Re: Michael Moore

"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
news:20040714134418.06719.00001473@mb-m13.aol.com...

> No, we're not the kind of rubes you're used to.
>
> We want cites on all your bullshit claims.

Typical intellectually superior, lying, socialist/liberal scumbag.

Common baggage.

Nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing original.

Subject: A LETTER TO MY SONS ON THE WORLD SITUATION

A LETTER TO MY SONS ON THE WORLD SITUATION
Written by a retired attorney, to his sons, on May 19, 2004.

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the
present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important
things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes
precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a
longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to
speak to. To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I
will tell you that since Franklin Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII
(1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have, without
exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international
conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President
Roosevelt - WWII: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy -
Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961) [1]; Eight presidents
(five Republicans & four Democrats) during the cold war (1945 - 1991);
President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). So be sure
you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the
point. [2]

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we
know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize
what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the US is concerned
is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon
Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar
Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade
Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were
7,581attacks worldwide). [3]

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no
provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors,
Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler that made no difference. You either went
along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6
million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus,
almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6
million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his
way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the
world on the US, but kill all in the way - their own people or the Spanish,
French or anyone else.. . The point here is that just like the peaceful
Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many
peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the
terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by
their own pronouncements - killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the
peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

7. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:

a. Can we lose this war?

b. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to
the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great
many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the
troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as
far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not
subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not
just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced
an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan
was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to
them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot
help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from
Iraq.Spain did it because the Muslim extremists bombed their train and told
them
to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done.
Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might
see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in
that they can't resist the Muslim extremists without us. However, it may
already be
too late for France.France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the
attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel. [4]

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all
vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they
were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could
anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore
are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and
be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we
recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort
to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the
war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the
enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to
the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we
continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does
that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the
duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have
become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil
rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in
fact added many more since then. Do I blame President Bush or President
Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all
of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this
conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply
to war. Get them out of your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is
because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening,
it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best
what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a
few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These
are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own
people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and
otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically
killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the
same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging
their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently
the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources
internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some
Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses
through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be
for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and
understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and
death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war,
nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over
this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome
burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither
we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say,
this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are
disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude
of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim extremists have been
pushing
us for many years. Remember, the Muslim extremists stated goal is to kill
all
infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims - not just in the United
States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is
valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we
are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all
those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can
defeat anything bad in the world. We can't. If we don't recognize this, our
nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the
World will survive if we are defeated. And finally, name any Muslim
countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of
thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone
- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have
been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman
Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be
written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take
over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the
established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves
over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them
and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away
to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not
apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have
universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally
killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we
ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful
Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united,
there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the
factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are

in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking
about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,
Dad

[1] By the way on Vietnam, the emotions are still so high that it is really
not possible to discuss it. However, I think President Kennedy was correct.
He felt there was a communist threat from China,Russia and North Vietnam to
take over that whole area. Also remember that we were in a 'cold war' with
Russia. I frankly think Kennedy's plan worked and kept that total communist
control out, but try telling that to anyone now. It just isn't politically
correct to say so. Historians will answer this after cool headed research,
when the people closest to it are all gone.

[2] As you know, I support President Bush and will vote for him. However, if
Senator Kerry is elected, I will fully support him on all matters of
international conflict, just as I have supported all presidents in the past.

[3] Source for statistics in Par. 1 is
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html


[4] See below:

The French-Muslim Connection
By Thomas D. Segel
May 4, 2004

There are more than one billion Muslims in the world. The largest Muslim
population, totaling 180 million, is in Indonesia. It is followed by 125
million in Pakistan,Bangladesh with 109 million and India with 84 million.
The remainder is spread through 100 countries, including an estimated 5
million Muslims in France.

Though the figure 5 million may not seem large when viewed next to the
populations of countries such as Indonesia, it still represents almost
twenty percent of the people in France. What it has done to this western
nation is negatively impact it so severely that it may soon lose its
European identity. In fact, if the birth rate continues as projected, France
will have a Muslim majority in less than 25 years.

