PDA

View Full Version : Limbaugh: Is free speech dead?


stratrider
October 7th 03, 02:04 AM
To be sure, I am a life long Philadelphia Eagles fan. Further, I have
been following Donovan McNabb's successes since his days at Syracuse.
This guy has done tremendous things for the Eagles as well as die hard
fans like me. We needed a strong QB in Philly! We got one. Having
said all of that, Donovan has been struggling in a big way this
season. Simply put, he is OFF his game. As Philly is a tough sports
town, the local media has been less than kind to Donovan lately. With
that in mind, I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he
offered an opinion that suggested the media was going easy on the
criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors
black quarterbacks and coaches. I would also argue that the media was
wrong in squashing Limbaugh like a bug rather than addressing the
content of his charge. Does this mean that we cannot talk openly
about racial bias in the media? Does this mean we cannot talk about
race in sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the topic is
considered outside of what is politically correct? Is free speech
dead?

Jim Reilly
Reading, PA

MLB
October 7th 03, 02:39 AM
(stratrider) wrote in news:e4b0c94.0310061704.5e31f324
@posting.google.com:

> To be sure, I am a life long Philadelphia Eagles fan. Further, I have
> been following Donovan McNabb's successes since his days at Syracuse.
> This guy has done tremendous things for the Eagles as well as die hard
> fans like me. We needed a strong QB in Philly! We got one. Having
> said all of that, Donovan has been struggling in a big way this
> season. Simply put, he is OFF his game. As Philly is a tough sports
> town, the local media has been less than kind to Donovan lately. With
> that in mind, I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he
> offered an opinion that suggested the media was going easy on the
> criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors
> black quarterbacks and coaches. I would also argue that the media was
> wrong in squashing Limbaugh like a bug rather than addressing the
> content of his charge. Does this mean that we cannot talk openly
> about racial bias in the media? Does this mean we cannot talk about
> race in sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the topic is
> considered outside of what is politically correct? Is free speech
> dead?
>
> Jim Reilly
> Reading, PA
>

You know, you are exactly right. But I'm having too much fun watching
Rushie squirm :)

j browe
October 7th 03, 06:16 AM
I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he
> > offered an opinion that suggested the media was going easy on the
> > criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors
> > black quarterbacks and coaches.


why was the NAACP established and who established it?

Truestorys
October 7th 03, 06:32 AM
(stratrider) wrote in message >...
>Is free speech dead?
>

Rush on the Recumbent forum? If he can't be on ESPN, I guess the
Recumbent forum is the next best thing! <g>

As a Rush fan, I can only say that Rush let his ego get in front of
his brain.

Rush was stupid to think that he could get away with his comment.

Here, Rush is in his DREAM job. Something he's be trying to get into
for years. Something he LOVES! Football!
On TV!

And he goes as blows it with a dumb racial comment.

Rush, himself blew his dream job.

Can you get away with a vague racist comment at work?

I can't.

I can't speculate on the ability of Green people or yellow people, or
black people in my work place. I know if I do, I may lose my job.

Why didn't Rush know this?

Rush is not bigger than 200 years of Race problems.

Rush didn't lose his Free Speech. He lost his job.

And I like Rush. God I love it when he replays Rita from Detroit
calling in.

And I'm holding back on the drug thing. I'm letting that develop and
play out to the Truth as the media will report it. BUT, if old
Rush-bow took drugs, he will lose his credibility with me. But let
see how that one plays out. Not many facts are in on that one. I
with hold judgement on that one.

But Rush threw away his own job.

Now onto more important things. Did you know that the Aero Recumbent
is twice as fast as the Baron low Rider? I saw a scientific research
paper that a Professor did in Denmark that proved the Baron was not
very aerodynamic. I hold these research papers in my nicotine stained
fingers and rumble the paper as I say this.

B. Sanders
October 7th 03, 07:02 AM
"stratrider" > wrote in message
m...
> I would argue that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he
> offered an opinion that suggested the media was going easy on the
> criticism of Donovan because they may have a racial bias that favors
> black quarterbacks and coaches.

Was he wrong because there is no such racial bias, or wrong because he
offered his opinion on it?

>I would also argue that the media was
> wrong in squashing Limbaugh like a bug rather than addressing the
> content of his charge.

Race is a hot potato in the US. The infamous "PC movement" of the late '90's
offers ample testament to my assertion. I've read several books and written
lengthy term papers on the topic of free speech vs. political correctness.
It's not an easy topic.

> Does this mean that we cannot talk openly about racial bias in the media?

Yes. That's right. It means there are limits to what our society can cope
with easily in the media, and race is a topic that simply can't stand the
light of day. There are too many skeletons in too many closets, and a
racial/cultural divide that is more like a Grand Canyon (yes, referring to
the Lawrence Kasdan film). It's not the only hot potato in our culture, but
it's probably the hottest one of all.

> Does this mean we cannot talk about
> race in sports? Are we accepting of censorship when the topic is
> considered outside of what is politically correct? Is free speech
> dead?

Free speech is a continuous spectrum. Not all free speech is legally
protected. You still can't openly threaten people with physical harm. You
can't slander or libel private citizens. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded
theatre.

Look, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I do take free speech very
seriously; but I think the issue isn't freedom of speech. I think the issue
is responsible speech, and taking responsibility when your speech offends
someone. Please by all means, have an opinion, and tell us all about it; but
be aware also that yours isn't the only opinion. This is the hard lesson
about free speech: It never exists in a vacuum. It always affects everyone
who hears it - a little, or a lot. You can choose not to care; but that
doesn't mean that everybody chooses the same way. Your employer, or your
friends or your neighbors, might want to get clear of you if you are being
particularly offensive. Are you free to be incredibly offensive? Sure you
are, thanks to the ACLU and the Warren court; but you're also free to be
alone, and unliked, and unemployed. Free speech depends upon tolerance, and
tolerance depends upon social norms, and those vary continuously. Intent and
context are very important.

As much as I think Rush Limbaugh is a bombastic windbag most of the time, I
believe he's entitled to speak his mind without fear of censure. I only wish
there was equal time offered to opposing (or just different) viewpoints to
present a more balanced ecology in the world of media punditry. Sadly, the
loudest, most opinionated knee-jerk conservatives are the ones that bring in
the ratings. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Rush Limbaugh makes
a very good case for even-handed liberal thinking, and he's the left wing's
best friend. He's so offensively obnoxious that he might just light a fire
under the dormant and divided Lefties and get them motivated to organize and
move toward some worthy political goals again. We have plenty of important
challenges ahead of us: the Medicare crisis, public school funding, repeal
of irresponsible tax cuts, etc, etc.

To answer your question with another question: Do you feel at liberty to
walk into your racially-integrated workplace and start shouting your
opinions on issues of race, loudly and publicly? If not, why not?

-=B=-

stratrider
October 7th 03, 12:46 PM
> To answer your question with another question: Do you feel at liberty to
> walk into your racially-integrated workplace and start shouting your
> opinions on issues of race, loudly and publicly? If not, why not?
>
> -=B=-

Loudly and publicy. No. I agree there is a time and place for all
forms of speech. But have I offered calm dissenting opinions in the
office to friends and co-workers of a different color. YES. Have I
won some debates? Yes. Have I lost some? Yes. Do we have a better
workplace for having debate? Yes.

B. Sanders
October 8th 03, 03:12 AM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
m...
> (Truestorys) wrote in message
>...
>
> > (stratrider) wrote in message
>...
> > >Is free speech dead?
> > >
> >
> > Rush on the Recumbent forum? If he can't be on ESPN, I guess the
> > Recumbent forum is the next best thing! <g>
> >
> > As a Rush fan, I can only say that Rush let his ego get in front of
> > his brain.
> >
> > Rush was stupid to think that he could get away with his comment.
> >
> > Here, Rush is in his DREAM job. Something he's be trying to get into
> > for years. Something he LOVES! Football!
> > On TV!
> >
> > And he goes as blows it with a dumb racial comment.
> >
> > Rush, himself blew his dream job.
> >
> > Can you get away with a vague racist comment at work?
> >
> > I can't.
> >
> > I can't speculate on the ability of Green people or yellow people, or
> > black people in my work place. I know if I do, I may lose my job.
> >
> > Why didn't Rush know this?
> >
> > Rush is not bigger than 200 years of Race problems.
> >
> > Rush didn't lose his Free Speech. He lost his job.
> >
> > And I like Rush. God I love it when he replays Rita from Detroit
> > calling in.
> >
> > And I'm holding back on the drug thing. I'm letting that develop and
> > play out to the Truth as the media will report it. BUT, if old
> > Rush-bow took drugs, he will lose his credibility with me. But let
> > see how that one plays out. Not many facts are in on that one. I
> > with hold judgement on that one.
> >
> > But Rush threw away his own job.
>
> The best thing that ever happened was for Limbaugh to lose that stupid
> football thing. He is needed in the land of political punditry and
> should not be dissipating his time and talents on something as foolish
> and irrelevant as football. Any one can do that sort of thing, but to
> do what he does in the political realm takes genius - which he has.

Mmmkay. I think this sums up Ed's grasp of reality nicely.

> The liberals hate him (see other posts in this thread) because they
> know how effective he has been in changing the political dynamic in
> this country. For the first time in my lifetime the liberals are on
> the defensive and it is largely due to conservative radio talk shows
> like Limbaugh. The g.d. NY Times and the g.d. LA Times no longer
> dictate what people are going to think about things anymore. Those
> newspapers are self destructing before our very eyes as they have now
> become propaganda screeds for the Democratic Party. They are out in
> the open about it at long last.
>
> Limbaugh has built up a very loyal following over many years

So did Hitler, and for similar reasons :P

> and they
> will stick by him through thick and thin.

Just like the SS did in WWII. Dittoheads all.

> He talks about race issues
> all the time on his show.

The Nazis *loved* talking about race issues. They had some strong opinions
on the subject. Maybe you've read about them. Oh, wait - you don't read, do
you? Just watch O'Reilly and Limbaugh on the TV.

> Screw political correctness all the way to
> hell and back and screw those who defend political correctness. The
> day is not far off when we will all be discussing race in this country
> with a vengeance, and it will be the best thing that ever happened to
> this country

Ok, then stop whining and tell us how it really is with racial issues in
America. Tell us the Truth About Race, Ed. Save us from our ignorant Lefty
selves. Speak your mind and prove that free speech still exists. Don't hold
back. Don't be a lilly-livered-Lefty on us. Be a gutsy, devil-may-care
Libertarian like your heroes. Let's hear your righteous rant about race
issues. What? You're afraid of repercussions? Afraid that somebody might
not agree with you? What would Rush think of you? I think he'd say you're
a coward.

Ask yourself: What Would Rush Do?

> Those Dems and liberals who can't take the heat on this
> issue had better get out of the kitchen.

You gonna tell us how it really is with race issues in America, or shoot
your little pea-shooter at some straw men all day? You talk a lot, but you
don't say much.

> I admire Limbaugh
> tremendously for speaking his mind without regard to the sensitivities
> of a self selected elite of liberal snobs and Dems who only know how
> to cater to minorities for their votes, never giving them much of
> anything that amount to a hill of beans.

Tell us all about the evils of catering to minorities when you finally start
biting instead of just tugging at your leash and barking all day little
doggie. If the Lefties are so inferior to you, then why don't you start
rippin' em apart with your incisive wit and deep knowledge of politics and
race relations in the US. Don't hold back!

> Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and
> a racist in his post above. He is clearly a liar about liking him.

Oh gawd, spare us the "more dittohead than thou" attitude. You're going from
merely ignorant to truly pathetic.

-=B=-

Truestorys
October 8th 03, 04:32 AM
(Edward Dolan) wrote in message >...


> Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and
> a racist in his post above. He is clearly a liar about liking him.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

LOL real loud Ed. I'm sure glad you can read all that into my post.

God, Ed, I've been a fan of the Ma-Ha-Rushdie for about god, for too
long, like 10 years. I like 95% of what he says. I just dont have
your blind passion.

Gees Ed, you were awful darn quick to call me a liar.

Don

brian hughes
October 8th 03, 04:48 AM
It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty
that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy with
Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are unaware that
when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone, and
they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing
other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).

Bob B Ballz
October 8th 03, 05:10 AM
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot?

Emil Guillermo, Special to SF Gate
Tuesday, October 7, 2003

Al Franken was wrong.

Rush Limbaugh isn't a big, fat idiot, as Franken's book title proclaimed
a few years back. Certainly not after Limbaugh lost more than 100
pounds.

But since a news item last week about the conservative icon, we know he
is not color-blind.

We know that when Limbaugh sees Donovan McNabb, he doesn't see a great
NFL quarterback. He sees a black man.

And, as if being a bigot is not enough, in the tabloids we learn from
Limbaugh's alleged former drug peddler that in Limbaugh's more desperate
moments, he apparently liked the opium derivative OxyContin so much, he
called the pills his "blue babies."

These revelations mean that the Darling of Dittoheads everywhere could
be a racist, a dope addict or both. Does it seem as if some kind of
cosmic justice is at work here?

Rush the Racist?

In case you hadn't heard, Limbaugh, already making $30 million from his
three-hour daily radio show, had been moonlighting as a football analyst
for ESPN's "Sunday NFL Countdown."

He was forced to resign last week.

On Sept. 28, a panel discussion on the show featured ex-players Michael
Ervin, Steve Young and Tom Jackson and sportscaster Chris Berman. The
topic was Donovan McNabb's poor start this season as quarterback for the
Philadelphia Eagles.

Limbaugh, hired by ESPN this year to jack up the ratings (which he did)
and mix it up with the boys in the studio (which he tried to do), did
what he does best. He polarized the issue. It's how he gets 20 million
listeners to tune in to his radio show.

So, when the ex-jocks went soft on McNabb, shock jock Limbaugh went for
the hot button.

"I think the sum total of what you're saying is that Donovan McNabb is
regressing and going backwards," said Limbaugh. "And I'm sorry to say
this: I don't think he's been that good from the get-go."

I hate it when people use the term get-go.

But that's not the hanging offense. If Limbaugh stopped there, that
would have been fine. But he didn't.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern from the NFL,"
he continued. "I think the media has been very desirous of a black
quarterback to do well. They're interested in seeing black quarterbacks
and black coaches doing well. I thing there's a little hope invested in
McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that
he really didn't deserve."

Why was it relevant to bring in race?

In a week in which the league's two top-rated quarterbacks were Steve
McNair and Daunte Culpepper, both African Americans, bringing up an old
saw about the supposed inferiority of blacks to play a skilled position
like quarterback in the NFL was clearly gratuitous.

The ex-jocks knew that in football terms.

"Somebody went to those Pro Bowls," Tom Jackson, an African American,
said, referring to McNabb's all-star credentials and putting the subject
back on his ability, not his skin color.

"I think he got a lot of credit from the defensive side of the ball,
winning games for this team," Limbaugh retorted. (That was Limbaugh's
main point, but it was obscured when Limbaugh mentioned race).

Steve Young jumped in but didn't go after Rush. He defended McNabb,
saying, "When [Philadelphia] is winning, nobody makes more plays than
Donovan McNabb."

I'm sure everybody at ESPN thought it was a spirited discussion. After
all, that's what they wanted when they hired Rush.

Until the calls of protest came in.

And then a surprising thing happened: Limbaugh went out with a whimper.
He resigned. He didn't fight back. He made a weak statement in response,
saying he was just offering his opinion, and that his comments were
"directed at the media and not racially motivated."

Ah, it's that biased liberal media that wanted to prop up McNabb. The
same liberal media that supports Limbaugh's $30 million dollar-a-year
paycheck.

That's some liberal media -- which, incidentally, gladly accepted
Limbaugh's resignation.

Frankly, I'm surprised most commentators were willing to give Limbaugh a
pass after his statement, which wasn't exactly an apology.

But McNabb wasn't letting Limbaugh get away with it.

"I thought we were through with that," McNabb said at a press conference
last week, referring to the historical discussion of whether blacks can
excel as quarterbacks. "I'm sure that everyone else has thought about
it. Or it's on their mind. I'm sure that he's not the only one who feels
that way."

He's probably not, and that's the real problem.

Rush Limbaugh has done more to make racist and intolerant views
mainstream than anyone else I can think of.

When he "says what people think" on the 600-plus radio stations
throughout the country, most of them owned by major media conglomerates,
that air his program, Limbaugh legitimizes sentiments that some people
would be too afraid to express openly -- until they hear it somewhere
else first.

When Limbaugh says it, Dittoheads are programmed. Suddenly, it's OK to
diss people of color. Immigrants. The undocumented. "Femi-Nazis." Animal
rights wackos. Tree huggers.

So I'm sure, when some people heard what Limbaugh said on ESPN, it may
not have seemed so egregious compared to the sentiments on his radio
show, or those replicated on other right-wing programs.

The sentiments expressed about McNabb seemed so commonplace, most of us
were no longer shocked. It was Rush Lite.

Rush the Drug Addict?

But I must admit I was shocked to read the details of Limbaugh's
purported drug addiction and his role in a Florida drug investigation,
as reported in The National Enquirer and confirmed by major news
organizations.

