Who's Surprised?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 16 Oct 2007 07:39:31
From:
Subject: Who's Surprised?

http://thehill.com/

"In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta
Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth,
who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote:
"Hillary's defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the
microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status
of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she
listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of
Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

"The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface
with allegations about an affair with Bill," Gerth and Van Natta wrote
in reference to Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton.
"Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the
tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."

A GOP official said, "Hillary Clinton's campaign hypocrisy continues
to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen
in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse
to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being
conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton
can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of
the next year."

Seems like the Democrats are being shown for what they really are.
Friends of Henry?

Date: 22 Oct 2007 09:38:11
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 19, 5:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1192832185.943871.237500@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 5:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1192819249.179591.145270@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> (BS unlimited)
>
> >> Can you tell us ONE problem that government has caused that is worse than
> >> those it has solved?
>
> >> The pretense that governments take control FROM the people is
> >> preposterous.
>
> > Tom you didn't stop to think did you? Any Stalinist, authoritarian,
> > and most Fascist governments have created massively more problems than
> > they have solved. Even in democratic governments disarming law abiding
> > citizens, leaving criminals the only ones with guns is worse than
> > nothing. How a bout the re-interpretation of eminent domain where they
> > can take your property, at bargain rates and hand it to the developer
> > who gave them the biggest kickback. There are tons of government
> > actions that make things worse for people.
>
> SotS wasn't talking about Stalinist or Fascist governments. He was
> insinuating that this government was more dangerous than helpful. Well, it
> will be if Hillary takes charge. We'll be able to say that she was the last
> President of the United States.

Everything I say is very obscure. This this stuff:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of
Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with
his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause
others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that
purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and
raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his
Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of
their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the
Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to
our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to
their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging
its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested
with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his
Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized
nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of
their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured
to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian
Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished
destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Date: 19 Oct 2007 15:41:11
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 19, 3:16 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Oct 19, 5:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in messagenews:1192819249.179591.145270@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > (BS unlimited)
>
> > Can you tell us ONE problem that government has caused that is worse than
> > those it has solved?
>
> > The pretense that governments take control FROM the people is preposterous.
>
> Tom you didn't stop to think did you?

lol

Date: 20 Oct 2007 11:26:32
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> lol

At least you've still got a sense of humour despite your
government mandated primate pets.

Date: 19 Oct 2007 15:16:25
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 19, 5:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in messagenews:1192819249.179591.145270@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> (BS unlimited)
>
> Can you tell us ONE problem that government has caused that is worse than
> those it has solved?
>
> The pretense that governments take control FROM the people is preposterous.

Tom you didn't stop to think did you? Any Stalinist, authoritarian,
and most Fascist governments have created massively more problems than
they have solved. Even in democratic governments disarming law abiding
citizens, leaving criminals the only ones with guns is worse than
nothing. How a bout the re-interpretation of eminent domain where they
can take your property, at bargain rates and hand it to the developer
who gave them the biggest kickback. There are tons of government
actions that make things worse for people.
Bill C

Date: 19 Oct 2007 17:37:19
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1192832185.943871.237500@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 19, 5:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1192819249.179591.145270@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> (BS unlimited)
>>
>> Can you tell us ONE problem that government has caused that is worse than
>> those it has solved?
>>
>> The pretense that governments take control FROM the people is
>> preposterous.
>
> Tom you didn't stop to think did you? Any Stalinist, authoritarian,
> and most Fascist governments have created massively more problems than
> they have solved. Even in democratic governments disarming law abiding
> citizens, leaving criminals the only ones with guns is worse than
> nothing. How a bout the re-interpretation of eminent domain where they
> can take your property, at bargain rates and hand it to the developer
> who gave them the biggest kickback. There are tons of government
> actions that make things worse for people.

SotS wasn't talking about Stalinist or Fascist governments. He was
insinuating that this government was more dangerous than helpful. Well, it
will be if Hillary takes charge. We'll be able to say that she was the last
President of the United States.

Date: 19 Oct 2007 14:17:45
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 19, 2:40 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:

Good stuff, and thanks.
Like I've said a million times we agree on most everything, including
this. I would argue that, being a Stalinist former government there
was nothing but government. This is an extreme case and noone but the
folks in Cambridge Ma, and various Ca. areas still think this is a
great idea.
I've gone the other way than you have and we passed each other. When
I was younger I was a pure Darwinist / lunatic fringe libertarian with
the only caveat being draconian response to those who preyed on others
violently, at least on some days, the other days my thoughts were if
they can't keep it themselves, "fuck-em, the gene pool just got
better."
Dave Barry likes to joke that when your young your supposed to be
rebellious and liberal, then you grow out of it. I've actually gone
the other way generally. Like you I don't have the answers either, and
I think they lie about where you do. I just still think there are way
too many scum to make any system based on voluntarily recognizing the
rights and freedoms of others to work.
Seems that in just about every situation you end up right down to
tribal / regional / state warlords or gangs, armies, whatever you want
to call them exploiting everyone except a few, which is Stalinism,
Fascism, Monarchy, etc... too.
Historically humans just can't seem to get past that, and that's why
I argue that you need some coercive government, BUT it should never be
allowed to be strong enough that the people couldn't get rid of it,
violently if necessary. The guarantee against abuses by government is
the collective ability of the people to remove it. That's the magic
tipping point. It's got to be strong enough to protect itself, and the
people from legitmate threats to the people, but has to allow the
maximum freedom within that framework. That's why philosophically I am
much more supportive of enforcing human rights protections than I am
"disaster relief" and such. With FEMA the question for me is, what's
the more cost effective approach, bail the people out and help them
rebuild, or deal with the violence and increased criminal activity
created by their desperation if you don't do it. The middle ground is
where I keep ending up these days. Some govt help, massively encourage
and provide carrots for private aid, and make it clear that it's a
boost, not a free ride.
Basically I see the role of government, and the military for that
matter, being to provide people with the freedom, and security to live
their lives as they see fit as long as they aren't actively injuring
other people against their will, violating the rights of others, or
creating a dangerous environment that will cause injury, such as
creating toxic waste dumps and pumping toxic crap into the air, water,
and food supply.
I still have NO idea why we needed to exterminate the Branch-
Davidians? About the only reason I could come up with would be
protection of children from direct, serious abuse. Children need to be
protected, even from the moron adult parents lots of them have, but
that's a whole other kettle of stinky fish that's been done terribly
by governments.
Bill C

Date: 19 Oct 2007 11:40:49
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 18, 5:39 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Oct 18, 6:37 pm, Fred Fredburger
>
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >> The rules only apply to the little people!
>
> > > Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.
>
> > > "I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
> > > then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
> > > BF, 1759
>
> >http://www.governmentwedeserve.org/
>
> Our local left wing rag has a typical defense that the Government is
> great, and it'd be better if we had more of it. Unfortunately,
> hypocritally, they think people should pay for things in the People's
> Republic of Taxachusetts, at least until they can extract it directly
> in tax money. Then they can join the public trough.
> No possible link without paying so I won't link to it.
>
>
> Hey Greg
> They use another deadly item to treat cancer, radiation, not more
> cancer. That's the failure in your stance that NO government is the
> best government. Humans suck, and Somalia is a perfect example of
> humans in a government vacuum. That's what you are trying to bring
> here. That's where we disagree. Less is better, none is a disaster.
> You advocate mob rule, or the equivalent.

Dear Bill,

I am not some sort of born again anarchist. All my ideological steps
have been marginal ones. ---Baby Steps, you know, and now I wander
the hinterlands, eating locusts and wild honey, crying out from the
wilderness--- The general trend has been increasing disappointment and
despair that nothing can be done better by (what we call) government.
So while I'm not an anarchist, per se, it seems to be the default
implication, since government invariably seems to cause more problems
than it solves. Government is fundamentally an immoral institution.
Anyway, there is no time for explication here anyway, and moreover
this is not the appropriate place. But a bit more...

I know of no grand unifying theory of social conduct, although some
theories are better than others when it comes to

(1) their (breadth of) scope,
(2) their internal consistancy (basic logic),
(3) their external consistancy (how well the theory works when
inducing the nature of the world around us onto the theory).

The bottom line: I don't really know "the answer," but we can compare
as to the degree of goodness/badness when it comes to social
theories. As best I can tell, a more free society is a "better"
society in that it seems to promote diversity more effectively than an
unfree society. While stable enviroments can promote and manifest
high degrees of specialization, the nature of the human world is one
of change, across the world's surface and across time. To absorb the
natural shocks of change, life also implements/manifests diversity, as
too-much-specialization implies a creature too brittle to roll with
the changes. The history of humans is one of adaptation and non-
brittleness; I suspect humans are the most widely ranging creature
upon the planet.

I assert that a "diverse life form" has a better probability of
continuing its line when exposed to the shocks of nature. Given the
basic axiom of life as self-replicating -- this self-replication is
empirically observable and thus a justified object for inductive
reasoning (since deductive reasoning is inapplicable to any axiom) --
and to the extent diversity provides an added measure of insurance of
continuance for a life form, and then to the extent a free society is
a diverse society, the principle of human freedom aligns with life's
replication axiom. Therefore, a free society is a moral (better)
society by induction.

Now I am praying for some potent global warming, such that I may wager
on the future Tour de Hinterland, a race where my remoteness
transforms to urban.

I'm glad you brought up Somalia, since "it" doesn't prove your point:
Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse, --
Peter Leeson
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Moreover, other states can't seem to leave Somalia alone, interfering
whenever and wherever possible. The last thing a State wants to see
is any success of statelessness. States are almost like a living
parasite. I guess they are self-replicating. yuck. gross.
disgusting.

.

Date: 19 Oct 2007 14:34:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1192819249.179591.145270@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
(BS unlimited)

Can you tell us ONE problem that government has caused that is worse than
those it has solved?

The pretense that governments take control FROM the people is preposterous.

