Ed, define "Liberal"

Perry Butler said:

Ed,

I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
politics and voting record.

Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is?...

Mr. Ed thinks a liberal is someone who exceeds 20 mph/~30 kph downhill
on a tadpole trike.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

Apolitical greetings -

Tom opined:

Quoted message said:

Mr. Ed thinks a liberal is someone who exceeds 20 mph/
~30 kph downhill on a tadpole trike.

Actually, I suspect Ed's more likely to think a liberal
is someone who enjoys that experience. He might accept a
guy whose sweaty sphincter is clinching as a fellow
conservative. As usual, in both cases he's probably wrong.

Regards,
Wayne

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ed,

I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
politics and voting record.

Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?

And Ed, feel free to pontificate!

Enjoy,

Perry B

PS, sorry I top-posted!

No, you did not top post since this message originated with you. Elementary,
my dear Watson!

Democrats of the Far Left persuasion, otherwise known as kooks, are who I
mean by liberal. The Democrats as they were following W.W.II were not all
that bad. At least they believed in defending this country against its
enemies, although they finally came to grief on the Vietnam War.

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth. I
note that even Hillary is moving to the Right these days on the security
issue.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"LoGo USA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Apolitical greetings -

Tom opined:

Quoted message said:

Mr. Ed thinks a liberal is someone who exceeds 20 mph/
~30 kph downhill on a tadpole trike.

Actually, I suspect Ed's more likely to think a liberal
is someone who enjoys that experience. He might accept a
guy whose sweaty sphincter is clinching as a fellow
conservative. As usual, in both cases he's probably wrong.

Regards,
Wayne

I am against anyone going faster than about 20 mph on any kind of a bike
unless you are into racing. You are courting death when you undertake speed
on a bike. I urge all of you to proceed slowly on your bikes. You will live
longer that way.

"I grow old . I grow old .
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled."

T.S.Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ed,

I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
politics and voting record.

Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?

And Ed, feel free to pontificate!

Enjoy,

Perry B

PS, sorry I top-posted!

No, you did not top post since this message originated with you. Elementary,
my dear Watson!

Sucker!

Quoted message said:

Democrats of the Far Left persuasion, otherwise known as kooks, are who I
mean by liberal. The Democrats as they were following W.W.II were not all
that bad. At least they believed in defending this country against its
enemies, although they finally came to grief on the Vietnam War.

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth. I
note that even Hillary is moving to the Right these days on the security
issue.

Eddie,

This is it? This is the best you can do? Why are you calling others
and myself "liberals"? You use the word "liberal," can't you define
"liberal" any better than this?

If that's your answer, there are very few "liberals" in the good old
USA!

Amazing, even the Great Eddie Dolan can't adequately define "liberal."
Or was it too much of a shock to find out that maybe Perry isn't a
"liberal"!

Cat got your tongue?

Was this question too much for your simple mind?

Christ Eddie, answer the question!

Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so shallow that a "liberal," to you,
is "anyone who disagrees with you." I can imagine this was the
definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes Eddie, this is a simple
definition befitting of you!

Feel free to rant! Of course, when you do you won't answer the
questions above, but will just find some way to pass your
simplemindedness. You always do!

Enjoy,

Perry B

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ed,

I laugh everytime you call me a "Liberal", especially considering my
politics and voting record.

Would you please define what your warped view of a liberal is? Or is
it your simple mind just describing someone who disagrees with you?

And Ed, feel free to pontificate!

Enjoy,

Perry B

PS, sorry I top-posted!

No, you did not top post since this message originated with you.
Elementary,
my dear Watson!

Sucker!

???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Democrats of the Far Left persuasion, otherwise known as kooks, are who I
mean by liberal. The Democrats as they were following W.W.II were not all
that bad. At least they believed in defending this country against its
enemies, although they finally came to grief on the Vietnam War.

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.
I
note that even Hillary is moving to the Right these days on the security
issue.

This is it? This is the best you can do? Why are you calling others
and myself "liberals"? You use the word "liberal," can't you define
"liberal" any better than this?

