BUSH WINS!

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:35:53 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

You obviously have problems with reading.

I mentioned nothing about their deeds changing, I mentioned the quotes
around "terrorist" and their effect on the perception of the severity
of the offenses of the terrorists.

Let's see if you're capable of understanding this....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm


--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

BTW, I was not so much in favour of Kerry, I am just against Bush.
Kerry had some benefit of the doubt, Bush is proven failure. Even
if Kerry would turn out to be worse (we'll never know) it would still
be better. It is not a shame to elect an idiot for President, but it
is when you do it for a second time.

Hi Frank,

Yep, and I am afraid that is why Kerry lost. His campaign was pretty
much based on a negative - I won't be as bad as Bush - as opposed to a
positive - I will be a good president. Sometimes people pick the devil
they know rather than the unknown evil they don't!

--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht newsesko0h8dpmpn7aq5rutaq3u52arfl9av0@4ax.com...

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:57:18 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:


Is it only 'interesting' or do you agree with the author? Or
is it just another smoke-screen of yours (I know you can't help it).
Please take a position - posting links with a label 'interesting'
is meaningless.


Oh dear, you didn't find it interesting?


I didn't say that. I added some comments. You snipped all that, and
come back with a comment that is -again- a smoke curtain. The topic
was not if I found it interesting or not. Again you try to move the
focus.

I'd prefer if you plonked me. I have no interest in smoke screens.
Either you stick to the contents/topic or shut up.

Right- this Larkin is an aggravating little piss-ant, he pretends to
know all about economics, campaign politics, national security,
geopolitics ad nauseum- a real pseudo sophisticated closet queen p.o.s.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:51:43 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:418A3651.1090701@nospam.com...


Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Stefan Heinzmann" <stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:cmd4vo$8pc$05$1@news.t-online.com...


So is it any wonder that there's a high level of Bush opposition in
Europe and elsewhere in the world? And most of it is indeed opposition,
not hate, even if the opposition should be rather bitter. And this
opposition is not rooted in a deep old sentiment, it is founded on an
observable track record. And yes, most of us Europeans are able to
distinguish between the people and their government.


The first 4 years of Bush can't be blamed on the American people, indeed
I make a distinction there. But *now* that he is re-elected... half that
nation is either ignorant, hypnotised or plain stupid peasants.


The elections were rigged! They are null and void.

That is indeed a fourth possibility, and more likely than the
others I gave..

Well, I had intended to quit beating a dead horse, but between 51% of the
population voting for W., vs. them rigging the election, I'd rather that
it turned out that the election was not rigged, and it's just simply that
that many people are ignorant, hypontized or just plain stupid.

'Cause if they can rig a whole fckin US election, there is no safety. It
would mean that America, as we knew her, is lost already. It would mean
unheard-of levels of corruption throughout the entire neocon machine.

And it would mean that independent thinkers are fucked. Guess I better
put up a picture of our beloved infallible leader.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:08:25 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

And the truth is defeated, hurrah, I feel much safer.

Bushit for four more years, eat deeply my little neocons!

Well, the satirists are happy - four more years of continuous
material. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:57:09 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:33:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:09:41 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:36:12 -0600, "Brian" <bellis350@comcast.net
wrote:


John, is this guy Rich for real? Or is he just pulling our chain?
I just can't imagine someone being so hateful and stupid. He
must belong to the Michael Moore gang.



I don't know. There are some people who honestly believe you can only
get something by taking it away from somebody else, and that everybody
wants to do just that. It's an obviously silly notion, but widely
believed.

Michael Moore got *very* rich selling the concept!


But how can you proclaim compassion, while tacitly endorsing mass
murder?


No sensible person could. The "tacitly endorsing mass murder" is your
judgement. My position is that suffering and death should be
minimized. Seat belts save a lot of lives, but they do kill a few
people; they're still a good idea overall.

Yeah, it is a judgement on my part. And of course, I disagree with
seat belt laws, partly because, being an anarchist, I believe any
law that forces people to do stuff is wrong, but also because what
seat belts do is just shift the death toll from idiot drivers to
their passengers and innocent bystanders.

