PDA

View Full Version : President in Iraq



Becky Davis
11-28-2003, 06:51 AM
Political or whatever, I am glad that President Bush went to Bagdad for Thanksgiving. That had to boost the moral of our service men and women.
Whether he did it to upstage Hilary Clinton or not, it was a good thing to do.

sweetness&light
11-28-2003, 08:09 AM
It's re-election time.

Now why do you think he wanted to sneak into Iraq instead of having all the big fanfare and hoopla? Hmmm, so many answers.

Cyberphillics
11-28-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by sweetness&light:
It's re-election time.

Now why do you think he wanted to sneak into Iraq instead of having all the big fanfare and hoopla? Hmmm, so many answers.

Maybe because if the Iraqies knew he was coming he would have been greeted with many surface to air missiles.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Becky Davis:
Political or whatever, I am glad that President Bush went to Bagdad for Thanksgiving. That had to boost the moral of our service men and women.
Whether he did it to upstage Hilary Clinton or not, it was a good thing to do.

becky...I agree that his visit was a good thing for the troops and feedback seems to indicate that the "Troops" had little doubt about the President's sincerity. It took a lot of guts to do what he did and I believe from a political standpoint it will go in his favor. I can't imagine "Bill" ever thinking about doing anything like that..let alone hilliary! LOL

Jan Ridenour
11-28-2003, 11:05 AM
http://ushome.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/28iraq.htm

Hillary trip

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Cyberphillics:
Maybe because if the Iraqies knew he was coming he would have been greeted with many surface to air missiles.

[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

S. Jones
11-28-2003, 11:10 AM
EDITED

[This message has been edited by S. Jones (edited 12-01-2003).]

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
I wonder how many of our troops would frag Bush themselves if they had half a chance..

Well Jones...I don't think any of "our" troops would. Unless they are traitors,communists, or just nuts. Would you if you had the chance?

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Jan Ridenour:
http://ushome.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/28iraq.htm

Hillary trip

Well it is not new News that Hilliary and a few select others had plans to follow...and I do make that clear FOLLOW, Bush to Iraq. They just didn't know they would be following, and though it was one of the best kept secrets of all times, the plan by Bush for this trip was decided long before hilary and others even thought about making such a trip. Could there be a political purpose behind it, or do you suppose she is just doing it to show her kindness and love for the American troops under Bush's control? LOL Politics as usual!
She might try to "steal" the thunder, but I think the world is smart enough to know what hiliary is all about. I wish I had that talent she has of turning a $1000 into $100,000 in less than a month's time, playing the stockmarket WITHOUT) insider information! Yea right! The Whitewater Queen! When it comes to politics, people don't forget these things when assessing one's character and motives!


[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

S. Jones
11-28-2003, 11:34 AM
Sure they would. Cant say if i would or wouldnt as i`m not there and have no idea as to what is REALLY going on (and neither do you).

What in the world does being a communist have to do with it?

Hermit of Hogscald
11-28-2003, 12:57 PM
Nobody knew about Bushies trip before it happened, the big difference is that Hillary didn't sneak in with the threat to call it off if ANYONE found out ahead of time. Looks to me like it wasn't Hillary who tried to follow Dubya, in fact, looks to me like it was very much the other way around. Our mighty "fighter jock" just couldn't stand the thought of being upstaged and outgunned by a mere girl.

Our great "hero" didn't have the nerve to travel the very same streets that he sends teenage girls to patrol daily. In fact, he was protected from coming into harms way by a massive and secure cordon made up of our young sons and daughters.

I will believe the guy actually has some real courage when I see him parade through the streets of Bagdhad, giving the Iraqis the opportunity to express in person their appreciation for their "liberation".

My question is, when Hillary was in Afghanistan, was she surrounded by hundreds of armed guards and only in secure areas, and did she go there in absolute secrecy, threatening to call the whole thing off if anyone found out?

And I can't even believe there are still people beating that Whitewater horse. I'm surprised they can even find the corpse anymore. That nag is so dead it ain't never gonna pull, if that is the best you can do, it is truly a pathetic commentary on the intellegence of those who still support the biggest liar of them all. At least Bill's fib didn't get hundreds of Americans killed and the only cost to the American taxpayer was the money the Republicans spent trying to bring Billy down.

Steve, the word communist is always used as the last resort to discredit someone when all attempts at reason fail. It is a catchword deeply ingrained into the American psyche by decades of propaganda, and so is usually used to perpetuate all kinds of vilification of ones opponents. It has recently been reinstituted as the word "terrorist", because if you label someone as a terrorist, you can not only bring their credibility into question, but now you can jail them indefinately without representation or charges.

If that isn't enough, notice the other catch word used above for anyone who won't toe the party line: traitor.

I would love to hear just one Bush speech that doesn't contain either the words 9/11 or September 11. It's called the politics of fear. If you can generate enough fear and anger, reason shuts down as the fight or flight reaction kicks in.

Jan Ridenour
11-28-2003, 01:20 PM
I would imagine we'll be seeing lots of that photo op in the coming months in compaign commercials. Bush with a turkey...how fittin' is that?

And who knew that all is takes is to fly in with the lights off? Gee, I guess if those Black Hawks and Fighter Jets will just turn off the lights, all should be well?

But as usual, cover of darkness seems to be a favorite one with the group of Penn Ave.

I would imagine ole GW would have gotten the same response from the people as he would did in Britain with 'the people'.

And how much did that little photo op cost the taxpayers?

Yep, it was turkey day alright.

Kim Yonkee
11-28-2003, 01:21 PM
Clinton spent Thanksgiving in Kosovo. Bush Senior spent a Gulf War Thanksgiving in Saudi Arabia. Nixon? Viet Nam. Johnson? Viet Nam. Eisenhower? Korea.



It's what the Commander in Chief does. What he should do. What they all do.



Hilary Clinton and Jack Reed are on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Members of that committee are forever going on fact-finding missions in times of conflict. It's what they should do. What they all do. (Yes, that's Reed. Jack Reed. Rhode Island. Did anyonoe notice he went too? Poor guy. What a shame he never had sex with that woman. Maybe he could get a little attention too.)



OK. Let's see here. This was May 1, when Bush officially declared the combat in Iraq "over."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg



Then we have November 27, with Bush serving turkey to troops at war. (I was apparently out running errands or something when the war started again. I missed it on CNN.)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq.main/story.bush.turkey.ap.jpg



Granted, the latter image is a much better photo op. That flight suit Bush wore on to the deck of the USS Lincoln really made his complexion look sallow, don't you think? And that dark suit? My dear, simply NOT his color!



But the latest image is a dandy one, I think. Here we see the ruddy & beneficient steward of America's economic recovery, offering a symbolically heaping platter. That khaki backdrop really brings out the blue in his eyes.



If only Bush & Hilary could have been in Iraq at the same time ... and Hilary could have been dressed in a devil suit with Regulation Homeland Security Duct Tape plastered over her mouth ... and Bush could have posed with the heaping platter in one hand, his foot on Hilary's head, and a glistening cross driven through her dark, Democratic, liberal, godforsaken heart ... well, THAT would have been perfect!



But I guess we can't have everything.

Jan Ridenour
11-28-2003, 02:37 PM
I think that turkey photo is so representative of how Bush portrays everything. I assumed that was just HIS plate.
Bush plate (economy) is full and growing, therefore the US plate (economy) is robust too.

As usual, no other plates are showing that in the picture.

I am in complete support of the troops, just too bad that George didn't take some of the money he spent sneaking into Iraq yesterday and use it to "support" (as in some extra pay)for the families of those enlisted and reserve troops here at home.

Geez, even Motel 6 leaves the lights on.

[This message has been edited by Jan Ridenour (edited 11-28-2003).]

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
Nobody knew about Bushies trip before it happened, .

Well Hermit you are wrong there. Bush and a handful knew about it as it was well planned and not just a spur of the moment thing. And the Big difference in all of this is a simple one. Bush is the Commander IN Chief and hilary is just a person riding on her husbands coat tails trying to get her political tricks in order so she can make that unsuccessful bid for the White House and power!

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Kim:
If only Bush & Hilary could have been in Iraq at the same time ... and Hilary could have been dressed in a devil suit with Regulation Homeland Security Duct Tape plastered over her mouth ... and Bush could have posed with the heaping platter in one hand, his foot on Hilary's head, and a glistening cross driven through her dark, Democratic, liberal, godforsaken heart ... well, THAT would have been perfect!
.

Hehehe...well Kim..there's a picture that would have truly shown everyone in their proper place and perspective. I'm just wonering though...What if hiliary would have been the President (which she will never be) and Bush would have been teh one that rode into town later...what would you all have been saying about each of them then? No doubt in my mind you would have bashed Bush and praised the witch! LOL It must be fun living in your make believe world!

James DeVito
11-28-2003, 04:41 PM
AH, next you will be telling us that some of your best friends are women.

PMilam
11-28-2003, 04:50 PM
sayeth the Hermit of Hogscald...

Steve, the word communist is always used as the last resort to discredit someone when all attempts at reason fail. It is a catchword deeply ingrained into the American psyche by decades of propaganda, and so is usually used to perpetuate all kinds of vilification of ones opponents. It has recently been reinstituted as the word "terrorist", because if you label someone as a terrorist, you can not only bring their credibility into question, but now you can jail them indefinately without representation or charges.

If that isn't enough, notice the other catch word used above for anyone who won't toe the party line: traitor.

I would love to hear just one Bush speech that doesn't contain either the words 9/11 or September 11. It's called the politics of fear. If you can generate enough fear and anger, reason shuts down as the fight or flight reaction kicks in.
....what he said.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by James DeVito:
AH, next you will be telling us that some of your best friends are women.

Devito you are a real smart ass. At least I'm not agreeing with EVERYTHING someone says just to get them to look up to me or to get them to eat that nasty pasta you serve.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by PMilam:
[B]sayeth the Hermit of Hogscald...
[QUOTE]Steve, the word communist is always used as the last resort to discredit someone when all attempts at reason fail. It is a catchword deeply ingrained into the American psyche by decades of propaganda, and so is usually used to perpetuate all kinds of vilification of ones opponents. It has recently been reinstituted as the word "terrorist", because if you label someone as a terrorist, you can not only bring their credibility into question, but now you can jail them indefinately without representation or charges.

If that isn't enough, notice the other catch word used above for anyone who won't toe the party line: traitor.

B]

Well Pat I guess that's YOUR definition of communism and yes there is some truth to what you are saying. Not only Americans, but people from countries around the world have used the word Communism to denote "traitors" low life's, etc... Its kinda like someone calling someone a Bastard or Bitch when they feel that person deserves the title for whatever reason. But your definition and mine barely touch the surface of what communism is really all about. In my reply to Steve which included that word, I suppose your definition might very well work in getting my point across. And undoubtedly if one or more of the American troops wanted to "frag" the president as Steve thought might be the case, then I would have no problem at all thinking that person was a communist, terrorist, low life, or other advocate of the idea of terminating the Untied States and its people from this earth. I don't have a problem with my definition there...do you?

Now in all fairness, and so there will be less doubt about the reality of Communism and it's purpose, I offer the following education for you and others who may be wanting to know. Enjoy!

The Principles of Communism

Written: October-November 1847;
Source: Selected Works, Volume One, p. 81-97;
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969;
First Published: 1914, Eduard Bernstein in the German Social Democratic Party’s Vorwärts!;
Translated: Paul Sweezy;
Online Version: MEA 1993; marxists.org 1999;
Transcribed: Zodiac;
HTML Markup: Brian Basgen.

Document Introduction.
- 1 -
What is Communism?

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.


- 2 -
What is the proletariat?

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor -- hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.[1]


- 3 -
Proletarians, then, have not always existed?

No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.


- 4 -
How did the proletariat originate?

The Proletariat originated in the industrial revolution, which took place in England in the last half of the last (18th) century, and which has since then been repeated in all the civilized countries of the world.

This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry.

Once the impulse to the introduction of machinery and the factory system had been given, this system spread quickly to all other branches of industry, especially cloth- and book-printing, pottery, and the metal industries.

Labor was more and more divided among the individual workers so that the worker who previously had done a complete piece of work now did only a part of that piece. This division of labor made it possible to produce things faster and cheaper. It reduced the activity of the individual worker to simple, endlessly repeated mechanical motions which could be performed not only as well but much better by a machine. In this way, all these industries fell, one after another, under the dominance of steam, machinery, and the factory system, just as spinning and weaving had already done.

But at the same time, they also fell into the hands of big capitalists, and their workers were deprived of whatever independence remained to them. Gradually, not only genuine manufacture but also handicrafts came within the province of the factory system as big capitalists increasingly displaced the small master craftsmen by setting up huge workshops, which saved many expenses and permitted an elaborate division of labor.