[...]

My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly what I
mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few years
ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You and he
are on the same page. You are against the Iraq War and you most likely do
want to do anything about Iran either. That is because like all liberals you
are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you and your ilk know
how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of la belle France for
sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Quoted message said:

My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly what
I mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few
years ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You
and he are on the same page. You are against the Iraq War and you most
likely do want to do anything about Iran either. That is because like all
liberals you are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you
and your ilk know how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of
la belle France for sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

I think the word coward has gotten a bad rap.

From dictionary.com

coward:
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Being cowardly seems like having some basic common sense. It is actually
much more ridiculous to place yourself in the face of danger or pain. Even
when the cause is noble it still defies common sense. We were equipped with
the ability to sense danger and pain so that we might avoid them.

I know that you mean the word as an insult but a real man will look deeper.

As for not having the guts for warfare, I personally, do not. I think that
the more of us who evolve away from having the guts for warfare, the better.
The problem with "live and let live" is how to deal with those who say "live
and let die". For the time being, the total avoidance of war may be
impossible. War, however, should always be the last resort.

Jeff Grippe
--Not a saint by any stretch but doesn't aspire to be one either

"Jeff Grippe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Edward Dolan said:

Quoted message said:

My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly
what I mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a
few years ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal.
You and he are on the same page. You are against the Iraq War and you
most likely do want to do anything about Iran either. That is because
like all liberals you are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare.
All you and your ilk know how to do is to run to the UN and seek the
approval of la belle France for sanctions or some other absurd
non-solution.

I think the word coward has gotten a bad rap.

From dictionary.com

coward:
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Being cowardly seems like having some basic common sense. It is actually
much more ridiculous to place yourself in the face of danger or pain. Even
when the cause is noble it still defies common sense. We were equipped
with the ability to sense danger and pain so that we might avoid them.

I know that you mean the word as an insult but a real man will look
deeper.

As for not having the guts for warfare, I personally, do not. I think that
the more of us who evolve away from having the guts for warfare, the
better. The problem with "live and let live" is how to deal with those who
say "live and let die". For the time being, the total avoidance of war may
be impossible. War, however, should always be the last resort.

Jeff means well, but if you put the destiny of this nation in his hands and
those of liberals like him, they will blow it big time. We simply cannot
afford any more Carter's in the White House.

This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon (maybe
from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would take for the
West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom bomb to go off in
one major city. At that point we will all be living in a world of police
states. People will give up their freedom readily in order to live in
safety.

We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists with
extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have nuclear
weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on. This is a war
worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion) have no stomach for
this very necessary conflict and that is why I call them cowards. If they
had their way, we would surely be defeated in the end. They did not know how
to handle the Soviet Union when they were in power and they do know any
better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.

Jeff is like an ostrich who buries his head in the sand the better not to
see what is happening in the world. The World Trade Center fiasco was not
enough to convince him of the dire peril we are in. It will take an atom
bomb destroying Manhattan before Jeff will ever wake up. But by then, it
will be too late. The kind of world we are living in today demands
preemptive wars.

The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any guts
and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.

But isn't it what everybody thinks about their own countries?

And what is your opinion of the poll results by - I forget exactly who
tracks public opinion in the US, I think it's University of Maryland,
the Council on Foreign Relations, and some others - according to which
both parties are significantly to the right of the majority public
opinion? (I tried to Google for the specifics but it looks like one
must subscribe ($) to these reports. IIRC some of the issues the
testers ask about are the US vs. the UN, health insurance, the Kyoto,
that sort of thing.)

--
Jan Bielawski

"JanPB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.

But isn't it what everybody thinks about their own countries?

Are you crazy? Go down to our southern border with Mexico and see what is
happening there. Americans do not flee from the US, but very many from
other nations will sell their souls to enter the US.

