Attorney General John Ashcroft visits an elementary
school. After speaking for 15 minutes he says, "I will
now answer any questions you have."

Bobby stands up and says: "I have four questions, sir:

1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than
Gore?
2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden?
3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to
destroy civil liberties?
4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Just then the bell goes off and the kids are sent out
to play. Upon returning, Mr. Ashcroft says: "I am sorry
we were interrupted. I will answer any questions you have."

A little girl named Julie stands and says: "I have six
questions:

1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than
Gore?
2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden?
3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to
destroy civil liberties?
4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
5. Why did the bell ring twenty minutes early?
6. Where is Bobby?

"Tod" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Attorney General John Ashcroft visits an elementary
> school. After speaking for 15 minutes he says, "I will
> now answer any questions you have."
>
> Bobby stands up and says: "I have four questions, sir:
>
> 1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than
> Gore?
> 2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden?
> 3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to
> destroy civil liberties?
> 4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
>
> Just then the bell goes off and the kids are sent out
> to play. Upon returning, Mr. Ashcroft says: "I am sorry
> we were interrupted. I will answer any questions you have."
>
> A little girl named Julie stands and says: "I have six
> questions:
>
> 1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than
> Gore?
> 2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden?
> 3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to
> destroy civil liberties?
> 4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
> 5. Why did the bell ring twenty minutes early?
> 6. Where is Bobby?

7. Ray stands up and says What the **** has this to do with animal related
NGs.

**** off ~~jonnie~~ you trolling dwarf.
>

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:37:54 GMT, Tod > wrote:

>Attorney General John Ashcroft visits an elementary
>school. After speaking for 15 minutes he says, "I will
>now answer any questions you have."
>
>Bobby stands up and says: "I have four questions, sir:
>

Another whiny dumbocrat

Serpico was a NYC police investigator who fought corruption and of whom a
movie was made about in the 1970s. He denounces the Bush Corporate Regime
and Problems with the 9/11 Reichstag story as spewed by the corporate media
cartel propaganda outlets.
http://www.pogo.org/p/government/go-...stleblower.htm

www.globalresearch.ca
www.unansweredquestions.org

PS If the trolling fascists on this list wish to criticize this post please
accept my response in advance. (This speech was given shortly after 9/11.
The Bush Puppet's current rating is less than 50%).
In my opinion, an 85% approval rating only proves one thing. Einstein was
correct when he said: "Two things are infinite, human stupidity and the
universe, and I am not sure of the latter." Serpico

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:37:54 GMT, Tod > wrote:
>
> >Attorney General John Ashcroft visits an elementary
> >school. After speaking for 15 minutes he says, "I will
> >now answer any questions you have."
> >
> >Bobby stands up and says: "I have four questions, sir:
> >
>
> Another whiny dumbocrat

Rick wrote:

Another sniveling, goose stepping Bushzi -

Good term -- I'll have to remember it.

Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
a one-to-one correspondence. We are living is a fascist
state, quite literally. We had a chancellor appointed
without an electoral majority, the rounding up of
political opponents into the first concentration camp at
Guantanomo, our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
evidence Bush knew about it beforehand, just as Hitler
knew the Reichstag fire was planned, but didn't know the
details personally), followed by our Enabling Act (the
Patriot Act) gutting civil rights. Like Hitler, Bush
has tried to turn people's attention away from
domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's. But,
unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
surplus he inherited from Clinton.

See you in the camps! (it's become a greeting around here).

Rat the Ungleichschaltet

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> Another sniveling, goose stepping Bushzi -
>
> Good term -- I'll have to remember it.
>
> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
> a one-to-one correspondence.

"The" step-by-step comparison? Don't you mean A
step-by-step comparison, put together by an extreme
leftist?

> We are living is a fascist state, quite literally.

No, quite literally, we are not. Your claim is a
product of a hyperbolic and hysterical extremist. We
are not even figuratively a fascist state.

There are some very bad trends. I believe Ashcroft is
as close to a fascist as one could be without admitting
it directly. I believe he and many of his supporters
would implement a fascist state whether they realized
they were doing so or not.

We are not, however, living in a fascist state. If we
were, we could not have a federal judge effectively
dismiss the charges against the alleged terrorist
Moussaoui.

> We had a chancellor appointed
> without an electoral majority,

No. We had a president elected by the electoral
college, exactly as provided by the Constitution.

> the rounding up of
> political opponents into the first concentration camp at
> Guantanomo,

That's the biggest rupture of the truth yet. The Nazis
rounded up *German* political opponents. The people
being held in Guantanamo Bay are all foreign combatants.

> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,

It isn't "evidence", it's conspiratorial bullshit that
irrationally credulous people like you swallow at face
value, because it corresponds to what you want to
believe for ideological reasons.

> just as Hitler
> knew the Reichstag fire was planned, but didn't know the
> details personally), followed by our Enabling Act (the
> Patriot Act) gutting civil rights. Like Hitler, Bush
> has tried to turn people's attention away from
> domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
> Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's.

Completely wrong, of course, as this kind of crap is
almost all the time. There are no domestic problems
remotely similar to what was going on in early 1930s
Germany. Our economy is growing, inflation is almost
non-existent, unemployment is shrinking. There is no
great social discord anywhere, except where the ardent
U.S.-hating leftists are trying to stir up trouble,
chiefly in college admissions programs, where
quota-implementing liars are unconstitutionally
implementing affirmative action.

