online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Cindy Sheehan Right and Wrong?
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right and Wrong?
Posted: 8/14/2005 10:09:15 PM
From your attitude, Art, it seems you were the kid everybody should have beat up in school. Nobody likes a bully. Practically every post you make has some sort of derogatory name-calling interspersed with your .02 as to why they don't measure up to your obviously high standards. Are you going to take Trudeau's challenge or not? Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up. Everybody can use an extra ten grand and it seems you've got already got the info in your back pocket.


Let me explain something to you, benn--I'll put it simply so you can understand it, like St, Francis preaching to the birds.

As a veteran--which you obviously are not, so I guess that in some degree justifies your abysmal ignorance--I am aware that voids in military personnel records are not all that uncommon. My own experience; upon returning to the 'States, I was looking for work, and applied for a job with RCA as a plating foreman in a local plant they operated back then. At Fort Carson, Colorado, I had received CBR (Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Warfare) training. Because of my knowledge of toxic gases--some of the same ones that can be produced by accident in plating work as are encountered in chemical warfare--and how to protect yourself from them and treat the effects, plus my service as a company-grade officer, this gave me an edge over other applicants. Problem was, there was no record of it in my military personnel file. I had to write more than once to 5th Army and 5th Division S1 before the records were produced. Another instance: because of my service in Vietnam, I had earned the National Defense Ribbon, the Vietnamese Campaign Ribbon (three stars) and the Vietnam Service Ribbon. Again, there was no mention of them in my personnel file. The St. Louis Military Records Center had to send to USARV (U.S. Army Vietnam) personnel to get verification of my right to wear those ribbons on my uniform. That took the better part of two years, which made me plenty sore, believe me. Also, I don’t know whether this affect Bush’s records or not, but it may affect mine--I haven’t checked (I have my DD214--record of service and honorable discharge--and as a civilian that’s really all that is important too me at this point.) Some years ago there was a fire at the St. Louis Military Records Center. Some records were totally lost, and others partially so. Also, I want to point out that those omissions in my records were both during my tour of active duty, when SOP for maintenance of them was pretty much observed for the most part. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if there were even more holes in the records of my reserve service, being that they are maintained by part-time help, in many places by civilians. This may well also apply to Bush’s records, as his service was in the Air Guard.

So this is why I never gave much credence to this whole “scandal” over Bush’s service records, manufactured after all by people who hate Bush and want to discredit him and have -zero- understanding of how the military operates in this regard. As a veteran, I followed this story with great interest, and enough people in the loop with no axes to grind pro or con have punched it so full of holes I’m surprised the lefties are still stupid enough to cling to it.

Finally, the forged records seized on with such unseemly haste by that moron ideologue Dan Rather in his lust to discredit Bush blew up in his face, leaving him bereft of any credibility and claim to journalistic integrity he ever had, except among the REALLY loony left still gnawing on the rags of this total non-story. GOOD RIDDANCE.

As for Mr. Trudeau--he’s a noxious little prick who has never sacrificed SHIT for this country with the cheek to cast aspersions on those who have. As a veteran, that offends me deeply. If you don’t like that, benn, you can....
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right and Wrong?
Posted: 8/14/2005 8:56:31 PM
Gary Trudeau was probably that punky kid everyone beat up on when he was in HS and Jr Hi, and deserved it because he was such an insufferable smart-ass. He just wised up and learned to spew his nonsense in cartoon form so that now he is removed from retribution for his being a smart-ass punk.

Anybody that gives that twerp a minute's attention or credence--let alone allows his pseudo-sophisticated claptrap (it would be dignifying it beyond belief to label it genuine satire) to influence their thoughts--IMO needs to take a long look at the depth of their understanding of things.

You seem to be an intelligent guy, danquixote--I would have expected better, even if IMO you are barking up the wrong tree ideologically speaking.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 5 (view)
 
The U.S. - Rogue Nation of The World
Posted: 8/14/2005 8:29:54 PM
4sexyfun, as much as you hate America, I would expect that you might plan to move to one of those bastions of freedom where you will have to wear a burqa and can be executed for being raped.

Don't let the portal smite you on your hinder parts as you depart...(good riddance)
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Pres. John Quincy Adams was Islamophobic
Posted: 8/14/2005 4:18:05 PM

Christianity's history isn't any better.


Wondering how much you actually know about the histroy of Christianity--or the history of Islam, for that amtter. My guess? Not much--just enough to feed your ignorant anti-Christian bias.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right and Wrong?
Posted: 8/14/2005 7:52:29 AM
every source beachcomberbenn cites is marked by impoeccable integrity; every post someone makes in opposition to him is suspect or "cooked"...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Pres. John Quincy Adams was Islamophobic
Posted: 8/14/2005 7:34:34 AM
Islam is the new, more dangerous Naziism.

"Peace-loving, tolerant" my ass. It has always expanded by the sword and nothing has changed. NO islamic immigrants should be allowed in the US, or the same thing will happen here as in places like France, where the government is scared shitless to do anything that might offend the islamic mob.

It is a virulent pathology parading as a religion. Its adherents are not required by that fraud Mohammed to have any regard for the rights of us "infidels".

Unless we wake up and fight back, it will overwhelm us. Unless things change, before the end of the current century all of Western Europe will be a moslem sewer just like the Middle East.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Berger had Able Danger in his trousers...
Posted: 8/13/2005 9:14:14 PM
and I ain't talking about his wee-wee.

With the revelations about what the Clinton White House knew--and deliberately SUPRESSED--about Al Qaeda cells in the US and Mohammed Atta in particular, it doesn't take much of a leap of logic to surmise that good 'ole Sandy was purloining and destroying details about the Able Danger report to cover up malfeasance by Clinton in not taking a clear threat seriously. Why not? Because the White House, ass still sore from the debacle at Waco, was more concerned about possibly taking another hit to its "image" than in its duty to protect the American people from terrorism.