Quoted message said:

And what is your opinion of the poll results by - I forget exactly who
tracks public opinion in the US, I think it's University of Maryland,
the Council on Foreign Relations, and some others - according to which
both parties are significantly to the right of the majority public
opinion? (I tried to Google for the specifics but it looks like one
must subscribe ($) to these reports. IIRC some of the issues the
testers ask about are the US vs. the UN, health insurance, the Kyoto,
that sort of thing.)

The only polls that count are the election results. By the way, there is
another one coming up next year. We shall see how the Dems will do, won't
we?

The Dems will have to get right on the security issue if they ever want to
resume power. The US is worth defending as it is the bulwark of Western
Civilization. I hate the far left because they are treasonous to the US and
to the West. They will not defend this nation the way it ought to be
defended. I wish they would go to Hell where the Devil could plague them for
their many errors and sins for all eternity.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

"JanPB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

Basically, I am death on anyone who will not defend the United States of
America, the greatest nation God has ever seen fit to put on this earth.

But isn't it what everybody thinks about their own countries?

Are you crazy? Go down to our southern border with Mexico and see what is
happening there.

OK, so exceptions do exist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And what is your opinion of the poll results by - I forget exactly who
tracks public opinion in the US, I think it's University of Maryland,
the Council on Foreign Relations, and some others - according to which
both parties are significantly to the right of the majority public
opinion? (I tried to Google for the specifics but it looks like one
must subscribe ($) to these reports. IIRC some of the issues the
testers ask about are the US vs. the UN, health insurance, the Kyoto,
that sort of thing.)

The only polls that count are the election results.

Ah, the elections. Ahem. Well, I better not go there. :-)

--
Jan Bielawski

Quoted message said:

Jeff means well, but if you put the destiny of this nation in his hands
and those of liberals like him, they will blow it big time. We simply
cannot afford any more Carter's in the White House.

Jeff does not want the destiny of this nation in his hands. He knows he is
not equipped for that.

Quoted message said:

This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
(maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would take
for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom bomb to
go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living in a world
of police states. People will give up their freedom readily in order to
live in safety.

A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of liberty,
however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that it doesn't
really make them safer then they will want their liberty back. The
terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The police state
doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of an Iranian or
Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do anything to prevent
that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No matter how many patriot
acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue nations from acquiring a
weapon. We need a solution to this problem but taking away our liberties
isn't it.

Quoted message said:

We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have nuclear
weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on. This is a
war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion) have no stomach
for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call them cowards. If
they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the end. They did not
know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in power and they do
know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.

You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't be
done, do you have another plan?

Quoted message said:

The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any
guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.

I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has been
deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North Koreans and
Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have done is talk
back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work with the
international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all so clear cut
and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and propose a
solution, however, please be sure to propose something that can actually be
accomplished.

Jeff Grippe said:

I think the word coward has gotten a bad rap.

From dictionary.com

coward:
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Being cowardly seems like having some basic common sense. It is actually
much more ridiculous to place yourself in the face of danger or pain. Even
when the cause is noble it still defies common sense. We were equipped with
the ability to sense danger and pain so that we might avoid them.

That reminds me of my favorite "working definition" of bravery -- doing
despite fear. It's easy to be clean and brave when fighting the
village drunk.

Quoted message said:

I know that you mean the word as an insult but a real man will look deeper.

You know one of the things I actually found charming about Army
infantry?

The sergeant who says, "I ain't dying for my country! Hell no...I'll
let the enemy die for his!"

Quoted message said:

As for not having the guts for warfare, I personally, do not. I think that
the more of us who evolve away from having the guts for warfare, the better.
The problem with "live and let live" is how to deal with those who say "live
and let die". For the time being, the total avoidance of war may be
impossible. War, however, should always be the last resort.

The problem is that each new generation is born with the bullying
instinct...and then as adults -- physical adults, anyway -- this
propensity is covered over with words and ideologies, but the emotional
stimulus remains this primal, visceral egoism. So what do you do
except use a thief to catch a thief?

