#4
Talk about a Jezabel. She convinces him to give her the job back and then she tapes his lurid fantasies. I'd be more disgusted if she didn't ask for him to help her get her job back...just so she could set him up. What a Judas.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not an O'Reily fan. I could care less if he went off the air.
#8
For gods sake! you damm liberals! Oreilly's the only dude keepin this country's disgustingly biased media in check. Who cares if he pinched some A$$?
#7
Don't liberals like Stone claim to be for the little guy? Well if "rich" is people who make $200,000+/year or more (which it's not per Democrats), then "the little guy" might be said to be someone who makes $197,000/year. Those poor people who don't have their own drivers.
Posted by: Nick Speth ||
10/18/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Quick, somoene make up a graphic of Bush shopping at Wal Mart, looking at an aisle of dead terrorist heads, or being at Customer Service returning some WMDs.
#1
I think I can honestly say that Derrida meant nothing to me...
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2004 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Given the illimitable play of signs, "nothing" denies an absence of "being" or "Dasein". Yet in the Heideggerian sense, a "trace" of "being", especially a "being" attached to a soul as strong as Derrida's, will always remain...
#3
What is deconstruction? Mr. Derrida would never say. It was a question certain to spark his contempt and ire. He denied that deconstruction could be meaningfully defined.
You can almost see him thinking in that picture, "Do I have the perfect scam going, or what?"
Oil problems in an outpost of Opec-land? lol
Motorists in the UAE may soon find themselves lining up to buy petrol. Purchasing refined petrol at Dh 6.75 per gallon but allowed by the authorities to sell at only Dh 4.75 per gallon, the country's gasoline retailers incur a substantial loss estimated at about Dh 4.1 million daily, especially now that world crude prices have reached more than US$ 50 per barrel. EPCCO/ENOC, with more than 160 service stations in Dubai and the Northern Emirates, loses upwards of Dh 1.4 million a day.
An industry spokesman said that a business incurring losses of that magnitude is clearly not sustainable in the long term, unless the companies have either access to subsidised products or retail prices are increased by as much as Dh 2 per gallon. The source said that while petrol retail pump price is set by the Federal Government, retailers like EPPCO that don't have access to crude oil of their own need to buy product at high international market prices. "Over the last 5 years, EPPCO lost a total of about Dh 450 million because of the high product acquisition cost," said an EPPCO source.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/13/2004 4:37:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I weep for them.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/13/2004 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I just started reading Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics". In the first chapter, he talks about the gas lines in the '70s, and how they were caused by price caps. Looks like some people never learn, but you just have to savor the irony of a gas shortage in the UAE.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/13/2004 03:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If my country would like to use my body to deceive the enemy in wartime, I have no problem with that--but PLEASE don't call it Operation "Mincemeat"!
Posted by: Dar ||
10/13/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Get the book, "The Man Who Never Was," out of the library. The author's name is Ewen Montagu.
Montagu states that "I found that the word 'Mincemeat' had just been restored afer employment in a successful operation some time before. My sense of humour having by this time (in the development of the project) become somewhat macabre, the word seemed to be one of good omen--and "Operation Mincemeat" it became."
Monatgu also states that permission to use the body was granted by next of kin on condition that the man's name wouldn't be revealed. The man died of pneumonia following exposure.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2004 11:46:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Poor Haiti! stepchild of the western hemisphere.
When Toussaint l'Overture threw out the French in 1804, the various world powers would neither recognize nor assist the new country, because the slave owning powers didn't want to recognize a slave revolt as legitimate. Haiti slipped almost immediately into anarchy, ignorance, and voodoo for two centuries. I'm not sure whether it's ignorance or desperation, maybe both, that causes people who could earn $7 from a tree's fruit, to cut the tree down before it fruits for $3 in charcoal.
Russians seeking an unusual two-day break can now go to an army boot camp to be barked at, bullied and subjected to gruelling physical exercises.
A tour operator in the central Russian region of Yaroslavl is arranging the trips for those with 3,000 roubles (about $100) to spare. Battle-hardened veterans from the ongoing war in Chechnya are among the soldiers who are putting the "48-hour recruits" through their paces.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
10/13/2004 2:03:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How clever! That 3000 roubles will probably feed a regular Army unit for weeks. Perhaps clothe and arm them, too.
#2
Businessmen who are in their 30s and 40s and who are used to leading people are interested in having somebody to command them for a change. They are tired of being constantly in charge," he says.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/13/2004 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ten years ago Estonia became the first country in Europe to introduce flat rate proportional personal income tax, a policy designed to energize our people and stimulate growth. It was a huge success. Latvia and Lithuania followed, then Russia, Ukraine and now Slovakia. [...] It looks quite possible that within five years the whole of Central and Eastern Europe will move to flat-rate income taxes
Russia's flat tax is 13%, which Putin introduced in 2001.
#3
Pretty hard to argue with Ireland's success. This is the best wedge against Old (Slacker) Europe imaginable. Great for Estonia, btw. Superb economy, and exceptionally beautiful women as well.
Testifying for the defence in Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial, a German journalist told the court Tuesday that ethnic-Albanian separatists in the former Yugoslavia deliberately attempted to provoke an attack on civilians by Serb troops. The journalist, Franz Josef Hutsch, a former German army major who spent months with the Kosovo Liberation Army in 1998 and 1999, also said the KLA ran drugs and prostitutes into other parts of Europe to finance weapons purchases. Hutsch described the KLA as a well-organized force, assisted by officers from Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morocco who had trained somewhere in Turkey.
KLA tactics during the ceasefire in late 1998 included staging hit-and-run attacks on Serb patrols designed to "force them into a trap and try to provoke an excessive reaction" in order to hasten foreign intervention, he said. They also tried to lure the Serbs into attacking civilians in early 1999 so the images would be shown during peace negotiations taking place in Rambouillet, France, he added. The testimony came after a month-long recess in which the case resumed much as it had left off - with Milosevic demanding that he be allowed to fire his court-appointed lawyers and represent himself. The former Yugoslav president accused his trial judges of offering him only "scraps of rights." But presiding Judge Patrick Robinson cut him short, saying, "I don't want a speech" and told Steven Kay, the appointed defence lawyer, to continue his questioning of Hutsch. Both Kay and the prosecution filed briefs to an appellate court on whether Milosevic should be allowed to again lead his own defence. Kay contended that Milosevic had a "fundamental right" to defend himself, while the prosecution argued that the repeated delays caused by Milosevic's ill health defied the need for a speedy trial. Medical reports have said Milosevic's chronic high blood pressure could become life threatening under the stress of defending himself, something he did during the trial's first two years.
It was not clear when the appeals court would hand down its decision, but in the meantime Kay was continuing the defence case but hampered by Milosevic's refusal to co-operate. The prosecution wrapped up its presentation in February. Dozens of witnesses Milosevic had planned to call have refused to testify unless the former Serb leader is allowed to question them himself. Milosevic is accused of unleashing Serb troops who committed atrocities while quashing a rebellion in Kosovo, a southern province of Serbia dominated by ethnic Albanians. Eventually NATO launched a 78-day bombing campaign to force the Serbs to end the crackdown. Milosevic has described the Kosovo war as a defensive action against terrorists. Why the hell did we (America) get involved in this conflict? The more I read about it the more it looks as if we helped the friggin jihadis who this year did a little 'ethnic cleansing' by burning down monastaries and churches and killing Serbs because they are Christians. Anyone know enough about this conflict to enlighten me to what the truth is about America getting involved? Lately I think the reason we got involved had nothing to do with genocide (and that the genocide claims were a lie?), and everything to do with being the UN's bitch. Fred?
#1
I think the reason we got involved had nothing to do with genocide (and that the genocide claims were a lie?), and everything to do with being the UNâs bitch.
The USA intervened in Serbia as part of a NATO operation. All the NATO countries approved the operation, unanimously. The main reason that NATO acted was that the Serbs were expelling the entire Muslim Kosovar population from Kosovo to the neighboring countries, creating an international problem.
The UN did not approve the intervention, but only because two countries -- Russia and China -- would have imposed their Security Council vetoes.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/13/2004 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
An Albanian town had to call in police and hunters after a pack of 200 stray mountain dogs attacked at least nine people. Headed by a clearly identifiable leader, the snarling pack overran the main street of the small northern town of Mamurras, its mayor said on Wednesday. "Even in the movies I have never seen a horde of 200 stray dogs from the mountains attacking people in the middle of a town," Anton Frroku said on Wednesday. He said the dogs bit at least nine people, aged from 20 to 60, dragging them to the ground and inflicting serious wounds. "I was going to a cafe when the pack of dogs attacked and bit me. They kept biting and I fell to the ground," 32-year-old Agim Laku told News24 television. People threw stones to break up the pack. Police and hunters killed 20 dogs, including the leader.
#7
Damn--I love animals, but if 200 wild dogs attacked my town I'd be be out there with every gun I own comparing results! Shotgun vs. long gun vs. pistol, hollowpoint vs. FMJ vs. shot, etc.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/13/2004 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
PARIS -- The French are arrogant, rude and surly to foreign visitors, said a leading French politician behind a scathing report on how the Gallic welcome leaves much to be desired.