Thousands of people died when those towers fell because the lying adulterous pile of s**t was more concerned about hurting his image than doing the job he had pledged to do. And so, to cover his sorry a$$, he had his little lapdog Sandy Berger steal and destroy the classified documents (which he wasn't entitled to have access too in the first place--to my knowledge all classified docuemnts are available on a "need to know" basis even if you have a TS security clearance) related to the affair.

A number of Dem congressmen are evidently complicit in this malfeasance and coverup as well, at first denying they had been briefed on Able Danger until the facts were brought to light.

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/motive-for-bergers-bizarre-behavior.html

http://www.politicalmusings.net/
(see article "backpedaling")

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17005_Able_Danger-_Clintons_Folly

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460263/posts

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Truthout - let's listen to what the troops are saying about the war.
Posted: 8/12/2005 10:11:29 PM

But the different is, the press had free rein to report all the atrocities during the Vietnam war.

The press is muzzled in this war, ego, no reporting of atrocites....and I am sure that human nature, being what it is, that there are atrocites.


That is an assertion that IMO has absolutely no basis in fact. It is an opinion, and is NOT demonstrable. Please present any FACTS you have that in any SIGNIFICANT manner the press has been "muzzled" in Iraq. Those personnel involved in what have been presented as "atrocities" (which in my opinion was bullshit and much ado about nothing in the first place because it offended the tender sensibilities of a few muslim thugs. Those poor "victims" should have spent a few weeks in the frikkin' Hanoi Hilton...) at Abu Graib would be surprised to hear that the press has been "muzzled".

What you are postulating in an age of the Internet and Cell Phones is flat out impossible, and to say it makes you look like a total fool, which I would like to give you credit enough to think you are not.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Truthout - let's listen to what the troops are saying about the war.
Posted: 8/12/2005 9:44:07 PM
Gee that's funny--I personally know two service people in the area, one a Captain in MI in Kuwait and a SGT in Iraq. The SGT is a long-time Democrat, and his feelings on the war and his role in it are in direct contravention to the negative stuff posted above.

The point--war is a hellish experience, and having been in the 'Nam myself--fortunately not as a grunt, but a survivor of some really nasty shit during the '68 Tet Offensive--I know first hand how you run the gamut of emotions under such stress. Posting of such anecdotes as those above and implying that they are typical of the morale of the vast majority of the troops engaged in Iraq is pointless and dishonest, just as posting a few anecdotes of those supporting the war would be as well.

I'm certain the sentiments expressed by those disillusioned by the war expressed above are heartfelt, but even they may be transient.

I only know that soldiers with good morale stick together. I see no significant evidence that the bulk of the troops in Iraq have come to doubt the importance and justice of their mission there. And believe me, having been a soldier myself, in these days of instant communications and the net, such signs of low morale would be IMPOSSIBLE to hide --there would be fraggings, widespread and clear-cut atrocities, desertions, etc. I have heard of few if any. If these things were widespread, the 'fair, balanced, and unbiased' (LOL!) "mainstream" media would be seizing on them with a vengeance in their unbridled lust to destroy George W.Bush.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Has US lost the war in Iraq like Vietnam?
Posted: 8/12/2005 9:22:23 PM

they didn't have them... so why should anyone ELSE'S conscience bother them????
He didn't know and he invaded another nation without knowing. He said he KNEW!!!

HE'S A LIAR.


That's VERY strange, twisted and self-serving "logic"...


Oh.. you mean the one who wasn't stealing our social security? the one who WON A WAR?


Oh yeah--I forgot--Clinton did abang-up job in Somalia...

People like you like to hold up the UN as this pure and perfect paragon of virtue. What crap. It is as irredeemably corrupt as it is pathetically ineffective other than giving bogus respectability and diplomatic standing to bastions of freedom like the Sudan and Cuba...


not only from a moral viewpoint but a strategic one as well. He threw out the opinions of the secretary and highest ranking general of the army


In my experience hypocrites like you only give credence to the judgements of high-ranking military officers when it suits their purposes--otherwise, they deride them all as potential Jack D. Rippers...

I wouldn't denounce the book you mentioned until I read it...but the fact that the author was one of those politically polymorphing bureaucratic types who serves under administrations of different ideologies makes him suspect in my book.

Just wondering--do YOU ever listen to the "other side" or do you just automatically dismiss it as propaganda?
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Has US lost the war in Iraq like Vietnam?
Posted: 8/12/2005 8:14:08 PM
Gee tony you can't see th rose tinting on your glasses in that pciture on your profile. You can't see the blinders either. We went to Iraq on the premise that America was in eminent danger from Iraq. WMD's were the touchstome utilized by all members of the Bush administration to scare the American public and Congress. Yes regime change was one of the goals, but not the premise as to why we launched a pre-emptive attack upon Iraq.


OK, beachcomberbenn. we have found no WMDs. I'm still not convinced there were/are none. Iraq is a vast country with lots of wilderness where they still might be hidden. Another VERY likely possibility IMO is that they still exist, just not in Iraq, but in Syria (logical, as Syria is a place where Saddam's fellow Baathists still run the show) or even Iran.

And seldom mentioned in the polemics by people like you are two clear facts:

1. There were clearly facilities in Iraq CAPABLE of producing WMDs. Just because no huge stockpiles of WMDs have to date been produced does not change the fact that the clear intent to produce them and the means to produce them existed. Those means HAVE been found, although under pressure before the invasion I'm sure the Baathist Regime destroyed as many of them as they could, just as the Deaths Head SS units destroyed as much evidence about Dachau, Treblinka, etc. as they could.

