French Get A Dose Of The New Lance Armstrong

"Jack Hollis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:16:43 GMT, R Brickston
rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

"Elected". With the help of some massive election fraud

Absolutely no proof whatsoever and that left wing moron RFK, Jr's
bleatings in court filings are meaningless.


The Democrats remind me of English soccer fans. They go into every
World Cup expecting to win and when they don't, they blame their loss
on everything other than themselves.

The Democrats are in a state of denial regarding the fact that they
are the minority party.

Can you IMAGINE Hillary winning in '08? Exactly what is it with Howard Dean
that he would call the moderates in his party, "The Republican end of the
Democrat Party"?

On 25 Jul 2006 18:05:09 -0700, "chalo colina" wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

Chalo wrote:

_I'm_ a leftist. Zoot is a leftist. Those public figures you
mentioned may be left of _your_ position, but just because they are in
opposition to Fascism does not make them leftists. That's like calling
someone a health fanatic because they don't want to get cancer.

If you are using the word "Fascism" to describe anything happening in modern
American mainstream politics then you are either far ****ing out there beyond
the radical left fringe or just an ignorant piece of **** who will say anything
in insult of those he disagrees with.

Pol Pot was a radical leftist; I'm not.

Actually, I'd argue that deranged tyrants of all stripes are outside the
political spectrum. A Duvalier or a Saddam or a Pol Pot grew out of entirely
different political traditions but are otherwise goons drunk on power and
paranoia. That is more important than whatever words they hang on the fact that
they control the finances.

I'm representative of the
mainstream Left as it exists in the First World (which is to say the
EU, Commonwealth, etc.) However, if the Right in the USA insists on
shutting out and marginalizing moderate leftist discourse from the
media and public political discussion (and succeeds in its efforts to
promote squalor among a majority of the population), then in due course
a Pol-Pot-style hard leftist will arise and give them what they have
been richly asking for.

I would welcome some moderate leftist discourse. Instead we get people who think
anyone who disagrees with them on any point is a fascist. Which, ironically
enough, opens the door wide for real fascists. A creature that does not actually
exist anywhere in the American political mainstream, right or left. They do
occasionally surface and usually accuse their enemies of being the fascists.

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez. That's what I'm rooting
for, because for the Right to get what they _actually deserve_ would
brutalize us as a nation. I'm just sayin'.

You seem to have left that Fascism thing behind. Good.

What evil do you think deserves something destructive? Have you read any history
of this country or any other? Or do you just get the Noam Chomsky version?

In either case you really are the kind of treasonous **** we were complaining
about having hijacked the Democrat party.

You need a refresher course on what sorts of things constitute treason,
my lad. To wit:

Lying to the country to go to war on false pretexts - treason

No, we still know the sandbox needed to be cleaned out. You may quibble with
some point of the particulars, but of the many reasons to invade Iraq an
overwhelming sufficiency remains.

Stealing Federal elections by fraud and collusion - treason

What, you mean like the vote for governer of Washington that was eventually
recounted into the "correct" outcome. Pretty much the same way someone tried to
manipulate the Presidential tally in Florida. The Daley family goons weren't
allowed to pull that one off, is that what you're upset about.

Undermining national security and international trust by violating
longstanding international treaties - treason

Oh, this is just silly. I'm sorry I cannot answer everything you make up.

Operating illegal secret prisons and torture centers in the public name
- treason

Revoking Constitutionally guaranteed basic rights for political gain -
treason

See, you are just making this stuff up. Or someone else made it up and you're
too ignorant to know it. You don't seem dumb enough to not know better.

Speaking out against the above - not treason

You've got the right to run your mouth and say most any stupid thing that
pleases you. I'll exercise my right to point out that you have bought into a
pile of whack from the internet fever swamps.

You also seem to have missed my earlier assessment of the Democratic
Party as a pack of scoundrels, toadies, and collaborators. I wouldn't
vote for a Democrat in a typical election even if they gave me three
more votes to spend on a Green. So I am clearly not what's wrong with
the Democrats. What's wrong with the Democrats is that they are the
"good cop" in a colossal con game to end what meager few opportunities
for democracy still exist in this corrupt system.

Oh bull****. There are not overarching conspiracies and grand con games. There
are often unfortunate historical trends and popular hysterias. Those are more to
be feared than your whatever the hell it is, illuminati, trilateralists or
whatever smack they've got where you come from.

Okay, so you don't vote Democrat. I'll hope they get the memo and stop trying to
appeal to you.

Go burn a flag or something.

Go burn some books or something. FOAD while you're at it.

Actually I'd recommend keeping and reading the books. Especially the old ones.
Try some.