This is how it has come about that in civilized countries at the present time nearly all kinds of labor are performed in factories -- and, in nearly all branches of work, handicrafts and manufacture have been superseded. This process has, to an ever greater degree, ruined the old middle class, especially the small handicraftsmen; it has entirely transformed the condition of the workers; and two new classes have been created which are gradually swallowing up all the others. These are:

(i) The class of big capitalists, who, in all civilized countries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines, factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means of subsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

(ii) The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.


- 5 -
Under what conditions does this sale of the labor of the proletarians to the bourgeoisie take place?

Labor is a commodity, like any other, and its price is therefore determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In a regime of big industry or of free competition -- as we shall see, the two come to the same thing -- the price of a commodity is, on the average, always equal to its cost of production. Hence, the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor.

But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.

However, since business is sometimes better and sometimes worse, it follows that the worker sometimes gets more and sometimes gets less for his commodities. But, again, just as the industrialist, on the average of good times and bad, gets no more and no less for his commodities than what they cost, similarly on the average the worker gets no more and no less than his minimum.

This economic law of wages operates the more strictly the greater the degree to which big industry has taken possession of all branches of production.


- 6 -
What working classes were there before the industrial revolution?

The working classes have always, according to the different stages of development of society, lived in different circumstances and had different relations to the owning and ruling classes.

In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.

In the Middle Ages, they were the serfs of the land-owning nobility, as they still are in Hungary, Poland, and Russia. In the Middle Ages, and indeed right up to the industrial revolution, there were also journeymen in the cities who worked in the service of petty bourgeois masters. Gradually, as manufacture developed, these journeymen became manufacturing workers who were even then employed by larger capitalists.


- 7 -
In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?

The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.

The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.

The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.

The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.


- 8 -
In what way do proletarians differ from serfs?

The serf possesses and uses an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he gives up a part of his product or part of the services of his labor.

The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product.

The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it.

The serf liberates himself in one of three ways: either he runs away to the city and there becomes a handicraftsman; or, instead of products and and services, he gives money to his lord and thereby becomes a free tenant; or he overthrows his feudal lord and himself becomes a property owner. In short, by one route or another, he gets into the owning class and enters into competition. The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.


- 9 -
In what way do proletarians differ from handicraftsmen?

[ ... ]


- 10 -
In what way do proletarians differ from manufacturing workers?

The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had, with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own possession -- his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian has none of these things.

The manufacturing worker almost always lives in the countryside and in a more or less patriarchal relation to his landlord or employer; the proletarian lives, for the most part, in the city and his relation to his employer is purely a cash relation.

The manufacturing worker is torn out of his patriarchal relation by big industry, loses whatever property he still has, and in this way becomes a proletarian.


- 11 -
What were the immediate consequences of the industrial revolution and of the division of society into bourgeoisie and proletariat?

First, the lower and lower prices of industrial products brought about by machine labor totally destroyed, in all countries of the world, the old system of manufacture or industry based upon hand labor.

In this way, all semi-barbarian countries, which had hitherto been more or less strangers to historical development, and whose industry had been based on manufacture, were violently forced out of their isolation. They bought the cheaper commodities of the English and allowed their own manufacturing workers to be ruined. Countries which had known no progress for thousands of years -- for example, India -- were thoroughly revolutionized, and even China is now on the way to a revolution.

We have come to the point where a new machine invented in England deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year's time.

In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere and has thus ensured that whatever happens in civilized countries will have repercussions in all other countries.

It follows that if the workers in England or France now liberate themselves, this must set off revolution in all other countries -- revolutions which, sooner or later, must accomplish the liberation of their respective working class.

Second, wherever big industries displaced manufacture, the bourgeoisie developed in wealth and power to the utmost and made itself the first class of the country. The result was that wherever this happened, the bourgeoisie took political power into its own hands and displaced the hitherto ruling classes, the aristocracy, the guildmasters, and their representative, the absolute monarchy.

The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy, the nobility, by abolishing the entailment of estates -- in other words, by making landed property subject to purchase and sale, and by doing away with the special privileges of the nobility. It destroyed the power of the guildmasters by abolishing guilds and handicraft privileges. In their place, it put competition -- that is, a state of society in which everyone has the right to enter into any branch of industry, the only obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital.

The introduction of free competition is thus public declaration that from now on the members of society are unequal only to the extent that their capitals are unequal, that capital is the decisive power, and that therefore the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have become the first class in society.

Free competition is necessary for the establishment of big industry, because it is the only condition of society in which big industry can make its way.

Having destroyed the social power of the nobility and the guildmasters, the bourgeois also destroyed their political power. Having raised itself to the actual position of first class in society, it proclaims itself to be also the dominant political class. This it does through the introduction of the representative system which rests on bourgeois equality before the law and the recognition of free competition, and in European countries takes the form of constitutional monarchy. In these constitutional monarchies, only those who possess a certain capital are voters -- that is to say, only members of the bourgeoisie. These bourgeois voters choose the deputies, and these bourgeois deputies, by using their right to refuse to vote taxes, choose a bourgeois government.

Third, everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital.

Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength.

Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growing dissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution.


- 12 -
What were the further consequences of the industrial revolution?

Big industry created in the steam engine, and other machines, the means of endlessly expanding industrial production, speeding it up, and cutting its costs. With production thus facilitated, the free competition, which is necessarily bound up with big industry, assumed the most extreme forms; a multitude of capitalists invaded industry, and, in a short while, more was produced than was needed.

As a consequence, finished commodities could not be sold, and a so-called commercial crisis broke out. Factories had to be closed, their owners went bankrupt, and the workers were without bread. Deepest misery reigned everywhere.

After a time, the superfluous products were sold, the factories began to operate again, wages rose, and gradually business got better than ever.

But it was not long before too many commodities were again produced and a new crisis broke out, only to follow the same course as its predecessor.

Ever since the beginning of this (19th) century, the condition of industry has constantly fluctuated between periods of prosperity and periods of crisis; nearly every five to seven years, a fresh crisis has intervened, always with the greatest hardship for workers, and always accompanied by general revolutionary stirrings and the direct peril to the whole existing order of things.


- 13 -
What follows from these periodic commercial crises?

First:

That, though big industry in its earliest stage created free competition, it has now outgrown free competition;

that, for big industry, competition and generally the individualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter;

that, so long as big industry remains on its present footing, it can be maintained only at the cost of general chaos every seven years, each time threatening the whole of civilization and not only plunging the proletarians into misery but also ruining large sections of the bourgeoisie;

hence, either that big industry must itself be given up, which is an absolute impossibility, or that it makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definite plan and taking account of the needs of all.

Second: That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.

It thus appears that the very qualities of big industry which, in our present-day society, produce misery and crises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and these catastrophic depressions.

We see with the greatest clarity:

(i) That all these evils are from now on to be ascribed solely to a social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of the real situation; and

(ii) That it is possible, through a new social order, to do away with these evils altogether.


- 14 -
What will this new social order have to be like?

Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole -- that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.

Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement -- in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry -- and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.


- 15 -
Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?

No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.

Private property has not always existed.

When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.

So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production -- so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society's productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.

The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.

It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.

Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.


- 16 -
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.


- 17 -
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.


- 18 -
What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.

(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.

(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.

(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.

(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

(vii) Education of the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation -- all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.

(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together.

(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.

(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.

(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.

(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.

It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productive forces.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.


- 19 -
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries -- that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.


- 20 -
What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?

Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society. In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished.

There will be no more crises; the expanded production, which for the present order of society is overproduction and hence a prevailing cause of misery, will then be insufficient and in need of being expanded much further. Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past. Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone.

The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division of privately owned land into small parcels. Here, existing improvements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs.

In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members.

The division of society into different, mutually hostile classes will then become unnecessary. Indeed, it will be not only unnecessary but intolerable in the new social order. The existence of classes originated in the division of labor, and the division of labor, as it has been known up to the present, will completely disappear. For mechanical and chemical processes are not enough to bring industrial and agricultural production up to the level we have described; the capacities of the men who make use of these processes must undergo a corresponding development.

Just as the peasants and manufacturing workers of the last century changed their whole way of life and became quite different people when they were impressed into big industry, in the same way, communal control over production by society as a whole, and the resulting new development, will both require an entirely different kind of human material.

People will no longer be, as they are today, subordinated to a single branch of production, bound to it, exploited by it; they will no longer develop one of their faculties at the expense of all others; they will no longer know only one branch, or one branch of a single branch, of production as a whole. Even industry as it is today is finding such people less and less useful.

Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.

The form of the division of labor which makes one a peasant, another a cobbler, a third a factory worker, a fourth a stock-market operator, has already been underminded by machinery and will completely disappear. Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other.

A corollary of this is that the difference between city and country is destined to disappear. The management of agriculture and industry by the same people rather than by two different classes of people is, if only for purely material reasons, a necessary condition of communist association. The dispersal of the agricultural population on the land, alongside the crowding of the industrial population into the great cities, is a condition which corresponds to an undeveloped state of both agriculture and industry and can already be felt as an obstacle to further development.

The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country -- these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.


- 21 -
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occassion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage -- the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.

And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the "community of women". Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.


- 22 -
What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

bleibt [3]


- 23 -
What will be its attitude to existing religions?

bleibt [4]


- 24 -
How do communists differ from socialists?

The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.

[ Reactionary Socialists: ]

The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests -- a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.

[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]

The second category consists of adherent of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures -- while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.

[ Democractic Socialists: ]

Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them -- provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.


- 25 -
What is the attitude of the communists to the other political parties of our time?

This attitude is different in the different countries.

In England, France, and Belgium, where the bourgeoisie rules, the communists still have a common interest with the various democratic parties, an interest which is all the greater the more closely the socialistic measures they champion approach the aims of the communists -- that is, the more clearly and definitely they represent the interests of the proletariat and the more they depend on the proletariat for support. In England, for example, the working-class Chartists are infinitely closer to the communists than the democratic petty bourgeoisie or the so-called Radicals.

In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat -- that is, with the agrarian National Reformers.

In Switzerland, the Radicals, though a very mixed party, are the only group with which the communists can co-operate, and, among these Radicals, the Vaudois and Genevese are the most advanced.

In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it. Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat. The sole advantages which the proletariat would derive from a bourgeois victory would consist

(i) in various concessions which would facilitate the unification of the proletariat into a closely knit, battle-worthy, and organized class; and

(ii) in the certainly that, on the very day the absolute monarchies fall, the struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat will start. From that day on, the policy of the communists will be the same as it now is in the countries where the bourgeoisie is already in power.

Footnotes

The following footnotes are from the Chinese Edition of
Marx/Engels Selected Works
Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1977.
with editorial additions by marxists.org



Introduction In 1847 Engels wrote two draft programmes for the Communist League in the form of a catechism, one in June and the other in October. The latter, which is known as Principles of Communism, was first published in 1914. The earlier document Draft of the Communist Confession of Faith, was only found in 1968. It was first published in 1969 in Hamburg, together with four other documents pertaining to the first congress of the Communist League, in a booklet entitled Gründungs Dokumente des Bundes der Kommunisten (Juni bis September 1847) (Founding Documents of the Communist League).

At the June 1847 Congress of the League of the Just, which was also the founding conference of the Communist League, it was decided to issue a draft "confession of faith" to be submitted for discussion to the sections of the League. The document which has now come to light is almost certainly this draft. Comparison of the two documents shows that Principles of Communism is a revised edition of this earlier draft. In Principles of Communism, Engels left three questions unanswered, in two cases with the notation "unchanged" (bleibt); this clearly refers to the answers provided in the earlier draft.

The new draft for the programme was worked out by Engels on the instructions of the leading body of the Paris circle of the Communist League. The instructions were decided on after Engles' sharp criticism at the committee meeting, on October 22, 1847, of the draft programme drawn up by the "true socialist" Moses Hess, which was then rejected.

Still considering Principles of Communism as a preliminary draft, Engels expressed the view, in a letter to Marx dated November 23-24, 1847, that it would be best to drop the old catechistic form and draw up a programme in the form of a manifesto.

"Think over the Confession of Faith a bit. I believe we had better drop the catechism form and call the thing: Communist Manifesto. As more or less history has got to be related in it, the form it has been in hitherto is quite unsuitable. I am bringing what I have done here with me; it is in simple narrative form, but miserably worded, in fearful haste...."

At the second congress of the Communist League (November 29-December 8, 1847) Marx and Engels defended the fundamental scientific principles of communism and were trusted with drafting a programme in the form of a manifesto of the Communist Party. In writing the manifesto the founders of Marxism made use of the propositions enunciated in Principles of Communism.

Engels uses the term Manufaktur, and its derivatives, which have been translated "manufacture", "manufacturing", etc. Engels used this word literally, to indicate production by hand, not factory production for which Engels uses "big industry". Manufaktur differs from handicraft (guild production in mediaeval towns), in that the latter was carried out by independent artisans. Manufacktur is carried out by homeworkers working for merchant capitalists, or by groups of craftspeople working together in large workshops owned by capitalists. It is therefore a transitional mode of production, between guild (handicraft) and modern (capitalist) forms of production.

