>>>> just too great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers
>>>>>>>>>>> on how you tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat,
>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarian, a mixture of them all? 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>>>>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats share. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only
>>>>>>>>>> Democrats that has these censorship ideas. The
>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than the Democrats
>>>>>>>>>> do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
>>>>>>>>>> Democrats? 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand
>>>>>>>>> Sharpton in office than Bush.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you stand by that statement in *any* form, then you deserve
>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY what you'd get from the "Good Reverend Al"... What a
>>>>>>>>> dumbass.... 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right
>>>>>>>> now. When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I
>>>>>>>> can just picture Bush sitting there at the frat house in college
>>>>>>>> being told that line "fat,drunk and stupid is a terrible way to go
>>>>>>>> through life son". Too bad he only took advice on two of the
>>>>>>>> three. He lost the weight and stopped drinking and guess what that
>>>>>>>> leaves. STUPID! 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think that Bush is somehow unintelligent, you are very
>>>>>>> naive. He used that to his advantage in the 2000 and 2002
>>>>>>> elections. Especially in the debates with Gore. In 2002, the
>>>>>>> Democrats used the 'dumb' tactic again, and look how the election
>>>>>>> turned out. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The left-wingers always try to paint a Republican president as
>>>>>>> dumb. They even tried it with Reagan. At least Bush didn't flunk
>>>>>>> out of law school like Gore. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No he just went AWOL when his country and Guard unit called on him
>>>>>> to serve. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, bud. This old and lame assertion has never been proven.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, bud but its in the records.
>>>
>>> National Guard units were notorious for keeping shoddy records in the
>>> 1960s and 1970s. There isn't enough information to prove anything.
>> 
>> Would a Bush not tell the truth? His brother and a fellow soldier said
>> he had to report to a punishment detail in Colorado for not showing up. 
>
>It is not uncommon for Guardsmen to miss a monthly drill. They are dealt
>with accordingly. 

How about not showing up when his unit was activated for service in Vietnam?

Darrell Mayeda wrote:

> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>
> > Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any* democrat
> > and the decision is childsplay...  This is what we are voting for in this
> > day and age- the lesser of two evils.  Democrats like to brag that they are
> > so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
> > simply more morally corrupted.  I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
> > Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
>
> uh, have you looked at the case against gray davis.  I think you can
> make a fill in the blank here as whoever is governor would have taken
> the hit.  republican democrat, libertarian, or green.  He is
> goevernor during a serious economic downturn.  It's not like he broke
> the law.

He came pretty damn close.  Davis is facing recall because of a myriad of
factors, what the SF Chronicle labels the confluence of events like the perfect
storm: an atmosphere of sleaze brought on by his aggresive fundraising (he even
hit up  Democratic college students!), making people think he's more concerned
about his donors than the constituents; his pandering to special interests, which
alienated many grassroots Democrats; his absolutely incomprehensible act of
alienating members of his *own* party (he told Demos in the legislature that it's
his way or the highway); the energy crisis that Davis at first ignored then tried
to spin out of, even though it wasn't really his fault; and the budget problem,
which was exacerbated by him by increasing spending like there was no tomorrow,
then when the recession wiped out the tax revenues, ignoring it at first, then
putting off the problem during the election year, causing more problems.  He
promised to make structural changes to the state tax system to prevent problems
from occuring in the new budget but it was all talk.

So you have a governor who:
- the people blame for the power problem (unfairly);
- the people view as being corrupt and beholden to special interest;
- the people view as indecisive or unwilling to make tough choices;
- the Democrats in the legislature (and in other state elected positions) do not
like very much since he arrogantly tried to carry out his agenda w/o much
cooperation from them;
- the same Demos are not afraid to ignore or challenge.  The Senate leader, the
Controller, and even the Lt. Gov, (all Demos) have opposed him for their various
agendas.
- never had a core constituency since his election strategy in both elections was
to paint his opponents less desireable than himself.
- the voters never really felt energized about.

In all, you got a governor who will probably be recalled.

Having said that, I for one will vote against the recall.  I am a Republican who
has utter contempt for Davis and have never voted for him.  However, this recall
goes against the principles of republicanism; we vote for the politicians who
represent us.  A plurality of voters voted for Davis, most of them probably
ignorant or uncaring about his lack of honesty, lack of will to tackle tough
problems, and his political incompetency.  Well, they made their bed, they should
have to lie in it.  Besides, why would anyone want to be governor of CA right
now?  It's like taking the head coaching job for the NFL's Bengals after they
traded away all their marquee players.

> I think the president during the great wall street crash v
> 1.0 was booted as well.

Hoover lost to Roosevelt 3 yrs after the 1929 Crash, mainly because he was
perceived as uncaring, much like what brought Bush pere down.  He was inflexible
w/ his thinking to do some of the radical things Roosevelt did; however,
Roosevelt's plans didn't bring the US out of the doldrums until WW2 started and
the US govt. injected trillions of dollars into the (war) economy.

Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: electriceye@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
electriceye@netgate.net

nightwriter wrote:

> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news to
> anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
> to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are to
> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
> understanding of them all.

Then explain how so many liberals fell for Bill Clinton's BS.

Just because you're educated doesn't necessarily mean you have more common
sense.  In fact, the more 'educated' Democrats sometimes display an egregious
lack of common sense, which alienate me from their candidates and policies.


> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory doesn't
> work.

Your economics degree should also tell you that taxes have a deleterious affect
on the economy, yet the one constant of the Democratic Party is to raise taxes.

Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: electriceye@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
electriceye@netgate.net

You know, reading all these posts off this thread, not very many people actually
replied to your survey.  Why don't you address this in some online polling site?

And wouldn't the poll be somewhat predictable?  An overwhelming number of gamers
are men.  Since blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among PC owners, it
stands to reason that whites and Asians will be overrepresented.  Wouldn't these
factors influence the response?

Doomster

Omphalos wrote:

> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

--
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: electriceye@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
electriceye@netgate.net

jojoMSfanboy wrote:

> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that has
> these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship than
> the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
> Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand Sharpton
> in office than Bush.

You're right that Omphalos might have a false premise (that gamers voted against
Gore because of the censorship issue of Lieberman).  But didn't Tipper start PMRC?

Yup, conservatives/Republicans do censor, way too much for my taste, but so do
liberals/Democrats.  Ever witness what goes on on college campuses like Berkeley
where liberals actually stole the student newspaper because they didn't like what
was written in an editorial?  Or the Hollywood studios who changed movies like
"Sum of All Fears" because of political correctness?  Or media companies like CNN
who routinely keep out reports that make liberals look bad (check out BIAS by
Bernard Goldberg), reports like how Clinton ran ads during the 1996 campaign on
Christian radio stations touting his defense of marriage (he signed the DOMA) all
the while claiming to gay voters that he really cared about them?  No media
coverage 'cept for the alt. sources like Drudge.  And there are other blatant
examples of media self-censorship.

The reason why so many actors/artists are Democrats are because they are out of
touch w/ the real world.  It's great to dream up of a socialistic utopia where
"peace, love, and understanding" are the working principles but it doesn't work
like that in the real world.  If artists really cared about "freedom", they'd vote
Libertarian, but they won't since Libertarians also espouse "economic freedoms",
something anathemic to most liberals.

Neither political party or side can claim that they care more about our civil
liberties than the other (except for maybe the Libertarians).  Anyone who thinks
otherwise is ignorant.

Doomster
~*--*~
PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
"Reply" function.

The address: electriceye@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
your email will bounce.

The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.

Doomster
--
electriceye@netgate.net

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cRLUa.23593$Mc.1825992@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2_FUa.94143$zwL.88784@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfurv6$ja411$5@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:43:44a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > > in news:QkxUa.91956$zwL.5315@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > news:08e6a14d2aa4289d5f5a8fe7f7103461@free.teranews.com...
> > > >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter"
<spider_man@hotmail.com>
> > > >> wrote in
> > > >> news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> > > >>
> > > >>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's
not
> > > >>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the
less
> > > >>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth,
the
> > > >>> more likely you are to have interacted with other races and other
> > > >>> classes, gaining a better understanding of them all.
> > > >>
> > > >> Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952, the
> > > >> Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among
college
> > > >> graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher percentage
> of
> > > >> the vote among high school graduates than among high school
dropouts?
> > > >> The more educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote
> > > >> Republican. In other words, there is, as you assert, a strong
> > > >> correlation between education and partisan voting, but it goes in
the
> > > >> opposite direction. Not that this is particularly surprising news,
> > > >> since you guys always like to tell us how much you're for the
"little
> > > >> guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ meter. (Data from
> > > >> Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see
> > > >> http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote by
> > > >> Groups').
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > interesting.  i don't have the link, but i've seen the exact
opposite
> > > > stats. further proving once again the famous quote: "There are lies,
> > > > damn lies, and then, there are statistics".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
> > > >>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle
down
> > > >>> theory doesn't work.
> > > >>
> > > >> The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and government
> > > >> handouts.
> > > >
> > > > but i thought social programs were good.  see, in a capitalist
> society,
> > > > the poor are NECESSARY to fuel the machine.  without the poor
willing
> to
> > > > work at mcdonalds and sweep floors and do all those terrible jobs
that
> > > > are absolutely necessary for the machine to function, there'd be no
> > > > machine. and in every capitalist society, the poor and downtrodden
are
> > > > there because they are needed.  making them a bit happier, a bit
> safer,
> > > > a bit more pleased with their lot in life helps ensure the machines
> > > > survival.  ignoring them will only hurt the bottom line as they miss
> > > > days at work, steal, and are less productive.  so purely, from an
> > > > economical sense, this makes sense. then there's the humanity side
of
> it
> > > > all:  taking care of each other is important.  life's too short to
be
> > > > greedy.  helping people is a just and noble cause that i'm proud to
be
> a
> > > > part of.
> > >
> > > The government isn't supposed to forcibly take money from those who
have
> > > it and give it to those who don't work. There are plenty of charities,
> > > churches, and religious organizations that do that already.
> > >
> > > The government is there to protect it's citizens
> >
> > good point.  by assisting the unemployed, helping the disabled, the war
> > veterans, etc. they ARE doing just that: protecting their citizens.
>
>  IN OTHER WORDS, BIG BROTHER IS DOING IT'S JOB.....
>
>
> Well, it's time for a liberal to face the dictionary...
>
> Main Entry: pro�tect
> Pronunciation: pr&-'tekt
> Function: transitive verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
> protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover -- more at PRO-, THATCH
> Date: 15th century
> Definition: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
GUARD
>
>
> Exposure, Injury or Destruction.  ALL physical consequences.  *That's*
what
> our government is here for, not to dole out government cheese...
>
>

that's the stupidest game of nit-pick semantics i've ever seen.  not to
mention, i'd say starvation/homelessness/malnutrition/illness/etc fucking
hurt.  and by your definition, that seems to fit the bill.

>

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p_LUa.23598$Mc.1826786@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:P9GUa.94181$zwL.44266@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >
> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:OcFUa.121255$Io.10339264@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > >  We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
> > > > > > President combined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you Left-wing
> > wacko.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
don't
> > > have
> > > > links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of the
> > press
> > > is
> > > > dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful kind,
> > > because
> > > > it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of
omission.
> > > >
> > > > second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to explain
> this,
> > > > it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to say
> > > anymore
> > > > without being knocked down for it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts.  And
> BTW,
> > I
> > > watched the war on FOX.
> >
> > as i'm not defending my thesis here, i don't see the need for facts, i
see
> > the need for ideas, thought, expression, possibility:  chiefly,
everything
> > the bush administration is against.
> >
> >
>
> And I'm for daffodils, and skipping tra-la-la-la-la through fields of
those
> very same daffodils...

ditto.  wanna hold hands?

> I love the fact that you liberals pride yourselves on your intelligence,
and
> that intelligence may very well be true,  but it's an immoral and crafty
> intelligence....

one might argue that any intelligence is immoral.  it depends what side of
the missing link you're on ;)

>you scheme and plot and that's where your strength lies...
> Again, I'm not going to defend the Bush administration, I'm simply going
to
> state the truth- *anything* else would be extremely detrimental to our
> country.l
>
>

>If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made,
we would
>become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing
would get
>done.

i don't know who wrote that, i couldn't follow the thread, but holy fucking
shit, did you just say europe was irrelevant?  LMAO!!!  you ARE watching
FOX!  do you know anything about the power of germany, an industrial
behemoth?  don't you think the strength of the EURO is just a LITTLE
disconcerting to ole Bushy, seeing as it's proof that the Euro is fast
becoming the number one currency in the world to hold over the greenback?

you fucking clueless little git, shut your fat fucking face with ignorant
fucking trash.  beat off, jack off, wack off, fuck off.   :) there, i feel a
bit better after the wack off part.










"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6fMUa.83177$R92.79018@news2.central.cox.net...
> In article <34df576a8f2a1a004ae765504f6e74ef@free.teranews.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:14p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote
> in
> >news:OHxUa.81867$R92.56805@news2.central.cox.net:
> >
> >> In article
> <4f3851c9c5870ee7a4d28c9ca90c09ec@free.teranews.com>,
> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>
> >>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:12:16a, "nightwriter"
> <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote in
> >>>
> news:kTwUa.91579$zwL.57666@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >>>
> >>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>>> news:Xns93C46D993E2F18@130.133.1.4...
> >>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:36:05a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy)
> wrote in
> >>>>> news:plwUa.81342$R92.15547@news2.central.cox.net:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > In article
> <d6e74d20b56fd9f5eb65b377cac01234@free.teranews.com>,
> >>>>> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 08:03:01a, "Nightwing"
> <dsggf@gdjd.fr> wrote in
> >>>>> >> news:bftqkj$idu$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net:
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>> If you are worried about censorship, then you picked
> the wrong
> >>>>> >>> horse. As was said only Lieberman holds those views
> amongst Dems
> >>>>> >>> groups on the far-right (like the Christian Coalition)
> have been
> >>>>> >>> trying to ban things for years. We have had more
> censorship under
> >>>>> >>> Bush than any other President combined.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> Prove it. And no left-wing fantasy 'facts'.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Hell the POS just did it yesterday with that 9/11
> report. The
> >>>>> > Whitehouse censored 30 or so pages that dealt with Saudi
> Arabia's
> >>>>> > involvement. Some members of Congress have said that it
> will make
> >>>>> > many Americans angry to read it so the Whitehouse made
> it
> >>>>> > classified. Bullshit is what I say. I want to read the
> whole report
> >>>>> > and make up my own mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the report is classified, why do you think you should
> be able to
> >>>>> read it? Why don't we just declassify all government
> documents and
> >>>>> put them all on the internet too! Brother.
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> basically he's saying --- "yeah, they censored it because
> they did.
> >>>> they can't just tell you stuff about your own country,
> dumbass!  ha
> >>>> ha, you're so gullible and dumb".   i can't believe you
> said that.  i
> >>>> hate to insult you, but that's very moronic --- ask
> yourself the
> >>>> question: "why are they controlling the information"?   to
> protect
> >>>> you?  to protect america?  at this point?  i don't think
> so.  look,
> >>>> the information on that document is already out there.  no
> 'bad guy'
> >>>> is going to get it and blow up the nation. when your
> government
> >>>> deceives you once, it means they've deceived you a million
> times.
> >>>> stop bush from lying - vote to impeach.  vote democrat.
> vote anything
> >>>> other than bush. the lies about the iraq war.  the lies
> about saddam
> >>>> having anything to do with 9/11, the lies the lies the lies
> the lies
> >>>> the lies.
> >>>
> >>> Apparently, you don't understand why they classify
> information.
> >>>
> >>> The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why
> are the libs
> >>> so consumed with hatred of Bush?
> >>
> >> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the rest of
> the world
> >> looks at us as a rogue nation now and they hate us.
> >
> >If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made,
> we would
> >become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing
> would get
> >done.
>
> Why not? His dad got a huge coalition because he did the
> footwork that was needed. What was so urgent that we could not
> build a coalition? Go ahead and cry me a river.
>

"TheAlternativeMind�" wrote:

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

> > I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
> > behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
> > foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
>
> He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
> foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
> and as a result we got 9/11.

With analytical skills like yours you probably could get a job today with the
CIA.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:34:54a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:O8MUa.83161$R92.36871@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <d7ece2d93839ce5c13516db49fd0c2d0@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:10:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>news:0KxUa.81881$R92.62564@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <5_wUa.81587$R92.32907@news2.central.cox.net>, jojo@cox.net
>>> says... 
>>>
>>>> In article <e7a9e1856c718760996a62318ab36b03@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 10:52:59a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>>> news:fBwUa.81437$R92.12627@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
>>>>>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>>>>>>> Democrats share. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why dont you take your conservative bullshit and post it in the
>>>>>> politics newsgroups. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to get a general feel of how the average gamer votes. I
>>>>> posted this to the best and broadest gamer newsgroups to get the
>>>>> most accurate opinion possible.
>>>>
>>>> Hey Omphalos. I have a question for you. What coporation was Bush's
>>>> and the GOP's largest campaign contributor in 1999 and 2000?  
>>>>
>>>> What do 50 high-level officials in the Bush administration have in
>>>> common other than the GOP,Bush and the state of Texas?
>>>
>>> Since you don't want to answer my questions I will answer them for
>>> you. 
>>
>> I don't spend every waking moment on usenet like yourself.
>
> Sure seems like you do.
> 
>>> Enron and Enron. 
>>
>> So what? The bad accounting at Enron was going on for years before Bush
>> was elected and the Enron executives sure didn't get away with it. 
> 
> Bush got away with it. 

With what?

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:33:26a, "Phil-on-a-hill" <malcnospam@gothcorp.co.uk>
wrote in news:qgLUa.1738$2o3.24086@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net: 

> No one gives a flying fuck about any of your shitty politics.

If you could think for yourself, you wouldn't be saying that.

"Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> >> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> >> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >>
> >> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>
> >> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> >
> > I don't vote.
>
> Foolish.
>

The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:41:18 GMT, "Buckaroo Banzai"
<blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts.  And BTW, I
>watched the war on FOX.

This war brought to you by Pepsi, the choice of a new Generation! Now
returning to Fox's live coverage of GULF WAR II: THIS TIME IT'S
PERSONAL. 

>"Gourd" wrote:
> Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in
>your country you voted for or wanted to vote for.  If you do, in fact, live in
>a country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
> feel free to mention that.

  Tarja Halonen.
  ...and she won the election.

  I wonder if that could ever happen on the other side of the pond.  There
haven't been many women as candinates over there, as far as I know...

Buckwheat wrote:
> 
> "TheAlternativeMind�" wrote:
> 
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
> > > I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
> > > behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
> > > foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
> >
> > He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
> > foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this country,
> > and as a result we got 9/11.
> 
> With analytical skills like yours you probably could get a job today with the
> CIA.

with a dry cool with like that you could be a super hero!

-- 
Gene Poole

You've got to take life serially.

I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think the Dems
care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.  As a person who
has had access to Republican "talk" behind the scenes I don't like their
attitudes towards women, minorities, amd those less fortunate including the
small businessman and consumers. Democarats are just nicer.  These are gross
generalities I know but in the big picture of things from my experience they
are true.