2. President Bush did not "lie" about WMDs. That is probably the most intellectually dishonest and ethically dishonorable charge his detractors level against him, and a person of good conscience should at least have the cojones to admit it. The best intelligence available, not only our own, but from a number of other countries were convinced Saddam had them. That misjudgement might make the desicion to go to war a mistake--though I disagree with that conclusion--but it does not make Bush a "liar" as his partisan detractors dishonestly delight in painting him to be. Bush succeeded the REAL presidential prevaricator in January of 2001.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Has US lost the war in Iraq like Vietnam?
Posted: 8/12/2005 7:56:38 PM
You know the "insurgents as freedom fighters" might have some validity if they were homogenously Iraqis--but by current estimates, a large percentage, maybe a majority, are foreigners--and among those who aren't foreign the majority are disgruntled Baathists who resent their loss of power and would be overjoyed to see Iraq return to the hellish despotism it was before the murderous Saddam Hussein regime was toppled. So, you see, that dog won't hunt. Calling them "freedom fighters" is as ridiculous as giving that label to the SS units who fought like demons on German soil in the last days of the war to prevent the disintegration of the evil that was the 3rd Reich. They are not "freedom fighters"--freedom is the LAST thing they want to see in Iraq, unless, of course, "freedom" includes the right to mass murder, oppression of women and religious minorities, etc.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right or Wrong?
Posted: 8/12/2005 8:02:52 AM

The facts supported Kerry... that's why you're changing the subject.

There are NO discharge papers for George Bush. Nobody saw him where he said he was for a year. The secretary who said Dan Rather's document was unlikely printed when it said ALSO said that the facts in the document as she remembers them were correct...


And a number of others in a position to know and with no discernable axe to grind regarding either matter strongly disagree. In fact, from what I've seen and heard there are far fewer persons in supposedly a position to know who support the Rather version of Bush's service than those who disagree with it, and the ones who disagree with the Rather report in a position to know seem less likely to have partisan axes to grind.

You can try all you want to dismiss what the swiftboat vets said, but it's just absurd to suggest, as lib apologists for Kerry do, that all of them are rightwing kooks or on the payroll of the RNC. And they tell a FAR different story than Mr. Kerry did.

I'm not saying Kerry didn't serve honorably. But it appears his record may be more modest than would justify regarding him as a certifiable war hero.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right or Wrong?
Posted: 8/11/2005 9:37:38 PM
Bunomatic, even if that were true I'll hazard a guess that's more than you ever did or ever will do to serve your country.

And what do you then, have to say about the cowardly adulterer and pathological liar William Jefferson Clinton?

Let he who is guiltless...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Has US lost the war in Iraq like Vietnam?
Posted: 8/11/2005 9:32:02 PM
We have if people like Cindy Sheehan have their way.

The war in Vietnam was won on the battlefield and lost on CBS. If the "mainstream" media have their way, they will betray us in Iraq like they did in the 'Nam.

Wondering how many people here realize thatafter the Tet Offensive, the war in Vietnam was not what it had been romanticized by protestors as being--an uprising of indigenous people in the South (the Viet Cong) but instead naked aggression by the North that a large percentage of the South Vietnamese feared and did not want any part of.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 24 (view)
 
That's just rich.../Indeed..
Posted: 8/11/2005 9:27:55 PM
Oh puh-leeze...

the libs in this country since Roosevelt have done more to promote government intrusion into our lives and the restriction of our freedoms than Bush could ever imagine doing.

Ever heard of the RICO laws? It was libs who basically abolished the Bill of Rights years ago through them, and just recently they abolished property rights in the Supreme Court.

In short, don't give me that total crap. Trusting libs to protect our rights is like putting the proverbial fox in charge of the henhouse.I'll take mychances with the Conservatives...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right or Wrong?
Posted: 8/11/2005 7:47:40 PM

How about your dishonoring the sacrifice of a decorated veteran (John Kerry) to support a deserter like Bush?

... and then you say the mother of a dead son "dishonored her son's sacrifice"...

have a good night's sleep...republican


First of all, there were some other guys--the swift boat veterans, not all of whom could credibly be Bush/Republican flacks--who had a different story to tell regarding Sen. Kerry's service.

I don't deny Sen. Kerry served honorably. So did I. So did millions of other Americans, including George W. Bush. To say otherwise defames unjustly all those who have served in the national guard and reserves.

Dan Rather has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a politically-motivated hack who in his eagerness to discredit Bush readily accepted as genuine documents that any person with a minimum of intelligence would have thoroughly vetted--and discarded as faked--first.

It's your choice to accept that s**t if you want to, but the facts, unfortunately for your assertion, don't support you. There's nothing documented in Bush's record that makes his service anything less than honorable--unlike that hero of the left, Bill Clinton who clearly dodged the draft because he thought his lying cowardly a$$ was too precious to do what millions of less fortunate kids saw as their duty to their country.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Well at least one of them...
Posted: 8/11/2005 7:34:29 PM
isn't too stupid or drug-addled to understand!


Guitarist Keith Richards has expressed fears about a possible backlash in the US just as the band's latest tour is about to begin.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Have to agree with the Libs on this one...
Posted: 8/11/2005 7:29:27 PM
while I agree with most of their social policy, the Bush White House and the Republican Congress are way too cozy with big business at the expense of the American Middle class.

Not to give advice to the enemy, but the Conservative movement is not monolithic. There are those in the values-free-profits-are-the-only-things-that-matter Economic Conservative wing of the movement who would put their granny on a street corner to make a nickle from perverts if they could, and then there are Social Conservatives like me to whom traditional values matter.

That would seem to provide fissure for the Dems to exploit, but they are too deep in the pockets of the wacko NOW crowd, the gay rights movement, and those who embrace the often illusory benefits of diversity and multiculturalism, etc., to do so.

A Democrat who would champion traditional Judeo-Christian values--serious limits on abortion, traditional views on marriage, abolutes of right and wrong, tough on illegal immigration---plus insist that companies who sell here produce here and that free trade must first and foremost be fair trade that benefits a large and vital American middle class would win the presidency in a landslide.