The news reports spoke of Limbaugh buying as many as 4,350 pills -- all
of them opium derivatives such as Lorcet, hydrocodone and OxyContin,
which have the same effect as morphine, in a 47-day period.

Last week, Limbaugh told his radio audience, "Just trust me."

But I'm wondering when we'll see the reenactments show up on Fox News of
Limbaugh driving to a Denny's parking lot in West Palm Beach, where
reports said he bought drugs from his ex-housekeeper, Wilma Cline.

She said he'd lower the window of his Mercedes and she'd hand him a
cigar box full of pills. "He'd take it and hand me his cigar box full of
money," Cline told the Enquirer. "'Here's the cabbage,' he'd say. Then
he'd drive off."

Is this just the GOP version of the '80s T-shirt message, "Cocaine is
God's way of saying you make too much money"?

Believe me, I'm trying to summon the same compassion for Rush that he's
shown in the past for drug addicts, not to mention the homeless, welfare
recipients, people of color, immigrants, etc.

But I admit it's tough.

After hearing Limbaugh belittle some groups of people, especially the
drug dependent, for so many years, there's a sweetness in reading about
his alleged gargantuan drug addiction.

After listening to him mock black speech by saying, "What you axe me?"
it's somehow satisfying to see him face up to charges of racism with a
wimpy resignation note to ESPN. Perhaps the appeal is the same stuff
that makes us revel in the Martha Stewart/Ken Lay/Enron stories. There's
something oh so satisfying about bloated icons that go pop, then fall
with a nice thud.

When that icon is such a demagogue as Limbaugh is, there is a delicious
sense of cosmic justice when the guy who claimed to have "talent on loan
from God" is now suddenly found to be in default.

Edward Dolan
October 8th 03, 05:24 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<1PGgb.518732$cF.186529@rwcrnsc53>...
.......

> I thought I was replying to somebody with a shred of sense. Apparently, I
> was wrong. Anybody who *really* thinks that (a) liberals don't care about
> national defense and (b) the "war on terrorism" is any more effective, real
> or valid than the "war on drugs" is living in a right-wing dreamland created
> by the O'Reilly's, Limbaugh's, blonde bimbos who think they can write, and
> their bombastic narrow-minded ilk.

When you write to a newsgroup you are writing to anyone who cares to
read what you have written. The fact is that when you ran down your
list of "challenges" you somehow forgot to mention the war on
terrorism, hardly a minor oversight. Finally, you saw fit to insult
Rush so I saw fit to insult you. Contempt begets contempt. As for
sense, I have never yet met a liberal who had the common sense he was
born with.

By the way , all those authors you allude to above are mostly on the
best seller lists every week. How do you explain that? Especially in
light of the fact that most publishers are extremely left wing and do
not like to publish conservative books. Maybe it is you and your ilk
who are out of step and not the American people.

> Earth to Ed: There are *much* more important issues that you are afraid to
> deal with, because they require clearheaded thought and compromise - the
> bane of the New Right. Responsible speech is one of those issues; but there
> are dozens more, and they're all important to real people, every day.

As I sit here at my computer keyboard I see that the electorate of
California has booted out of office the Democratic governor of that
state and replaced him with a Republican, this in spite of the LA
Times "irresponsible speech" about Arnold. The voters of California
are finally thinking clearheaded and to hell with compromise. They
want the Dems out by a large margin.

As for myself, I can't think of a single issue that I am "afraid" to
deal with. We disagree on which issues are the more important. For
instance, I think national defense and the war on terrorism is about
1000 times more important than the Medicare crisis, public school
funding, repeal of taxes, etc. You have no sense of priorities. But
that is why you are a liberal. And that is why I am not.

Your nonsensical blathering about responsible speech is nothing but a
cop out. There are certain things you do not want to hear. Ipso facto,
it is irresponsible. It is all about whose ox is being gored, that and
nothing more.

I positively loath card carrying members of the ACLU. You are the
ultimate treasonous liberal in my book. The ACLU has done more to
damage America than any other organization extant. The ACLU and the
liberal judges who find in its favor are ruining this country. Just
another reason why we need more Republicans who will appoint judicial
type judges to the bench and not the kind of legislative type judges
so beloved of liberals.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
October 8th 03, 06:52 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be
> found in the NY Times and most other major newspapers, all the TV
> channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio and TV. What
> the hell more do you want?...

Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.

One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize
how far right the mainstream US news media actually is.

Tom Sherman -

B. Sanders
October 8th 03, 07:47 AM
"brian hughes" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty
> that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy
with
> Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are unaware
that
> when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone,
and
> they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing
> other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).

Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and wags her
finger and frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi
comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.

-=B=-

bandjhughes
October 8th 03, 02:37 PM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<KpOgb.710619$uu5.117302@sccrnsc04>...
> "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty
> > that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy
> with
> > Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are unaware
> that
> > when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone,
> and
> > they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing
> > other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).
>
> Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and wags her
> finger and frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi
> comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.
>
> -=B=-

Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.

Brian

Edward Dolan
October 8th 03, 06:06 PM
Bob B Ballz > wrote in message >...

> Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot?
>
> Emil Guillermo, Special to SF Gate
> Tuesday, October 7, 2003
>
> Al Franken was wrong.
>
> Rush Limbaugh isn't a big, fat idiot, as Franken's book title proclaimed
> a few years back. Certainly not after Limbaugh lost more than 100
> pounds.
........

Blah, blah, blah! Yada, yada, yada!

Your post is way too long Bob B Ballz. No one, but no one, is going to
read it except a few fellow Rush haters. You need to get more focused
and look up the word succinct in the dictionary and take a clue from
that.

I have often complained that there are many who post here whose posts
are way too short. But I guess of the two, I prefer to read a too
short post than a too long post. Note my posts. They are normally only
a couple of medium size paragraphs. I think I have got it about right.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

B. Sanders
October 8th 03, 06:20 PM
"bandjhughes" > wrote in message
m...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:<KpOgb.710619$uu5.117302@sccrnsc04>...
> > "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a
certainty
> > > that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an
analogy
> > with
> > > Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are
unaware
> > that
> > > when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing
anyone,
> > and
> > > they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably
changing
> > > other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).
> >
> > Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and wags
her
> > finger and frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi
> > comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.
> >
> > -=B=-
>
> Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.

It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.

> But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.

In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit like a
fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He has
big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several world
leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which allowed
a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).

Don't tell me that you buy this "war on terror" ruse. Why haven't we invaded
Saudi Arabia, the home of 14 of the 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11? US
hypocrisy is abundantly evident to everyone but brainwashed Americans.

But I was just baiting Ed, because I don't think he has the faintest glimmer
about any of this. He should stop whining and run back to his TV set for
another Rush from Limbaugh.

-=B=-

Edward Dolan
October 8th 03, 06:30 PM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<KpOgb.710619$uu5.117302@sccrnsc04>...

> "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a certainty
> > that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an analogy
> with
> > Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are unaware
> that
> > when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing anyone,
> and
> > they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably changing
> > other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).
>
> Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and wags her
> finger and frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi
> comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.
>
> -=B=-

B. Sanders exemplifies what is wrong with liberal types and why they
must be excoriated whenever they show their ugly heads. He is an ACLU
type by his own admission ("card carrying" no less). Apparently, when
you get out of the mainstream of political opinion you go a little
crazy. I know the type well from when I lived in liberal New York
City. They are like children and teenagers. They go into tantrums when
they don't get their way.

The interesting thing about B. Sanders is that he makes Mr. Sherman
actually look reasonable and sane. He is a name caller pure and simple
and his resort to Nazi and Hitler allusions is no accident. There is
no obvious irony intended and he means to call you names. Here are a
few for you B. Sanders: extremist, liberal, left-wing, wacko, nut, -
and all around asshole.

Have a good day!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 8th 03, 06:45 PM
(Truestorys) wrote in message >...

> (Edward Dolan) wrote in message >...
>
>
> > Truestorys does not like Limbaugh. He has called him stupid, dumb and
> > a racist in his post above. He is clearly a liar about liking him.
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> LOL real loud Ed. I'm sure glad you can read all that into my post.
>
> God, Ed, I've been a fan of the Ma-Ha-Rushdie for about god, for too
> long, like 10 years. I like 95% of what he says. I just dont have
> your blind passion.
>
> Gees Ed, you were awful darn quick to call me a liar.
>
> Don


Gees Don, you don't cut old Rushdie any slack at all. Where is your
loyalty? I picked up on your message that you liked Rush, and then I
see you calling him stupid, dumb and a racist. You know all of that is
not true, so why say it? Are you trying to curry favor with the
nauseous liberal types who infest this newsgroup I wonder. No, I am
going to cut old Rushdie one hell of a lot of slack on this. I figure
I owe him that much for all the entertainment he has provided me over
the years. One thing I do know for sure: Rush is not dumb and he is
not a racist. Anyone who calls him those names is going to get an
earful from me.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

B. Sanders
October 8th 03, 06:52 PM
"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ...
> > There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be
> > found in the NY Times and most other major newspapers, all the TV
> > channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio and TV. What
> > the hell more do you want?...
>
> Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.
>
> One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize
> how far right the mainstream US news media actually is.

The "liberal media" mantra is just another proof of the aphorism: "A lie,
repeated often enough, becomes the truth." (See Orwellian parallel below.)
It's telling that Ed sees the liberal media bias as a given in the US, when
even a cursory comparison with media outside the US proves the assertion
patently false.

This phenomenon - like our current society, and the media that supports it -
is a bit Orwellian: You hold up 3 fingers, and Ed sees two, because Rush
and O'Reilly say that's how many there should be.

-=B=-

Edward Dolan
October 8th 03, 06:55 PM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ...
> > There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be
> > found in the NY Times and most other major newspapers, all the TV
> > channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio and TV. What
> > the hell more do you want?...
>
> Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.
>
> One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize
> how far right the mainstream US news media actually is.
>
> Tom Sherman -

Well, I have read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and other assorted nuts and
screwballs who call themselves communists, socialists and anarchists.
If the European press is in that tradition, then I never want to even
have a glance at it. The NY Times is all I can stand at present.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 9th 03, 12:31 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<EHXgb.67094$%h1.46704@sccrnsc02>...

> "bandjhughes" > wrote in message
> m...

> > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
>
> It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
>
> > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit like a
> fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He has
> big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several world
> leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which allowed
> a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).
>
> Don't tell me that you buy this "war on terror" ruse. Why haven't we invaded
> Saudi Arabia, the home of 14 of the 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11? US
> hypocrisy is abundantly evident to everyone but brainwashed Americans.
>
> But I was just baiting Ed, because I don't think he has the faintest glimmer
> about any of this. He should stop whining and run back to his TV set for
> another Rush from Limbaugh.
>
> -=B=-

B. Sanders is the easiest type of polemicist to deal with because he
is crazy as a loon. You do not have to take him seriously. I generally
have to give some attention to what Mr. Sherman says because as much
as I disagree with him he is not crazy. But B. Sanders takes the cake.
To be able to find parallels between this country and Nazi Germany is
nuts. Now will the rest of you believe me when I tell you that
liberals are not be be trusted.

He does not know what he is talking about when it comes to Rush.
Liberals simply can't listen to him for more than two seconds (he
thinks Rush is on the TV when of course he is only on the radio). If
they could, they would find out that he is the most profound thinker
and political analyst extant in the world today. His every aside is a
gem of wisdom. I am constantly amazed not only by how much he knows
but more importantly how he is able to put the proper cast on it.
Believe it or not, I do not agree with Rush on everything by a long
shot, but I have nothing but the greatest respect for his intellect.
B. Sanders could get an education by listening to old Rushdie instead
of dredging up odious comparisons of the present day US with 1930's
Nazi Germany. Rush above all else is entertaining as hell. He is funny
and witty and can make me laugh. And it is all for free on the radio.
Ah! Life is good!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Hellbent Rick
October 9th 03, 01:05 AM
Mr. Sanders,

I have read your diatribe and vitrial against the conservatives. Making
references of Nazi Germany to portray our current government leads me to
believe that you are nothing more than a ignorant, bed-wetting liberal.



"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:EHXgb.67094$%h1.46704@sccrnsc02...
> "bandjhughes" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> news:<KpOgb.710619$uu5.117302@sccrnsc04>...
> > > "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > > It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a
> certainty
> > > > that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an
> analogy
> > > with
> > > > Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are
> unaware
> > > that
> > > > when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing
> anyone,
> > > and
> > > > they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably
> changing
> > > > other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).
> > >
> > > Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and
wags
> her
> > > finger and frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi
> > > comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.
> > >
> > > -=B=-
> >
> > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
>
> It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
>
> > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit like
a
> fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He h
as
> big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several
world
> leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
allowed
> a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).
>
> Don't tell me that you buy this "war on terror" ruse. Why haven't we
invaded
> Saudi Arabia, the home of 14 of the 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11? US
> hypocrisy is abundantly evident to everyone but brainwashed Americans.
>
> But I was just baiting Ed, because I don't think he has the faintest
glimmer
> about any of this. He should stop whining and run back to his TV set for
> another Rush from Limbaugh.
>
> -=B=-
>
>
>
>
>

Tom Sherman
October 9th 03, 02:21 AM
Edward Dolan must be educated because he wrote:
> ...
> I have often complained that there are many who post here whose posts
> are way too short....

Really? ;)

Tom Sherman

Tom Sherman
October 9th 03, 02:30 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> No doubt this nut would want us to compare the US media with the
> Soviet propaganda media when the Cold War was ongoing too. How about
> Algeciras, that Arab media, such as it is...

Do you mean Aljazeera? < http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage >

Tom Sherman

brian hughes
October 9th 03, 02:41 AM
> >
> > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
>
> It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
>
> > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit like
a
> fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He
has
> big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several
world
> leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
allowed
> a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).

Wow, and here I thought you were just a troll that was unaware of his own
behavior. I'm sorry. I didn't realize how irrational a person like you can
get. Guess I shouldn't given you the benefit of the doubt by believing you
had some degree of mature rational thinking capability, because you sure
showed me I was wrong in assuming that.

Brian

MLB
October 9th 03, 04:31 AM
(Truestorys) wrote in
om:

> (Edward Dolan) wrote in message
> >...
>
> One thing I do know for sure: Rush is not dumb and he is
>> not a racist. Anyone who calls him those names is going to get an
>> earful from me.
>>
>> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> Yea....... Give your earful to someone that said all those things Ed.
>
> Winter must come early in Minnesota Ed. You may have a case of Cabin
> Fever already. Locked up listening to Right Wing Radio, jumping from
> Rush to Bill O'Reilly and then onto Hanity and then back to Rush, then
> over to Bill. Maybe even wishing that Mike Savage guy was on the air.
>
> Don't you know you can get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome turning that radio
> dial that much?
>
> That's why I sit in my car at lunch and use Push buttons to do this.
>

Man that Limbaugh is dumb and a racist!

Edward Dolan
October 9th 03, 06:28 AM
>B. Sanders wrote:

> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> m...
........
> > Screw political correctness all the way to
> > hell and back and screw those who defend political correctness. The
> > day is not far off when we will all be discussing race in this country
> > with a vengeance, and it will be the best thing that ever happened to
> > this country
>
> Ok, then stop whining and tell us how it really is with racial issues in
> America. Tell us the Truth About Race, Ed. Save us from our ignorant Lefty
> selves. Speak your mind and prove that free speech still exists. Don't hold
> back. Don't be a lilly-livered-Lefty on us. Be a gutsy, devil-may-care
> Libertarian like your heroes. Let's hear your righteous rant about race
> issues. What? You're afraid of repercussions? Afraid that somebody might
> not agree with you? What would Rush think of you? I think he'd say you're
> a coward.

See how easy it is too rile and discombobulate these unstable
liberals? Would you want a jackass like this to govern and rule over
you? Would you want this kind of thinking to be formulating policy?
Well, put liberals in office and this is what you will get. The guy
has diarrhea of the mind and of the emotions. He can't think straight.
He is a mess!

Where did he get the idea that I or any of those I admire are
libertarians? I hate those types as much as I hate his types.

As for discussing race, or any other subject for that matter, a proper
forum must be constituted. Any idiot knows that. One does not go off
half cocked and start spouting about sundry subjects such as race
issues unless the proper forum has been constituted. I guess I already
said that but repetition is needed in his case. But it would be a
waste of time to discuss anything with him in any event because he
believes in political correctness (as long as he can define what is
politically correct and not you).

An ACLU type who is into political correctness! What an abomination!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

B. Sanders
October 9th 03, 07:31 AM
"brian hughes" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > >
> > > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
> >
> > It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
> >
> > > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
> >
> > In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit
like
> a
> > fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> > point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He
> has
> > big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several
> world
> > leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> > 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
> allowed
> > a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> > hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> > massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> > underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).
>
> Wow, and here I thought you were just a troll that was unaware of his own
> behavior. I'm sorry. I didn't realize how irrational a person like you
can
> get. Guess I shouldn't given you the benefit of the doubt by believing
you
> had some degree of mature rational thinking capability, because you sure
> showed me I was wrong in assuming that.

Keep your head in the sand. It's the Right thing to do.