Bernard Plasait, a member of France's upper house of parliament, has concluded what millions of visitors have known for years. "Our bad image in this area, the arrogance we are accused of, our refusal to speak foreign languages, the sense we give that it's a great honor to visit us are among the ugly facts of which we should not be proud," reads the first paragraph of Mr. Plasait's report, which was commissioned by the government. "Certainly, these accusations don't date from yesterday," the report continues.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/13/2004 5:28:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The French government particularly was alarmed by the 21 percent, or $6 billion, drop in spending by visitors from the United States.
This is due to a lack of Welcome to France signs and poor baggage handling? Just keep fooling yourselves, kuffirs.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/13/2004 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The French think tourists are a nuisance.
Kerry thinks terrorists are.
By the way, I have quit buying French wine since late 2002, and I actively discourage others from ordering French bottles in restaurants (pretty easy, considering both the quality of wines from friendly countries and the high cost of French wine). I've considered making disparaging comments on the wine list if there are French wines, too; restaurant owners need to give up on that habit too. What other French export can one boycott?
#4
Kalle:
Here's a good list of products. I found I couldn't boycott France since I never bought their products anyway, so what I did was to start buying more Australian wine so the comparative difference would be larger.
#5
Not surprised that the U.S. is the #1 destination. Everywhere I have traveled outside the U.S. most people have expressed a desire to visit or live in the U.S. Aside from the Jihadists pouring into Frenchistan, I doubt anybody is willing to emigrate to France. This does not apply to Congolese deserters.
#6
The sad thing is the French produce nothing I like so I can't really boycott them. Or else you can say I've been boycotting them for most of my life.
#9
Kalle,
For starters you can boycott french cheese
then go on the French cars (Renalt, Citroen, Pegeault), then French airlines......
and finally French Hookers
Together, if we care we can bring thwem to their knees, or at least weaken their economy which is basically the only thing that really interests them.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
10/13/2004 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Well, I was thinking more in terms of a product type with high meaning in their neurotic self-perception. Cheese is probably not that big an export of theirs. Cars, haha -- who buys French cars? I think fragrance and cosmetics should be a target. Wine and perfume are the essence of what the French think they are the best at.
So, no more tourism in France, no more French wine (do comment on wine lists in restaurants), and no more French fragrance.
#11
Paddy Irish Whiskey is on the list----that is a tregedy................because............ the French bought out the distillery. That will be my most painful one to lose.....besides the cosmetics, you understand.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/13/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#12
LOL, AP.
You're such a card. ;-)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/13/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#13
but a pretty card lol
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#14
If you want to put a crimp in their snotty attitudes, boycott, or better yet, put a prohibitive import duty on French luxury products. It cost very little to manufacture and is sold for way too much. Cosmetics and perfumes ($.50 worth of product sold for $50), high fashion and accessories (e.g. Louis Vitton).
But most important, place high tariffs on profitable and growing segments of industry. For instance by placing tariffs on French designed or manufactured bio-engineered goods, a high barrier is in place against any multinational locating the neccessary R&D and manufacturing in France. A generation of this and France will turn into a technological backwater.
Posted by: ed ||
10/13/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#15
What other French export can one boycott?
Well, companies can stop buying Alcatel stuff. Me, I stopped using Motul oil in my motorcycle. :)
#16
Boycotting French cheese is in fact a big hardship. Their wine and perfume can easily be substituted, and there are plenty of other places to visit on vacation. But the cheese !
#18
Excuse me? Americans talking about how rude the French are? No fucknig way...
As a Canadian, we get the heavy hand of American arrogance every single day of our lives. You people lay out huge protective "tariffs" on our lumber, wheat, cattle, steel. You steal our electricity, and drain the Great Lakes at your convenience and then have the GALL to tell us we don't "pull our weight" in sending troops to Iraq.
Well screw you all. We have about a TENTH of your population, so we can't AFFORD a big military. But that doesn't stop us from producing a carbine assault rifle that your marine forces are clamoring to get their hands on. That doesn't stop us from inventing and producing the Stryker armored vehicle which is even now saving your lives in Iraq.
Not to mention signing on for your ridiculous and infantile missle defense shield, a technology which will never work.
#20
No problem. Shut down the border and go our separate ways.
Posted by: ed ||
10/13/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Spemble-Leafer,
Here's a trade for you: we'll take your best doctors and businessmen and scientists and technologists, and you take our Mikey Moore types. No tariffs either way. One-for-one swap, perfect parity.
#22
How does Canada's population compare to Australia's? and what about military commitment to freedom, involvement in WW IV, resistance to Shariah, and opposition to Islamofascist terrorists?
#28
Spemble Spains3686 - dumbass the stryker is being built by GM General Dynamics Land Systems Defense Group LLC which employs many of you yoodles up there..
Engineering will take place in Sterling Heights, Mich http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm
there is not much produced in canada that wasn't designed in the states...
canada is just a bunch of freeloaders - wellfare from your own govt and security from uncle sam.
anyways you should chill - as soon as your country breaks up many of your provinces
will be a state of the union...
Posted by: Dan ||
10/13/2004 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#29
How 'bout actually being excellent and available? Image then will take care of itself.
#30
canadians are just like the majority of the rest of the world...envious our prosperity and ingenuity and pissed that thier own system sucks..
Spains3686 - tell me why so many canadians go south of the border when expensive medical treatment is needed? or when they want to fill up their tanks? cause buddy your system sucks - all those taxes and you get a shitty medical system (but free)...
Posted by: Dan ||
10/13/2004 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Re: #18. I don't have anything against Canada, but I sure don't care for this line: Not to mention signing on for your ridiculous and infantile missle defense shield, a technology which will never work.
Only the smallest of minds can ever dismiss something like this for the simple reason it's never been done before. Thank God there are people out there with more vision and dedication to the pursuit of knowledge than you. That boneheads like you reap the benefits of science, medicine, and technology today that previous boneheads once called impossible and dismissed out of hand is the living definition of irony and ignorance.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/13/2004 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Oh, and take back Jim Carrey and Mike Myers while you're at it.
#37
Well screw you all. We have about a TENTH of your population, so we can't AFFORD a big military. Please explain how Canada managed to have such a large military during WW2. They were an incredible asset throughout the war despite their tiny population. They could AFFORD a big military then, and now, they have simply chosen not to.
#39
The whole problem with Canada is that it is run by frogs. If they would stop bending over for Quebec it would probably straignten out quickly.
How long will it take western Canada to secede and join the US? It would probably make the most sense to just fold BC into Washington (similar politics and demographics), Calgary and Alberta into Montana, and Saskatchewan into North Dakota.
Most western Canadians outside Vancouver ad anglophile Victoria would probably support this. As to our side, this arrangement would probably add equally to the red and blue sides of the electoral equation, so both Dems and Repubs would get on board.
#41
Okay, I'm going to defend relations with Canada here, including and especially trade relations.
Just because Canada manufactures things designed here (and that is by no means always the case) doesn't relegate her to a lesser status. Natural resources and some people resources are important contributors to product value. So too is the value of having a functional economy next door to us.
Am I happy about all things Canadian? Not at all - there are many many things about Canada that I not only don't like, I find them worrisome for our own security.
However - credit where credit is due, and the comments here that denigrate Canadan contribution to products is misguided.
So is much of Spemble Spains3686's tirade, but that doesn't excuse the same thing from others.
Should men pay an extra tax, just for being men? The Swedish post-communist Left Party thinks so. The extra tax is meant to compensate women, all of whom are thought structurally oppressed by the male collective. All men are responsible for the actions of some, especially for those who physically abuse their wives and girlfriends. We should all therefore take collective responsibility for the financial costs of male violence toward women.
I'm not joking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>more moonbattery at the link<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Posted by: tipper ||
10/13/2004 2:08:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is what happens when you don't have forced institutionalization of the criminally insane.
Canada has suspended three of its former Royal Navy submarines from service after last week's fatal blaze on a fourth vessel. The country's defence ministry said it was confining the subs to port until the cause of the fire was identified.
Lieutenant Chris Saunders, 32, died in hospital after suffering from the effects of smoke inhalation when two fires ripped through the Chicoutimi which was on its first voyage on Canadian service. The vessel, which was left drifting in the Atlantic after the fires broke out, made its way into Faslane with the Canadian flag at half mast on Sunday afternoon after a rescue operation involving British, American and Irish forces. She was among four former Royal Navy subs sold to the Canadian navy in 1998, but remained in British hands while BAE Systems prepared her for her return into service.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2004 12:41:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The cause? Anyone familiar with the Triumph motorcar will recognize the symptoms of a Lucas electrical system.
FRANCE'S Ambassador to the United States Jean-David Levitte has condemned what he called the France-bashing rhetoric of the US presidential campaign. "As the French ambassador, I consider that during the last few weeks we have been a bit too much, as France, the punching bag of the electoral debate," Levitte said in comments at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. "I cannot accept to see France, the French citizens, or French companies used as a tool of the campaign," he said.
Reject and be damned, sir!
Levitte referred specifically to recent press allegations that France conspired with deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to bilk the UN Oil for Food program of millions of dollars - an allegation which France has denied. "I think it's fair to say that the United Nations did its best," he said. "It was a good program. Was it perfect? Of course not," he said, in remarks made in English.
"What's a few billion here and there? Nothing, really, in the grand scheme of things..."