Here's how to solve the traffic death problem:
http://richgrise.tripod.com/images/Safe-Car.gif

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:46:26 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:36:12 -0600, "Brian" <bellis350@comcast.net
wrote:


John, is this guy Rich for real? Or is he just pulling our chain?
I just can't imagine someone being so hateful and stupid. He
must belong to the Michael Moore gang.

---
Rich is a sheep in wolf's clothing, and he's a little upset because
his wardrobe's getting tattered.

Nah, our side lost. It probably won't affect me much right away. And
as far as being a loser, WTF - I've had 50 years of practice.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:52:20 +1100, Adam. Seychell wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:55:21 +1100, "Adam. Seychell"
invald@invalid.com> wrote:




Well, I couldn't agree more. If robber were to rob a bank then he/she
wouldn't get very far going the passive approach, they'll need a big gun
or something. Similarly, if the Bush administration wants America to
have domination and prosperity at the expense of other nations then it
certainly cannot take the passive approach either.



Prosperity is not a zero-sum game, and the US does not need to be
prosperous at anyone's expense. The history of the world is exactly
opposite: the more that democracy, education, and health spread, the
better off everyone is. America's "hegemony" is the spread of
democracy; call that domination if you will. If the US wanted to be
the permanent, exclusive superpower, it would want the rest of the
world to stay sunk in poverty, communism, and religious
fundamentalism; that's not what's happening.


I was being sarcastic and not very accurate in my previous email. I used
the word domination when I should of said promoting "American Freedom".
The Heritage Foundation think tank believe they have the best system and
it should be spread (or enforced if necessary) across the rest of the
world. I am not convinced that this ideology will inhibit wars and human
and non-human suffering. History dictates that all great empires fall,
and one day it will be Americas turn, although maybe not in my life
time. In the end this great empire will only cause is lots of tears.

I think if it[0] doesn't fall in the next four years, it will be here
forever, or as long as there's oil to take from the ground.

Thanks,
Rich

[0] the current American empire of Big Oil and multinationals and
neocons.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:47:09 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:35:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:


Has anyone ever asked what it is these "terrorists" are trying to
accomplish?

---
Ultimately, the elimination of the Jews.

But, do they really want the Jews eliminated, or would they be happy
if the Jews just stopped murdering their families?

A necessary first step is the destruction of America since they know
we'll never let the Jews be eliminated.

I see. So the Jews _are_ involved with the nazis? That's a pretty damn
good hiding place, I'd say.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:46:45 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Here's how to solve the traffic death problem:
http://richgrise.tripod.com/images/Safe-Car.gif

That's no good. People would just start driving around in reverse.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:52:45 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Nah, our side lost. It probably won't affect me much right away. And
as far as being a loser, WTF - I've had 50 years of practice.

Rich, you really must stop portraying yourself like that 'Otto' guy in
the Simpsons. ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:04:55 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:47:09 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:35:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:


Has anyone ever asked what it is these "terrorists" are trying to
accomplish?

---
Ultimately, the elimination of the Jews.

But, do they really want the Jews eliminated, or would they be happy
if the Jews just stopped murdering their families?

---
It's the Hatfields and the McCoys, and centuries old hatreds ingrained
in each new generation by their parents fuels a fire that's hard to
put out.
---

A necessary first step is the destruction of America since they know
we'll never let the Jews be eliminated.

I see. So the Jews _are_ involved with the nazis? That's a pretty damn
good hiding place, I'd say.

---
If we really _were_ the Nazis don't you think that rather than protect
the Jews we'd have finished the job the first ones started?

--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:38:07 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:00:14 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:57:18 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
Is it only 'interesting' or do you agree with the author? Or
is it just another smoke-screen of yours (I know you can't help it).
Please take a position - posting links with a label 'interesting'
is meaningless.
Oh dear, you didn't find it interesting?
I didn't say that. I added some comments. You snipped all that, and
come back with a comment that is -again- a smoke curtain. The topic
was not if I found it interesting or not. Again you try to move the
focus.
I'd prefer if you plonked me.
Why don't *you* plonk *me*?
Well, I still have some hope that is a small chance that
you would appreciate to see things from anothers' point of
view. But you seem to rather convinced of your own views,
so it is probably a waste of time, trying to explain my
views. All I get it are smoke screens.