-- 
Bunboy  The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone
else to blame
"The Doomster" <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote in message
news:3F23BD73.DC846F54@netgate.net...
> You know, reading all these posts off this thread, not very many people
actually
> replied to your survey.  Why don't you address this in some online polling
site?
>
> And wouldn't the poll be somewhat predictable?  An overwhelming number of
gamers
> are men.  Since blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among PC owners,
it
> stands to reason that whites and Asians will be overrepresented.  Wouldn't
these
> factors influence the response?
>
> Doomster
>
> Omphalos wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> > offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> > like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> > elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >
> > Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >
> > Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> > Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
> --
> ~*--*~
> PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
> "Reply" function.
>
> The address: electriceye@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
> your email will bounce.
>
> The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.
>
> Doomster
> --
> electriceye@netgate.net
>
>

Omphalos wrote:
> 
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> 
> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> >> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >>>
> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
> >>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
> >>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
> >>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
> >>>> mixture of them all?
> >>>>
> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>>
> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
> >>>> share.
> >>>
> >>> I don't vote.
> >>
> >> Foolish.
> >>
> >
> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
> 
> Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy and/or
> foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.

maybe it's a vote of no confidence. if you don't like either party, how
is voting for one a good thing? sounds to me like voting for something
you don't support is compromising your beliefs.

-- 
Gene Poole

Rick Powers claims to be a fag. I'm not one to disagree.
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=%3CI_ww9.49843%24wG.138643%40rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net%3E&lr=&hl=en

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:23:07a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:fKNUa.83184$R92.81397@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com: 
>>
>>> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>>>
>>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush
>>>> is doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>>>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal
>>>> government. 
>>>>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about
>>>> WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>>>
>>>> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>>>
>>> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
>>> not be in this mess in Iraq. 
>>
>> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
>> foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc.... 
> 
> You talking Bush or Clinton? Both are guilty of these things. Sorry try
> again. 

Prove Bush is guilty of any of those things. 

Or are you lying again because you hate Bush, and are upset that he is
getting the job done. You liberals have set yourselves up so that you can
only benefit if America fails. 

Nancy Pelosi was probably praying for another Mogadishu in Iraq.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
hole@suck.com> wrote in
news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net: 

> "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
>> hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>
>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>
>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>
>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>> share. 
>>>
>>> I don't vote.
>>
>> Foolish.
>>
> 
> The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.

Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy and/or
foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years. 

Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message news:<bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>...

> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> 
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

Well I don't think it's any surprise that I lean so far left I need
special support to keep from walking in circles. Since I've been able
to vote there have been 4 Presidential elections, I voted for Dukakis,
Clinton (although I would have preferred Jerry Brown), Clinton, Nader.

Clinton never was liberal enough for my tastes, he didn't push hard
enough for gays in the military or universal health care in his first
term and he was too hamstrung by irrelevant Republican legal charges
his second term to get anything done.

In 2000 I realized that since I'm in Oregon there was no chance Bush
was going to win our state and I had a chance to vote my conscience. I
couldn't vote for Gore because of the whole recording industry lable
flap that happened under his and his wifes watch in the 80s. Ditto
Lieberman on the gaming thing. Not a chance I was going to vote for
Bush so I went with Nader.

- Jordan

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:26:32a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:sNNUa.83185$R92.14588@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <KQKUa.388$5E6.205333606@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, 
> thealternativemind@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>news:4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com...
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com:
>>>
>>> > In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net
>>> > says... 
>>> >
>>> >> Nightwing wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush
>>> >> is doing better than the last administration, except perhaps
>>> >> grabbing power from the states and expanding the size of the
>>> >> federal government. 
>>> >>
>>> >> Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all
>>> >> about WMD's. Pinhead.)
>>> >>
>>> >> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>> >>
>>> > Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>> > resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>> > LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we
>>> > would not be in this mess in Iraq.
>>>
>>> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>>> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
>>> foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
>>
>> He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
>> foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this
>> country, and as a result we got 9/11.
>
> So by your thinking Bush's daddy was responsible for the first attack on
> the World Trade Center? Wake the hell up and think on your own. 

Clinton weakened and demoralized the military. He sold our secrets to
hostile nations. He all but refused to crack down on terrorists. In
conflicts, he refused to allow American troops to do what they needed to
get the job done. In Mogadishu, Clinton denied Americans tanks or armored 
personell carriers and other air support for political reasons.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 10:09:15a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:f2RUa.56801$Ii1.7511@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p_LUa.23598$Mc.1826786@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:P9GUa.94181$zwL.44266@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> >
>> > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:OcFUa.121255$Io.10339264@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:ZGuUa.120702$Io.10270753@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > > > >
>> > > > >  We have had more censorship under Bush than any other
>> > > > > > President combined.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I double dare you to back that up with SOLID FACTS, you
>> > > > > Left-wing 
>> > wacko.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
> don't
>> > > have
>> > > > links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.   freedom of
>> > > > the 
>> > press
>> > > is
>> > > > dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is the most powerful
>> > > > kind, 
>> > > because
>> > > > it is nefarious and subtle, and most dont' see the errors of
> omission.
>> > > >
>> > > > second - freedom of speech.  i should hope i don't need to
>> > > > explain 
>> this,
>> > > > it's so bloody apparant that people can't say what they want to
>> > > > say 
>> > > anymore
>> > > > without being knocked down for it.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts. 
>> > > And BTW, I watched the war on FOX.
>> >
>> > as i'm not defending my thesis here, i don't see the need for facts,
>> > i see the need for ideas, thought, expression, possibility:  chiefly,
>> > everything the bush administration is against.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> And I'm for daffodils, and skipping tra-la-la-la-la through fields of
>> those very same daffodils...
> 
> ditto.  wanna hold hands?
> 
>> I love the fact that you liberals pride yourselves on your
>> intelligence, and that intelligence may very well be true,  but it's an
>> immoral and crafty intelligence....
> 
> one might argue that any intelligence is immoral.  it depends what side
> of the missing link you're on ;)

Liberals claim they are moral people, but I always wondered where they got
their morals from in the first place. Must have made them up. 

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:37:15a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:vXNUa.83188$R92.40501@news2.central.cox.net: 

>> So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts.  And
>> BTW, I watched the war on FOX.
>>
> The only channel any self respecting war monger would watch.

JojoMSfanboy doesn't like FOX because he isn't used to hearing the truth
reported. 

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:22:33 +0300, Jyrki V. Puska
<weasel@for-president.com> wrote:

>>"Gourd" wrote:
>> Why not add to the conversation by saying which party, or candidate, in
>>your country you voted for or wanted to vote for.  If you do, in fact, live in
>>a country where you can't vote at all for any positions in government, then
>> feel free to mention that.
>
>  Tarja Halonen.
>  ...and she won the election.
>
>  I wonder if that could ever happen on the other side of the pond.  There
>haven't been many women as candinates over there, as far as I know...

Here in Canada we've had one female Prime Minister, though she wasn't
elected but rather succeeded a retiring PM. She was pounded in
elections that same year and lost her seat along with all but 2 of the
party's. Special circumstances though, since the federal Tories were
extremely unpopular. Otherwise the leftist NDP has had female leaders
for the past 15 years, right up to this year's leadership convention.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>
>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
>>>> news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
>>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.  
>>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is
>>>>>> the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and
>>>>>> most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
>>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a
>>>>> newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can
>>>>> even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And
>>>>> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about
>>>>> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the
>>>>> news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing
>>>>> slant that you would prefer.
>>>>
>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>>> 
>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>>
>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you get
>> to communism. 
>>
>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and they
>> are closer to anarchy than communism.
> 
> Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets he
> has passed in the last three years and you will see that we are closer
> to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.

I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending. 

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:36:31p, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3F2437CF.8D15D04F@yahoo.com: 

> Omphalos wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
>> hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> 
>> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
>> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
>> >>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>> >>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>> >>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>> >>>> mixture of them all?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>> >>>> Democrats share.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't vote.
>> >>
>> >> Foolish.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
>> 
>> Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy
>> and/or foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.
> 
> maybe it's a vote of no confidence. if you don't like either party, how
> is voting for one a good thing? sounds to me like voting for something
> you don't support is compromising your beliefs.

Well, I don't want someone who is uninformed voting. That is one of the 
reasons why we have the electoral college.

But, I do think it is foolish to *be* uninformed and not take an active 
role on determining who is part of your government.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:42:15a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:HfMUa.83178$R92.51816@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <b218b2b96255130b62b9659153b3503b@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:15:39p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> news:LOxUa.92249$zwL.89644@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>> 
>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:qHxUa.160328$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:14:21a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote in
>>>> news:hVwUa.91610$zwL.22975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place? 
>>>>> what is he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50
>>>>> years? i'll tell you --- so that the people involved that were in
>>>>> government are good and dead by the time it's released.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have proof to back up that claim?
>>> 
>>> of course not, but do you have a better answer for why they're locking
>>> down the information relating to the assassination of a president of
>>> the united states??  if you can think of ONE, i'll listen.
>>
>> Without proof, any wacko can make up a theory.
> 
> Yeah like that wacko in office and his big bad Iraq theory. 

And what would that be? Notwithstanding a few bumps in the road, it is 
going very well so far.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:41:38a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:6fMUa.83177$R92.79018@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <34df576a8f2a1a004ae765504f6e74ef@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made, we
>> would become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing would
>> get done. 
> 
> Why not? His dad got a huge coalition because he did the footwork that
> was needed. What was so urgent that we could not build a coalition? Go
> ahead and cry me a river. 

We do have a coalition. At least 19 countries have forces in Iraq.

But that's not the point. Why do we need a coalition in the first place? The 
only reason we built one was to appease the politically correct Europeans and 
the whiny liberals. We didn't do it for ourselves. We didn't need a coalition 
to get the job done.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:36:11a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:%9MUa.83165$R92.57406@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <4bf2e77b8a7223dc21541343bdd88290@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:25:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:4YxUa.81969$R92.53239@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
>>> not be in this mess in Iraq. 
>>
>> Clinton didn't do jack shit in office except get a blowjob from an
>> intern. 
> 
> I wonder why things  were going so smooth than. Nothing like a good old
> boy from Arkansas to get things smoothed out.

He was enjoying the success of Reaganomics. Of course he screwed it up and
that's why the economy went south near the end of his term. Of course, you 
liberals would like to believe that Bush destroyed the economy.

"Schrodinger"
<Schrodingerthighhighjackboots@barrythigh.highjackbootsbarrysworld.com>
thought hard and said:

>Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...

Ummm... excuse me, I though he did.

--
-Kolle; 15                        A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:39:17a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:VcMUa.83176$R92.61968@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <3caffc43e66ff72f0ae84cbc62eef217@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:30p, Buckwheat <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in
>> news:3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net: 
>>
>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>> 
>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>> 
>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal
>>> government.  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right,
>>> it's all about WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>
>> Clinton said Iraq had WMD. Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMD. Germany,
>> France, and the UN said that Iraq had WMD. Were they all lying too?
>> Before the war, there was never a question about whether Iraq had WMD.
>> It was just that no one had the balls to do anything about it except
>> Bush and Blair.
>>
>> They will find WMD in Iraq. And when they do, then you can cry.
> 
> So why are we not invading Iran, North Korea and all the other nations
> with WMD and terrible leaders?

We will take care of North Korea and Iran soon enough. The liberals wanted
us to deal with North Korea before Iraq. I bet that as soon as we focus
our attention on North Korea, the liberals will start their whining
again. 

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:57:33a, "Schrodinger"
<Schrodingerthighhighjackboots@barrythigh.highjackbootsbarrysworld.com>
wrote in news:bg045t$bu1$1@titan.btinternet.com: 

> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
>> democrat and the decision is childsplay...  This is what we are voting
>> for in this day and age- the lesser of two evils.  Democrats like to
>> brag that they are so much better educated and much more intelligent,
>> but they are actually simply more morally corrupted.  I mean they can't
>> even keep a Dem as a Governor of California, the most wacky state in
>> the union.... 
>>
> 
> Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...

He did. Get over it already.

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

On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 

> i have an economics degree. 

Your almighty economics education should tell you that since the 1920s,
tax cuts have nearly always boosted the economy a few years after they are
implemented.

In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote in
>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>
>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
>>>>> news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
>>>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.  
>>>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it is
>>>>>>> the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle, and
>>>>>>> most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
>>>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a
>>>>>> newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you can
>>>>>> even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.  And
>>>>>> they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out about
>>>>>> these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from the
>>>>>> news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the left-wing
>>>>>> slant that you would prefer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>>>> 
>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>>>
>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you get
>>> to communism. 
>>>
>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and they
>>> are closer to anarchy than communism.
>> 
>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets he
>> has passed in the last three years and you will see that we are closer
>> to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
>
>I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
>complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending. 

LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax money to 
pay down the national debt. 

In article <19d9ed7c0083bf67420c63c1453ae821@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:37:15a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:vXNUa.83188$R92.40501@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>>> So in other words, you can't back that up with ANY solid facts.  And
>>> BTW, I watched the war on FOX.
>>>
>> The only channel any self respecting war monger would watch.
>
>JojoMSfanboy doesn't like FOX because he isn't used to hearing the truth
>reported. 

If Bullshit is the truth than your totally right. 

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:39a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
news:TINUa.83183$R92.16500@news2.central.cox.net: 

> In article <7035a0e1b4f539970a7c218731ff41f3@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
>> news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com: 
>>
>>> On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
>>> <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
>>>
>>>> I would have voted Bush.
>>> 
>>> Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
>>
>> Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
> 
> Damn proud to have him.

Well, if you are proud of someone who is a lying race-baiter, who claims
he is a Reverend but has no church, and claims to want to care about those
poor black folk while he rides around in his stretch limo, please continue
to make a fool out of yourself.

In article <48510922f8c07d081e0d04e93c0f28c3@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
>hole@suck.com> wrote in
>news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net: 
>
>> "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
>>> hole@suck.com> wrote in
>>> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>>
>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
>>>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>>>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>>>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>>>>> mixture of them all? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>>>>
>>>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>>>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
>>>>> share. 
>>>>
>>>> I don't vote.
>>>
>>> Foolish.
>>>
>> 
>> The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
>
>Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy and/or
>foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years. 

LMAO! You must vote in a low income area with low turnout. I have to wait 
three hours in line to vote. 

In article <ff603973dc3f95a1d62cbac7298737a1@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:26:32a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:sNNUa.83185$R92.14588@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <KQKUa.388$5E6.205333606@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, 
>> thealternativemind@yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>news:4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com...
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net
>>>> > says... 
>>>> >
>>>> >> Nightwing wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush
>>>> >> is doing better than the last administration, except perhaps
>>>> >> grabbing power from the states and expanding the size of the
>>>> >> federal government. 
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all
>>>> >> about WMD's. Pinhead.)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>>> >>
>>>> > Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>>> > resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>>> > LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we
>>>> > would not be in this mess in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>>>> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
>>>> foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
>>>
>>> He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this countries
>>> foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to protect this
>>> country, and as a result we got 9/11.
>>
>> So by your thinking Bush's daddy was responsible for the first attack on
>> the World Trade Center? Wake the hell up and think on your own. 
>
>Clinton weakened and demoralized the military. He sold our secrets to
>hostile nations. He all but refused to crack down on terrorists. In
>conflicts, he refused to allow American troops to do what they needed to
>get the job done. In Mogadishu, Clinton denied Americans tanks or armored 
>personell carriers and other air support for political reasons.

Kinda like Bush is doing right now in Liberia for political reasons? Would you 
call whats happening in Iraq right now demoralizing for the military. I was 
watching the news just a couple of days ago and three soldiers in Iraq were 
asked what would they ask Rumsfeld if he were there right now...their answer 
was that they would ask him for his resignation. Thats what being demoralized 
is. Your conservative crap is sounding like a broken record. 

In article <5100e1cf4c9a2134ca8fb1c8a387149f@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:37:03p, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote in
>news:GRVUa.18202$u51.6340@fed1read05: 
>
>> I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think the
>> Dems care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.
>
>Democrats appeal to the emotions and not common sense.
>
Just wish Bush would use some commmon sense. Have you seen the deficit lately?

>>  As a
>> person who has had access to Republican "talk" behind the scenes I don't
>> like their attitudes towards women, minorities, amd those less fortunate
>> including the small businessman and consumers.
>
>Yes, the idea that everyone should be treated equaly is horrible isn't it?
>
No just the conservative definition of equal treatment is horrible. 

>> Democarats are just nicer.  
>
>You don't vote for someone because they are nice. You vote for them
>because they are right. And Democrats ain't right. 

Spoken like a true conservative mental midget. 
>
>> These are gross generalities I know but in the big picture of
>> things from my experience they are true.

In article <a514348c2dbd90b683648720d061a870@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 07:54:27a, The Doomster <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote
>in news:3F23BD73.DC846F54@netgate.net: 
>
>> You know, reading all these posts off this thread, not very many people
>> actually replied to your survey.  Why don't you address this in some
>> online polling site? 
>> 
>> And wouldn't the poll be somewhat predictable?  An overwhelming number
>> of gamers are men.  Since blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented
>> among PC owners, it stands to reason that whites and Asians will be
>> overrepresented.  Wouldn't these factors influence the response?
>
>No, because I want an idea of what gamers think. If gamers tend to be male, 
>white, and asian, then so be it.

Well you got what you asked for sweetheart!

stePH wrote:

> Paul Cassel wrote:
> 
>>Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>>
>>>uh, which President was that???
>>
>>Hoover. Then Roosevelt, after failing to restart the economy over the next 9
>>or so years, got us into WWII to try that as an economic stimulus.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt didn't get us into WWII "to try that as an economic stimulis,"
> numbnuts.  He was SITTING THE WAR OUT until Pearl Harbor was bombed in
> 1941.
> 
> stePH

the chain of events there if you believe the movie "tora, tora, tora" 
was pretty dumb almost as bad as 9/11.  some say the big brass KNEW 
the attack was comming but kept it quiet.  I see Pearl harbor on a 
regular basis.  I would hate to think that that many people were 
killed/injured and my grandparents put through so much grief just to 
give the national economy a goose.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Darrell Mayeda
                                drmayeda@hawaii.rr.com

                            Knight of the ERmoron Round Table.


     NOTE:  I'm tired of all the spam in my mailbox please leave my 
last name            in the body of your reply.  Thanks

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:48510922f8c07d081e0d04e93c0f28c3@free.teranews.com...
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> >> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >>>
> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
> >>>> I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
> >>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
> >>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
> >>>> mixture of them all?
> >>>>
> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>>
> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
> >>>> share.
> >>>
> >>> I don't vote.
> >>
> >> Foolish.
> >>
> >
> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
>
> Politics affect your life more than you know.

 You are just too lazy and/or
> foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.
>
You don't know anything about me or my life so you have absolutely no
right to judge me.  I think people who vote are completely misguided and
fooled by the very slime they are voting for.  That's foolish.
I just don't give a shit how it affects me and my life.  I have more
important things to worry about than if one dildo beats out another one.
The fore fathers of the U.S. certainly must be turning in their graves to
see
how badly we've bastardize the tenets they so brilliantly established.  Righ
t now,
it's a free-for-all.  Fuck 'em.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:3d02e72652cc006338e2aef3d62e28f0@free.teranews.com...
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 08:15:13p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> news:lWZUa.122272$Io.10445835@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:48510922f8c07d081e0d04e93c0f28c3@free.teranews.com...
> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> >> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
> >> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
> >> >>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
> >> >>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
> >> >>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
> >> >>>> mixture of them all?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
> >> >>>> Democrats share.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't vote.
> >> >>
> >> >> Foolish.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
> >>
> >> Politics affect your life more than you know.
> >
> >  You are just too lazy and/or
> >> foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.
> >>
> > You don't know anything about me or my life so you have absolutely no
> > right to judge me.  I think people who vote are completely misguided and
> > fooled by the very slime they are voting for.
>
> You have just demonstrated how ignorant and uninformed you are. It's a
good
> thing you don't vote.