He declined to answer a question about his preference between White House contenders US President George W Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry. "It is the privilege of each American to choose his or her president," Levitte said. "I'm not an American and I've nothing to say in the electoral campaign. What is important for two friends and allies like the United States and France is to make sure that whatever the choice... of the American people, we'll be in a position to work well together." The ambassador acknowledged that Paris and Washington have disagreed over the US-led war in Iraq, but said those differences, for the most part, have been resolved. "If we have different views about Iraq, on all the other issues we worked well, and we continue to work well, and it is important after November the 2nd to continue to do an even better job, if possible," Levitte said.
#2
FRANCEâS Ambassador to the United States Jean-David Levitte has condemned what he called the France-bashing rhetoric of the US presidential campaign.
#4
Tell how the oil vouchers are not a direct bribe to France and it's opposition to doing what is right. Dead babies have never bothered the French much if they are not French. Thats why France didn't condem Saddams baby killing and genocide. Keep the bribes coming and we will carry your water.
#5
Allez-y, con. You and your government owe a huge apology to President Allawi and the people of Iraq. Instead of whining about Fox News, I suggest you pay a visit to Iraq and face the victims of your thievery.
#10
I'm halfway through "Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France", by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky. It's a great read.
I've nothing against the French people; but their government can bite my shorts.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/13/2004 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#11
But be polite no F#$% Phrawnce.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/13/2004 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#12
By his cultural values, everything France did is just fine. Its only us naive Americans who don't understand and accept how the world works.
#13
The only anger I have over France-bashing is that there hasn't been nearly enough of it yet.
That's OK, though. France showed itself clearly, and most Americans know exactly what they are about. France WANTS Iraq to fail, because it would be bad for the US, and they continue to actively strive for that failure.
The myth of France as an ally has been permanently extinguished.
#14
I've nothing against the French people;
Dave,
Why wouldn't you have anything against the French people? They are the ones who elect their leaders and polls have consistently shown the French people wish ill upon Americans. If you mean there are some fine French individuals, then I can agree with you. But that doesn't negate what the French people, as a whole, think.
Posted by: ed ||
10/13/2004 21:29 Comments ||
Top||
#15
French society is much more elitist than ours. Only those selected at age 16 via national tests have any real shot at the brass ring in politics and business. The real problem is a corrupt and self-referential political class that plays out its ridiculously machiavellian political strategems to the great detriment of the Atlantic Alliance, Europe, and France's own citizens. The deal for the French people is simple: they (the elites) preserve our benefits and our corporatist privileges (right to strike above all), we allow them free reign in the political sphere.
Helas, there's little hope that this corrupt bargain will change anytime soon.
#16
"Dave, Why wouldn't you have anything against the French people?"
That's a good question, ed. Perhaps it has to do with lex's comment about the elitist nature of French society: what little I know of the people and their attitudes toward us, I'm willing to attribute at least partly to their being misled by the ruling classes.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/13/2004 22:49 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Damn, they're complaining that we are hurting their feelings? When I read the headline I thought we were finally cracking some skulls. Oh well, maybe next year.
#18
Imagine an America in which all political candidates and all CEOs (with next to no startups or new companies ever being formed) are derived from a pool defined as National Merit Scholars who participated in their high schools' Model United Nations forum, and you get a flavor for how ridiculously inbred, arrogant and corrupt the French elites are.
Go to this website I linked to and enter your email address. You will almost instantaneously receive the name and mailing address of a registered voter in Clark County, Ohio. The Guardian wants you to write a letter to this person to encourage him to vote and let him know how seriously concerned you are about this election!
The Guardian proclaims it is not doing this to encourage support of either candidate, but I think most Rantburgers are quite familiar with the slant of the Guardian's articles and, by projection, its readership.
I don't expect the FEC has any authorization to shut down a foreign newspaper's blatant attempt to influence America's own national election. Is there any recourse available?
I received the name and address of a Mr. L. Gwinn. I'm tempted to write to him not to influence his vote, but to let him know a foreign newspaper readily supplied his contact information to me for that purpose. I can only hope there's some sort of class action he and other Clark Co. voters can take against the Guardian in response.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/13/2004 2:25:54 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ah--I didn't see Angie's comment in "Send in the Clowns" below 'til now, but this is certainly something that justifies its own thread.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/13/2004 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dar - This was also noted over at LGF, and many minions (including me) have already received our Clark County name and address.
The scary thing is, the name I got was a woman's, living in an apartment, so I'm guessing she's single.
Nice of the Guardian to support stalkers.
Think I'll write her a nice letter to let her know what they've done.
(BTW, I used my Hotmail address - they say they won't use my e-mail address for anything else, but why should I trust someone who is willing to send a voter's name & address to a complete stranger for the express purpose of influencing that vote by a foreigner?)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/13/2004 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This could very well be a violation of the EU Data Protection Directive. I don't know how this would apply to data of U.S. citizens, but that's the track I'd investigate. If those U.S. voters have not agreed to having their data divulged by the Guardian, I see trouble.
I would check what the Guardian says about its own privacy policy (which is mandatory to state).
Also the EU has strict spamming laws. They were probably violated, too.
#7
Actually, the ineptitude of the whole effort's pretty funny. If you bother to look at their open letters" to Clark County voters, you realize they've selected three British figures whom almost no one in Clark County would recognize, two of whom, if their true opinions were known, would probably be run out of town on a rail:
1) a blatantly anti-American tory snob who lives in southwest France (John Le Carre/David Cornwell);
2) a viciously snide, patronizing and condescending Oxford prof who champions atheism wherever possible (Richard Dawkins);
3) an aging historical novelist whom no one under the age of 75 reads anymore (Lady Antonia Fraser).
#8
What fun! Its a pity I live at the wrong end of the state, where Republicans pretty much rule. I think Elder Daughter would get a kick out of explaining to her British pen pal exactly why his/her opinions don't matter in the least, and who she thinks Pen Pal should vote for in the next By election. This could actually be very educational for the Guardian readership, once they recover from the experience.
#9
Trailing wife: I'm really unsure that if an average American conservative were suddenly granted citizenship in the UK or France, whether they'd have anyone representative of their views to vote for to begin with.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
10/13/2004 23:22 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If it annoys you so much you could always invade, it's not as if you haven't invaded countries for no good reason before. Damned Right Wing nut jobs!
#12
Careful what you wish for there, Groluck. We all know Bush is an evil genius bent on world domination. Or is today a Bush: Semi retarded money boy day? I always get 'em mixed up.
#14
As an American who hated Bush long before the 2000
election I have a somewhat different mindset towards this forgien newspaper helping Kerry the way they are than most. I am glad they did what they did.
I am glad because worse than having some lonely English guy stalk me would be four more years of Bush. Today a mall security guard here in Chicago told me he could call the police and arrest me for wearing a shirt that said, "If you are not rich Bush won't help you, this Halloween vote the dumb monster out. Vote!"
America is a sick place now. There are drug deals taking place right outside in the mall parking lot but a political shirt is a no no.
A lot of Americans DON'T KNOW the rest of the world hates us, they are too poor or beat down when they get home from work to do anything except sit on the couch and watch sitcoms and news programs paid for by Bush INC.
We need other countries to barge in and say something loud so those who don't realize they've got BushWax in their ears can finally hear what is going on.
A lot of people here have been quietly going insane the last four years.
I have a good feeling about Nov. 2nd
Posted by: Miss America ||
10/30/2004 22:50 Comments ||
Top||
An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.
The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.
Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.
§ 12681. Reserves: discharge authority
Subject to other provisions of this title, reserve commissioned officers may be discharged at the pleasure of the President. Other Reserves may be discharged under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned.
§ 12682. Reserves: discharge upon becoming ordained minister of religion
Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a Reserve who becomes a regular or ordained minister of religion is entitled upon his request to a discharge from his reserve enlistment or appointment.
1163
§ 12683. Reserve officers: limitation on involuntary separation
(a) An officer of a reserve component who has at least five years of service as a commissioned officer may not be separated from that component without his consent exceptâ
(1) under an approved recommendation of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(2) by the approved sentence of a court-martial.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) A separation under section 12684, 14901, or 14907 of this title.
(2) A dismissal under section 1161 (a) of this title.
(3) A transfer under section 12213, 12214, 14514, or 14515 of this title.
(4) A separation of an officer who is in an inactive status in the Standby Reserve and who is not qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve or is qualified for transfer to the Retired Reserve and does not apply for such a transfer.
§ 12684. Reserves: separation for absence without authority or sentence to imprisonment
The President or the Secretary concerned may drop from the rolls of the armed force concerned any Reserveâ
(1) who has been absent without authority for at least three months;
(2) who may be separated under section 12687 of this title by reason of a sentence to confinement adjudged by a court-martial; or
(3) who is sentenced to confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary or correctional institution after having been found guilty of an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other military court, and whose sentence has become final.
§ 12685. Reserves separated for cause: character of discharge
A member of a reserve component who is separated for cause, except under section 12684 of this title, is entitled to a discharge under honorable conditions unlessâ
(1) the member is discharged under conditions other than honorable under an approved sentence of a court-martial or under the approved findings of a board of officers convened by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned; or
(2) the member consents to a discharge under conditions other than honorable with a waiver of proceedings of a court-martial or a board.
§ 12686. Reserves on active duty within two years of retirement eligibility: limitation on release from active duty
(a) Limitation.â Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, which shall be as uniform as practicable, a member of a reserve component who is on active duty (other than for training) and is within two years of becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a purely military retirement system, may not be involuntarily released from that duty before he becomes eligible for that pay, unless the release is approved by the Secretary.
