Re: OT Flame War



Frank Olson wrote:

> ...
> "America" will *never* engage in the type of behaviour you advocate. It's
> contrary to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Feel free to don
> the white sheet and pillow case though... Your right to demonstrate is
> protected....

The current executive branch, many in Congress and a large portion of
the population do not give a damn about the US Constitution/Bill of
Rights. And only one US Senator had the moral courage and conviction to
vote against the PATRIOT Act in the face of mass hysteria. [1]

The right to demonstrate freely has been (in practice) revoked during
events such as trade summits [2] or anywhere where Our Maximum Beloved
Leader in the War on Terror might see it. Many in the US approve of this.

The US has also violated the US Constitution in recent years by
violating ratified treaties (UN Charter, 4th Geneva Convention), that
are the supreme law of the land.

"It could never happen here" - that is what they said in the Weimar
Republic.

[1] And was repaid by being re-elected with 55% of the vote after being
targeted by the national Republican organization for removal and facing
a well financed opponent.
[2] FTAA in Miami, where the police instigated violence, then attacked
the crowds of peaceful demonstrators, and made many unjustified arrests.
The tactic of police trapping peaceful demonstrators (and innocent
bystanders), ordering them to disperse, and then arresting them for
failing to disperse is becoming increasingly common.

--
Tom Sherman
Feingold-Obama 2008
 
"Frank Olson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:uYhid.112816$Pl.30017@pd7tw1no...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Mr. Dolan has never thought for a single moment that one individual can
>> do much about anything under the sun. When it comes to the Islamic
>> terrorist threat, it takes a NATION like America to do something about it
>> without a lot of treasonous, cowardly liberals like you dragging their
>> feet.
>
> "America" will *never* engage in the type of behaviour you advocate. It's
> contrary to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Feel free to
> don the white sheet and pillow case though... Your right to demonstrate
> is protected.

We are already doing what I advocate doing and that is hunting down and
killing the Islamic terrorists. Afghanistan was a huge success and Iraq will
be too provided we stay the course.

>> any more than a group of
>>> individuals living in a "just society" will be able to contravene
>>> established laws and mores to do so. How is an intelligent individual
>>> like Mr. Dolan is capable of believing that "all Terrorists are Muslim"
>>> and "all Muslims are Terrorists"?
>>
>> Not all Muslims are terrorists, but there is something terribly wrong
>> with their religion when they do not speak out thunderously condemning
>> their extremists. The fact is, they don't. What conclusions are we to
>> draw from that kind of silence other than that they sympathize with those
>> actions.
>
> What utter nonsense. Have you *ever* read about the Catholic Church (or
> any other Christian denomination) condemning the Terrorists in Ireland??

The IRA was universally condemned not only by the Church but by the
government and people of Ireland. They had to operate underground for this
very reason. The Palestinian terrorists do not operate underground. They
operate out in the open and have the approval of the Palestinian Authority
(Arafat) and of the Muslim Arabs residing in Palestine. It was the same with
al-Qaeda under the Taliban in Afghanistan.

>> The individuals responsible for the Air India
>>> bombings were certainly *not* Muslim. Neither was Timothy McVeigh. Mr.
>>> Dolan seems to think that to be a "Terrorist", you have to be:
>>>
>>> A/ Well funded, and
>>> B/ A Muslim.
>>
>> The above is too stupid for comment, other than to say that McVeigh was
>> nothing but a common criminal. He had no support whatsoever.
>
> McVeigh was a Terrorist by every definition of the word.

He was not a Muslim terrorist and he was no threat to this country at all.
He was a nut case for the police and the courts to handle. Muslim terrorists
can not be handled by the police and the courts. That is something Clinton
tired to do and it failed miserably. Muslim terrorists have to be handled by
military force. It is called warfare, not police action.

>>> It's also ludicrous to imagine that Mr. Dolan considers me a traitor for
>>> expressing an opinion both contrary to his own as well as a President
>>> that twists fact and has blatantly *lied* to the American people.
>>> Speaking of whom... I understand Mr. Bush is one vote short of
>>> achieving another term in office, but Ohio might still prove to be a
>>> factor in that determination (as of 0040 hours PST).
>>
>> Anyone who will not stand with their country against the common enemy in
>> a time of war is beneath contempt.
>
> Where did I say I wouldn't?? I stated that I wouldn't kill anyone.
> *That* goes against everything I believe in.

You are against the War on Terrorism. You need not lay your life on the line
(unless required) but you need to support your country in time of war and
not be making apologies and excuses for the enemies of this country. If you
are against the war, it would be best to shut up about it. A decision has
been made with respect to war by the elected officials of this government
and that should be sufficient for the likes of you and me.

>> I feel about you the same way I felt about Jane Fonda and John Kerry at
>> the time of the Vietnam War.
>
> Good on you. Both the above individuals had the *courage* to stand by
> their convictions.