Never happen though--such a candidate would be crucified by his own party. So Social Conservatives like me somewhat reluctantly vote for Republicans grudgingly accepting at how the big money guys are catered to so we can see our social agenda gets at least some attention in Washington and state capitols. We are the Republican Party's equivalent of the Democratic Party's black vote.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 4 (view)
 
That's just rich...
Posted: 8/11/2005 7:00:27 PM
the more the pompous arts and music crowd beats on Bush and conservatives the more resentful and determined real Americans are going to be to support them. Nobody with two functioning connected brain cells gives a rat's butt about what Mick Jagger thinks.

He's a superannuated scarecrow making a fool of himself by prancing around a stage like some demented rooster and for whom the 60's never ended. In other words, an antiquated irrelevancy.

Who is stupid enough anymore to pay good money to see this guy? Must be the bunch who have lost or are losing too many brain cells toking on some really good weed.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Cindy Sheehan Right or Wrong?
Posted: 8/11/2005 2:10:04 PM
Of course she has the right to dissent, however negative and harmful that may be.

However, as I posted in another thread, I believe if I had been killed in Vietnam my mother would have been more of a patriot and would have possessed the good judgement not to dishonor my sacrifice as Mrs. Shaheen has dishonored the sacrifice of her own son.

I'll be frank--while any parent should be expected to grieve the loss of a child, fair-weather "patriots" like Mrs. Shaheen are contemptible in my eyes.

If it were up to the Mrs. Sheehans of the world, Parliament might still be making our laws or active slave markets might still being held in Charleston and Atlanta.

US Army Veteran
Vietnam 1968
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Did the GOP steal another Ohio Election?
Posted: 8/6/2005 8:33:51 PM

The Republican Party has -- barely -- snatched another election in Ohio. And once again there are telltale symptoms of the kind of vote theft that put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 and then kept him there in 2004.

This time an outspoken Iraqi War vet named Paul Hackett led the charge for a Cincinnati-area Congressional seat, earning 48% of the vote. The spot was open because Bush appointed his pal Rep. Rob Portman to be a trade representative.

Hackett is a rarity among today's Democrats---a blunt, hard-driving truth talker who blasted Bush's attack on Iraq. Hackett labeled W. "a chicken hawk." He's the first Iraqi war vet to run for Congress. He made no bones about the incompetence and cynicism that define the GOP strategy there. In particular Hackett attacked Bush's attacks on veterans benefits while claiming patriotic support of the war.

In return, GOP candidate Jean Schmidt lied about Hackett's war record. Unlike John Kerry, Hackett fought back immediately.

The Ohio GOP is now being thoroughly roasted by a Coingate scandal in which Republican high roller Tom Noe seems to have walked off with at least $4 million in state funds, and possibly $16.5 million in theft and unauthorized administrative charges from a $50 million rare coin investment fund. Noe is a Bush Pioneer/Ranger level donor, and a supporter of Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the point man in Bush's theft of Ohio's 20 electoral votes and thus the presidency last November.

As his friends and supporters flee him, Noe's role as long-time chair of the Lucas County (Toledo) Board of Elections has come under intense scrutiny. Noe turned the seat over to his wife, Bernadette, in time for a 2004 election rife with disenfranchisement and fraud. Long lines, computer breakdowns, intimidation, harassment and hacked vote counts were the defining characteristics of the election the Noe's administered in the Toledo area last November.

In one instance, an entire precinct was shut down because the voting machines were locked in the office of a school principal, who called in sick. Someone also placed the wrong type of ballot scan markers in heavily Democratic Toledo precincts, causing a high rate of uncounted, machine-rejected votes without the voters knowing it.

Overall, experts estimate more than 7,000 votes were stolen outright from John Kerry under the Noe's supervision in Lucas County 2004.

Whether similar theft defeated Paul Hackett remains to be seen. Hackett ran extremely well in a district thoroughly gerrymandered as a permanent Republican safe seat. Democrats are now crowing about how well Hackett did in "serving notice" that the GOP may be in trouble. But the bottom line is that the Republicans still won the election.

As of 1 am this past Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, Hackett was within 3600 votes---about four percent---of Schmidt.

But election officials announced a mysterious "computer glitch" that delayed reports from Clermont County, which accounted for roughly a quarter of all the ballots cast in the district.

When things finally settled out, Clermont gave Schmidt 58%, and a 5,000 vote margin there. And thus the election.

Earlier in the evening---around 9pm---Hackett and Schmidt had been in a virtual dead heat, according to sources in the Cincinnati area (see among them http://billmon.org/archives/002073.html ).

A full 88% of the district's precincts had then reported, including more than half those in Clermont. As in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, it looked like a cliffhanger. Schmidt's lead was less than 900 votes.

Clermont's "technical malfunction" with optical scan readers was blamed on the humidity. Election officials said the southern Ohio summer had soaked into the ballots, making it hard to pass them through opti-scan machines.

Once the problem was "solved," Schmidt picked up more than enough votes to guarantee victory. The percentages by which she won in the post-glitch vote count were far higher than those by which she had been winning prior to the glitch. Vote counts were also higher than expected in the strongest Schmidt precincts.

Clermont and neighboring Butler and Warren Counties gave George W. Bush a margin in 2004 that exceeded his entire statewide margin over John Kerry. Warren County became infamous on election night, when its supervisors suddenly declared a "Homeland Emergency" and dismissed all media and Democrats from the vote count. Bush then emerged with a huge, unexpected and unmonitored majority.

Clermont, Butler and Warren Counties' totals were also suspect because a Democratic candidate for Ohio Supreme Court implausibly out-polled John Kerry. As would be expected, Bush vastly out ran the Republican candidate for Supreme Court Chief Justice in those three counties. But Democrat C. Ellen Connelly, a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage African-American from Cleveland somehow got a higher vote count than Kerry in these conservative, predominantly white southern Ohio counties. Richard Hayes Philips and other experts who have assessed that vote say it is beyond implausible, indicating a high likelihood of fraud.