Quoted message said:

Jeff Grippe
--Not a saint by any stretch but doesn't aspire to be one either

"Jeff Grippe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Jeff, you must always attribute whatever is said to whoever said it. You
should have written the following before beginning:

Edward Dolan said:

Quoted message said:

Jeff means well, but if you put the destiny of this nation in his hands
and those of liberals like him, they will blow it big time. We simply
cannot afford any more Carter's in the White House.

Jeff does not want the destiny of this nation in his hands. He knows he is
not equipped for that.

You should have said something about President Carter since I referenced
him. He was a liberal Dem whom you may have approved of and who is now going
about the world making a complete jackass out of himself. He is the worst
ex-president ever!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
(maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would
take for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom
bomb to go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living in
a world of police states. People will give up their freedom readily in
order to live in safety.

A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of
liberty, however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that it
doesn't really make them safer then they will want their liberty back. The
terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The police state
doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of an Iranian or
Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do anything to prevent
that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No matter how many
patriot acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue nations from
acquiring a weapon. We need a solution to this problem but taking away our
liberties isn't it.

A nuke changes everything. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even
millions, will perish in a single event. It will effect the course of
humanity on this earth totally. I want to prevent this from ever happening.
Once it does happen, police states will be the ONLY solution. Freedom will
no longer be affordable when the price is millions dead in a nuclear event.

Police states do make people safe. Many Russians today will tell you that
they were better off under the old Soviet Union than they are today. They
had no freedoms, but they had safety and security. That is more than enough
for most men for as long as we have been on this earth. It is only in the
West that we have recently risen above this, but we could easily revert to
the ways things have always been. Democracies are very fragile creations and
it is by no means assured that such arrangements will prevail in the long
term.

If you believe what we presently have is worth anything, then you will want
to go to war and kill Muslim terrorists with the greatest of pleasure and
you will want to protect and preserve the American people no matter what it
takes. If Bush tell us that the Patriot Act is essential in order to
accomplish this, then I am all for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have
nuclear weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on.
This is a war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion) have
no stomach for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call them
cowards. If they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the end.
They did not know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in power
and they do know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.

You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't be
done, do you have another plan?

Quoted message said:

The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any
guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.

I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has been
deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North Koreans
and Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have done is
talk back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work with the
international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all so clear
cut and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and propose a
solution, however, please be sure to propose something that can actually
be accomplished.

As a last resort, we will have to act in conjunction with Israel to take out
the nuclear capabilities of Iran by military action, air strikes to begin
with and perhaps to be followed up with an invasion like in Iraq. We would
go though Iran like a hot knife goes through butter. It would be an Iraq all
over again.

However, the main thing is to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear
weapon. I would even advocate that we use our own nuclear weapons against
them if necessary. I KNOW that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons in the
last extremity. One holocaust is enough for the Jewish people. Thank God for
gutsy little Israel!

A great nation like the US is always going to be at war. Get used to it. We
need to start thinking and acting like imperial Romans if we are going to
lead the world out of despotic regimes and nuclear holocausts.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
(maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would
take for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom
bomb to go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living in
a world of police states. People will give up their freedom readily in
order to live in safety.

A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of
liberty, however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that it
doesn't really make them safer then they will want their liberty back.
The terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The police
state doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of an
Iranian or Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do
anything to prevent that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No
matter how many patriot acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue
nations from acquiring a weapon. We need a solution to this problem but
taking away our liberties isn't it.

A nuke changes everything. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even
millions, will perish in a single event. It will effect the course of
humanity on this earth totally. I want to prevent this from ever
happening. Once it does happen, police states will be the ONLY solution.
Freedom will no longer be affordable when the price is millions dead in a
nuclear event.

We agree about the desired outcome but not about how to get there. The
number of terrorists is so small and the population so large that a police
state could never solve the problem regardless of whether or not a nuclear
device is detonated. People will trade freedom for security until they
discover that giving up their freedom did not result in greater security.