They were both treasonous, the only difference being that one was a *****
(Jane) and the other was a ******* (John). Thank God the American people had
the good sense to reject the latter for the highest office in the land. It
would have been nothing but cut and run with him as Commander in Chief.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> The right to demonstrate freely has been (in practice) revoked during
> events such as trade summits [2] or anywhere where Our Maximum Beloved
> Leader in the War on Terror might see it. Many in the US approve of this.

Hire a hall and demonstrate therein to your heart's content. No one will
give a hoot. But where did you ever get the idea that you can demonstrate in
the streets and other public places. It ought to be outlawed entirely. I
would shoot demonstrators in the streets like mad dogs - which is what they
are.
[...]

> [2] FTAA in Miami, where the police instigated violence, then attacked the
> crowds of peaceful demonstrators, and made many unjustified arrests. The
> tactic of police trapping peaceful demonstrators (and innocent
> bystanders), ordering them to disperse, and then arresting them for
> failing to disperse is becoming increasingly common.

I would shoot demonstrators in the streets like mad dogs - which is what
they are. Or did I already say that?

Incidentally, there is a way to do this and a way not to do it. The way to
do it is to shoot them at random from a height, front and rear and side to
side at random. If you mow them down from the front, the ones in the rear
will just push forward and the slaughter will be greater than it needs to
be. Random shooting is best because then they will all panic and run for
their lives because when it is random you never know who is going to get it
next. This is how the Paris police handled riots (demonstrators) in the
glorious times of the 19th century. We could learn a lot from the French
after all.

Thus spake Zarathustra.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Ogg Oggibly wrote:

> You seem to be under the impression I'm trying to prove Christianity good -
> Islam bad. That's not the case at all.

I'm not under any such impression, I'm raising the fact that so-called
"Christians" are responsible for horrible atrocities, despite them being
contrary to their professed religion, to serve as an example that
professed religion is not necessarily a person's primary reason for
behaving the way they do.
But the media tend to label loons who are blowing things up as "Islamic
terrorists", but in fact though they may /think/ they're serving their
religion they aren't doing so any more than the "Catholic Christian"
terrorists in the IRA or the "Protestant Christian" terrorists in the
UVF et al. The "Islamic" label is just a label here.

You've been implying that people are involved in honour killings
primarily /because/ they're Muslims, but there is nothing intrinsic to
the religion itself that requires any such thing AFAICT. That it is the
established religion in places where the culture views it as acceptable
does /not/ make it the fault of the religion. If that were the case
then people such as my Muslim friend would regard it as quite reasonable
behaviour, but they don't.

The activities you highlight as evil are, I'd say too, evil. But they
are not being done because the Islamic religion requires it, even if the
people committing the atrocity claim to be doing it in the name of the
religion. "Catholics" have murdered protestants (or vice versa) in
Northern Ireland in the name of their religion, but I know very well
that Christianity condemns such behaviour. We /know/ this happens in
the Christian world but aren't blaming Christianity, so it strikes me as
a double standard to just go and blame Islam because idiots and
psychopaths who claim to be Islamic are committing atrocities. Just as
it has been said that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel
(i.e., claiming it's okay to do something bad if it's for your country
as a means to justify doing something bad) then there is a similar and
frankly worse case of invoking religion. People have been using
religion to get people to carry out their /own/ agendas ever since
there's been religion, though more thorough examination of the religion
shows that the "reasoning" tends not to stand up. You should not assume
that the example of anyone who claims to be a Moslem is representative
of the religion as a whole across all cultural boundaries where it is
practiced, yet you are appearing to do just that, just as you should not
assume that all Catholic priests are abusing children.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
>
>>The right to demonstrate freely has been (in practice) revoked during
>>events such as trade summits [2] or anywhere where Our Maximum Beloved
>>Leader in the War on Terror might see it. Many in the US approve of this.
>
>
> Hire a hall and demonstrate therein to your heart's content. No one will
> give a hoot. But where did you ever get the idea that you can demonstrate in
> the streets and other public places. It ought to be outlawed entirely. I
> would shoot demonstrators in the streets like mad dogs - which is what they
> are.
> [...]

Yes, protest where no one will hear of see you (the Cheney-Rove
administration "free speech" areas. All progressive change (e.g. end of
slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities, ending the
Vietnam War) has come about through protest movements, not a the polls.
This is why reactionaries fear protest so much).

Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
> of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
> the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" do you not
understand?

>>[2] FTAA in Miami, where the police instigated violence, then attacked the
>>crowds of peaceful demonstrators, and made many unjustified arrests. The
>>tactic of police trapping peaceful demonstrators (and innocent
>>bystanders), ordering them to disperse, and then arresting them for
>>failing to disperse is becoming increasingly common.
>
>
> I would shoot demonstrators in the streets like mad dogs - which is what
> they are. Or did I already say that?
>
> Incidentally, there is a way to do this and a way not to do it. The way to
> do it is to shoot them at random from a height, front and rear and side to
> side at random. If you mow them down from the front, the ones in the rear
> will just push forward and the slaughter will be greater than it needs to
> be. Random shooting is best because then they will all panic and run for
> their lives because when it is random you never know who is going to get it
> next. This is how the Paris police handled riots (demonstrators) in the
> glorious times of the 19th century. We could learn a lot from the French
> after all.