-=B=-

B. Sanders
October 9th 03, 07:49 AM
"Hellbent Rick" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Sanders,
>
> I have read your diatribe and vitrial against the conservatives. Making
> references of Nazi Germany to portray our current government leads me to
> believe that you are nothing more than a ignorant, bed-wetting liberal.

Perhaps in your fantasy world, that is true.

National Socialism didn't start out with the Final Solution as an end goal.
It was a gradual process. From your evident credulity, it will probably
surprise you to learn that most average Germans had no idea how far Hitler
had gone by the end of the war. It happened right under their noses, and
they had no idea, because their leaders weren't telling them about it. It
wasn't like they were advertising the concentration camps on TV, you know.
Extreme secrecy is another parallel between 1930's Germany and the current
US administration. Bush is the most secretive president in history - by a
wide margin - and has been so since his first days in office.

Why do people become extremely secretive? Let's assume that Bush is sane,
and not paranoid or delusional. Why all the secrecy? What is he hiding?

Of course, you *did* know that the Bush family was colluding with the Nazis,
right? This is not a conspiracy theory. This is well known and well
documented.

http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

http://www.infowars.com/print_prescott.htm

This one should put a chill up your spine. An 81-yr-old WWII veteran telling
it like it is, and being even more specific that I have been about the
Nazi-Bush parallels. (Remember: He was there. He saw it with his own
eyes.)

http://www.rense.com/general27/bushnaz.htm

I'm merely drawing historical parallels, and making observations. Draw your
own conclusions.

-=B=-




>
>
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> news:EHXgb.67094$%h1.46704@sccrnsc02...
> > "bandjhughes" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> > news:<KpOgb.710619$uu5.117302@sccrnsc04>...
> > > > "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > > It seems like when a political thread gets going, it's almost a
> > certainty
> > > > > that there's someone out there that will scream Nazi or make an
> > analogy
> > > > with
> > > > > Hitler or the Nazi party. Apparently these Nazi screamers are
> > unaware
> > > > that
> > > > > when they do this, they're not credible, they're not influencing
> > anyone,
> > > > and
> > > > > they're not going to change anyone's opinions (except probably
> > changing
> > > > > other reader's opinion of the Nazi screamer himself).
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, and then there's always some mother hen who comes around and
> wags
> > her
> > > > finger and frowns, unable to see the obvious ironic use of the Nazi
> > > > comparisons to bait a flag-waving dittohead troll.
> > > >
> > > > -=B=-
> > >
> > > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
> >
> > It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
> >
> > > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
> >
> > In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit
like
> a
> > fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> > point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He
h
> as
> > big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several
> world
> > leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> > 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
> allowed
> > a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> > hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> > massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> > underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).
> >
> > Don't tell me that you buy this "war on terror" ruse. Why haven't we
> invaded
> > Saudi Arabia, the home of 14 of the 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11?
US
> > hypocrisy is abundantly evident to everyone but brainwashed Americans.
> >
> > But I was just baiting Ed, because I don't think he has the faintest
> glimmer
> > about any of this. He should stop whining and run back to his TV set
for
> > another Rush from Limbaugh.
> >
> > -=B=-
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

B. Sanders
October 9th 03, 07:57 AM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:<T9Ygb.705532$YN5.575349@sccrnsc01>...
>
> > "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to
be
> > > > found in the NY Times and most other major newspapers, all the TV
> > > > channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio and TV. What
> > > > the hell more do you want?...
> > >
> > > Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.
> > >
> > > One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize
> > > how far right the mainstream US news media actually is.
> >
> > The "liberal media" mantra is just another proof of the aphorism: "A
lie,
> > repeated often enough, becomes the truth." (See Orwellian parallel
below.)
> > It's telling that Ed sees the liberal media bias as a given in the US,
when
> > even a cursory comparison with media outside the US proves the assertion
> > patently false.
>
> No doubt this nut would want us to compare the US media with the
> Soviet propaganda media when the Cold War was ongoing too. How about
> Algeciras, that Arab media, such as it is. Should we all be reading
> that too? Most of the European media is so far left as to disgust any
> right thinking American.
>
> > This phenomenon - like our current society, and the media that supports
it -
> > is a bit Orwellian: You hold up 3 fingers, and Ed sees two, because
Rush
> > and O'Reilly say that's how many there should be.
>
> You aren't claiming that you actually think for yourself are you? On
> the other hand, that would explain how you have arrived at such
> moronic conclusions about everything.
>
> Know this B. Sanders. You are an ACLU type.

Damned straight! You need to crack open a book at least once every decade
or so, Ed. The ACLU is directly responsible for many of the landmark Supreme
Court decisions protecting freedom of speech and expression that you hold so
dear. Don't believe me? Look up the Supreme Court cases yourself. It's
all there in the historical record, plain as day to those who don't just
take Rush's word as gospel. So, yes, I'm emphatically an "ACLU type," and
couldn't be more proud of it.

Your profound illogic is utterly baffling: How can you in one breath slam
the ACLU, and then out the other side of your mouth claim to love free
speech? Who taught you this crazy illogic?

> and you defend political
> correctness.

Did I *ever* defend political correctness? No.

-=B=-

B. Sanders
October 9th 03, 08:12 AM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...
> Tom Sherman > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> > > ...
> > > There is plenty of time offered to the opposing viewpoint. It is to be
> > > found in the NY Times and most other major newspapers, all the TV
> > > channels (with the exception of Fox News) and PBS radio and TV. What
> > > the hell more do you want?...
> >
> > Mr. Dolan does have a sense of humor, after all.
> >
> > One only needs to read the mainstream European news sources to realize
> > how far right the mainstream US news media actually is.
> >
> > Tom Sherman -
>
> Well, I have read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and other assorted nuts and
> screwballs who call themselves communists, socialists and anarchists.
> If the European press is in that tradition, then I never want to even
> have a glance at it. The NY Times is all I can stand at present.

There are two types of people in the world: The ones who say there are only
two types of people, and everybody else.

-=B=-

B. Sanders
October 9th 03, 08:43 AM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:<EHXgb.67094$%h1.46704@sccrnsc02>...
>
> > "bandjhughes" > wrote in message
> > m...
>
> > > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
> >
> > It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
> >
> > > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
> >
> > In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit
like a
> > fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> > point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He
has
> > big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several
world
> > leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> > 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
allowed
> > a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> > hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> > massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> > underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).
> >
> > Don't tell me that you buy this "war on terror" ruse. Why haven't we
invaded
> > Saudi Arabia, the home of 14 of the 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11?
US
> > hypocrisy is abundantly evident to everyone but brainwashed Americans.
> >
> > But I was just baiting Ed, because I don't think he has the faintest
glimmer
> > about any of this. He should stop whining and run back to his TV set
for
> > another Rush from Limbaugh.
> >
> > -=B=-
>
> B. Sanders is the easiest type of polemicist to deal with because he
> is crazy as a loon.

I'll have my attorneys contact you regarding this libelous comment. Too bad
about that free speech, huh Ed?

> You do not have to take him seriously. I generally
> have to give some attention to what Mr. Sherman says because as much
> as I disagree with him he is not crazy. But B. Sanders takes the cake.
> To be able to find parallels between this country and Nazi Germany is
> nuts.

Would you like to restate that, and make a public apology while you're at
it?

> Now will the rest of you believe me when I tell you that
> liberals are not be be trusted.

Suspicion of fellow countrymen and radical sociopolitical polarization.
Dude, you are tossing the Nazi parallels into my lap. I don't have to dig
for them - I have to dig out from under them!

> He does not know what he is talking about when it comes to Rush.

You've got me there! Who gives a sh*t what Rush thinks or says. He's a paid
actor - didn't you know that?

> Liberals simply can't listen to him for more than two seconds (he
> thinks Rush is on the TV when of course he is only on the radio).

Of course! How silly of me not to follow Rush's every move and hang on his
every brilliant word!

> If
> they could, they would find out that he is the most profound thinker
> and political analyst extant in the world today.

Mmmkay. You're trodding well into the star-struck fanboy territory now.

> His every aside is a gem of wisdom.

> I am constantly amazed not only by how much he knows
> but more importantly how he is able to put the proper cast on it.

It's called "rehearsal" and "patter." He's a smart guy; but he preps for
the shows, and controls the dialogue.

> Believe it or not, I do not agree with Rush on everything by a long
> shot

So you're not a racist after all?

http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhopinion/278788804264102.shtml

> but I have nothing but the greatest respect for his intellect.

He seems intelligent, just very, very misguided. I can't believe that he
actually believes what he's saying

I remember an interview with Crystal Bernard (of the TV show "Wings"), who
used to date Rush Limbaugh (yes, really). She said that his off-air
opinions and attitudes were completely different than those of his on-air
persona. She said: "It's an act. He does it to get ratings." (apologies
to Ms. Bernard if I misquoted her in words or in spirit.)

But, as I said before, I defend Rush's right to speak his mind. Did you
want to apologize now for insisting that I defend political correctness? You
can do it later.

> B. Sanders could get an education by listening to old Rushdie instead
> of dredging up odious comparisons of the present day US with 1930's
> Nazi Germany.

No thanks. I prefer history books to humorous fiction.

http://www.rense.com/general27/bushnaz.htm

http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm

This one is shocking. I want to see a bit more factual background before I
take it as fact; but I offer it for your consideration.

http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.html

> Rush above all else is entertaining as hell. He is funny
> and witty and can make me laugh. And it is all for free on the radio.

Yeah, that darned Rush. He sets up the straw men, and knocks 'em right down.
What a comic genius!

> Ah! Life is good!

Yes, it is.

-=B=-

Edward Dolan
October 9th 03, 08:53 AM
(Truestorys) wrote in message >...

> (Edward Dolan) wrote in message >...
>
> One thing I do know for sure: Rush is not dumb and he is
> > not a racist. Anyone who calls him those names is going to get an
> > earful from me.
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> Yea....... Give your earful to someone that said all those things Ed.
>
> Winter must come early in Minnesota Ed. You may have a case of Cabin
> Fever already. Locked up listening to Right Wing Radio, jumping from
> Rush to Bill O'Reilly and then onto Hanity and then back to Rush, then
> over to Bill. Maybe even wishing that Mike Savage guy was on the air.
>
> Don't you know you can get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome turning that radio
> dial that much?
>
> That's why I sit in my car at lunch and use Push buttons to do this.

You have no idea how much I enjoyed Mike Savage. It was a dark day for
me indeed when he was summarily yanked off the airwaves. What I liked
best about him is that he was so politically incorrect. He was
wonderful and a breath of fresh air. Crazy liberals like B. Sanders
just can't take the likes of Savage, and that is another reason I
enjoyed him so much. Anything that makes liberals squirm can't be all
that bad.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 9th 03, 09:07 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ...
> > No doubt this nut would want us to compare the US media with the
> > Soviet propaganda media when the Cold War was ongoing too. How about
> > Algeciras, that Arab media, such as it is...
>
> Do you mean Aljazeera? < http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage >
>
> Tom Sherman

Hmmm...I knew when I wrote the word that it didn't look quite right. I
think Algeciras might be a city in southern Spain. Well, I have to
expect these little contretemps from time to time as I have already
mentioned to you that I do not look up anything anymore since I
retired as a university research librarian. Since you gave me the web
page for it I am going to have a closer look at it and see just how
screwed up it is.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

bandjhughes
October 9th 03, 04:12 PM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message >...
> "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > > > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very successful.
> > >
> > > It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
> > >
> > > > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > > > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
> > >
> > > In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little bit
> like
> a
> > > fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case in
> > > point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop there. He
> has
> > > big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons. Several
> world
> > > leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in the
> > > 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
> allowed
> > > a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> > > hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination after a
> > > massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including the
> > > underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the US).
> >
> > Wow, and here I thought you were just a troll that was unaware of his own
> > behavior. I'm sorry. I didn't realize how irrational a person like you
> can
> > get. Guess I shouldn't given you the benefit of the doubt by believing
> you
> > had some degree of mature rational thinking capability, because you sure
> > showed me I was wrong in assuming that.
>
> Keep your head in the sand. It's the Right thing to do.
>
> -=B=-

The Right thing to do is use your head to think logically and
rationally...not go off and make up or buy into ridiculous conspiracy
theories or derive faulty analogies based on pure emotional driven
hatred of conservative politicians. You have Left any part of your
head that is thinking and rational.

But it really is humorous how the rare individuals of your type feel
that if someone else doesn't believe your loony conspiracy/Nazi crap,
they're the ones that can't see. I guess to a crazy man, every else
is seems crazy.

skip
October 9th 03, 04:42 PM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
. net...

<snip>
> http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
>
> This one is shocking. I want to see a bit more factual background before I
> take it as fact; but I offer it for your consideration.
>
Tom Sherman can provide the confirmation you need if you are just itching to
believe this (and it's obvious you are). Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more
than once that the Bush family wealth came from Nazis.

Did you know Michael Moore has a new book that's out now?

skip

Edward Dolan
October 9th 03, 11:42 PM
MLB > wrote in message >...

> > (Edward Dolan) wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > One thing I do know for sure: Rush is not dumb and he is
> >> not a racist. Anyone who calls him those names is going to get an
> >> earful from me.

> Man that Limbaugh is dumb and a racist!

And MLB is a provocateur!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 12:04 AM
"skip" > wrote in message >...

> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
> <snip>
> > http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
> >
> > This one is shocking. I want to see a bit more factual background before I
> > take it as fact; but I offer it for your consideration.
> >
> Tom Sherman can provide the confirmation you need if you are just itching to
> believe this (and it's obvious you are). Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more
> than once that the Bush family wealth came from Nazis.
>
> Did you know Michael Moore has a new book that's out now?
>
> skip

Yeah, skip, we all need to be reading Michael Moore more. How else
will we ever really know what is going on in this country unless we
read Michael Moore. The guy just drips venom but the liberals can't
disown this clown because he likes them even if he does embarrass
them. How they get around the problem is by saying that he is a
satirist. That is what they say about Franken too, who is another
embarrassment to them (although apparently not to Dean who had him at
one of his political rallies). B. Sanders no doubt is a fan of both
Moore and Franken. Asshole to asshole you know.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 12:24 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message >...
.......

Blah, blah, blah! Yada, yada, yada!

(See B. Sanders message 37 in this thread if anyone is interested.)

Way too long B. Sanders. If you want me to read what you have written,
keep it short and on point. When you ramble you lose me.

I will not look at a single one of your references because I now have
it fixed in my mind that you are crazy as a loon.

But worse than your craziness are your ACLU credentials and at the
same time your championing of political correctness. The institutions
of higher education are full of your type and they have ruined
education in this country. You are beneath contempt in my book and the
worse kind of American. I will not engage in dialogue with you but I
will as always be delighted to call you names.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
October 10th 03, 01:12 AM
skip wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman can provide the confirmation you need if you are just itching to
> believe this (and it's obvious you are). Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more
> than once that the Bush family wealth came from Nazis....

No, I said some of the family wealth - which is different than what is
implied by the above statement made by Skip.

< http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.html >

Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 01:15 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message >...

> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> om...
.......

> > Know this B. Sanders. You are an ACLU type.
>
> Damned straight! You need to crack open a book at least once every decade
> or so, Ed. The ACLU is directly responsible for many of the landmark Supreme
> Court decisions protecting freedom of speech and expression that you hold so
> dear. Don't believe me? Look up the Supreme Court cases yourself. It's
> all there in the historical record, plain as day to those who don't just
> take Rush's word as gospel. So, yes, I'm emphatically an "ACLU type," and
> couldn't be more proud of it.
>
> Your profound illogic is utterly baffling: How can you in one breath slam
> the ACLU, and then out the other side of your mouth claim to love free
> speech? Who taught you this crazy illogic?

We were not disagreeing about "free speech" but about "political
correctness". They are not the same thing and are in fact opposed to
one another. How you can be for free speech and be for political
correctness marks you for an illogic nincompoop. Those who are for
political correctness want to limit free speech in effect.

The supreme court and ACLU types do not have any thing to do with the
issue of political correctness. But liberals sure do, and the
university professors sure do. And the media and the rest of society
follow their lead. It is only us conservatives who say to hell with
political correctness. That is because we are not afraid to discuss
anything, even if it does hurt some sensitivities.

Conservatives understand what democracy is about and liberals don't.
Their idea of democracy is that it is what we tell you it is. God help
us, the last thing they want to hear is from the people themselves.
Look at what happened in California. The people spoke and said to hell
with the Dems. Liberals hate this sort of thing when the people
actually make known what it is they want and not what it is that they
should want according to the liberal theology.

> > and you defend political
> > correctness.
>
> Did I *ever* defend political correctness? No.

Yes, you did. See your first post on this thread where you say we
cannot talk about race in this country because it is politically
incorrect. You gave every indication that you approved of it. You and
the university professors are cowards and you do not want to discuss
anything that will get people riled up and most especially you do not
want to discuss anything that might damage your liberal ideology. For
instance, no one in this country can do any research on race because
of the strictures of political correctness. What do you think of that?
Do you approve or disapprove? I think you are for political
correctness.