(Last paragraph paraphrased from the
Introduction by Pluto Press, London, 1971)

1. In their works written in later periods, Marx and Engels substituted the more accurate concepts of "sale of labour power", "value of labour power" and "price of labour power" (first introduced by Marx) for "sale of labour", value of labour" and "price of labour", as used here.

2. Engels left half a page blank here in the manuscript. In the Draft of the Communist Confession of Faith, the answer to the same question (Number 12) reads as follows:

"In contrast to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, as he still existed almost everywhere in the past (eightennth) century and still exists here and there at present, is a proletarian at most temporarily. His goal is to acquire capital himself wherewith to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this goal where guilds still exist or where freedon from guild restrictions has not yet led to the introduction of factory-style methods into the crafts nor yet to fierce competition But as soon as the factory system has been introduced into the crafts and competition flourishes fully, this perspective dwindles away and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement."

3. Engels' notation "unchanged" obviously refers to the answer in the June draft under No. 21 which read as follows:

"The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property."

4. Similarly, this refers to the answer to Question 23 in the June draft which reads:

"All religions so far have been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance."

5. The Chartists were the participants in the political movement of the British workers which lasted from the 1830s to the middle 1850s and had as its slogan the adoption of a People's Charter, demanding universal franchise and a series of conditions guaranteeing voting rights for all workers. Lenin defined Chartism as the world's "first broad, truly mass and politically organized proletarian revolutionary movement" (Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Vol. 29, p. 309.) The decline of the Chartist movement was due to the strengthening of Britain's industrial and commercial monopoly and the bribing of the upper stratum of the working class ("the labour aristocracy") by the British bourgeoisie out ot its super-profits. Both factors led to the strengthening of opportunist tendencies in this stratum as expressed, in particular, by the refusal of the trade union leaders to support Chartism.

6. Probably a references to the National Reform Association, founded during the 1840s by George H. Evans, with headquarters in New York City, which had for its motto, "Vote Yourself a Farm".

Study Guide | Communist Manifesto
Communist League | Rules of the Communist League | Communist Confession of Faith
1847 Index | 1840s Index | Marx-Engels Archive | Vorwärts!

S. Jones
11-28-2003, 06:58 PM
I ate James`s pasta every day for about 4 years and it was far from nasty..

Cyberphillics
11-28-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:
[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

This quote was the second post from you on this topic. I assume you were looking to pick a fight of words and realized that you would be shooting your own foot. My late father always said, "Never have a war of witts with an unarmed person!" I bid you a good evening and happy blind republican life.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Cyberphillics:
This quote was the second post from you on this topic. I assume you were looking to pick a fight of words and realized that you would be shooting your own foot. My late father always said, "Never have a war of witts with an unarmed person!" I bid you a good evening and happy blind republican life.



Cyber...do I know you? I didn't think so. So "assuming" anything about me would be a screw-up on your part and thus a true test of your intelligence. I never look to pick a fight of words or anything for that matter. I just call bull sh*t "bull sh*t" when I see it and if I am guilty of anything, it is for not having the ability to handle some with kid gloves in here by agreeing with things just because they said it. As far as the two edits, they were edited because I decided against posting them for the sake of peace...not because I was picking a fight with words and certainly not because I had any fear of shooting myself in the foot. I'm a grown man, so I don't worry too mch about getting "spanked" or put in my place in here! LOL Maybe you do?

As far as bidding me a blind Happy Republican life..that is spoken like a true democrat. I used to be one, but then I realized there are none so blind as they who cannot see...the democrats. So my cyber friend....you have a Happy blinder than Blind Democrat life!

Oh..and just for the record, I'm not a republican either. LOL

Have A Great Day!

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:
[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

Cyber....just so you will know I did agree with this statement you made about why the "Bush" camp made their entry into Iraq the way they did.
Your quote:
[Maybe because if the Iraqies knew he was coming he would have been greeted with many surface to air missiles.]


I edited this post because I wasn't sure if you were supporting the President for doing this the "right" way, or if you were trying to bash the President for not announcing the visit to the world so he would be an obvious target.

I just would like to know if you would have announced yourself first if you had been the president? I guess thats an easy enough question that could be answered with a simple yes or no. Maybe a test of intelligence?



[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-28-2003).]

Larry Williams
11-28-2003, 09:19 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/baghdad-turkey.jpg

"Ha ha, I told the American people I pardoned this turkey. They'll believe anything."

Becky Davis
11-28-2003, 09:38 PM
According to Fox News the Iraqi people did not like the visit at all. They felt snubbed. And to quote "He came like a thief in the night. Just like Saddam".
I don't think the White House gave a moments thought to how the citizens of Iraq would feel. The soldiers feel good and I am glad they have had their moral boosted. Politically, maybe this wasn't such a bright idea after all. It is just going to cause more hard feelings in Iraq.

Larry Williams
11-28-2003, 09:58 PM
http://bartcop.com/big-bird-down.gif

Kim Yonkee
11-28-2003, 10:38 PM
OK Hillbilly. I've thought about your question -- which isn't technically a question -- more like an accusation: "Yeah? Yeah? Well if Hilary was in the White House I suppose you'd be saying nice things about Her. The Witch. Huh? Huh? Huh!?!?!"

Hmmm.... thinking ... and the answer is: I don't know. It depends. I have to observe a politician's behavior in office before I decide whether they're unconscionable scumbags. Or not. I have the cynical belief that they'll all say and do 'bout anything to get IN to office. I want to see what happens AFTER they clutch the reins in their hands. As far as I can determine, this is the most reasonable test of the political-scumbag factor.

You see? Unlike you, I don't base my opinions on The Facts.

But I am grateful to you for posting on this BBS, because your musings often answer a question I've been asking a lot these days: How DO these things happen? If not for your efforts here, the mentality of dogged Bush supporters would remain completely opaque to me. So really ... I just can't thank you enough for giving us all a peek into that very special mindset.

I guess, if I had to base my decision on whether I like Hilary better than Bush on what I know right now, I'd have to say, "Hilary is a piker. Small time. Loser with a big "L" right on the middle of her forehead." I mean ... consider the historical record, (which is not Facts, but I guess history will have to do for now.)

Yes, Bill 'n Hilary were accused of financial wrongdoing in the Whitewater scandal. After 5 years of investigation, (which later shifted to Bill's sexual proclivities when Starr couldn't find enough evidence to keep the Little Rock grand jury employed), the special prosecutor's office gave up on grounds of "insufficient evidence that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."

Fast forward to the George W. administration, wherein the President is accused of financial wrongdoing in the Enron scandal. (Apparently, this is a Chief Executive tradition that is just as scrupulously observed as that whole Thanksgiving with the Troops thing.) Think about the difference between these two events:

Bill 'n Hilary: a $100,000 Arkansas real estate deal. Bush: $60 billion (that's B-Billion) in stockholder losses.
Bill: Asks the Department of Justice to appoint independent counsel to investigate ... and how stupid was THAT?!?!? Especially when we note that Bush has successfully evaded serious inquiry into his oft-reported connections to the biggest bankruptcy in US history ... coincidentally executed by his biggest campaign contributor?

Yes, that's definitely a takedown for Bush. [Everybody make an L-shape with your fingers on your forehead, think of Hilary, and holler, "Loser! Lo-o-o-o-oser!"]

On the sole count of hanging around with unsavory characters, sure Bill 'n Hilary had the McDougals. Yes, Susan did time on that $300,000 fraud conviction ... and how sad and tired is THAT compared to Neil Bush's $1.3 billion (B-billion) takedown of Silverado S&L (not to mention half the State of Colorado)? Not only did Neil avoid prison time, not only was the closure of Silverado successfully blocked until after the 1988 Presidential election by "a call from Washington," not ONLY was the Treasury Department's later demand for an FBI investigation into White House tampering with the operation of federal regulators successfully blocked, but Neil's fines were paid by a Republican Party fundraiser ... whereas Susan had to pick up roadside trash in her little orange suit like a civilian! For Pete's sake. Even Hilary's friends are L-la-la-loosers!

Yes, yes. It's becoming clear to me now. If you really want to get something done, you don't want Hilary. You want a Bush.

Unless, for example, you actually want someone to spend time wandering the streets of Baghdad and making a serious effort to evaluate the situation of the US troops and Iraqui citizens (like, for example, two -- count 'em -- TWO! members of the Senate Armed Forces Committee) ... instead of skulking into town, lights off, like a cow-tipping frat boy.

I guess Bush's visit only took a couple of hours because the originally scheduled panty raid on the Kappa Delta house was cancelled when intelligence reports indicated that the Bin Sigma Nu's were planning a retaliatory egging of the Presidential jet.

Will someone please remember to get the Dixie Beer cans out'n the back seat of Air Force One before we move on to the next photo op?

http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Kim Yonkee
11-28-2003, 10:45 PM
P.S.

As seen on a sign in the streets of London during Bush's latest visit:

"YEE-HAW" is not a foreign policy.

Larry Williams
11-28-2003, 11:21 PM
Kim,

There's also the flip side of this and it reads like a checklist for the Bush administration:

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of
Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto
(Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes shared 14
identifying characteristics of fascism:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to
make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and
other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols
on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are
persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because
of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of
torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount
of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected.
Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes,
traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion
is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly
controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is
indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic
mediaspokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war
time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in
fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as
a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and
terminology is common from government leaders, even when the
major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the
government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial
business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor
is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either
eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and
academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to
be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly
attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes,
the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The
people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego
civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national
police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost
always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint
each other to government positions and use governmental power
and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not
uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even
treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government
leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use
of legislation to control voting numbers or political district
boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also
typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

the link: http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi

Then we have the radical right loose in this country. Not too far from Ashcroft and his pals is this guy, Joey Stockett, I once crossed paths with. He surfaced again but he's far from the only one out there. Nice guy, eh?

this one is from http://www.tribstar.com/articles/2003/11/25/news/news02.txt

and theres another article on his little escapade at http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/096102-2638-127.html

Felon torched clinic in '70s

Police: Stockett person of interest in museum fire probe

By Karin Grunden/Tribune-Star/Indianapolis

November 25, 2003

Police investigating an arson at the Holocaust Museum in Terre Haute arrested a man with anti-Semitic beliefs who has a prison record for setting fire to an abortion clinic, according to court records and other sources.

Joseph Stockett, 57, appeared Monday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

He was arrested Friday near Seventh and Oak streets. He had been living in Terre Haute for about six weeks.

Stockett has not been arrested or charged in connection with the fire Nov. 18 at the CANDLES Museum at 1532 S. Third St., and he told the Tribune-Star on Monday he had "nothing to do with it."

Court papers filed in connection with his weapons arrest and interviews with those who know Stockett portray a man with a disturbing history of extremist views.

According to a court affidavit filed in connection with Stockett's firearms arrest, the informant had contacted police Thursday, saying he thought he knew who may be responsible for the fire.

The informant said Stockett expressed anti-Jewish views and was trying to recruit people into a neo-Nazi organization, according to the affidavit.

Stockett allegedly provided the informant with documents reflecting such views, along with a business card for an anti-Jewish organization.

In addition, the informant said Stockett days earlier had given him a book called "Hitler's Second Book, The Unpublished Sequel To Mein Kampf." The book had been checked out from the Vigo County Public Library -- and according to online library records was still checked out on Monday.

The informant said Stockett mentioned that whoever spray-painted "Remember Timmy McVeigh" on the side of the burned museum on the night of the arson had used "Timmy" instead of "Timothy" to mislead police.

Stockett also said he had never seen the building that houses the CANDLES Holocaust museum, the affidavit by Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms agent Michael Vergon indicates.

According to the informant, Stockett had a car he needed to get rid of quickly.

On Friday, police wired the informant and taped a conversation with Stockett. During the taped conversation, the informant bought Stockett's car for $375 and a handgun. Police then moved in and arrested Stockett on the firearms charge as he was leaving the informant's apartment, with the weapon concealed on him, the affidavit states.

According to the affidavit, an ADT store surveillance camera located a block north of the museum showed a light-colored, four-door sedan speeding away from the area just before midnight on Nov. 17, about the time of the fire.

"The car [Stockett sold] appears similar to the car depicted in the surveillance images," police say in the court affidavit. The affidavit also states the "quality of the images [in the tape] was insufficient to positively identify the car."

Stockett's record indicates he set fire to a building occupied by Planned Parenthood in Eugene, Ore. He was sentenced to five years for second-degree arson in March 1976, court records indicate.

In Indianapolis on Monday, Stockett acknowledged he set the fire in Eugene as a protest to an intrauterine device that had injured his then-girlfriend. He said he set the blaze to protect women.