This is what the Russians did to peaceful protestors on January 22,
1905, which was the beginning of the end for the Czarist reign.

--
Tom Sherman
Feingold-Obama 2008
 
> We are already doing what I advocate doing and that is hunting down and
> killing the Islamic terrorists. Afghanistan was a huge success and Iraq
> will be too provided we stay the course.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!!! You are dense. "Afghanistan was a huge
success"... right... It's only a "success" because United Nations Peace
Keepers are present. You can't consider it "huge" because Bin Laden managed
to "slip through our fingers". The UN won't step into Iraq because the war
we started there was both *illegal* and *wrong-headed*. Bush has been
elected to another four year term. That means more American soldiers are
going to *die* in Iraq for the "great lie" he keeps spouting...


>
>>> any more than a group of
>>>> individuals living in a "just society" will be able to contravene
>>>> established laws and mores to do so. How is an intelligent individual
>>>> like Mr. Dolan is capable of believing that "all Terrorists are Muslim"
>>>> and "all Muslims are Terrorists"?
>>>
>>> Not all Muslims are terrorists, but there is something terribly wrong
>>> with their religion when they do not speak out thunderously condemning
>>> their extremists. The fact is, they don't. What conclusions are we to
>>> draw from that kind of silence other than that they sympathize with
>>> those actions.
>>
>> What utter nonsense. Have you *ever* read about the Catholic Church (or
>> any other Christian denomination) condemning the Terrorists in Ireland??
>
> The IRA was universally condemned not only by the Church but by the
> government and people of Ireland. They had to operate underground for this
> very reason. The Palestinian terrorists do not operate underground. They
> operate out in the open and have the approval of the Palestinian Authority
> (Arafat) and of the Muslim Arabs residing in Palestine. It was the same
> with al-Qaeda under the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Aux contraire, mon ami. Arafat has openly condemned Terrorist activity. Do
you think for one minute Israel would allow him to live if they remotely
suspected he supported such activities?? You are naive!! You must have
missed the CNN coverage of 9/11 not to have witnessed the statement issued
by the Taliban condemning the attacks on the twin towers. I don't believe
for one minute that they weren't "chuckling into their turbans" the whole
time, but at least they *did* publicly state their sympathies for the
innocent lives lost. As for the "IRA"... the Church in Ireland have done
very little in the way of influencing the various members of their
congregations (one way or the other). You can actually compare the
Terrorists in Ireland with the the ones in the Middle East. Both receive a
good deal of support and are well funded but there is an essential
difference as to where (and how) the various groups derive that support.
Besides, the "hot heads" in Ireland seem to be getting "influenced" by the
moderates lately.


> He was not a Muslim terrorist and he was no threat to this country at all.

People like McVeigh *are* a threat to this country.


> He was a nut case for the police and the courts to handle.

"Nut case"... That pretty well describes a "Terrorist" alright...


> Muslim terrorists can not be handled by the police and the courts.

They can, and they have. Remember the Trade Center bombings??


> That is something Clinton tired to do and it failed miserably.

Right. Bush has been a resounding success. *NOT!!!*


> Muslim terrorists have to be handled by military force. It is called
> warfare, not police action.

Heh... right... Let's "nuke 'em all!"


>
>>>> It's also ludicrous to imagine that Mr. Dolan considers me a traitor
>>>> for expressing an opinion both contrary to his own as well as a
>>>> President that twists fact and has blatantly *lied* to the American
>>>> people. Speaking of whom... I understand Mr. Bush is one vote short of
>>>> achieving another term in office, but Ohio might still prove to be a
>>>> factor in that determination (as of 0040 hours PST).
>>>
>>> Anyone who will not stand with their country against the common enemy in
>>> a time of war is beneath contempt.
>>
>> Where did I say I wouldn't?? I stated that I wouldn't kill anyone.
>> *That* goes against everything I believe in.
>
> You are against the War on Terrorism.

I don't believe you can fight a "war" with someone that won't identify
themselves until they're face-to-face with you and pulled the toggle on the
bomb they're carrying.


> You need not lay your life on the line (unless required) but you need to
> support your country in time of war and not be making apologies and
> excuses for the enemies of this country.

Read my posts again. I've neither "excused or apoligized" for anyone.


> If you are against the war, it would be best to shut up about it.

I'm against a war we can't win. I was against Vietnam as well. We took a
long time to admit we were actually "in a war". Refresh my memory... did
Congress actually declare ware on North Vietnam??


> A decision has been made with respect to war by the elected officials of
> this government and that should be sufficient for the likes of you and me.