Your ACLU credentials are a separate matter altogether. What I hate
about the ACLU is that it is bent on destroying spirituality in this
country. There is no reason at all why there should not be public
expressions of spirituality. I am not religious at all myself, but I
recognize that it is good for people to be spiritual and to be able to
express that in public, including the schools. I am a secularist, but
I do not want to see the country become wholly secular. Spirituality
and religion are good for people and it is good for the country.

The ACLU is going against human nature, and the damn courts are
legislating morality in this country instead of strictly interpreting
the constitution and the laws. When liberals can't win at the polls,
they go to the ACLU and win in the courts with liberal judges. Now you
know why I hate the ACLU.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
October 10th 03, 01:20 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Hmmm...I knew when I wrote the word that it didn't look quite right. I
> think Algeciras might be a city in southern Spain. Well, I have to
> expect these little contretemps from time to time as I have already
> mentioned to you that I do not look up anything anymore since I
> retired as a university research librarian. Since you gave me the web
> page for it I am going to have a closer look at it and see just how
> screwed up it is.

The Kabul and Baghdad offices of Aljazeera are pretty screwed up since
they were deliberately attacked by the US (Aljazeera made it a point to
inform the US military of the locations of their offices to prevent
accidental bombings).

Tom Sherman

B. Sanders
October 10th 03, 01:46 AM
"skip" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
> <snip>
> > http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
> >
> > This one is shocking. I want to see a bit more factual background before
I
> > take it as fact; but I offer it for your consideration.
> >
> Tom Sherman can provide the confirmation you need if you are just itching
to
> believe this (and it's obvious you are).

Like any sensible person, I'll believe that which can be substantiated.
Everything else I'll take with a grain of salt, or disbelieve. The article
(did you read it?) is overflowing with extensive historical references. It's
quite a well-written piece; but there are no endnotes with specific
documentation. It's still a brilliant piece of writing, I just want to do a
little fact-checking before I start passing it off as fact.

Fact checking is something that arrogant Right Wing blowhards like Ann
Coulter and Rush Limbaugh apparently don't feel that they're required to do.
Can you blame them? The Deserter in Chief himself hides behind secrecy and
rhetorical gymnastics, and tons of free cover and disinformation campaigns
from the press, to keep from actually being called on the carpet about those
annoying little facts that should have informed his decisions (such as why,
when and where to send 110,000 troops off to unilateral war).

I don't see much substantive information coming out of Ed Dolan. He appears
to be a Rush Limbaugh fanboy/dittohead, and that's about all. He's just
like his hero: 95% heat, 5% light.

> Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more
> than once that the Bush family wealth came from Nazis.

About $3 million in the 1940's, from what I've read. There's a lot to this
story, and anybody who knows how to type "Bush Nazi" into Google can find a
treasure trove of articles on the subject.

> Did you know Michael Moore has a new book that's out now?

I know he's asking some difficult questions of the Deserter in Chief that,
frankly, need to be answered in no uncertain terms. My favorite Moore
question goes something like this: Why, Mr. President, did you allow a
private jet to fly all over the US on September 12, 2001, picking up 24
members of the Bin Laden family, before the FBI could interview them about
9/11? When *all* other private aircraft nationwide were officially grounded
(for reasons of national security), this lone airplane was allowed to fly
the Bin Ladens - business partners of the Bush family - safely away from the
investigation pf the single most devastating terrorist act ever conducted on
US soil, when their own close relative was a prime suspect (convicted and
sentenced to death without a trial, in fact). Why was this allowed to
happen?

This is a known fact, folks. This really happened, even though it's the
kind of thing that you have to read two or three times to believe what
you're reading. Only a few people in the US could have approved such a
flight on 9/12/01. Who approved it, and why, when the Bin Laden "rescue"
flight materially damaged an extremely important terrorism investigation of
highest importance to national security, and with far-reaching implications
for future world peace. Is this the same administration that vowed to "hunt
down" all of Bin Laden's followers? But we just let most of his family flee
the US secretly, and in comfort provided by their wealthy business partners.
How does this make sense?

-=B=-

B. Sanders
October 10th 03, 02:02 AM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
>...
> ......
>
> Blah, blah, blah! Yada, yada, yada!
>
> (See B. Sanders message 37 in this thread if anyone is interested.)
>
> Way too long B. Sanders. If you want me to read what you have written,
> keep it short and on point. When you ramble you lose me.

LOL! The Rush Limbaugh addict has no problem criticizing people (right out
of Rush's racist play book); but when it comes to actually *reading*, he
can't force himself to do it. Ed, you're just charicaturizing yourself more
and more with each post. Stop while you're ahead.

> I will not look at a single one of your references because I now have
> it fixed in my mind that you are crazy as a loon.

You've learned your lessons from Prof. Limbaugh very well. Who needs
reasonable thought and facts when you can just make up your mind and be done
with it? Rush never asks you to justify your beliefs - just as long as you
believe what he tells you. You're a good little minion.

> But worse than your craziness are your ACLU credentials and at the
> same time your championing of political correctness. The institutions
> of higher education are full of your type and they have ruined
> education in this country.

My type? You mean *educated* people that can *reason*?

> You are beneath contempt in my book

You have a book? Can you read it?

> and the
> worse kind of American.

Yes, educated people threaten the ignorant with actual knowledge. It's hard
to stand on flimsy beliefs when somebody knocks them right out from under
you with a truckload of facts. I can understand why you'd be so easily
threatened. That's why Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other despotic tyrants have
always rounded up the teachers, writers, professors and other intellectuals
and had them killed before attempting to brainwash the masses. It's much
easier to control people when everybody is ignorant like Ed. What's amazing
is when semi-educated people are re-programmed to distrust knowledge, and to
prefer unsupportable, hateful rhetoric from extremist blowhards (who are
also paid actors).

> I will not engage in dialogue with you but I
> will as always be delighted to call you names.

Ok, folks, Ed has just announced that he's a full-on troll. It was pretty
obvious. He's not here to debate - just to "call us names." He's a
weak-minded, pathetic loser. I pity him, but I won't feed him anymore.

<plonk>

skip
October 10th 03, 02:09 AM
"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> skip wrote:
> >
> > Tom Sherman can provide the confirmation you need if you are just
itching to
> > believe this (and it's obvious you are). Tom has posted on a.r.b.r.
more
> > than once that the Bush family wealth came from Nazis....
>
> No, I said some of the family wealth - which is different than what is
> implied by the above statement made by Skip.
>
I stand corrected......Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more than once that some
of the Bush family wealth came from Nazis.

skip

B. Sanders
October 10th 03, 02:30 AM
"bandjhughes" > wrote in message
m...
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message
>...
> > "brian hughes" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Screaming Nazi is nothing but being a troll and is synonymous with
> > > > > baiting. If your goal is to be a troll, you're being very
successful.
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to bait the weak minded, like yourself.
> > > >
> > > > > But if you want to be thought of as a person that has a sense of
> > > > > proportion and is rational--you're failing badly.
> > > >
> > > > In case you haven't noticed, the US is starting to smell a little
bit
> > like
> > a
> > > > fascist regime, not entirely unlike Germany in the late 1930's. Case
in
> > > > point: USA PATRIOT Act. Don't think Ashcroft is going to stop
there. He
> > has
> > > > big plans. I'm not the first person to make Nazi comparisons.
Several
> > world
> > > > leaders and uncounted journalists beat me to the punch. Germany in
the
> > > > 1930's was a democratic society in difficult fiancial straits which
> > allowed
> > > > a minor politician to rise to [dictatorial] power and begin a
> > > > hyper-nationalistic [and racist] conquest for global domination
after a
> > > > massive military build-up. There are many more parallels, including
the
> > > > underlying motivations for Germany's expansionism (and that of the
US).
> > >
> > > Wow, and here I thought you were just a troll that was unaware of his
own
> > > behavior. I'm sorry. I didn't realize how irrational a person like
you
> > can
> > > get. Guess I shouldn't given you the benefit of the doubt by
believing
> > you
> > > had some degree of mature rational thinking capability, because you
sure
> > > showed me I was wrong in assuming that.
> >
> > Keep your head in the sand. It's the Right thing to do.
> >
> > -=B=-
>
> The Right thing to do is use your head to think logically and
> rationally...

I don't see too many on the Right thinking logically. I see them indulging
in polarizing rhetoric and ignoring facts that inform rational thought and
logical action.

> not go off and make up or buy into ridiculous conspiracy
> theories

How many history scholars and newspaper journalists (over many decades) are
required to write about the Bush/Nazi connection before you will accept that
it actually happened? I understand there are quite a few white supremists
who still don't believe that the Holocaust actually happened. I wonder how
they explain all of those films?

> or derive faulty analogies based on pure emotional driven
> hatred of conservative politicians. You have Left any part of your
> head that is thinking and rational.

The Bush/Hitler/Nazi connection is fact. Did you read any of the articles
that I linked? There are dozens, possibly hundreds of articles on this
topic, some with dozens of factual citations. Just do a Google search for
"Bush Nazi" and you'll get plenty of sources to get you started.

> But it really is humorous how the rare individuals of your type feel
> that if someone else doesn't believe your loony conspiracy/Nazi crap,
> they're the ones that can't see. I guess to a crazy man, every else
> is seems crazy.

I guess attempting to discredit someone by calling them "crazy" and ignoring
facts staring you in the face is one way to keep from ever challenging your
own flimsy beliefs. This strategy seems to work very well for the Bush
regime. The entire world can disagree with them, and show them fact after
fact disproving their cherished beliefs, and it doesn't even faze them. They
continue unabated with their insane plans, altering their story as needed to
fit the available supportive facts, or making some up if none exist. What's
truly amazing is that US citizens can watch this happening before their very
eyes, and still believe that Bush & Co are qualified to lead the nation.

-=B=-

B. Sanders
October 10th 03, 04:34 AM
"skip" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > skip wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Sherman can provide the confirmation you need if you are just
> itching to
> > > believe this (and it's obvious you are). Tom has posted on a.r.b.r.
> more
> > > than once that the Bush family wealth came from Nazis....
> >
> > No, I said some of the family wealth - which is different than what is
> > implied by the above statement made by Skip.
> >
> I stand corrected......Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more than once that some
> of the Bush family wealth came from Nazis.

Tom has probably posted more than once about bikes having wheels, too -
another indisputable fact that is well documented. You don't have to
believe that bikes have wheels; but they do anyway (even though Limbaugh and
O'Reilly won't admit it).

-=B=-

Zippy the Pinhead
October 10th 03, 05:57 AM
On 9 Oct 2003 17:15:23 -0700, (Edward Dolan) wrote:


>
>We were not disagreeing about "free speech" but about "political
>correctness". They are not the same thing and are in fact opposed to
>one another. How you can be for free speech and be for political
>correctness marks you for an illogic nincompoop. Those who are for
>political correctness want to limit free speech in effect.

That's a fact, Jack.
No S**t, Sherlock.
Darn tootin', Rasputin.
WHAT HE SAID!!!

There are few elements in our society more intolerant than the
"politically correct". It's their way or the highway. Quote a
demographic statistic, and if they don't like it, it's a "stereotype".

Question the Emperor's new wardrobe, and you are sent to a special
penalty box, there to be marginalized.

They are the most tyrannical folks I've ever encountered.

skip
October 10th 03, 06:08 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message
news:bNphb.531025$Oz4.418756@rwcrnsc54...
>> "skip" > wrote in message
>> ...
> >
> > I stand corrected......Tom has posted on a.r.b.r. more than once that
some
> > of the Bush family wealth came from Nazis.
>
> Tom has probably posted more than once about bikes having wheels, too -
> another indisputable fact that is well documented. You don't have to
> believe that bikes have wheels; but they do anyway (even though Limbaugh
and
> O'Reilly won't admit it).
>
> -=B=-
>
Well Barry, you know now that you mention it I don't recall either Limbaugh
or O'Reilly ever admiting that bicycles have wheels. That should give us
all something to pause and think about.

skip

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 08:52 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
.......

> The Kabul and Baghdad offices of Aljazeera are pretty screwed up since
> they were deliberately attacked by the US (Aljazeera made it a point to
> inform the US military of the locations of their offices to prevent
> accidental bombings).
>
> Tom Sherman

Well, if those offices were bombed then that is a case of serendipity.
All I could ever gather from those excerpts of theirs that were
reported on in our media was that they were not on our side.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 09:52 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<yynhb.724518$uu5.121123@sccrnsc04>...
.......

> Yes, educated people threaten the ignorant with actual knowledge. It's hard
> to stand on flimsy beliefs when somebody knocks them right out from under
> you with a truckload of facts. I can understand why you'd be so easily
> threatened. That's why Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other despotic tyrants have
> always rounded up the teachers, writers, professors and other intellectuals
> and had them killed before attempting to brainwash the masses. It's much
> easier to control people when everybody is ignorant like Ed. What's amazing
> is when semi-educated people are re-programmed to distrust knowledge, and to
> prefer unsupportable, hateful rhetoric from extremist blowhards (who are
> also paid actors).

All those despotic tyrants you list above were of the intellectual
class and were surrounded by intellectuals. That didn't save any of
them in the end. Intellectuals always turn on those who are closest to
them because of distrust and fear. But it was the intellectuals who
brain washed the masses into communism (Lenin). And then they had to
run a propaganda machine and a murder machine full time in order to
keep the masses in line. But I am surprised you have mentioned
Communists instead of your usual favorite examples, the Fascists and
the Nazis. Apparently, by now, even the Communists have been
sufficiently discredited so that it is safe to mention them. Maybe you
aren't as dumb after all as your fellow liberals.

The universe is full of facts. Why should I pay any attention to your
selected facts? You have already proven to me that you are an idiot.
So it is safe to assume that all your facts are idiotic too. No, I
have better things to do than pay any attention to your references.
Mr. Sherman has some credibility with me so I will occasionally follow
his references. But I would have to be as stupid as you are to follow
your references.

You are making yourself look like the fool that you are by taking
after poor old Rushdie like you do. He does his thing in his own
modest way and is a gentleman and a scholar. The only clown and bad
actor present is yourself. You actually seem rabid to me. I wonder,
are you frothing at the mouth?

> > I will not engage in dialogue with you but I will as always be delighted > >to call you names.
>
> Ok, folks, Ed has just announced that he's a full-on troll. It was pretty
> obvious. He's not here to debate - just to "call us names." He's a
> weak-minded, pathetic loser. I pity him, but I won't feed him anymore.

Well, I am certainly not here to debate with an ACLU type and a
political correctness type. We conservatives have our standards below
which we will not stoop. But he is welcome to come back any old time
if and when he can get his head screwed on straight. The moral of this
little tale of woe is never, no never, challenge an ACLU type or a
political correctness type. They are very brittle and go all to pieces
if you even look at them cross eyed.

By the way, I only call those names who deserve to be called names. 9
out of 10 times it is because they have called me a name first. But I
will admit, if someone says something amazingly stupid, it is possible
that I could call such a someone a name out of sheer exasperation.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 10:30 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<Ejnhb.77164$%h1.68513@sccrnsc02>...
.......

> Fact checking is something that arrogant Right Wing blowhards like Ann
> Coulter and Rush Limbaugh apparently don't feel that they're required to do.
> Can you blame them? The Deserter in Chief himself hides behind secrecy and
> rhetorical gymnastics, and tons of free cover and disinformation campaigns
> from the press, to keep from actually being called on the carpet about those
> annoying little facts that should have informed his decisions (such as why,
> when and where to send 110,000 troops off to unilateral war).

Here is an idiot who is infatuated with "facts". But as anyone can so
plainly see, facts must be irrelevant because he does not possess an
intelligent thought about anything. I think from his example we could
all learn to develop a certain contempt for so called "facts".
Obviously, in his case, they do no good at all.

Don't we wish we could all write like Ann Coulter? She is funny and
witty and yet makes her serious points with a minimum of words. There
are plenty of facts there but they are discounted when we disagree
with the conclusions reached. Just liked I am doing with this nut B.
Sanders. But I have the foresight not to take any of his facts
seriously to begin with. That saves a lot of time and effort. I mean,
I certainly would not want to end up thinking like how he thinks about
things.

> I don't see much substantive information coming out of Ed Dolan. He appears
> to be a Rush Limbaugh fanboy/dittohead, and that's about all. He's just
> like his hero: 95% heat, 5% light.

I am providing opinion not "facts". Go to an encyclopedia or some
other reference source if you want facts. I am not your nanny to
provide you with facts. Get them on your own. And then lets hear what
you have to say based on your absorption of your facts. So far I have
not heard one sensible thing out of you.
.......

> > Did you know Michael Moore has a new book that's out now?
>
> I know he's asking some difficult questions of the Deserter in Chief that,
> frankly, need to be answered in no uncertain terms. My favorite Moore
> question goes something like this: Why, Mr. President, did you allow a
> private jet to fly all over the US on September 12, 2001, picking up 24
> members of the Bin Laden family, before the FBI could interview them about
> 9/11? When *all* other private aircraft nationwide were officially grounded
> (for reasons of national security), this lone airplane was allowed to fly
> the Bin Ladens - business partners of the Bush family - safely away from the
> investigation pf the single most devastating terrorist act ever conducted on
> US soil, when their own close relative was a prime suspect (convicted and
> sentenced to death without a trial, in fact). Why was this allowed to
> happen?
>
> This is a known fact, folks. This really happened, even though it's the
> kind of thing that you have to read two or three times to believe what
> you're reading. Only a few people in the US could have approved such a
> flight on 9/12/01. Who approved it, and why, when the Bin Laden "rescue"
> flight materially damaged an extremely important terrorism investigation of
> highest importance to national security, and with far-reaching implications
> for future world peace. Is this the same administration that vowed to "hunt
> down" all of Bin Laden's followers? But we just let most of his family flee
> the US secretly, and in comfort provided by their wealthy business partners.
> How does this make sense?

