Calling all Belgians

On Apr 18, 8:44 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:10:55 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

25 years ago, Ronald Reagan spoke derisively of "knee jerk liberals"
when speaking of those who responded from their ideology instead of
responding to reality. The phrase was descriptive of a common enough
problem to gain widespread usage. It was the right phrase for the time.

Now Bush has turned everything sideways. That phrase does not apply to
people like Ann Coulter or Tom Kunich, but the idea clearly does. What
do we call people like this? Rabid Republicans, perhaps?

I don't agree. A knee jerk liberal (of which I am one) is a person
who, in the absense of specific information or time for careful
consideration of the details of a particular situation, will choose
the leftist or more liberal choice. A knee jerk conservative would do
the same thing toward the right. It doesn't mean they *always* go left
or right. It means they tend to quickly go that way.

Coulter and Kunich are not like that -- they are far more extreme.
It's not that they just tend toward the right in the absense of more
specific information or time for consideration. It's that that they
actively aim to distort reality and avoid ever having to reconsider
their views. They're analogous to a radically leftwing person --
perhaps a communist party leader or someone like that.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
****************************

I'm going to tread really lightly on some of this, and it may be too
soon since all the factsa aren't in yet, but I'll get onto the slam
part of it.
I keep bitching, and am routinely ****ed off over the lack of
civility and respect today. Hate mongers like Coulter, the Westboro
Baptist assholes, Sean Penn, Soros etc... have made everyone they
disagree with, a "Nazi", "Fascist Pig!", "Traitor", "Baby KIller"
aimed both at Planned Paernthood and the military, and the list just
keeps going on and on. We hear it from ALF and ELF about the
environment, The nutcase rightwingers about "Government, and UN
conspiracies to turn the US into a police state." about the Liberals
wanting to turn the US into Cuba, class warfare " Eat the rich!"
anarchist garbage.
It's ALL totally ****ed up!. It's no different than the Nazis
preaching of hatred just different targets. (Godwin's law be damned
for a minute)
Unfortunately we have seen yet another result to go with "Oklahoma
City", and "The Unabomber", now we have "Va. Tech.".
How long is it going to be before it sinks in that if you keep
screaming and preaching hate people WILL act on it. It was bad enough
figuring this was just a complete mental breakdown, and failure of the
system, but NOPE we are finding out he was indoctrinated with "Class
warfare" hatred.
Enough is enough already. People are people and deserve to be treated
reasonably, unless they are preaching this hatred BS or purposely
choosing to hurt innocent people!
Sorry Folks Pollyanna's pretty sick to the stomach this morning.
Bill C

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
Donald Munro wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
So now the Federal Government is in charge of New Orleans? Exactly
when did that happen again? Or is it just your position that whenever
anything goes wrong Big Brother should fix it?
Fred Fredburger wrote:
Actually, that seems to have been George Bush's idea:
It probably died of loneliness.
Maybe he just said it and never meant it. He certainly KNOWS that he has
supporters like Tom who wont hold him accountable for anything.
You mean like you didn't have anything to say about Bill Clinton giving a
speech on saving the children from fast food the other day? You know -
the same guy who had burgers and fries delivered to the oval office?
There you go again. Every time Bush ****s up, you talk about Clinton.

News flash: Clinton isn't the President.

Meanwhile, Bush said the Feds are responsible for the cleanup in N.O.
Which makes him, in your words, Big Brother.

Here's a hint - politicians are politicians. While you seem to think that
blaming everything on Bush is the thing to do it still doesn't seem to
answer why you weren't just as vocal about Clinton. Could it be because
you're a hypocrit?

You are confused:

1. I don't blame Bush for everything; you simply hold him accountable
for NOTHING.

2. Clinton has nothing to do with it:
A. You only fantasize that I never disagreed with Clinton when he
was President. You have no actual information whatsoever. You are
deluding yourself here.
B. You complain about what Clinton said last week? I don't know or
care about what Clinton said or did last week. That's because I can rest
assured that Clinton: sent no one to their death last week, did not run
up the federal deficit last week, dis not expand the role of the federal
government last week, etc.

On Apr 19, 9:32 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

You are confused:

1. I don't blame Bush for everything; you simply hold him accountable
for NOTHING.

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence. We didn't have a choice of Good
vs Evil. We had mediocre vs a complete idiot and we chose mediocre. We
can't be too critical of him now.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move? And you don't even have the
courage to post under your own name and yet believe that someone
should destroy their entire life for you!

On Apr 18, 9:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"William Asher" wrote in message

I think Clinton killed anyone who could testify against him. All the
people in the WTC on Sept. 11? They were there to testify against
Clinton. Why do you think Hillary is now the senator from New York?