Ron

Chalo

B. Lafferty wrote:

chalo colina wrote in message

You need a refresher course on what sorts of things constitute treason,
my lad. To wit:

Lying to the country to go to war on false pretexts - treason

Stealing Federal elections by fraud and collusion - treason

Undermining national security and international trust by violating
longstanding international treaties - treason

Operating illegal secret prisons and torture centers in the public name
- treason

Revoking Constitutionally guaranteed basic rights for political gain -
treason

Article III (Section 3) of the US Constitution reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

You are right, but that's a very limited and local sense of the term.

Merriam-Webster says:

1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government
of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

And I observe a more pragmatic definition of treason which is "betrayal
of your nation or your people in a manner so grievous that you
could/should be killed for it". That's closer to the common thread
that ties all the geographic and historical variations of treason
together. The problem with a legal definition of treason is that it is
inevitably perverted to benefit those holding power, rather than to
preserve the nation.

Mussolini was a traitor in the actual but not the legal sense, and the
law played no role in him getting his comeuppance. Others have been
punished for treason when in fact they were acting in the interests of
their nations (John Brown and Mordechai Vanunu come to mind).

The word is rapidly losing its relevance as it becomes so commonly used
to mean "objecting to the evil and/or illegal things that Republicans
do". Just as it was used on me a couple of steps upthread.

Chalo

Michael Press wrote:
" wrote:
empress of the radical left" meme?

Now that we are here, what is it with meme? It's a weakly
derived concept that does not physically express the way
gene does. Yet the proponents try to imbue it with the
same characteristics as gene and derive the same
consequences. It is a metaphor with all the weaknesses of
a metaphor. The proponents are a bunch of advertising
executives selling the concept, literally, for grant money
and tenure. Meme is a meme. It is a fad and will end up
with pet rocks. That it will die off shows exactly how it
differs from gene.

Furthermore it is unnecessary to talk about culture; it is
enough to live creatively in it. Zeitgeist is a perfect
stand in for meme, but it lacks the cachet; it is not
au courant.

Zeitgeist and meme do not mean anything like the
same thing. Zeitgeist (literally "spirit of the time")
refers to the overall sense or climate of the times,
usually referring to the culture. A meme is a individual
motif, idea or expression. You could say it's like a
recurring theme, but it's smaller than a theme.
And a theme is smaller than the Zeitgeist (I said
"the" because in principle there's one Zeitgeist
at a time).

I agree that the meme-gene analogy is absurdly
overdrawn, and it's overused by annoying people
at "Wired" (or was before Wired got Tired) but I don't
know a better word that describes the spreading
of a minor idea.

Saying it is not necessary to study the culture, it is
enough to live in it, sounds like it is itself a conclusion
drawn from study of the culture.

chalo colina wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

chalo colina wrote:

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far,
they can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form
of a benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez.

You and Cindy... Want to see how /benevolent/ Chavez is? Have one
of his citizens say something 1/1000th as bad about him as Sheehan
has about Bush. Said citizen would be praying for death within two
hours.

He's got a lot of very rich, very well-connected and very persistent
enemies, so you have to take allegations against him with a grain of
salt. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't actually responsible for some of
the things people accuse him of. Certainly the US news media is
unconcerned with delivering a fair and representative picture of what
is going on over there.

What we _do_ know about Hugo Chávez is this: He won the presidency by
a landslide (56%) endorsed by the Carter Center and other
international observers. He won reelection (60%) and a recall effort
(59%) by even wider margins. He was removed in a coup d'etat
supported by the US government, but he was reinstalled by a massive
uprising of the common people of Venezuela. He does real things to
improve the real lives of poor people in his country-- he gets them
health care from Cuba, he gets them milk from Uruguay and Argentina
that they otherwise could not afford. He gives poor people houses
and teaches them how to read. He puts derelicted land in the hands
of poor farmers who will work it. He uses the petroleum wealth of
his country for the benefit of _all_ its people, not just the rich
and powerful and white. And not surprisingly, this ****es off the
rich powerful white people of Venezuela, who feel entitled to keep
for themselves what Chávez is sharing with the poor, workers, and
indigenous people.

What I want to know is, why do *you* trust what Faux News Corporation
has to say about Chávez more than you trust the overwhelming support
given him by his own people?

I did a two-second Google search: hugo chavez torture

None of the three links (of 540,000 or whatever it was) I posted (and you
deleted) was Faux News, IIRC. (And, FWIW, I've not heard /anything/ about
Chavez on Fox -- apart from Ms Sheehan saying she'd rather live under his
rule than GWB's. Or was that on CNN? "Cindy News Network"?)