See, I told you that this "fact" based nut is an idiot. Does any one
seriously believe for a single moment that such a story could exist
and not be front page news in the liberal media? Of course not. This
Michael Moore is one of the biggest clowns ever to come down the pike.
And here is this character B. Sanders paying attention to him.

But no, I am demeaning myself by paying any mind at all to this
supreme screwball B. Sanders. Although I have never kill filed anyone,
I am going to think long and hard before I ever respond to anything
this moron ever writes again.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 10th 03, 10:42 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<0Znhb.724684$uu5.121121@sccrnsc04>...

> "bandjhughes" > wrote in message
> m...

> > But it really is humorous how the rare individuals of your type feel
> > that if someone else doesn't believe your loony conspiracy/Nazi crap,
> > they're the ones that can't see. I guess to a crazy man, every else
> > is seems crazy.
>
> I guess attempting to discredit someone by calling them "crazy" and ignoring
> facts staring you in the face is one way to keep from ever challenging your
> own flimsy beliefs. This strategy seems to work very well for the Bush
> regime. The entire world can disagree with them, and show them fact after
> fact disproving their cherished beliefs, and it doesn't even faze them. They
> continue unabated with their insane plans, altering their story as needed to
> fit the available supportive facts, or making some up if none exist. What's
> truly amazing is that US citizens can watch this happening before their very
> eyes, and still believe that Bush & Co are qualified to lead the nation.
>
> -=B=-

Nothing but a Bush Hater. Pathetic really. And the reason why Bush is
going to win big in the next go round. I mean, who would want to be
associated with this kind of thinking. It would be merciful if someone
would put him out of his misery. B. Sanders need a good long vacation
in ... how about France!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

B. Sanders
October 10th 03, 04:34 PM
"Zippy the Pinhead" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On 9 Oct 2003 17:15:23 -0700, (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >
> >We were not disagreeing about "free speech" but about "political
> >correctness". They are not the same thing and are in fact opposed to
> >one another. How you can be for free speech and be for political
> >correctness marks you for an illogic nincompoop. Those who are for
> >political correctness want to limit free speech in effect.
>
> That's a fact, Jack.
> No S**t, Sherlock.
> Darn tootin', Rasputin.
> WHAT HE SAID!!!
>
> There are few elements in our society more intolerant than the
> "politically correct". It's their way or the highway.

Sounds exactly like Christianity to me; but I don't hear you complaining
about their intolerance.

> Quote a
> demographic statistic, and if they don't like it, it's a "stereotype".

Quote some facts that disagree with the Bible, and some knee-jerk
fundamentalist Christians will eject you so fast you'll splatter against the
wall.

> Question the Emperor's new wardrobe, and you are sent to a special
> penalty box, there to be marginalized.

There was no Creation. Jesus was mortal. There is no afterlife. Heaven is
a fairy story for the weak minded. Do you think I can stand up at Atty.
General Ashcroft's Pentecostal church and start loudly proclaiming these
kinds of statements without any repercussions? I don't think so. I'd be
bouncing off the curb.

> They are the most tyrannical folks I've ever encountered.

They're exercising their rights to freedom of expression, just like you.

I hate to be the one to tell you this: You don't live in a vacuum. If a
group of Americans wants to eject you from their social group because you
offend them, they are free do so. You are free to protest; but you don't
have the *right* to be granted acceptance. You can't just go around
offending everyone and then expect them to be happy about it. Americans
have the right to be intolerant of your attitudes. They *don't* have the
right to restrict your expression (in public places).

This is one of the reasons why the reduction in public spaces is becoming a
big problem: If all spaces are private, then free expression (namely,
protest) becomes a moot point, since private land/space is governed by
different laws than public spaces.

-=B=-

Tom Sherman
October 11th 03, 01:01 AM
"B. Sanders" wrote:
>
> "Zippy the Pinhead" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > On 9 Oct 2003 17:15:23 -0700, (Edward Dolan) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >We were not disagreeing about "free speech" but about "political
> > >correctness". They are not the same thing and are in fact opposed to
> > >one another. How you can be for free speech and be for political
> > >correctness marks you for an illogic nincompoop. Those who are for
> > >political correctness want to limit free speech in effect.
> >
> > That's a fact, Jack.
> > No S**t, Sherlock.
> > Darn tootin', Rasputin.
> > WHAT HE SAID!!!
> >
> > There are few elements in our society more intolerant than the
> > "politically correct". It's their way or the highway.
>
> Sounds exactly like Christianity to me; but I don't hear you complaining
> about their intolerance....

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
so unlike your Christ. - Mohandas Gandhi

It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to
believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of
Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice. - Mohandas Gandhi

Tom Sherman

Christopher Jordan
October 11th 03, 02:32 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<rkAhb.535126$cF.207096@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> > That's a fact, Jack.
> > No S**t, Sherlock.
> > Darn tootin', Rasputin.
> > WHAT HE SAID!!!
>

WRONG GROUP; DON'T ANSWER.

Edward Dolan
October 13th 03, 05:45 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<rkAhb.535126$cF.207096@rwcrnsc53>...
.......

> I hate to be the one to tell you this: You don't live in a vacuum. If a
> group of Americans wants to eject you from their social group because you
> offend them, they are free do so. You are free to protest; but you don't
> have the *right* to be granted acceptance. You can't just go around
> offending everyone and then expect them to be happy about it. Americans
> have the right to be intolerant of your attitudes. They *don't* have the
> right to restrict your expression (in public places).

B. Sanders can speak from personal experience with me about what he
says above. For instance, I have ejected him from any group I would
ever be associated with and I do not accept him because of his liberal
views, his ACLU views and his political correctness views. He is
anathema and persona non grata to me. I sure am glad that I have this
"right".

> This is one of the reasons why the reduction in public spaces is becoming a
> big problem: If all spaces are private, then free expression (namely,
> protest) becomes a moot point, since private land/space is governed by
> different laws than public spaces.

I am not in favor of the publics spaces becoming the private
playground for groups of nuts and screwballs protesting everything
under the sun either. Let them hire a private space and have their
protest. The public spaces (the streets and squares) do not belong to
the "public" strictly speaking anymore than private spaces do. You
should have to receive permission from the appropriate authorities to
hold a meeting or protest or whatever in a public space. Another way
of looking at it is that the public spaces belong to all equally and
therefore cannot be reserved for any special group for any purpose
whatever, again not without the required permission. Don't be so
cheap. Hire a hall and have your f*cking protest there.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 13th 03, 06:01 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
.......

> I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
> so unlike your Christ. - Mohandas Gandhi

This coming from one of the failed leaders of the most screwed up
countries in the world on religious matters. India is and always has
been a graveyard for failed religions. What an absurdity!

> It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to
> believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of
> Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice. - Mohandas Gandhi

Mr. Sherman, I strongly suspect, is not a Christian at all and has no
liking for Christ either. But he knows most conservatives do and so he
posts his little sermons. The Democratic Party is the Party of Peace
and they can run on that message in the next general election, even
though we are at war with the terrorists and the rogue states that
harbor and support them. Just like a liberal to cry peace, peace, when
there is no peace!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 13th 03, 06:11 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<rkAhb.535126$cF.207096@rwcrnsc53>...
.......

> I hate to be the one to tell you this: You don't live in a vacuum. If a
> group of Americans wants to eject you from their social group because you
> offend them, they are free do so. You are free to protest; but you don't
> have the *right* to be granted acceptance. You can't just go around
> offending everyone and then expect them to be happy about it. Americans
> have the right to be intolerant of your attitudes. They *don't* have the
> right to restrict your expression (in public places).

B. Sanders can speak from personal experience with me about what he
says above. For instance, I have ejected him from any group I would
ever be associated with and I do not accept him because of his liberal
views, his ACLU views and his political correctness views. He is
anathema and persona non grata to me. I sure am glad that I have this
"right".

> This is one of the reasons why the reduction in public spaces is becoming a
> big problem: If all spaces are private, then free expression (namely,
> protest) becomes a moot point, since private land/space is governed by
> different laws than public spaces.

I am not in favor of the publics spaces becoming the private
playground for groups of nuts and screwballs protesting everything
under the sun either. Let them hire a private space and have their
protest. The public spaces (the streets and squares) do not belong to
the "public" strictly speaking anymore than private spaces do. You
should have to receive permission from the appropriate authorities to
hold a meeting or protest or whatever in a public space. Another way
of looking at it is that the public spaces belong to all equally and
therefore cannot be reserved for any special group for any purpose
whatever, again not without the required permission. Don't be so
cheap. Hire a hall and have your f*cking protest there.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 13th 03, 06:14 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
.......

> I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are
> so unlike your Christ. - Mohandas Gandhi

This coming from one of the failed leaders of the most screwed up
countries in the world on religious matters. India is and always has
been a graveyard for failed religions. What an absurdity!

> It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to
> believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of
> Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice. - Mohandas Gandhi

Mr. Sherman, I strongly suspect, is not a Christian at all and has no
liking for Christ either. But he knows most conservatives do and so he
posts his little sermons. The Democratic Party is the Party of Peace
and they can run on that message in the next general election, even
though we are at war with the terrorists and the rogue states that
harbor and support them. Just like a liberal to cry peace, peace, when
there is no peace!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
October 13th 03, 10:46 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<rkAhb.535126$cF.207096@rwcrnsc53>...
> ......
>
> > I hate to be the one to tell you this: You don't live in a vacuum. If a
> > group of Americans wants to eject you from their social group because you
> > offend them, they are free do so. You are free to protest; but you don't
> > have the *right* to be granted acceptance. You can't just go around
> > offending everyone and then expect them to be happy about it. Americans
> > have the right to be intolerant of your attitudes. They *don't* have the
> > right to restrict your expression (in public places).
>
> B. Sanders can speak from personal experience with me about what he
> says above. For instance, I have ejected him from any group I would
> ever be associated with and I do not accept him because of his liberal
> views, his ACLU views and his political correctness views. He is
> anathema and persona non grata to me. I sure am glad that I have this
> "right".
>
> > This is one of the reasons why the reduction in public spaces is becoming a
> > big problem: If all spaces are private, then free expression (namely,
> > protest) becomes a moot point, since private land/space is governed by
> > different laws than public spaces.
>
> I am not in favor of the publics spaces becoming the private
> playground for groups of nuts and screwballs protesting everything
> under the sun either. Let them hire a private space and have their
> protest. The public spaces (the streets and squares) do not belong to
> the "public" strictly speaking anymore than private spaces do. You
> should have to receive permission from the appropriate authorities to
> hold a meeting or protest or whatever in a public space. Another way
> of looking at it is that the public spaces belong to all equally and
> therefore cannot be reserved for any special group for any purpose
> whatever, again not without the required permission. Don't be so
> cheap. Hire a hall and have your f*cking protest there.

And the ANGRY WHITE MAN AWARD goes to Mr. Edward Dolan of Minnesota.

Tom Sherman

"Attack all dissenting views as treason" - Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering

Tom Sherman
October 13th 03, 10:52 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> "B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<rkAhb.535126$cF.207096@rwcrnsc53>...
> ......
>
> > I hate to be the one to tell you this: You don't live in a vacuum. If a
> > group of Americans wants to eject you from their social group because you
> > offend them, they are free do so. You are free to protest; but you don't
> > have the *right* to be granted acceptance. You can't just go around
> > offending everyone and then expect them to be happy about it. Americans
> > have the right to be intolerant of your attitudes. They *don't* have the
> > right to restrict your expression (in public places).
>
> B. Sanders can speak from personal experience with me about what he
> says above. For instance, I have ejected him from any group I would
> ever be associated with and I do not accept him because of his liberal
> views, his ACLU views and his political correctness views. He is
> anathema and persona non grata to me. I sure am glad that I have this
> "right".
>
> > This is one of the reasons why the reduction in public spaces is becoming a
> > big problem: If all spaces are private, then free expression (namely,
> > protest) becomes a moot point, since private land/space is governed by
> > different laws than public spaces.
>
> I am not in favor of the publics spaces becoming the private
> playground for groups of nuts and screwballs protesting everything
> under the sun either. Let them hire a private space and have their
> protest. The public spaces (the streets and squares) do not belong to
> the "public" strictly speaking anymore than private spaces do. You
> should have to receive permission from the appropriate authorities to
> hold a meeting or protest or whatever in a public space. Another way
> of looking at it is that the public spaces belong to all equally and
> therefore cannot be reserved for any special group for any purpose
> whatever, again not without the required permission. Don't be so
> cheap. Hire a hall and have your f*cking protest there.

Now Mr. Dolan is up to 26 minutes between his neo-fascist rantings. Let
us just throw out the 1st Amendment. [1]

[1] Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Tom Sherman

skip
October 13th 03, 04:18 PM
"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

> And the ANGRY WHITE MAN AWARD goes to Mr. Edward Dolan of Minnesota.
>
Good call on that one Tom.

Who gets your WIMPY WHITE MAN AWARD?

skip

Tom Sherman
October 14th 03, 12:42 AM
skip wrote:
>
> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>
> > And the ANGRY WHITE MAN AWARD goes to Mr. Edward Dolan of Minnesota.
> >
> Good call on that one Tom.
>
> Who gets your WIMPY WHITE MAN AWARD?

Fabrizio Mazzoleni, since he is too cowed by peer pressure to admit that
he really wants a recumbent - preferably one with a bodysock. ;)

Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers

Edward Dolan
October 14th 03, 03:43 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Gee, Mr. Dolan posted the exact same message 13 minutes apart. Quantity
> over quality.
>
> Tom Sherman

My Google posting remains messed up. I think I will have to start
using my Outlook Express newsgroup posting instead.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 14th 03, 03:49 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > "B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<rkAhb.535126$cF.207096@rwcrnsc53>...
> > ......
> >
> > > I hate to be the one to tell you this: You don't live in a vacuum. If a
> > > group of Americans wants to eject you from their social group because you
> > > offend them, they are free do so. You are free to protest; but you don't
> > > have the *right* to be granted acceptance. You can't just go around
> > > offending everyone and then expect them to be happy about it. Americans
> > > have the right to be intolerant of your attitudes. They *don't* have the
> > > right to restrict your expression (in public places).
> >
> > B. Sanders can speak from personal experience with me about what he
> > says above. For instance, I have ejected him from any group I would
> > ever be associated with and I do not accept him because of his liberal
> > views, his ACLU views and his political correctness views. He is
> > anathema and persona non grata to me. I sure am glad that I have this
> > "right".
> >
> > > This is one of the reasons why the reduction in public spaces is becoming a
> > > big problem: If all spaces are private, then free expression (namely,
> > > protest) becomes a moot point, since private land/space is governed by
> > > different laws than public spaces.
> >
> > I am not in favor of the publics spaces becoming the private
> > playground for groups of nuts and screwballs protesting everything
> > under the sun either. Let them hire a private space and have their
> > protest. The public spaces (the streets and squares) do not belong to
> > the "public" strictly speaking anymore than private spaces do. You
> > should have to receive permission from the appropriate authorities to
> > hold a meeting or protest or whatever in a public space. Another way
> > of looking at it is that the public spaces belong to all equally and
> > therefore cannot be reserved for any special group for any purpose
> > whatever, again not without the required permission. Don't be so
> > cheap. Hire a hall and have your f*cking protest there.
>
> Now Mr. Dolan is up to 26 minutes between his neo-fascist rantings. Let
> us just throw out the 1st Amendment. [1]
>
> [1] Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Tom Sherman

There is nothing in the quotation above that says anything about the
right of the public to use public spaces for protesting. Let the
"people " assemble in their private halls which they have rented for
that purpose. Why give over the streets to the rabble?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 14th 03, 04:11 AM
"skip" > wrote in message >...

> "Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>
> > And the ANGRY WHITE MAN AWARD goes to Mr. Edward Dolan of Minnesota.
> >
> Good call on that one Tom.
>
> Who gets your WIMPY WHITE MAN AWARD?
>
> skip

Where does White come into any of this? Mr. Sherman has injected race
into this because most liberals are at bottom racists. The day is not
far off when Blacks will realize that the Dems are the worst thing
that has ever happened to them. But he is right about one thing: I am
angry at the g.d. liberals for being the treasonous SOBs that they are
with respect to the war on terrorism and the rogue states that harbor
and support them. I just can't wait for the 2004 general election to
teach them a lesson that they will never recover from.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
October 14th 03, 07:28 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Where does White come into any of this? Mr. Sherman has injected race
> into this because most liberals are at bottom racists. The day is not
> far off when Blacks will realize that the Dems are the worst thing
> that has ever happened to them. But he is right about one thing: I am
> angry at the g.d. liberals for being the treasonous SOBs that they are
> with respect to the war on terrorism and the rogue states that harbor
> and support them. I just can't wait for the 2004 general election to
> teach them a lesson that they will never recover from.