Nope... Congress has not formally declared war on anyone.


>
>>> I feel about you the same way I felt about Jane Fonda and John Kerry at
>>> the time of the Vietnam War.
>>
>> Good on you. Both the above individuals had the *courage* to stand by
>> their convictions.
>
> They were both treasonous, the only difference being that one was a *****
> (Jane) and the other was a ******* (John).

Only in your eyes. You have "moron" vision.


> Thank God the American people had the good sense to reject the latter for
> the highest office in the land.

"He'll be back!"


> It would have been nothing but cut and run with him as Commander in Chief.

I actually think he may not be a "war monger". He may actually have
withdrawn our troops from Iraq. A "war" that's *not* a "war".
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>

> The activities you highlight as evil are, I'd say too, evil.

I'm astounded and amazed that you have seemingly brought yourself to admit
to the existence of evil in this world.

I see nothing else in your post you haven't previously stated several
times....Muslim terrorists are nothing more than idiots and psychopaths - a
nuisance as US Jr. Senator Kerry would put it - and only a scoundrel would
claim otherwise. Christians are only "so called" and are a murdering
atrocious lot. Global Muslim terrorist atrocities are unrelated to their
religion - it's only coincidence they are all Muslim idiots and psychopaths
etc.,etc.,etc.

As a separate matter of some interest to me, a noted Hollywood actor, Robert
Redford, is moving his residence to Ireland - or at least he promised he
would if George Bush won the US election, which of course he quite handily
did.

I think you will enjoy having Redford as a neighbour - at least sort of a
neighbour as Scotland is to Ireland. If there are any Dolans' left in
Ireland he may find his residence there less than hospitable and may try
moving to Scotland where he possibly may have a better chance of finding
kindred spirits. Please help make him feel at home if that possibility
should eventuate.

I seem to be off topic and rattling on here so I will close now.

Ogg O.
 
Ogg Oggibly wrote:

> I'm astounded and amazed that you have seemingly brought yourself to admit
> to the existence of evil in this world.

You would only be astounded if you hadn't actually been paying any
attention to what I've been saying. Oh, you haven't...

> I see nothing else in your post you haven't previously stated several
> times...

But you still seem to be missing my point, which is that activities of
people claiming to be Muslim are not necessarily activities required by
their religion, and thus blaming the religion for the act is ridiculous.
For example, honour killings and suicide bombings.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ogg Oggibly wrote:
>
>> I'm astounded and amazed that you have seemingly brought yourself to
>> admit to the existence of evil in this world.
>
> You would only be astounded if you hadn't actually been paying any
> attention to what I've been saying. Oh, you haven't...

No I have. It hasn't always been easy, but I made the effort.

>
>> I see nothing else in your post you haven't previously stated several
>> times...
>
> But you still seem to be missing my point, which is that activities of
> people claiming to be Muslim are not necessarily activities required by
> their religion, and thus blaming the religion for the act is ridiculous.
> For example, honour killings and suicide bombings.
>

I haven't missed your point. It's just that I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure about the connection between honor killings and Islam, but I do
know Islamic law condones honor killings and that can be clearly shown in
Iran and the pre-Bush Afghanistan.

Concerning the connection between organized Islamic suicide bombings and
terror murders to the religion of the perpetrators you should read USB's
Fatwas and other writings. Think Jihad. He makes the connection so clear I
don't think you could possibly fail to understand it. And please don't
bother to tell me USB is only an idiot and psycho who just happens to be a
Muslim.

Ogg O
 
"Ogg Oggibly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
>
>> The activities you highlight as evil are, I'd say too, evil.
>
> I'm astounded and amazed that you have seemingly brought yourself to
> admit to the existence of evil in this world.
>
> I see nothing else in your post you haven't previously stated several
> times....Muslim terrorists are nothing more than idiots and psychopaths -
> a nuisance as US Jr. Senator Kerry would put it - and only a scoundrel
> would
> claim otherwise. Christians are only "so called" and are a murdering
> atrocious lot. Global Muslim terrorist atrocities are unrelated to their
> religion - it's only coincidence they are all Muslim idiots and
> psychopaths etc.,etc.,etc.

Ogg, you said it far better than I could have said it myself. Wow!

I believe it was Groucho Marx who asked ... who are you going to believe,
me or your own two eyes? A liberal like Peter Clinch will only believe his
own eyes when he is having his throat slit by a Muslim Jihadist at which
point he will ask himself ... where did I go wrong? He went wrong of course
by falling for the liberal line - hook, line and sinker.

If I were him, I would not trust that Muslim pediatric nurse that he works
along side of. She may have a father or a brother or an uncle who will
imagine according to his religious beliefs that he has been "dishonored" by
the mere fact of him even knowing her. Old Pete will lose his life (shot -
and stabbed for good measure) and he won't even know why he is being
murdered. He will go to his grave thinking Muslims are OK and that Islam is
a religion of peace. That is the power of liberal thought on people with
very small brains.