All is not well, but there is simply no legitimate
comparison to be made to Nazi Germany.

> But unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
> revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
> a depression

No, he has not. Presidents deserve little of the blame
for economic downturns, and none of the credit for
upturns. There has been no depression.

> and destroyed the healthy economy

Nope. The economy is healthy.

> and surplus he inherited from Clinton.

You mean the surplus he inherited from a Republican
congress. Congress passes appropriations bills.

>
> See you in the camps! (it's become a greeting around here).

There really ought to be some kind of camp for you.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:21:08 -0700, Rat & Swan >
wrote:

>
>
>Rick wrote:
>
>Another sniveling, goose stepping Bushzi -
>
> Good term -- I'll have to remember it.
>
> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4?

Since, as you admit, you aren't an American, I'll forgive the
historical inaccuracies of an obvious attempt to further deteriorate
America's faith in its leadership.

> It's almost
> a one-to-one correspondence. We are living is a fascist
> state, quite literally.

Throughout your dialogue, you change the meaning of the word "we."
The most consistent interpretation is that you are from Germany (i.e.
"We had a chancellor [Hitler] appointed..." The statement above,
then, indicates that Germany is still a fascist state. If that was
your intended messages, I extend my sympathies to you. Luckily, for
us Americans, we don't live in a fascist state.

> We had a chancellor appointed
> without an electoral majority,

That's too bad for your country. Our president, George Bush, was
elected with the Constitutional electoral majority: 271 votes verses
266. (http://www.potus.com/gwbush.html). Although his opponent,
Gore, got more of the *popular* vote, according to our laws, it is the
electoral votes (i.e., the votes of each of the States in the United
States) that actually count.

> the rounding up of
> political opponents into the first concentration camp at
> Guantanomo,


I don't know why you Germans let Hitler put citizens into a
conentration camp without due process. We don't do it. The detainees
in Guantanamo are non-citizens, prisoners-of-war (or, at least, armed
conflict)
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...nees_1-22.html).
Albeit, from an *international* perspective, the situation is
deplorable... but to compare this situation to Hitler's habit of
imprisoning German citizens because they were gypsies, gays, Jews,
etc. just illustrates ignorant understanding. I thought Europeans
were supposed to be educated better.

> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand, just as Hitler
> knew the Reichstag fire was planned, but didn't know the
> details personally),

This is sheer ignorance. *I* saw CIA Fact sheet reports in 1996
warning about a terrorist attack, possibly using hijacked planes. The
problem is--what do you do with that kind of intelligence? Do you
tell your citizenry not to fly planes? Keep the planes on the
grounds? Hell, Americans *know* that terrorists have attacked the
United States, but still many of them grumble about increased airport
security when the threat posture changes because of unsubstantiated
intelligence...


> followed by our Enabling Act (the
> Patriot Act) gutting civil rights.

I have to admit, the Patriot act scares me. But again, I don't see an
easy way around the advantages that modern technology has given
criminals. The part of the Patriot act I can agree with is the
wiretapping portion: criminals are constantly changing their
telephones (it's very easy to go to a cellular service and buy a dozen
phones, use a phone once, and switch phones--prior to the Patriot act,
a warrant had to be given for each phone. Now, a warrant only needs
to be awarded to surveill a person).


> Like Hitler, Bush
> has tried to turn people's attention away from
> domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
> Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's.

It's only a "Stalingrad"-like because Americans don't have the resolve
to win a war (look at Vietnam). The wimpiness generally is
spearheaded by the liberal-left (my opinion).

> But,
> unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
> revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
> a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
> surplus he inherited from Clinton.

Again, you have absolutely no idea of the history of the U.S., even
history that has occurred within the last decade. The rhetoric you're
spewing simply tries to undermine the resolve of one of the greatest
nations on the Earth. Almost intellectual terrorism of sorts.

You have caught Karen Winter ('rat') doing what she
most likes to do: draw false and invidious moral
equivalence.

Actually, that's only Karen's second favorite activity.
Her favorite is just garden-variety lying.