That those who own the electronic voting machines [1] control the
election results?

[1] Republican, in the cases of the three major US suppliers of
electronic voting machines.

Tom Sherman

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Edward Dolan
October 15th 03, 02:19 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:

> > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> > > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> > > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> > >
> > > Tom Sherman
> >
> > There is nothing in the quotation above that says anything about the
> > right of the public to use public spaces for protesting. Let the
> > "people " assemble in their private halls which they have rented for
> > that purpose. Why give over the streets to the rabble?
>
> Mr. Dolan,
>
> The right to protest is an inherent "American" value, and to suggest
> that public protests should be quashed is un-American.
>
> Maybe you would be happier in Singapore. They have a very orderly
> society that is also almost free of corruption [1] and other crime.
>
> [1] < http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2003/cpi2003.en.html >
>
> Tom Sherman

The streets do not belong to the rabble. They belong to everyone
equally, and therefore they do not belong to any one individual or
group. You must get permission from the authorities to hold your
f*cking protests in the streets and squares of America. The idea that
any one can go on the streets and hold a demonstration is not in the
Constitution. It ought to be illegal to do so and we would have a much
better country if it were so.

Singapore, the little I know about it, has probably got it about
right. Freedom without order is bedlam. Only anarchists want it that
way.

> What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
> from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance. -
> Thomas Jefferson

This is accomplished by elections, not by demonstrations and rioting
in the streets.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

stratrider
October 15th 03, 12:26 PM
> Mr. Sherman, I strongly suspect, is not a Christian at all and has no
> liking for Christ either.

Ed, I think you can take that to the bank. I might further suggest
the following profile about Mr. Sherman.

Aetheist or Agnostic
Unmarried (perhaps divorced)
Educated (MS, MA or PHD)
No children
Born to well off, conservative parents

Tom, how'd I do?

GeoB
October 15th 03, 08:45 PM
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Tom Sherman

> There is nothing in the quotation above that says anything about the
> right of the public to use public spaces for protesting.

Ed, if you truly honestly believe what you just wrote, and you didn't
write it just to stir things up, and if other 'conservatives' believe
and reason the way you do, Heaven help our democracy.

> Why give over the streets to the rabble?

'rabble'? Sounds like the aristocracy in Russia before the
revolution. Who gets to define 'rabble'? The republicans?

So often you talk about 'order' and getting 'permission' from the
government. WHY should I get permission from the government for
things that are expressly defined as my own already? WE are the
government, WE own the country, not some god-like entity called
'Government'. Government is to serve us, in specific ways, not become
our guardian! Makes me sick, the way our citizens hand over their
heritage to the government. If our freedom is gone, it won't be
because someone took it, it is because we simply gave it away, or
walked away from it.

GeoB

PS And why do we call them 'conservatives' when they want to root
through the North Slope wildlife refuge, despoiling and destroying, in
search of more oil?

Tom Sherman
October 15th 03, 11:51 PM
GeoB wrote:
>
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > Tom Sherman
>
> > There is nothing in the quotation above that says anything about the
> > right of the public to use public spaces for protesting.
>
> Ed, if you truly honestly believe what you just wrote, and you didn't
> write it just to stir things up, and if other 'conservatives' believe
> and reason the way you do, Heaven help our democracy.
>
> > Why give over the streets to the rabble?
>
> 'rabble'? Sounds like the aristocracy in Russia before the
> revolution. Who gets to define 'rabble'? The republicans?

The Romanov's knew how to deal with dissent - unleash the political
police on the peaceful protestors. The events of January 9th, 1905 [1]
did lead to the end of the Romanov dynasty 12 years later.

> So often you talk about 'order' and getting 'permission' from the
> government. WHY should I get permission from the government for
> things that are expressly defined as my own already? WE are the
> government, WE own the country, not some god-like entity called
> 'Government'. Government is to serve us, in specific ways, not become
> our guardian! Makes me sick, the way our citizens hand over their
> heritage to the government. If our freedom is gone, it won't be
> because someone took it, it is because we simply gave it away, or
> walked away from it.
>
> GeoB
>
> PS And why do we call them 'conservatives' when they want to root
> through the North Slope wildlife refuge, despoiling and destroying, in
> search of more oil?

They are reactionaries, not conservatives. Real conservatives are
environmentalists, but are being pushed to the margins or forced out of
the Republican Party, e.g. Senator Jim Jeffords, VT.

[1] < http://artsci.shu.edu/reesp/documents/bloodysunday.htm >

Tom Sherman

Tom Sherman
October 15th 03, 11:53 PM
stratrider wrote:
>
> > Mr. Sherman, I strongly suspect, is not a Christian at all and has no
> > liking for Christ either.
>
> Ed, I think you can take that to the bank. I might further suggest
> the following profile about Mr. Sherman.
>
> Aetheist or Agnostic

No comment.

> Unmarried (perhaps divorced)

Never married.

> Educated (MS, MA or PHD)

MSCE

> No children

Thankfully.

> Born to well off, conservative parents

Not even close.

> Tom, how'd I do?

3-1-1

Tom Sherman

"Poverty is the worst form of violence" - Mohandas Gandhi

Edward Dolan
October 16th 03, 02:02 AM
(GeoB) wrote in message >...

> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> >
> > Tom Sherman
>
> > There is nothing in the quotation above that says anything about the
> > right of the public to use public spaces for protesting.
>
> Ed, if you truly honestly believe what you just wrote, and you didn't
> write it just to stir things up, and if other 'conservatives' believe
> and reason the way you do, Heaven help our democracy.
>
> > Why give over the streets to the rabble?
>
> 'rabble'? Sounds like the aristocracy in Russia before the
> revolution. Who gets to define 'rabble'? The republicans?
>
> So often you talk about 'order' and getting 'permission' from the
> government. WHY should I get permission from the government for
> things that are expressly defined as my own already? WE are the
> government, WE own the country, not some god-like entity called
> 'Government'. Government is to serve us, in specific ways, not become
> our guardian! Makes me sick, the way our citizens hand over their
> heritage to the government. If our freedom is gone, it won't be
> because someone took it, it is because we simply gave it away, or
> walked away from it.

GeoB, I lived through the 60's when the hippies and yippies (or
whatever else they called themselves) were making a total nuisance of
themselves on the streets and squares of America. I should think we
all could have learned something from that experience. There is no one
who cherishes more than I the right to protest but that does not mean
that the public spaces are available for that purpose. There is not a
square inch of ground in this entire country that is not being
responsibly administered and owned by the proper authorities. I say
let protest flourish, but let it flourish in the proper venues. Bedlam
and disorder is the mortal enemy of democracy. That is why I hate
anarchists and libertarians. Without civil order, you have nothing.

> GeoB
>
> PS And why do we call them 'conservatives' when they want to root
> through the North Slope wildlife refuge, despoiling and destroying, in
> search of more oil?

I am 100% in favor of leaving the North Slope the way it is. You are
painting conservatives in way too broad a brush. We conservatives (at
least this conservative) want to preserve nature at all costs. There
is so little of it left. I do disagree with Rush Limbaugh and others
who make light of environmental concerns. You and I are on the same
page here.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 16th 03, 02:21 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
.......

> The Romanov's knew how to deal with dissent - unleash the political
> police on the peaceful protesters. The events of January 9th, 1905 [1]
> did lead to the end of the Romanov dynasty 12 years later.
.......

> They are reactionaries, not conservatives. Real conservatives are
> environmentalists, but are being pushed to the margins or forced out of
> the Republican Party, e.g. Senator Jim Jeffords, VT.
>
> [1] < http://artsci.shu.edu/reesp/documents/bloodysunday.htm >
>
> Tom Sherman

I do agree with you that "real conservatives" are environmentalists. I
remember William F. Buckley many years ago saying that exact same
thing. Unfortunately, however, he and other conservatives are not
really environmentalists. I have never understood the conservative
penchant for always wanting to exploit the environment to the max.

The Russian experience is not comparable to the American experience.
The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down the Kent State
students in the streets. It was the decisive morality lesson for all
Americans that the streets do not belong to the rabble. Mr. Sherman
needs to keep in mind that the American government is a democracy, not
an autocracy like the Russian government of the Czars. Apples and
oranges!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
October 16th 03, 02:44 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> I am 100% in favor of leaving the North Slope the way it is. You are
> painting conservatives in way too broad a brush. We conservatives (at
> least this conservative) want to preserve nature at all costs. There
> is so little of it left. I do disagree with Rush Limbaugh and others
> who make light of environmental concerns. You and I are on the same
> page here.

A program of increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy source
production in the US would lead to increased security by removing the
dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. It would also allow the
US government to tell the extremist and terrorist funding Saudis to take
the oil and (fill in the blank with your rude suggestion of choice). It
would create many jobs and be a huge economic stimulus. Air pollution
would also decrease significantly.

Decreased emissions of greenhouse gasses, improved US security, improved
respiratory health, and an improved economy - what is there not to like?

Unfortunately, too many in power have too much to gain in short term
profits from the hydrocarbon extraction industry. There is also the lack
or real leadership (in both major parties) to sell such a program to the
US public. (They do not want to touch anything that can not be promoted
in a 30-second sound bite).

Tom Sherman

"We have arrived at our present position of peril in the world and at
home because our leaders have refused to tell us the truth… If the
Republic is to survive, we must find and follow new leaders." - Barry
Goldwater

RICH WESTERMAN
October 16th 03, 04:13 AM
> The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down the Kent State
> students in the streets. It was the decisive morality lesson for all
> Americans that the streets do not belong to the rabble. >
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota



Ed, do you have children?

Those were kids, Ed. Not rabble. They were peacefully objecting to a war
that was undeniably controversial.

Shame on you, Ed.

stratrider
October 16th 03, 11:32 AM
> Born to well off, conservative parents
>
Tom, I had you pegged for a guilt ridden rich kid. Guess I really blew that one.

Jim

Edward Dolan
October 17th 03, 12:22 AM
"RICH WESTERMAN" > wrote in message >...

> > The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down the Kent State
> > students in the streets. It was the decisive morality lesson for all
> > Americans that the streets do not belong to the rabble. >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota

>
> Ed, do you have children?
>
> Those were kids, Ed. Not rabble. They were peacefully objecting to a war
> that was undeniably controversial.
>
> Shame on you, Ed.

Rich, I do not consider college age people to be "kids". I do make
some allowances for them however because I know they had been
brainwashed by their professors. Nevertheless, there is no excuse in a
democracy for taking to the streets. Maybe the people of St.
Petersburg in 1905 had to do that as they were living under an
autocratic government (the Czars). Mr. Sherman dredged up that
example, not I.

There is no greater threat to our democratic institutions than people
of whatever age taking to the streets. Such uprisings must always be
put down with whatever force is necessary. All the streets of America
should be safe enough at all times for little old ladies to walk down
them unmolested and unharmed. That is how safe and secure I want
America to be.

The Vietnam question was settled in the halls of Congress. What was
taking place on the streets was a distraction and an abomination. As
far as I am concerned, no one, but no one, has a right to protest in
the streets.

By the way, there is no such thing as "peacefully objecting" in the
streets. There is always an element of coercion and force involved in
commandeering the streets.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

GeoB
October 17th 03, 04:19 AM
> > I am 100% in favor of leaving the North Slope the way it is. You are
> > painting conservatives in way too broad a brush.

Sorry, I wuz being a bit prejudiced, eh? I am glad to hear that you
feel that way.

> Decreased emissions of greenhouse gasses, improved US security, improved
> respiratory health, and an improved economy - what is there not to like?

Exactly.

> Unfortunately, too many in power have too much to gain
> in short term profits from the hydrocarbon extraction
> industry.

We been bought and sold.

> There is also the lack or real leadership (in both major
> parties) to sell such a program to the US public.

The ruling ants will produce just enough leadership to keep us aphids
at work producing honey-dew.

> (They do not want to touch anything that can not
> be promoted in a 30-second sound bite).

I have been horrified to discover how astonishingly small is the
critical thinking ability/desire of the average amerikan. This may
sound like self-congratulation.. but NO.. that is what makes it so
bad.. I say this with my limitations in mind.

I was the regional head of a successful initiative-proposal bill
(proposition). It was IIRC the Prop 17, about 15 years ago, in
California. I had an informational booth set up in a busy shopping
mall. The previous night the Dept of Fish and Game had their
'scientists' on TV to explain why it would be bad to ban the *trophy*
hunting of mtn lions. It was full of spin, lies, half-truths and
self-serving pontifications. They neglected to tell the audience that
they officially see their mission as providing game for the hunters
who buy hunting licenses, which funds the DFG. They didn't tell how
they felt that they should manage all of our wildlife.. not in a
manner to preserve a food chain in as original condition as possible
(Somehow, I felt that all Americans should have a voice in how our
wildlands were managed, not just those who buy a license), but to turn
the public land into farms for selected species[1]. Mostly deer of
course. Natchurley, they didn't say how incensed it made them for
citizens to tell THEM how to do their jobs.

Now, to a degree, this makes sense.. but not so dang much of our land.
The problem is that this impacts so many of our original species of
plants and animals that must be present to make up a healthy forest.

What disturbed me was the number of people who wanted to either debate
me with NO other knowledge than what they had picked up the night
before on TV or the number that wouldn't talk about it, saying, "We
know all about it". <sigh>

I wasn't properly impressed when they cited the DFG as their source,
as though it was unassailable.

People are stupid.

[1] The USFS has managed their forests in a similar manner, turning
them into giant tree-farms, growing mostly only commercially-valuable
trees. They don't go around planting 'trash-trees' like the Black Oak
(the western Quercus kelloggii, not the eastern Black Oak). This tree
is a major food producer of the forest for a host of animals.
Including humans, sometimes. This is not fair to people who want to
enjoy birds and animals and natural vegetation in our forests. Now,
yeah, I could go to a park to do this, pay $25 or so, but how long
will this even be possible? Didja notice the big fight over the right
to 'clean up' Yellowstone after the big fire a few years ago? People
couldn't understand why the greenies didn't want the despoilers.. er..
loggers.. in the forest.

Dave Larrington
October 17th 03, 11:06 AM
Taking this to its logical conclusion; women would not be permitted to vote,
Alabama parks would contain benches marked "For whites only", Berlin would
have a wall through the middle and Eastern Europe would still be full of
Russian soldiers. Come to that, America would still be full of British
soldiers.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

stratrider
October 17th 03, 12:34 PM
Tom wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, too many in power have too much to gain in short term
> profits from the hydrocarbon extraction industry. There is also the lack
> or real leadership (in both major parties) to sell such a program to the
> US public. (They do not want to touch anything that can not be promoted
> in a 30-second sound bite).
>

I completely agree! As a young kid in the early 70s, I recall waiting
in the gas lines with my dad on "the right day" to get gas! Now here
we are 30 years later with an addiction to fossil fuels that we should
have prevented!

Jim

Edward Dolan
October 17th 03, 01:26 PM
(GeoB) wrote in message >...
.......

> [1] The USFS has managed their forests in a similar manner, turning
> them into giant tree-farms, growing mostly only commercially-valuable
> trees. They don't go around planting 'trash-trees' like the Black Oak
> (the western Quercus kelloggii, not the eastern Black Oak). This tree
> is a major food producer of the forest for a host of animals.
> Including humans, sometimes. This is not fair to people who want to
> enjoy birds and animals and natural vegetation in our forests. Now,
> yeah, I could go to a park to do this, pay $25 or so, but how long
> will this even be possible? Didja notice the big fight over the right
> to 'clean up' Yellowstone after the big fire a few years ago? People
> couldn't understand why the greenies didn't want the despoilers.. er..
> loggers.. in the forest.

Geo B., I would like to respond to all the very intelligent things you
have to say about environmental issues, particularly what you have to
say about the management of our forests, (a special interest of mine)
but I am afraid to do so because everyone on this new group will jump
on me for being off topic yet once again. I can only take so much
rejection. Besides, according to Byran J. Ball, conservative types
like myself are not suppose to have any thing intelligent to say about
the environment and we only want to exploit it even though we live in
it and depend on it just like liberals do. Maybe someday when there is
more tolerance for OT posts I will venture forth on the very
interesting topics you pose.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 17th 03, 03:55 PM
"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message >...

> Taking this to its logical conclusion; women would not be permitted to vote,
> Alabama parks would contain benches marked "For whites only", Berlin would
> have a wall through the middle and Eastern Europe would still be full of
> Russian soldiers. Come to that, America would still be full of British
> soldiers.

At least give me a clue to what you are referring to. However, I will
guess.

Protest in the streets may often times be necessary in autocratic and
totalitarian regimes, but there is no excuse for it in a democracy.