Quoted message said:

Police states do make people safe. Many Russians today will tell you that
they were better off under the old Soviet Union than they are today. They
had no freedoms, but they had safety and security. That is more than
enough for most men for as long as we have been on this earth. It is only
in the West that we have recently risen above this, but we could easily
revert to the ways things have always been. Democracies are very fragile
creations and it is by no means assured that such arrangements will
prevail in the long term.

You are mixing apples and oranges here Ed. The reasons that some Russians
will give for saying that they were better off has nothing to do with
security and terrorism. The transition from the type of government that they
had to a free market economy is not an easy one and during the rough spots,
some people will say, "we were better off before". But you are implying that
they were safe from Muslim terrorists when they lived under the Soviet Union
and nothing could be further from the truth.

Quoted message said:

If you believe what we presently have is worth anything, then you will want
to go to war and kill Muslim terrorists with the greatest of pleasure and
you will want to protect and preserve the American people no matter what it
takes. If Bush tell us that the Patriot Act is essential in order to
accomplish this, then I am all for it.

It can't be done, Ed. You can't kill an idea. You and I agree that
fundamentalism in all of its incarnations is a very bad thing. Did killing
Tim McVeigh end the type of fundamentalism that he was involved in? Are we
safe from future acts of domestic terrorism?

When you go "over there" and kill the Muslim terrorists you create marters.
When you have collateral damage, and kill and torture civilians, you create
more terrorists. While it sounds good to say "Let go get 'em all.", I know
you are smarter than that.

I also think that you are smart enough to think for yourself and not accept
everything that President Bush says at face value.

You and I both agree that we want the terrorists stopped (or at least
controlled) and we want security for the American people. You are not going
to achive that by going to war with the Muslim world. You can't "Kill them
all" and you can't kill ideas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have
nuclear weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on.
This is a war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion)
have no stomach for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call
them cowards. If they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the
end. They did not know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in
power and they do know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.

You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't
be done, do you have another plan?

Quoted message said:

The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do about
Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you have any
guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.

I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has
been deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North
Koreans and Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have
done is talk back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work
with the international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all
so clear cut and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and
propose a solution, however, please be sure to propose something that can
actually be accomplished.

As a last resort, we will have to act in conjunction with Israel to take
out the nuclear capabilities of Iran by military action, air strikes to
begin with and perhaps to be followed up with an invasion like in Iraq. We
would go though Iran like a hot knife goes through butter. It would be an
Iraq all over again.

However, the main thing is to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear
weapon. I would even advocate that we use our own nuclear weapons against
them if necessary. I KNOW that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons in
the last extremity. One holocaust is enough for the Jewish people. Thank
God for gutsy little Israel!

A great nation like the US is always going to be at war. Get used to it.
We need to start thinking and acting like imperial Romans if we are going
to lead the world out of despotic regimes and nuclear holocausts.

Sadly, we are already in decline, Ed. We have sold ourselves to China for
the cheap goods that you value so highly. By spending so much money on our
military we have allowed the economic advantage to slip to Europe and China.
I should say that I don't really view this as a contest although I have just
presented it as one. It is good for Europe, China, and the US to be
dependant on each other so that cooperation is assured. We will not "always
be at war". The number of people to wage war against is decreasing. As ties
between various nations becomes closer, all of them will have more to lose
from extremists, Muslim or otherwise.

The situation in Iran may actually lead to war. Unlike Iraq, where the
reliable intelligence pointed to there being no weapons program that was a
threat, in Iran, they are openly talking about having a weapons program that
will lead to weapons which would be a threat. Also, they are a theocracy
that sees us as an enemy. Saddam may have considered us an enemy but he was
at least secular. Iran is a real threat to the west but we have wasted our
precious resources in Iraq. We don't have an army to send to Iran if that
were determined to be necessary. Ultimately it will have to be settled by
the international community which is how it should be settled.