> As a separate matter of some interest to me, a noted Hollywood actor,
> Robert Redford, is moving his residence to Ireland - or at least he
> promised he would if George Bush won the US election, which of course he
> quite handily did.
>
> I think you will enjoy having Redford as a neighbour - at least sort of a
> neighbour as Scotland is to Ireland. If there are any Dolans' left in
> Ireland he may find his residence there less than hospitable and may try
> moving to Scotland where he possibly may have a better chance of finding
> kindred spirits. Please help make him feel at home if that possibility
> should eventuate.

Robert Redford no more belongs in Ireland than he does in the US. May I
recommend Canada to him. They have a long and disgraceful record of
accepting American trash like him. The more we can dump the Robert Redfords'
into Canada, the better off the US will be and the worse off Canada will be.
In other words, Robert Redford and Canada deserve one another.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ogg Oggibly wrote:
>
>> I'm astounded and amazed that you have seemingly brought yourself to
>> admit to the existence of evil in this world.
>
> You would only be astounded if you hadn't actually been paying any
> attention to what I've been saying. Oh, you haven't...
>
>> I see nothing else in your post you haven't previously stated several
>> times...
>
> But you still seem to be missing my point, which is that activities of
> people claiming to be Muslim are not necessarily activities required by
> their religion, and thus blaming the religion for the act is ridiculous.
> For example, honour killings and suicide bombings.

We all of us get your pointless point perfectly. The fact is that it is only
Muslims who are committing these world wide atrocities and they do it in the
name of their religion. That is what motivates them and nothing else.
Whether their religion REQUIRES them to do what they do is beside the point.
Their religion does not prohibit them from doing what they do. In fact,
their religion permits and indeed encourages them to do what they do in a
hundred different ways.

Anyone who thinks Islam is a religion of peace is as crazy as a Minnesota
loon. They create nothing but trouble wherever they are to be found in the
world. Tolerant liberal fools like Peter Clinch will be the death of Western
Civilization. To tolerate evil in the name of Christianity is an evil in
itself. Our Christian forefathers were never this stupid and knew the
Muslims to be the evil they have ever proven themselves to be and handled
them accordingly.

By the way, Europe is totally insane to permit Muslim immigrants into their
domain. They will regret it and rue it mightily before all is said and done.
We Americans are also incredibly stupid to permit Muslim immigrants to this
country, but we have a better record of Americanizing immigrants than do the
Europeans of Europeanizing immigrants. American Muslims will be secularized
right out of their despicable religion.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Ogg Oggibly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ogg Oggibly wrote:
>>
>
> Concerning the connection between organized Islamic suicide bombings and
> terror murders to the religion of the perpetrators you should read USB's
> Fatwas and other writings. Think Jihad. He makes the connection so clear
> I don't think you could possibly fail to understand it. And please don't
> bother to tell me USB is only an idiot and psycho who just happens to be a
> Muslim.
>
> Ogg O

Excuse me. The initals USB in the above paragraph were intended to be UBL
for Usama bin Laden, the worlds most evil terrorist mass murderer and
faithful adherent of the world's most peaceful religion - Islam.

I must have been thinking about a computer port. Maybe the slip-up was
influenced by Pete's occupation.
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> [...]
>>
>>>The right to demonstrate freely has been (in practice) revoked during
>>>events such as trade summits [2] or anywhere where Our Maximum Beloved
>>>Leader in the War on Terror might see it. Many in the US approve of this.
>>
>>
>> Hire a hall and demonstrate therein to your heart's content. No one will
>> give a hoot. But where did you ever get the idea that you can demonstrate
>> in the streets and other public places. It ought to be outlawed entirely.
>> I would shoot demonstrators in the streets like mad dogs - which is what
>> they are.
>> [...]
>
> Yes, protest where no one will hear of see you (the Cheney-Rove
> administration "free speech" areas. All progressive change (e.g. end of
> slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights for minorities, ending the Vietnam
> War) has come about through protest movements, not a the polls. This is
> why reactionaries fear protest so much).

We conservatives fear protest movements in the streets because it is against
law and order. It is really just that simple.

> Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States of America
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> speech, or
>> of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>> petition
>> the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> What part of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" do you not
> understand?

I don't understand "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in the
streets and public places of our towns and cities. They can do that just
fine in private places, like a hall they have hired for that purpose. The
streets and public places do not belong to "demonstrators", not ever for
even a single moment. Mr. Sherman does not believe in democracy; he believes
in mobocracy. He should be careful about that as the other side (******'s
Brown Shirts for instance) can play these games too, even better than
liberal "progressives."