I think you've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 08:15:13p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
hole@suck.com> wrote in
news:lWZUa.122272$Io.10445835@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net: 

> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:48510922f8c07d081e0d04e93c0f28c3@free.teranews.com...
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
>> hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
>> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> >>
>> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
>> >>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
>> >>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
>> >>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
>> >>>> mixture of them all?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
>> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
>> >>>> Democrats share.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't vote.
>> >>
>> >> Foolish.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
>>
>> Politics affect your life more than you know.
> 
>  You are just too lazy and/or
>> foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.
>>
> You don't know anything about me or my life so you have absolutely no
> right to judge me.  I think people who vote are completely misguided and
> fooled by the very slime they are voting for.

You have just demonstrated how ignorant and uninformed you are. It's a good 
thing you don't vote.

> I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact that
> you say that tells me all I need to know about you..

I need to point out that Omphalos did not call him a moron. Elf Kicker did.

> Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...

The only way you believe he did not is if you are ignorant of the election
process. You see, the popular vote does not elect the President -- it elects
Electoral College "electors" from the 50 states who are supposedly pledged
to vote for that candidate that won the state.

What happened in Florida has nothing to do with the Constitution or the
Electoral College. It was a separate process entirely, and the United States
Supreme Court (which tends to be slant liberal by a roughly 5-4 count,
depending on the issue) decided in favor of Bush in a VERY detailed court
case.

Take the time to educate yourself. Read the opinion of the court in that
case. Whether we agree with it or not, the Supreme Court served its purpose
(interpreting the Constitutionality of certain electoral procedures in
Florida), and the court made the results legal. Bush is legitimately our
president.

You don't have to like that result, but obviously, if it weren't true, then
Gore would be President (and the 48% who voted for Bush would be as pissed
off as Gore-voters were -- so it's even).

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:36:27p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:LtYUa.134589$o86.5216@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <ff603973dc3f95a1d62cbac7298737a1@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:26:32a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>news:sNNUa.83185$R92.14588@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <KQKUa.388$5E6.205333606@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, 
>>> thealternativemind@yahoo.com says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>news:4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com...
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>>>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> > In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net
>>>>> > says... 
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Nightwing wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that
>>>>> >> Bush is doing better than the last administration, except perhaps
>>>>> >> grabbing power from the states and expanding the size of the
>>>>> >> federal government. 
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all
>>>>> >> about WMD's. Pinhead.)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>>>> > resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>>>> > LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we
>>>>> > would not be in this mess in Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>>>>> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations
>>>>> from foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc....
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't realize that Clinton paved the way for all of this
>>>> countries foreign problems. That bastard didn't do anything to
>>>> protect this country, and as a result we got 9/11.
>>>
>>> So by your thinking Bush's daddy was responsible for the first attack
>>> on the World Trade Center? Wake the hell up and think on your own. 
>>
>> Clinton weakened and demoralized the military. He sold our secrets to
>> hostile nations. He all but refused to crack down on terrorists. In
>> conflicts, he refused to allow American troops to do what they needed
>> to get the job done. In Mogadishu, Clinton denied Americans tanks or
>> armored personell carriers and other air support for political reasons.
> 
> Kinda like Bush is doing right now in Liberia for political reasons?
> Would you call whats happening in Iraq right now demoralizing for the
> military. I was watching the news just a couple of days ago and three
> soldiers in Iraq were asked what would they ask Rumsfeld if he were
> there right now...their answer was that they would ask him for his
> resignation. Thats what being demoralized is. Your conservative crap is
> sounding like a broken record. 

Oh, whoopty-doo. So some reporter found a few troops out of a few hundred
thousand who were unhappy. Those troops the reporter talked to were
reservists who were pissed that they weren't doing their one weekend a
month thing anymore. In Iraq there is a large body of reservists with
families and jobs back home. They are not used to being on long
deployments. 

Although it is illegal for GIs to speak ill about the civilian command, I
will point out that this was SOP during Clinton's terms.

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:40:45p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:NxYUa.134733$o86.88813@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <bg1dho$js6h5$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de>, blinty@aol.com
> says...
>>
>>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:23:07a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>news:fKNUa.83184$R92.81397@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <4e25d96374b3cd61069171a5712318ef@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 01:43:24a, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in
>>>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net
>>>>> says... 
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush
>>>>>> is doing better than the last administration, except perhaps
>>>>>> grabbing power from the states and expanding the size of the
>>>>>> federal government. 
>>>>>>  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all
>>>>>>  about 
>>>>>> WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>>>> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>>>> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we
>>>>> would not be in this mess in Iraq. 
>>>>
>>>> I guess you were too busy loving Clinton to notice unconstitutional
>>>> behavior, selling military secrets to China, accepting donations from
>>>> foreigners, subversion of security, etc, etc.... 
>>> 
>>> You talking Bush or Clinton? Both are guilty of these things. Sorry
>>> try again. 
>>
>> Prove Bush is guilty of any of those things. 
>>
>> Or are you lying again because you hate Bush, and are upset that he is
>> getting the job done. You liberals have set yourselves up so that you
>> can only benefit if America fails. 
>>
>> Nancy Pelosi was probably praying for another Mogadishu in Iraq.
> 
> You call whats going on right now, getting the job done? LMAO! Clinton's
> blow job was getting the job done but what is going on right now is
> called a cluster f*ck. 

The problem with Clinton and his liberal buddies is that they won't start
the job in the first place. 

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:58p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:agYUa.134133$o86.79635@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote in
>>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote
>>>>>> in news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
>>>>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.  
>>>>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it
>>>>>>>> is the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle,
>>>>>>>> and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
>>>>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a
>>>>>>> newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you
>>>>>>> can even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the
>>>>>>> internet. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. 
>>>>>>> And they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out
>>>>>>> about these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from
>>>>>>> the news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the
>>>>>>> left-wing slant that you would prefer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>>>>> 
>>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>>>>
>>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you
>>>> get to communism. 
>>>>
>>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and
>>>> they are closer to anarchy than communism.
>>> 
>>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets
>>> he has passed in the last three years and you will see that we are
>>> closer to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
>>
>> I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
>> complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending. 
> 
> LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax
> money to pay down the national debt.

During the Clinton years the administration allowed a monstrous increase
in spending on Social Security disability programs. Social Security
disability pensions became easy money during the 1990s, from drug addicts
and alcoholics who were welcomed onto the rolls to immigrants who were
advised to sign up at U.S. embassies abroad even before they arrived on
U.S. shores.

Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the
budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was
about the extent of his contribution. Newt Gingrich and company -- for all
their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the
budget. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995
when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of
eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics said it could not be
done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. 

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it
was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way
in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own
balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign
to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as
"pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight
in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he
begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the
height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton
administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top
priorities." 

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer
a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have
sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right:
for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs
pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark
McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run. 

Budget cuts--primarily in '95, '96--reduced the growth rate of government
spending.  (Bill Clinton fought them, remember).  Deregulation (and the
lack of regulation which would have been present under Democratic
leadership) improved economic growth, leading to greater tax revenues. 
NAFTA (yes it was signed by Clinton but free trade is primarily supported
and advanced by conservatives) and other free trade policy improved
economic growth, helped move us along toward a service based economy,
improved capital liquidity, and reduced the bargaining power of those
economic viruses we call labor unions.  Welfare reform, another
conservative movement that was both opposed and embraced by Clinton,
improved labor productivity in the US. 

How about you.  Can you name one *successful* policy (other than NAFTA)
proposed by Bill Clinton, which improved economic growth?

Just one?

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 07:18:49p, Darrell Mayeda <drmayeda@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote in news:t5ZUa.8920$j%4.412472@twister.socal.rr.com: 

> stePH wrote:
> 
>> Paul Cassel wrote:
>> 
>>> Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>>>
>>>> uh, which President was that???
>>>
>>> Hoover. Then Roosevelt, after failing to restart the economy over the
>>> next 9 or so years, got us into WWII to try that as an economic
>>> stimulus.
>> 
>> Roosevelt didn't get us into WWII "to try that as an economic
>> stimulis," numbnuts.  He was SITTING THE WAR OUT until Pearl Harbor was
>> bombed in 1941.
>> 
>> stePH
> 
> the chain of events there if you believe the movie "tora, tora, tora" 
> was pretty dumb almost as bad as 9/11.  some say the big brass KNEW 
> the attack was comming but kept it quiet.  I see Pearl harbor on a 
> regular basis.  I would hate to think that that many people were 
> killed/injured and my grandparents put through so much grief just to 
> give the national economy a goose.

Conspiracy theorists are everywhere. Did you hear that one third of
Germans believe that the U.S. government was behind the World Trade Center
attacks? 

On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:44:37p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:pBYUa.134875$o86.116249@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <5100e1cf4c9a2134ca8fb1c8a387149f@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:37:03p, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:GRVUa.18202$u51.6340@fed1read05: 
>>
>>> I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think the
>>> Dems care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.
>>
>> Democrats appeal to the emotions and not common sense.
>>
> Just wish Bush would use some commmon sense. Have you seen the deficit
> lately? 

Also known as the legacy of Bill Clinton.

I don't know about other but I vote in a voting booth.

In article <c08f9ca36340b04fbffad9d5ec1867ce@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:44:37p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
>news:pBYUa.134875$o86.116249@news1.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <5100e1cf4c9a2134ca8fb1c8a387149f@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:37:03p, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote in
>>> news:GRVUa.18202$u51.6340@fed1read05: 
>>>
>>>> I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think the
>>>> Dems care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.
>>>
>>> Democrats appeal to the emotions and not common sense.
>>>
>> Just wish Bush would use some commmon sense. Have you seen the deficit
>> lately? 
>
>Also known as the legacy of Bill Clinton.

And here I thought it was a balanced budget when he left office? Damn liberal 
slant.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 12:44:15a, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:zS1Va.138063$o86.73983@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <c08f9ca36340b04fbffad9d5ec1867ce@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:44:37p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote
>> in news:pBYUa.134875$o86.116249@news1.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <5100e1cf4c9a2134ca8fb1c8a387149f@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:37:03p, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote in
>>>> news:GRVUa.18202$u51.6340@fed1read05: 
>>>>
>>>>> I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think
>>>>> the Dems care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.
>>>>
>>>> Democrats appeal to the emotions and not common sense.
>>>
>>> Just wish Bush would use some commmon sense. Have you seen the deficit
>>> lately? 
>>
>> Also known as the legacy of Bill Clinton.
> 
> And here I thought it was a balanced budget when he left office? Damn
> liberal slant.

Yes, the budget was balanced while he was in office, but the only role he
played was that he happened to be there when it happened.

Clinton is known for his social programs spending spree.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 12:46:01a, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:dU1Va.138071$o86.55652@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <9nj8iv44lap3c2v1o5m1mgagu45rqndutl@4ax.com>,
> DKolle@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) thought hard and said:
>>
>>> In article <7035a0e1b4f539970a7c218731ff41f3@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
>>>> news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com: 
>>>>
>>>>> On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel
>>>>> Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have voted Bush.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
>>>
>>> Damn proud to have him.
>>
>> So you support a racist?
> 
> You bet! If thats what you want to call him thats your business.

And you Democrats still don't understand why you lost big time in 2002.

In article <ba87b053950c53a03e6f8d3c3637ab58@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Mon 28 Jul 2003 12:44:15a, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
>news:zS1Va.138063$o86.73983@news1.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <c08f9ca36340b04fbffad9d5ec1867ce@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:44:37p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote
>>> in news:pBYUa.134875$o86.116249@news1.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <5100e1cf4c9a2134ca8fb1c8a387149f@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:37:03p, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:GRVUa.18202$u51.6340@fed1read05: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think
>>>>>> the Dems care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.
>>>>>
>>>>> Democrats appeal to the emotions and not common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Just wish Bush would use some commmon sense. Have you seen the deficit
>>>> lately? 
>>>
>>> Also known as the legacy of Bill Clinton.
>> 
>> And here I thought it was a balanced budget when he left office? Damn
>> liberal slant.
>
>Yes, the budget was balanced while he was in office, but the only role he
>played was that he happened to be there when it happened.
>
>Clinton is known for his social programs spending spree.

You are some piece of work. On one hand he balanced the budget and payed down 
on the national debt but he is a big spender. Do you realize how stupid you 
sound? If Clinton was a big spender then what is Bush? Funny thing about Bush 
is a speech he made in 1997 saying that it would take a Republican president 
to balance the budget. LMAO! A year later Clinton did just that and now the 
idiot that made that statement has the worst deficit spending of all time. 

In article <ImDUa.121170$Io.10328820@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
Suckmyspamhole@suck.com says...
>
>
>"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message news:JvwUa.81405
>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now. When
>I
>> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
>
>When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
>

I think of that movie "Black Caesar"

Pro-Family and Pro-Limited Government.

"ObiWanJoJo" <jojoMSfanboy@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a0bVa.140310$o86.77782@news1.central.cox.net...
> In article <ImDUa.121170$Io.10328820@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Suckmyspamhole@suck.com says...
> >
> >
> >"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message news:JvwUa.81405
> >> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
When
> >I
> >> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
> >
> >When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
> >
>
> I think of that movie "Black Caesar"
>

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:52:53 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:

>Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy and/or
>foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years. 

I'm italian.
I'not leftist, I've some dignity so I can't vote Berlusconi, I can't
vote AN who is the party that come from the old fascist party, I live
in the south so I can't vote for Lega Nord who want divide Italy in
two part: north and Africa; I'm atheist so I can't vote for one of the
hundreds christian parties ...
Once we had liberal party who was a right, anticlerical party but know
it is dead.
To vote for me is really a nightmare :(

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/

"Schrodinger"
<Schrodingerthighhighjackboots@barrythigh.highjackbootsbarrysworld.com>
wrote in message news:bg045t$bu1$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:qJLUa.23591$Mc.1824861@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "The Doomster" <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F238519.98C8E602@netgate.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >> And look what you got. What a moron.
> > > >
> > > > I'm no defender of Bush, but he is by no means a moron, and the fact
> > that
> > > > you say that tells me all I need to know about you..
> > >
> > > My feelings exactly.  Bush had better academic grades than the Robot
and
> > people
> > > think Bush is a moron while Gore is some kind of genius because he had
a
> > book
> > > ghostwritten.  I'm sure Bush isn't the sharpest guy we had as
president
> > but
> > > neither is Gore.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you, Doomster!
> >
> > Actually Bush is a pretty bad president, BUT, put up against *any*
> democrat
> > and the decision is childsplay...  This is what we are voting for in
this
> > day and age- the lesser of two evils.  Democrats like to brag that they
> are
> > so much better educated and much more intelligent, but they are actually
> > simply more morally corrupted.  I mean they can't even keep a Dem as a
> > Governor of California, the most wacky state in the union....
> >
>
> Of course, it would have helped greatly had Bush *won* the election...

*hands Schrodinger a grape*  Careful, they're sour.

"The Doomster" <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote in message
news:3F24B97B.D88D7387@netgate.net...
> Darrell Mayeda wrote:
>
> > The Doomster wrote:
> >
> >
> > Okay some of that I didn't know about or realize.  I think MY
> > GOVERNOR and state legislature needs to take a look at the mess in
> > california as what to avoid because we are just starting that mess
> > now.  the question is what to do about it.  government spending on
> > construction projects is one way to spike the economy because those
> > construction jobs will need workers.
>
> Just because a government program increases jobs doesn't necessarily
justify
> spending govt. money.  Is the program needed, for say, to alleviate
traffic
> congestion, to implement mass transit, etc.?   Unfortunately, a lot of
programs
> are decided not based on merit but because Senator A from Texas is the
Committee
> Chairman and has the political pull to decide to spend on a project in his
state
> while Senator B's state of CA needs the construction dollars more.
>
> Companies don't just run a business to keep people employed.  They need to
make
> money.  The govt. should not just create "make work" projects solely to
boost
> jobs.  There should be a good reason for spending on the project.
>
> > those workers will earn money
> > they otherwise wouldn't have and spend it.  the question is what end
> > do you start from.  do you start at the top with the board of
> > directors and company presidents and hope they use the money in the
> > US to buy goods and services or do you start with the guy at the
> > bottom that might earn minimum wage and give him more money to spend.
>
> I'd do both.  The people at the bottom will spend it because they need it.
The
> people at the top will usually invest it, helping the economy because
their
> savings will be a source of investments that other companies will use to
> expand.  Reform the tax system so that we have a flat tax of 20% (for
everyone)
> for income above $45K for a family of 4.  No deductions 'cept for
dependents.
> This will give tax breaks for everyone, the rich and the poor.  But the
> government revenues will shrink, which will require slashing govt.
spending.
>
>
> >     Cutting taxes reduces revenue and would put you in more of a hole
> > than you started in unless the extra money provided a big spike in
> > spending to increase tax revenues that way.
>
> Not necessarily.  Lowering taxes, if they boost the economy, will increase
tax
> revenues.  You get more if get a smaller percentage of a large pie than a
big
> percentage of a small pie.  Reagan's tax cuts of the early 80s didn't
decrease
> revenues - the economy heated up and the govt. revenues increased.   Of
course,
> the GOP and Demos didn't do much to rein in spending and the deficits got
> larger.
>
>
> > From what we've seen of
> > giving money to the guys at the top.
>
> You're right - the tax cuts go to the people at the top.  But that's
because the
> people at the top pay most of the taxes.  If you want a sizeable tax cut
(that
> is, give taxpayers a large chunk of their taxes back in their pockets),
the tax
> cut will often benefit the rich the most.  Why?  Because they pay most of
the
> Fed. & state income taxes.  Because of our progressive tax system, the
ones at
> the bottom usually pay very little income taxes.  Check out this website:
>
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html
>
> The top 25% of income earners paid 84% of all Fed. income taxes.  The
bottom 50%
> of income earners paid only 5% of all income taxes.  The "rich" pay most
of the
> income taxes.  Therefore, any sizeable tax cut will benefit the rich since
they
> have the biggest burden.  The poor won't benefit from a tax cut because
*they
> pay little, if at all, taxes*.  That's why the Demos want to continue the
Earned
> Income Tax Credit, which is like demanding the manufacturer's rebate on a
truck
> w/o buying the truck.

I agree with everything you said except for one thing.  The EIC was created
by Reagan (I believe) in an attempt to reward low income workers from
staying off of welfare.

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news
to
> anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you
are
> to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are
to
> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
> understanding of them all.
>
> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
> don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory doesn't
> work.

BWAHAHAHA!  Now you are one funny guy my friend.  No, seriously...you're
down right funny.  Great, great stuff.  My favorite was the "liberals are
more educated" bit.

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cRLUa.23593$Mc.1825992@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > The government isn't supposed to forcibly take money from those who
have
> > > it and give it to those who don't work. There are plenty of charities,
> > > churches, and religious organizations that do that already.
> > >
> > > The government is there to protect it's citizens
> >
> > good point.  by assisting the unemployed, helping the disabled, the war
> > veterans, etc. they ARE doing just that: protecting their citizens.
>
>  IN OTHER WORDS, BIG BROTHER IS DOING IT'S JOB.....
>
>
> Well, it's time for a liberal to face the dictionary...
>
> Main Entry: pro�tect
> Pronunciation: pr&-'tekt
> Function: transitive verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
> protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover -- more at PRO-, THATCH
> Date: 15th century
> Definition: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
GUARD
>
>
> Exposure, Injury or Destruction.  ALL physical consequences.  *That's*
what
> our government is here for, not to dole out government cheese...