In September 2002, Stockett was arrested in Champaign, Ill., where he lived before coming to Terre Haute. During a February bench trial, he was found not guilty of a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct, online court records show.

While his case was pending, Stockett contacted the student group Anti-War, Anti-Racism Group known as AWARE and asked for help with his case, members said Monday.

According to former AWARE member Robert Dunn, Stockett -- known both as "anti-Semitic Joe" and "Hippie Joe" -- was arrested when he threatened a female Jewish student near the University of Illinois campus.

When AWARE members decided not to get involved, Stockett accused the group of "being controlled by homosexual Jews," Dunn said Monday in an e-mail message.

Al Kagan, who is still involved with AWARE, remembers receiving a rambling voice mail message from Stockett after the decision.

Kagan said the message included anti-Semitic references that were "pretty disgusting and pretty upsetting."

Max Compton, a neighbor, remembers Stockett spent a lot of time at the library and brought home literature on racism and Nazis.

"To me they were very weird books," Compton said Monday as he puffed on a cigarette, leaning back on the couch inside his Swan Street apartment. "He didn't like Jews. He didn't like blacks. ... That's all those books were about."

Compton, who described Stockett as a "throwback to the '60s" said the eccentric man frequently wore tie-dyed T-shirts and liked to occasionally drink and smoke marijuana.

Stockett lived alone and appeared to be pleased with his apartment, which he paid with his disability check.

"He said he lived in a car, in a tent for a while," Compton said of his Swan Street neighbor who moved to Terre Haute about six weeks ago.

While Compton overall thought of Stockett as a nice guy, he -- like others who knew the man -- had concerns about his mental stability.

On Monday, Terre Haute police Capt. Rick Erney described Stockett as "just an interesting person that's emerged" in the case, Erney said, explaining the investigation is continuing. "We haven't ruled anyone out."

The museum fire is believed to have started with gasoline after a brick was thrown through a window. The blaze heavily damaged the museum at 1532 S. Third St. run by Auschwitz survivor Eva Kor, and her husband Michael, who survived Nazi concentration camps.

If convicted of the firearms charge, Stockett could be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison and fined up to $250,000, Lawrence said.

He is scheduled to return to court Dec. 1 for a probable-cause hearing and detention hearing. Federal authorities believe Stockett should be jailed until his trial, based on statements he made on Friday during an undercover investigation, according to court documents

On Monday, as he was led from the federal courtroom, Stockett said he was framed.

"I was set up ... by the ATF," he said.

Without being asked, he added, "I have nothing to do with the CANDLES Museum fire. I'm completely innocent of it."

ArkansawHillbillys
11-28-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Kim:
Yes, Bill 'n Hilary were accused of financial wrongdoing in the Whitewater scandal. Bill 'n Hilary: a $100,000 Arkansas real estate deal.
http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Okay Kim...since you are the know it all! LOL What about the $100,000 hilary made off of the $1000 investment? Nothing odd about that either huh? Since she didn't do anything wrong, why doesn't she keep doing it over and over again until she gets all the money and power she wants so badly?

Let me guess...your answer: No doubt will have something to do with what George Bush did and got away with it! Geeeez! Get a life already!

Hermit of Hogscald
11-29-2003, 12:03 AM
To Larry Williams: Thx for an absolutely brilliant caption for that photo, we are still rolling over that one,you can believe it will not stop at this board.

To AH: Geez, it must have taken you FOREVER to type out that whole enlightening disertation. Too bad it didn't contain one original thought of your own. I do find it interesting that you use the hated communists as your source of information, it is sort of like seeing the Republicans when they go on the defensive with the phrase "Well Clinton did it too (or first), like that is some kind of justification. Call a guy the ultimate evil, then use him to justify the opposition when they do exactly the same thing. Sounds logical.

You know, some of us actually remember the McCarthy era. Communists were the ultimate evil, although no one really knew exactly why, except that they were going to try to subvert us into their evil. But the real evil was brought on by those who terrified the populace with that catch word, and used it to ruin the lives of many totally innocent people who were about as much a communist as they were a Shinto. Even now, the catchwords may change, but the game is the same.

I read your stuff when you actually think it out yourself, even if I may disagree with it. At least it deserves my attention for it's originality. Quite frankly, when I see these horrendously long cut and pastes, I don't even bother. You can find someone, somewhere to say almost anything, to expound virtually any view on any subject. But they are not here to defend their views, and so remain perfectly insulated from having to defend or justify their positions in true debate. But just because someone puts something in print does not make it truth, or even logical. If you think it yourself and want to debate it, fine with me, I love a good debate. But start hitting with quotes from dubious sources who are not available to defend their positions, you only waste my time.

That said, I do agree with those who are glad you do post here, I find the glimpses it gives me into your philosophies interesting, and frankly, somewhat frightening. I hate being surrounded by nothing but yes men, I already know how I reason. And now I have a better understanding of why we are in the mess we are in, and have some people cheering for four more years of it.

to Kim; I always find you entertaining, and love to see things from your perspective. You may be a total nut case (by your own admission), but at least you are a logical and original one and I always gain something from reading your stuff. I love the ironic, and you are a master of it.

James DeVito
11-29-2003, 12:09 AM
And with that $100,000 Hillary could buy dinner at one of George II fundraisers.

Kim Yonkee
11-29-2003, 12:14 AM
You know, Hillbilly, daughter Casey used to have this doll that we called the "Get a Life Barbie." You could press a little button on her anatomically-incorrect form, and she would emit profundities like, "Hey, Ken! Let's go to the mall!"

[and we'd all yell, in unision, "Get a LIFE, Barbie!!!"]

Sadly, the Get-a-Life Barbie was an early and tragic victim of terrorism.

All the neighborhood children would gather 'round, and cruelly provoke Barbie into making her insipid remarks ... and I don't want you to stay up all night, re-living the horrors of that era, so I'm not going to burden you with the details ... but let me just say that the poor little empty-headed creature did NOT come out of the experience unscathed. Far from it.

And this, you see ... THIS is my fear: The only experience I have with Getting A Life shows me that those who Get A Life end up with flat, empty, plastic heads.

I'll be happy to Get A Job. Get A Cab. Get A Waiter. Get A Filling in My Incisor. But please ... I'm beggin' you!!! Don't ask me to Get A Life!!

Oh and Larry? Interesting stuff. Which has absolutely nothing... NOTHING ...I repeat: Nothing at ALL to do with the fact that the original source of the Prescott Bush/George Herbert Walker fortune that makes Great Things Possible Today was money laundering for and industrial supply to Nazi Germany.

Excuse me. Not a Fact. Just historical record.

Kim Yonkee
11-29-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
to Kim; I always find you entertaining, and love to see things from your perspective. You may be a total nut case (by your own admission), but at least you are a logical and original one and I always gain something from reading your stuff.

Thanks Hermit. They're advocating a dose of Paxil for me over on another thread. Now that you've, quite accurately, pointed out that I'm a total nut case, I fear that cries for Thorazine won't be far behind.

Bwah hah hah ... http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Hermit of Hogscald
11-29-2003, 06:40 AM
I think the picture of Bush with the turkey also demonstrates well the hallmark of the Bush economic recovery: the creation of service sector jobs!

From the mouths of babes: a 16 yr. old friend of one of my sons was looking over my shoulder as I typed a previous reply. His comment: "What do you expect when the people running things are named Dick and Bush?".

I guess just what we got, a screwin'.

Usually I avoid cut and pastes like the plague, but I just couldn't resist the one Larry posted above. It has prompted me to post the included link for your viewing enjoyment.

http://www.bushflash.com/nazi

I strongly suggest you DO NOT view this on a full stomach!

Becky Davis
11-29-2003, 06:54 AM
Hilary doesn't need to invest a thousand dollars in cattle futures anymore. Not when she can get seven million in advance for a book deal.
A hundred thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket now a days. Some guys make that in a minute on the stock market.
Like her or not, she is still a former first lady and a United States senator. This is risky business for her. I think going to Afghanistan and Iraq is a pretty gutsy thing to do. I admire her for doing it and I am sure the soldiers in both countries appreciate her too.
Why is it the only way some people defend Bush is to trash the Clintons? Simple diversion I guess.
They never say "I think he is great, because he did this and this and this". Why is that?
I am still glad that he went to Iraq for Thanksgiving. The men loved it. They needed the morale boost. I only question the reasons.
I also think the American people have a right to know where our president is. If something had gone wrong we would all have been scratching our heads and swearing in Cheney. Plain facts were that we were lied to and told he would be in Crawford Texas for the holiday. Even given the menu he would eat.
For all we really know the entire thing could have happened at an air force base in San Antonio. It was all so clandestined.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-29-2003, 09:50 AM
Hermit..thanks for your thoughts here. I find them extremely interesting from a democractic point of view. It amazes me in all your intelligence that you didn't "catch" why I posted what I did about communism. Should I tell you, are would you like to re-visit all the posts in this thread and see if you are smart enough to figure it out, rather than reading something into it so you can lecture me on how or what I should say when I post? I don't know how much older and wiser you are than I, but I really think I can post what I deem is appropriate for what I have to say, without your direction on what I should or shouldn't say. I really could care less if you read my posts, whether they be cut~n~pastes as this board is famous for, or if it is coming from my own thoughts. The fact that you don't read it all and just skim over it, or ignore what has been written, obviously shows you are replying without really knowing what was said. Hermit, I am less than impressed with what you have to say, but I still listen with an open mind. I don't post in here based on political preference or becasue it would make me popular to kiss someone's ass to gain points or to be with the "in" crowd. Maybe these things are important to you but not to me.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-29-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Becky Davis:
Hilary doesn't need to invest a thousand dollars in cattle futures anymore. Not when she can get seven million in advance for a book deal.


Becky, no doubt this is true. But back then, when the "shady" $1000 turned into $100,000 it was a different story. So does that make it okay? If you, I, or Martha Stewart had done it...we'd be in prison.

Also, why is hilary's story worth any more than previous first Lady's books? Could it be because of all the controversy surrounding her and Bill's life? And if Bill would not have been her Presidential husband would her book deal be worth so much today?

I don't think I stand alone in having careful thoughts about hilary's character, her business dealings, and her hunger for power. If you think she wouldn't step on you in a heartbeat to further her goals..you better think again. Of course, that could possibly be said for all politicians.

Any Mouse 2.0
11-29-2003, 10:08 AM
ArkansasHillbilly

You open minded? Oh please the only opening in your mind is the crack where your logic and intelligence slipped out. I have met racist more open minded then you.

I agree that we should not all agree on every subject but you disagree with everyone on every subject.

By the way there are other parties besides Repukelicans and Demos. Which before you tell me which I am I am niether.

------------------
Squeek Squeek

grundune
11-29-2003, 10:32 AM
But back then, when the "shady" $1000 turned into $100,000 it was a different story. So does that make it okay? If you, I, or Martha Stewart had done it...we'd be in prison.

This is in no way defending Clintons or Bushes, all politicians are crooked in my book.

But I have always failed to understand why that particular futures deal was looked on as "shady". With the right commodity, moving in the right direction, and placing stops as you go, it would be pretty easy to make that much.

Unfortunately, it is just as easy to lose that much if it turns against you. But for a professional speculator that would be pocket money, and if you will remember she did have help from one. And as far as I know it is not illegal to play the futures market.

Here is an example of what an amateur can do.

http://www.thepitmaster.com/pitmaster/bestrades.htm

kernicerus
11-29-2003, 10:42 AM
Hard to see the future is.The dark side clouds everything.-yoda

He is a politician and they are not to be trusted-obi wan kenobi

ArkansawHillbillys
11-29-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Any Mouse 2.0:
ArkansasHillbilly

You open minded? Oh please the only opening in your mind is the crack where your logic and intelligence slipped out. I have met racist more open minded then you.

I agree that we should not all agree on every subject but you disagree with everyone on every subject.

By the way there are other parties besides Repukelicans and Demos. Which before you tell me which I am I am niether.



Mouse...I actually have agreed with you on a few things and other things I have not. I agree with things for the right reason(s)...not because its the popular or political thing to do. You don't know me, so don't try to gain your popularity by getting on that band wagon of the 'circle" by coming down on me. You will learn in time that coming down on me won't score you that many points in here and in some cases will make you very unpopular among those that are quieter than a sqeaky mouse..those that often agree with me but choose not to post on this board.! LOL, Also you don't understand "insider" jokes and ribbing on this board either. So, I guess what I am trying to say, is...watch where you squeak, because some of the really big cats might set a trap for you and squash your little mousey ways when you least suspect it. Just trying to help you here! Oh, and I already knew your were neither.

Have A Great Day!



[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-29-2003).]

Any Mouse 2.0
11-29-2003, 11:32 AM
AH

I could care less about "making points" with anyone. The only person I need to please is me.

As for the big cats eeewww I'm so scared.