I still say try going down there and denouncing Chavez in the public square.
Just notify your kin first.

waybackjack wrote:

snipped - only the foamiest knuckledragging rantings for monsieur

Damn it people! I go on vacation for a week or two and you all let the
trolls wander in and track mud all over the floors! Do you know how
hard it is to clean up all this urine and excrement? Everyone knows
trolls aren't housetrained. Next time you feel the need to respond to
some trolls, please put down some newspapers first.

/sighs and grabs his broom and mop

ObBike: God only knows when my brother's flight gets in. He's missed
one connecting flight and his other flight is on a rolling delay and
might be canceled. If he gets in *extra* late, I might just pop over to
the bike shop and pick up a long-reach dual pivot brake for the fixed
gear before he gets here.

--
Dane Buson -
Emacs, n.:
A slow-moving parody of a text editor.

In article ,
RonSonic wrote:

Instead we get people who think
anyone who disagrees with them on any point is a fascist.

Maybe in this case it is justified: by-passing or ignoring the
Constitution and the law of the lands to achieve their goal certainly
qualify. Look at establishing military tribunal to judge people out of
their jurisdiction, normalizing 'rendition', so torture can be used,
spying on U.S. citizens inside the U.S.A., etc... etc... add up the
bull**** "you're with us or against us", "the axis of evil", the
"crusade", the systematic smear campaigns against anyone who dare to
speak up, and you may get a clue of why people with some kind of
political education call them fascists.
Democracy? This is the biggest hoax of all time in the USA of the 21st
century. It's not a democracy, it's a PLUTOCRACY. Energy policy written
by energy companies, health policies written by pharmaceutical companies
and health providers, personal bankruptcy laws written by banks and
credit card companies, tax cut for the wealthiest (like if their greed
will push them to re-invest in the sake of national interest!), etc...
etc...
Smells like germany 1936. With the mass so stupid that they don't even
realize that their freedom is taken away, piece by piece, (but that's
OK, we still can use 25% of the oil, even if we are less than 5% of the
world population, so we can go to the shopping mall and bring the kids
to soccer games), and a well 'oiled' propaganda machine telling us we're
winning the war on terror (!), and tomorrow will be so much better.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"RonSonic" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2006 18:05:09 -0700, "chalo colina"
wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

Chalo wrote:

_I'm_ a leftist. Zoot is a leftist. Those public figures you
mentioned may be left of _your_ position, but just because they are in
opposition to Fascism does not make them leftists. That's like
calling
someone a health fanatic because they don't want to get cancer.

If you are using the word "Fascism" to describe anything happening in
modern
American mainstream politics then you are either far ****ing out there
beyond
the radical left fringe or just an ignorant piece of **** who will say
anything
in insult of those he disagrees with.

Pol Pot was a radical leftist; I'm not.

Actually, I'd argue that deranged tyrants of all stripes are outside the
political spectrum. A Duvalier or a Saddam or a Pol Pot grew out of
entirely
different political traditions but are otherwise goons drunk on power and
paranoia. That is more important than whatever words they hang on the fact
that
they control the finances.

I'm representative of the
mainstream Left as it exists in the First World (which is to say the
EU, Commonwealth, etc.) However, if the Right in the USA insists on
shutting out and marginalizing moderate leftist discourse from the
media and public political discussion (and succeeds in its efforts to
promote squalor among a majority of the population), then in due course
a Pol-Pot-style hard leftist will arise and give them what they have
been richly asking for.

I would welcome some moderate leftist discourse. Instead we get people who
think
anyone who disagrees with them on any point is a fascist.

And from the right...anyone who disagrees with the current Trillion Dollar
Debacle is labelled as "anti-American", or a "supporter of the evildoers",
etc.

Which, ironically
enough, opens the door wide for real fascists. A creature that does not
actually
exist anywhere in the American political mainstream, right or left. They
do
occasionally surface and usually accuse their enemies of being the
fascists.

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez. That's what I'm rooting
for, because for the Right to get what they _actually deserve_ would
brutalize us as a nation. I'm just sayin'.

You seem to have left that Fascism thing behind. Good.

What evil do you think deserves something destructive? Have you read any
history
of this country or any other? Or do you just get the Noam Chomsky version?

In either case you really are the kind of treasonous **** we were
complaining
about having hijacked the Democrat party.

You need a refresher course on what sorts of things constitute treason,
my lad. To wit:

Lying to the country to go to war on false pretexts - treason

No, we still know the sandbox needed to be cleaned out. You may quibble
with
some point of the particulars, but of the many reasons to invade Iraq an
overwhelming sufficiency remains.

What were they "cleaning out" in Iraq? There were a lot more terrorists
present in Saudi Arabia in 2001 than in Iraq. And the diplomatic
consequences of the "sandbox cleaning" will be felt for decades (in addition
to costing trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and serving the
terrorists as a recruiting tool for years to come).