Mmmmm, chese*

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k_QUa.56782$Ii1.37054@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cRLUa.23593$Mc.1825992@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2_FUa.94143$zwL.88784@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > >
> > > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bfurv6$ja411$5@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:43:44a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> > wrote
> > > > in news:QkxUa.91956$zwL.5315@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:08e6a14d2aa4289d5f5a8fe7f7103461@free.teranews.com...
> > > > >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:00:51a, "nightwriter"
> <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote in
> > > > >> news:DIwUa.91430$zwL.12193@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's
> not
> > > > >>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the
> less
> > > > >>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth,
> the
> > > > >>> more likely you are to have interacted with other races and
other
> > > > >>> classes, gaining a better understanding of them all.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Did you know that in *every* presidential election since 1952,
the
> > > > >> Republicans have gotten a higher percentage of the vote among
> college
> > > > >> graduates than among high school graduates, and a higher
percentage
> > of
> > > > >> the vote among high school graduates than among high school
> dropouts?
> > > > >> The more educated one is, the more likely he or she is to vote
> > > > >> Republican. In other words, there is, as you assert, a strong
> > > > >> correlation between education and partisan voting, but it goes in
> the
> > > > >> opposite direction. Not that this is particularly surprising
news,
> > > > >> since you guys always like to tell us how much you're for the
> "little
> > > > >> guy".  Most "little guys" are little on the IQ meter. (Data from
> > > > >> Gallup, which is available to any subscribers -- see
> > > > >> http://www.gallup.com/poll/topics/ under 'Election Polls -- Vote
by
> > > > >> Groups').
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > interesting.  i don't have the link, but i've seen the exact
> opposite
> > > > > stats. further proving once again the famous quote: "There are
lies,
> > > > > damn lies, and then, there are statistics".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
> > > > >>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle
> down
> > > > >>> theory doesn't work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Democrats buy votes by expanding social programs and
government
> > > > >> handouts.
> > > > >
> > > > > but i thought social programs were good.  see, in a capitalist
> > society,
> > > > > the poor are NECESSARY to fuel the machine.  without the poor
> willing
> > to
> > > > > work at mcdonalds and sweep floors and do all those terrible jobs
> that
> > > > > are absolutely necessary for the machine to function, there'd be
no
> > > > > machine. and in every capitalist society, the poor and downtrodden
> are
> > > > > there because they are needed.  making them a bit happier, a bit
> > safer,
> > > > > a bit more pleased with their lot in life helps ensure the
machines
> > > > > survival.  ignoring them will only hurt the bottom line as they
miss
> > > > > days at work, steal, and are less productive.  so purely, from an
> > > > > economical sense, this makes sense. then there's the humanity side
> of
> > it
> > > > > all:  taking care of each other is important.  life's too short to
> be
> > > > > greedy.  helping people is a just and noble cause that i'm proud
to
> be
> > a
> > > > > part of.
> > > >
> > > > The government isn't supposed to forcibly take money from those who
> have
> > > > it and give it to those who don't work. There are plenty of
charities,
> > > > churches, and religious organizations that do that already.
> > > >
> > > > The government is there to protect it's citizens
> > >
> > > good point.  by assisting the unemployed, helping the disabled, the
war
> > > veterans, etc. they ARE doing just that: protecting their citizens.
> >
> >  IN OTHER WORDS, BIG BROTHER IS DOING IT'S JOB.....
> >
> >
> > Well, it's time for a liberal to face the dictionary...
> >
> > Main Entry: pro�tect
> > Pronunciation: pr&-'tekt
> > Function: transitive verb
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
> > protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover -- more at PRO-, THATCH
> > Date: 15th century
> > Definition: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
> GUARD
> >
> >
> > Exposure, Injury or Destruction.  ALL physical consequences.  *That's*
> what
> > our government is here for, not to dole out government cheese...
> >
> >
>
> that's the stupidest game of nit-pick semantics i've ever seen.  not to
> mention, i'd say starvation/homelessness/malnutrition/illness/etc fucking
> hurt.  and by your definition, that seems to fit the bill.

I'm curious since you seem to want to be a do-gooder...do you ever offer to
pay more taxes?  Do you ever send back your tax return checks?  Did you ever
send back your tax refund check from two years ago?  What about the latest
ones that are now arriving?  It would only seem like the natural thing to do
being as tho you want to help so badly.

"Maddog" <nunya@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3F2448A2.2020806@nowhere.com...
> Jason Costa wrote:
>
> >    What you say may be true to a point, but I've found that truly
> > intelligent people (like myself :)  have figured out that all
> > politicians are a bunch of slimeballs whether they call themselves
> > Republicans, conservative, liberal, Democratic, etc.  They're all cut
> > from the same cloth, just opposite ends.
>
> Now here is an example of a man grounded in reality and with an
> excellent understanding of the world and how it works. In other words -
> HE GETS IT!

Didn't you hear?  He's one of the "truly intelligent people".  Except when
it comes to MS's lawsuits, Xbox titles, pirating video games, etc.

"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s7yUa.82043$R92.35236@news2.central.cox.net...
> In article <3F22A88C.E28BC62A@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
> >
> >jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> >
> >> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
When I
> >> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just picture
Bush
> >> sitting there at the frat house in college being told that line
"fat,drunk
> and
> >> stupid is a terrible way to go through life son".
> >> Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight and
> >> stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
> >
> >Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day.  Did you notice he's
lost
> the
> >mullet?  Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him to
be
> >remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible.  I'd rather have
Sharpton
> than
> >Bush, too.
> >
> Yeah pretty funny. I saw him talk at a DNC meeting and I have to give the
guy
> some props for getting his shit together.

You two need serious help, seriously.  :-) It's one thing to rag on Bush for
all his failing (because most of the time they are funny and he deserves it)
but to consider Sharpton as a legitimate Presidential candidate?  Good lord.

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipxUa.92000$zwL.27400@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
> > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:09:38a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> > news:SQwUa.81530$R92.23881@news2.central.cox.net:
> >
> > > In article
<LLwUa.91474$zwL.23008@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> > >
> > >> yeah, ummmm... didn't the dixie chicks get banned?  didn't the
> > >> republicans on the street want to murder Martin Sheen for his
anti-war
> > >> protests?  didn't Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get their invitation
> to
> > >> some baseball thingy revoked because of their anti-war stance?
didn't
> > >> Bill Maher get fired from a conservative stations show because he
said
> > >> terrorists certainly weren't cowards?  Didn't Bush say "you're either
> > >> with us, or against us", leaving no room for public dissent, thereby
> > >> castrating the very essense of democracy? didn't his father, when he
> was
> > >> in power, say "athiests are anti-patriotic, and against everything
> > >> american"?
> > >>
> > >> stop the deception.  stop the self lies.  it's embarrassing.
> > >
> > > Damn Nightwriter you had better watch out or the Dixie Chick police
are
> > > going to hunt you down.
> >
> > He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for someone
to
> > prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than all other
> Presidents
> > combined.
>
> that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.

Actually wouldn't it be tough because you simply made up that statement?
That's ok, we've all said dumb things when we're angry.

Omphalos wrote:
> 
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:36:31p, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3F2437CF.8D15D04F@yahoo.com:
> 
> > Omphalos wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> >> hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >>
> >> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
> >> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and
> >> >>>> if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
> >> >>>> great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you
> >> >>>> tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a
> >> >>>> mixture of them all?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
> >> >>>> Democrats share.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't vote.
> >> >>
> >> >> Foolish.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
> >>
> >> Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy
> >> and/or foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.
> >
> > maybe it's a vote of no confidence. if you don't like either party, how
> > is voting for one a good thing? sounds to me like voting for something
> > you don't support is compromising your beliefs.
> 
> Well, I don't want someone who is uninformed voting. That is one of the
> reasons why we have the electoral college.
> 
> But, I do think it is foolish to *be* uninformed and not take an active
> role on determining who is part of your government.

strange...you make it sound as if someone who is uninformed doesn't have
the right for their vote to count.

isn't it the politician's job to ensure the voters are informed?

-- 
Gene Poole

Didn't you kill my brother?

"nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3CUa.93571$zwL.47335@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:0273f49b6e6e7142102d7e61f8a13cbf@free.teranews.com...
> > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:21:01p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
wrote
> > in news:NTxUa.92295$zwL.9312@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >
> > > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:kNxUa.160359$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:48:30a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote in
> > >> news:ipxUa.92000$zwL.27400@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> > >>
> > >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > >>> news:0dadcce7e5090b876419776e875461e3@free.teranews.com...
> > >>>
> > >>>> He doesn't understand what censorship is. I'm still waiting for
> > >>>> someone to prove that under Bush, we have had more censorship than
> > >>>> all other Presidents combined.
> > >>>
> > >>> that might be tough, simply because of J. Edgar Hoover.
> > >>>
> > >>> we do know the Bush has run up the biggest deficit in the history of
> > >>> america.  that bush has taken more holidays than any president in
the
> > >>> history of america.  that 'embedding' journalists in a war zone
> > >>> enables censorship.  that guantonimo bay has a lot of censorship and
> > >>> human rights violations.  that no president in the history of the
> > >>> united states has made more global enemies than bush.  ari fleischer
> > >>> told americans "to be very careful about what they say".  which
> > >>> meant: don't speak out against the president (this was during the
> > >>> post 9/11 stuff where people were speaking their minds and getting
> > >>> fired).  Fleischer was effectively clamping down on public dissent
on
> > >>> CNN.  THAT'S censorship.  every time the government hides
information
> > >>> from us: that's censorship.  every time the president opens his
mouth
> > >>> and says "the war on terror is being won", that's a lie.
> > >>
> > >> So are we losing? Is Al Queda winning? Doesn't look like it to me.
> > >
> > > ??
> > >
> > > how the hell do you know what's festering over there?  because bush
said
> > > so? i'll give it 5 years before something monstrous happens.  the last
> > > osama attack on US soil was in 1993 (wtc bombing).  he was patient
> > > enough to wait that long before he orchestrated that rallying cry to
> > > other terrorists that the US was vunerable.  if you think you're
winning
> > > because you're drinking a starbucks coffee in your suburban backyard,
i
> > > ask you:  is air travel still a good business?  do people travel
> > > overseas as much?  how much is bush spending on weapons programs?  how
> > > much is bush spending on the department of homeland security?  how
much
> > > are bush's friends making on all this?  do you really really feel
safe?
> > > safer than you did pre-9/11?
> >
> > So basically you don't know shit.
>
>
> exactly.
>
> and it's the not knowing that is the basis of all fear.
>
> fear is what bush has predicated his government on.
>
> fear enables the leaders to manipulate the people.
>
> and living in fear is a terrible way to live.  i blame bush for that.

Let me guess....you blame Bush for 9/11 as well?

I doubt many non-American would have voted for Nader, but for sure he
would have gotten more votes than Bush, hypothetically speaking from
non-American.  I can't think of any US president that have pissed off
more countries than Bush did.  However, I can understand why Americans
love him.

> ROFLOL. Nader all the way.;)
> 
> 
> Leons Petrazickis
> import java.lang.disclaimer;

"Client Retention @ Home" wrote:
> 
> "Gene Poole" <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F242882.48AB9@yahoo.com...
> > "Client Retention @ Home" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam
> > > > hole@suck.com> wrote in
> > > > news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> > > >
> > > > > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if
> I
> > > > >> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
> I'd
> > > > >> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote
> in
> > > > >> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
> all?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> against
> > > > >> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't vote.
> > > >
> > > > Foolish.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
> >
> > your mom far outweighs a manatee.
> >
> Pfff, you're mom fucked a manatee. :-P

that wasn't that great, mang. mine was better.

-- 
Gene Poole

(And dealing in death is the nature of the beast...)

"Gene Poole" <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F229A23.EAE6F0F@yahoo.com...
> jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> >
> > In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> > >
> > >I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> > >offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> > >like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> > >elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> > >
> > >Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> > >
> > >Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> > >Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> >
> > Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that
has
> > these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship
than
> > the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
> > Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand
Sharpton
> > in office than Bush.
>
> not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
> right?

The only white woman living in the city of Washington DC between 1992-2000
that Clinton didn't boff during his tenure?

..

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:cf9d3a22748510e9152edfeb98612b58@free.teranews.com...
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:58p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
> news:agYUa.134133$o86.79635@news1.central.cox.net:
>
> > In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>,
> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
> >> news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>,
> >>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote in
> >>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote
> >>>>>> in news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> >>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
> >>>>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.
> >>>>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it
> >>>>>>>> is the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle,
> >>>>>>>> and most dont' see the errors of omission.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
> >>>>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a
> >>>>>>> newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you
> >>>>>>> can even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the
> >>>>>>> internet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.
> >>>>>>> And they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out
> >>>>>>> about these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from
> >>>>>>> the news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the
> >>>>>>> left-wing slant that you would prefer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
> >>>>
> >>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you
> >>>> get to communism.
> >>>>
> >>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and
> >>>> they are closer to anarchy than communism.
> >>>
> >>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets
> >>> he has passed in the last three years and you will see that we are
> >>> closer to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
> >>
> >> I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
> >> complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending.
> >
> > LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax
> > money to pay down the national debt.
>
> During the Clinton years the administration allowed a monstrous increase
> in spending on Social Security disability programs. Social Security
> disability pensions became easy money during the 1990s, from drug addicts
> and alcoholics who were welcomed onto the rolls to immigrants who were
> advised to sign up at U.S. embassies abroad even before they arrived on
> U.S. shores.
>
> Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the
> budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was
> about the extent of his contribution. Newt Gingrich and company -- for all
> their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the
> budget. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995
> when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of
> eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics said it could not be
> done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.
>
> Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it
> was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way
> in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own
> balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign
> to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as
> "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight
> in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he
> begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the
> height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton
> administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top
> priorities."
>
> And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer
> a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have
> sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right:
> for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs
> pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark
> McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.
>
> Budget cuts--primarily in '95, '96--reduced the growth rate of government
> spending.  (Bill Clinton fought them, remember).  Deregulation (and the
> lack of regulation which would have been present under Democratic
> leadership) improved economic growth, leading to greater tax revenues.
> NAFTA (yes it was signed by Clinton but free trade is primarily supported
> and advanced by conservatives) and other free trade policy improved
> economic growth, helped move us along toward a service based economy,
> improved capital liquidity, and reduced the bargaining power of those
> economic viruses we call labor unions.  Welfare reform, another
> conservative movement that was both opposed and embraced by Clinton,
> improved labor productivity in the US.

This was absolutely brilliant!  Bravo!

*standing O*

> How about you.  Can you name one *successful* policy (other than NAFTA)
> proposed by Bill Clinton, which improved economic growth?
>
> Just one?

The Crime Bill of 1993?  *snicker*

ObiWanJoJo wrote:
> 
> In article <ba87b053950c53a03e6f8d3c3637ab58@free.teranews.com>,
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >On Mon 28 Jul 2003 12:44:15a, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
> >news:zS1Va.138063$o86.73983@news1.central.cox.net:
> >
> >> In article <c08f9ca36340b04fbffad9d5ec1867ce@free.teranews.com>,
> >> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>
> >>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:44:37p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote
> >>> in news:pBYUa.134875$o86.116249@news1.central.cox.net:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <5100e1cf4c9a2134ca8fb1c8a387149f@free.teranews.com>,
> >>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 03:37:03p, "bunboy" <bunboy@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>> news:GRVUa.18202$u51.6340@fed1read05:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I vote democrat almost always.  They both stink but I still think
> >>>>>> the Dems care more about the everday guy and those of less fortune.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Democrats appeal to the emotions and not common sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just wish Bush would use some commmon sense. Have you seen the deficit
> >>>> lately?
> >>>
> >>> Also known as the legacy of Bill Clinton.
> >>
> >> And here I thought it was a balanced budget when he left office? Damn
> >> liberal slant.
> >
> >Yes, the budget was balanced while he was in office, but the only role he
> >played was that he happened to be there when it happened.
> >
> >Clinton is known for his social programs spending spree.
> 
> You are some piece of work. On one hand he balanced the budget and payed down
> on the national debt but he is a big spender. Do you realize how stupid you
> sound? If Clinton was a big spender then what is Bush? Funny thing about Bush
> is a speech he made in 1997 saying that it would take a Republican president
> to balance the budget. LMAO! A year later Clinton did just that and now the
> idiot that made that statement has the worst deficit spending of all time.

in Bush's defence, in 1997 he didn't expect having to deal with
terrorists using planes as guided missiles.

-- 
Gene Poole

I'm not a complete idiot; some parts are missing.

Antonio Fanelli wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:52:53 GMT, Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
> >Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy and/or
> >foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two years.
> 
> I'm italian.
> I'not leftist, I've some dignity so I can't vote Berlusconi, I can't
> vote AN who is the party that come from the old fascist party, I live
> in the south so I can't vote for Lega Nord who want divide Italy in
> two part: north and Africa; I'm atheist so I can't vote for one of the
> hundreds christian parties ...
> Once we had liberal party who was a right, anticlerical party but know
> it is dead.
> To vote for me is really a nightmare :(

hey, after WWII, did they really string mussolini upside down in the
square and give all the public a good chance to kick his head in?

-- 
Gene Poole

90% of all statistics are made up

Robert P Holley wrote:
> 
> "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my spam hole@suck.com> wrote in message
> news:ImDUa.121170$Io.10328820@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message news:JvwUa.81405
> > > He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
> When
> > I
> > > see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
> >
> > When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
> 
> "Two dollars!"

"I wanted a peanut!"

....no...wait...nevermind :)

-- 
Gene Poole

You've got to take life serially.

Robert P Holley wrote:
> 
> "Gene Poole" <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F229A23.EAE6F0F@yahoo.com...
> > jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com>,
> > > omphalos@wp.pl says...
> > > >
> > > >I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> > > >offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> > > >like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> > > >elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> > > >
> > > >Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> > > >
> > > >Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> > > >Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> > >
> > > Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats that
> has
> > > these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more censorship
> than
> > > the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most actors/artists are
> > > Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have the good Reverand
> Sharpton
> > > in office than Bush.
> >
> > not to get mixed up in this, but you are aware who Al Gore's wife is,
> > right?
> 
> The only white woman living in the city of Washington DC between 1992-2000
> that Clinton didn't boff during his tenure?
> 
> .

muhh.

"if you're ever in washington, stop by...there's a shed out back I spend
most of my time in"

heh.

-- 
Gene Poole

Gah!!
-Danoot, after I defied the laws of everything by making KookieJar work
in reverse

> > >
> > > Well, it's time for a liberal to face the dictionary...
> > >
> > > Main Entry: pro�tect
> > > Pronunciation: pr&-'tekt
> > > Function: transitive verb
> > > Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
> > > protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover -- more at PRO-,
THATCH
> > > Date: 15th century
> > > Definition: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction :
> > GUARD
> > >
> > >
> > > Exposure, Injury or Destruction.  ALL physical consequences.  *That's*
> > what
> > > our government is here for, not to dole out government cheese...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > that's the stupidest game of nit-pick semantics i've ever seen.  not to
> > mention, i'd say starvation/homelessness/malnutrition/illness/etc
fucking
> > hurt.  and by your definition, that seems to fit the bill.
>
> I'm curious since you seem to want to be a do-gooder...do you ever offer
to
> pay more taxes?  Do you ever send back your tax return checks?  Did you
ever
> send back your tax refund check from two years ago?  What about the latest
> ones that are now arriving?  It would only seem like the natural thing to
do
> being as tho you want to help so badly.
>
>

How many people could he help if he were to sell off his frivolous
electronic equipment (i.e. Gamecube and games, TV, stereos etc.). 10
starving homeless malnourished ill people?  20?  Or is that only the duty of
the government and not the duty of the citizens?  Fucking hypocritical
liberals!

answer: like anyone else

"Jim S." <quint_75@nowayinhellswbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F22CF7F.BF62A3E0@nowayinhellswbell.net...
> Omphalos wrote:
>
> > The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs
so
> > consumed with hatred of Bush?
>
> Hmm.  Let's see:
> -Is it the war-mongering?
> -Is it the fact (yes, fact, read up on it) that he went AWOL and nothing
was
> said because of daddy?