>>>[2] FTAA in Miami, where the police instigated violence, then attacked
>>>the crowds of peaceful demonstrators, and made many unjustified arrests.
>>>The tactic of police trapping peaceful demonstrators (and innocent
>>>bystanders), ordering them to disperse, and then arresting them for
>>>failing to disperse is becoming increasingly common.
>>
>>
>> I would shoot demonstrators in the streets like mad dogs - which is what
>> they are. Or did I already say that?
>>
>> Incidentally, there is a way to do this and a way not to do it. The way
>> to do it is to shoot them at random from a height, front and rear and
>> side to side at random. If you mow them down from the front, the ones in
>> the rear will just push forward and the slaughter will be greater than it
>> needs to be. Random shooting is best because then they will all panic and
>> run for their lives because when it is random you never know who is going
>> to get it next. This is how the Paris police handled riots
>> (demonstrators) in the glorious times of the 19th century. We could learn
>> a lot from the French after all.
>
> This is what the Russians did to peaceful protestors on January 22, 1905,
> which was the beginning of the end for the Czarist reign.

There is almost no such thing as "peaceful protesters." That is how
governments are brought down - always by violence, either actual or
threatened, by protesters in the streets. We have democracy in this country
and there is never any excuse for demonstrators and protesters to be in the
streets.

> Tom Sherman
> Feingold-Obama 2008

My brother, who is now living in a Chicago suburb, has gone berserk on the
subject of the screwed up condition of Illinois Republicans. That Illinois
could send someone like Obama to the Senate is driving him stark raving mad.
My best advice to Mr. Sherman, never deign to meet up with someone named
Dolan in the state of Illinois. It will be murder at first sight. He thinks
I am a flaming Commie. The rule for him is that it is never possible to get
too far to the right.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Frank Olson wrote:

> ..mon ami....

Saying this about Ed Dolan makes you either a liar of a saint. ;)

--
Tom Sherman
Feingold-Obama 2008
 
"Frank Olson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9Vqid.115375$Pl.93116@pd7tw1no...
>> We are already doing what I advocate doing and that is hunting down and
>> killing the Islamic terrorists. Afghanistan was a huge success and Iraq
>> will be too provided we stay the course.
>
> Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!!! You are dense. "Afghanistan was a huge
> success"... right... It's only a "success" because United Nations Peace
> Keepers are present. You can't consider it "huge" because Bin Laden
> managed to "slip through our fingers".

UBL has been rendered helpless. What does one man matter when you have
rendered his organization ineffectual.

The UN won't step into Iraq because the war
> we started there was both *illegal* and *wrong-headed*. Bush has been
> elected to another four year term. That means more American soldiers are
> going to *die* in Iraq for the "great lie" he keeps spouting...

What is a legal war and what is an illegal war? I have never heard of any
such nonsense. All nations are sovereign.
[...]

>> The IRA was universally condemned not only by the Church but by the
>> government and people of Ireland. They had to operate underground for
>> this very reason. The Palestinian terrorists do not operate underground.
>> They operate out in the open and have the approval of the Palestinian
>> Authority (Arafat) and of the Muslim Arabs residing in Palestine. It was
>> the same with al-Qaeda under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
>
> Aux contraire, mon ami. Arafat has openly condemned Terrorist activity.

Arafat supports terrorism whether he would like to or not. If he did not go
along with it he would be assassinated forthwith.

Do
> you think for one minute Israel would allow him to live if they remotely
> suspected he supported such activities??

Yes, because of world opinion composed of idiots like you. It I were in
charge, Arafat would have been dead and moldering in his grave long ago. Let
us all hope that he will soon die, Allah willing of course!

You are naive!! You must have
> missed the CNN coverage of 9/11 not to have witnessed the statement issued
> by the Taliban condemning the attacks on the twin towers. I don't believe
> for one minute that they weren't "chuckling into their turbans" the whole
> time, but at least they *did* publicly state their sympathies for the
> innocent lives lost. As for the "IRA"... the Church in Ireland have done
> very little in the way of influencing the various members of their
> congregations (one way or the other). You can actually compare the
> Terrorists in Ireland with the the ones in the Middle East.

Nope, you can't for reasons already stated in a previous post of mine.
[...]

>> Muslim terrorists can not be handled by the police and the courts.
>
> They can, and they have. Remember the Trade Center bombings??

The terrorism continued. That is just one of the reasons why we are at war
besides 9/11. The only way to stop them is to destroy them via warfare.
[...]

>> If you are against the war, it would be best to shut up about it.
>
> I'm against a war we can't win. I was against Vietnam as well. We took a
> long time to admit we were actually "in a war". Refresh my memory... did
> Congress actually declare ware on North Vietnam??

You are only for wars that you can win?

Congressional declarations of war are no longer necessary. A congressional
resolution to authorize the president to do whatever he wants with respect
to a given situation is all that is necessary. Everyone understands this.
Where have you been for the past half century.

A resort to legalistic arguments is the last refuge of a scoundrel who hates
America and wants to see her brought low. Frank Olson is more French than he
is American. He would surely be happier in that benighted nation than he is
even in Canada, where there is still some manhood and machismo left. Only
the eternally effeminate and cowardly French would suit a pacifist like him.