"Jeff Grippe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This nation and all of the West is in mortal danger from the Muslim
> terrorists. They will most likely get their hands on a nuclear weapon
> (maybe from Iran or a chaotic Pakistan) sooner or later. All it would
> take for the West to loose all of its precious freedoms is for one atom
> bomb to go off in one major city. At that point we will all be living
> in a world of police states. People will give up their freedom readily
> in order to live in safety.
>

A lot of this is frighteningly true. The police states and loss of
liberty, however, is the knee jerk reaction. When people find out that
it doesn't really make them safer then they will want their liberty
back. The terrorists will always figure out how to slip through. The
police state doesn't prevent terrorism. Lets take your own scenerio of
an Iranian or Pakistani nuke. How does having a police state here do
anything to prevent that? They won't be shopping here for the weapon. No
matter how many patriot acts you pass here it will not prevent rogue
nations from acquiring a weapon. We need a solution to this problem but
taking away our liberties isn't it.

A nuke changes everything. Hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even
millions, will perish in a single event. It will effect the course of
humanity on this earth totally. I want to prevent this from ever
happening. Once it does happen, police states will be the ONLY solution.
Freedom will no longer be affordable when the price is millions dead in a
nuclear event.

We agree about the desired outcome but not about how to get there. The
number of terrorists is so small and the population so large that a police
state could never solve the problem regardless of whether or not a nuclear
device is detonated. People will trade freedom for security until they
discover that giving up their freedom did not result in greater security.

A police state would likely prevent most acts of terrorism, whether nuclear
or otherwise. Police states are even capable of preventing most crime, even
petty crime, it they are severe enough. The Soviet Union under Stalin was
excellent at keeping down all its minorities, including its many Muslim
minorities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Police states do make people safe. Many Russians today will tell you that
they were better off under the old Soviet Union than they are today. They
had no freedoms, but they had safety and security. That is more than
enough for most men for as long as we have been on this earth. It is only
in the West that we have recently risen above this, but we could easily
revert to the ways things have always been. Democracies are very fragile
creations and it is by no means assured that such arrangements will
prevail in the long term.

You are mixing apples and oranges here Ed. The reasons that some Russians
will give for saying that they were better off has nothing to do with
security and terrorism. The transition from the type of government that
they had to a free market economy is not an easy one and during the rough
spots, some people will say, "we were better off before". But you are
implying that they were safe from Muslim terrorists when they lived under
the Soviet Union and nothing could be further from the truth.

The Russians are now living in a very crime ridden society. They are not as
safe and secure in their persons as they were under the old Soviet Union. In
addition, they now have to fear their Muslim minorities which they never had
to do before. Ever hear of Chechen?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you believe what we presently have is worth anything, then you will
want to go to war and kill Muslim terrorists with the greatest of pleasure
and you will want to protect and preserve the American people no matter
what it takes. If Bush tell us that the Patriot Act is essential in order
to accomplish this, then I am all for it.

It can't be done, Ed. You can't kill an idea. You and I agree that
fundamentalism in all of its incarnations is a very bad thing. Did killing
Tim McVeigh end the type of fundamentalism that he was involved in? Are we
safe from future acts of domestic terrorism?

McVeigh was very much a lone wolf. Such acts are rare and a free society can
handle these types by treating them as criminals. However, the Muslim
terrorists are something else altogether. They can only be defeated by
warfare.

Quoted message said:

When you go "over there" and kill the Muslim terrorists you create
marters. When you have collateral damage, and kill and torture civilians,
you create more terrorists. While it sounds good to say "Let go get 'em
all.", I know you are smarter than that.

We should not concern ourselves at all with collateral damage or anything
else peripheral to getting the job done. We should proceed to kill as many
of them as fast as possible. There is no substitute for victory. Your
thinking is squishy like all liberal thinking. That is why I do not want
liberals running the country.

Quoted message said:

I also think that you are smart enough to think for yourself and not
accept everything that President Bush says at face value.

You and I both agree that we want the terrorists stopped (or at least
controlled) and we want security for the American people. You are not
going to achive that by going to war with the Muslim world. You can't
"Kill them all" and you can't kill ideas.