Link something and I'll read it.

> -Is it the lying about the WMD report, or perhaps the willingness to let
> everyone else take the fall for it? (whatever happened to The Buck Stops
> Here?)

Proof?

> -Is it because he says Iraq needed to be liberated from an evil dictator
while
> similar countries (with no oil, of course) are suffering just as badly and
> nothing is done?
> -Is it because Haliburton (sic) was given control of the Iraqi oil
production
> without any bidding process whatsoever?

Make up your mind.  Was the Iraq situation because of WMD, oil or
liberation?

> -Is it because his tax cuts have done exactly what the dems have said they
> would, that is help the rich 1000X more than the poor?

Psst.  The poor don't pay taxes.

> -Is it because his latest tax proposals did absolutely nothing to help the
> poor, until he was pressured into it and gave in?

How can you help a section of the tax paying population who don't even pay
taxes?

> -Is it because he is insisting on tax cuts while the country falls the
> furthest into debt it has ever been?

You do realize tax cuts spur economic growth don't you?

> -Is it because North Korea has stared him down because A.) they didn't
blink
> when we threatened them or B.) they knew they were safe because they have
> nothing (as in oil) that we want?

Or perhaps because NK has to be handled differently than Iraq?  You do know
once a country develops their WMD it's a different ballgame.

> -Is it because he campaigned that he was "just a regular guy like you and
> me"?  Sure, he is just like you and me, as long as our daddies were rich
Texas
> oil men who were American ambassadors, then Vice President for 8 years,
then
> President for 4 years, got us into Yale, got us out of trouble for going
AWOL
> and doing drugs, and who helped us buy a major league baseball team?

??

> -Is it because he bought the Texas Rangers, had the community pay for his
> brand new stadium and then turned and sold the franchise for about 4X what
he
> paid?  He profited because the taxpayers bought him a brand new stadium.
Hmm.

You don't know much about sports ownership do you?

> -Is it because this coward of a man uses phrases like "Frontier Justice,
> Wanted Dead Or Alive and Bring 'Em On when HIS ass is safe and sound and
> American soldiers are being killed?  Nice cowboy, macho rhetoric,
Georgey-Boy.
> -Maybe it's because this papa's boy who went AWOL has dared to question
the
> patriotism of former military men like John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam
> while Georgey was safe in the reserves and even THEN went AWOL?
> -Maybe it's because he appointed a fundamentalist Christian wacko (and I
mean
> wacko, I am from Missouri and saw this first hand) as Attorney General,
who
> has since used the events of 9-11 to take away your basic rights of
privacy?
> -Is it because anyone who dared to say anything against the post 9-11
policies
> was shouted down as unpatriotic by the freaking Attorney General and the
Bush
> administration
> -Is it because Cheney's connections to Haliburton and Enron have never
been
> fully investigated while Kenneth Starr pounded the fuck out of the
Clinton's
> (and dug WAY unnecessarily into their personal lives) for Whitewater?

I like how you said "pounded the fuck out of" in regards to Clinton.  Was
that on purpose?  Cause it was very funny. :-)

> -Is it because my phones will probably be tapped now and I am on Bush and
> Ashcroft's shit list for typing this?

Zoloft.

> -Because Rumsfeld will say this post is a threat to national security and
is
> endangering our troops?
>
> I don't know for sure, I am just saying it could be one of those things...

Seek.  Medical treatment.  Now.

"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4YxUa.81969$R92.53239@news2.central.cox.net...
> In article <3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
> >
> >Nightwing wrote:
> >
> >> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
> >
> >I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
doing
> >better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing power from
the
> >states and expanding the size of the federal government.  Bush can't even
lie
> as
> >well as Clinton.  (Yea, right, it's all about WMD's.  Pinhead.)
> >
> >Clinton/Clinton in 2004!
> >
> Hey I love Clinton

First Sharpton and now this?  I hate to say this, but Skye was right.  You
truly are a moron.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com...
> This is being reposted for those in the rec.games.video.sony newsgroup.
> The original newsgroup it was posted to was ALT.games.video.sony. This was
> an error, namely because the group does not exist.
>
> BEGIN POST
> ----------
>
> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>
> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>
> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.

I'm a registered Republican who voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian).

> strange...you make it sound as if someone who is uninformed doesn't have
> the right for their vote to count.
>
> isn't it the politician's job to ensure the voters are informed?

it is the politician's job to ensure that the means of information are
available.

it is then the citizen's job to inform himself.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:uQxUa.160377$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
> wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com:
>
> > Nader.   :)
> >
> > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >
> >> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
> >> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> >> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >>
> >> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>
> >> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
> Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
> offense, I am just curious.

Because we vote with our conscience, knowing we can sleep at night?  No way
would I have ever voted for Bush or Gore.

> You are some piece of work. On one hand he balanced the budget and payed
down
> on the national debt but he is a big spender. Do you realize how stupid
you
> sound? If Clinton was a big spender then what is Bush? Funny thing about
Bush
> is a speech he made in 1997 saying that it would take a Republican
president
> to balance the budget. LMAO! A year later Clinton did just that and now
the
> idiot that made that statement has the worst deficit spending of all time.

uhhh, you have a funny definition of the word "balance". since when is a
budget that leaves out where half of the money went and STILL increases the
national debt "balanced"?

"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MTxUa.81943$R92.33186@news2.central.cox.net...
> In article <uQxUa.160377$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
omphalos@wp.pl
> says...
> >
> >On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
> >wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com:
> >
> >> Nader.   :)
> >>
> >> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >>
> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
> >>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
I'd
> >>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
> >>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >>>
> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >>>
> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
> >>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
> >
> >Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
> >offense, I am just curious.
>
> Its called not drinking the koolaid.

....says the Democratic koolaid guzzler.

> > Whats up Omphalos? No retort for this line? He just called you ignorant.
>
> -"Remember, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
> open your mouth and remove all doubt."


"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from delivering
wordy evidence of the fact." -- Mark Twain

When someone resorts to insult, it is better to leave the deteriorated
argument for a better, more intelligent one. Omphalos did the right thing.
I, on the other hand, joined in at the wrong time. :-)

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:0a92facbe48759725201556984bb31a7@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 09:13:32p, stePH <acetheta@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:3F23273C.B3F70AEF@earthlink.net:
>
> > Omphalos wrote:
> >>
> >> Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
> >> offense, I am just curious.
> >
> > So that I can point at the asshole who got elected and say "not my
> > fault."  I can't have a weasel in office on my conscience (they're all
> > weasels, just so you know.)
>
> Then why vote at all? If you vote for a guy that you know will not win
> just because you don't want a guilty conscience then you deserve whatever
> crap you get.

This makes no sense at all.  I don't deserve the "crap"cause I didn't vote
for it.  You did.  If you voted for a better candidate instead of Gore or
Bush then maybe we would have to deal with this "crap".

> When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"

I detest Sharpton's politics, but at least he's honest about what he
believes in. He's about the only candidate who will give it to you straight
without politicizing. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him the best man for
the job. Being a socialist kinda rules him out.

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:7035a0e1b4f539970a7c218731ff41f3@free.teranews.com...
> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
> news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com:
>
> > On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
> > <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
> >
> >> I would have voted Bush.
> >
> > Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
>
> Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.

How does his illegitimate children vote?

JPM III wrote:
> 
> > strange...you make it sound as if someone who is uninformed doesn't have
> > the right for their vote to count.
> >
> > isn't it the politician's job to ensure the voters are informed?
> 
> it is the politician's job to ensure that the means of information are
> available.
> 
> it is then the citizen's job to inform himself.

okay, fair enough...but suppose the citizen chooses not to bother...does
that mean that their vote doesn't matter?

-- 
Gene Poole

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

JPM III wrote:
> 
> > > Whats up Omphalos? No retort for this line? He just called you ignorant.
> >
> > -"Remember, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
> > open your mouth and remove all doubt."
> 
> "Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from delivering
> wordy evidence of the fact." -- Mark Twain
> 
> When someone resorts to insult, it is better to leave the deteriorated
> argument for a better, more intelligent one. Omphalos did the right thing.
> I, on the other hand, joined in at the wrong time. :-)

hmm.

Omphalos did the right thing this time, but for the wrong reasons. this
is because it is plain that he isn't opposed to flinging mud, as is
evidenced elsewhere. refraining from insults seems to therefore be
merely accident.

-- 
Gene Poole

This post would make a lot more sense if I were drunk.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 01:37:01 GMT, "nightwriter"
<spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote:

>the dixie chix was a politically motivated ban.  POLITICALLY motivated.

But NOT government sponsered. Private companies have every right to
"censor", and the public has every right to take their business
elsewhere if they object to the censorship. It is not censorship if a
private industry enacts a ban.

>they did this because the public supported this.  and the public supported
>it because washington has whipped its people up to believe that "you are
>either with us, or against us".

The "public" is not stupid, and is made up of all
political/racial/religions/economic groups. Those that supported the
"ban" did so because they wanted to. Not because they were brainwashed
by "washington". Nobody earned "with us or against us" points or
credit by supporting the ban.

>let me start:  can washington be held, in any part, responsible for the
>public backlash at anyone against the war based on its warcry of 'with us or
>against us'?   discuss.

"Washington" is not solely George Bush, and there is plenty of
opposing opinions being heard every day from the House, Senate, and
every major media source. There is nothing to discuss. You premise is
flawed, and your assertation that the "public backlash" is based soley
on Bush's statement is laughable.

>>>>> "o" == omphalos  <omphalos@wp.pl> writes:

    o> Conspiracy theorists are everywhere. 

In fact, they have infiltrated the US government and a planning to shut
down the internet as we ty^^^^no carrier^^^^
-- 
Hartmut "no not me" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University  hs7@post.queensu.ca
Man lebt nicht einmal einmal. Karl Kraus
 

jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in message news:<pR1Va.138057$o86.55867@news1.central.cox.net>...
> In article <0b5483b6457bfa756ce06bdc7767e43e@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
> >
> >On Sun 27 Jul 2003 08:10:03a, The Doomster <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote
> >in news:3F23C11B.37C34000@netgate.net: 
> >
> >> jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hold up one second omphalos. Lieberman is one of the only Democrats
> >>> that has these censorship ideas. The Conservatives/Republicans do more
> >>> censorship than the Democrats do. Have you ever noticed that most
> >>> actors/artists are Democrats? I voted for Gore and I would rather have
> >>> the good Reverand Sharpton in office than Bush.
> >> 
> >> You're right that Omphalos might have a false premise (that gamers voted
> >> against Gore because of the censorship issue of Lieberman).  But didn't
> >> Tipper start PMRC? 
> >> 
> >> Yup, conservatives/Republicans do censor, way too much for my taste, but
> >> so do liberals/Democrats.  Ever witness what goes on on college campuses
> >> like Berkeley where liberals actually stole the student newspaper
> >> because they didn't like what was written in an editorial?  Or the
> >> Hollywood studios who changed movies like "Sum of All Fears" because of
> >> political correctness?  Or media companies like CNN who routinely keep
> >> out reports that make liberals look bad (check out BIAS by Bernard
> >> Goldberg), reports like how Clinton ran ads during the 1996 campaign on 
> >> Christian radio stations touting his defense of marriage (he signed the
> >> DOMA) all the while claiming to gay voters that he really cared about
> >> them?  No media coverage 'cept for the alt. sources like Drudge.  And
> >> there are other blatant examples of media self-censorship.
> >
> >You have a good point but technically, that isn't censorship because only
> >a government can censor. 
> > 
> >> The reason why so many actors/artists are Democrats are because they are
> >> out of touch w/ the real world.  It's great to dream up of a socialistic
> >> utopia where "peace, love, and understanding" are the working principles
> >> but it doesn't work like that in the real world.  If artists really
> >> cared about "freedom", they'd vote Libertarian, but they won't since
> >> Libertarians also espouse "economic freedoms", something anathemic to
> >> most liberals.
> >
> >I especially enjoy celebrities talk about how taxes should be raised to
> >hand out to the poor and non-working. Most real Americans don't get
> >millions of dollars a year for pretending to be someone your not (acting).
> > 
> >> Neither political party or side can claim that they care more about our
> >> civil liberties than the other (except for maybe the Libertarians). 
> >> Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.
> 
> Whats up Omphalos? No retort for this line? He just called you ignorant.

Oh no! He didn't respond to a personal attack! He's lost all
credibility because of it!

In article <bg3p94$k5foe$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, holleyrp@delanet.com 
says...
>
>"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:s7yUa.82043$R92.35236@news2.central.cox.net...
>> In article <3F22A88C.E28BC62A@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
>> >
>> >jojoMSfanboy wrote:
>> >
>> >> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
>When I
>> >> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just picture
>Bush
>> >> sitting there at the frat house in college being told that line
>"fat,drunk
>> and
>> >> stupid is a terrible way to go through life son".
>> >> Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight and
>> >> stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
>> >
>> >Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day.  Did you notice he's
>lost
>> the
>> >mullet?  Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him to
>be
>> >remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible.  I'd rather have
>Sharpton
>> than
>> >Bush, too.
>> >
>> Yeah pretty funny. I saw him talk at a DNC meeting and I have to give the
>guy
>> some props for getting his shit together.
>
>You two need serious help, seriously.  :-) It's one thing to rag on Bush for
>all his failing (because most of the time they are funny and he deserves it)
>but to consider Sharpton as a legitimate Presidential candidate?  Good lord.
>
>
You consider Bush a legitimate president? 

In article <bg3t7i$kegei$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, holleyrp@delanet.com 
says...
>
>"Jim S." <quint_75@nowayinhellswbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3F22CF7F.BF62A3E0@nowayinhellswbell.net...
>> Omphalos wrote:
>>
>> > The hatred of Bush far exceeds that hatred of Clinton. Why are the libs
>so
>> > consumed with hatred of Bush?
>>
>> Hmm.  Let's see:
>> -Is it the war-mongering?
>> -Is it the fact (yes, fact, read up on it) that he went AWOL and nothing
>was
>> said because of daddy?
>
>Link something and I'll read it.
>
Read his book. 

>> -Is it the lying about the WMD report, or perhaps the willingness to let
>> everyone else take the fall for it? (whatever happened to The Buck Stops
>> Here?)
>
>Proof?
>

Have you ever heard Bush take the fall for it? Thats your proof. Truman always 
took the blame and said the buck stops here. This is what a leader does.  

>> -Is it because he says Iraq needed to be liberated from an evil dictator
>while
>> similar countries (with no oil, of course) are suffering just as badly and
>> nothing is done?
>> -Is it because Haliburton (sic) was given control of the Iraqi oil
>production
>> without any bidding process whatsoever?
>
>Make up your mind.  Was the Iraq situation because of WMD, oil or
>liberation?

I tell you one thing it was not about. Liberation.

>> -Is it because his tax cuts have done exactly what the dems have said they
>> would, that is help the rich 1000X more than the poor?
>
>Psst.  The poor don't pay taxes.
>
Yeah right! You consider a single mother making 17K rich?

>> -Is it because his latest tax proposals did absolutely nothing to help the
>> poor, until he was pressured into it and gave in?
>
>How can you help a section of the tax paying population who don't even pay
>taxes?
>
Just like above...Do you consider a single mother making 17K rich?

>> -Is it because he is insisting on tax cuts while the country falls the
>> furthest into debt it has ever been?
>
>You do realize tax cuts spur economic growth don't you?
>
It won't forever when this country's deficit spins out of control.

>> -Is it because North Korea has stared him down because A.) they didn't
>blink
>> when we threatened them or B.) they knew they were safe because they have
>> nothing (as in oil) that we want?
>
>Or perhaps because NK has to be handled differently than Iraq?  You do know
>once a country develops their WMD it's a different ballgame.
>
And here I thought they were only making the uranium right now. BAM! I guess 
we already have ballistic missles. 

>> -Is it because he campaigned that he was "just a regular guy like you and
>> me"?  Sure, he is just like you and me, as long as our daddies were rich
>Texas
>> oil men who were American ambassadors, then Vice President for 8 years,
>then
>> President for 4 years, got us into Yale, got us out of trouble for going
>AWOL
>> and doing drugs, and who helped us buy a major league baseball team?
>
>??
>
>> -Is it because he bought the Texas Rangers, had the community pay for his
>> brand new stadium and then turned and sold the franchise for about 4X what
>he
>> paid?  He profited because the taxpayers bought him a brand new stadium.
>Hmm.
>
>You don't know much about sports ownership do you?
>
You don't know the difference between legit and crooked. 

>> -Is it because this coward of a man uses phrases like "Frontier Justice,
>> Wanted Dead Or Alive and Bring 'Em On when HIS ass is safe and sound and
>> American soldiers are being killed?  Nice cowboy, macho rhetoric,
>Georgey-Boy.
>> -Maybe it's because this papa's boy who went AWOL has dared to question
>the
>> patriotism of former military men like John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam
>> while Georgey was safe in the reserves and even THEN went AWOL?
>> -Maybe it's because he appointed a fundamentalist Christian wacko (and I
>mean
>> wacko, I am from Missouri and saw this first hand) as Attorney General,
>who
>> has since used the events of 9-11 to take away your basic rights of
>privacy?
>> -Is it because anyone who dared to say anything against the post 9-11
>policies
>> was shouted down as unpatriotic by the freaking Attorney General and the
>Bush
>> administration
>> -Is it because Cheney's connections to Haliburton and Enron have never
>been
>> fully investigated while Kenneth Starr pounded the fuck out of the
>Clinton's
>> (and dug WAY unnecessarily into their personal lives) for Whitewater?
>
>I like how you said "pounded the fuck out of" in regards to Clinton.  Was
>that on purpose?  Cause it was very funny. :-)
>
>> -Is it because my phones will probably be tapped now and I am on Bush and
>> Ashcroft's shit list for typing this?
>
>Zoloft.
>
>> -Because Rumsfeld will say this post is a threat to national security and
>is
>> endangering our troops?
>>
>> I don't know for sure, I am just saying it could be one of those things...
>
>Seek.  Medical treatment.  Now.
>
>

In article <bg3tti$jvbkf$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, holleyrp@delanet.com 
says...
>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:18efae9e40eeab180d21395978233be8@free.teranews.com...
>> This is being reposted for those in the rec.games.video.sony newsgroup.
>> The original newsgroup it was posted to was ALT.games.video.sony. This was
>> an error, namely because the group does not exist.
>>
>> BEGIN POST
>> ----------
>>
>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great. I'd
>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>>
>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>>
>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>
>I'm a registered Republican who voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian).
>
>
Shows your level of education and thought process. 