Daiichi wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:21:08 -0700, Rat & Swan >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>Another sniveling, goose stepping Bushzi -
>>
>> Good term -- I'll have to remember it.
>>
>> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
>> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4?
>
>
> Since, as you admit, you aren't an American, I'll forgive the
> historical inaccuracies of an obvious attempt to further deteriorate
> America's faith in its leadership.
>
>
>> It's almost
>> a one-to-one correspondence. We are living is a fascist
>> state, quite literally.
>
>
> Throughout your dialogue, you change the meaning of the word "we."
> The most consistent interpretation is that you are from Germany (i.e.
> "We had a chancellor [Hitler] appointed..." The statement above,
> then, indicates that Germany is still a fascist state. If that was
> your intended messages, I extend my sympathies to you. Luckily, for
> us Americans, we don't live in a fascist state.
>
>
>> We had a chancellor appointed
>> without an electoral majority,
>
>
> That's too bad for your country. Our president, George Bush, was
> elected with the Constitutional electoral majority: 271 votes verses
> 266. (http://www.potus.com/gwbush.html). Although his opponent,
> Gore, got more of the *popular* vote, according to our laws, it is the
> electoral votes (i.e., the votes of each of the States in the United
> States) that actually count.
>
>
>> the rounding up of
>> political opponents into the first concentration camp at
>> Guantanomo,
>
>
>
> I don't know why you Germans let Hitler put citizens into a
> conentration camp without due process. We don't do it. The detainees
> in Guantanamo are non-citizens, prisoners-of-war (or, at least, armed
> conflict)
> (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...nees_1-22.html).
> Albeit, from an *international* perspective, the situation is
> deplorable... but to compare this situation to Hitler's habit of
> imprisoning German citizens because they were gypsies, gays, Jews,
> etc. just illustrates ignorant understanding. I thought Europeans
> were supposed to be educated better.
>
>
>> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
>> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand, just as Hitler
>> knew the Reichstag fire was planned, but didn't know the
>> details personally),
>
>
> This is sheer ignorance. *I* saw CIA Fact sheet reports in 1996
> warning about a terrorist attack, possibly using hijacked planes. The
> problem is--what do you do with that kind of intelligence? Do you
> tell your citizenry not to fly planes? Keep the planes on the
> grounds? Hell, Americans *know* that terrorists have attacked the
> United States, but still many of them grumble about increased airport
> security when the threat posture changes because of unsubstantiated
> intelligence...
>
>
>
>> followed by our Enabling Act (the
>> Patriot Act) gutting civil rights.
>
>
> I have to admit, the Patriot act scares me. But again, I don't see an
> easy way around the advantages that modern technology has given
> criminals. The part of the Patriot act I can agree with is the
> wiretapping portion: criminals are constantly changing their
> telephones (it's very easy to go to a cellular service and buy a dozen
> phones, use a phone once, and switch phones--prior to the Patriot act,
> a warrant had to be given for each phone. Now, a warrant only needs
> to be awarded to surveill a person).
>
>
>
>> Like Hitler, Bush
>> has tried to turn people's attention away from
>> domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
>> Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's.
>
>
> It's only a "Stalingrad"-like because Americans don't have the resolve
> to win a war (look at Vietnam). The wimpiness generally is
> spearheaded by the liberal-left (my opinion).
>
>
>> But,
>> unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
>> revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
>> a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
>> surplus he inherited from Clinton.
>
>
> Again, you have absolutely no idea of the history of the U.S., even
> history that has occurred within the last decade. The rhetoric you're
> spewing simply tries to undermine the resolve of one of the greatest
> nations on the Earth. Almost intellectual terrorism of sorts.
>

Godwin's Law is hereby invoked, and the anti-Bush critics have lost their
argument by forfeit.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Fook Germ wrote:
> Serpico was a NYC police investigator who fought corruption and of whom a
> movie was made about in the 1970s. He denounces the Bush Corporate Regime
> and Problems with the 9/11 Reichstag story as spewed by the corporate media
> cartel propaganda outlets.

You're beyond ****ed up if you think 9/11 is comparable to the burning
of the Reichstag. Same with your loony theories about other tragedies
like the OKC bombing or Waco, you nutbag. I know you have your little
axes to grind, but enough of the rank hyperbole.

> PS If the trolling fascists on this list wish to criticize this post please
> accept my response in advance. (This speech was given shortly after 9/11.
> The Bush Puppet's current rating is less than 50%).

Wrong, which is to be expected from a hateful, extremist partisan moron
like you. Here are the latest results of polling from several different
sources.

1. FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 28-29, 2003. N=900 registered
voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as
president?"
10/28-29/03 Approve: 53 Disapprove: 37

2. Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"
10/24-26/03 Approve: 53 Disapprove: 42

3. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates.
Oct. 23-24, 2003. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"
10/23-24/03 Approve: 51 Disapprove: 40

4. Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll. Oct. 21-23, 2003. N=742
registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.7.
"Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the
way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" If "mixed
feelings" or not su "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward
approve or disapprove?"
10/21-23/03 Approve: 55 Disapprove: 43 Mixed: 2

5. CBS News Poll. Oct. 20-21, 2003. N=751 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?"
10/20-21/03 Approve: 54 Disapprove: 36

6. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by
Princeton Survey Research Associates. Oct. 15-19, 2003. N=1,515 adults
nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his
job as president?" If "Depends": "Overall, do you approve or
disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
10/15-19/03 Approve: 50 Disapprove: 42

7. The Harris Poll. Oct. 14-19, 2003. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How would you rate the overall job President George W. Bush is doing as
president: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"
10/14-19/03 Excellent/good: 59 fair/poor: 40

8. Zogby: The only poll in which Bush doesn't score 50% or higher using
same questioning and scoring methodology as Harris, but only from likely
voters according to their definition.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

<snip>

Mark Crispin wrote:
> Godwin's Law is hereby invoked, and the anti-Bush critics have lost their
> argument by forfeit.

It's not exactly a rule, more like a guideline.
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms...win_s_Law.html


>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Tod > wrote in message hlink.net>...
> Attorney General John Ashcroft visits an elementary
> school. After speaking for 15 minutes he says, "I will

> 5. Why did the bell ring twenty minutes early?
> 6. Where is Bobby?