(b) Waiver.â With respect to a member of a reserve component who is to be ordered to active duty (other than for training) under section 12301 of this title pursuant to an order to active duty that specifies a period of less than 180 days and who (but for this subsection) would be covered by subsection (a), the Secretary concerned may require, as a condition of such order to active duty, that the member waive the applicability of subsection (a) to the member for the period of active duty covered by that order. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary concerned may require that a waiver under the preceding sentence be executed before the period of active duty begins.
Maybe there's one good reason - just one - for re-electing George W Bush, and that's to force him to live with the consequences of his appalling actions, and answer for his own lies, rather than wish the job on a Democrat who will then get blamed for his predecessor's follies. Probably no American president in all history has been so universally hated abroad as George W Bush: for his bullying unilateralism, his dismissal of international treaties, his reckless indifference to the aspirations of other nations and cultures, his contempt for institutions of world government, and above all for misusing the cause of anti-terrorism in order to unleash an illegal war - and now anarchy - upon a country that like too many others around the world was suffering under a hideous dictatorship, but had no hand in 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction, and no record of terrorism except as an ally of the US in a dirty war against Iran.
Is your president a great war leader because he allowed himself to be manipulated by a handful of deluded ideologues? Is Tony Blair a great war leader because he committed Britain's troops, foreign policy and domestic security to the same hare-brained adventure? You are voting in November. We will vote next year. Yet the outcome in both countries will in large part depend on the same question: how long can the lies last now that the truth has finally been told? The Iraq war was planned long before 9/11. Osama provided the excuse. Iraq paid the price. American kids paid the price. British kids paid the price. Our politicians lied to us.
And furthermore, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. Thank you for your contribution to American political discourse. While we can't use your stunted opinion at this time, please feel free to submit further burblings in the future...
#1
"his contempt for institutions of world government"
Excuse me, but did we agree to submit to "world government" while I was watching the baseball game? Are there any forms I have to fill out? When can I expect a check from the Swedish government?
Posted by: Matt ||
10/13/2004 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Maybe there's one good reason - just one - for re-electing George W Bush, and that's to force him to live with the consequences...
Sounds like they're getting ready to accept Kerry probably won't win. Hey, whatever helps 'em sleep at night. Dingbats.
#3
"Probably no American president in all history has been so universally hated abroad as George W Bush." I was living in Europe in the early 80s and I can honestly say that they hated Reagan much more than they hate Bush. The demonstrations were much larger and the criminal actions against American companies were more frequent. We were warned (I was in the Military) not to engage in ANY political discussions with locals because the climate was so volatile. Also there were protestors at the gates of every American Base, Consulate, and Embassy. LOUD AND VIOLENT demonstrations. If anything I think Bush isn't trying hard enough to piss them off! Of course the bar was set pretty high by Reagan.
#4
Another reason I 'm voting W. I love to see and hear theses foaming at the mouth moonbat lefties make jack asses out of themselves.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
10/13/2004 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Articles like this hearten me. I've read many of them in the last week and they all sound as if they are preparing themselves for the inevitability of a GW win.
#6
You guys know, right, that the above is a part of this effort by the Guardian to influence voters in Clark County, Ohio.
You send the Guardian your address on that page, and they'll send you the home address of a voter in that county who has not declared a political affiliation. The idea, then, is to harrass them to vote for Kerry. (Or Bush, but it's the Guardian, so let's be real here.)
There's a contest for best letter: first prize is a trip to Clark County, Ohio (oh, the excitement) to harrass voters in person during the last days of the campaign.
Be sure and follow the other links to the right, too.
#9
The Ohio electorate oughta get hazard pay for all the nonsense they've had to put up with this year...
It's not all bad. At least, we're not all insane yet.
I spoke to the local Board of Elections, and they said they'd found ONE questionable registration this year. Of course, we're a primarily Republican county, so...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/13/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A smack-down of these Three Stooges' more egregious idiocies:
Le Carre: The Iraq war was planned long before 9/11. Yep, about 1992, when arch-realpolitiker Bush 41's refusal to honor the Shi'a and Kurdish uprising outraged true liberals like Wolfowitz. Also, it was Clinton who first made "regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States."
While Bush was waging his father's war . One of the stupidest canards of all. Bush's father refused to overthrow Saddam! GW Bush broke ranks with his father and Scowcroft and all the other cynical realpolitikers in finally summoning the will and courage to end Saddam's slaughterhouse.
please don't feel isolated from the Europe you twice saved Perhaps our "isolation" is due to our disgust at being forced, yet again, to bear the burden of destroying fascist threats that Europeans are unwilling or unable to combat.
Lady Fraser: If you vote for Kerry, you will help to avert a move backwards towards women's suffering. But it was Bush who destroyed the greatest enemy of women the modern world has seen, the viciously misogynistic medieval Taliban regime! Women in Afghanistan now are voting, running for office, attending school, running businesses-- and all of this is precisely due to Bush's war to overthrow the Taliban.
Richard Dawkins: [Overthrowing Saddam] is the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. No comment necessary. This smug, sneering idiot's sarcastic and condescending vitriol is as good as any campaign weapon in Rove's armory.
The Bush-Cheney campaign has created a hot line for victims of voter intimidation after a spate of "violence and vandalism" at campaign offices nationwide. The hot line effectively serves as an answering machine and instructs callers to leave a message about any incidents of "intimidation or harassment" or "destruction of Bush-Cheney property." The number is 888/303-7125.
The hot line comes on the heels of accusations by the campaign against the nation's largest labor union, the AFL-CIO, of voter-intimidation tactics, including the storming of a state Republican Party office in Orlando, Fla... On Monday, Bush-Cheney campaign Chairman Marc Racicot wrote a letter to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, warning him: "We will hold you and your organization accountable for the actions of your members." The letter charged that the AFL-CIO's Oct. 5 demonstrations were part of "a national strategy" to protest at more than a dozen Bush-Cheney and Republican Party headquarters offices around the nation. "In many locations protesters attempted to enter, or entered, campaign or party facilities," the letter says, adding that in Orlando, "protesters forced their way into the facility, fracturing the arm of one staffer, and vandalized the office." AFL-CIO spokeswoman Lane Windham said incidents of break-ins or vandalism were "completely unrelated" to the Oct. 5 demonstrations ... A recent search of archived news reports nationwide indicated a higher number of reports during the past few months compared with the same periods during the 2000 and 1996 campaigns. emphasis mine
Posted by: trailing wife ||
10/13/2004 2:44:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pix : Hat Tip M. Drudge
Getting a little smug isn't he?
Biking without a helmet, on his cell phone, no knee pads on bare knees, and with a pair of aviator shades on!
#7
LH #4 Only that every time there is one of these break-ins the perps are AFL-CIO thugs. Like the guy who broke the Bush supporters arm at a rally a month or two ago. And the choking picture.
In a big loss, the AFL-CIO could pay a step price in subsequent legislation. That was the message between the lines to Sweeney.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/13/2004 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Mrs D
1. where i live kids have to wear helmets in the law. Adults dont have to
2. I think wearing helmets is a good idea. But there is disagreement. I am simply reporting that.
3. As for my kids, it dont matter what I think. MRS liberal hawk is the law, and thats THAT.
4. Mrs D since youre taking this seriously. Hed have to be damned good to cycle and talk on the phone at the same time. Presumably he is just about stopped, and is coasting along, from one stop to another a couple of feet away. Thats why his helmet is off.
#9
I voted this weekend and I was forced to use a #2 pencil and fill in squares! I bet the rich counties get to fill in ovals or maybe circles. Everyone knows it's easier to make a mistake when you are filling in squares. Just another example of the man trying to keep us middle class working stiffs down.
#15
did they do the break in at the Dem HQ in Ohio?
(Because one incident excuses a campaign of violence and fraud.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/13/2004 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I didnt say anything excuses anything, but that the fact that there are several acts of violence associated with protests doesnt mean the folks who organized the protests are responsible for the violence. I want evidence before accusations. I wont hold Halliburton guilty without evidence, ive spent time on the phone with friends shooting down anti-Bush conspiracy theories, and arguing against the lies of Mike Moore. But I wont accept unprovene conspiracies from the other side either.
Congrats, however to RC. Just when i think im gonna have to vote for Bush, cause of all the Moveon lunies, he convinces me that maybe I shouldnt.
#17
oh an GC - both my parents were union members. My dad did the same job when he was a member, when he was a non-member, and when he was in business himself.
If you guys dont want the votes of union members, you should say so.
And no one on either side should use violence. This is America.
Pardon me for seeing a half dozen "protests" turn violent, the same exact way in locations hundreds of miles from each other and seeing a pattern. Pardon me for not seeing how a break-in (which could be a run-of-the-mill burglary) in Toledo could have anything at all to do with AFL/CIO thugs attacking and assaulting campaign workers.
Pardon me for getting a strong whiff of "tu quoque" in your mention of the Toledo burglary.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/13/2004 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#19
"BIGTIME! I WISH one of those union thugs would lay a hand on me. I'd beat him into the fucking dirt. BRING IT ON, afl-cio punks.....come to Texas."
I'm hoping the same thing, except I have a CCW, and it is S&W .40's they'll be catching.
Two in the chest and one in the head...
Mr. P.
Posted by: Mr. Peabody ||
10/13/2004 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"BIGTIME! I WISH one of those union thugs would lay a hand on me. I'd beat him into the fucking dirt. BRING IT ON, afl-cio punks.....come to Texas."