In article <bg3u50$khogs$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, holleyrp@delanet.com 
says...
>
>"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:MTxUa.81943$R92.33186@news2.central.cox.net...
>> In article <uQxUa.160377$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
>omphalos@wp.pl
>> says...
>> >
>> >On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:52:21a, "John Ashcroft" <ashcroft@iswatching.you>
>> >wrote in news:6Rudna1wsLszPr-iU-KYvg@comcast.com:
>> >
>> >> Nader.   :)
>> >>
>> >> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>> >>
>> >>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost, and if I
>> >>> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too great.
>I'd
>> >>> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to vote in
>> >>> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>> >>>
>> >>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
>> >>>
>> >>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely against
>> >>> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats share.
>> >
>> >Why do people vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning? No
>> >offense, I am just curious.
>>
>> Its called not drinking the koolaid.
>
>...says the Democratic koolaid guzzler.
>
And here I voted for Bush's moderate daddy. I thought koolaid guzzlers only 
drank from their own well. 

In article <bg3u73$jks4b$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de>, jpmccord@hotmail.com 
says...
>
>> You are some piece of work. On one hand he balanced the budget and payed
>down
>> on the national debt but he is a big spender. Do you realize how stupid
>you
>> sound? If Clinton was a big spender then what is Bush? Funny thing about
>Bush
>> is a speech he made in 1997 saying that it would take a Republican
>president
>> to balance the budget. LMAO! A year later Clinton did just that and now
>the
>> idiot that made that statement has the worst deficit spending of all time.
>
>uhhh, you have a funny definition of the word "balance". since when is a
>budget that leaves out where half of the money went and STILL increases the
>national debt "balanced"?
>
>
How is paying down on the national debt in 1999 increasing the national debt?

In article <3F23BCD1.AB21E39E@netgate.net>, electriceye@netgate.net says...
>
>nightwriter wrote:
>
>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not news to
>> anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less likely you are
>> to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the more likely you are 
to
>> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
>> understanding of them all.
>
>Then explain how so many liberals fell for Bill Clinton's BS.
>
>Just because you're educated doesn't necessarily mean you have more common
>sense.  In fact, the more 'educated' Democrats sometimes display an egregious
>lack of common sense, which alienate me from their candidates and policies.
>
>
>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the country.
>> don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down theory doesn't
>> work.
>
>Your economics degree should also tell you that taxes have a deleterious 
affect
>on the economy, yet the one constant of the Democratic Party is to raise 
taxes.
>
And yet this country has the lowest tax rate(pre tax cut) of any civilized 
nation. 


>Doomster
>~*--*~
>PLEASE NOTE: Please check my address when you use the
>"Reply" function.
>
>The address: electriceye@u2.netgate.net IS INVALID --
>your email will bounce.
>
>The correct address is electriceye at netgate.net.
>
>Doomster
>--
>electriceye@netgate.net
>
>

In article <cf9d3a22748510e9152edfeb98612b58@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:58p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
>news:agYUa.134133$o86.79635@news1.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote
>>>>>>> in news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
>>>>>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.  
>>>>>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it
>>>>>>>>> is the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle,
>>>>>>>>> and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
>>>>>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a
>>>>>>>> newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you
>>>>>>>> can even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the
>>>>>>>> internet. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. 
>>>>>>>> And they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out
>>>>>>>> about these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from
>>>>>>>> the news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the
>>>>>>>> left-wing slant that you would prefer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you
>>>>> get to communism. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and
>>>>> they are closer to anarchy than communism.
>>>> 
>>>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets
>>>> he has passed in the last three years and you will see that we are
>>>> closer to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
>>>
>>> I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
>>> complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending. 
>> 
>> LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax
>> money to pay down the national debt.
>
>During the Clinton years the administration allowed a monstrous increase
>in spending on Social Security disability programs. Social Security
>disability pensions became easy money during the 1990s, from drug addicts
>and alcoholics who were welcomed onto the rolls to immigrants who were
>advised to sign up at U.S. embassies abroad even before they arrived on
>U.S. shores.
>
>Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the
>budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was
>about the extent of his contribution. Newt Gingrich and company -- for all
>their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the
>budget. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995
>when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of
>eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics said it could not be
>done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. 
>
>Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it
>was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way
>in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own
>balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign
>to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as
>"pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight
>in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he
>begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the
>height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton
>administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top
>priorities." 
>
>And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer
>a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have
>sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right:
>for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs
>pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark
>McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run. 
>
>Budget cuts--primarily in '95, '96--reduced the growth rate of government
>spending.  (Bill Clinton fought them, remember).  Deregulation (and the
>lack of regulation which would have been present under Democratic
>leadership) improved economic growth, leading to greater tax revenues. 
>NAFTA (yes it was signed by Clinton but free trade is primarily supported
>and advanced by conservatives) and other free trade policy improved
>economic growth, helped move us along toward a service based economy,
>improved capital liquidity, and reduced the bargaining power of those
>economic viruses we call labor unions.  Welfare reform, another
>conservative movement that was both opposed and embraced by Clinton,
>improved labor productivity in the US. 
>
>How about you.  Can you name one *successful* policy (other than NAFTA)
>proposed by Bill Clinton, which improved economic growth?
>
>Just one?

Just read this rant and I will rest my case. Everything you just said is why I 
am a democrat and damn proud of it. I just wish you had the pleasure of 
working in this country in the early 1900's  before labor unions. 

In article <bg3raq$kfb3p$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, holleyrp@delanet.com 
says...
>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:cf9d3a22748510e9152edfeb98612b58@free.teranews.com...
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:58p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
>> news:agYUa.134133$o86.79635@news1.central.cox.net:
>>
>> > In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>,
>> > omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >
>> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> >> news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>,
>> >>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote in
>> >>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote
>> >>>>>> in news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> >>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start.  i
>> >>>>>>>> don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.
>> >>>>>>>> freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and it
>> >>>>>>>> is the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and subtle,
>> >>>>>>>> and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like, watch
>> >>>>>>> something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't a
>> >>>>>>> newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and you
>> >>>>>>> can even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the
>> >>>>>>> internet.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out.
>> >>>>>>> And they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find out
>> >>>>>>> about these things in the first place if they were "omitted" from
>> >>>>>>> the news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the
>> >>>>>>> left-wing slant that you would prefer.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you
>> >>>> get to communism.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and
>> >>>> they are closer to anarchy than communism.
>> >>>
>> >>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government budgets
>> >>> he has passed in the last three years and you will see that we are
>> >>> closer to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
>> >>
>> >> I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
>> >> complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending.
>> >
>> > LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax
>> > money to pay down the national debt.
>>
>> During the Clinton years the administration allowed a monstrous increase
>> in spending on Social Security disability programs. Social Security
>> disability pensions became easy money during the 1990s, from drug addicts
>> and alcoholics who were welcomed onto the rolls to immigrants who were
>> advised to sign up at U.S. embassies abroad even before they arrived on
>> U.S. shores.
>>
>> Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the
>> budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was
>> about the extent of his contribution. Newt Gingrich and company -- for all
>> their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the
>> budget. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995
>> when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of
>> eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics said it could not be
>> done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.
>>
>> Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it
>> was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way
>> in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own
>> balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign
>> to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as
>> "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight
>> in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he
>> begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the
>> height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton
>> administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top
>> priorities."
>>
>> And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer
>> a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have
>> sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right:
>> for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs
>> pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark
>> McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.
>>
>> Budget cuts--primarily in '95, '96--reduced the growth rate of government
>> spending.  (Bill Clinton fought them, remember).  Deregulation (and the
>> lack of regulation which would have been present under Democratic
>> leadership) improved economic growth, leading to greater tax revenues.
>> NAFTA (yes it was signed by Clinton but free trade is primarily supported
>> and advanced by conservatives) and other free trade policy improved
>> economic growth, helped move us along toward a service based economy,
>> improved capital liquidity, and reduced the bargaining power of those
>> economic viruses we call labor unions.  Welfare reform, another
>> conservative movement that was both opposed and embraced by Clinton,
>> improved labor productivity in the US.
>
>This was absolutely brilliant!  Bravo!
>
And may I say shows what an absolute idiot you are. Everything just stated 
shows why this country is going right down the tubes. For those who forget the 
past are doomed to repeat it. 

>*standing O*
>
>> How about you.  Can you name one *successful* policy (other than NAFTA)
>> proposed by Bill Clinton, which improved economic growth?
>>
>> Just one?
>
>The Crime Bill of 1993?  *snicker*
>
>

In article <9e76d198df0f6355e73544a49bb68743@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:36:11a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:%9MUa.83165$R92.57406@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <4bf2e77b8a7223dc21541343bdd88290@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:25:36p, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>> news:4YxUa.81969$R92.53239@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> Hey I am a registered Democrat and I love Clinton but I just can't
>>>> resist this. Bush has done a better job keeping his zipper zipped.
>>>> LOL!!! Maybe if he was getting a little something on the side we would
>>>> not be in this mess in Iraq. 
>>>
>>> Clinton didn't do jack shit in office except get a blowjob from an
>>> intern. 
>> 
>> I wonder why things  were going so smooth than. Nothing like a good old
>> boy from Arkansas to get things smoothed out.
>
>He was enjoying the success of Reaganomics. Of course he screwed it up and
>that's why the economy went south near the end of his term. Of course, you 
>liberals would like to believe that Bush destroyed the economy.

LMAO! Do you mean Bush senior or Bush junior? And here I thought Bush senior 
screwed up Reaganomics. Was it not Bush seniors term when the economy went 
into the toilet? Jesus your easy to catch. 

In article <83d8d014f56c26062f2c3d2d54bfd745@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:39:17a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:VcMUa.83176$R92.61968@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <3caffc43e66ff72f0ae84cbc62eef217@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:30p, Buckwheat <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in
>>> news:3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net: 
>>>
>>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush is
>>>> doing better than the last administration, except perhaps grabbing
>>>> power from the states and expanding the size of the federal
>>>> government.  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right,
>>>> it's all about WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>>
>>> Clinton said Iraq had WMD. Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMD. Germany,
>>> France, and the UN said that Iraq had WMD. Were they all lying too?
>>> Before the war, there was never a question about whether Iraq had WMD.
>>> It was just that no one had the balls to do anything about it except
>>> Bush and Blair.
>>>
>>> They will find WMD in Iraq. And when they do, then you can cry.
>> 
>> So why are we not invading Iran, North Korea and all the other nations
>> with WMD and terrible leaders?
>
>We will take care of North Korea and Iran soon enough. The liberals wanted
>us to deal with North Korea before Iraq. I bet that as soon as we focus
>our attention on North Korea, the liberals will start their whining
>again. 

Won't happen with Bush in the Whitehouse. 

In article <7a389fe357c7029f3e1b380e351cb88d@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:41:38a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:6fMUa.83177$R92.79018@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <34df576a8f2a1a004ae765504f6e74ef@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made, we
>>> would become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing would
>>> get done. 
>> 
>> Why not? His dad got a huge coalition because he did the footwork that
>> was needed. What was so urgent that we could not build a coalition? Go
>> ahead and cry me a river. 
>
>We do have a coalition. At least 19 countries have forces in Iraq.
>
Wake the fuck up already! Only two large countries with legit armed forces. 
Thats why Bush is asking the UN for help and they are thumbing their nose in 
his face. 

>But that's not the point. Why do we need a coalition in the first place? The 
>only reason we built one was to appease the politically correct Europeans and 
>the whiny liberals. We didn't do it for ourselves. We didn't need a coalition 
>to get the job done.

If you do not understand why we needed the coalition now than let me have one 
of the killed soldiers family's contact you and have them explain why. 

In article <f8ac7c48290ea7439af82a1a6085390e@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:42:15a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>news:HfMUa.83178$R92.51816@news2.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <b218b2b96255130b62b9659153b3503b@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:15:39p, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote in
>>> news:LOxUa.92249$zwL.89644@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>> 
>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:qHxUa.160328$ic1.3594020@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:14:21a, "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> news:hVwUa.91610$zwL.22975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> but here's a tip:  WHY is material classified in the first place? 
>>>>>> what is he hiding from?  why is the JFK investigation sealed for 50
>>>>>> years? i'll tell you --- so that the people involved that were in
>>>>>> government are good and dead by the time it's released.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have proof to back up that claim?
>>>> 
>>>> of course not, but do you have a better answer for why they're locking
>>>> down the information relating to the assassination of a president of
>>>> the united states??  if you can think of ONE, i'll listen.
>>>
>>> Without proof, any wacko can make up a theory.
>> 
>> Yeah like that wacko in office and his big bad Iraq theory. 
>
>And what would that be? Notwithstanding a few bumps in the road, it is 
>going very well so far.

If you call whats going on great than I am done talking with you. Come to Fort 
Carson in Colorado and see what bumps in the road are coming home and just how 
great things are going. 

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 11:08:54a, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:a0bVa.140310$o86.77782@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <ImDUa.121170$Io.10328820@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, 
> Suckmyspamhole@suck.com says...
>>
>>
>> "jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message news:JvwUa.81405
>>
>>> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
>>> When I see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House.
>>
>> When I see Al Sharpton I think of the movie "Better Off Dead"
>>
> 
> I think of that movie "Black Caesar"

More like "Hang 'em High".

In article <03fab4a107e3476b1df6ff1afd3ad083@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:36:05p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
>news:FriVa.144807$o86.142018@news1.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <cf9d3a22748510e9152edfeb98612b58@free.teranews.com>, 
>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:58p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote
>>> in news:agYUa.134133$o86.79635@news1.central.cox.net: 
>>>
>>>> In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>>> news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter"
>>>>>>> <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>>>>>>>>> wrote in news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>>>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start. 
>>>>>>>>>>> i don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.
>>>>>>>>>>>  freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and
>>>>>>>>>>> it is the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and
>>>>>>>>>>> subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like,
>>>>>>>>>> watch something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't
>>>>>>>>>> a newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and
>>>>>>>>>> you can even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the
>>>>>>>>>> internet. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. 
>>>>>>>>>> And they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find
>>>>>>>>>> out about these things in the first place if they were "omitted"
>>>>>>>>>> from the news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the
>>>>>>>>>> left-wing slant that you would prefer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you
>>>>>>> get to communism. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and
>>>>>>> they are closer to anarchy than communism.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government
>>>>>> budgets he has passed in the last three years and you will see that
>>>>>> we are closer to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
>>>>> complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending.
>>>> 
>>>> LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax
>>>> money to pay down the national debt.
>>>
>>> During the Clinton years the administration allowed a monstrous
>>> increase in spending on Social Security disability programs. Social
>>> Security disability pensions became easy money during the 1990s, from
>>> drug addicts and alcoholics who were welcomed onto the rolls to
>>> immigrants who were advised to sign up at U.S. embassies abroad even
>>> before they arrived on U.S. shores.
>>>
>>> Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance
>>> the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows
>>> that was about the extent of his contribution. Newt Gingrich and
>>> company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit
>>> for balancing the budget. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker
>>> came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus
>>> behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics
>>> said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. 
>>>
>>> Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it
>>> was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the
>>> way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their
>>> own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare
>>> campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post
>>> slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big
>>> budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets
>>> until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact,
>>> during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton
>>> administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our
>>> top priorities." 
>>>
>>> And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to
>>> engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that
>>> would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom
>>> Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is
>>> like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering
>>> the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home
>>> run. 
>>>
>>> Budget cuts--primarily in '95, '96--reduced the growth rate of
>>> government spending.  (Bill Clinton fought them, remember). 
>>> Deregulation (and the lack of regulation which would have been present
>>> under Democratic leadership) improved economic growth, leading to
>>> greater tax revenues. NAFTA (yes it was signed by Clinton but free
>>> trade is primarily supported and advanced by conservatives) and other
>>> free trade policy improved economic growth, helped move us along toward
>>> a service based economy, improved capital liquidity, and reduced the
>>> bargaining power of those economic viruses we call labor unions. 
>>> Welfare reform, another conservative movement that was both opposed and
>>> embraced by Clinton, improved labor productivity in the US. 
>>>
>>> How about you.  Can you name one *successful* policy (other than NAFTA)
>>> proposed by Bill Clinton, which improved economic growth?
>>>
>>> Just one?
>> 
>> Just read this rant and I will rest my case. Everything you just said is
>> why I am a democrat and damn proud of it. 
>
>Then why are you still a Democrat?
>
Like I said everything you just said is total BS and why I love being a 
democrat. If everybody had your same views I would hate to see how sad life 
would be. 


>> I just wish you had the pleasure of working in this country in the early
>> 1900's  before labor unions. 
>
>Labor Unions have outlived their usefulness.

Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. 

This recession and George Bush have shown that labor unions are needed just as 
much now as back then. 

In article <85c1d56c885a51520c49937d753b971c@free.teranews.com>, 
omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:32:33p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
>news:loiVa.144677$o86.33451@news1.central.cox.net: 
>
>> In article <3F23BCD1.AB21E39E@netgate.net>, electriceye@netgate.net
>> says... 
>>>
>>>nightwriter wrote:
>>>
>>>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not
>>>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less
>>>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the
>>>> more likely you are 
>> to
>>>> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
>>>> understanding of them all.
>>>
>>>Then explain how so many liberals fell for Bill Clinton's BS.
>>>
>>>Just because you're educated doesn't necessarily mean you have more
>>>common sense.  In fact, the more 'educated' Democrats sometimes display
>>>an egregious lack of common sense, which alienate me from their
>>>candidates and policies. 
>>>
>>>
>>>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
>>>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down
>>>> theory doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Your economics degree should also tell you that taxes have a
>>> deleterious affect 
>>> on the economy, yet the one constant of the Democratic Party is to
>>> raise taxes. 
>>>
>> And yet this country has the lowest tax rate(pre tax cut) of any
>> civilized nation. 
>
>I see that you had to put a little disclaimer in there about the taxes to
>make sure it didn't look like you happened to like one of Bush's
>policies. 

Jesus I get on here every once in a while to post and your like johnny on the 
spot with your answers...do you just sit here waiting for a response while 
foam drips from your mouth? Like how you side step your answer when you have 
none. 

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 04:01:23p, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Noren)
wrote in news:6a0d745b.0307281201.74621be0@posting.google.com: 

> Omphalos <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:<2754f41baab39f9c6dde38b6ba8f9a30@free.teranews.com>... 
> 
>>>>> I, at the time, considered it farcical that Clinton was
>>>>> investigated; and given that he was, I now feel it is a farce that
>>>>> Bush is not. 
>>>> 
>>>> That's because there is no evidence that Bush lied, although
>>>> liberals would have you believe otherwise.
>>> 
>>> The mere suspicion is sufficient for an investigation, IMO. People
>>> have died.
>> 
>> You do know that in war, people tend to die.
> 
> Yes, and so did presumably Bush. That means he knew people were going
> to die.
> 
> Again: the war was good. It was as well planned and executed as
> circumstances would allow. The world is a better place for it, and the
> US position in the middle east is stronger than it's ever been. Hell,
> it's even got Sudan to shut down training camps, and Jemen to agree to
> assassinations of terrorist leaders!
> 
> But the _motive_ was a lie.

Proof please.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 03:41:33p, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bg3u9g$kiird$1@ID-53393.news.uni-berlin.de: 

>> this is true, however having Tipper, of all people, as the first
>> lady... 
>>
>> well she was influential enough on her own in the PMRC. frankly the
>> concept worried me, to say the least.
> 
> hillary, of all people, is worst. and we've already survived her once.
> let's hope we don't have to go through that again. freedom would never
> be the same.