Face it, the Bush policy in Iraq will go down in history as one of the
biggest Cluster ****s ever.

GG


Stealing Federal elections by fraud and collusion - treason

What, you mean like the vote for governer of Washington that was
eventually
recounted into the "correct" outcome. Pretty much the same way someone tri
ed to
manipulate the Presidential tally in Florida. The Daley family goons
weren't
allowed to pull that one off, is that what you're upset about.

Undermining national security and international trust by violating
longstanding international treaties - treason

Oh, this is just silly. I'm sorry I cannot answer everything you make up.

Operating illegal secret prisons and torture centers in the public name
- treason

Revoking Constitutionally guaranteed basic rights for political gain -
treason

See, you are just making this stuff up. Or someone else made it up and
you're
too ignorant to know it. You don't seem dumb enough to not know better.

Speaking out against the above - not treason

You've got the right to run your mouth and say most any stupid thing that
pleases you. I'll exercise my right to point out that you have bought into
a
pile of whack from the internet fever swamps.

You also seem to have missed my earlier assessment of the Democratic
Party as a pack of scoundrels, toadies, and collaborators. I wouldn't
vote for a Democrat in a typical election even if they gave me three
more votes to spend on a Green. So I am clearly not what's wrong with
the Democrats. What's wrong with the Democrats is that they are the
"good cop" in a colossal con game to end what meager few opportunities
for democracy still exist in this corrupt system.

Oh bull****. There are not overarching conspiracies and grand con games.
There
are often unfortunate historical trends and popular hysterias. Those are
more to
be feared than your whatever the hell it is, illuminati, trilateralists or
whatever smack they've got where you come from.

Okay, so you don't vote Democrat. I'll hope they get the memo and stop
trying to
appeal to you.

Go burn a flag or something.

Go burn some books or something. FOAD while you're at it.

Actually I'd recommend keeping and reading the books. Especially the old
ones.
Try some.

Ron

Chalo

On 25 Jul 2006 23:11:24 -0700, "chalo colina" wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

chalo colina wrote:

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez.

You and Cindy... Want to see how /benevolent/ Chavez is? Have one of his
citizens say something 1/1000th as bad about him as Sheehan has about Bush.
Said citizen would be praying for death within two hours.

He's got a lot of very rich, very well-connected and very persistent
enemies, so you have to take allegations against him with a grain of
salt.

He doesn't. He disappears them.

What we _do_ know about Hugo Chávez is this: He won the presidency by
a landslide (56%) endorsed by the Carter Center and other international
observers. He won reelection (60%) and a recall effort (59%) by even
wider margins. He was removed in a coup d'etat supported by the US
government, but he was reinstalled by a massive uprising of the common
people of Venezuela.

Much the same could be said for any number of tyrants, that they had popular
support at some point.

He does real things to improve the real lives of
poor people in his country-- he gets them health care from Cuba, he
gets them milk from Uruguay and Argentina that they otherwise could not
afford. He gives poor people houses and teaches them how to read. He
puts derelicted land in the hands of poor farmers who will work it. He
uses the petroleum wealth of his country for the benefit of _all_ its
people, not just the rich and powerful and white. And not
surprisingly, this ****es off the rich powerful white people of
Venezuela, who feel entitled to keep for themselves what Chávez is
sharing with the poor, workers, and indigenous people.

Are you done with the campaign commercial.

The most common corruption of democracy is the belief that it should permit 52%
the right to eat the other 48%. We'll see how far Chavez's play goes. It really
isn't much different from Castro's program, just with better PR.

What I want to know is, why do *you* trust what Faux News Corporation
has to say about Chávez more than you trust the overwhelming support
given him by his own people?

Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you follows Fox News. Most of
what I get in broadcast media comes from NPR.

Ron

GaryG wrote:
"RonSonic" wrote in message
...

I would welcome some moderate leftist discourse. Instead we get
people who think anyone who disagrees with them on any point is a
fascist.

And from the right...anyone who disagrees with the current Trillion
Dollar Debacle is labelled as "anti-American", or a "supporter of the
evildoers", etc.

Bull****. Typical disingenuous argument.

The ones who ARE (or should be) criticized are people who care more about
terrorist rights than US soldiers', leak and publish highly classified
programs that ARE (or were) working AND were completely legal, accuse Bush
of treasonous acts or inpeachable offenses with no proof other than their
hatred of him, former Vice Presidents who screech "he BETRAYED this
country!" knowing full well his own administration let Bin Laden go at least
a dozen times, who stand on the Senate floor and say we're worse than Nazis
or Pol Pot, go on national TV and say we terrorize women and children in the
dark of night, kill civilians in cold blood (before any trial), etc. etc.
etc.

At least be honest about who says what to get called what (and by whom).