But along with Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, Paul Hackett has become another Democratic candidate whose campaign went suddenly and mysteriously down to defeat late in the evening of a close election. Amidst the obligatory computer glitches, the GOP candidate was declared the winner before the vote count could be investigated.

Did Clermont County do for Schmidt in 2005 what it did for Bush in 2004? Did that "glitch" in the evening vote count give GOP dirty tricksters time to once again hack the machines they needed to win?

Who in the Bush/Rove Justice Department or major media will even ask the question?


This mythology will last as long as there are Dems/Libs willing to delude themselves with it.

It's myth--and it has about as much factual validity as Orpheus and Eurydice or Zeus and Leda. In other words it's bull****. It's not only bull****. it's an elitist bull**** with it's breathtakingly arrogant assumption that Americans who voted for Bush were fools or tooth-challenged bigots with the IQs of a tomato, afew of which might be redeemable to the point that if "knew the truth" they would have elected that moron John Kerry or before him that dim bulb Al Gore.

Fact: you lost. Fact: you lost this time not only in the electoral college, but by a pretty convincing margin in the popular vote. It should be becoming clear to you people, having lost the White House, having lost both houses of Congress, and now on the verge of losing the Court, that wild conspiracy theories like the garbage posted above just don't hold water. Hold your breath--MAYBE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS (*gasp!*) just DON"T AGREE WITH YOUR POLICIES AND IDEAS!
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Simple rules for eliminating the need for divorce
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:37:38 AM
1. Your career should NEVER come ahead of your spouse or your children. If your career is that damned important to you, don't marry and for God's sake don't have/father kids.

2. Make sure you know your partner's views on ALL important issues before you marry, and that he/she knows yours. If there are areas of major disagreement, don't marry. This may necessitate long engagements, and if so, so be it.

3. The welfare of your children should ALWAYS come ahead of EVERYTHING else, ESPECIALLY your own desires.

4. Decisions should always be mutually agreed upon, and you should be prepared to sacrifice your personal desires for the good of the marriage based on what's best for the family as a whole. If there's something you just can't compromise on for the sake of your marriage and kids, you should have done the world a favor and not married in the first place.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Divorce is the problem, not a solution
Posted: 8/4/2005 9:54:33 PM
Divorce is rampant today because in our degenerate and debased society rife with selfishness and sick narcissism people are too self-centered to work through their problems.

I'm not saying there ahould never be divorce--adultery and physical abuse are legitmate grounds, but no-fault divorce has been a disaster, a disaster in which the the primary victims are children.

The needs of the children should ALWAYS be first and foremost. If that means two people should be adult enough to make nice and pretend until the kids are on their own, then SO BE IT. You are supposedly the adults, and have NO RIGHT to f**k up your kids' lives because you are too damned selfish and immature to honor your commitment to your marriage.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 186 (view)
 
Anyone who won't serve their country...
Posted: 8/4/2005 9:41:41 PM
IMO is just a parasite on the system and has no legitimate moral claim to the rights and privileges the system affords.

U. S. Army, 'Nam, Class of '68.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Is There A Need For A Men's Rights Movement?
Posted: 8/4/2005 9:36:12 PM
Yes, definitely.

I'm a teacher--there's an ENDLESS list of programs to help girls. It's not the girls that need help, and it hasn't been for at least two decades now--it's the boys. Boys' learning styles are different than girls, but there is NO accommodation for that, in fact such accommodations are actively discouraged by an education establishment increasingly dominated by feminist dogma.

Among adults, the concepts of masculinity, fatherhood, and the role of men as heads of families are all being disparaged by an increasingly feminized society.

Go to court sometime in a divorce case where property division and child custody are at issue. A woman can be an blatant adulteress and make an income equal to or greater than the man, and most of the time she will STILL get alimony and custody of the kids. It's the most unfairly rigged system imaginable.

Men need to organize and fight back. It was never intended by God there be a war between the sexes, but a bunch of fanatic, radical women declared one in the 1960's. Men can no longer afford to let them win by default.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 52 (view)
 
How can this pathetic clown of a principal...
Posted: 7/31/2005 10:02:19 PM
expect respect for herself as a duly constituted authority from her students, when she so blatantly disrespects the highest duly constituted authority in the land?

The answer is simple--she can't. How did any schoolboard bring itself to hire such a complete fool?
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Is It Unpatriotic To Question Your Government?
Posted: 7/31/2005 9:50:26 AM
Quoted from beachcomberbenn: "Yes, not that it's any of you business, as those that haven't served have the same rights as those who have not."

And that's the problem--those who put nothing into the system still can parasite off of it...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 71 (view)
 
I'm also tired of people who refuse to face the facts...
Posted: 7/31/2005 7:18:12 AM
like Eddie1979 (who, BTW it should be noted made no attempt whatsoever to refute the things I said about Islam. He can't, because they are all true) who are so wrapped up in politically correct self-righteousness that they deny the reality of what Islam is, just as millions deluded themselves about the reality of National Socialism and Hitler's goals in the 30's.

Why should young moslems, in particular, enlist? Maybe, just maybe, if their faith is so important to them, and they feel it it being perverted by the terrorists, young moslem men might feel a greater moral imperative to take action and join the military than others. It hasn't happened because their allegiance to their moslem "brothers" is greater than the allegiance they have to their fellow citizens. On top of that, it seems to me that they don't because they agree with the the goals of the terrorists.

That's why we'd be better off if they would all decide to go back to their countries of origin (and don't be disingenuous--you're aware, I'm sure, that for the vast majority, their countries of origin are in the Middle East.)
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Of course not...
Posted: 7/30/2005 9:00:21 PM
but much of the stuff in this forum, especially the ludicrous nonsense about characterizing GWB as the very spawn of hell incarnate, is just ignorant wild-eyed paranoia and deserves to be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

I've noticed that libs and others who disagree with the administration are big on talking about the need for civility when it suits them. But it never seems to suit them when talking about GWB. That is just rank hypocrisy.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 66 (view)
 
beachcomberbenn, I thought...
Posted: 7/30/2005 8:37:10 PM
there was enough in the Kelly column I quoted to supply at least some answers to your question if you read it thoroughly. I thought--and still think--you were being deliberately disingenuous to be sarcastic.