Israel has learned the hard way that you cannot make peace with terrorists.
There will be peace in the Middle East when Israel decisively defeats the
Palestinians once and for all. Halfway measures are always the worst. The
best kind of peace to have is when all your enemies are dead and lying
peacefully in their graves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> We conservatives want to track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists
> with extreme prejudice and we do not want any rogue nation to have
> nuclear weapons which the Muslin terrorists could get their hands on.
> This is a war worth fighting for sure. The Dems (liberal persuasion)
> have no stomach for this very necessary conflict and that is why I call
> them cowards. If they had their way, we would surely be defeated in the
> end. They did not know how to handle the Soviet Union when they were in
> power and they do know any better how to handle the Muslim terrorists.
>

You can't track down and kill all the Muslim terrorists. Since it can't
be done, do you have another plan?

> The best question that can be asked right now is what would you do
> about Iran? Your answer to that question will determine whether you
> have any guts and will tell me all I will ever have to know about you.
>

I don't know what to do about Iran. They certainly can not be allowed to
build a nuclear weapon. But what are we going to do? Our military has
been deployed where there is no real threat. All the while the North
Koreans and Iran have talked big talk about nuclear weapons. All we have
done is talk back. Suddenly our President finds himself having to work
with the international community do deal with Iran. I'm glad this is all
so clear cut and obvious to you but it isn't to me. When you reply and
propose a solution, however, please be sure to propose something that
can actually be accomplished.

As a last resort, we will have to act in conjunction with Israel to take
out the nuclear capabilities of Iran by military action, air strikes to
begin with and perhaps to be followed up with an invasion like in Iraq.
We would go though Iran like a hot knife goes through butter. It would be
an Iraq all over again.

However, the main thing is to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear
weapon. I would even advocate that we use our own nuclear weapons against
them if necessary. I KNOW that Israel would resort to nuclear weapons in
the last extremity. One holocaust is enough for the Jewish people. Thank
God for gutsy little Israel!

A great nation like the US is always going to be at war. Get used to it.
We need to start thinking and acting like imperial Romans if we are going
to lead the world out of despotic regimes and nuclear holocausts.

Sadly, we are already in decline, Ed. We have sold ourselves to China for
the cheap goods that you value so highly. By spending so much money on our
military we have allowed the economic advantage to slip to Europe and
China. I should say that I don't really view this as a contest although I
have just presented it as one. It is good for Europe, China, and the US to
be dependant on each other so that cooperation is assured. We will not
"always be at war". The number of people to wage war against is
decreasing. As ties between various nations becomes closer, all of them
will have more to lose from extremists, Muslim or otherwise.

China has been around for thousands of years and has never amounted to much
on the world stage. The same is true for India. Their internal problems will
forever keep them backward. They both are over developed in the numbers of
people they have to feed and clothe.

Europe had its moment in the sun prior to this century. Even if they were to
unite, they will continue to have their own problems which will forever
prevent them from dominating the world as they did in the 19th century.
Sorry, but the US is stuck with being the one remaining super power for
quite some time to come.

We will always want to be at war for good and just reasons. Any other view
is insane. For instance, I think it would be a good idea to go to the Sudan
and kick some Arab ass there. We could easily do it and we would thereby
save hundreds of thousands of people by doing so. It is liberals like you
who end up causing the most misery in the world by your constant inaction in
the face of outrage.

Quoted message said:

The situation in Iran may actually lead to war. Unlike Iraq, where the
reliable intelligence pointed to there being no weapons program that was a
threat, in Iran, they are openly talking about having a weapons program
that will lead to weapons which would be a threat. Also, they are a
theocracy that sees us as an enemy. Saddam may have considered us an enemy
but he was at least secular. Iran is a real threat to the west but we have
wasted our precious resources in Iraq. We don't have an army to send to
Iran if that were determined to be necessary. Ultimately it will have to
be settled by the international community which is how it should be
settled.