European governments are much more centralized than in the US. This
means that they can often put down insurrections with a vengeance that
we Americans can only dream about. We have all kinds of hang ups about
violating peoples' constitutional rights which often work to the
disadvantage of restoring peace and order. The British government has
known how to put down protest from time immemorial. When you have a
democracy like we and the British do, there is no reason to have
protesters in the streets making a nuisance of themselves.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

B. Sanders
October 17th 03, 05:49 PM
"RICH WESTERMAN" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down the Kent State
> > students in the streets. It was the decisive morality lesson for all
> > Americans that the streets do not belong to the rabble. >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. Tee are oh ell ell. Tuh-roll. He cannot
really believe what he is writing because it's utter hogwash. He's a
pathetic loser who lives to stir people up, just like his mentor, Rush
Limbaugh. Plonk his sorry ass and move on.

Please don't feed the trolls!

-B

Bob B Ballz
October 17th 03, 06:28 PM
> Please don't feed the trolls!


Touche'!

Zippy the Pinhead
October 17th 03, 10:24 PM
On 17 Oct 2003 04:34:59 -0700, (stratrider) wrote:

>I completely agree! As a young kid in the early 70s, I recall waiting
>in the gas lines with my dad on "the right day" to get gas! Now here
>we are 30 years later with an addiction to fossil fuels that we should
>have prevented!

Odd and even days, depending on the last digit of your license plate.

I was in college (for about the third time) in So Cal at the time. We
had some off-campus class sessions, and we'd car-pool to them. Spend
the morning in the practicum then head back to campus for afternoon
classes. We'd stop at at Jack in the Box or something and grab lunch.

In those days, when a gas station had pumped its tanks dry, it closed.
It would open again when a tanker filled its tanks. You'd have to
keep an eye out if you wanted to fill up. Well, we'd pull into a
closed gas station and eat our lunch, three or four cars, in a line.
Pretty soon sheeple would pull in off the street and get in line
behind us. We'd hang until time to get back to class, then start the
engines and haul ass, leaving the stooges in the "gas lines" that
weren't.

Evil days had befallen us.



--
I accidentally reversed the polarity on my cable modem. All of a sudden, I enlarged my mortgage and refinanced my penis.

Edward Dolan
October 18th 03, 01:15 AM
"B. Sanders" > wrote in message news:<D4Vjb.799237$Ho3.215727@sccrnsc03>...

> "RICH WESTERMAN" > wrote in message
> s.com...

Edward Dolan wrote:

> > > The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down the Kent State
> > > students in the streets. It was the decisive morality lesson for all
> > > Americans that the streets do not belong to the rabble. >
> > > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. Tee are oh ell ell. Tuh-roll. He cannot
> really believe what he is writing because it's utter hogwash. He's a
> pathetic loser who lives to stir people up, just like his mentor, Rush
> Limbaugh. Plonk his sorry ass and move on.
>
> Please don't feed the trolls!
>
> -B

Folks, B. Sanders is an ACLU type and a political correctness type, so
of course he has not had a new idea in his head for the past 40 years
at least. I absolutely believe whatever it is I write to this
benighted newsgroup of liberals and other assorted nuts and screwballs
is right on and correct. B. Sanders, like the students (I use the term
loosely) at Kent State, believes that he has a right to take over the
streets for whatever purpose enters his deranged mind. The students
learned the hard way via the National Guard that that is not the way
it works in a democracy. You got a complaint, you take it to an
election. It is when they don't get their way via the ballot box that
they think they have a right to take it to the streets. But why am a
arguing with this moron? Like I said, he is an ACLU type and a
political correctness type. Enuf said!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 18th 03, 01:27 AM
Bob B Ballz > wrote in message >...

> > Please don't feed the trolls!
>
>
> Touché!


Wow! A one word post no less. I have touched up your French a bit.
Hope you don't mind.

I think if I had so little to say I would just not say it. But
apparently some people really do have only two cents worth to add to
the conversation. Note how I can go on and on and not say very much
and yet take up a lot of space. You should try it sometime if you want
to get on in this world. No politician ever got anywhere by just
limiting his comment to one word.

But the best one word reply I know of is the American soldier's reply
at Bastogne in WW II to the German demand to surrender during the
Battle of the Bulge. It was "Nuts!", - and that applies to you also.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 18th 03, 06:32 AM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
.......

> If Mr. Edward Dolan posted a message to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent and
> no one read it, would it exist?

The answer is yes. Because I would read it! But even if I didn't read
it, it would still exist. If a tree fell in the forest and there was
no one there to hear it, would it make a noise? Again, the answer is
yes. As a scientist you ought to have known that. It is an old
philosophical question and only intrigues those who have nothing
better to do.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 18th 03, 06:47 AM
Zippy the Pinhead > wrote in message >...

> On 17 Oct 2003 04:34:59 -0700, (stratrider) wrote:
>
> >I completely agree! As a young kid in the early 70s, I recall waiting
> >in the gas lines with my dad on "the right day" to get gas! Now here
> >we are 30 years later with an addiction to fossil fuels that we should
> >have prevented!
>
> Odd and even days, depending on the last digit of your license plate.
>
> I was in college (for about the third time) in So Cal at the time. We
> had some off-campus class sessions, and we'd car-pool to them. Spend
> the morning in the practicum then head back to campus for afternoon
> classes. We'd stop at at Jack in the Box or something and grab lunch.
>
> In those days, when a gas station had pumped its tanks dry, it closed.
> It would open again when a tanker filled its tanks. You'd have to
> keep an eye out if you wanted to fill up. Well, we'd pull into a
> closed gas station and eat our lunch, three or four cars, in a line.
> Pretty soon sheeple would pull in off the street and get in line
> behind us. We'd hang until time to get back to class, then start the
> engines and haul ass, leaving the stooges in the "gas lines" that
> weren't.
>
> Evil days had befallen us.

I remember that time well. I had been for several weeks in the
Colorado Rockies hiking and camping and when I came out of the
mountains near Denver and tried to get some gas for my VW, lo and
behold, there wasn't any gas! What a revolting development that was.
If I hadn't had Minnesota license plates on my car I don't know how I
would have gotten out of Colorado. Some gas station attendant took
mercy on me and sent me on my way. I think it was about that time that
I started to get seriously interested in bicycles.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Dave Larrington
October 20th 03, 10:47 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
> When you have a democracy like we and the
> British do, there is no reason to have
> protesters in the streets making a nuisance of
> themselves.

Even if the protestors are disenfranchised?

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Dave Larrington
October 20th 03, 10:47 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:
> When you have a democracy like we and the
> British do, there is no reason to have
> protesters in the streets making a nuisance of
> themselves.

Even if the protestors are disenfranchised?

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Jon Meinecke
October 20th 03, 01:13 PM
> "B. Sanders" wrote:
>
> > Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. [...]
> >
> > Please don't feed the trolls!

The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

Some bait is more topical, more interesting, more constructive.
Some fishing technique is more subtle, more artistic...

Mr. Dolan's bait and technique speak volumes.

"Tom Sherman" > wrote
>
> If Mr. Edward Dolan posted a message to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> and no one read it, would it exist?

Merely exist? Yes. Pending propagation factors and server
disk space, of course. Protocols are not reliable, though, so
perhaps there's an element of the quantum physics conundrum
of Schrodinger's cat.

"Schrodinger himself said, later in life, that he wished he had
never met that cat."

Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

Jon Meinecke
October 20th 03, 01:13 PM
> "B. Sanders" wrote:
>
> > Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. [...]
> >
> > Please don't feed the trolls!

The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

Some bait is more topical, more interesting, more constructive.
Some fishing technique is more subtle, more artistic...

Mr. Dolan's bait and technique speak volumes.

"Tom Sherman" > wrote
>
> If Mr. Edward Dolan posted a message to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> and no one read it, would it exist?

Merely exist? Yes. Pending propagation factors and server
disk space, of course. Protocols are not reliable, though, so
perhaps there's an element of the quantum physics conundrum
of Schrodinger's cat.

"Schrodinger himself said, later in life, that he wished he had
never met that cat."

Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

GeoB
October 20th 03, 06:00 PM
> Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. Tee are oh ell ell. Tuh-roll. He cannot
> really believe what he is writing because it's utter hogwash. He's a
> pathetic loser who lives to stir people up, just like his mentor, Rush
> Limbaugh.

Yes. I cannot carry on civilized discourse with this kind of.. uh..
participant.

> The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down
> the Kent State students in the streets. It was the
> decisive morality lesson for all Americans that the
> streets do not belong to the rabble.

(actually it was on the campus)

The rabble in that un-armed crowd, and the bystanders in the general
area, included many people going about their daily routine and were
not involved with the unrest. An ROTC student who was shot was one
such. It included quite a number of rubberneckers, uninvolved
students going to/from classes, many people with cameras who were not
taking part in any protest. The farthest person shot was over 700
feet away. This person was obviously a serious immediate threat to
the jack-booted thugs who do illegal actions w/o fear of prosecution.
Two of the dead were about 350 feet away. The other was 255 feet away.
The guardsmen had been told they wouldn't be prosecuted for anything
they did (Same like in Berkeley, the things I could tell you!) These
Kent State students were demonstrating against Nixon starting to bomb
Cambodia which is a clear violation of both our law and international
law. Oh, sure, some may 'justfy' it, but it WAS illegal.

I do not at all want to imply that it would have been correct to shoot
the students if they were among the demonstrators.

It brought home to me the fact that we don't live in a freedom loving
country... we are a spoiled, amoral belligerent bully of a fascist
society. I love our country, what she should be and could be, but I
don't love the way the twisted people do terrible things in the name
of democracy, of all things!

I am not railing so much against the National Thugs, but against the
criminals in power who put the Thugs there, armed them, and made sure
nothing was done to ANY of the Thugs, including one who admitted
shooting a student 60' away who was giving him the finger. That will
teach him respect! Damn filthy pinko-communist hippies. I also blame
the anti-American 'citizens' who supported these actions, including Mr
Dolan. He has bloody hands too.

May 4th, 1970. A day that shall live in infamy. I will NEVER forget.
It was to me a day like the one when we first heard that President
Kennedy had been assasinated. I remember the feeling of disbelief,
then shock, horror and anger washing over me when I heard what had
happened. I wanted to kill.

> Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. Tee are oh ell ell. Tuh-roll. He cannot
> really believe what he is writing because it's utter hogwash. He's a
> pathetic loser who lives to stir people up, just like his mentor, Rush
> Limbaugh. Plonk his sorry ass and move on.
>

>Ed Dolan is a TROLL.
A sick troll.

> Please don't feed the trolls!

No, I will not, in the future. After what he has said, I think nobody
should give him the respect of even reading, much less answering his
poisonous spewings. At first I thought this was a somewhat
intellectually stimulating discussion with someone who was simply
poles apart from me politically. But it's not. This is sick.

Civil rights are like muscles, they atrophy if not used regularly.
The illegal Kent State massacre was a defining moment for our country.
The Nixon administration, the Ohio legal system and administration,
from the Govenor on down should have been on their knees in
contrition, moments after having resigned their positions. Did this
happen? Ha! The rest of the slopey-foreheaders got the message... a
week or so later a mob of crazed construction workers attacked and
beat a nonviolent crowd of protesters, half killing several, and
permanently crippling some. The police stood by and did nothing.

I should have gotten beaten too.

"Under a government which imprisons any
unjustly, the true place for a just man
is also a prison".
- Thoreau "Essays on Civil Disobedience"

> Plonk his sorry ass and move on.

PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!

Over and Out!
GeoB

GeoB
October 20th 03, 06:00 PM
> Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. Tee are oh ell ell. Tuh-roll. He cannot
> really believe what he is writing because it's utter hogwash. He's a
> pathetic loser who lives to stir people up, just like his mentor, Rush
> Limbaugh.

Yes. I cannot carry on civilized discourse with this kind of.. uh..
participant.

> The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down
> the Kent State students in the streets. It was the
> decisive morality lesson for all Americans that the
> streets do not belong to the rabble.

(actually it was on the campus)

The rabble in that un-armed crowd, and the bystanders in the general
area, included many people going about their daily routine and were
not involved with the unrest. An ROTC student who was shot was one
such. It included quite a number of rubberneckers, uninvolved
students going to/from classes, many people with cameras who were not
taking part in any protest. The farthest person shot was over 700
feet away. This person was obviously a serious immediate threat to
the jack-booted thugs who do illegal actions w/o fear of prosecution.
Two of the dead were about 350 feet away. The other was 255 feet away.
The guardsmen had been told they wouldn't be prosecuted for anything
they did (Same like in Berkeley, the things I could tell you!) These
Kent State students were demonstrating against Nixon starting to bomb
Cambodia which is a clear violation of both our law and international
law. Oh, sure, some may 'justfy' it, but it WAS illegal.

I do not at all want to imply that it would have been correct to shoot
the students if they were among the demonstrators.

It brought home to me the fact that we don't live in a freedom loving
country... we are a spoiled, amoral belligerent bully of a fascist
society. I love our country, what she should be and could be, but I
don't love the way the twisted people do terrible things in the name
of democracy, of all things!

I am not railing so much against the National Thugs, but against the
criminals in power who put the Thugs there, armed them, and made sure
nothing was done to ANY of the Thugs, including one who admitted
shooting a student 60' away who was giving him the finger. That will
teach him respect! Damn filthy pinko-communist hippies. I also blame
the anti-American 'citizens' who supported these actions, including Mr
Dolan. He has bloody hands too.

May 4th, 1970. A day that shall live in infamy. I will NEVER forget.
It was to me a day like the one when we first heard that President
Kennedy had been assasinated. I remember the feeling of disbelief,
then shock, horror and anger washing over me when I heard what had
happened. I wanted to kill.

> Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. Tee are oh ell ell. Tuh-roll. He cannot
> really believe what he is writing because it's utter hogwash. He's a
> pathetic loser who lives to stir people up, just like his mentor, Rush
> Limbaugh. Plonk his sorry ass and move on.
>

>Ed Dolan is a TROLL.
A sick troll.

> Please don't feed the trolls!

No, I will not, in the future. After what he has said, I think nobody
should give him the respect of even reading, much less answering his
poisonous spewings. At first I thought this was a somewhat
intellectually stimulating discussion with someone who was simply
poles apart from me politically. But it's not. This is sick.

Civil rights are like muscles, they atrophy if not used regularly.
The illegal Kent State massacre was a defining moment for our country.
The Nixon administration, the Ohio legal system and administration,
from the Govenor on down should have been on their knees in
contrition, moments after having resigned their positions. Did this
happen? Ha! The rest of the slopey-foreheaders got the message... a
week or so later a mob of crazed construction workers attacked and
beat a nonviolent crowd of protesters, half killing several, and
permanently crippling some. The police stood by and did nothing.

I should have gotten beaten too.

"Under a government which imprisons any
unjustly, the true place for a just man
is also a prison".
- Thoreau "Essays on Civil Disobedience"

> Plonk his sorry ass and move on.

PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!

Over and Out!
GeoB

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 01:46 AM
"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:

> > When you have a democracy like we and the
> > British do, there is no reason to have
> > protesters in the streets making a nuisance of
> > themselves.
>
> Even if the protestors are disenfranchised?

Who are these disenfranchised? It is always difficult to decipher what
Mr. Larrington is talking about since he is a man of few words.
However, if the disenfranchised are aliens and not citizens of the
country, who cares? They have no rights at all as far as I can see,
other than to be treated humanely because they are human beings.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 01:46 AM
"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:

> > When you have a democracy like we and the
> > British do, there is no reason to have
> > protesters in the streets making a nuisance of
> > themselves.
>
> Even if the protestors are disenfranchised?

Who are these disenfranchised? It is always difficult to decipher what
Mr. Larrington is talking about since he is a man of few words.
However, if the disenfranchised are aliens and not citizens of the
country, who cares? They have no rights at all as far as I can see,
other than to be treated humanely because they are human beings.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 02:44 AM
(GeoB) wrote in message >...
.......

Edward Dolan wrote:

> > The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down
> > the Kent State students in the streets. It was the
> > decisive morality lesson for all Americans that the
> > streets do not belong to the rabble.
>
> (actually it was on the campus)
>
> The rabble in that un-armed crowd, and the bystanders in the general
> area, included many people going about their daily routine and were
> not involved with the unrest. An ROTC student who was shot was one
> such. It included quite a number of rubberneckers, uninvolved
> students going to/from classes, many people with cameras who were not
> taking part in any protest. The farthest person shot was over 700
> feet away. This person was obviously a serious immediate threat to
> the jack-booted thugs who do illegal actions w/o fear of prosecution.
> Two of the dead were about 350 feet away. The other was 255 feet away.
> The guardsmen had been told they wouldn't be prosecuted for anything
> they did (Same like in Berkeley, the things I could tell you!) These
> Kent State students were demonstrating against Nixon starting to bomb
> Cambodia which is a clear violation of both our law and international
> law. Oh, sure, some may 'justfy' it, but it WAS illegal.

Your post is way too long GeoB. Normally, I treat overly long posts
with the contempt they deserve by not responding, but I will cut you
some slack here and tell you what I think of what you have said.

Reference your above paragraph, there were no innocent bystanders as
far as I am concerned. When a riot is taking place it is the duty of
those who are not part of the riot to get as far away from it as
possible and so let the authorities do their job. I was pleased as
hell when those Kent State students were shot down in the streets ((or
on the campus, what difference does that make?). It was a real object
lesson to one and all, but most especially to those odious liberals
who think when they can not get their way that they have a right to
take it to the streets. The National Guard were my heroes of the day
and so were the authorities who ordered them in.