I am for America, not for the Constitution and other scraps of paper
mouthing legalistic mumbo-jumbo about governance. The nation - first, last
and always.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Mr. Ed (Dolan) wrote:

> We conservatives fear protest movements in the streets because it is against
> law and order. It is really just that simple.

The first question is, is Dolan an idiot or just pretending to be one?

> I don't understand "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in the
> streets and public places of our towns and cities. They can do that just
> fine in private places, like a hall they have hired for that purpose. The
> streets and public places do not belong to "demonstrators", not ever for
> even a single moment. Mr. Sherman does not believe in democracy; he believes
> in mobocracy. He should be careful about that as the other side (******'s
> Brown Shirts for instance) can play these games too, even better than
> liberal "progressives."

The second question is, is Dolan an idiot or just pretending to be one?

> There is almost no such thing as "peaceful protesters." That is how
> governments are brought down - always by violence, either actual or
> threatened, by protesters in the streets. We have democracy in this country
> and there is never any excuse for demonstrators and protesters to be in the
> streets.

The third question is, is Dolan an idiot or just pretending to be one?

> My brother, who is now living in a Chicago suburb, has gone berserk on the
> subject of the screwed up condition of Illinois Republicans. That Illinois
> could send someone like Obama to the Senate is driving him stark raving mad.
> My best advice to Mr. Sherman, never deign to meet up with someone named
> Dolan in the state of Illinois. It will be murder at first sight. He thinks
> I am a flaming Commie. The rule for him is that it is never possible to get
> too far to the right.

Sorry Mr. Ed, but progressive politicians like Barack Obama are the
future. Shrub won the election [1] on the basis of racism and
homophobia. Kerry lost because he was too far to the right and was wrong
on the critical issue of Iraq.

Well, the percentage of the US population that considers itself "white"
is constantly shrinking. And younger people are generally much more
accepting of homosexuals than older people are. Republicans better enjoy
the next four years, since their time is numbered.

By the way, have you noticed how US imposed economic policy is being
rejected by South America, and how right wing governments are falling in
elections there? Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and now Uruguay
have all elected governments on the political left.

P.S. Over 40% of the Republicans in Illinois that voted chose Obama. :)

[1] Assuming the electronic voting machines in Ohio and Florida counted
the votes fairly (something we will likely never know).

--
Tom Sherman
Feingold-Obama 2008
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Ed (Dolan) wrote:
>
>> We conservatives fear protest movements in the streets because it is
>> against law and order. It is really just that simple.
>
> The first question is, is Dolan an idiot or just pretending to be one?

Mr. Sherman thinks people have a right to protest and demonstrate in the
streets. No such right actually exists in theory.

>> I don't understand "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in the
>> streets and public places of our towns and cities. They can do that just
>> fine in private places, like a hall they have hired for that purpose. The
>> streets and public places do not belong to "demonstrators", not ever for
>> even a single moment. Mr. Sherman does not believe in democracy; he
>> believes in mobocracy. He should be careful about that as the other side
>> (******'s Brown Shirts for instance) can play these games too, even
>> better than liberal "progressives."
>
> The second question is, is Dolan an idiot or just pretending to be one?

Mr. Sherman thinks people have a right to protest and demonstrate in the
streets. No such right actually exists in theory.

>> There is almost no such thing as "peaceful protesters." That is how
>> governments are brought down - always by violence, either actual or
>> threatened, by protesters in the streets. We have democracy in this
>> country and there is never any excuse for demonstrators and protesters to
>> be in the streets.
>
> The third question is, is Dolan an idiot or just pretending to be one?

Mr. Sherman thinks people have a right to protest and demonstrate in the
streets. No such right actually exists in theory.

>> My brother, who is now living in a Chicago suburb, has gone berserk on
>> the subject of the screwed up condition of Illinois Republicans. That
>> Illinois could send someone like Obama to the Senate is driving him stark
>> raving mad. My best advice to Mr. Sherman, never deign to meet up with
>> someone named Dolan in the state of Illinois. It will be murder at first
>> sight. He thinks I am a flaming Commie. The rule for him is that it is
>> never possible to get too far to the right.
>
> Sorry Mr. Ed, but progressive politicians like Barack Obama are the
> future. Shrub won the election [1] on the basis of racism and homophobia.
> Kerry lost because he was too far to the right and was wrong on the
> critical issue of Iraq.

Just keep thinking like that and your side will never win another election
again. Kerry lost because he was an idiot - just like you are an idiot. Why
don't you run Michael Moore for President next time around, even though he
is a big fat treasonous pig who has no brain.

> Well, the percentage of the US population that considers itself "white" is
> constantly shrinking. And younger people are generally much more accepting
> of homosexuals than older people are. Republicans better enjoy the next
> four years, since their time is numbered.