All of the above is nothing but liberal propaganda and has no relationship
at all to how the world actually functions. We are fighting the war against
the Muslim terrorists in Iraq which is exactly where I want it to be fought,
not here in the US. Iran is not a bigger threat than Saddam, it is the same
threat. It all springs from Islamic extremism. Let's face it, Islam is a God
awful religion for men to be saddled with. It will have to be defeated and
extinguished just as Nazism was, or else totally reformed from within. The
world cannot live with it the way it is now.

If and when we invade Iran we will go through that miserable country the
same way we went through Iraq. We have the military to do it right now. I do
not worry about ever being defeated by Islamic terrorists or Muslim nations,
but I do worry about being defeated by liberal scum right here in the US.

Please stay the hell out of the Heartland and remain in New York where you
belong. Another Muslim terrorist strike in NY is what you deserve, only
maybe the next time it will take out half the city instead of just a couple
of buildings.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly what I
mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few years
ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You and he
are on the same page.

Where are Tom and I on the same page? In fact, even Tom will say that
we are often not on the same page.

Quoted message said:

You are against the Iraq War and you most likely do
want to do anything about Iran either.

Sorry, where did you get this information? I'm active politically
where appropriate.

Quoted message said:

That is because like all liberals you
are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you and your ilk know
how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of la belle France for
sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

Just because I believe this is not a political forum does not make me a
"liberal," except maybe in your small mind.

I truly wonder if you have the ability to rationalize thought! Can you
respond to all my points or only the ones that you can respond to
irrationally? You literally never respond to the main point!

Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "

Enjoy,

Perry B

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

My definition above is a masterpiece of conciseness and it is exactly
what I
mean by a liberal. See Mr. Sherman's many political posts from a few
years
ago on this newsgroup to get an idea of what I mean by liberal. You and
he
are on the same page.

Where are Tom and I on the same page? In fact, even Tom will say that
we are often not on the same page.

I believe both you and Tom thought it was just fine and dandy that homos
exist. That is a politically correct liberal opinion, is it not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are against the Iraq War and you most likely do
want to do anything about Iran either.

Sorry, where did you get this information? I'm active politically
where appropriate.

If you agree with Tom that homos should exist, then you will also agree with
him that the Iraq War was a mistake. It is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. Hells
Bells, I can know what you think on everything under the sun once I know you
are a liberal. Only we conservatives think for ourselves. We are not spoon
fed propaganda and brain washed like liberals are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is because like all liberals you
are a coward and do not have any guts for warfare. All you and your ilk
know
how to do is to run to the UN and seek the approval of la belle France
for
sanctions or some other absurd non-solution.

Just because I believe this is not a political forum does not make me a
"liberal," except maybe in your small mind.

You never deny any of my accusations. That speaks louder than anything!
Incidentally, I would like to know if you are now or have ever been a member
of the Communist Party?

Quoted message said:

I truly wonder if you have the ability to rationalize thought! Can you
respond to all my points or only the ones that you can respond to
irrationally? You literally never respond to the main point!

Again, the main point being, "Let's face it Eddie, your mind is so
shallow that a "liberal," to you, is "anyone who disagrees with you." I
can imagine this was the definition used by your mommy and daddy. Yes
Eddie, this is a simple definition befitting of you! "

Perry Butler has never denied being a liberal. His silence on this matter
speaks louder than words. I know he is as one with Tom. They both think it
is fine and dandy to be a [censored].

Why can't he be a good Lutheran from Lake Wobegon instead of a confounded
Minnesota liberal. This is the worst kind of liberal in the entire world and
has produced numerous numskulls who thought they should be president. Thank
God none of them ever made it to the White House, no thanks to Perry Butler.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

I'm galled that the current issue of Adventure Cyclist has a spot
article on this pervo ricon graffitti (con) "artist" who's doing some
charity road trip, but whose main claim to fame is his "art" on other
people's property.

I hope a bunch of blacks and hispanics show up in Missoula, MT, at the
AC HQ and give 'em a treatment of ghetto "art," complete with a few
riots demanding "no justice, no peace"...ghetto eye for the white guy!
Make-over hints for Wonder Bread Country...hehe!

Quoted message said:

<SNIP>