Second, what "name-calling" am I guilty of?

If you're trying to impress me with your erudition, no dice. I don't doubt you are intelligent, but anyone can read with an axe to grind precluding understanding. And your bias is clear.

as a social conservative I'm less than enchanted with the Bush administration on quite a few fronts as well. I'm not happy with their obvious and nauseating ass-kissing of big business, for one thing. But IMO, Iraq is something that they did right, and which needed to be done for our safety and the dafety of others. I hear a lot of talk about no WMD's. What I don't hear about is the clear evidence that Iraq had the capacity to produce them, and the possibility that the UN team's long and bumbling efforts to find them only sufficed to give Saddam the time to send them out of country, quite likely to Syria.

As for our actions in Iraq making us less safe, I think that's just plain nonsense. These people just hate us. In their minds, they need no reason to do the things they are doing other than the fact that we are "infidels". I'll be pilloried for this too, but I think Islam is a pathology parading as a religion, that violence and unreasoning hatred of the outsider are central to this "religion of peace and tolerance". A billion people can't be fooled into supporting a system of thought that is inherently evil you might say? Well, we've seen the fallacy of that assumption on a smaller scale illustrated in Gemany circa the third and fourth decades of the century past where the toxic madness of National Socialism embraced millions.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 64 (view)
 
beachcomberbenn
Posted: 7/30/2005 7:57:10 PM
Well, I'd think that would be obvious, but since you obviously take delight in being obtuse, things that are going well, both militarily and otherwise. There are a lot of them, and one doesn't need to be a jingoist to wonder why they never get any airtime on the mainstream networks.

You might want to read some of Kelly's other columns for particulars. I'm not suggesting you read them uncritically--quite the contrary. I just think it's important to get as balanced a view of events as possible. And you CLEARLY are going to get only the "the sky is falling" viewpoint of events in Iraq on CBS, ABC, CNN, and NBC.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 62 (view)
 
Assessing the war on terrorism--another take
Posted: 7/30/2005 7:21:24 PM
Article published Saturday, July 30, 2005

A shift in Iraq

By Jack Kelly

DEBKAFILE, the private Israeli intelligence service which is always entertaining but often in error, reports that al-Qaeda is shifting more than 1,000 of its operatives from Iraq for terror offensives in Europe and elsewhere in the Middle East

"The countries targeted were named as Britain, Italy, France, Denmark, Russia - with the U.K. and Italy at the top of the list; and in the Middle East, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, " Debka said on its Web site (www.debka.com).

The (successful) 7/7 and (fizzled) 7/21 attacks in London and especially the July 22 attack at the Sharm el-Sheik resort in Egypt suggest that this time Debka may be on to something. Six Pakistani men are being sought in connection with the Sharm al Sheikh bombing, and the car bombs used in the attack appear to have passed through Egyptian customs.
If true, is the shift of forces from Iraq a product of confidence, of desperation, or of sheer nuttiness?

Debka suggests confidence. "[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi [the al-Qaeda chieftain in Iraq] offered his estimate that after three years of joint combat, Iraqi insurgents ought to be capable of running the guerrilla war against the Americans on their own."

But except in news reports, the war in Iraq has been going poorly for al-Qaeda. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army, said in a speech July 25 that so far this year, U.S. and Iraqi security forces have killed or captured more than 50,000 insurgents, including a significant portion of the leadership. While the majority of these have to be people who were interviewed and released, that's still an impressive total.

Car bombings, al-Qaeda's specialty, have fallen from (a record high of) 170 in April to 151 in May to 133 in June, with less than 100 so far in July. (Journalists describe this as a "worsening" trend.) Al-Qaeda could be storing up for an offensive when the new Iraqi constitution is unveiled next month. We'll know soon enough.

The targets have shifted in emphasis from American forces to Iraqi forces to Shiite civilians to, most recently, Sunni Arabs who are cooperating with the government. This does not suggest growing capability or rising support. Nor do the increasing number of gun battles between al-Qaeda and its ex-Baathist allies in the insurgency suggest harmony in the resistance.

Suicide attacks have been successful in gaining headlines, but have not slowed enlistment in the Iraqi armed forces, or prevented prominent Sunnis from taking part in the writing of the constitution.

American commanders are now talking openly about a major withdrawal of troops after the Iraqi elections scheduled for December. While this may reflect concerns about the strains the massive deployment in Iraq is placing on the Army and Marine Corps as much as an improving situation, it is doubtful these statements would be made publicly if the situation weren't in fact improving.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-D.C.-based think tank, has been pessimistic about Iraq. He returned from a recent visit singing a different tune: "If current plans are successfully implemented, the total number of Iraqi military and police units that can honestly be described as trained and equipped should rise from 96,000 in September, 2004, and 172,000 today to 230,000 by the end of December and 270,000 by mid-2006," he said.

Strategic Forecasting, a private American intelligence service, thinks al-Qaeda is engaged in the terrorist equivalent of the Tet Offensive: "launching a series of attacks - some significant, others mere psyops - in an effort to turn the tide in a war it has been losing."

Clumsy mistakes made in the London bombings suggests to Strategic Forecasting that al-Qaeda has suffered "a rather serious decline in the quality - though not necessarily the quantity - of its operational assets." A shortage of skilled labor would explain why al-Qaeda is shifting assets from Iraq. But, in effect, conceding defeat in the principal theater rarely is the path to ultimate victory.

If al-Qaeda is indeed shifting personnel out of Iraq, expect to hear more about Iraq as an "incubator" for terrorism. But what, pray tell, do the promoters of this theory imagine Zarqawi and his minions would have been doing these past two years if there had been no war in Iraq? Origami?