I don't much give a good **** about the future since I am planning to leave
this vale of tears rather soon one of these years. But you hang in there and
you will get everything you deserve - only it will be just the opposite of
what you think it will be.

I have a very interesting map of how the country voted by counties and it
shows basically that all the Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, homos and other
liberal idiots in cities voted for Kerry. All the rest of the country voted
for Bush. Maybe Mr. Sherman could think about becoming a **** (since he
can't very well become a Black, an Indian or a Hispanic) so he could fit in
better with the prevailing Democratic demographic.

> By the way, have you noticed how US imposed economic policy is being
> rejected by South America, and how right wing governments are falling in
> elections there? Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and now Uruguay have
> all elected governments on the political left.

Who cares, as long as they do not revert to dictatorships. The pendulum
swings - you know.

> P.S. Over 40% of the Republicans in Illinois that voted chose Obama. :)

But that is what my brother is so upset about. He thinks the Illinois
Republicans are the pits and attributes most of the problems to the
leadership in the party. He thinks Keyes is the greatest and I like him too.

> [1] Assuming the electronic voting machines in Ohio and Florida counted
> the votes fairly (something we will likely never know).

All the Dems know how to do these days is to try to de-legitimatize
elections. Thanks for the good laugh Mr. Tom. If I were not reading this I
would not believe it.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Mr. Ed (Dolan) wrote:

> ...
> All the Dems know how to do these days is to try to de-legitimatize
> elections. Thanks for the good laugh Mr. Tom. If I were not reading this I
> would not believe it.

Anyone who thinks the votes were counted properly in Ohio is an idiot.

How do like having "won" two elections by the legacy of Jim Crow? Must
make all the racists proud. To hell with democracy - winning is everything.

--
Tom Sherman
"Use your head, Mr. Ed" – Slugger
 
"G. Morgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:14:39 -0600 "Edward Dolan"
> used 102 lines of text to write in newsgroup:
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
>
>>I have a very interesting map of how the country voted by counties and it
>>shows basically that all the Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, homos and other
>>liberal idiots in cities voted for Kerry. All the rest of the country
>>voted
>>for Bush. Maybe Mr. Sherman could think about becoming a **** (since he
>>can't very well become a Black, an Indian or a Hispanic) so he could fit
>>in
>>better with the prevailing Democratic demographic.
>
> That map of yours breaks down votes by Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, and
> homos?

I am a very good geographer having looked at all kinds of maps all of my
life. Here is the link to the map. Have a look for yourself and tell me what
you see.


Exclusive:
NewsMax Releases "Bush Country" Map

Remember the 2000 election map that showed America as a "Red" nation?

Now, NewsMax has the 2004 county by county map - and it shows America
voted overwhelmingly for George Bush!

We call it the Bush Country 2004 map.

Check it out on NewsMax.com's homepage now: Go Here Now.
http://www.newsmax.com



The Black, Indian and Hispanic areas are immediately obvious, both rural and
urban. The **** and urban over-educated idiots are also immediately obvious
and then of course there is still the old union labor inner city demographic
also. Any doubt in your mind about how San Francisco is going to vote with
all those homos residing there?

The Dems could not win anything anymore without the colored minorities vote.
Are you a member of a colored minority? If you are, then go ahead and vote
Democratic. They will best give you what you need. If you are not a member
of a colored minority, then you need to rethink what the hell it is you are
voting for when you vote Democratic. The way things are going, we Whites
will soon be a minority in this country and then we can all vote Democratic
too along with the Blacks and the Indians and idiots like Mr. Sherman.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> ...
>> All the Dems know how to do these days is to try to de-legitimatize
>> elections. Thanks for the good laugh Mr. Tom. If I were not reading this
>> I would not believe it.
>
> Anyone who thinks the votes were counted properly in Ohio is an idiot.
>
> How do like having "won" two elections by the legacy of Jim Crow? Must
> make all the racists proud. To hell with democracy - winning is
> everything.

Maybe if the Dems embodied more the moral values of the average American
instead of being for abortion, deviant sex and gay marriage (which I am sure
is anything but gay) and stood more for defending this country against it's
enemies instead of looking to the UN for salvation, they would have a
chance, not just in Ohio but in the country at large. But all they know how
to do is to cater to depraved immoralists and internationalists.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sherman, those groups are and will always remain
minorities in a sane society.

--
Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Re: Troll and Flame Baiting Award - donquijote1954
Replies
0
Views
363
Recumbent bicycles
Edward Dolan
E
E
Re: I-Pod war?
Replies
0
Views
488
Recumbent bicycles
Edward Dolan
E
Z
FW: We lost a battle, not the war, argues former BikeE boss
Replies
0
Views
635
Recumbent bicycles
Zach
Z
D
Prices War?
Replies
8
Views
751
Recumbent bicycles
Tom Sherman
T
C
We won this war....
Replies
6
Views
594
Recumbent bicycles
Christopher Jordan
C
Top Bottom Back