You have a great day too and thank you for the debate. I guess we can both agree to disagree on this topic.

------------------
Squeek Squeek

Hermit of Hogscald
11-29-2003, 01:39 PM
LOL AH

"Hermit..thanks for your thoughts here. I find them extremely interesting from a democractic point of view. It amazes me in all your intelligence that you didn't "catch" why I posted what I did about communism."

What got me about the conversation you refer to was your attaching a label like "communist" to someone who would frag a politician. I see no correlation between that act and ones political leanings, at least in this case. What I do object to is the use of catch words by anyone. When someone refers to anyone with a broad-ranging terminology, I would prefer that it is at least somewhat accurate. As for a soldier fragging a president, the only accurate terms I can come up with would be more along the lines of incredibly stupid, or totally insane. Whether that person also happens to be a communist, jewish, Chinese, or gay is nowhere near as pertinent to the situation as "incredibly stupid" is. Call someone who does this a name like Communist does little except tie a bunch of totally innocent people to something they had no connection to.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to hang the label of your favorite scapegoat on every evil act, be my guest. To me, it is more like saying the Communists/liberals/gays/Arabs are responsible for tornadoes.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-29-2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
LOL AH

"Hermit..thanks for your thoughts here. I find them extremely interesting from a democractic point of view. It amazes me in all your intelligence that you didn't "catch" why I posted what I did about communism."

What got me about the conversation you refer to was your attaching a label like "communist" to someone who would frag a politician. I see no correlation between that act and ones political leanings, at least in this case. What I do object to is the use of catch words by anyone. When someone refers to anyone with a broad-ranging terminology, I would prefer that it is at least somewhat accurate. As for a soldier fragging a president, the only accurate terms I can come up with would be more along the lines of incredibly stupid, or totally insane. Whether that person also happens to be a communist, jewish, Chinese, or gay is nowhere near as pertinent to the situation as "incredibly stupid" is. Call someone who does this a name like Communist does little except tie a bunch of totally innocent people to something they had no connection to.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to hang the label of your favorite scapegoat on every evil act, be my guest. To me, it is more like saying the Communists/liberals/gays/Arabs are responsible for tornadoes.

Well Hermit...you failed to see the whole point so that told me a lot about you. The fact that you "object" to catch words, is ludicrous to say the least. I didn't know that we were supposed to abide by what you find acceptable or objectionable when we post on this board. Did you "buy" in to Geekfest with Kim and Jan? LOL

Now, I happen to feel that anyone who would consider "fragging" the president would have to be all the things you said, all the things I said and maybe even more. My intentions were never meant to imply that a person who would do something like that would automatically be a communist. However, that person could very well be a communist, a terrorist, a traitor, etc....and or all of the above. I have dealt with true communists in past years that had a yearning to overthrow our government by any means posible. I don't think I was giving a "broad" definition of who could be a possible fragger when I used the word communist. What is so difficult about that to understand? Whether that person also happens to be a jewish, Chinese, or gay has nothing to do with my assessment of a "fragger! Since when did "communist" become a race or sexual preference? Talk about catch words and trying to catagorize people!! So Hermit, What is the reason for maligning me over this? Do you think you are showing yourself to be such an intelligent person? Rather than your handful of followers on this board, I am sitting here with about 20 people (educated adults) at the moment who are getting a good laugh reading all this and WOW...I need to let you know they really are impressed with you! One of them seems to know you quite well, but I thank you...you have given all some good entertainment today with your wisdom! LOL Get a life hermit!

carlspakler
11-29-2003, 04:05 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/companies/michigan_sentiment/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/economy/oecd.reut/index.htm

This is what counts!

Look at the Stock market numbers the last year that Pres. Clinton was in the White House.

Carl

PMilam
11-29-2003, 05:19 PM
Hermit, Mouse, etc... there is no use in trying to get a point across. There is only one with enough intelligence, facts, etc to know anything worth knowing.
I am probably not saying the right thing, because, I'm not intelligent enough to know the right thing.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-29-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by PMilam:
Hermit, Mouse, etc... there is no use in trying to get a point across. There is only one with enough intelligence, facts, etc to know anything worth knowing.
I am probably not saying the right thing, because, I'm not intelligent enough to know the right thing.

Well Pat...I guess thats a pretty good philosophy. If you don't know what you are talking about its best to just keep your thoughts to yourself. I'm glad you had the wisdom to make your point so politely! *S*

PS.. Do you win the bet?



[This message has been edited by ArkansawHillbillys (edited 11-29-2003).]

Hermit of Hogscald
11-29-2003, 07:25 PM
20 educated adults all sitting around following our discussion on this board? Wowzers, this guy REALLY knows how to throw a party!

And you are telling ME to get a life? That's almost as funny as Larrys caption!

ArkansawHillbillys
11-29-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
20 educated adults all sitting around following our discussion on this board? Wowzers, this guy REALLY knows how to throw a party!

And you are telling ME to get a life? That's almost as funny as Larrys caption!

hehehe...well Hermit, actually we were having a meeting~Not a party, and took a break to read an incoming on the puter. I slipped over to Geekfest as there was some discussion about a few people that post in here. So a few of the onlookers could see what it was all about we picked on the posts that I had made comments in. It really was all pretty entertaining. I was surprised to find out how many people knew you and a few others. I think a few of these folks thought I should get a life if I am spending much time in here. So, I guess I should! LOL

Hermit of Hogscald
11-29-2003, 10:28 PM
Well, I am also surprised to find out how many people know me. The name Hermit was chosen for a very good reason. A lot of people may know me by sight, but those who know what I am really all about are very few and far between. But if at least one of these many people who claim to know me didn't straighten you out as to why "get a life" is particularly inappropriate in my case, I guess they really don't "know" me at all.

The last thing I need is any more "life"!

But it's good to see you took my last comment with some humor. Might be some hope for you yet. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/redface.gif)

I am curious about one thing. What kind of a meeting can actually attract 20 people around here?

Hermit of Hogscald
11-29-2003, 10:32 PM
Geez, and I thought I was computer literate, but how all that stuff in small type got in there, I have NO idea. All I tried to do was make a smiley face! I can't even edit it out.

Guess I'm not as smart as I tell everyone I am.

Kim Yonkee
11-30-2003, 12:29 AM
Well, now I just went and changed 'em all again. FINALLY! Heretic has been wanting a head-banging smilie for months. Heaven knows we need it. :)

Lita
11-30-2003, 03:34 AM
WOW ! is that a purple guy with a pipe bomb or what ? And, the red guy, eating through a brick wall....not sure on that one.

I need explanations on these new guys.......I might put the wrong one in the wrong place, and give everyone the wrong idea ! (they are cool to look at though)!

Lita

S. Jones
11-30-2003, 08:06 AM
I agree they would have to be nuts but communist? lol!

I wonder if more people have been killed in the name of communism or the name of God.

Another Texan
11-30-2003, 08:39 AM
Definitely the latter.

Cyberphillics
11-30-2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Kim:
Well, now I just went and changed 'em all again. FINALLY! Heretic has been wanting a head-banging smilie for months. Heaven knows we need it. :)



Head-banging...hehe...how about this one.

http://www.davidw.powell.net/comphead.GIF


Does anyone ever feel this way?


[This message has been edited by Cyberphillics (edited 11-30-2003).]

Hermit of Hogscald
11-30-2003, 10:23 AM
I'm with Texan, definately God. This was usually accomplished by applying some precursor catch words. Communist is not the original catch word used to vilify those one wished to dispose of. The original was probably barbarian, followed closely by Christian. When the Christians finally gained power, they then created their own catch words to easily rid themselves of those they didn't happen to like. Amoung the most popular of these was heretic, witch, and heathen.

Unfortunately, the methods of dealing with these poor people has not modernized much. Used to be, you would bind the victim hand and foot and cast them into a pool of water. If they floated, they were guilty and one could then execute them with clear conscience. If they were innocent, they sank, and could then be buried in consecrated ground ( I'm sure this was a great comfort to the now dead victim).

But now we are a free and enlightened country. We take our terrorists and toss them into a deep prison, don't charge them with anything, don't allow them any representation or contact with the outside world, even hold them in an enemy country. I guess the rational is, if they don't get out in 50 years, they are obviously innocent and we can let them go, but if they escape, they are guilty and we are justified in hunting them down and testing them again.

All in the name of national security. Somehow, I'm not feeling particularly secure. What if someone decides to call me a terrorist? I keep up all this radical talk, it's gonna happen sooner or later.

Yup, one good terrorist attack, and the land of the free is converted to another pre-war Iraq. Dude, where's your country? Dubya gave it to the radical Islamists, he just doesn't realize it yet.

Where's Osama? Probably has a good job working deep in the bowels of the NSA, laughing his ass off.

Lita
11-30-2003, 10:44 AM
Cyberphillics........I love it, and yes, I feel that way often. lol !

gayle
11-30-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:
Do you think you are showing yourself to be such an intelligent person? Rather than your handful of followers on this board, I am sitting here with about 20 people (educated adults) at the moment who are getting a good laugh reading all this and WOW...I need to let you know they really are impressed with you! One of them seems to know you quite well, but I thank you...you have given all some good entertainment today with your wisdom! LOL Get a life hermit!



How incredibly tacky this comment is AH. Are you insinuating that the folks who post on this board are somehow less intelligent than you and your so called group of 20 friends? And do you find amusment in other folks having a laugh at the expense of others who happen to have opinions that differ from your own?
I have read many of your posts, except for the very long cut and pastes you are fond of subjecting us to, and have found your intolerance (that you try to hide) appalling. And now you have lowered yourself even more.
I refrained from responding to your anti-woman jokes (yeah yeah, I know, some of your best friends are women right?) because they are something that I am coming to expect from you. However, lately you are taking things just a bit too far with your holier than thou,"I'm smarter than you" attitude. You are NOT smarter than me....nor anyone else on this board. In fact, I would love to see you go head to head against Kim in a MENSA test....that would give me a chuckle. So what about it Kim and AH? The gauntlet has been thrown...anyone up to the challenge?

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by gayle:
How incredibly tacky this comment is AH. Are you insinuating that the folks who post on this board are somehow less intelligent than you and your so called group of 20 friends? And do you find amusment in other folks having a laugh at the expense of others who happen to have opinions that differ from your own?
I have read many of your posts, except for the very long cut and pastes you are fond of subjecting us to, and have found your intolerance (that you try to hide) appalling. And now you have lowered yourself even more.
I refrained from responding to your anti-woman jokes (yeah yeah, I know, some of your best friends are women right?) because they are something that I am coming to expect from you. However, lately you are taking things just a bit too far with your holier than thou,"I'm smarter than you" attitude. You are NOT smarter than me....nor anyone else on this board. In fact, I would love to see you go head to head against Kim in a MENSA test....that would give me a chuckle. So what about it Kim and AH? The gauntlet has been thrown...anyone up to the challenge?



Well Gayle, I won that bet but it took a little longer than expected to get you going this time! LOL

No, I don't think I am smarter than you. You are a Canadian. Therefore you must be smarter than me and all Americans.

So you didn't like my jokes? No sense of humor. Bummer! Sorry.

Yes I can say honestly I have women friends. My wife...who is undoubtedly a woman, is my best friend. Can you honestly say you have men friends! LOL

And no...I don't want to go head to head with Kim. I know she is smarter than me. Thats why I like her so much. And I consider her a friend. She may be a little crazy and wishy washy at times but I don't think she lets things on this board get under her skin. I can be in the same room with her and enjoy having her around. I don't know if that would be the case with you because you are Kanadian! LOL

Oh, and Gayle.....try smiling, that frown on your face is giving you wrinkles! LOL

PMilam
11-30-2003, 11:47 AM
"wishy washy"... Kim??... you are nutz!

Actually, just about everything you say is nutz.
I've really been trying to hold my tongue/sit on my hands.. and I still hold you in my prayers, but you come across as a pompous, sophomoric, ass...

ok... send me to abusefest.

retchief88
11-30-2003, 12:00 PM
the President should stay there with are troops to see and feel what he did and is doing
All he did was look for votes and run

Another Texan
11-30-2003, 12:50 PM
We counted five secret service in the Shrub's immediate vicinity in the military dining hall in Iraq. You don't suppose he's afraid of his own troops?

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by PMilam:
"wishy washy"... Kim??... you are nutz!

Actually, just about everything you say is nutz.
I've really been trying to hold my tongue/sit on my hands.. and I still hold you in my prayers, but you come across as a pompous, sophomoric, ass...

ok... send me to abusefest.

Pat..why would I send you to abusefest? I like hearing what you have to say. You are one of the few "true" authoritarians on this board. If you don't believe me...look in the mirror and ask yourself! LOL

PMilam
11-30-2003, 01:36 PM
One entry found for authoritarian.