The Republican Nazi Party took him in for questioning to the
executives at the all new GOP run state television network CBS before
he was then never to be seen ever again..

Tod > wrote in message hlink.net>...

<hilarious joke snipped>

Thanks, Tod! I will spread that one around!

exploratory wrote:

> Tod > wrote in message hlink.net>...
>
> <hilarious joke snipped>
>
> Thanks, Tod! I will spread that one around!

Okay. I'm glad you liked it.

It doesn't make us buddies, though, Suppository. You
are utterly wrong on the "animal rights" stuff.

Tod > wrote in message nk.net>...

> It doesn't make us buddies, though, Suppository. You
> are utterly wrong on the "animal rights" stuff.

That is YOUR opinion.
I happened to like your joke about Bush, but that does not
mean I do not believe that he was entirely wrong for going
to war against Saddam Hussein. Nor does it mean that you
should have posted it here, on a pro-animal rights newsgroup.
Why are you here, then, if you are an anti-animal rightist?

suppository wrote:
>>It doesn't make us buddies, though, Suppository. You
>>are utterly wrong on the "animal rights" stuff.
>
> That is YOUR opinion.

Actually, he's right in his assertions about AR.

> I happened to like your joke about Bush, but that does not
> mean I do not believe that he was entirely wrong for going
> to war against Saddam Hussein. Nor does it mean that you
> should have posted it here, on a pro-animal rights newsgroup.

Which group listed is "pro" AR?

> Why are you here, then, if you are an anti-animal rightist?

There are at least two sides to every issue. Why can't you candidly
answer any of the ones that oppose your misguided beliefs?

suppository wrote:
> Tod > wrote in message nk.net>...
>
>
>>It doesn't make us buddies, though, Suppository. You
>>are utterly wrong on the "animal rights" stuff.
>
>
> That is YOUR opinion.

A well researched, solidly founded opinion, unlike your
hypersentimental, irrational one.

> I happened to like your joke about Bush,

It's about Ashcroft, moron.

> but that does not
> mean I do not believe that he was entirely wrong for going
> to war against Saddam Hussein. Nor does it mean that you
> should have posted it here, on a pro-animal rights newsgroup.

This is not a pro-animal rights newsgroup, dummy.

> Why are you here, then, if you are an anti-animal rightist?

To tell "animal rights 'activists'" why they are wrong.

On 6 Nov 2003 22:19:16 -0800, (exploratory)
wrote:

>Tod > wrote in message nk.net>...
>
>> It doesn't make us buddies, though, Suppository. You
>> are utterly wrong on the "animal rights" stuff.
>
>That is YOUR opinion.
>I happened to like your joke about Bush, but that does not
>mean I do not believe that he was entirely wrong for going
>to war against Saddam Hussein. Nor does it mean that you
>should have posted it here, on a pro-animal rights newsgroup.
>Why are you here, then, if you are an anti-animal rightist?

P E T A

People Eating Tasty Animals

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> Another sniveling, goose stepping Bushzi -
>
> Good term -- I'll have to remember it.
>
> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
> a one-to-one correspondence. We are living is a fascist
> state, quite literally. We had a chancellor appointed
> without an electoral majority, the rounding up of
> political opponents into the first concentration camp at
> Guantanomo, our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand, just as Hitler
> knew the Reichstag fire was planned, but didn't know the
> details personally), followed by our Enabling Act (the
> Patriot Act) gutting civil rights. Like Hitler, Bush
> has tried to turn people's attention away from
> domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
> Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's. But,
> unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
> revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
> a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
> surplus he inherited from Clinton.
>
> See you in the camps! (it's become a greeting around here).

"Many political words are similarly abused. The word
Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it
signifies 'something not desirable.'"

George Orwell - Politics and the English Language, 1946

Same goes for "Nazi". It has no meaning, especially
coming from you.

Glad to see someone's got the courage to expose the so-called "War on
Terrorism" for what it is. the "War on Terror" consists of the same warfare
and civil liberties violations the terrorists want, served to them on a
silver platter. Just wish he'd had his facts right before raising this
important issue.
> > Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> > takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
> > a one-to-one correspondence. We are living is a fascist
> > state, quite literally. We had a chancellor appointed
> > without an electoral majority,
Big fat hairy deal. This isn't an absolute republic, this is a polity
governed by a Constitution that provides for an electoral college.
It's true that we'll never know who really won Florida. It might have
been Gore, but it was probably Bush.
the rounding up of
> > political opponents into the first concentration camp at
> > Guantanomo,
It's jumping the gun to conclude that it's a "concentration camp,"
although I see your point. The prisoners, who are within the Federal
Government's sovreign territory, have been denied their right to due
process, so any civilians in there have no recourse. Bush even refuses to
release a list of the prisoners' names. and they've probably been tortured
during interrogations. (Some have died during interrogations, and Rumsfeld
has hinted that sleep deprivation and rough treatment were going to be used.
Amnesty International wasn't allowed to visit the prison.)
our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> > evidence Bush knew about it beforehand, just as Hitler
> > knew the Reichstag fire was planned,
Nothing even remotely conclusive. Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse for
robbing his subjects of their freedom the same way Hitler used the Reichstag
Fire as an excuse for just about everything he did, but the bureaucratic
incompetence preceding 9/11 was probably a far cry from Bush knowing about
it beforehand.
but didn't know the
> > details personally), followed by our Enabling Act (the
> > Patriot Act) gutting civil rights. Like Hitler, Bush
> > has tried to turn people's attention away from
> > domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
> > Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's. But,
> > unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
> > revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
> > a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
> > surplus he inherited from Clinton.
> >
> > See you in the camps! (it's become a greeting around here).
>
> "Many political words are similarly abused. The word
> Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it
> signifies 'something not desirable.'"
>
> George Orwell - Politics and the English Language, 1946
>
> Same goes for "Nazi". It has no meaning, especially
> coming from you.
>