More like, there would be no freedom to speak of.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:36:05p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:FriVa.144807$o86.142018@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <cf9d3a22748510e9152edfeb98612b58@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:21:58p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote
>> in news:agYUa.134133$o86.79635@news1.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <88a6839c093cbed4b8b5b65c4bb5aab8@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 06:35:41a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>>> news:1WNUa.83187$R92.19721@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6da6f9edda808caf0081732b9ae55323@free.teranews.com>, 
>>>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:50p, "nightwriter"
>>>>>> <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:mIxUa.92185$zwL.5758@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:e8918684dd0ae92d57ca960bc55d870a@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 11:50:18a, gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>>>>>>>> wrote in news:2nxUa.24799$pK2.39266@news.indigo.ie:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <eQwUa.91535$zwL.21001@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, 
>>>>>>>>> "nightwriter" <spider_man@hotmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> well.... freedom of the press.  that's a good place to start. 
>>>>>>>>>> i don't have links or anything, but you all saw the war on CNN.
>>>>>>>>>>  freedom of the press is dead.  that's called censorship.  and
>>>>>>>>>> it is the most powerful kind, because it is nefarious and
>>>>>>>>>> subtle, and most dont' see the errors of omission.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Typical left-wing crap.  If CNN has a slant you don't like,
>>>>>>>>> watch something else.  There are loads of newspapers (CNN isn't
>>>>>>>>> a newspaper incidentally) giving lots of different views, and
>>>>>>>>> you can even buy foreign papers easily.  Or indeed, check the
>>>>>>>>> internet. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the news is full of lies so subtle you can't point them out. 
>>>>>>>>> And they "omit" things to fool you.  How the hell did you find
>>>>>>>>> out about these things in the first place if they were "omitted"
>>>>>>>>> from the news? All you are saying is that CNN doesn't have the
>>>>>>>>> left-wing slant that you would prefer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that CNN has the worst liberal slant of them all.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> you're so far right you're a communist!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the other way around. The farther left you go, the closer you
>>>>>> get to communism. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Libertarians are farther right than Republicans on most issues and
>>>>>> they are closer to anarchy than communism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Look at the current President and all the laws and government
>>>>> budgets he has passed in the last three years and you will see that
>>>>> we are closer to communism now than we ever were with Clinton.
>>>>
>>>> I don't support Bush's big government ideas either. But what are you
>>>> complaining about? You liberals love big government and big spending.
>>> 
>>> LMAO! Yeah the only big spending Clinton was doing was spending tax
>>> money to pay down the national debt.
>>
>> During the Clinton years the administration allowed a monstrous
>> increase in spending on Social Security disability programs. Social
>> Security disability pensions became easy money during the 1990s, from
>> drug addicts and alcoholics who were welcomed onto the rolls to
>> immigrants who were advised to sign up at U.S. embassies abroad even
>> before they arrived on U.S. shores.
>>
>> Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance
>> the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows
>> that was about the extent of his contribution. Newt Gingrich and
>> company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit
>> for balancing the budget. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker
>> came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus
>> behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. Skeptics
>> said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four. 
>>
>> Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it
>> was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the
>> way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their
>> own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare
>> campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post
>> slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big
>> budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets
>> until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact,
>> during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton
>> administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our
>> top priorities." 
>>
>> And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to
>> engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that
>> would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom
>> Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is
>> like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering
>> the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home
>> run. 
>>
>> Budget cuts--primarily in '95, '96--reduced the growth rate of
>> government spending.  (Bill Clinton fought them, remember). 
>> Deregulation (and the lack of regulation which would have been present
>> under Democratic leadership) improved economic growth, leading to
>> greater tax revenues. NAFTA (yes it was signed by Clinton but free
>> trade is primarily supported and advanced by conservatives) and other
>> free trade policy improved economic growth, helped move us along toward
>> a service based economy, improved capital liquidity, and reduced the
>> bargaining power of those economic viruses we call labor unions. 
>> Welfare reform, another conservative movement that was both opposed and
>> embraced by Clinton, improved labor productivity in the US. 
>>
>> How about you.  Can you name one *successful* policy (other than NAFTA)
>> proposed by Bill Clinton, which improved economic growth?
>>
>> Just one?
> 
> Just read this rant and I will rest my case. Everything you just said is
> why I am a democrat and damn proud of it. 

Then why are you still a Democrat?

> I just wish you had the pleasure of working in this country in the early
> 1900's  before labor unions. 

Labor Unions have outlived their usefulness.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:45:39p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:DAiVa.145004$o86.27797@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <7a389fe357c7029f3e1b380e351cb88d@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:41:38a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>> news:6fMUa.83177$R92.79018@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <34df576a8f2a1a004ae765504f6e74ef@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> If looked for approval from the world for every choice we made, we
>>>> would become weak and irrelivent like most of Europe and nothing
>>>> would get done. 
>>> 
>>> Why not? His dad got a huge coalition because he did the footwork that
>>> was needed. What was so urgent that we could not build a coalition? Go
>>> ahead and cry me a river. 
>>
>> We do have a coalition. At least 19 countries have forces in Iraq.
>
> Wake the fuck up already! Only two large countries with legit armed
> forces. Thats why Bush is asking the UN for help and they are thumbing
> their nose in his face. 
> 
>>But that's not the point. Why do we need a coalition in the first place?
>>The only reason we built one was to appease the politically correct
>>Europeans and the whiny liberals. We didn't do it for ourselves. We
>>didn't need a coalition to get the job done.
> 
> If you do not understand why we needed the coalition now than let me
> have one of the killed soldiers family's contact you and have them
> explain why. 

We don't need a coalition. We won the war just fine without the do-nothing
UN.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:41:26p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:GwiVa.144919$o86.110500@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <83d8d014f56c26062f2c3d2d54bfd745@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>
>>On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:39:17a, jojo@cox.net (jojoMSfanboy) wrote in
>>news:VcMUa.83176$R92.61968@news2.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> In article <3caffc43e66ff72f0ae84cbc62eef217@free.teranews.com>, 
>>> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>>>
>>>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 12:08:30p, Buckwheat <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in
>>>> news:3F22A77E.7072B09@unlisted.net: 
>>>>
>>>>> Nightwing wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> <snip> I find Bush to be catastrophic for the nation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm a registered Republican.  There is absolutely nothing that Bush
>>>>> is doing better than the last administration, except perhaps
>>>>> grabbing power from the states and expanding the size of the federal
>>>>> government.  Bush can't even lie as well as Clinton.  (Yea, right,
>>>>> it's all about WMD's. Pinhead.) 
>>>>
>>>> Clinton said Iraq had WMD. Nancy Pelosi said Iraq had WMD. Germany,
>>>> France, and the UN said that Iraq had WMD. Were they all lying too?
>>>> Before the war, there was never a question about whether Iraq had
>>>> WMD. It was just that no one had the balls to do anything about it
>>>> except Bush and Blair.
>>>>
>>>> They will find WMD in Iraq. And when they do, then you can cry.
>>> 
>>> So why are we not invading Iran, North Korea and all the other nations
>>> with WMD and terrible leaders?
>>
>> We will take care of North Korea and Iran soon enough. The liberals
>> wanted us to deal with North Korea before Iraq. I bet that as soon as
>> we focus our attention on North Korea, the liberals will start their
>> whining again. 
> 
> Won't happen with Bush in the Whitehouse. 

This isn't a 'one war fits all' strategy. Once a country develops nuclear
weapons, it's a whole different situation.

If Al Gore was in office, upon finding out the North Koreans had nukes, he 
probably would have sold them the missile technology to reach the US.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:32:33p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:loiVa.144677$o86.33451@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <3F23BCD1.AB21E39E@netgate.net>, electriceye@netgate.net
> says... 
>>
>>nightwriter wrote:
>>
>>> generally, liberals are the more educated of the bunch.  that's not
>>> news to anyone.  the reason for that is, the more you know, the less
>>> likely you are to be tricked into a life of only material worth, the
>>> more likely you are 
> to
>>> have interacted with other races and other classes, gaining a better
>>> understanding of them all.
>>
>>Then explain how so many liberals fell for Bill Clinton's BS.
>>
>>Just because you're educated doesn't necessarily mean you have more
>>common sense.  In fact, the more 'educated' Democrats sometimes display
>>an egregious lack of common sense, which alienate me from their
>>candidates and policies. 
>>
>>
>>> never vote republican: they really only serve the top 5% of the
>>> country. don't be fooled.  i have an economics degree.  trickle down
>>> theory doesn't work.
>>
>> Your economics degree should also tell you that taxes have a
>> deleterious affect 
>> on the economy, yet the one constant of the Democratic Party is to
>> raise taxes. 
>>
> And yet this country has the lowest tax rate(pre tax cut) of any
> civilized nation. 

I see that you had to put a little disclaimer in there about the taxes to
make sure it didn't look like you happened to like one of Bush's
policies. 

In article <bg3uf5$k9t67$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>, holleyrp@delanet.com 
says...
>
>"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>news:7035a0e1b4f539970a7c218731ff41f3@free.teranews.com...
>> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:31:42p, Butt Plug <plug@butt.here> wrote in
>> news:a906ivk5bbfi115skhdouo34masfhceqnt@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On this day of our lord, Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:51:25 -0500, Daniel Kolle
>> > <DKolle@hotmail.com> quilled:
>> >
>> >> I would have voted Bush.
>> >
>> > Jack the Ripper voted Republican. 'Nuff said.
>>
>> Jesse Jackson votes Democrat.
>
>How does his illegitimate children vote?
>
I don't know how George Bush votes. LMAO!!!

"Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:a514348c2dbd90b683648720d061a870@free.teranews.com...
> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 07:54:27a, The Doomster <electriceye@netgate.net> wrote
> in news:3F23BD73.DC846F54@netgate.net:
>
> > You know, reading all these posts off this thread, not very many people
> > actually replied to your survey.  Why don't you address this in some
> > online polling site?
> >
> > And wouldn't the poll be somewhat predictable?  An overwhelming number
> > of gamers are men.  Since blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented
> > among PC owners, it stands to reason that whites and Asians will be
> > overrepresented.  Wouldn't these factors influence the response?
>
> No, because I want an idea of what gamers think. If gamers tend to be
male,
> white, and asian, then so be it.
>
Quiet bitch.  When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.

Stephen Andrewartha wrote:
> 
> Australian Labor Party.
> 
> BTW, does anyone know why Americans think
> everyone lives in the US?

I can't answer that.

But, maybe you can tell me why, any time an American posts a question
aimed at other Americans, y'all think it's aimed at you and then act
like Americans think everyone lives in the US?

-- 
Elizabeth D. Brooks   | kalimagdalene@attbi.com |  US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes me!" -- Smeagol
 -- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

JPM III wrote:
> 
> > > > strange...you make it sound as if someone who is uninformed doesn't
> have
> > > > the right for their vote to count.
> > > >
> > > > isn't it the politician's job to ensure the voters are informed?
> > >
> > > it is the politician's job to ensure that the means of information are
> > > available.
> > >
> > > it is then the citizen's job to inform himself.
> >
> > okay, fair enough...but suppose the citizen chooses not to bother...does
> > that mean that their vote doesn't matter?
> 
> If the voter doesn't vote, then their vote doesn't matter because the vote
> didn't exist.
> 
> However, what is significant is that all the voters who don't vote because
> they don't like any of the candidates could just as easily go to the polls
> just to write in someone (anyone), which would make it more difficult for
> the unsupported majority party leaders to get a majority. For instance, in
> 2000, there was a 48.3% to 48.1% split for Gore and Bush, with only 55% of
> the country voting. If another 20% voted but only wrote in random names,
> then Gore and Bush would have been down to about 41-42% apiece. The
> electoral college probably wouldn't have noticed a difference.
> 
> The point is that nonvoters can make a difference just by showing up and
> voting for someone NOT on the ballot.

no.

that's incorrect. 

votes for anything other than a registered candidate are counted as
illegal and not counted, at all, even as votes that weren't counted.
they're simply discarded and do not enter the totals.

-- 
Gene Poole

This message is SHAREWARE! To Register, send $5.

"Client Retention @ Home" wrote:
> 
> "Gene Poole" <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F256D57.ABADCFEA@yahoo.com...
> > "Client Retention @ Home" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Gene Poole" <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3F242882.48AB9@yahoo.com...
> > > > "Client Retention @ Home" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > > On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
> spam
> > > > > > hole@suck.com> wrote in
> > > > > > news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost,
> and if
> > > I
> > > > > > >> offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is just too
> great.
> > > I'd
> > > > > > >> like to take an informal poll among gamers on how you tend to
> vote
> > > in
> > > > > > >> elections. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them
> > > all?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> > > against
> > > > > > >> Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other Democrats
> share.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Foolish.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
> > > >
> > > > your mom far outweighs a manatee.
> > > >
> > > Pfff, you're mom fucked a manatee. :-P
> >
> > that wasn't that great, mang. mine was better.
> >
> Yeah, but I had to say _something_.

I find there is a useful retort to virtually anything handy.

it's a variation of

snuh?
buh?
wuh?
etc-uh?

-- 
Gene Poole

All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.

Omphalos wrote:
> 
> On Mon 28 Jul 2003 02:26:28p, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3F256AD4.DAA12694@yahoo.com:
> 
> > Omphalos wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:36:31p, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:3F2437CF.8D15D04F@yahoo.com:
> >>
> >> > Omphalos wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
> >> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
> >> >> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >> >> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost,
> >> >> >>>> and if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is
> >> >> >>>> just too great. I'd like to take an informal poll among gamers
> >> >> >>>> on how you tend to vote in elections. Republican, Democrat,
> >> >> >>>> Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero? [LOL]
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was completely
> >> >> >>>> against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that many other
> >> >> >>>> Democrats share.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I don't vote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Foolish.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
> >> >>
> >> >> Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too lazy
> >> >> and/or foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every two
> >> >> years.
> >> >
> >> > maybe it's a vote of no confidence. if you don't like either party,
> >> > how is voting for one a good thing? sounds to me like voting for
> >> > something you don't support is compromising your beliefs.
> >>
> >> Well, I don't want someone who is uninformed voting. That is one of the
> >> reasons why we have the electoral college.
> >>
> >> But, I do think it is foolish to *be* uninformed and not take an active
> >> role on determining who is part of your government.
> >
> > strange...you make it sound as if someone who is uninformed doesn't have
> > the right for their vote to count.
> >
> > isn't it the politician's job to ensure the voters are informed?
> 
> No. It's the voter's job to keep himself informed. Politicians put the
> information out there. It's up to the voter to use it.

so...getting back to your original toffeenosed premise:

someone who is uninformed shouldn't vote? am I correct in my surmision?

-- 
Gene Poole

Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!

Julie d'Aubigny wrote:

>Stephen Andrewartha wrote:
>  
>
>>Australian Labor Party.
>>
>>BTW, does anyone know why Americans think
>>everyone lives in the US?
>>    
>>
>
>I can't answer that.
>
>But, maybe you can tell me why, any time an American posts a question
>aimed at other Americans, y'all think it's aimed at you and then act
>like Americans think everyone lives in the US?
>

Fair enough. But how hard would it have been to make the subject
"How do US gamers vote in elections?" so that we non-US gamers
would know not to bother reading?

>  
>

Stephen Andrewartha wrote:
> 
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
> 
> >Stephen Andrewartha wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Australian Labor Party.
> >>
> >>BTW, does anyone know why Americans think
> >>everyone lives in the US?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I can't answer that.
> >
> >But, maybe you can tell me why, any time an American posts a question
> >aimed at other Americans, y'all think it's aimed at you and then act
> >like Americans think everyone lives in the US?
> >
> 
> Fair enough. But how hard would it have been to make the subject
> "How do US gamers vote in elections?" so that we non-US gamers
> would know not to bother reading?

Not very hard at all, I won't argue with *that*.

It's also kind of rude to shout in a crowded room, "who the hell did you
vote for?"

-- 
Elizabeth D. Brooks   | kalimagdalene@attbi.com |  US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes me!" -- Smeagol
 -- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856

Paul W wrote:


> As the writer said, we have charities for these things.  I don't think
> anyone, including most hard core Republicans want to end these
> programs.  However, when a person can get better money and benefits
> from unemployment, etc then working some jobs, that is not a good
> thing.  We need to give people an incentive to find a job and not sit
> on welfare.  Some more 'tough love' is needed in my book.
> 
tough love isn't always the answer.  so far the government has found 
an excellent system to DISCOURAGE people from getting the training 
they need to find better jobs or find any job.  How can you hunt for 
a job while undergoing JOB TRAINING because you were laid off and 
your current skill set is obsolete.  graduating from college how do 
you find a job if you ONLY have classroom experience and no WORK 
EXERIENCE.  employers only hire people with WORK experience.

> You only need to see the last wave of welfare reform.  When people saw
> real changes were heading down the line, a large chunk of the welfare
> rolls were able to find a some job to help out.
>
Were they able to find jobs or they just dropped off the government 
radar people so fed up searching for a job that they just gave up and 
became one of the homeless when they lost their homes.  I was looking 
for a job for TWO BLOODY YEARS.  I would put in job applications for 
jobs I thought I was qualified for and maybe a month latter I would 
get a letter saying that I wasn't what they were looking for and they 
had selected someone else.  I was very close to switching my method 
of job hunting to something a little more appropriate like a rifle or 
a shotgun.  that is a more appropriate hunting tool than paper isn't 
it??  having to take a salvage job just to earn an income even if one 
is waaaay overqualified for a job isn't realy solving anything.  just 
shifting the problem around so the people who SHOULD be getting those 
entry level jobs are now jobless

> That's all I want.  To REALLY help these people, we need to give these
> people something to have pride in.  Collecting a check is not it for a
> long term solutions.  After a period of time they need to find a job,
> if not either cut their benefits or make them do some task for the
> government: Sweep streets, cut the grass at a playgrounds, etc.  Just
> something that they can take pride in.  If you can do that, then
> people will have the self-confidence to get themselves out of the hole
> they find themselves in.
> 
> Paul W

not quite.  it's a two part equation.  I know, that's where I am now. 
  money to make a decent living on and a job YOU can be proud of.  a 
job can either give a person self confidence to work themself out of 
a hole, or utterly destroy a person's self esteem to the point where 
death seems the best solution.  do you think somone who has been an 
accountant or a CEO is going to feel proud cooking burgers in a fast 
food restraunt or raking leaves in the park?  try again.  I'm an 
excellent computer operator, that's what I do best.  I'm having to 
get by as a parking cashier.  some mornings I don't know why I should 
even get up in the morning.  some evenings I think I should find a 
nice high rise hotel to do some extreme sky diving from.  the other 
day I heard about a man that died in an accident on the freeway he 
rearended another car and cursed my luck, why couldn't I have been 
"lucky" enough to die in the same type of accident.  does this sound 
like "pride".  this is what you're suggesting for others.  think again.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Darrell Mayeda
                                drmayeda@hawaii.rr.com

                            Knight of the ERmoron Round Table.


     NOTE:  I'm tired of all the spam in my mailbox please leave my 
last name            in the body of your reply.  Thanks

"ObiWanJoJo" <jojoMSfanboy@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3giVa.144323$o86.50982@news1.central.cox.net...
> >> -Is it because his tax cuts have done exactly what the dems have said
they
> >> would, that is help the rich 1000X more than the poor?
> >
> >Psst.  The poor don't pay taxes.
> >
> Yeah right! You consider a single mother making 17K rich?

Of course not.  But I do know a single mother making 17K doesn't pay much
(if any taxes).

> >> -Is it because his latest tax proposals did absolutely nothing to help
the
> >> poor, until he was pressured into it and gave in?
> >
> >How can you help a section of the tax paying population who don't even
pay
> >taxes?
> >
> Just like above...Do you consider a single mother making 17K rich?
>
> >> -Is it because he is insisting on tax cuts while the country falls the
> >> furthest into debt it has ever been?
> >
> >You do realize tax cuts spur economic growth don't you?
> >
> It won't forever when this country's deficit spins out of control.