Main Entry: auáthoráiátaráiáan
Pronunciation: o-"thŠr-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
- authoritarian noun
- auáthoráiátaráiáanáism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun

sweetness&light
11-30-2003, 02:29 PM
Glad to know you wouldn't send Patt to Abusefest. You would have to have super porcine powers to do that.

Frankly, I doubt ah believes half of what he claims. He just throws trash out there and sees who wants to pick through it, thereby giving him the desired attention.

I can hardly wait for my next bout of attention-getting when ah cuts, pastes, quotes and does it all in bold when replying to this.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by sweetness&light:
Glad to know you wouldn't send Patt to Abusefest. You would have to have super porcine powers to do that.

Frankly, I doubt ah believes half of what he claims. He just throws trash out there and sees who wants to pick through it, thereby giving him the desired attention.

I can hardly wait for my next bout of attention-getting when ah cuts, pastes, quotes and does it all in bold when replying to this.

Wow..sweetness...are you always sooooo sweet? LOL

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by sweetness&light:
I can hardly wait for my next bout of attention-getting when ah cuts, pastes, quotes and does it all in bold when replying to this. Just to let you know...if you really want to be fair about it and check back posts.... the cut and paste thing was long before my time in here. I learned it from those that post regularly on this board.

Well I wouldn't want to let you down... BOSS HOG! So here goes...LOL

The Hogs and Pigs report ...

[snipped for tedium]



[This message has been edited by meister (edited 11-30-2003).]

Hermit of Hogscald
11-30-2003, 02:44 PM
Heya Hillbilly

i'm still waiting for an answer to exactly what kind of meeting was going on at your house. Was everyone dressed for the occasion? Was anything burning?

Inquiring minds want to know!

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
Heya Hillbilly

i'm still waiting for an answer to exactly what kind of meeting was going on at your house. Was everyone dressed for the occasion? Was anything burning?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Hermit...it was a private meeting and with the exception of a few that visit this board and attended that meeting, that information is not disseminated. Should there be a need to share such information with you, or your presence desired at future meetings, you will be contacted. Until then, just keep those hedgebushes out of the road! LOL

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
Heya Hillbilly

i'm still waiting for an answer to exactly what kind of meeting was going on at your house. Was everyone dressed for the occasion? Was anything burning?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Sorry about replying twice here hermit...but I just caught the jest of your question! LOL Yes everyone was dressed but not in robes. There were those in attendance of different races. It was not a religious, cult, sexual, or political meeting. Just a meeting to discuss some important concerns and issues. I hope this lays your curiosities to rest! LOL

Have A Great Day!

gayle
11-30-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
Heya Hillbilly

i'm still waiting for an answer to exactly what kind of meeting was going on at your house. Was everyone dressed for the occasion? Was anything burning?

Inquiring minds want to know!

hahahahahahahahahahaha
I was wondering the same thing....must be hard to hide in those white robes with pointy hoods these days http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

EurekaRebel
11-30-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by gayle:
....must be hard to hide in those white robes with pointy hoods these days http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

Are YOU still hiding in the closet, Gayle???

Inquiring minds want to know.........



[This message has been edited by EurekaRebel (edited 11-30-2003).]

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by EurekaRebel:
Are YOU still hiding in the closet, Gayle???

Inquiring minds want to know.........

[This message has been edited by EurekaRebel (edited 11-30-2003).]

Yea Gayle....how about that? LOL

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by gayle:
hahahahahahahahahahaha
I was wondering the same thing....must be hard to hide in those white robes with pointy hoods these days http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

Gayle...if you would read the post before you post you would have already had your answer. You can read can't you? LOL

S. Jones
11-30-2003, 03:51 PM
Looks like Hillbilly is heading towards the ranks of Royal..

sweetness&light
11-30-2003, 06:58 PM
You didn't post the only pork reports I'm ever interested in: pork bellys.

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
Looks like Hillbilly is heading towards the ranks of Royal..

You think so? Why, because I don't kiss anyone's ass in here? I think this board would be boring if I agreed with the "circle" just because it was the popular thing to do. At least I haven't been intimidated into NOT posting as I know many people have!
So Jones if you have something to say...just say it...LOL I can handle it!

S. Jones
11-30-2003, 09:23 PM
I dont think you can without putting a little "lol" in every post like you are so above everyone.

I`ve been on the net a long time I recognize a troll when I see one .."LOL"

James DeVito
11-30-2003, 09:29 PM
Looks more like an oval from where I`m sitting, maybe its perspective.

Jan Ridenour
11-30-2003, 10:00 PM
At least Clinton stayed within his own species.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/11/27_thanksgiving.jpg

Hermit of Hogscald
11-30-2003, 10:55 PM
The impossible has happened.....I'm speechless!

ArkansawHillbillys
11-30-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
I dont think you can without putting a little "lol" in every post like you are so above everyone.

I`ve been on the net a long time I recognize a troll when I see one .."LOL"

Jones, I've been on the net a long time too. Probably longer than you have. I can recognize a troll when I see one too. I can also recognize a kiss-ass! Computer whizzes are a dime a dozen, but for some reason you think you are a step above the Hillbilly. And maybe you are...but I doubt it! LOL

I've never thought I was "above" anyone. But I do feel I am just as good as anyone else. What does putting LOL in every post have to do with your assessment of me? LOL means laughing out loud. Not laughing at you, or making fun of you. It means laughing as in a sense of humor. I'll tell you like I've told others....you don't know me so don't try to second guess the meaning of my words.

who?
11-30-2003, 11:11 PM
Hermit:
The coffie pot.

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 06:09 AM
LOL@calling me a kiss ass!! Come on youcan do better than that...troll.

trolling trolling trolling..kepp those doggies rolling...

gayle
12-01-2003, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:
Yea Gayle....how about that? LOL



do I hear an echo in here?

we don't have closets in canada http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

PMilam
12-01-2003, 09:54 AM
A Mixed Message from one of your local schizophrenic, pinko, commie minds. (Don't you love it that the awards show on Comedy Central is called the Commies?!?!?)
***************
http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/tongue.gif
Nanny nanny boo boo, wash your hair in doo doo!

My dad can beat up yours.

I know you are, but what am I?

I'm going to tell!

You're a stupid head!

You wet the bed!

I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me, and sticks to you.

NaaaAhaa.. you are!

http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/tongue.gif
*****************
"From a hologrammatic viewpoint, ...you are one little physical image that reflects all of humanity when projected spiritually upon the cosmic screen."

--Wayne Dyer

Everything is connected. The universe is a hologram where every part contains the whole. Outside echoes the inside. The lower is a reflection of the higher. The other is a reflection of you. We are all a microcosm of each other. The big picture is within us and even our cells.

Be open to see the interconnections, influences and inter-relationships of things.

"Unity consciousness is a state of enlightenment where we pierce the mask of illusion which creates separation and fragmentation. Behind the appearance of separation is one unified field of wholeness. Here the seer and the scenery are one."

-- Deepak Chopra

"To me there is no difference between one person and another; I behold all as soul-reflections of the one God. I can't think of anyone as a stranger, for I know that we are all part of the One Spirit."

-- Paramahansa Yogananda

EurekaRebel
12-01-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by gayle:
we don't have closets in canada http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

So why are you STILL in the closet, Gayle, if Canada has NO closets? Just admit it - YOU are one of THEM. And everyone here knows it.

There are a bunch of THEM, so you need not feel alone.

It's AH and I who are in the minority around here. All because we are not sheep and do not follow the leader. We DARE to think for ourself, and state our views, even if they are unpopular.

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 11:13 AM
Alot of them that eat at your diner too ER?

EurekaRebel
12-01-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
Alot of them that eat at your diner too ER?

That went right over my head, Steve. Am I supposed to have a diner? You are going to have to explain to this dumb coon a** what you meant.

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 11:42 AM
Sorry. Possibly a case of mistaken identity..

EurekaRebel
12-01-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
Sorry. Possibly a case of mistaken identity..

Must be, cause I sure don't have a diner or any eating establishment, for that matter.

Just goes to show, you don't ever REALLY know who you are talking to!

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 11:54 AM
Especially if they hide behind an anonymous handle.

EurekaRebel
12-01-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
Especially if they hide behind an anonymous handle.

Yes, I fear the liberals will get me if I used my REAL name. My opinions are my own and I wouldn't want my family or my business associates to be harassed because of MY opinions. And you know how people on this board like to BASH the ones that don't agree with EVERYthing the pinko commie liberals believe.

Excuse Me, for having a mind of my own and not following the crowd of bashing our President, and anyone else who DARES not support what the majority of this BBS believes.

Yes, I am a Republican, I LIKE Bush and I DON'T like homosexulity thrown in my face 4 times a year.

That is reason enough not to use my real name. And just because you USE a name, that doesn't mean it is your OWN name.

Steve Jones - how COMMON is that?



[This message has been edited by EurekaRebel (edited 12-01-2003).]

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 01:38 PM
I guess, except I personally know alot of the people on this board face to face. Maybe thats why you are lumping me as a sheeple. I`ve been on this board since almost the beginning and have had ALOT of wars on here. I know not to take anything I read on the web too seriously, but no way do I feel the need to hide.. I`ve called plenty of people out on here, invited them to meet face to face and frankly I just dont have the energy for that kind of nonsence anymore.

If you have the balls to talk ****, why not have the balls to do it as yourself?

[This message has been edited by S. Jones (edited 12-01-2003).]

carlspakler
12-01-2003, 02:43 PM
I was going to go out the other night to a Canadian restaurant then I realized, There aren't any Canadian restaurants! By the way, please do not tell me that a French restaurant is also Canadian restaurant.

Carl

James DeVito
12-01-2003, 02:47 PM
"I fear the liberals will get me if I used my real name" Yea, there is a long history of liberal "nightriders", headbashers,and general violent behavior.

gayle
12-01-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by carlspakler:
I was going to go out the other night to a Canadian restaurant then I realized, There aren't any Canadian restaurants! By the way, please do not tell me that a French restaurant is also Canadian restaurant.

Carl

Interesting that....I had the same problem finding an american restaurant. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

arjay
12-01-2003, 05:02 PM
funny about those folk-they live in North America, yet they don't consider themselves "Americans"
whats up with that,eh?

gayle
12-01-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by arjay:
funny about those folk-they live in North America, yet they don't consider themselves "Americans"
whats up with that,eh?

Not so funny that folks who happen to share a continent but live in different countries would want to distinguish themselves with separate identities. Fact is....I live in Canada, not in the United States of America, therefore I am a Canadian. Why is it you all don't call yourself United Statesians?
I have found it amusing to see just who on these boards is so insecure in their own identity that having a Canadian post here is so threatening to them. Perhaps hearing how the "other half" lives is what is threatening. Also interesting that those self same people are also the ones who come off as bigots. Wonder if there's a connection?

arjay
12-01-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by gayle:

I have found it amusing to see just who on these boards is so insecure in their own identity that having a Canadian post here is so threatening to them. Perhaps hearing how the "other half" lives is what is threatening. Also interesting that those self same people are also the ones who come off as bigots. Wonder if there's a connection?

gee gayle, I dunno... some of my best friends are people.
(and canadiens are people too!)

Hermit of Hogscald
12-01-2003, 06:00 PM
From ER:

"Yes, I am a Republican, I LIKE Bush and I DON'T like homosexulity thrown in my face 4 times a year."

I'll do something totally unique here, and give you an opportunity to show us pinko commie liberals the error of our ways. If you like Bush, fine, would you please explain to us exactly why. I am genuinely interested in broadening my horizens and trying to understand all sides of an issue.

Nothing personal please, no bashing or name-calling, just your personal thoughts on why Bush is the best person to lead this country. You claim to think for yourself, so avoid the C&P's from the right wing pundits, and tell us why you personally choose to support this person.

Why, exactly, do YOU like Bush?

EurekaRebel
12-01-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Hermit of Hogscald:
Why, exactly, do YOU like Bush?

Why should I have to DEFEND the President of the United States?

All the Bush bashing on this BBS won't change the fact that he IS the President.

The Republicans put up with BillyBoy for EIGHT long years.....surely you Demos can
stand Bush for a mere FOUR.

I will not stoop to having to DEFEND our national leader on this pinko forum.

And you think WHO could do a better job?

Hermit of Hogscald
12-01-2003, 07:27 PM
I didn't ask you to defend him, I simply asked why you support him, big difference.

The Clinton's are old news, and Bill isn't even pertinent anymore.

I'll try again. Why do you like Bush? From your own head and heart. Do you even know why? Is it simply because he IS the president, and a Republican? That doesn't seem logical to me, because you obviously didn't support Clinton because HE was the president. The C in C is the C in C, no matter what party, so that can't be the reason.

There has to be some reason why this guy typifies what YOU personally believe in. If you can convince me in honest and open debate that he is really the right person to lead this country, you might win a convert.

Want to try again?

Cyberphillics
12-01-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by EurekaRebel:

I will not stoop to having to DEFEND our national leader on this pinko forum.