I can't tell who posted what here so I'll just make comments.
Anyone who compares the activities of Bush to Hitler is historically
challenged. He should be soaking his head in a bucket instead of
attempting to spread this putrid garbage. In 1933 Hitler outlawed his
principal rivals, the Communist party. As beneficial as it would be our
radical leftitists, the democrats, are still at full screech. By 1934
Hitler had outlawed any disenting press organs. No such step has been
taken in the U.S. By 1934 every officer and enlisted man in the
Reichswehr, the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine was taking personal oaths
of allegiance to Adolph Hitler rather than Germany. Haven't heard that
about the U.S. Armed Forces. By then Hitler had also gained a distinct
ability to quash any film he considered inimical to the Nazi State and
to imprison thier creators. Idiots like Micheal Moore are still at large
to spew their diarrhea. By 1934 Hitler had dismissed the Reichstag. Both
houses of Congress still meet in Washington. So what is this moron
talking about? He's relying on the old leftist trick of trying to use
peoples ignorance against them. He's a foul fish. Pay his further posts
since the extent of his ignorance places instellar space to shame.

sgdunn wrote:
> Glad to see someone's got the courage to expose the so-called "War on
> Terrorism" for what it is. the "War on Terror" consists of the same warfare
> and civil liberties violations the terrorists want, served to them on a
> silver platter. Just wish he'd had his facts right before raising this
> important issue.
>
>>> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
>>> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
>>> a one-to-one correspondence. We are living is a fascist
>>> state, quite literally. We had a chancellor appointed
>>> without an electoral majority,
>>
> Big fat hairy deal. This isn't an absolute republic, this is a polity
> governed by a Constitution that provides for an electoral college.
> It's true that we'll never know who really won Florida. It might have
> been Gore, but it was probably Bush.
> the rounding up of
>
>>> political opponents into the first concentration camp at
>>> Guantanomo,
>>
> It's jumping the gun to conclude that it's a "concentration camp,"
> although I see your point. The prisoners, who are within the Federal
> Government's sovreign territory, have been denied their right to due
> process, so any civilians in there have no recourse. Bush even refuses to
> release a list of the prisoners' names. and they've probably been tortured
> during interrogations. (Some have died during interrogations, and Rumsfeld
> has hinted that sleep deprivation and rough treatment were going to be used.
> Amnesty International wasn't allowed to visit the prison.)
> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
>
>>> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand, just as Hitler
>>> knew the Reichstag fire was planned,
>>
> Nothing even remotely conclusive. Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse for
> robbing his subjects of their freedom the same way Hitler used the Reichstag
> Fire as an excuse for just about everything he did, but the bureaucratic
> incompetence preceding 9/11 was probably a far cry from Bush knowing about
> it beforehand.
> but didn't know the
>
>>> details personally), followed by our Enabling Act (the
>>> Patriot Act) gutting civil rights. Like Hitler, Bush
>>> has tried to turn people's attention away from
>>> domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
>>> Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's. But,
>>> unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
>>> revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
>>> a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
>>> surplus he inherited from Clinton.
>>>
>>> See you in the camps! (it's become a greeting around here).
>>
>>"Many political words are similarly abused. The word
>>Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it
>>signifies 'something not desirable.'"
>>
>>George Orwell - Politics and the English Language, 1946
>>
>>Same goes for "Nazi". It has no meaning, especially
>>coming from you.
>>
>
>
>


--
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an
equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906)

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> Another sniveling, goose stepping Bushzi -
>
> Good term -- I'll have to remember it.
>
> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
> a one-to-one correspondence.

It's complete bullshit.

> We are living is a fascist state, quite literally.

No, we are not. You are proving the truth of what
Orwell wrote:

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so
far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"

George Orwell
"Politics and the English Language", 1946


You hate the U.S., for all the things that make it
great, most especially for being capitalist and for,
more than anyplace else, protecting individual
liberties against the collectivist tyranny you wish to
impose. Because you hate the U.S. and are a
garden-variety leftist/collectivist, you reflexively
call the U.S. "fascist", but it's only because you
don't like the U.S. from a leftist/collectivist
perspective, not because the U.S is fascist.


> We had a chancellor appointed
> without an electoral majority,

No, we didn't. Bush obtained a majority vote of the
Electoral College, the constitutionally provided method
of selecting the U.S. President.

Anyway, even in parliamentary countries, a prime
minister often is selected from a party that doesn't
have a parliamentary majority. That is not fascist.
AGAIN, you prove only that you hate the U.S.