I'm hoping the same thing, except I have a CCW, and it is S&W .40's they'll be catching.
Two in the chest and one in the head...
Mr. P.
Posted by: Mr. Peabody ||
10/13/2004 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#21
My apologies for the double post!
Mr. P.
Posted by: Mr. Peabody ||
10/13/2004 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2004 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Big Ed and Bombarama: Gotta love those gloves, too.
Re the office take overs. Yeah, LH, I'd like to see us all be good Americans and respect each other, etc. But 20 office attacks at the same time? I'm getting pretty sick of it, and I'm one of the most patient and tolerant folks walking the streets. I hate to say it, since this argument can be used ad nauseum, but now's the time: What would MSM say if it had been Bushies attacking Dem offices? Would Hil be up on the tube saying I told you so (re VRWC)? Kos? Marshall? NYT? You bet they would. And I'd be ashamed to admit that my guy's party had gone over the top and would expect retribution at the ballot box. Why can't they?
Posted by: chicago mike ||
10/13/2004 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Hey, remember there are lots of union members who have NO CHOICE about joining a union if they want to get/keep a job! It's the union "leadership" that's the problem, not the working stiffs! Or, at least, not 100% of the working stiffs!
Posted by: Dar ||
10/13/2004 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Enforce Beck! - with prison time for union thieves who steal dues for their PACs, and things will improve
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Amen Dar! I are a Union member but I donât support these goon tactics and in fact I am a registered Republican. About 40% of my union are registered Republicans. These guys are probably (I donât know) some of the office or party heavies. If they are like my union, there are certain people who act like idiots by screaming at rallies and at politicians. I canât see a Rank/File employee putting their job in jeopardy for the Union. FYI I have not been asked to raid any Republican (or Democratic) offices, if I were asked I would report them to the police.
#28
Unions suck, BIGTIME! I WISH one of those union thugs would lay a hand on me. I'd beat him into the fucking dirt. BRING IT ON, afl-cio punks.....come to Texas.
I've always felt that anyone who belongs to a union is a stupid, incompetent idiot who can't hold a job any other way.
by Oliver North
To listen to John Kerry explain his position(s) on Iraq is to submit oneself to mental torture.
Kerry explained that President Bush embarked upon a grand diversion from the War on Terror -- a grand diversion that Kerry said he would continue.
Bush, Kerry says, made a "colossal error of judgment" on Iraq -- a "colossal error of judgment" that Kerry voted to support. Kerry accused the president of alienating our allies -- i.e., the French and Germans -- only to then trash our staunchest allies in the War on Terror.
Kerry accused Bush of having a "go-it-alone" attitude that he employed to arrogantly attack Saddam Hussein instead of allowing the United Nations to direct America's national security. His running mate, John Edwards, joined the attack during his debate with Vice President Dick Cheney, alleging that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a catastrophic failure and a military operation totally unrelated to the War on Terror.
These guys could use two front row seats at a good motivational seminar. They clearly don't understand the tenets of leadership when they change their positions as often as they do. They don't understand the effect their carping criticisms have on the troops on the ground and their families back home when they charge that Americans are dying for a mistake.
They don't understand the nature of warfare or the nature of this enemy when they suggest that the War on Terror can be neatly wrapped up in a matter of months. The United States will be engaged in a prolonged offensive against terrorists at home and abroad for many years. That offensive is, and will continue to be, fought with military, diplomatic, legal, financial, law enforcement and homeland security efforts.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/13/2004 3:35:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ollie North... there's a beacon of light in a dark world...
Archibishop Chaput on the NYT front page today (see my other post) - and then I just got this in email. Seems the RNC doesnt miss a thing these days: this was very quick.
Dear Senator Kerry,
Shame on you.
During the last Presidential debate you invoked your Catholic upbringing to defend your support for taxpayer-funded abortion and partial-birth abortion.
Your own words from the debate, Senator:
"I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic."
If that were so Senator, your 20-year record wouldn't be a tale of disrespect for and disbelief in the sanctity of life. Here is what you have said and done when a national television audience wasn't watching:
-Just last week, you called the Catholic Church's teaching on the sanctity of life "extreme right-wing ideology";
-You've said "Abortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice;"
-In 1994's Congressional Record you stated that you would "vote against any restrictions on age, consent, funding restrictions, or any law to limit access to abortion;"
-You voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban six times, despite the fact that the ban included an exception for the life of the mother;
-You voted 25 times in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
Senator Kerry, we don't judge you on the grounds of your faith, but on the basis of your actions.
I pledge to you that we will work tirelessly for the next 21 days to hold you accountable to your record. We will not allow you to confuse and deceive Catholic voters about the issues that matter most to us.
As President George W. Bush said about your record during the last debate: "You can run but you can't hide."
Sincerely,
Martin Gillespie
Director of Catholic Outreach
Republican National Committee
Why John Kerry is Wrong for Catholics: http://www.kerrywrongforcatholics.com
Become a Catholic Team Leader today! http://www.catholicteamleader.com
Posted by: OldSpook ||
10/13/2004 2:42:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
From the OldSpook I told you so files - I *knew* the Church was going to have to sooner or later condemn Kerry for his 2faced position on embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, and most of all, Abortion.
The New York Times reported today that Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in the swing state of Colorado, is applying pressure on faithful Catholics to draw the line on three key moral issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research,—three issues that favor the re-election of President George W. Bush, but don't fare well for Senator John Kerry.
The archbishop explained to a group of Catholic college students gathered in a sports bar here in Colorado, that abortion is "a foundational issue" of the Church. Senator Kerry, he reminded them, despite his front and center Catholicism, has been a consistent proponent of abortion, and so what about his potential influence upon the Supreme Court? "Supreme Court cases can be overturned, right?" he asked. And so why not Roe v. Wade? But it won't happen with Kerry. It may happen with Bush.
In a separate private interview in his residence, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion. "If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."
Archbishop Chaput didn't out and out endorse either candidate. His point is that responsible citizens, responsible Christians look at these issues, see where the candidates truly stand on them, and then vote their conscience, vote for the man of principle, not slick promises. Kerry is doing what generations of Republican politicians could not do: pushing the Catholic Vote out of the Democrat Party.
Posted by: OldSpook ||
10/13/2004 2:00:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You may not agree with my stand on these issues, and that's OK if you're not a Catholic - you're free to dissent. You are not bound by the rules that I and Kerry are when we voluntarily, willingly accept the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and its Credo. Christ carried a Cross, and sometimes as believers, we must pick up a cross too (even though Kerry seems to prefer hiring the somone to carry his for him - or to hide from the burdens that Christianity imposes on believers).
The difference between real Catholics and Kerry is lying to you and to himself and to God when he claims to be a good-faith Catholic and supports abortion, funding and harvesting embryos for embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
Kerry is a moral coward on the most impiortant life-and-death issue that a person faces: his essential questions of belief, faith and salvation. He lacks the courage to face the consequences and responsibilities of living Catholci values instead of just mouthing them, and he lacks the honesty to say that he disagrees and will leave the Church over these differences (unlike Martin Luther).
If he cannot be trusted to be honest and couragous with himself, how can we trust him to be honest and courageous with the nation?
#2
In case you are wondering, Chaput is pronounced "Sha-pew" (yes its of French derivation, but I think he's from Nebraska).
I admire a man like Chaput - he has the guts to stand up to those in the Church heirarchy whose faith is about as warm and deep as a puddle when it comes to speaking with moral authority. Chaput exercises the full authority of his postion and the Church to address the faithful on political issues where the Catholic Church has a very clear position and an interest in taking part in the public dialog.
#3
OldSpook, as you know I have some arguments with the Church's history. But I agree with you completely on this one. When one takes up the mantle of belief, one has to actually believe. If not, then fergawdsakes find a better fitting mantle! Labels are not meaningless when one sticks them on one's very own self, after all.
#4
well, Kerry could always choose to stand by his *snicker* convictions and leave the church...publicly
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2004 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I am a Catholic and I agree that the Archbishop should re-enforce to parishioners what they should consider when voting. I also agree that even if you are a practicing Catholic and an elected official you cannot superimpose your beliefs onto everyone else. However you should at least try to affect change within your scope of authority. Ronald Reagan was definitely against abortion and refused money to the UN for its abortion programs. The true question is whether Kerry would support a challenge to Roe-Vs-Wade? A simple test of faith that I think he would fail. Thatâs why I voted for Bush this weekend (absentee ballot).
#6
Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion
a vote for a candidate - IE any candidate, including a Protestant or Jewish candidate, not just an RC candidate. the Archbishop says Catholics who vote the wrong way are in a state of sin. He of course has the right to say that, but its odd that some people who think that its a fine thing for the AB to say that, and its just reprehensible and ignorant to say that this is a problem, seem to have so much difficult with say Ayatollah Sistani telling Iraqis how to vote.
#7
If Kerry has any intelligence or guts, he will state what he believes and accept the consequences. Abortion and gay marriage are not issues that can be straddled. The public has vastly more respect for those who state their beliefs and positions clearly, without patent efforts to fudge the issue.
If he believes that abortion is the taking of innocent life, then he should oppose it. If he believes otherwise, then he should say, as Clinton brilliantly did, that he's committed to making abortion "safe, legal and rare."
As to gay marriage, again, some clarity, Senator: if you oppose civil unions, then oppose civil unions. If you don't oppose them, then say so.