Well then do not defend him. As a citizen of this United States it is not only our right to question him it is our duty. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


------------------
Cyberphillics Computer Services
846 Valhalla Dr
Eureka Springs, AR 72632
501.253.2974
david@cyberphillics.com
Cyberphillics (http://www.cyberphillics.com)

leadwolf
12-01-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
I wonder how many of our troops would frag Bush themselves if they had half a chance..

I just got in on this topic. S. Jones if you think that one or our troops would "FRAG" the Commander In Chief you just don't have a clue...... After 20 years in the military I never, and I MEAN NEVER, met any one in the military who would harm the President. As for you bringing up the topic you could wind up under investigation by the Secret Service as a possible threat to the President. I now that the USA is based partly on freedom of speech, but anything that deals with the threat of the President is convitable in court.

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 08:14 PM
Bullcrap. I was also in the military. Threat? I think not..Maybe you should reread my post..

[This message has been edited by S. Jones (edited 12-01-2003).]

S. Jones
12-01-2003, 08:25 PM
Let me clear something for the thinking impaired. No I have no thoughts of harm to The Pres. No I would not frag ANYONE. No my post was not a vailed threat.. I was more curious as to the true moral of the troops in Iraq. What is REALLY happening there..

So stop trying to read something into my post.

Hermit of Hogscald
12-01-2003, 10:38 PM
From ER:

"It's AH and I who are in the minority around here. All because we are not sheep and do not follow the leader. We DARE to think for ourself, and state our views, even if they are unpopular."

Ok, I've taken you at your word on this, you dare to think for yourself, although it would appear that you are the one following the leader, it just happens to be the BIG leader. You "dare" to think for yourself and "state your views......"

So all I'm asking you to do is to do what you have stated you do. Maybe no one else will listen, but I will, and debate with you whatever you choose to state. I agree with you on one vital point, the views expressed here are very one-sided, unfortunately I also happen to be one on that side. This whole forum will become a lot more lively and interesting if someone does come forward and actively and intellegently debate the issues at hand. This will be especially true if it is done with civility and respect.

I want my views challenged. I WANT you to force me to think and analyze, to show me a side of an issue that I may not understand, because only by seeing all sides of something can I truly make an informed decision or analysis.

You say most here are non-thinking followers, that you are one of the very few who stand apart as a free-thinker. You say you dare to stand up for what you believe in.

So, let's do it. No queer bashing, no calling each other Commies or Nazis, just real openminded free-thinking debate that respects each others rights to difer in our views, debate that puts on the table the reasons for why we think like we do.

You say you've got the "stuff". Here's your chance to prove it. Let's go to the mats, fight fair, and see who can convince who of what.

You got the "stuff"? Easy to say you do. Here is a real chance to prove it's more than just wind. Let's rock.

ArkansawHillbillys
12-01-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
Sure they would. Cant say if i would or wouldnt as i`m not there and have no idea as to what is REALLY going on (and neither do you).

What in the world does being a communist have to do with it?

Jones, you were quick to edit your "fragging" post that you gave me such a run over. However, the day you posted it was too late....But you figure that one out. If you'll remember, I came right out and asked you if you would frag the President if it were you? Do you remember your post when you made your comment about the troops and fragging? Do you remember?...the post you deleted but too late. Your answer to that question was your quote above. You should have deleted that one too. What are you worried about Jones? LOL

ArkansawHillbillys
12-01-2003, 11:04 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by S. Jones:
I wonder how many of our troops would frag Bush themselves if they had half a chance..



Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:
Well Jones...I don't think any of "our" troops would. Unless they are traitors,communists, or just nuts. Would you if you had the chance?



Hmmmm...is this the now famous deleted/edited Jones post?

ArkansawHillbillys
12-01-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:

Originally posted by sweetness&light:
I can hardly wait for my next bout of attention-getting when ah cuts, pastes, quotes and does it all in bold when replying to this. Just to let you know...if you really want to be fair about it and check back posts.... the cut and paste thing was long before my time in here. I learned it from those that post regularly on this board.

Well I wouldn't want to let you down... BOSS HOG! So here goes...LOL

The Hogs and Pigs report ...

[snipped for tedium]

[This message has been edited by meister (edited 11-30-2003).]

CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP! FOUL! Bummer! Oh well! It wuz kinda long weren't it? LOL
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

sweetness&light
12-01-2003, 11:34 PM
Thank you, meister. I guess he forgot he had already posted that a couple of pages ago. I didn't read it anyway; I'm only interested in the bottom line, usually found in the Wall Street Journal in the plus-sized column.

I love a plump and profitable portfolio. Now all I need to do is find one.

ArkansawHillbillys
12-01-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by leadwolf:
I just got in on this topic. S. Jones if you think that one or our troops would "FRAG" the Commander In Chief you just don't have a clue...... After 20 years in the military I never, and I MEAN NEVER, met any one in the military who would harm the President. As for you bringing up the topic you could wind up under investigation by the Secret Service as a possible threat to the President. I now that the USA is based partly on freedom of speech, but anything that deals with the threat of the President is convitable in court.

Leadwolf....Jones says bull to this...but I also spent a lot of time in the military and I NEVER, EVER, met anyone that would even joke or hint of fragging the President or a fellow soldier. So Leadwolf, I agree with you completely...and Thanks for posting!

ArkansawHillbillys
12-01-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
Let me clear something for the thinking impaired. No I have no thoughts of harm to The Pres. No I would not frag ANYONE. No my post was not a vailed threat.. I was more curious as to the true moral of the troops in Iraq. What is REALLY happening there..

So stop trying to read something into my post.

Calm down now Jones...we beleive you! LOL

Becky Davis
12-02-2003, 07:19 AM
Anybody with half a brain knows Steve was not threatning the president.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 07:21 AM
Hillbilly STickman* Too late for what? I removed it simply because it bothered someone, probably a concept you wouldnt understand. LOL!

[This message has been edited by S. Jones (edited 12-02-2003).]

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 07:23 AM
And hillbilly the same applies to you. Why not post under your real name? At least when I shoot my mouth off I do it as myself. Are you scared of the pinko liberals too?? LOL!

Becky Davis
12-02-2003, 07:32 AM
I have yet to meet a republican who will tell me why he/she likes George Bush as president. Not George Bush the likable man, but George Bush the president.

I have also failed to see a hatefilled person post under their real name.

Cyberphillics
12-02-2003, 07:45 AM
Well I have been waiting for an answer to the Hermit of HogScald's question....why is it not being answered? I do not get it.

Becky Davis
12-02-2003, 07:48 AM
Me too and either.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 08:24 AM
"I have also failed to see a hatefilled person post under their real name."

I agree Becky, but it also could be that Hillbilly is still embarrassed about James running him out of town/Basin Park..

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
I agree Becky, but it also could be that Hillbilly is still embarrassed about James running him out of town/Basin Park..

That's not the story I heard. I heard it was JAMES who was run out of Basin Park.

Just like a bunch of know-it-alls - can't even get the story straight.

just wondering
12-02-2003, 09:36 AM
Dear AH. You are behind the times. Soldiers not only think about fragging their fellow soldiers, they do it as I recall from reading a recent article about a U. S. Army sargent doing the same in Iraq.

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Cyberphillics:
Well I have been waiting for an answer to the Hermit of HogScald's question....why is it not being answered? I do not get it.

I don't feel like defending my position on President Bush. Whatever I said would be attacked and picked to pieces by you liberals, so why bother.

I do enjoy getting you people riled up!

Do any of you have JOBS or do you sit around trashing Bush ALL day?

Bottom like is.... no matter what you or I think or have to say about the President, he is STILL the President and in charge of our military. Like it... Hate it.... Whatever...
That's the way it is.

Carry on.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 09:59 AM
"That's not the story I heard. I heard it was JAMES who was run out of Basin Park."

You heard wrong.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 10:03 AM
"Bottom like is.... no matter what you or I think or have to say about the President, he is STILL the President and in charge of our military. Like it... Hate it.... Whatever...
That's the way it is."

And he calls us sheep..lol!

ArkansawHillbillys
12-02-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
"I have also failed to see a hatefilled person post under their real name."

I agree Becky, but it also could be that Hillbilly is still embarrassed about James running him out of town/Basin Park..

Jones...Do you know what happened in the park that day? There were plenty of witnesses. Ask Devito who was left standing in the park after he made his little power play. After he called the police and "TRIED" to have me removed from the park. After he got up in my face and I took two steps forward. Ask him. I think even he is man enough to admit that he came back 30 minutes later...same spot and same location in the park...and apologized in his own way about the situation. He did not know that I had permission from the parks department to be there. He didn't ask them before he got up in my face and tried to exert authority he did not have. I think James and I have come to terms over this, so why do you want to bring it up unless its just to try to start something.

No I don't post under my own name and I have my reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain and don't intend to. There is nothing wrong with posting under a nickname nor is there anything illegal about it. If there was, then certainly Kim and Jan..the owners of this great BBS...would require everyone to use their real name. Privacy is a person's right even when surfing the internet.

You though Jones, will probably know who I am soon enough. You also will probably get to know some of my friends before too long. They are nice people...but they have concerns about someone making posts advocating the "fragging" of any U.S. President. Oh, and don't take this post wrong...everything will be well within the confines of the law. So Jones... if you want to keep stirring it up...more power to you! LOL

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by ArkansawHillbillys:

No I don't post under my own name and I have my reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain and don't intend to. There is nothing wrong with posting under a nickname nor is there anything illegal about it. If there was, then certainly Kim and Jan..the owners of this great BBS...would require everyone to use their real name. Privacy is a person's right even when surfing the internet.


Yeah, at least for now, we DO still have our privacy.

ArkansawHillbillys
12-02-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by just wondering:
Dear AH. You are behind the times. Soldiers not only think about fragging their fellow soldiers, they do it as I recall from reading a recent article about a U. S. Army sargent doing the same in Iraq.

JustWondering..Really? Behind the times. How many brothers and Uncles do you presently have serving in the Military? How many of them have been there for 20 or more years? Do you know for fact of anyone that is contemplating fragging the President or a fellow soldier? Give me a name or names. I bet you can't produce even one. Now I am not saying it has never happened and I'm not saying that a few "NUTS" don't exist, even in the military, but I am saying it is not the norm or status quo and is rare to say the least. Talk is cheap, but actually doing something of this nature is very rare!

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 10:32 AM
You`ve got me quaking in my boots HB. Anytime you would like to meet face to face to talk this you just let me know.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 10:35 AM
"They are nice people...but they have concerns about someone making posts advocating the "fragging" of any U.S. President."

I`m very easy to find. As far as "advocating" anything, lol@you!! Who is trying to stir what?

When we had our little e-mail war a few years ago I also invited you to a face to face meeting.

"No I don't post under my own name and I have my reasons. Reasons I don't have to explain and don't intend t"o."

The way you spout on I can see why.


[This message has been edited by S. Jones (edited 12-02-2003).]

ArkansawHillbillys
12-02-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
You`ve got me quaking in my boots HB. Anytime you would like to meet face to face to talk this you just let me know.

Jones...I wasn't trying to get you quaking in your boots. Just trying to give you some friendly hints that you'd probably be better off to grasp. You may have your followers on this board, but when you make some of the comments you have, whether for spite or to generate debate, there are often people that read, but don't post on this board that take exception and at the very least decipher these posts with extreme scrutiny. So, if you are going to say something, you might be wise to make sure you have your facts straight and intentions clear.

I would not have a problem meeting you face to face as I have many others over the past years, but I would have to feel the meeting would produce something positive or I wouldn't waste my time or yours. I have a certain intellectual level that I am accustomed to and conversing on a different level is seldom an advantage to anyone. Sometimes a brick wall is easier to communicate with. LOL

MotherMoon12
12-02-2003, 10:46 AM
Hey, Steve, can I come watch? I would pay good money to see you clean some clocks.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 10:46 AM
There you go putting yourself up on that pedestal again. I`ve lived in ES a long time and also have alot of folks come up and praise me for not letting a bully like you have his way... Get a grip..

By the way wondering is not the same as advocating..LOL!

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:

You heard wrong.

I think NOT. Were you there? I heard it from the police and it WAS official. Where did you HEAR it from?

Your LOL's are ill-placed so why do you continue to demeen AH for HIS LOL's?

You sound like a real Eureka "character", and we all know what sheep they are.

Any Mouse 2.0
12-02-2003, 11:07 AM
ER and AH

I think you are both missing Hermit of Hogscalds question.Maybe he asked too nicely.

We all know George W. Bush is president. Even men living in caves in other countries know this. So stop telling us the obvious.

What I personally think Hermit was wanting to know is if you voted for Bush why did you vote for him. What was so special about him that made you choose him over all the other people running including a former local boy?

Hermit am I right or even close?