> the rounding up of
> political opponents into the first concentration camp at
> Guantanomo,

No, not "political opponents", liar. Non-citizen enemy
combatants, captured on foreign soil in combat with the
U.S. armed forces.

You just can't help lying.

> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,

Show it, liar.

> just as Hitler
> knew the Reichstag fire was planned, but didn't know the
> details personally),

In fact, traitor, the accepted belief is that the Nazis
set the Reichstag fire. You are now accusing the U.S.
government of *committing* the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
by virtue of your fatuous comparison.

> followed by our Enabling Act (the
> Patriot Act) gutting civil rights.

The misnamed "Patriot" Act does not gut civil
liberties. It is a threat to some of them, and I have
hopes that the worst excesses of it will be thrown out
in court. Unlike in Nazi Germany, our courts will take
a hard look at it, and if the Supreme Court rules parts
of it unconstitutional, those parts will be discarded.
Also unlike Nazi Germany, some of the Republican
legislators who supported the passage of the act are
calling for reconsideration of parts of it. Neither
the justices nor the legislators are threatened with
imprisonment or death. Your comparison is utterly
specious.

There are parts of the "Patriot" Act that are necessary
correctives to outdated laws. One that immediately
springs to mind is the ability to obtain a wiretap
authorization on a person, not just a phone line. This
is a necessary and good change, and is not in any way
"fascist".

> Like Hitler, Bush
> has tried to turn people's attention away from
> domestic problems by Glorious Foreign War, but his
> Stalingrad has come a bit earlier than Hitler's. But,
> unlike Hitler, who took a country in a depression and
> revived the economy (temporarily), Bush has CREATED
> a depression and destroyed the healthy economy and
> surplus he inherited from Clinton.

Bush did not inherit a health economy from Clinton.
The dot-com bust began in 1999, and the downturn began
long before the election. Anyone who knows anything
about business cycles knows that downturns have their
genesis long before the actual increases in
unemployment and decreases in output.

But thanks for showing your blatant partisanship, as
well as your utter ignorance of economics.

>
> See you in the camps! (it's become a greeting around here).

It would be. Being an extreme leftist/collectivist,
you only will live in a place inhabited by others of
your same traitorous hyperbole, and I'm sure you and
the other losers *do* greet each other that way.

Rat & Swan wrote:


> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,

Show it, liar.

some qualification is required. it was *Prescott* Bush
who was an officer of Union Bank, when it was taken to court
for violating the Trading with the Enemy Act. it was a subsidiary
of the then-largest private bank on Earth, Brown Bros., Harriman,
whose networks are organized by Skull and Bones at Yale.
see http://tarpley.net. (one of the author's father brought the case.)
of course, that's 3 generations of S&B in the federal goment;
don't know about the rest of the "dynasty."

Don Swayser > wrote in message >...

> Anyone who compares the activities of Bush to Hitler is historically
> challenged. He should be soaking his head in a bucket instead of
> attempting to spread this putrid garbage. In 1933 Hitler outlawed his
> principal rivals, the Communist party. As beneficial as it would be our
> radical leftitists, the democrats, are still at full screech. By 1934
> Hitler had outlawed any disenting press organs. No such step has been
> taken in the U.S. By 1934 every officer and enlisted man in the
> Reichswehr, the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine was taking personal oaths
> of allegiance to Adolph Hitler rather than Germany. Haven't heard that
> about the U.S. Armed Forces. By then Hitler had also gained a distinct
> ability to quash any film he considered inimical to the Nazi State and
> to imprison thier creators. Idiots like Micheal Moore are still at large
> to spew their diarrhea. By 1934 Hitler had dismissed the Reichstag. Both
> houses of Congress still meet in Washington. So what is this moron

--ils duces d'Enron!
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2003/0...statement.html

whether or not the Cheney was in on planning it, or
allowing ot to happen, or it was just a "NORAD SNAFU,"
it was certainly used as a pretext -- the plans were made,
origninally, in '91, and rejected by the Sitting Member
of the Bush Dynasty (Sir [the original] George;
see http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm).
you may not have heard,
that POTUS#41 gave his annual award to an authorial critic
of the "neo-imperial" policy. all documented
at http://larouchepub.net, but it's better
to get the weekly paper, just to be sure. maybe,
they'll put it in a brown paper wrapper
for a few extra bucks!... http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...

> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's

--ils duces d;Enron!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...t_pricing.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...gia_soros.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3047detroit_spch.html

Basic English was the program that "George Orwell" worked on -- and
he had nothing but unbad to say about it; you can find this
in the American Almanac backlog.
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/

whether or not Dick Cheeny had anything to *do* with 9/11 (or
allowing it to happen, or it was just a "NORAD SNAFU"),
he certainly used it as a pretext for hi '91 invasion plan
(on 9/13, that is).
there was no reason for the Supreme Court to butt-in,
by violating US and Florida consitutitions, to *insure*
that George won, even if he might have. to me,
it seems like the "R" did this, in order to create a populist movement
to go to mass-online plebiscite-for-president. you know,
like in Nazi Germnay.

like I said, before, it was Prescott B. who was indicted,
as an executive of Union Bank.

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...

> > Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> > takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost

> "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so
> far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"
>
> "George Orwell,"
> "Politics and the English Language", 1946

> garden-variety leftist/collectivist, you reflexively

> No, we didn't. Bush obtained a majority vote of the
> Electoral College, the constitutionally provided method

--Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- out of office, finally!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html

I don't know if you-all see the same thing that I do,
at UCLA, but these items seem to be being effectively trashed
by "these oceans oscirius" and its little poems. or,
it just means taht I'd have to reset the default "view,"
somehow -- don't tell These, how!

(Brian Quincy Hutchings) wrote in message . com>...

> see http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm).
> you may not have heard,
> that POTUS#41 gave his annual award to an authorial critic
> of the "neo-imperial" policy. all documented
> at http://larouchepub.net, but it's better
> to get the weekly paper, just to be sure. maybe,
> they'll put it in a brown paper wrapper
> for a few extra bucks!... http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/

--Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- out of office!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...te_plmbrs.html
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2003/0...statement.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...t_pricing.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3047detroit_spch.html

the only true collecetive, that I know of, is *The Economist*,
the icon of British Liberal Free Trade's Invisible Handiness;
just see who authors all of the articles!
there are lots of things *about* fascism (or Corporatism,
under Mussolini, or what it was called by others) that are not so desirable,
but why would "George Orwell" make such a statement?... see
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/fascpt.htm. and
here is where "newspeak" can be found,
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/brainpt.htm --
"Tavistock's Language Project."

the EC can also dump candidates, as they should have done
with both B and G, thus sending the decision to Congress;
as it was, only the collegian from DC said any thing, and
that was just a complaint about not having a senator!
it can be a deliberative body, when required.

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...

> "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so
> far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"

> No, we didn't. Bush obtained a majority vote of the
> Electoral College, the constitutionally provided method
> of selecting the U.S. President.

--Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- out of office, at last!
http://www.benfranklinbooks.com/
http://www.wlym.com/pages/music.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...te_plmbrs.html
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2003/0...statement.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...t_pricing.html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3047detroit_spch.html
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...sues/rr.12.00/
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.wlym.com/PDF-68-76/CAM7606.pdf

"Brian Quincy Hutchings" > wrote in message
om...
> Basic English was the program that "George Orwell" worked on -- and
> he had nothing but unbad to say about it; you can find this
> in the American Almanac backlog.
> http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/
>
> whether or not Dick Cheeny had anything to *do* with 9/11 (or
> allowing it to happen, or it was just a "NORAD SNAFU"),
> he certainly used it as a pretext for hi '91 invasion plan
> (on 9/13, that is).
> there was no reason for the Supreme Court to butt-in,
> by violating US and Florida consitutitions, to *insure*
> that George won, even if he might have. to me,
> it seems like the "R" did this, in order to create a populist movement
> to go to mass-online plebiscite-for-president. you know,
> like in Nazi Germnay.
>
> like I said, before, it was Prescott B. who was indicted,
> as an executive of Union Bank.
>
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
thlink.net>...
>
> > > Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
> > > takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
>
> > "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so
> > far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"
> >
> > "George Orwell,"
> > "Politics and the English Language", 1946
>
> > garden-variety leftist/collectivist, you reflexively
>
> > No, we didn't. Bush obtained a majority vote of the
> > Electoral College, the constitutionally provided method
>
> --Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- out of office, finally!
> http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html


This kind of sounds like a post that belongs on
alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters

-Rubystars

Rat & Swan wrote:


> our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's
> evidence Bush knew about it beforehand,

Show it, liar.

Rubystars wrote:

> "Brian Quincy Hutchings" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Basic English was the program that "George Orwell" worked on -- and
>>he had nothing but unbad to say about it; you can find this
>>in the American Almanac backlog.
>> http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/
>>
>>whether or not Dick Cheeny had anything to *do* with 9/11 (or
>>allowing it to happen, or it was just a "NORAD SNAFU"),
>>he certainly used it as a pretext for hi '91 invasion plan
>>(on 9/13, that is).
>> there was no reason for the Supreme Court to butt-in,
>>by violating US and Florida consitutitions, to *insure*
>>that George won, even if he might have. to me,
>>it seems like the "R" did this, in order to create a populist movement
>>to go to mass-online plebiscite-for-president. you know,
>>like in Nazi Germnay.
>>
>>like I said, before, it was Prescott B. who was indicted,
>>as an executive of Union Bank.
>>
>>Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
>
> thlink.net>...
>
>>>> Have you seen the step-by-step comparison between Bush's
>>>> takeover and the Nazi takeover in 1933-4? It's almost
>>
>>> "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so
>>> far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"
>>>
>>> "George Orwell,"
>>> "Politics and the English Language", 1946
>>
>>>garden-variety leftist/collectivist, you reflexively
>>
>>>No, we didn't. Bush obtained a majority vote of the
>>>Electoral College, the constitutionally provided method
>>
>>--Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- out of office, finally!
>>http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html
>
>
>
> This kind of sounds like a post that belongs on
> alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters

The nutball is a follower of Lyndon Larouche. That's
all you need to know to put him permanently in the
goofball file. He's an idiot by choice.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
<snip>
> The nutball is a follower of Lyndon Larouche. That's
> all you need to know to put him permanently in the
> goofball file. He's an idiot by choice.