I see your point of view quite clearly, and it's the point of view
of an idiot.

But don't let me hurt your feelings, I also see the other points
of view, and I see "flaws" in all of them.

Of course, that means that I'm proclaiming wisdom beyond what
any human has ever achieved, so obviously my POV is that of
a lunatic.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:44:46 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:53:25 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
....
They don't have to rig the entire US- just the big three PA, OH , and
FLA- if the honest vote got Bush somewhat even, the rig would take him
over the top. They succeeded in OH and FLA, and failed in PA. My guess
is that the rig bought him 3 pts minimum.


Hell, Dan Rather bought him three points.

OK, how's this for a conspiracy theory - the neocons infiltrated
the dems, and shoved Kerry down their throat, knowing that he
was the worst possible opponent for Bush.

Hey, remember "a commie behind every tree?" How about "a nazi
behind every Bush?" ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:03:41 +0100, Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:qgsko0tuce5t7fp2quq68nrocl7bnn056r@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:57:30 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:


half that
nation is either ignorant, hypnotised or plain stupid peasants.


Who design the best weapons in the world.

You mean a 747 aimed at a skyscraper?

Weren't the Japanese the inventors of the Kamikaze?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:54:37 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:52:45 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Nah, our side lost. It probably won't affect me much right away. And
as far as being a loser, WTF - I've had 50 years of practice.

Rich, you really must stop portraying yourself like that 'Otto' guy in
the Simpsons. ;-)

Frankly, I'd rather be Dilbert's Garbageman. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:11:21 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:04:55 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:47:09 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:35:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:


Has anyone ever asked what it is these "terrorists" are trying to
accomplish?

---
Ultimately, the elimination of the Jews.

But, do they really want the Jews eliminated, or would they be happy
if the Jews just stopped murdering their families?

---
It's the Hatfields and the McCoys, and centuries old hatreds ingrained
in each new generation by their parents fuels a fire that's hard to
put out.
---

A necessary first step is the destruction of America since they know
we'll never let the Jews be eliminated.

I see. So the Jews _are_ involved with the nazis? That's a pretty damn
good hiding place, I'd say.

---
If we really _were_ the Nazis don't you think that rather than protect
the Jews we'd have finished the job the first ones started?

See how good they're hiding? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:54:32 -0600, John Fields wrote:

Crappola. What you're tring to do is worm your way into the concrete
so you can piss on the rebar to try to make it rust.

_Now_ you're gettin' it!

;^j

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:26:14 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:43:33 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

which looks like the obvious outcome: everyone will find a way to get
along with the big gorilla. Now if Arafat goes, maybe there could
finally be a peaceful Palestinian state, and at least some of the
reason for all this hassle could go away.

Arafat's a moderate! You better hope the Palestinians don't adopt
someone more hardline as his replacement! It looks like it won't be
long, either, since the venerable old statesman is now lying close to
death in a French hospital (must have been the food).

One scenario is civil war and total chaos on Palestine, because Arafat
was a master at playing off factions but established no stable
structure or succession. It could indeed get nasty. But it would never
change as long as he's in control.

I think "statesman" is overly generous. Even other Arab leaders
considered him to be untrustworthy. It's said that he didn't respect
the Oslo agreements because he signed them before he read them.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:57:18 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"Bush is the personification of that unashamed America and that is why
Europe cannot bear the sight of him."

That sounds more like it, except putting the blame on the entire population
isn't fair either. It assumes that the entire population is behind Bush,
which is not. Only about half of it. The only sad thing about this election
is that now 'we' know that for sure. His first election could be seen as a
mistake, his re-election is not; people knew what they voted for.

---
Ah yessss...

The ugly reality of it starts to sink in.

We'll do the best we can and what we damned well want to and have to
in order to survive and prosper, and we'll struggle with the results
of _our_ decisions regardless of whether the rest of the stupid,
suicidal world around us gives us permission or thinks it's right or
not.

--
John Fields