Hey Chung

Bill C said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this [censored] just
gets recycled and they expect different results.
Bill C

At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.

But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
do to get re-elected.

To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
Castro are heroes and great men, and Marcos and Pinochet are scum.
Bill C

If we look, we can find those who admire [censored]. We could call those
people the "Far Right", if you like.

Castro is no [censored], but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
greatness.

When you view the world as "left" and "right" it sometimes makes it hard
to differentiate the crazy from the sane.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C wrote:
> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this [censored] just
> gets recycled and they expect different results.
> Bill C
At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.

But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
do to get re-elected.

To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
Castro are heroes and great men, and Marcos and Pinochet are scum.
Bill C

If we look, we can find those who admire [censored]. We could call those
people the "Far Right", if you like.

Castro is no [censored], but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
greatness.

Oh, I wish it were seen that way!

I can't find the original article published in the Toronto Star (a
fairly big newspaper), but Pierre Trudeau's son, Sacha Trudeau, wrote a
rather embarrassing toast of his father's good friend.

I can only find this reposting of one rebuttal of the article:

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/004024.html

Trudeau himself is hardly a fringe lunatic. He's a contributing editor
to Maclean's magazine, which is roughly parallel to Time in the US
(weekly news-and-commentary magazine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Trudeau

As someone who works at a community college, hardly a day goes by that
there isn't a notice on at least one of the bulletin boards that somehow
praises or supports Fidel.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

On Mar 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
>> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this [censored] just
>> gets recycled and they expect different results.
>> Bill C
> At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
> everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
> war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
>
> But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
> do to get re-elected.
To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
Castro are heroes and great men, and Marcos and Pinochet are scum.
Bill C

If we look, we can find those who admire [censored]. We could call those
people the "Far Right", if you like.

Castro is no [censored], but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
greatness.

Oh, I wish it were seen that way!

I can't find the original article published in the Toronto Star (a
fairly big newspaper), but Pierre Trudeau's son, Sacha Trudeau, wrote a
rather embarrassing toast of his father's good friend.

I can only find this reposting of one rebuttal of the article:

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/004024.html

Trudeau himself is hardly a fringe lunatic. He's a contributing editor
to Maclean's magazine, which is roughly parallel to Time in the US
(weekly news-and-commentary magazine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Trudeau

As someone who works at a community college, hardly a day goes by that
there isn't a notice on at least one of the bulletin boards that somehow
praises or supports Fidel.

I kind of expect that stuff at colleges. At larger colleges, you get a
collection of all the lunatic fringe.

I guess the Trudeaus are taken more seriously than I would have guessed.
The first thing I thought when you mentioned the name was "I wonder what
Margaret's been up to lately?" So I googled her. Almost like Teddy
Kennedy allegedly did. The first thing I found was this:

http://tinyurl.com/2vgfk4

Some people never grow up. Her Wikipedia entry implies that she may
have had closer relations with Castro than I care to think about. In
which case, I really don't understand Sasha's admiration for the man.
Too weird.

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Bill C wrote:
> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this [censored] just
> gets recycled and they expect different results.
> Bill C
At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
do to get re-elected.

Quoted message said:

To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
Castro are heroes and great men, and Marcos and Pinochet are scum.
Bill C

If we look, we can find those who admire [censored]. We could call those
people the "Far Right", if you like.

Yeah I could go for that. They have no shortage of nutcases but, this
goes along with Ryan's comments, I'm in college central and there are
very few protesters out here wearing "Reagan Revolution" t-shirts.

Quoted message said:

Castro is no [censored], but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
greatness.

As Ryan said, and probably even more here given the politics, Both
Castro and Gueverra rank right up there with, or better than Mother
Theresa and Ghandi.

Quoted message said:

When you view the world as "left" and "right" it sometimes makes it hard
to differentiate the crazy from the sane.- Hide quoted text -

Unfortunately getting past the "labels" seem to be a maturing process
that, being cynical it seems to me that MOST, people never reach.
Labels are needed as a language shortcut for large generalisations,
but have all the inacuracy inherent in doing that.

Quoted message said:

TK is a perfect example of someone SO hung up on the label that he'll
make ANY excuse and ignore any fact to support and protect his label.
Don't know anyone else on RBR who does that, to that extreme, but do
know a bunch here in the Valley.
With everything that's come out in the last week or so, even Tom's
gotta be having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns.
Especially since they've trashed a ton of core stuff hte "right" is
supposed to care about.
I think decent, rational people, like most everyone here has no
problem seeing that There are real evil scumbags from all ideologies.
It's sick when people support them just because they say the right
words, especially when their actions are just the opposite of what
they are saying.
You can apply that to both Bush and Castro and their supporters.
They'd NEVER abuse the Patriot Act, and there are WAY too many
safeguards built in for THAT to happen, right??? Isn't that what they
all said?
Now how about prosecuting The FBI director and everyone around him,
along with everyone who was supposed to have oversight of this.
Time for lots of people to go to jail.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm

I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,

Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.

Every problem looks like a nail to you, every threat requires open
combat. You've got a pretty empty toolbox, like anyone who still
supports Shrub.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
(presumably) doing it pretty damn well.

My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?