According to the international Limits To Growth Organization writer Brenda
Walker, "France should be seen as a cautionary tale of immigration run amok,
and how quickly things can get out of control. Muslim immigration to France
is a post-war phenomenon for the most part. Just a few decades of high
immigration of a group with high fertility has put France in the unenviable
position of being the European nation thought most likely to be the first to
introduce sharia (Islamic) law.

The constant appeasement attitude of officials has also been seen to
embolden the Muslim population into making strong demands on the country. As
they grow in numbers most French Muslims feel they can impose the will of
Islam on the entire country. There is also the threat of violence, which is
always a concern by French leaders. They have already seen an increase in
crime and violence against women among the Arab immigrants.

Starting in the year 2000, following the Intifada uprising, France started
to experience an escalation of crimes against its Jewish citizens. Six
synagogues were burned down in less than three weeks. The perpetrators were
Muslims. By 2002 France was experiencing 12 anti-Semitic incidents daily.
The Muslim population had grown 10 times larger than the country's Jewish
community and by sheer numbers had placed themselves in a position where
anti-Semitism seemed to no longer be a concern of those in government. Today
French Muslims outnumber all non-Catholic ethnic and religious factions in
the country combined, including Protestants and Jews.

Also frightening to the French government is the lack of assimilation into
national identity by these immigrants. Decades of immigration have produced
a large class of young men who claim Islam, not France, as their identity
and consider crime as an acceptable life style.

As France became more and more concerned about the attitudes of its Muslims,
more forms of appeasement were offered. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is an
outlaw organization in Egypt was given official status and allowed to preach
its message of hate. One of the Brotherhood's basic themes is "It is a duty
to kill in the name of Allah." France also decided to make Muslims more
mainstream by giving them a national council. What was thought would be a
voice of Muslim moderation became instead the voice of radical Islam.

By the time the United States was seeking United Nations resolutions on Iraq
the French-Muslim connection was so strong that as a country they preferred
an Iraqi victory and strongly rejected the United States position. There are
many who feel that France lives in such fear of a violent uprising by its
Muslim population that it can never take a strong western position on
anything. There are writers such as Guy Milierre who have remarked, "France
behaves more and more as if she does not belong to the West any more and as
though she is the leader of the Third World."

If this fear of its own population does not seem possible to the reader,
consider this:

Ten Arab men were convicted of raping a teenage girl. The Arab families left
the court shouting revenge. Eight days later the court was burned to the
ground and the girl along with her family had to flee for their lives.

More than 23,000 French prison inmates are Muslim, this is more than six
times the proportion of Muslims to the overall French population.

From Marseille to Paris synagogues have been destroyed, Jewish men, women
and children have been attacked, and schools and school buses of Jews have
been stoned. Even with the strong anti-Semitic violence so openly displayed,
few officials speak out and fewer members of the media report the incidents.

With all of this as a background Al Qaeda is rapidly recruiting new members.
In France the terrorist organization, according to best estimates, has
created military style units of between 35 and 45 thousand men.

>Subject: Re: Michael Moore
>From: BuffyToU@yahoo.com (Tammy)
>Date: 7/14/2004 1:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c7bd5687.0407140917.3c6acaba@posting.google.com >
>
>fishbre396@aol.comnojunk (Fishbre396) wrote in message
>news:<20040713201056.22212.00000470@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>> In article <c7bd5687.0407130657.79274174@posting.google.com >,
>> BuffyToU@yahoo.com (Tammy) writes:
>>
>> >How can he be blamed for
>> >Bush's lowering of security at airports, blocking of bipartisan
>> >anti-terrorism proposals, shifting the focus of the FBI away from
>> >anti-terrorism efforts, downgrading the position of anti-terrorism
>> >czar, stopping the daily anti-terroism coordination of the FBI and
>> >CIA, ordering the FBI not to investigate anything related to the bin
>> >laden family, and being out of contact from the CIA director for the
>> >month of August 2001?
>>
>> Excellent comment!
>
>Thanks. I suspect that the GOP that I was responding to will give up
>on this thread and go somewhere else and just continue along.

No, we're not the kind of rubes you're used to.

We want cites on all your bullshit claims.



Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

On 14 Jul 2004 17:44:18 GMT, buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe (Popeye NCAT3)
wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Michael Moore
>>From: BuffyToU@yahoo.com (Tammy)
>>Date: 7/14/2004 1:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <c7bd5687.0407140917.3c6acaba@posting.google.com >
>>
>>fishbre396@aol.comnojunk (Fishbre396) wrote in message
>>news:<20040713201056.22212.00000470@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>>> In article <c7bd5687.0407130657.79274174@posting.google.com >,
>>> BuffyToU@yahoo.com (Tammy) writes:
>>>
>>> >How can he be blamed for
>>> >Bush's lowering of security at airports, blocking of bipartisan
>>> >anti-terrorism proposals, shifting the focus of the FBI away from
>>> >anti-terrorism efforts, downgrading the position of anti-terrorism
>>> >czar, stopping the daily anti-terroism coordination of the FBI and
>>> >CIA, ordering the FBI not to investigate anything related to the bin
>>> >laden family, and being out of contact from the CIA director for the
>>> >month of August 2001?
>>>
>>> Excellent comment!
>>
>>Thanks. I suspect that the GOP that I was responding to will give up
>>on this thread and go somewhere else and just continue along.
>
> No, we're not the kind of rubes you're used to.
>
> We want cites on all your bullshit claims.

Cites are easy for Fishy.

It's in the Moore movie, so just like the JFK movie, it must be true,
because you can't make a nonfiction movie and not have everything be
absolutely true and unbiased... unless it's a movie by a Republican,
then it's lies and it's really not nonfiction.



--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/

"Rich Lockyer" <rlockyer@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
news:8mlbf0tetlqnctbi0fbkui56lf473jl5p2@4ax.com...

> It's in the Moore movie, so just like the JFK movie, it must be true,
> because you can't make a nonfiction movie and not have everything be
> absolutely true and unbiased... unless it's a movie by a Republican,
> then it's lies and it's really not nonfiction.

Which is why Blair and Bush were exonerated, but we hear no apologies or
capitulations from the left.

These fucking idiots are so busy hating, and writing legislation against
hate, that they cant see their feet.

In article <10fbn15364u9f0d@corp.supernews.com>, Scott
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rich Lockyer" <rlockyer@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
> news:8mlbf0tetlqnctbi0fbkui56lf473jl5p2@4ax.com...
>
> > It's in the Moore movie, so just like the JFK movie, it must be true,
> > because you can't make a nonfiction movie and not have everything be
> > absolutely true and unbiased... unless it's a movie by a Republican,
> > then it's lies and it's really not nonfiction.
>
> Which is why Blair and Bush were exonerated, but we hear no apologies or
> capitulations from the left.
>

That's because none are necessary.

Exonerated???? Hardly.

The BBC isn't letting Blair off the hook:

"Jonathan Freedland, writing a comment piece for the paper, says the
former civil servant "did not play the assassin".

"He handed the PM a bulletproof vest - and the public a set of live
bullets."

The Daily Mirror spoke to parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, who were
angry that Mr Blair had not been criticised.

Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon, told the paper: "This proves my
son went to war over a pack of damn lies. He (Blair) has blood on his
hands.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3895485.stm


And the CIA isn't letting the Bush administration off either:

"Acting Chief Insists Agencies Aren't at Fault in War Debate

WASHINGTON, July 14 - The country's new acting intelligence chief said
Wednesday that American intelligence agencies should not be blamed if
there was inadequate debate about the decision to go to war against
Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/politics/15inte.html



The voters are the only ones who can "exonerate" either leader, and
from the looks of things, there's a good chance that both of them are
going down (assuming, of course, we actually have an election in
November. It looks like Bush is laying the groundwork to usurp that
annoying little technicality that might actually remove him from
power).

"Rich Lockyer" <rlockyer@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
news:8mlbf0tetlqnctbi0fbkui56lf473jl5p2@4ax.com...
> On 14 Jul 2004 17:44:18 GMT, buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe (Popeye NCAT3)
> wrote:
>

> Cites are easy for Fishy.

LOL, no they aren't. But never mind about that, we're talking about some
newcomer, named Tammy.

(snip)

>From: Alan Street agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com

>The BBC isn't letting Blair off the hook:
>
>"Jonathan Freedland, writing a comment piece for the paper, says the
>former civil servant "did not play the assassin".
>
> "He handed the PM a bulletproof vest - and the public a set of live
>bullets."
>
>The Daily Mirror spoke to parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, who were
>angry that Mr Blair had not been criticised.
>
> Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon, told the paper: "This proves my
>son went to war over a pack of damn lies. He (Blair) has blood on his
>hands.""