#8
Lex - what if you believe civil unions are properly a state matter, and oppose an amendment to the federal constitution? Some issues SHOULD be fudged - theyre intrinsically complex, and nuance IS appropriate.
In any case, even if i thought he was fudging, theres a reason to cut him slack. Same reason i cut Bush and Rummy slack when theyre accused of not admitting mistakes. Cause if they did so the other side would demagogue the issue. Well the GOP is demagoguing gay marriage, and it aint pretty.
#10
what if you believe civil unions are properly a state matter, and oppose an amendment to the federal constitution? Some issues SHOULD be fudged
That's not fudging, that's simply asserting a straightforward, intellectually honest and respectable defense of the Constitution. If we'd taken that approach to abortion rather than the, er, abortion that was Roe v Wade, we would have arrived at the same result with vastly less division and confusion.
Letting the people and the states decide is by far the most appropriate way to resolve issues arising from the greatest social upheavals in modern history: the change in women's status and the widespread acceptance of homosexuality. Absurd to argue that these new phenomena are somehow up to the Supreme Court's 7 doddering old farts to 2 young fogies to resolve for the rest of us.
Any decent, enlightened politician should be able to articulate this "let the people decide" message.
#11
Question: how many cathoilics in this country agree &/or disagree with church doctrine on abortion and stem cell research? From what I hear, the percentages are the same as non-catholics. So are there 30 or 40 million catholics confessing their difference in belief? I doubt it. Does the church demand they comply? Not that I've heard. This has less to do with individual belief than it has to do with the church's belief that it has literally a god given right to interfere in the political process in govts. It gets away with it in many countries around the world, and can't seem to get it through it collective sclerotic head that we don't have a state govt here. "Is the soul present at conception" is a theological arguement, not an arguement of demonstrable fact. It is in fact dependent on the question of whether or not humans have individual souls in the first place, which is also a theological question, and is not universally believed. Religion on either side needss to stay the helll out of politics, whether it's catholic, fundamentalist christian, or black baptist.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/13/2004 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Say whatever you want - but this will cost Kerry votes and will not gain him any, that he doesn't have already.
#13
Weird Al, a true Catholic, you can't rail against church doctrine or teachings. To do so would (like the man said) put you in a state of sin. Now to remedy this you need only go to confession and do penance. You canât âfudge itâ or ânuance itâ to fit your individual agenda. Every Sunday all Catholics make a profession of faith and it doesnât include the words âhoweverâ or âbutâ or âsometimesâ. You either believe it/follow it or you donât. Kind of like the black and white (right/wrong) approach that President Bush takes on the world. FYI I voted this weekend and I have nothing to go to confession about.
#14
CyberSarge: If true catholics can't "rail" against church doctrine, then there probably aren't a whole lot of them around. That isn't the issue at stake here. The issue is whether churches should or should not publicly attack or endorse candidates from either side while operating as non-profit organizations. I don't care which side they endorse.
As a backup question: In 1960 non-catholics attacked Kennedy, claiming that if he were elected he would toe the vatican line on issues of public interest. In 2004 catholics (esp in the hierarchy) are attacking Kerry because he won't follow the vatican party line. Either both attacks were wrong, or they are both right.
Attack Kerry all you like on issues. You're free to do so, and I won't even raise an eyebrow. Call him any name you like. I'll yawn. Use religion as a way to attack someone on public issues, you're wrong. Or be willing to accept any and all attacks from the other side re: Bush's religious beliefs without calling foul.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/13/2004 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Wierd Al and LiberalHawk - you're flat out wrong.
First off: The Archbishop is not telling "people" how to vote in order to exercise political power. He is concerned for the souls of Catholics and his tremarks are clearly addressed to Catholics, not to the public at large. This is why:
It is undeniable that the Church views abortion and abuse of the unborn as a great sin - in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is an evil capable of severing your relationship to God. It is tantamount to murder for Catholics.
Its spelled out in CCC 2272: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense, The Church attaches the canonical penalty of automatic excommunication to this crime against human life."
To vote for a politician because he support abortion, is to cooperate by giving your sanction, formally, to the act of abortion across the area that the politican covers. And to do so places you at risk of your immortal soul. Thats why the Archbishop spoke out. Not because he wants Bush, nor Kerry - as a matter of fact his most recent writings says that neither candidate is "perfect" on fitting the Chruch's views. Its because he sees Catholic aouls at risk. And that is who his opinon was aimed at. Not at Baptists, Buddhists or Atheists. Catholics only. To say otherwise is to misconstrue a very carefully worded and thought out statement by the Archbishop.
FYI: Harvesting of embryos for reseach also falls under this: could you imagine harvesting grown humans for "research"? The Nazis did it - and its the same for Catholics who believe life starts at conception.
Secondly: The "Its wrong to push my views on others" is a load of crap. Was it wrong to push our views, violently, on the Nazis who ran the death camps in Europe? Was it wrong for the Federal Government to use the National Guard to push the views on Civil Rights on the segregationists? If something is a great moral evil, a holocaust, an enslaving, then you are morally boud to speak out and act against it when you can. Now you know why people on the pro-life side are so vehement: this is a matter of life or death due to our core beliefs.
The thing to remember is that it is KERRY who keeps bringing his Catholicism to the forefront.
And thats where the issue is: his claims to be Catholic but his actions to the contrary. Its a fundamental moral and intellectual dishonesty that Kerry displays, and THAT is the issue.
Kerry cannot claim to be Catholic and then act against the very vital moral center of the Church and its teachings. To do so is to LIE about something that should be vitally important to a person: his faith and immortal soul.
#16
You may disagree with me and with the Catholic Church and our moral decisions on those items above, plus routine adiminstration of the death penalty, treatment of the poor, etc.
I'll be glad to argue into the ground and show you the error of your ways on those issues. And I'll win because if you accept my preconditons the arguments will fall to me.
The issue is that we disagree on fundamental ground issues: when does life begin? What obligation do we have to human life and human dignity? Do you believe in God, Jesus and the one holy catholic and apostolic church?
If the answer is yes, then you will be forced to agree with the Chruch's stand. The theology and logic is there given the precepts of the CHurch.
BUT! If your answer is no, then we can agree to disagree - you'll think me religious a fool, and I'll pity you in that you are working against God and will reap the sorrows you sow.
And that's where Kerry fails: he tries to claim the Church and oppose it at the same time.
And thats not using his Religion against him - thats calling him out on a lie, a deception he is foisting on the public.
#17
Kerry's a cafeteria Catholic: he picks and chooses the doctrinal beliefs that he's willing to uphold. Which is to say, he's pretty much in the mainstream of American Catholicism and will probably neither win nor lose many Catholic votes on the the abortion issue. The evangelical Prods are another matter entirely.
#18
Old Spook, it's not that simple. I can disagree with the leaders of the Catholic Church (even with the Pope) and still consider myself a Catholic.
The Church didn't play a stellar role in Nazi Germany. It even condoned antisemitism and didn't speak up against the persecution of the Jews. Yet good Catholics who disagreed with the Vatican hid Jews in their basement to save them.
You can believe in the Church and not agree with everything the Church decides.
This is not a comment about Kerry's stand on abortion but a general observation.
#19
Let's face it, the doctrines of papal infallibility and of adherence generally to the teachings of God's Vicar on Earth are honored in the breach by most North American and European Catholics today. The vast majority of the (non-Opus Dei) western Catholics are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from Protestants. Survey data have shown repeatedly that their social views are identical to those of mainline protestants.
This election will not turn on abortion orstem cells. It's about who can and will defend this nation.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2004 11:42:28 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time to react. Time to really start suppressing votes. Challenge all convicts, illegal aliens, multi-registrants, and don't care if you get screamed at in the face by an ACLU piece of manure at the polls. Registration lists aer public, and have to be available to anyone willing to pay. If the Dems want trouble. They can have it. We have to identify all judges as to how they are. Be ready with our own folks to file for injunctions. Since it's apparently the GOP vs the Mexican PRI this year, unfortunately election day may be violent. God help us.
Between the AFL-CIO goons, and the ACLU Totalitarian Bastards we are between a rock & a hard place
I am sick of all of this. Now Drudge has Nevada fraud
So that adds to Colorado
Ohio
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Florida
Wisconsin
Washington State
Michigan
where ther has been vandalism, burgularies, or registration or absentee fraud.
Enough already.
#2
This on top of the brown shirt tactis used by the Dems. If, and it is a big if, John Kerry is elected, there will first be a massive lawsuit against the votes and the fraud followed by an armed uprising. I doubt normal people are just going to sit by and watch the media other left wing groups take over by force and fraud.
I am afraid you are right. As civilized people we get angry, and we will use legal methods if there is a cheat, but unlike Florida, which was an attempt by a bew crooked election officials in Derm counties trying to invoke "Johnny Carson's Carnac", to steal one state on ballots that were scratched, this seems to be a co-orinated coup attempt at the highest levels. I am sadly coming to that conclusion. Some folks may get voilent if there is a definite cheat. This is tragic in the time of terrorism, that the PRI party of Kerry is only concerned with gaining power to tell people how to live their lives. Look out for Ohio, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin as the locus of the cheat.
By the way, the Nevada story is blaming Republicans for tossing out and shredding Dem registrations. As if that is the only incidence? Just the opposite is happening here in CAL with Dems, the ones with a shread of honor telling Reps to go register someplace else. Since they are in a distinct minority, one only wonders how many GOP registrations have been tossed out by these PRI representatives here.