By the way, I always liked Nixon enormously. He tried to end the
Vietnam War honorably for our side but the damn liberal Congress let
the American people down. I also consider the Vietnam War to have been
a noble crusade. We should have fought it to win it, but Johnson never
knew his ass from a hole in the ground. That is why we lost that
particular war. The g.d. college students had absolutely nothing to do
with anything.

> I do not at all want to imply that it would have been correct to shoot
> the students if they were among the demonstrators.

It was more than correct. It was necessary.

> It brought home to me the fact that we don't live in a freedom loving
> country... we are a spoiled, amoral belligerent bully of a fascist
> society. I love our country, what she should be and could be, but I
> don't love the way the twisted people do terrible things in the name
> of democracy, of all things!

Here is the liberal in full flower! We have a democracy where everyone
can go to the polls and vote for whoever they want to represent them,
but when the liberals can't win at the polls, they think they can take
it to the streets and bully the rest of society into thinking their
way. They are the fascists and they hate the people. They do not love
America.

> I am not railing so much against the National Thugs, but against the
> criminals in power who put the Thugs there, armed them, and made sure
> nothing was done to ANY of the Thugs, including one who admitted
> shooting a student 60' away who was giving him the finger. That will
> teach him respect! Damn filthy pinko-communist hippies. I also blame
> the anti-American 'citizens' who supported these actions, including Mr
> Dolan. He has bloody hands too.

No need to repeat myself here, except to say that I am damn proud of
what was accomplished at Kent State that day. At last some real
education took place on that benighted campus.

> May 4th, 1970. A day that shall live in infamy. I will NEVER forget.
> It was to me a day like the one when we first heard that President
> Kennedy had been assasinated. I remember the feeling of disbelief,
> then shock, horror and anger washing over me when I heard what had
> happened. I wanted to kill.

Better to put a bullet through your own head and spare us all your
ridiculous sense of outrage. You are the worst enemy of democracy. But
your type will never prevail in this country because most of the rest
of us love law and order. We do not want to see "kids" rioting and
creating disorder and mayhem in our society - even if you and your ilk
do.

.......

> No, I will not, in the future. After what he has said, I think nobody
> should give him the respect of even reading, much less answering his
> poisonous spewings. At first I thought this was a somewhat
> intellectually stimulating discussion with someone who was simply
> poles apart from me politically. But it's not. This is sick.

The only sick soul here is yourself. You are pitiful and pathetic. But
you are a liberal and that says it all. But you are the biggest cry
baby liberal that I have yet encountered on this newsgroup.
Congratulations!

You are completely wrongheaded about everything. There is no cure for
your wrongheadedness except that you and your generation die off. And
the sooner the better. You and your ilk have been ham stringing this
country all of my life. Read Ann Coulter if you want to know what you
are. But since I know you will never do that, I will tell you what you
are: you are a treasonous liberal Democrat who hates this country and
would like to see it weak and at the mercy of it's enemies. You are
beneath contempt!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 02:44 AM
(GeoB) wrote in message >...
.......

Edward Dolan wrote:

> > The National Guard was quite correct to shoot down
> > the Kent State students in the streets. It was the
> > decisive morality lesson for all Americans that the
> > streets do not belong to the rabble.
>
> (actually it was on the campus)
>
> The rabble in that un-armed crowd, and the bystanders in the general
> area, included many people going about their daily routine and were
> not involved with the unrest. An ROTC student who was shot was one
> such. It included quite a number of rubberneckers, uninvolved
> students going to/from classes, many people with cameras who were not
> taking part in any protest. The farthest person shot was over 700
> feet away. This person was obviously a serious immediate threat to
> the jack-booted thugs who do illegal actions w/o fear of prosecution.
> Two of the dead were about 350 feet away. The other was 255 feet away.
> The guardsmen had been told they wouldn't be prosecuted for anything
> they did (Same like in Berkeley, the things I could tell you!) These
> Kent State students were demonstrating against Nixon starting to bomb
> Cambodia which is a clear violation of both our law and international
> law. Oh, sure, some may 'justfy' it, but it WAS illegal.

Your post is way too long GeoB. Normally, I treat overly long posts
with the contempt they deserve by not responding, but I will cut you
some slack here and tell you what I think of what you have said.

Reference your above paragraph, there were no innocent bystanders as
far as I am concerned. When a riot is taking place it is the duty of
those who are not part of the riot to get as far away from it as
possible and so let the authorities do their job. I was pleased as
hell when those Kent State students were shot down in the streets ((or
on the campus, what difference does that make?). It was a real object
lesson to one and all, but most especially to those odious liberals
who think when they can not get their way that they have a right to
take it to the streets. The National Guard were my heroes of the day
and so were the authorities who ordered them in.

By the way, I always liked Nixon enormously. He tried to end the
Vietnam War honorably for our side but the damn liberal Congress let
the American people down. I also consider the Vietnam War to have been
a noble crusade. We should have fought it to win it, but Johnson never
knew his ass from a hole in the ground. That is why we lost that
particular war. The g.d. college students had absolutely nothing to do
with anything.

> I do not at all want to imply that it would have been correct to shoot
> the students if they were among the demonstrators.

It was more than correct. It was necessary.

> It brought home to me the fact that we don't live in a freedom loving
> country... we are a spoiled, amoral belligerent bully of a fascist
> society. I love our country, what she should be and could be, but I
> don't love the way the twisted people do terrible things in the name
> of democracy, of all things!

Here is the liberal in full flower! We have a democracy where everyone
can go to the polls and vote for whoever they want to represent them,
but when the liberals can't win at the polls, they think they can take
it to the streets and bully the rest of society into thinking their
way. They are the fascists and they hate the people. They do not love
America.

> I am not railing so much against the National Thugs, but against the
> criminals in power who put the Thugs there, armed them, and made sure
> nothing was done to ANY of the Thugs, including one who admitted
> shooting a student 60' away who was giving him the finger. That will
> teach him respect! Damn filthy pinko-communist hippies. I also blame
> the anti-American 'citizens' who supported these actions, including Mr
> Dolan. He has bloody hands too.

No need to repeat myself here, except to say that I am damn proud of
what was accomplished at Kent State that day. At last some real
education took place on that benighted campus.

> May 4th, 1970. A day that shall live in infamy. I will NEVER forget.
> It was to me a day like the one when we first heard that President
> Kennedy had been assasinated. I remember the feeling of disbelief,
> then shock, horror and anger washing over me when I heard what had
> happened. I wanted to kill.

Better to put a bullet through your own head and spare us all your
ridiculous sense of outrage. You are the worst enemy of democracy. But
your type will never prevail in this country because most of the rest
of us love law and order. We do not want to see "kids" rioting and
creating disorder and mayhem in our society - even if you and your ilk
do.

.......

> No, I will not, in the future. After what he has said, I think nobody
> should give him the respect of even reading, much less answering his
> poisonous spewings. At first I thought this was a somewhat
> intellectually stimulating discussion with someone who was simply
> poles apart from me politically. But it's not. This is sick.

The only sick soul here is yourself. You are pitiful and pathetic. But
you are a liberal and that says it all. But you are the biggest cry
baby liberal that I have yet encountered on this newsgroup.
Congratulations!

You are completely wrongheaded about everything. There is no cure for
your wrongheadedness except that you and your generation die off. And
the sooner the better. You and your ilk have been ham stringing this
country all of my life. Read Ann Coulter if you want to know what you
are. But since I know you will never do that, I will tell you what you
are: you are a treasonous liberal Democrat who hates this country and
would like to see it weak and at the mercy of it's enemies. You are
beneath contempt!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 03:00 AM
"Jon Meinecke" > wrote in message >...

> > "B. Sanders" wrote:
> >
> > > Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. [...]
> > >
> > > Please don't feed the trolls!
>
> The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
> reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
> we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.
>
> Some bait is more topical, more interesting, more constructive.
> Some fishing technique is more subtle, more artistic...
>
> Mr. Dolan's bait and technique speak volumes.

Gee, thanks Jon, I think? Some of what I have learned here I have
learned from you. For instance, how to go on and on about nothing.
After everyone tires of that, then it is always good to spend a lot of
time discussing personal style too. All of which will have the effect
of boring everyone to death if they don't become exasperated first.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 03:00 AM
"Jon Meinecke" > wrote in message >...

> > "B. Sanders" wrote:
> >
> > > Folks, Ed Dolan is a TROLL. [...]
> > >
> > > Please don't feed the trolls!
>
> The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
> reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
> we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.
>
> Some bait is more topical, more interesting, more constructive.
> Some fishing technique is more subtle, more artistic...
>
> Mr. Dolan's bait and technique speak volumes.

Gee, thanks Jon, I think? Some of what I have learned here I have
learned from you. For instance, how to go on and on about nothing.
After everyone tires of that, then it is always good to spend a lot of
time discussing personal style too. All of which will have the effect
of boring everyone to death if they don't become exasperated first.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Ken Kobayashi
October 21st 03, 08:15 AM
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke" >
wrote:
>The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
>reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
>we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

Not true. According to jargon.net:

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes
from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed
troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make
themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a
deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on
it.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

Ken Kobayashi
October 21st 03, 08:15 AM
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke" >
wrote:
>The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
>reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
>we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

Not true. According to jargon.net:

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes
from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed
troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make
themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a
deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on
it.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

Dave Larrington
October 21st 03, 10:12 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:

> Who are these disenfranchised?

I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
death of Medgar Evers.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Dave Larrington
October 21st 03, 10:12 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:

> Who are these disenfranchised?

I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
death of Medgar Evers.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Tom Sherman
October 21st 03, 02:12 PM
Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Who are these disenfranchised?
>
> I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
> Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
> disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
> vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
> with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
> status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
> protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
> after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
> death of Medgar Evers.

You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
< http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1 >

Tom Sherman

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Tom Sherman
October 21st 03, 02:12 PM
Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Who are these disenfranchised?
>
> I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
> Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
> disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
> vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
> with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
> status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
> protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
> after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
> death of Medgar Evers.

You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
< http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1 >

Tom Sherman

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 09:33 PM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
> from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
> < http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1 >
>
> Tom Sherman
>
> "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
> decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Mr. Sherman is becoming as bad as that Mazzelini character; he is a
one note Johnny. If I have to hear from him one more time about how
Gore should have won the election if it had not been stolen from him
by Bush, I will just about go out of my mind. Talk about monomanias!
My feeling about the last general election was that it was so close
that we could have flipped a coin to decide the matter. But God
Himself intervened and saw too it that the election went to Bush
knowing what lay in store for America (9/11). Let us all be eternally
grateful that Gore never became President. It would have been just
more of Clinton. What a disaster that would have been.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 09:33 PM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
> from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
> < http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1 >
>
> Tom Sherman
>
> "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
> decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Mr. Sherman is becoming as bad as that Mazzelini character; he is a
one note Johnny. If I have to hear from him one more time about how
Gore should have won the election if it had not been stolen from him
by Bush, I will just about go out of my mind. Talk about monomanias!
My feeling about the last general election was that it was so close
that we could have flipped a coin to decide the matter. But God
Himself intervened and saw too it that the election went to Bush
knowing what lay in store for America (9/11). Let us all be eternally
grateful that Gore never became President. It would have been just
more of Clinton. What a disaster that would have been.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 09:48 PM
"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Who are these disenfranchised?
>
> I'm thinking primarily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
> Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
> disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
> vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
> with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
> status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
> protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
> after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
> death of Medgar Evers.

You are right, Mr. Larrington, the Blacks were not technically
disenfranchised and that is the important thing to keep in mind. The
problem that existed could have been technically fixed with out all
the hullabaloo of the civil rights movement. The beauty of our
democracies (I am including the Brits in this exalted company)) is
that there are ways of going about fixing things. Maybe we should all
take refresher courses in Poly Sci 101.

When folks take to the streets to protest it is to the diminishment of
democracy. In any event, I am opposed to any kind of direct democracy,
most especially in the form of street warfare. I favor representative
democracy, which normally goes by the name of republican forms of
government.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 09:48 PM
"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Who are these disenfranchised?
>
> I'm thinking primarily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
> Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
> disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
> vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
> with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
> status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
> protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
> after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
> death of Medgar Evers.

You are right, Mr. Larrington, the Blacks were not technically
disenfranchised and that is the important thing to keep in mind. The
problem that existed could have been technically fixed with out all
the hullabaloo of the civil rights movement. The beauty of our
democracies (I am including the Brits in this exalted company)) is
that there are ways of going about fixing things. Maybe we should all
take refresher courses in Poly Sci 101.

When folks take to the streets to protest it is to the diminishment of
democracy. In any event, I am opposed to any kind of direct democracy,
most especially in the form of street warfare. I favor representative
democracy, which normally goes by the name of republican forms of
government.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 10:38 PM
Ken Kobayashi > wrote in message >...

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke" >
> wrote:

> >The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
> >reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
> >we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.
>
> Not true. According to jargon.net:
>
> troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
> posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
> Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes
> from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
> bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed
> troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make
> themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
> conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a
> deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on
> it.
>
> Ken Kobayashi
>
> http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

Thanks Ken for the input. I have never been a troll despite what some
others think on this newsgroup. I always mean mostly sincerely
everything I say in my posts. But this newsgroup is so liberal that
they can't believe what they are hearing and so think me to be a
troll. Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, I am too old
and do not have the time to be playing childish games via trolling. I
leave that to the teenagers (which I suspect are quite rare on ARBR).

I believe the best example of a troll on this newsgroup is Mazzoleni
who is always expounding on his virtues as a roadie compared to
recumbent cyclists. But even he might be sincere. Who knows? Hell,
sometimes I think Mr. Tom Sherman is a troll!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
October 21st 03, 10:38 PM
Ken Kobayashi > wrote in message >...

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke" >
> wrote:

> >The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
> >reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
> >we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.
>
> Not true. According to jargon.net:
>
> troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
> posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
> Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes
> from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
> bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed
> troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make
> themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
> conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a
> deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on
> it.
>
> Ken Kobayashi
>
> http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

Thanks Ken for the input. I have never been a troll despite what some
others think on this newsgroup. I always mean mostly sincerely
everything I say in my posts. But this newsgroup is so liberal that
they can't believe what they are hearing and so think me to be a
troll. Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, I am too old
and do not have the time to be playing childish games via trolling. I
leave that to the teenagers (which I suspect are quite rare on ARBR).

I believe the best example of a troll on this newsgroup is Mazzoleni
who is always expounding on his virtues as a roadie compared to
recumbent cyclists. But even he might be sincere. Who knows? Hell,
sometimes I think Mr. Tom Sherman is a troll!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Mark Leuck
October 21st 03, 11:14 PM
"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dave Larrington wrote:
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > > Who are these disenfranchised?
> >
> > I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while
black
> > Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
> > disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering
to
> > vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending
up
> > with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing
the
> > status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread
public
> > protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It
was,
> > after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and
the
> > death of Medgar Evers.
>
> You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
> from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
> < http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1 >
>
> Tom Sherman

That would almost match the thousands of overseas military votes thrown out
which a majority leaned toward Bush

Mark Leuck
October 21st 03, 11:14 PM
"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dave Larrington wrote:
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > > Who are these disenfranchised?
> >
> > I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while
black
> > Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
> > disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering
to
> > vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending
up
> > with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing
the
> > status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread
public
> > protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It
was,
> > after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and
the
> > death of Medgar Evers.
>
> You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
> from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
> < http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1 >
>
> Tom Sherman

That would almost match the thousands of overseas military votes thrown out
which a majority leaned toward Bush

Jon Meinecke
October 22nd 03, 12:24 PM
"Ken Kobayashi" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke" >
> wrote:
> >Except for the lurkers,
> >we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

As stated by Eugene Miya, net.ranger (who invented/discovered
the form "FAQ").

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2266641416d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6maeu1%24e6u%40darkstar.ucsc.edu

[see the entire thread for an interesting discussion]

> Not true. According to jargon.net:
>
> troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
> posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.

Yes, of course, that's the distinction of content and in the
eye of the beholder (or moderator in moderated newsgroups).
There's a broad spectrum. The pejorative sense of trolling is
at one end and clearly so.

Any mention of BikeE was bait for Bob Cardone at one point
in ARBR history. %^)

Jon Meinecke

Jon Meinecke
October 22nd 03, 12:24 PM
"Ken Kobayashi" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke" >
> wrote:
> >Except for the lurkers,
> >we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

As stated by Eugene Miya, net.ranger (who invented/discovered
the form "FAQ").

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2266641416d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=6maeu1%24e6u%40darkstar.ucsc.edu

[see the entire thread for an interesting discussion]

> Not true. According to jargon.net:
>
> troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
> posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.

Yes, of course, that's the distinction of content and in the
eye of the beholder (or moderator in moderated newsgroups).
There's a broad spectrum. The pejorative sense of trolling is
at one end and clearly so.

Any mention of BikeE was bait for Bob Cardone at one point
in ARBR history. %^)

Jon Meinecke

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home