Right.

Emotional pandering.

Not reason.

It's the Democrat way.




Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:140720042106255471%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article <10fbn15364u9f0d@corp.supernews.com>, Scott
> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Rich Lockyer" <rlockyer@linkline.DONTSPAMME.com> wrote in message
> > news:8mlbf0tetlqnctbi0fbkui56lf473jl5p2@4ax.com...
> >
> > > It's in the Moore movie, so just like the JFK movie, it must be true,
> > > because you can't make a nonfiction movie and not have everything be
> > > absolutely true and unbiased... unless it's a movie by a Republican,
> > > then it's lies and it's really not nonfiction.
> >
> > Which is why Blair and Bush were exonerated, but we hear no apologies or
> > capitulations from the left.
> >
>
> That's because none are necessary.
>
> Exonerated???? Hardly.
>
> The BBC isn't letting Blair off the hook:
>
> "Jonathan Freedland, writing a comment piece for the paper, says the
> former civil servant "did not play the assassin".
>
> "He handed the PM a bulletproof vest - and the public a set of live
> bullets."
>
> The Daily Mirror spoke to parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, who were
> angry that Mr Blair had not been criticised.
>
> Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon, told the paper: "This proves my
> son went to war over a pack of damn lies. He (Blair) has blood on his
> hands.""
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3895485.stm
>
>
> And the CIA isn't letting the Bush administration off either:
>
> "Acting Chief Insists Agencies Aren't at Fault in War Debate
>
> WASHINGTON, July 14 - The country's new acting intelligence chief said
> Wednesday that American intelligence agencies should not be blamed if
> there was inadequate debate about the decision to go to war against
> Iraq."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/politics/15inte.html
>
>
>
> The voters are the only ones who can "exonerate" either leader, and
> from the looks of things, there's a good chance that both of them are
> going down (assuming, of course, we actually have an election in
> November. It looks like Bush is laying the groundwork to usurp that
> annoying little technicality that might actually remove him from
> power).

azhh....and if a terrorist attack did occur shortly before or during the
election, and no plan to handle that had been formulated, you'd criticize
the Bush admin for their lack of planning.
And if they do plan fort the event (while diligently trying to prevent the
same) then they're "laying the groundwork to usurp that annoying little
technicality".

If the election went through, and a terrorist attack (or mmultiple ones)
prevented folks in NY City, or several places in CA, or Florida, then folks
would be complaining about how those voters were "disenfranchised". However,
that'd be in compliance with the Constitution:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on
which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout
the United States. "

Dennis

Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<140720042106255471%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.co m>...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/politics/15inte.html
>
> The voters are the only ones who can "exonerate" either leader, and
> from the looks of things, there's a good chance that both of them are
> going down (assuming, of course, we actually have an election in
> November. It looks like Bush is laying the groundwork to usurp that
> annoying little technicality that might actually remove him from
> power).

Alan,

When some of these here hate mongering folks try to send you tin foil,
forgeddaboutit!!!

You are now under the permanent protective aura of some very powerful
crystals.

They are from right here in the Good old USA and were charged up in
Philly in 1776.

You don't see them in the historical portraits, but they were used to
hold the corners of a very important document while a very prominent
group signed it..

In article <20040715062703.19192.00001734@mb-m06.aol.com>, Popeye NCAT3
<buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> wrote:

> >From: Alan Street agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com
>
> >The BBC isn't letting Blair off the hook:
> >
> >"Jonathan Freedland, writing a comment piece for the paper, says the
> >former civil servant "did not play the assassin".
> >
> > "He handed the PM a bulletproof vest - and the public a set of live
> >bullets."
> >
> >The Daily Mirror spoke to parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, who were
> >angry that Mr Blair had not been criticised.
> >
> > Rose Gentle, who lost her son Gordon, told the paper: "This proves my
> >son went to war over a pack of damn lies. He (Blair) has blood on his
> >hands.""
>
> Right.
>
> Emotional pandering.
>
> Not reason.
>
> It's the Democrat way.
>
>

Right.

Selective reading.

Not bothering with the whole story.

It's the Bush way.