When one registers here one should be careful as to where one goes. Regoistration can still be done here until Oct 18 (5 days), so if you are GOP in CAL, go to the POST Office, fill it out and mail it yourself!!!!!
by Allan H. Ryskind
John Kerry says vote for him because he'll restore what Democrats talk about as Bill Clinton's "just-right, Goldilocks" economy. "Let's not forget what we [Democrats] did in the 1990s," he's been telling folks on the campaign trail and may well repeat in one of the next two debates. "And we can do it again."
But the splendid '90s were not splendid because of the Democrats or Clinton or even Clinton's much ballyhooed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now a Kerry adviser. It's a nice party myth, but it's far from accurate.
Some recent history is in order: After Clinton's election, the President went full-bore left on the economy, pressing for the largest tax increase in history (the words of the late Sen. Moynihan), a special $72-billion energy tax and vastly increased domestic spending, including a federal takeover of the entire health-care system, equal to one-seventh of America's yearly domestic output. Before he could drop these economy crushers on the nation, the President was largely foiled by a feisty Republican minority in both houses of Congress.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Every sitting president either gets the blame or the credit for what the administration before theirs and sometimes the one before that did as far as the economy. The biggest thing Clinton did was just leave every thing pretty much alone as he had been slapped down by Congress earlier. But as rosy as some peole like to think the 90s were this is when the ball really started rolling as far jobs in both manufacturing and service started heading off shore.
* Thugs storm campaign headquarters, intimidating staffers and refusing to leave.
* Campaign signs are vandalized, stolen, and set on fire in front of peoples' homes.
* The word "Nazi" is spray painted on the sidewalk in front of a home, along with swastikas.
* Shots are fired through the window of campaign headquarters.
* An eight-foot swastika is burned into a home's front lawn.
If these incidents sound reminiscent of Nazi Germany or the Ku Klux Klan's early rampages, then you're in for a surprise, because they all took place in modern day America, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election. And instead of Nazis and the KKK, it's the leftist minions who are the perpetrators this time around. In a classic case of projection, they use swastikas to smear their political adversaries, when it is in fact they who have become today's Nazis.
Like so much of America's leftist "cultural heritage", this Nazi-obsession can be traced back to the 1960s. An Australian relative of mine who arrived in America during the so-called Summer of Love, was shocked to hear people using the term "Nazi" on a daily basis. The government, the police and even parents were labeled "fascists" and "Nazis" by hippie youth rebelling against any and all authority. Years later, not much has changed. Today it's hip on the Left to label Republicans and in particular President Bush "Nazis" at every turn. Bush is routinely compared to Adolph Hitler, most famously in an ad put out by MoveOn.org earlier this year. Hitler mustaches superimposed on Bush photos are popular at anti-war rallies, as are cute little Bush/Hitler dolls. Al Gore's notorious "digital Brown Shirts" comment during a speech at the Georgetown University Law Center implied that the Bush Administration exerted some kind of diabolical control over online journalism. Indeed, such allusions are so widespread that numerous articles and websites have been devoted to chronicling them.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/13/2004 4:13:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I doubt the moderators are up...but if you are...the margins are all screwed up!!
#2
2b, As soon as a moderator walks in here the goofed up margins should be corrected in quick order.
I have been going all..the...way ..over ..there ...and back :)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/13/2004 5:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Fox News had a segment on the vandalism last night. They showed pictures of ransacked Bush/Cheney offices and some pictures of the places where shots had been fired. They also mentioned the injuries suffered by Bush/Cheney workers. Then they went to the Democrat offices that had been "vandalized". The only vandalizim was wrighting on windows. No destroyed equipment, no forced entries by anyone, and they tried to equate the violence done to the Republican offices with the graffiti done to the democrat offices.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/13/2004 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mark, you should have made enough on oil futures by now to afford a large format display. Get to 1600x1200 and stop scrolling. Best way I know to frustrate trolls.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/13/2004 7:53 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/13/2004 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Lord only knows what theyâll do if Bush wins the presidency come November, but you can be sure it will involve swastikas.
I've wondered about that myself. You know if/when Bush wins, every Leftist out there will scream "unfair election!!" If/when he wins, I think this vandalizing will be only the tip of the iceberg. And I'm only saying "if/when" because the race is close right now. Anything can swing in Kerry's favor, which is the scary thing. I disagree with some of Bush's policies, but man, Kerry's only proposed policies are the ones that are popular at the moment.
#8
"Fox News. Bastion of impartiality, and honesty."
Well let's see now CBS,ABC,NBC,PBS,CNN,NYT,LAT
That makes the score somewhere around 7 to 1. I know I've missed some. Thank God for FOX or we would have completely DNC leaning news coverage.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
10/13/2004 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
This sort of thing represents the incredible and irrational demonization going on on both sides. OTOH the reaction to it - the holding of all Dems responsible for a few Moveon hot heads, or of all Reps for a few hot heads, is ALSO part of the dynamic of demonization.
Cmon people, we're all Americans. And pretty much all for democracy. Take a deep breath. Take a walk. Whoever wins, we'll still have a country, to build and defend, even if we differ in how to do it.
#10
"..a dem HQ in Ohio was burglarized.."
Somehow I wouldn't put it past the Donks to have self inflicted this themselves. Having said that McAuliffe's response last week to a college group was to make sure no Bush/Cheney signs were around. The Donks have already layed the ground rles on how they will deal with the opposition. Their minions now carry out the orders.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
10/13/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I agree, Liberalhawk. What's going on is not mainstream, but fringe groups. The point I was trying to make is it SEEMS that the more violent attacks have been against the Republicans. This may well change as fringe people become more angry and want revenge. That's something I am concerned about. I'm not accusing the Democrats of wrong-doing here but clearly the AFL/CIO has started a program of intimidation at Republican offices.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
10/13/2004 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The other problem is that among the Democrat elite, the moonbat fringe is becoming the mainstream.
Exhibit A: Michael Moore in a place of honor at the DNC.
Exhibit B: Terry McAwful's many invocations of Haliburton conspiracy theory.
Exhibit C: Democratic Underground and DailyKos, any thread, any day.
I could go on, but you get the point. I feel sorry for the vast majority of Dems, who are decent and reasonable people: my parents, Zell Miller, Liberalhawk, Joe Lieberman. Your party is going nuts before your very eyes.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/13/2004 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
Mike has it right. Elevating an imbecilic conspiracy-monger such as Mikey Boy to center stage was a sure sign that the Dem hierarchy sees electoral gold in embracing the Kos/DU idiotarian far left. Perhaps they're just scared, but I will not and cannot vote Democratic again until I see Dems administer Sister Souljah smackdowns to Mikey and the Kos idiots.
Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.
Nature encourages mothers to pass on a "gay trait" to their male offspring by boosting their fertility, the Italian University of Padova team believes.
This would keep the pattern of gay inheritance alive, they told the Royal Society's Biological Sciences journal.
Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out because gay couples do not procreate.
Inheritance theory
There is controversy about whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice, the authors of the study admitted to the journal.
Campaigners say equality for homosexual people is the more important issue.
Back in 1993, US researchers suggested male homosexuality was passed from mother to son after they found strong patterns of inheritance in family trees.
It has also been noted that homosexual males are more often the younger siblings of a number of older brothers.
Scientists have said it might be that the mother develops some kind of resistance to the male Y chromosome in her offspring that makes subsequent baby boys more likely to be born gay.
Scientists doing DNA studies on homosexual brothers pinpointed 'culprit' genetic material to a region of the X chromosome that mothers pass on to their offspring.
But other researchers in the US have not been able to replicate these findings.
Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile.
"Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.
Highly fertile
They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.
The female relatives on the mother's side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side.
This suggests that these women who, in theory, pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile.
In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother's and the father's side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
The researchers believe the homosexuality-increased fertility trait must be passed down on the female X chromosome.
They pointed out that this would not explain the majority (80%) of cases, and that cultural factors might be important.
Bigger picture
"It is clear that our findings, if confirmed by further research, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality," they said.
In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.
It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."
It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.
"It does not really matter whether it is nature or nurture.
"The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people."
Posted by: tipper ||
10/13/2004 1:58:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people
The nature Vs. nurture argument strikes again.
But as usual, it boils down to how can we beat up on the (insert Bushhitler/Rethugs/Chaney-Halliburton/etc.) today. Sigh.
Posted by: N guard ||
10/13/2004 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm sorry.
When the fuck did getting equality for a certain section of the population under SECULAR, civil law become a political strike against Bush.
It seems that Bush has made so many fundamental mistakes and misjedgements, he's so full of your American intolerance, bigotry and hatred that any statement of pure common sense comes out as a "strike" against Bush.
It's because Bush is a fucking monster - to the environment, to minorities trying to vote, to ethical considerations... He APPOINTED that fucking Bioethics council HIMSELF, and he fires any of the scientists who say anything he doesn't like. The people who staffed the 2002 Councial aren't employed anymore precisely because they put out impartial studies that didn't support Bush statements.
i.e. they didn't toe the party line.
So don't tell me there's a conspiracy to get Bush out of office. The conspiracy is quite literally everyone who doesn't tell the story the Bush administration wants them to.
Just like anyone and everyone who fights against America must necessarily be "with the terrorists". You create your own enemies by branding them, and then wonder why "everyone's against me".