------------------
Squeek Squeek

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Any Mouse 2.0:
ER and AH:
I think you are both missing Hermit of Hogscalds question.Maybe he asked too nicely.



Squeak, Squeak I have no trouble "understanding" what Hermit meant. I don't need a mouse to interpret for me.

I just don't feel compelled to answer questions thrown at me from someone on a BBS.

My beliefs are my own and I owe no one an explanation for them.

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 11:20 AM
"so why do you continue to demeen AH for HIS LOL's?"


Eureka Redneck how is saying something once "continuing?"

Why do you continue to ride Hillbillies jock?

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by S. Jones:

Eureka Redneck how is saying something once "continuing?"

Why do you continue to ride Hillbillies jock?


Thank you for your kind words in calling me a Redneck. Better a Redneck that a DipSh** like you.

Was that his jock I was riding? I thought it was your a**! LOL

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 11:29 AM
Wow you really got me there!

S. Jones
12-02-2003, 11:30 AM
I think you and AH have something going on the side.. You know what they say about homophobics..

Cyberphillics
12-02-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by EurekaRebel:
[B] I don't feel like defending my position on President Bush. Whatever I said would be attacked and picked to pieces by you liberals, so why bother.

I do enjoy getting you people riled up!

Do any of you have JOBS or do you sit around trashing Bush ALL day?

B]

You do not feel like defending your beliefs, then why be so hell bent on following King George so blindly? I have yet to hear a speech from him with out 9/11 refered to somewhere in it. I enjoy getting riled up, it gives meaning to life on the web. As far as jobs, my job slows during the holidays giving me family time and some time to catch up on all the BBS postings that I do not get to read during my busy time.


------------------
Cyberphillics Computer Services
846 Valhalla Dr
Eureka Springs, AR 72632
501.253.2974
david@cyberphillics.com
Cyberphillics (http://www.cyberphillics.com)

Any Mouse 2.0
12-02-2003, 11:36 AM
ER

Okay do not tells us your reasons but do get upset when your words lack the value you think they have. With out something to back it up what good is it.

I did not vote for Bush because he is nothing more than a spoiled frat boy who needed to be put over his Daddy's knee more often. I also look at the children and the wife and trust me this was not the family I want in Washigton.

I also did not vote for Clinton (by the way he has been out of office four years now) because he promised if we voted for him as govenor he would not run for president. So much for his word.

For that matter I did not vote for the last four presidents we have had. I will admit that the 80 and 84 elections I voted in were in school as I was not old enough to vote yet.

I have voiced my reasons now why can't you?

------------------
Squeek Squeek

[This message has been edited by Any Mouse 2.0 (edited 12-02-2003).]

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by S. Jones:
I think you and AH have something going on the side.. You know what they say about homophobics..

You better tell AH's wife.

PMilam
12-02-2003, 01:37 PM
ER......
"I don't feel like defending my position on President Bush. Whatever I said would be attacked and picked to pieces by you liberals, so why bother."

No one has ever "defended their position" on Bush on this board. It has been asked many times. Those of us who are "bashing" have been commenting on actual events and players. All you seem to say is.. "he's the president". Well, so was Clinton. So what? If that is your only reason for defending him.. did you defend Clinton because "he's the president"?

"You sound like a real Eureka "character", and we all know what sheep they are."

That may be the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on here. Eureka characters... sheep.. damn.. sorry.. gotta... LOL!

______________
ah......

"apologized in his own way"
Interesting.. I guess you hear the same way you read... no, I wasn't there... LOL

"You may have your followers on this board"
Followers? Maybe that's the 2nd stupidest thing... Yeah... the people that read this board are looking for someone to "follow"... may we all now bow our heads and bend our knee for our new leader SJones! Praise his name! LOL!!!!

"I have a certain intellectual level that I am accustomed to and conversing on a different level is seldom an advantage to anyone."

LOL!
______________________
"From a hologrammatic viewpoint, ...you are one little physical image that reflects all of humanity when projected spiritually upon the cosmic screen."
--Wayne Dyer

[This message has been edited by PMilam (edited 12-02-2003).]

gayle
12-02-2003, 03:15 PM
AH:
"I have a certain intellectual level that I am accustomed to and conversing on a different level is seldom an advantage to anyone."

LEAFHEAD Gayle:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......OH AND...LOL!!!!!!

Hermit of Hogscald
12-02-2003, 04:52 PM
From Any Mouse:

"What I personally think Hermit was wanting to know is if you voted for Bush why did you vote for him. What was so special about him that made you choose him over all the other people running including a former local boy?

Hermit am I right or even close?"

Actually, if I had gotten an intellegent answer from him, I would have been more interested in why he supports Bush NOW. Everyone who is elected to office deserves the consideration of being judged on what they actually do once they gain the reins of power, and much less on what they had to say to get there (actions speak louder than words).

I honestly didn't expect him to accept my challenge, judging from his past posts, he neither understands why he believes what he does, nor does he have the courage to actually defend those beliefs. Still, he deserved the opportunity.

But I had another motive also. I wanted to seperate the free-thinkers from the sheep, the politically aware from the trolls. It is so easy to claim one really thinks for ones self, so easy to claim one "dares" to state what they believe in and expose those beliefs to scrutiny. Anyone who really believes in what they say has nothing to fear in putting those beliefs to the test. I do believe in what I have to say, and will openly defend those beliefs on any subject anyone chooses to put forth, even if I am in the minority. If my own beliefs cannot stand up to open examination, they need to be rethought anyway. It's called being open-minded.

Obviously, I was successful in seperating the truth from the self-proclaimed delusion.

So now we know from his own lips that he only comes here to attempt (poorly) to "rile" people up. We also know by his own actions that he is both a troll and a sheep.

It was only fair to give him an opportunity to prove that he is a free-thinker, and actually has the courage to defend what he believes in. Unfortunately, all we uncovered was another dittohead.

The only emotional effect he has on me, or will ever have, is one of pity. I feel sorry for the future of this country, because I fear he is little more than the tip of a greater iceburg. As the Bush administration continues to cut funds for education, they also continue to firm up their own power base. People who can't or won't think are so much easier to control and manipulate.

Any Mouse 2.0
12-02-2003, 05:01 PM
Hermit

Thank you for the response. I assumed one thing when you meant another. Either way I think we both got our answers.



------------------
Squeek Squeek

2100
12-02-2003, 08:02 PM
And to think, in the beginning of Bushy Boy's campaign to steal the presidency, he touted himself as the Great Unifier…

At least, Clinton kept his promises, more than any other president in modern history.

"Not all who wander are lost." J.R.R. Tolkien

2100
12-02-2003, 08:04 PM
Oh, and just so you know, AHs, I don't bash Bush because he's president. Some of my best friends are presidents.

Hermit of Hogscald
12-02-2003, 08:12 PM
Hey, out where I live, some of my best friends are bushes!

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by PMilam:
That may be the stupidest thing anyone has ever said on here. Eureka characters... sheep.. damn.. sorry.. gotta... LOL!


You, Ms. Milam should certainly know about saying stupid things. As well as the cut-and- paste Queen, your memos of the WAND and other such movements are utterly stupid. Like who really gives a rat's a** about what WAND is doing in Little Rock. This ain't LR, sister.

You really should look in the mirror before you call anyone ELSE stupid, madam. Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump would say.


[This message has been edited by EurekaRebel (edited 12-02-2003).]

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by 2100:
...... Some of my best friends are presidents.

Are we supposed to be impressed? NOT...

PMilam
12-02-2003, 08:38 PM
Yep... Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump would say.

EurekaRebel
12-02-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by PMilam:
Yep... Stupid is as stupid does, as Forrest Gump would say.

That was my line....
Are you cutting and pasting again?

The nerve of you to call someone stupid because they don't share your beliefs on the President or whatever it is "your cause" is.

You are a piece of work. Another Eureka character.....

And you're dumb enough to use your OWN name.
Gimme a break.

Maybe all those drugs have affected your mind, ya think?

Becky Davis
12-02-2003, 10:10 PM
I think the best thing that I can do is ignore people who don't want or try to be civil.....
but ER that is a low blow, even for a half wit like you.

Cyberphillics
12-02-2003, 10:12 PM
Boy this seems to be turning into a...

My daddy can beet your daddy up.....well I can kick your butt....no I can kick your but.........ARRRRRGGgggggg. Sorry that was just a flash back from the childhood.


The original topic was President in Iraq. The first report I read on this was from a canadian reporter. As Air Force One took off the silence in the press cab. was unbearable. He said that one of his co-workers leaned over a said this is the road trip of a lifetime. Imagine if you were in his shoes. What a thrill to be on AF1 not mention going to Iraq with the leader of the most powerfull country in the world. I do not like that goof in office and I make no bones about it, but to fly with him I would be honored. I do not think I would want to go to Iraq though. Everyone have a good evening.

------------------
Cyberphillics Computer Services
846 Valhalla Dr
Eureka Springs, AR 72632
501.253.2974
david@cyberphillics.com
Cyberphillics (http://www.cyberphillics.com)

Becky Davis
12-02-2003, 10:24 PM
A canadian reporter? Far out.

PMilam
12-03-2003, 12:40 AM
No, it's not "all those drugs". My opinions have not changed much on the political scene. By your own account I'm the copy and paste queen.. was for a long before this bump in my road... and yes, long before ah figured it out... long time computer expert that he is. Though, I've actually started mostly posting a web site for information so that it doesn't clog the thread, and if you want to skip it, fine.. many people are interested.

What has changed is that I had cancer, and I had to make many quick decisions which concerned my health, my body.. the way it looks, and feels. I've been incapacitated to some extent. Can't use my arms much, can't reach the top shelfs, have to have help with things I did, with ease, every day. Worked in the yard, split and hauled wood, cooking, grocery shopping, attended meetings....took driving to town totally for granted. Took my abilities all for granted. I cannot pick up my grand kids. Never thought it could happen to me.

Frankly, it couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

So, yeah, at first there were pain pills to get me through the earlier days of healing.. I'm still very swollen, sore and I can only sleep on my back. It is really very unpleasant, and this configuration that is, where my beautiful breasts were, is not pleasant to look at, and painful to touch. But, I'm not taking much of anything now.. hydrocodone was my friend for a while, but now is just there when I over do... as I did this past week, with family gathering, meeting a brand new niece, and helping out with the cooking.

No.. it's not drugs.

All these things combined have given me much time to think, to reflect on my life, my mortality, and the lives I will leave behind, when my time comes. It's given me time to think about what is important, and what is not. Time to think about what I leave behind, what I have taught my kids, and the gaggle of kids that spent time with me, sought my comfort and love. What do I teach them? To back down to bullies, to shut my mouth when someone calls me names? I turn the other cheek, in the sense that you cannot harm me, so, take your best shot.. but I will not be silent. This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and you want me to shut up.. Tough $hit. What you think of me is of no concern to me.

I have used this quote many times...
I am not afraid of the pen, the sword or the scaffold. I will speak the truth wherever I please. ~ Mother Jones

And after the attacks from you and your hillbilly friend became so vicious, a while back, I quit posting. I could not stand it.. but, when Mother Jones' words rang back to me, I realized I had been afraid.. don't know exactly what of... just attack, generally.
So, I came back.. and you have continued to harass me, and a few others, but, I'm not afraid of you and your stupid comments. Actually, I think you were glad to see me back.. for some reason, James, Gayle and Steve are the only other ones you attack.. well, the mouse has become a target lately.
I'm not afraid to voice my opinion to you, or anyone else. I use my own name because I'm not ashamed of what I have to say. When I have said things that I regretted, I have apologized.

You can hate me, you can attack me, but you cannot take my center from me. You cannot not steal my spirit.

I guess I just don't understand mean people.

INLOL (I'm not laughing out loud)

[This message has been edited by PMilam (edited 12-03-2003).]

S. Jones
12-03-2003, 12:45 AM
Its easy to talk all tough and bad hiding behind your keyboard ER.

gayle
12-03-2003, 07:21 AM
I'm not afraid to voice my opinion to you, or anyone else. I use my own name because I'm not ashamed of what I have to say. When I have said things that I regretted, I have apologized.

[This message has been edited by PMilam (edited 12-03-2003).][/B]

BRAVO Patt! And god speed with your healing.
I have noticed that those of us with the "balls" to post under our own names are the ones most under attack by those like AH and ER. I guess the fear that stands in the way of them using their own names brings hatred to their hearts against those of us without the fear. Lets face it.....everything they are about is fear. Hatred and intolerance are born of fear. They are more to be pitied than scorned I suppose.
Leafhead Gayle

Cyberphillics
12-03-2003, 07:50 AM
Standing ovation to you Patt. I agree that life is too short to put up with bull$hit.

------------------
Cyberphillics Computer Services
846 Valhalla Dr
Eureka Springs, AR 72632
501.253.2974
david@cyberphillics.com
Cyberphillics (http://www.cyberphillics.com)