Iraq has indeed proven to be a quagmire. But not for us.

Jack Kelly is national security writer for The Blade and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Poster's note: Kelly is an ex-marine with extensive military experience and expertise. So OBVIOUSLY we're supposed to discount whatever he says and give uncritical credence to those writers and reporters whose miltitary knowledge amounts to having seen "Platoon" or played Risk.

Interestingly, I have younger friends currently in the military in the region--one in Kuwait, one in Iraq itself. According to them what is actually transpiring in Iraq bears as much resemblance to what is being reported in the American mainstream media as this middle-aged, balding poster does to Angela Jolie. It's not so much a matter of what IS reported as what is DELIBERATELY excluded.

People need to be MUCH more critical of what they read. As much as they try to deny it, its a fact that the "mainstream" media in this country has a clear agenda, a clear liberal bias, and an agenda to undermine any actions this president initiates. People are not fools--they figured out long ago that they were being deceived on many issues by the media in this country, but until the rise of the internet and talk radio they had to take whatever manure the major networks and PBS chose to spread. With the the advent of Drudge, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, FoxNews, et al., the mainstream media no longer has the stranglehold on information flow they once had--and it's about time!
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The Bad Boy
Posted: 7/30/2005 4:54:29 AM
Quoted:

Bad boys (usually) grow into good men, and I want a good man.

He can ride a Harley ... or not. lol

I'm the wrong person to ask about the age a which I decided that I want a good man.
Suffice it to say that I want one now and have for a while. (I'm 29)


boy is that a patent crock of s**t.

You do seem a little old not to have learned that it's a crock. A slow learner?
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 56 (view)
 
Toonsmith...
Posted: 7/28/2005 11:26:30 PM
TALK IS CHEAP.

Like I said above, I'm still waiting for the legions of young American moslems to join our armed forces to take back their "religion of peace and tolerance" from the terrorists.

If there's been a rush of moslems to the recruiiting stations, it's escaped my notice...

Until there is, as used to be said in the 60's, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Moslems who wring their hands but take no action are giving the heretics in their midst tacit support.

Actually, as I've said previously, I think the "moderate" moslem is a myth.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 53 (view)
 
IrishMary...
Posted: 7/28/2005 9:57:22 PM
85% of Britons blame Iraq....hence Blair and Bush.
We cant ALL be wrong.

Can I assume from that statement, then, that logic also applied to the great majority of the German people circa 1938-1939?
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 52 (view)
 
I am REALLY tired of this "It's not Islam--it's a few fanatics" bullsh*t
Posted: 7/28/2005 9:42:09 PM
And I say it again. It's bullsh*t.

Islam has ALWAYS been a religion that expanded by means of the sword. It is a religion that has ALWAYS been intolerent of "infidels". In the 10th Century Islam swept through North Africa, a peaceful and prosperous Christian region for hundreds of years, with fire and sword. Chrisitians who made the pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the centuries following were abused, robbed, and gnerally treated with scorn and contempt. Finally under Charles the Hammer in Spain and later at the summons of Pope Urban Christendom fought back, and the Moslem tide that threatened to swamp all of Europe was stemmed.

Look around the wolrd today. What countries make it illegal--in some cases even punishable by death--to preach other religions? Only Islamist countries, to my knowledge. What other countries denigrate women, even to the extent that a woman who has been raped can be killed by her father or brothers for "dishonoring" their family? What other countries still practice and approve of de facto and overt slavery? To my knowledge, only Moslem countries.

During the 1st Gulf War, our soldiers in Saudi weren't even allowed to make any outward display of their Christian faith. This while we were protecting their sorry a$$es.

Here in the 'States when something like 9/11 occurs we get mealy-mouthed pronouncements from Islamic leaders condemining such actions, BUT--there's always a BUT--it's OUR fault for supporting the Israelis, OUR fault for not helping the Palestineans to obliterate Israel, always OUR fault for some reason or another according to their "logic". If these people are the good American citizens their apologists assure us they are, why do Palestinean terrorists who they don't know from Adam have more importance for them that their neigbors and fellow citizens?

Talk is cheap. If these scum doing these terrorist actions are really heretics outside the mainstream of Islam, WHERE ARE THE THOUSANDS OF YOUNG ISLAMIC MEN WHO SHOULD BE TAKING UP ARMS TO RECLAIM THE GOOD NAME OF THEIR RELIGION AS A FAITH OF PEACE AND TOLERANCE? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, because Osama Bin Laden -IS- the true voice and face of Islam, however the so-called "moderates" may deny it. They come to our countries, abuse our freedoms, and teach hate and intolerance in their mosques. Even those who DON'T will admit they would like to see Sharia Law instituted in every country of the world.

So I won't be a hypocrite--I wish it was true. I'd love to see Moslems in the U.S. pull up stakes and move back to whatever country their forebears came from. Then they could concentrate on hating and killing each other and leave us alone.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 91 (view)
 
Changing divorce laws:Would you be for gender neutral laws?
Posted: 7/28/2005 2:26:26 PM
quote: briefne - ha! maybe not but those that have issues with that aren't guys i'd date anyway.

sooooooo many deadbeat dads, sooooo many men who are absolute jackasses about paying child support or support to the women who supported them in every way but financially. it's so sad!!

i don't have children, but if i did and they lived with my ex, he'd be as happy as i could possibly make him. why why why would men want their children raised by unhappy, stressed and possibly financially strapped women? it makes no sense to me at all. terrible fathers is what they are.

maybe it's cause i had the best dad ever. i don't know :unquote

It's definitely not all women's fault, but feminism has a lot to do with why there are aren't more men like your father. The very concept of maleness has been consistently maligned and disparaged, and devalued by a relentless onslaught from radical feminism for the past half century, and while many women don't buy into what the most radical feminists spew, all too often they have accorded it tacit support.