Radiation detectors at foreign ports and elsewhere, careful tracking of
nukes & fissile material, helping to secure storage, tracking
terrorists, leaning on rogue governments. Oh, and openly fighting Al
Qaeda militarily.

Perhaps only the last one registered with you.

--
Lynn Wallace

Jesus loves Osama bin Laden

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill

C said:

With everything that's come out in the last week or so, even Tom's
gotta be having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns.
Especially since they've trashed a ton of core stuff hte "right" is
supposed to care about.

I doubt he has a hard time with that at all. When you get to be as much
of an ideologue as he is, it's very easy to find ways to condone that kind
of thing. The first step is to find some way to accuse the "other side" of
doing it first. Then you only have to say that if they (the Bush admin.,
FBI or the people who run Walter Reed, for example) didn't do that stuff,
the terrorists (or commies or whatever) will be emboldened (or whatever).
It's a tribal thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They'd NEVER abuse the Patriot Act, and there are WAY too many

safeguards built in for THAT to happen, right??? Isn't that what they
all said?

The Patriot Act got one hour of debate in Congress prior to being
passed. Most people in the Senate and House hadn't even had a chance to
read any of it.

Quoted message said:

Now how about prosecuting The FBI director and everyone around him,
along with everyone who was supposed to have oversight of this.

That was one of the beautiful things about the Patriot Act: there was
almost no oversight built in, and for a good reason. Bush, Cheney and co.
saw 9-11 as a great opportunity to grab powers that under normal
circumstances they never could.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.

Every problem looks like a nail to you, every threat requires open
combat. You've got a pretty empty toolbox, like anyone who still
supports Shrub.

Lynn, that's not all that Tom has that's empty.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
(presumably) doing it pretty damn well.

My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?

Radiation detectors at foreign ports and elsewhere, careful tracking of
nukes & fissile material, helping to secure storage, tracking
terrorists, leaning on rogue governments.

To add to what Bill mentioned earlier regarding keeping track of
fissile material in the former Soviet Union, we can thank former
ambassodor to the UN John Bolton for defunding and dragging his feet on
programs that would help round up Soviet nukes and keep them out of the
hands of people who shouldn't have them (like al Qaeda).
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

howard kveck said:

To add to what Bill mentioned earlier regarding keeping track of
fissile material in the former Soviet Union, we can thank former
ambassodor to the UN John Bolton for defunding and dragging his feet on
programs that would help round up Soviet nukes and keep them out of the
hands of people who shouldn't have them (like al Qaeda).

Don't worry, Kunich is going to be the next US ambassador to the UN.

In article <[email hidden]>, Donald

Munro said:

howard kveck said:

To add to what Bill mentioned earlier regarding keeping track of
fissile material in the former Soviet Union, we can thank former
ambassodor to the UN John Bolton for defunding and dragging his feet on
programs that would help round up Soviet nukes and keep them out of the
hands of people who shouldn't have them (like al Qaeda).

Don't worry, Kunich is going to be the next US ambassador to the UN.

Since Bolton was obviously wearing a wig, for all we know Kunich has
already been UN ambassador.

--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bill C said:

With everything that's come out in the last week or so, even Tom's
gotta be having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns.
Especially since they've trashed a ton of core stuff hte "right" is
supposed to care about.
I think decent, rational people, like most everyone here has no
problem seeing that There are real evil scumbags from all ideologies.
It's sick when people support them just because they say the right
words, especially when their actions are just the opposite of what
they are saying.
You can apply that to both Bush and Castro and their supporters.
They'd NEVER abuse the Patriot Act, and there are WAY too many
safeguards built in for THAT to happen, right??? Isn't that what they
all said?
Now how about prosecuting The FBI director and everyone around him,
along with everyone who was supposed to have oversight of this.
Time for lots of people to go to jail.
Bill C

Based on what I'm reading on CNN.com right now, I'd say you're wrong
about anyone "having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns". I
don't see any mention of Patriot Act abuse on CNN.com. One kidnapped
baby was found, a mother who murdered her kids was caught, Kroger's not
selling the "morning after" pill, a 101 year old woman was mugged, etc.

There's got to be an outcry before lots of people go to jail. We're not
seeing that here. I'm inclined to think that we don't have enough
details to get good and righteously indignant. If we knew that the FBI
was pulling records of people who bought the "morning after" pill or
they investigated people who were against the "morning after" pill for
being religious fundamentalists, THEN you'd have your public outcry.
"They pulled some records about some things" wont get you there.

I said I'm INCLINED to think that. But I know I'm wrong. The American
public seems to have no particular problem with Guantanamo Bay and Jose
Padilla. There's no reason to believe they are capable of being roused
over anything at all.

Mea culpa. I haven't written my Congressman in over a year either.

Fred Fredburger said:

I said I'm INCLINED to think that. But I know I'm wrong. The American
public seems to have no particular problem with Guantanamo Bay and Jose
Padilla. There's no reason to believe they are capable of being roused
over anything at all.

Mea culpa. I haven't written my Congressman in over a year either.

Congressional staffers do say that writing to your
Congressman does have an impact (so long as you remember
that they are basically sorting the letters into "pro"
and "con" and not reading them in detail).

However, they also say that IM'ing your Congressman
gets a more immediate response.