Then you CAN explain why no one has ever seen the autoptsy reports on Ron
Brown?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6092.shtml

Of all the fascinations with the evildoings of the
Clintons, Ron Brown's autopsy is the one I understand
least. Ron Brown's plane crashed into a Croatian hillside
on an instrument landing. Everyone died. What is Ron
Brown's autopsy supposed to show? Suppose there
was a bullet wound in his head or a knife wound in his
belly, did you expect to find Hillary's .38 (Hillary doesn't
carry a .22, please!!) or her monogrammed letter opener
next to the body? Why would the Clinton version of
SPECTRE shoot Ron Brown if they were going to crash
his plane into the hillside five minutes later anyway?

Please don't tell me that I am being illogical for asking
illogical people to provide logical reasoning. I already
deduced that from first principles.

Ben

"Bill C" wrote in message
ups.com...

Before Iran wiped out most of the major oilr producing facilities?
I'd doubt it. What then? You think Iraq has been planned, and gone
well, so tell me how this would go?

Bill, how long were we in WW II before we stopped retreating?

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Bill C" wrote in message
ups.com...

Before Iran wiped out most of the major oilr producing facilities?
I'd doubt it. What then? You think Iraq has been planned, and gone
well, so tell me how this would go?

Bill, how long were we in WW II before we stopped retreating?

Excellent point. In 1941, the U.S. was essentially an oil-exporting nation
and was fought symmetrically between opposing conventional forces. Aside
from that, WW2 and a possible war with Iran would be eerily similar in
terms of strategy and tactics.

Oh wait, you weren't asking me. Never mind.

--
Bill Asher

On Apr 19, 7:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message

ups.com...



Before Iran wiped out most of the major oilr producing facilities?
I'd doubt it. What then? You think Iraq has been planned, and gone
well, so tell me how this would go?

Bill, how long were we in WW II before we stopped retreating?

Tom, You tell me why Rommels Panzers failed? Why Japan Attacked the
US?
I'll give you a hint the answer is the same.
To answer your question it depends on the theater but 2 years minimum.
Retreat is a very complicated strategic concept though. We didn't lose
anything we couldn't live without during that retreat. The reason for
the maxim "Don't ever fight a land war in Asia" comes out of Chinese
history and military tradition where trading land for strategic
advantage is centuries old.
Iran is prepared to cut off all traffic in the strait of Hormuz at a
minimum:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...muz-strait.htm

I can't find it now, but there was an article I read, recently, by a
former Admiral that characterized a large part of Iran's recent
military buildup as being useless for anything other than shutting
down the M.E. oil flow.
Oil was one of the few decisive resources in WW2 and is now more
critical.
The concept of Pyrrhic Victory needs to be kept in mind here.
Bill C

wrote:
On Apr 19, 9:32 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
You are confused:

1. I don't blame Bush for everything; you simply hold him accountable
for NOTHING.

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence.

Funny, funny Tom!

There is GREAT evidence that I don't blame Bush for everything. Just
read anything I've had to say about Afghanistan, for instance.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move?

You're so funny!!!

Are you saying there has never been and never will be a President that
YOU criticize?

No, you're just saying you're a hypocrite.

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

Retreat is a very complicated strategic concept though. We didn't lose
anything we couldn't live without during that retreat.

Why do you complain about armor etc. in Iraq? Douglas MacArthur deserted his
troops in the Philipines and left them to the Bataan Death March. Almost
exactly the same thing happened in North Korea when the Chinese came across
the Yalloo.

All over the world those "anything we couldn't live without" were American
soldiers and sailors lives.

Winning is NEVER cheap.

I can't find it now, but there was an article I read, recently, by a
former Admiral that characterized a large part of Iran's recent
military buildup as being useless for anything other than shutting
down the M.E. oil flow.

Oil was one of the few decisive resources in WW2 and is now more
critical\

The concept of Pyrrhic Victory needs to be kept in mind here.

Seems to me that right from the start I've been saying that the Shiites in
Iran believe that bringing on the end of days is their mission. Pyrrhic
Victory is precisely what they want.

But you need to realize that oil is in such great supply that Iran would
cripple Europe perhaps for some time but not the USA.

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Apr 19, 9:32 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
You are confused:

1. I don't blame Bush for everything; you simply hold him accountable
for NOTHING.

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence.

Funny, funny Tom!

There is GREAT evidence that I don't blame Bush for everything. Just read
anything I've had to say about Afghanistan, for instance.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move?

You're so funny!!!

Are you saying there has never been and never will be a President that YOU
criticize?

No, you're just saying you're a hypocrite.

I don't criticise Presidents for trying and failing. I criticize them if
they don't try at all. Maybe you don't understand the distinction but then
apparently most of those here are in the same boat as you.