#8
Quick, someone get this breaking âscientificâ news over to the homosexuals at this site and this site. The sites are hosted by homosexuals leaving (or trying to leave) the homosexual lifestyle, and address the issue of homosexual orientation and root causes in some depth.
Frankly, I doubt these people (who have first-hand experience with the homosexual lifestyle) will be too impressed. These âobjective, scientificâ charades posing as studies have been put out for years. Personally I also have serious political concerns about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia. My biggest beef with the current âhomosexualâ nature-versus-nurture dialogue is that it represents an attempt by the intellectually elite (and the intellectually dishonest) to redefine society and government in terms of their choosing -- and which happens to be pretty damn liberal. Most cultures, and most people, realize that the human sexual response is fairly plastic (e.g., it can be molded into fetishes), but that doesnât mean that atypical sexual response patterns are something any society should condone (toleration is a different matter). As I read Blackstone, to the extent the behavior is purely private, it remains a matter between the person and the Creator. To the extent it becomes public, the behavior is subject to the Rule of Law, and the traditions and mores of society.
#11
It's because Bush is a fucking monster - AND CAN'T YOU SEE THE CLOVEN HOOVES? (Addendum after Lileks)
Lefties are fun when they are crazy. As the desperation rises, so increases the insanity. The next three weeks should be full of good, whacked out frothing.
#14
How do men who think oral and anal sex with other men are normal pass on anything? Passing on requires sex with women. Most western women require a long term commitment to them before they bear offspring.
I am always amused by the gay human rights folk on the web. They try so hard to sound normal. Men that want a penis up their rectum are not normal.
No you are not normal you are a freak. You already have equal rights just like all persons. You don't get to have more rights than the rest of us. Grow up and get out of the way.
You might want to tone it down, there, SPOD. I know a few people who are openly gay (and no doubt more who are closeted) and they are as fully decent and human as any other individual. I am proud to count them as friends. Labelling ALL gays as "freaks" presents the kind of image that critics of a website like this would love to use to dicredit ALL who comment here as hopelessly bigotted.
#18
Labelling ALL gays as "freaks" presents the kind of image that critics of a website like this would love to use to dicredit ALL who comment here as hopelessly bigotted
No worried, docob, I'll only use it to discredit MOST who comment here as hopelessly bigoted. ;-)
#20
Gee you make this easy Aris. Hey guys, look, a greek guy in a gay thread. Who'da thunk it?
Thanks for the chuckle, while collar redneck. Unfortunately Aris is not as self effacing about his 'Greekness'. He doesn't have much of a sense of humor.
There is no such thing as "a" homsexual or lesbian. On this planet, anyway, "homsexuals" and "lesbians" are actually heterosexual men and women (the only "kind" that exists), who are engaging in sexual activities with members of their same sex, or are bouncing between the sexes ("bi-sexual"), or are trying to escape their sexuality altogether ("trans-sexual") for a number of reasons, driven by psycho-emotional issues, per the individual. That's it. That's all.
The activists for sexual deviance (deviance from the norm, that is) advocate for the development of a separate class (i.e., a special interest group) based on their sexual behavior. As social deconstructionists, they should be opposed. NO "special class" political status should be granted to practitioners of behaviors, no matter what those behaviors are.
#25
"NO "special class" political status should be granted to practitioners of behaviors, no matter what those behaviors are."
I fully agree with that statement, and I agree that gays shouldn't try to separate themselves out as a special class or interest group, and they certainly don't deserve any "more rights than the rest of us". But to label every gay person as a "freak" is just plain divisive and hateful, and I'm surprised that it has garnered more than one comment of support.
#26
who cares. I'm so sick of the whiney gays demanding that we love them. I don't care what you do. Activist gays remind me of the type of heterosexual men who go around insisting that they are "butt" or "boobs" guys as if anyone else is interested in what turns them on. EEECH! It's freaking annoying. This constant whining that we must approve your sex life is so needy and insecure. Can't you have sex without begging for our approval?
#27
Having been harassed by 2 different homosexual men when I was a young teen gives me the right to call them freaks. Sorry to pop anyone pretty balloon.
I don't give a damm what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Beyond that being queer doesn't give you a pass to violate that personal standard. Just because you don't come on to me doesn't give you a special type of human rights. You get the same civil rights and responsibilities and everyone else. That means you don't get to marry other men.
It also means you can't harass much younger people who are smaller and weaker than you as well. Yet the great majority of gays refuse to confront this as a problem their group has. So yea many of them are freaks (in the bad sense of the word.)
A French-built Mirage-2000 military jet of the Indian Air Force crashed on Tuesday after its pilot failed to control the aircraft during midair technical snags before ejecting safely, a military spokesman in New Delhi said. The aircraft took off from the central Indian city of Gwalior at 11:30 am (0600 GMT) but within minutes developed unspecified snags, airforce spokesman Squadron Leadar Mahesh Upasani said. "The pilot decided to return to base but as force-landing was not possible, he ejected," Upasani said, adding the aircraft crashed some four kilometres (2.5 miles) short of the airfield in Gwalior and exploded in flames. There were no casualties, he said, adding that the pilot had landed safely.
Tuesday's crash is the second involving a Mirage-2000 in India in less than a month. On September 23 the Gwalior airbase lost a Mirage-2000 when the multi-role jet crashed into a sparsely populated region near the city. The aircraft lost its nosewheel in midflight and the pilot ejected safely. The Indian Air Force has been plagued by crashes of its ageing fleet, although accidents of Mirages have been rare. Four British-designed Jaguars of the Indian Air Force crashed in quick succession earlier this year, killing three pilots including one whose parachute failed to open.Â
"Phew, make it out alive ... AIEEEEEE, Vishnu help me now!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/13/2004 12:15:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
French aircraft have always been maintenance intensive. In a previous life, I talked with a retired two star from the Hellenic AF. He had had four squadrons of A-7s and one of Super Etendards under his command and said that the squadron of Super Etendards cost more to maintain than all the rest combined. He hated the French bloodsuckers.
#6
Some people seem to forget that the Mirage III was the backbone of the Israeli Force during the Six Days war and a significant part during the Kipour were the IAF got a kill ratio from over 20 to 1 in Air to air combat.
For Super Etendard being maintenance intensive, I would recall you that this varies with age and how they were maintained before that. And that all nations have had their share of hangar queens: anyone remembering the trouble with the B1?
Saddam Hussein underwent an operation to repair a hernia about ten days ago and has made a full recovery, it emerged last night. The ousted dictator was taken to the Ibn Sina hospital near the US-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad for the procedure, which was performed by Iraqi doctors, according to sources close to the Human Rights Ministry. The operation lasted about an hour and Saddam was returned to his cell the same day. There was no comment from US officials last night.
"Which part of 'no comment' don't you understand? Now scram!"
No idea if this qualifies as WoT, but has some of the hallmarks: mounting tensions, veiled diplo threats, potential vast natural resources at stake...plus our friends the "North Africans."
Algeria accused Morocco on Monday of intensifying a war of words between the two countries as tensions mount over the disputed territory of Western Sahara. "All we can do it express our very strong disappointment in the escalation of speeches by Morocco," Foreign Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem told state radio. "Even if we disagree on the question of Western Sahara it should not be used to abuse us too much because the Algerian people only wants the good for the Moroccan people," he said.
Relations have worsened since South Africa last month decided to establish full diplomatic ties with the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), dealing a blow to Rabat's claim over the territory. Morocco seized Western Sahara in 1975 after former colonial power Spain pulled out. This triggered a 16-year-long guerrilla war with the Polisario Front, which set up the SADR as what it hoped would be independent territory. Algiers, long a backer of the Western Sahara independence movement based in southwest Algeria, has rejected allegations by Moroccan newspapers that it wants to expand its territory and is building up its armed forces at the border and provoking an arms race by the purchase of MiG fighter jets. Belkhadem said on Sunday Algeria had no intention of going to war with Morocco.
"No, no! Certainly not! Those are just, um, ... training missions!"
#3
â¦the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)â¦
*chokes back snarky comments*
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
10/13/2004 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
That SADR is funny, it sounds like our idiot Shia Thug friend Tator, as well as an accurate description of most african nations. Things are just Sadder there.
A pipeline carrying crude oil across the unruly Niger delta region to Nigeria's main export terminal has burst and is on fire, Shell and a local leader said on Tuesday. The 70cm Trans-Niger pipeline carrying crude from wells in southern Nigeria to Shell's Bonny oil export terminal was reported to be leaking on Monday, company officials said. "We sent a team of experts to cap the leak but were prevented by youths in the community," a Shell spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity. But a local ethnic leader insisted that the firm's engineers had not yet arrived, but simply flown over the area in a helicopter. "Up until the time I am speaking to you nothing has been done about it. Containment measures have not been taken," he said, denying there had been any local protest to prevent Shell gaining access to the site.
#1
Salutations and good thoughts Nigerian goverment! You have been recommend to me as of good charecter and pure thought by trusted sources. Please email me with bank account numbers and other personal government financial information and perhaps I can put your oil fire out.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Saddam Hussein underwent an operation to repair a hernia about ten days ago and has made a full recovery, it emerged last night. The ousted dictator was taken to the Ibn Sina hospital near the US-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad for the procedure, which was performed by Iraqi doctors, according to sources close to the Human Rights Ministry. The operation lasted about an hour and Saddam was returned to his cell the same day. There was no comment from US officials last night.