Sounds like it's time to rein in the out of control spending then, wouldn't
you say?

"Buckaroo Banzai" <blackhole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UFeVa.122980$Io.10522580@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's time for a liberal to face the dictionary...
> > > >
> > > > Main Entry: pro�tect
> > > > Pronunciation: pr&-'tekt
> > > > Function: transitive verb
> > > > Etymology: Middle English, from Latin protectus, past participle of
> > > > protegere, from pro- in front + tegere to cover -- more at PRO-,
> THATCH
> > > > Date: 15th century
> > > > Definition: to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction
:
> > > GUARD
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Exposure, Injury or Destruction.  ALL physical consequences.
*That's*
> > > what
> > > > our government is here for, not to dole out government cheese...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > that's the stupidest game of nit-pick semantics i've ever seen.  not
to
> > > mention, i'd say starvation/homelessness/malnutrition/illness/etc
> fucking
> > > hurt.  and by your definition, that seems to fit the bill.
> >
> > I'm curious since you seem to want to be a do-gooder...do you ever offer
> to
> > pay more taxes?  Do you ever send back your tax return checks?  Did you
> ever
> > send back your tax refund check from two years ago?  What about the
latest
> > ones that are now arriving?  It would only seem like the natural thing
to
> do
> > being as tho you want to help so badly.
> >
> >
>
> How many people could he help if he were to sell off his frivolous
> electronic equipment (i.e. Gamecube and games, TV, stereos etc.). 10
> starving homeless malnourished ill people?  20?  Or is that only the duty
of
> the government and not the duty of the citizens?  Fucking hypocritical
> liberals!

The answer is they wouldn't sell a single piece of their own frivolous
equipment, now if it was about selling someone elses equipment....

"ObiWanJoJo" <jojoMSfanboy@cox.net> wrote in message
news:87iVa.144056$o86.62174@news1.central.cox.net...
> In article <bg3p94$k5foe$1@ID-121560.news.uni-berlin.de>,
holleyrp@delanet.com
> says...
> >
> >"jojoMSfanboy" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:s7yUa.82043$R92.35236@news2.central.cox.net...
> >> In article <3F22A88C.E28BC62A@unlisted.net>, Thoth@unlisted.net says...
> >> >
> >> >jojoMSfanboy wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> He would do a better job than the dumbass thats in office right now.
> >When I
> >> >> see George Bush I think of that movie Animal House. I can just
picture
> >Bush
> >> >> sitting there at the frat house in college being told that line
> >"fat,drunk
> >> and
> >> >> stupid is a terrible way to go through life son".
> >> >> Too bad he only took advice on two of the three. He lost the weight
and
> >> >> stopped drinking and guess what that leaves. STUPID!
> >> >
> >> >Al Sharpton is more and more credible every day.  Did you notice he's
> >lost
> >> the
> >> >mullet?  Last night he was on with Chris Mathews (sp?) and I found him
to
> >be
> >> >remarkably articulate, intellegent and credible.  I'd rather have
> >Sharpton
> >> than
> >> >Bush, too.
> >> >
> >> Yeah pretty funny. I saw him talk at a DNC meeting and I have to give
the
> >guy
> >> some props for getting his shit together.
> >
> >You two need serious help, seriously.  :-) It's one thing to rag on Bush
for
> >all his failing (because most of the time they are funny and he deserves
it)
> >but to consider Sharpton as a legitimate Presidential candidate?  Good
lord.
> >
> >
> You consider Bush a legitimate president?

Considering he had the required number of Electorial Votes (at least 270 I
believe), I'd say yes.

> > If the voter doesn't vote, then their vote doesn't matter because the
vote
> > didn't exist.
> >
> > However, what is significant is that all the voters who don't vote
because
> > they don't like any of the candidates could just as easily go to the
polls
> > just to write in someone (anyone), which would make it more difficult
for
> > the unsupported majority party leaders to get a majority. For instance,
in
> > 2000, there was a 48.3% to 48.1% split for Gore and Bush, with only 55%
of
> > the country voting. If another 20% voted but only wrote in random names,
> > then Gore and Bush would have been down to about 41-42% apiece. The
> > electoral college probably wouldn't have noticed a difference.
> >
> > The point is that nonvoters can make a difference just by showing up and
> > voting for someone NOT on the ballot.
>
> no.
>
> that's incorrect.
>
> votes for anything other than a registered candidate are counted as
> illegal and not counted, at all, even as votes that weren't counted.
> they're simply discarded and do not enter the totals.

Maybe in Canada. In middle Georgia and in most elections in the United
States, write-in votes count. Undervotes (votes for no one) and overvotes
(votes for more than one) disqualify a ballot, but a write-in vote on an
American ballot is an American voice dissenting from the oligopolistic
ballot.

I've been studying American electoral patterns since 1998, and I've had
three elections to work with. I've checked over every Congressional
election's results in detail. Write-in votes count in most elections in most
states. I need to find some old Excel and Access documents on my old laptop
to see if I can verify this. A less easy way would be to visit various
states' Secretary of State web sites... Anyway...

On Tue 29 Jul 2003 01:41:27a, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3F260907.9CDF798B@yahoo.com: 

> Omphalos wrote:
>
>> On Mon 28 Jul 2003 02:26:28p, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3F256AD4.DAA12694@yahoo.com:
>> 
>> > Omphalos wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 04:36:31p, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> in news:3F2437CF.8D15D04F@yahoo.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Omphalos wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun 27 Jul 2003 01:10:16p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck my
>> >> >> spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:YHTUa.23887$Mc.1863934@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "Blinty" <blinty@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:bfv93q$ivcnd$1@ID-170553.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Sat 26 Jul 2003 06:27:17p, "Client Retention @ Home" <Suck
>> >> >> >> my spam hole@suck.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:9fDUa.121162$Io.10328059@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> "Omphalos" <omphalos@wp.pl> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> news:bdca770badef00f24457bd397789f2ac@free.teranews.com...
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> I'm sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth with this crosspost,
>> >> >> >>>> and if I offend anyone I'm truly sorry, but my curiousity is
>> >> >> >>>> just too great. I'd like to take an informal poll among
>> >> >> >>>> gamers on how you tend to vote in elections. Republican,
>> >> >> >>>> Democrat, Libertarian, a mixture of them all?
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Who did you vote for in 2000? Bush? Gore? Nader? Romero?
>> >> >> >>>> [LOL] 
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Who did I vote for? Bush. Why? Mainly because I was
>> >> >> >>>> completely against Lieberman and his censorship ideas that
>> >> >> >>>> many other Democrats share.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I don't vote.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Foolish.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The goings on in my life far outweigh politics.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Politics affect your life more than you know. You are just too
>> >> >> lazy and/or foolish to spend 10 minutes at the polls once every
>> >> >> two years.
>> >> >
>> >> > maybe it's a vote of no confidence. if you don't like either
>> >> > party, how is voting for one a good thing? sounds to me like
>> >> > voting for something you don't support is compromising your
>> >> > beliefs. 
>> >>
>> >> Well, I don't want someone who is uninformed voting. That is one of
>> >> the reasons why we have the electoral college.
>> >>
>> >> But, I do think it is foolish to *be* uninformed and not take an
>> >> active role on determining who is part of your government.
>> >
>> > strange...you make it sound as if someone who is uninformed doesn't
>> > have the right for their vote to count.
>> >
>> > isn't it the politician's job to ensure the voters are informed?
>> 
>> No. It's the voter's job to keep himself informed. Politicians put the
>> information out there. It's up to the voter to use it.
> 
> so...getting back to your original toffeenosed premise:
> 
> someone who is uninformed shouldn't vote? am I correct in my surmision?

If you are uninformed, you shouldn't vote until you inform yourself.

On Mon 28 Jul 2003 08:06:36p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote in
news:gUiVa.145433$o86.144801@news1.central.cox.net: 

> In article <03fab4a107e3476b1df6ff1afd3ad083@free.teranews.com>, 
> omphalos@wp.pl says...
>
>> On Mon 28 Jul 2003 07:36:05p, jojoMSfanboy@cox.net (ObiWanJoJo) wrote
>> in news:FriVa.144807$o86.142018@news1.central.cox.net: 
>>
>>> I just wish you had the pleasure of working in this country in the
>>> early 1900's  before labor unions. 
>>
>> Labor Unions have outlived their usefulness.
> 
> Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. 
> 
> This recession and George Bush have shown that labor unions are needed
> just as much now as back then. 

Labor unions [a disease infestation] have outlived their usefulness and
in order to ensure their own existance, dictate that obsolete jobs and
positions continue. They exist because of tradition, and a strong
fraternal bonding among the membership. With child labor laws, OSHA,
minimum wage, workman's comp, etc., labor unions are largely obsolete. 

Labor unions were created at a time when the workplace was truly dangerous
before the government was doing anything about it.  They certainly have
garnered power for a new group of power brokers, and they have run some
compainies into the ground putting all of their workers out of a job.
Eastern Airlines, anyone? 

They are, for the most part, fighting last year's battles (which have
already been won). The message is the same, more $$$, more time off, more
benefits. American workers are already among the highest paid in the
world. President Reagan did some good things when he was in office, but
now he too is past his prime and is suffering from Alzheimers, a situation
not unlike what is occurring in the organized labor movement.

"Darrell Mayeda" <drmayeda@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IjsVa.13138$j%4.584153@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Paul W wrote:
>
>
> > As the writer said, we have charities for these things.  I don't think
> > anyone, including most hard core Republicans want to end these
> > programs.  However, when a person can get better money and benefits
> > from unemployment, etc then working some jobs, that is not a good
> > thing.  We need to give people an incentive to find a job and not sit
> > on welfare.  Some more 'tough love' is needed in my book.
> >
> tough love isn't always the answer.  so far the government has found
> an excellent system to DISCOURAGE people from getting the training
> they need to find better jobs or find any job.

Wow, you've found them out!!! You alone have uncovered the government's true
function- Discouraging people from working!  THOSE VILE BASTARDS!!!!

>  How can you hunt for
> a job while undergoing JOB TRAINING because you were laid off and
> your current skill set is obsolete.

By waking your lazy ass up at 5:30 AM and beating your feet on the pavement,
that's how!

> graduating from college how do
> you find a job if you ONLY have classroom experience and no WORK
> EXERIENCE.

By convincing your potential employer that you aren't a WHINER who's
misfortunes in life are'nt somehow their own fault.

 employers only hire people with WORK experience.

No!  Employers only hire go-getters.

>
> > You only need to see the last wave of welfare reform.  When people saw
> > real changes were heading down the line, a large chunk of the welfare
> > rolls were able to find a some job to help out.
> >
> Were they able to find jobs or they just dropped off the government
> radar people so fed up searching for a job that they just gave up and
> became one of the homeless when they lost their homes.

Boo Fucking Hoo.  "I'm so fed up"  "I can't find a job so I'm going to leech
off hard working Americans"  FUCK THOSE PIECES OF SHIT!!!!



>  I was looking
> for a job for TWO BLOODY YEARS.


Let me guess- "I'm not going to do THAT 8 hours a day, that's beneath me!
I'm EDUCATED!... It's your DUTY to find me a job that I deem appropriate!

 I would put in job applications for
> jobs I thought I was qualified for and maybe a month latter I would
> get a letter saying that I wasn't what they were looking for and they
> had selected someone else.  I was very close to switching my method
> of job hunting to something a little more appropriate like a rifle or
> a shotgun.

So society owes you a job or else you'll kill people?




that is a more appropriate hunting tool than paper isn't
> it??  having to take a salvage job just to earn an income even if one
> is waaaay overqualified for a job isn't realy solving anything.  just
> shifting the problem around so the people who SHOULD be getting those
> entry level jobs are now jobless


You don't sound qualified to pump gas, and I only say that because you spout
off like you're too good to wipe the Queen Mum's arse. (and I'm from SoCal,
by the way)
>
> > That's all I want.  To REALLY help these people, we need to give these
> > people something to have pride in.  Collecting a check is not it for a
> > long term solutions.  After a period of time they need to find a job,
> > if not either cut their benefits or make them do some task for the
> > government: Sweep streets, cut the grass at a playgrounds, etc.  Just
> > something that they can take pride in.  If you can do that, then
> > people will have the self-confidence to get themselves out of the hole
> > they find themselves in.
> >
> > Paul W
>
> not quite.  it's a two part equation.  I know, that's where I am now.
>   money to make a decent living on and a job YOU can be proud of.  a
> job can either give a person self confidence to work themself out of
> a hole, or utterly destroy a person's self esteem to the point where
> death seems the best solution.  do you think somone who has been an
> accountant or a CEO is going to feel proud cooking burgers in a fast
> food restraunt or raking leaves in the park?  try again.  I'm an
> excellent computer operator, that's what I do best.  I'm having to
> get by as a parking cashier.  some mornings I don't know why I should
> even get up in the morning.  some evenings I think I should find a
> nice high rise hotel to do some extreme sky diving from.  the other
> day I heard about a man that died in an accident on the freeway he
> rearended another car and cursed my luck, why couldn't I have been
> "lucky" enough to die in the same type of accident.  does this sound
> like "pride".  this is what you're suggesting for others.  think again.
>
..

So typical.... I'm not gong to say another thing- "wouldn't want to provoke
the poor chap into killing himself, because that's the world's
responsibility and not his of course"

> > someone who is uninformed shouldn't vote? am I correct in my surmision?
>
> If you are uninformed, you shouldn't vote until you inform yourself.

1. Says who? And why?


2. Do you suggest disenfranchising those who have a disadvantage when it
comes to getting the information?

Darrell Mayeda <drmayeda@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message news:<IjsVa.13138$j%4.584153@twister.socal.rr.com>...

<snip>

> tough love isn't always the answer.  so far the government has found 
> an excellent system to DISCOURAGE people from getting the training 
> they need to find better jobs or find any job.  How can you hunt for 
> a job while undergoing JOB TRAINING because you were laid off and 
> your current skill set is obsolete.  

How about people get some training themselves BEFORE they are laid
off???  Skills don't become obsolete overnight.  Many times people
should see the handwriting on the wall years in advance before it hits
the fan.  I've reworked my career path 3 times and I'm only 35 with
two college degrees.  I'm not asking the govt. for anything.

Just because people don't upgrade themselves, doesn't mean we need a
govt. program.

Also, some companies and unions help to provide this type of training
when whole factories close down.  Those who don't, should have
prepaired in advance.  Those who want to stay, as much as possible, in
the work force should continually to try to upgrade their skills. 
Learning never stops...

> graduating from college how do 
> you find a job if you ONLY have classroom experience and no WORK 
> EXERIENCE.  employers only hire people with WORK experience.
> 

Gee, now I have to pay college grads BEFORE they enter the
workforce???  So it takes a college grad some time before they can get
enter the workforce in the position they want.  Welcome to the real
world.  It took me a year and that was when times were ok.

> > You only need to see the last wave of welfare reform.  When people saw
> > real changes were heading down the line, a large chunk of the welfare
> > rolls were able to find a some job to help out.
> >
> Were they able to find jobs or they just dropped off the government 
> radar people so fed up searching for a job that they just gave up and 
> became one of the homeless when they lost their homes.  

There was no big jump in the homeless rate or in home loan defaults,
as I recall.  Plus, if I recall, the federal govt. extended the
deadline at least once or twice, because times were hard.  When things
are that bad, the govt. chips in more.  These people still vote.

> I was looking 
> for a job for TWO BLOODY YEARS.  I would put in job applications for 
> jobs I thought I was qualified for and maybe a month latter I would 
> get a letter saying that I wasn't what they were looking for and they 
> had selected someone else.  I was very close to switching my method 
> of job hunting to something a little more appropriate like a rifle or 
> a shotgun.  that is a more appropriate hunting tool than paper isn't 
> it??  

Umm, No, I would go that far.  However, as someone who has done job
searches for over a year.  The best way to find something is to
network via people you know.  A lot of times a friend of a friend can
help you.  'It's not what you know, but who you know.'  Many jobs are
not even advertised.  Follow up your applications with a call to the
manager every 10 to 14 days.  Just dropping off a resume is not going
to get you very far, even when time are good.

The job I'm currently at, a manager who is a friend of mine submitted
the application for me, but the company was not going to consider me. 
However, I kept calling to follow up.  That, with a little bit of luck
got me this job.

> having to take a salvage job just to earn an income even if one 
> is waaaay overqualified for a job isn't realy solving anything.  just 
> shifting the problem around so the people who SHOULD be getting those 
> entry level jobs are now jobless
> 

When times are hard, we must do what we have to.  The list of people I
can fit into this category is long right now.  However, no govt.
program is going to change that.  If the jobs are not there, a program
is not going to make them appear.

> > That's all I want.  To REALLY help these people, we need to give these
> > people something to have pride in.  Collecting a check is not it for a
> > long term solutions.  After a period of time they need to find a job,
> > if not either cut their benefits or make them do some task for the
> > government: Sweep streets, cut the grass at a playgrounds, etc.  Just
> > something that they can take pride in.  If you can do that, then
> > people will have the self-confidence to get themselves out of the hole
> > they find themselves in.
> > 
> > Paul W
> 
> not quite.  it's a two part equation.  I know, that's where I am now. 
>   money to make a decent living on and a job YOU can be proud of.  a 
> job can either give a person self confidence to work themself out of 
> a hole, or utterly destroy a person's self esteem to the point where 
> death seems the best solution.  

I don't see death as a solution to anything.

Look at your current job as a temporary position.  I know a few people
who would be happy to have a job at all.

> do you think somone who has been an 
> accountant or a CEO is going to feel proud cooking burgers in a fast 
> food restraunt or raking leaves in the park?  try again.  

I know a CIO who is working as a consultant with a large cut in pay,
CFO who was laid off, and my father-in-law who was also a high level
manager who was laid off.  They, like everyone else, are doing what
they can, working their connections, until things get better.  They
have a lot more to lose and they don't see death as a solution.

Your e-mail address says Hawaii, which is mostly a tourist economy. 
Have you considered moving?  You might have better luck as a computer
operator on the mainland.

> I'm an 
> excellent computer operator, that's what I do best.  I'm having to 
> get by as a parking cashier.  some mornings I don't know why I should 
> even get up in the morning.  some evenings I think I should find a 
> nice high rise hotel to do some extreme sky diving from.  the other 
> day I heard about a man that died in an accident on the freeway he 
> rearended another car and cursed my luck, why couldn't I have been 
> "lucky" enough to die in the same type of accident.  does this sound 
> like "pride".  this is what you're suggesting for others.  think again.

Sounds to me like you have bigger issues then losing your job and this
post has moved away from a debate about govt. programs.  I would
strongly suggest finding someone to talk with to discuss these issues.
 Our lives are not totally defined by the job we work, but by our
relationship with God, family and friends.  These are more important
then any job and will help you get past the hard times.

Good Luck,

Paul W

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:36 -0600, Gene Poole <poolespam@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>hey, after WWII, did they really string mussolini upside down in the
>square and give all the public a good chance to kick his head in?

yep
USA Army forces tried to save his body, but the crowd was too big and
too furious so ...

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/

On 28 Jul 2003 11:34:58 -0700, newsbinreporter@yahoo.com (Soomo)
wrote:

> I can't think of any US president that have pissed off
>more countries than Bush did.  However, I can understand why Americans
>love him.

I wonder if they really loves him.

-- 
Io devo insegnare alle mie aspirazioni a conformarsi ai fatti, 
e non cercare di far armonizzare i fatti con le mie aspirazioni.
www.toto63.net
www.iaciners.org
www.nelbuio.net
www.the-brights.net/