The kind of irresponsible males you decry are a natural and understandable (if ignoble) outcome of the all-too-fashionable denigration of masculinity and maleness in our society today. If a man is denied his self-worth and his proper and socially useful role, then he will assume others that in his mind redeem his self-esteem, even if in doing so they serve no positive social purpose.

You ladies had a revolution where you gained many worthwhile and just objectives. Unfortunately, many good things are lost in revolutions as well. Maybe the extinction of the kind of father you had--who was valued, not derided for his maleness--was one of them.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 90 (view)
 
studies continue to validate...
Posted: 7/28/2005 2:12:09 PM
the fact that children have a strong innate need for fathers in their lives on a consistent, regular basis to properly develop emotionally and socially.

Yet it remains one of the perverse cornerstones of feminist mythology that single mothers can raise healthy, well-adjusted children without a father in the home or at least consistently present in their childrens' lives--so much so that all too many women actually choose to have children with no intention of having the father have any role in the child's life.

In the long term, that is a perfect formula for social disintegration, born of the selfishness and narcissism that is at the heart of the rot in our society today.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 79 (view)
 
What Physical Qualities Do You Look For In a Mate That Are Absolute Musts?
Posted: 7/28/2005 2:00:38 PM
(wondering if many people answering this thread realize just how shallow and superficial they are revealing themselves to be...)
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 72 (view)
 
There are lots of good men around...
Posted: 7/28/2005 8:17:31 AM
the reason women don't find them is because they don't fit some rigid profile of what today's women with their unrealistic expectations think they "deserve".

So women all too often go for some bad-boy jerk. life support for a penis, who titillates them and they end up miserable still wondering what hit them--then go and do the exact same stupid thing again...and again...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 82 (view)
 
The current laws and precedents
Posted: 7/28/2005 8:07:14 AM
around divorce, alimony, child cupport, custody, and visitation are so grossly unfair that in a society where women are breadwinners themselves, if THEY had any ethics and sense of fairness THEY would demand changes.

But guys, don't hold your collective breaths. We've got an evolving matriarchy in our society spurred by the b*****s at NOW, and it ain't gonna change without a fight.

Its time to liberate MEN. The women declared this gender war, or at least gave it their tacit approval, so it's time to fight back no holds barred.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 67 (view)
 
Dan Quixote...
Posted: 7/24/2005 8:43:58 PM
Redneck is a state of mind. Rednecks are not confined to any particular race or ethnicity. There are black rednecks, hispanic rednecks, etc. All that is required to be a redneck is to have solid traditional values and to be suspicious and contemptuous of people like you who fancy yourselves as some sort of elite who take from the system but give little or nothing back.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Nittany Lion...
Posted: 7/22/2005 9:35:55 PM
I can agree with your last post to an extent--just as long as people recognize the fact that the "wall of separation" is a construct that has no basis in the Constitution, but was "interpreted" into it in the 20th Century, in particular by Hugo Black, who was probably the most wretched excuse for a human being ever to sit on the highest court in the land.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Redneck and proud of it.
Posted: 7/22/2005 9:29:18 PM
Redneck doesn't mean you are stupid. It means you are among the few who have any values left worthy of the name.

Thank God almighty for rednecks in this country. They're the ones in this country who do all the dirty work--and when necessary, the fighting and dying--for those of you (and there are a LOT of you here) who think they are too good for that sort of thing.

The day there are no rednecks left to defend America there will no nothing worth defending in America anyway.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Montreal Guy...
Posted: 7/22/2005 9:20:20 PM
You've established that a number of the Founding Fathers were Deists and that a few others were leery of religion. How about telling us something we didn't know?

First of all, I'm very leery myself of people (as you have done here) who extract some few anecdotal bits from a historical personage's body of work to put its stamp on everything else they said. Everyone from time to time has said some things that meant less than was intended. The Founding Fathers were not immune. Perhaps even YOU (*gasp*) have done so yourself.

That lengthy page of anecdotal passages should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the clear majority of the Founding Fathers were people of faith, and particularly of ONE faith--Christianity. Others, especially Franklin and Jefferson, were heavily influenced by the socio-cultural millieu of the age--the Age of Reason, an era particularly hostile to religion. That is certainly to be expected.

But to use these few and say their thought represented the consensus of the Founding Fathers, most of whom were Christians, is simply--no other way to put it--in error and intellectually dishonest.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 6 (view)
 
serial killings and child molest killers
Posted: 7/22/2005 9:04:41 PM
Take guys like that Richard Allen who murdered Polly Klaas and put them in a room with five guys as big as the biggest NFL linemen, all with aluminum baseball bats...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 161 (view)
 
Thank you, Nittany Lion!!!
Posted: 7/22/2005 8:58:59 PM


Yes, I am quite the charmer. I just don't buy the BS that guys like WholeLove spew.

A society that won't protect itself against lawless elements is a society doomed to be tossed in the dustbin of history. We're heading there, unfortunately. I fearfor the world mydaughter will inherit, one where the inmates and vermin run the asylum.
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 10 (view)
 
And of course you respect...
Posted: 7/22/2005 8:53:14 PM
people who drown (pregnant?) girls half their age and then use their authority in Massachussets to have records sealed so their crime will never be discovered--or others who let interns blow them in the oval office. Or those who go on TV and Radio and wishes someone (Clarence Thomas) to die because he doesn't agree with her politics. Or former White House advisors who somehow get secret documents they aren't entitled to remove entangled in their trousers...

I can't wait till Bush gets a chance to replace maybe yet another lib after O'Connor on the court and the whole filthy abomination of Roe-v Wade comes tumbling down...
 Artanaxes
Joined: 7/17/2004
Msg: 157 (view)
 
He'swrong Nittany Lion
Posted: 7/22/2005 8:43:22 PM
We shouldn't use gang members in the military. We should shoot them on sight like the vermin they are.
 
Show ALL Forums