Is he a Democrat?

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>The nutball is a follower of Lyndon Larouche. That's
>>all you need to know to put him permanently in the
>>goofball file. He's an idiot by choice.
>
>
> Is he a Democrat?

Larouche? He used to bill himself as a "conservative
Democrat". He's a complete lunatic, not because of his
placement along the political spectrum per se, but
because he's a paranoid crank.

Some years ago, back in the 1980s, he was accusing just
about everyone in sight of being a "drug dealer". He
included Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain. Some
American TV news reporter was questioning Larouche
about it, rather subtly suggesting that one ought not
make that kind of accusation without support for it,
which Larouche clearly didn't have. At first Larouche
didn't "get" that the reporter was, subtly, suggesting
that Larouche was a crackpot. Suddenly, it dawned on
him; he turned and backed away from the reporter, and
snarled at him: "Get away from me, you drug dealer!"

Larouche is a ****ing lunatic; almost a walking
dictionary definition of paranoid. Anyone who still
believes in him is nuts, too.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The nutball is a follower of Lyndon Larouche. That's
>>> all you need to know to put him permanently in the
>>> goofball file. He's an idiot by choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is he a Democrat?
>

Do a Google search on Larouche + paranoia/paranoid, and
you'll get thousands of hits. Larouche and irrational
paranoia are inseparable; they're virtually synonymous.

>
> Larouche? He used to bill himself as a "conservative Democrat". He's a
> complete lunatic, not because of his placement along the political
> spectrum per se, but because he's a paranoid crank.
>
> Some years ago, back in the 1980s, he was accusing just about everyone
> in sight of being a "drug dealer". He included Queen Elizabeth of Great
> Britain. Some American TV news reporter was questioning Larouche about
> it, rather subtly suggesting that one ought not make that kind of
> accusation without support for it, which Larouche clearly didn't have.
> At first Larouche didn't "get" that the reporter was, subtly, suggesting
> that Larouche was a crackpot. Suddenly, it dawned on him; he turned and
> backed away from the reporter, and snarled at him: "Get away from me,
> you drug dealer!"
>
> Larouche is a ****ing lunatic; almost a walking dictionary definition of
> paranoid. Anyone who still believes in him is nuts, too.
>

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rubystars wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The nutball is a follower of Lyndon Larouche. That's
>>> all you need to know to put him permanently in the
>>> goofball file. He's an idiot by choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is he a Democrat?
>
>
> Larouche? He used to bill himself as a "conservative Democrat". He's a
> complete lunatic, not because of his placement along the political
> spectrum per se, but because he's a paranoid crank.
>
> Some years ago, back in the 1980s, he was accusing just about everyone
> in sight of being a "drug dealer". He included Queen Elizabeth of Great
> Britain.

"He has charged that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug
dealer, and that Henry Kissinger and Walter Mondale are
Soviet agents."

http://larouchein2004.net/pages/othe...0502apwire.htm

This is Larouche's OWN PAGE! Apparently, he *wants*
the world to know that he makes wild, irresponsible
accusations.

Larouche is only in it for the money. He sells
paranoia, to the tune of millions of dollars a year in
income.

> Some American TV news reporter was questioning Larouche about
> it, rather subtly suggesting that one ought not make that kind of
> accusation without support for it, which Larouche clearly didn't have.
> At first Larouche didn't "get" that the reporter was, subtly, suggesting
> that Larouche was a crackpot. Suddenly, it dawned on him; he turned and
> backed away from the reporter, and snarled at him: "Get away from me,
> you drug dealer!"
>
> Larouche is a ****ing lunatic; almost a walking dictionary definition of
> paranoid. Anyone who still believes in him is nuts, too.
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message

<Snip message>

Yeah, that LaRouche guy doesn't seem too stable.

nice Hallelujiah Chorus, kids,
to "LaRouche's a bad guy, but we cannot say, WHY!"
how about a similarly socratic treatment
of my posting, after this?

if you haven't already quoted Hofstadter's one-liner
on "the paranoid style," then be the 2,996,465,245 respondent
to do so, within the googolplex "Lyn Fora!"

"Rubystars" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message

> Yeah, that LaRouche guy doesn't seem too stable.

--Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- his early retirement!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/site_packa..._iraq_war.html

doesn't matter, since it was clearly used as a "R. fire,"
as a pretext (on 9/13), for the implimentation of the '91 plan.
http://larouchepub.com/pr/site_packa..._iraq_war.html

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...

> > our Reichstag fire ( 9/11 -- there's

--Give the Gift of Dick Cheeny -- out of office, at last!
http://www.benfranklinbooks.com/
http://www.wlym.com/pages/music.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...ey_freaks.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...te_plmbrs.html
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2003/0...statement.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30...t_pricing.html
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3047detroit_spch.html
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...sues/rr.12.00/
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.wlym.com/PDF-68-76/CAM7606.pdf

Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:

> doesn't matter,

**** off, Larouch ass-licker.

Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:

> nice Hallelujiah Chorus, kids,
> to "LaRouche's a bad guy, but we cannot say, WHY!"

It's well documented. He's a paranoid liar. So are
you, cocksucker. **** off.