Date: 19 Oct 2007 04:18:17
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 18, 10:23 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1192754397.900799.39650@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 6:37 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> The rules only apply to the little people!
>
> >> > Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.
>
> >> > "I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
> >> > then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
> >> > BF, 1759
>
> >>http://www.governmentwedeserve.org/
>
> > Our local left wing rag has a typical defense that the Government is
> > great, and it'd be better if we had more of it. Unfortunately,
> > hypocritally, they think people should pay for things in the People's
> > Republic of Taxachusetts, at least until they can extract it directly
> > in tax money. Then they can join the public trough.
> > No possible link without paying so I won't link to it.
>
> > Hey Greg
> > They use another deadly item to treat cancer, radiation, not more
> > cancer. That's the failure in your stance that NO government is the
> > best government. Humans suck, and Somalia is a perfect example of
> > humans in a government vacuum. That's what you are trying to bring
> > here. That's where we disagree. Less is better, none is a disaster.
> > You advocate mob rule, or the equivalent.
>
> Calm down Bill. You're correct that less government is better government
> until you reach the point of no return.
>
> The problem is that there are too many people feeding at the public trough.
> So how do you stop it without a revolution and a lot of hangings?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tom I guess I wasn't clear. I've had a miserable flu all week.
That was my point exactly, and you said it clearly. This is the point
where He and I differ. A government has to be big enough, and strong
enough to protect the people who put it there from other groups. Given
that people who disagree, or want power, or your land and stuff, have
historically formed their own groups to take it, Greg's tiny
government with everyone respecting everyone (has never worked with
humans) doesn't work. What works is a government system the majority
can live with, and support, backed by the force to control individual
and group threats to the people, which are much larger than Greg
credits. There's a big enough percentage of people who are scum that
would happily use violence on everyone to take control and wealth that
the only way to slow this down is a violent force capable of stooping
them at the control of a government.
Unfortunately this is also on the slippery slope to 1984 also. It's
the balancing act that's the key, and that's where Greg and I
disagree. I see it much higher up the scale, to provide basic
protections, and controls on our own citizens than he does. If it
wasn't for government coercion, how long before folks down in
Louisiana actually did lynch those 6 kids, and how long before the
retaliation hit?
Bill C

Date: 18 Oct 2007 17:39:57
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 18, 6:37 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> The rules only apply to the little people!
>
> > Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.
>
> > "I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
> > then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
> > BF, 1759
>
> http://www.governmentwedeserve.org/

Our local left wing rag has a typical defense that the Government is
great, and it'd be better if we had more of it. Unfortunately,
hypocritally, they think people should pay for things in the People's
Republic of Taxachusetts, at least until they can extract it directly
in tax money. Then they can join the public trough.
No possible link without paying so I won't link to it.

Hey Greg
They use another deadly item to treat cancer, radiation, not more
cancer. That's the failure in your stance that NO government is the
best government. Humans suck, and Somalia is a perfect example of
humans in a government vacuum. That's what you are trying to bring
here. That's where we disagree. Less is better, none is a disaster.
You advocate mob rule, or the equivalent.
Bill C

Date: 18 Oct 2007 19:23:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1192754397.900799.39650@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 18, 6:37 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The rules only apply to the little people!
>>
>> > Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.
>>
>> > "I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
>> > then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
>> > BF, 1759
>>
>> http://www.governmentwedeserve.org/
>
> Our local left wing rag has a typical defense that the Government is
> great, and it'd be better if we had more of it. Unfortunately,
> hypocritally, they think people should pay for things in the People's
> Republic of Taxachusetts, at least until they can extract it directly
> in tax money. Then they can join the public trough.
> No possible link without paying so I won't link to it.
>
> Hey Greg
> They use another deadly item to treat cancer, radiation, not more
> cancer. That's the failure in your stance that NO government is the
> best government. Humans suck, and Somalia is a perfect example of
> humans in a government vacuum. That's what you are trying to bring
> here. That's where we disagree. Less is better, none is a disaster.
> You advocate mob rule, or the equivalent.

Calm down Bill. You're correct that less government is better government
until you reach the point of no return.

The problem is that there are too many people feeding at the public trough.
So how do you stop it without a revolution and a lot of hangings?

Date: 18 Oct 2007 16:20:29
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised? Euro follow-up to twisted press

USA Today is left slanted and they suck, but everyone has a slant
today. Objectivitity is deader than honest politicians.

http://badnewsfromthenetherlands.blogspot.com/

Bill C

Date: 18 Oct 2007 15:49:12
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 18, 3:37 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> The rules only apply to the little people!
>
> > Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.
>
> > "I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
> > then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
> > BF, 1759
>
> http://www.governmentwedeserve.org/

Nice. Gradual drift is pure poison when combined with short memory.
And that is what we have.

"Stare decisis is the way judges seek the safety of the herd."
http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm

Date: 18 Oct 2007 13:44:48
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 18, 8:47 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 18, 5:47 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 8:39 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Hey, you don't want to believe it that's up to you.
>
> > Ironic, in that I'm one of those people who wants to believe.
>
> Sure you are. But here's a clue - I couldn't care less either way.
> You're a faceless and nameless boob who feels the need to use a
> pseudonym designed to make people think you're more thinking than you
> demonstrate you're capable.
>
> > > So I don't give a lot of credence to cowards.
>
> > How about bullies?
>
> So words on an screen frighten you? Very little you and your scurrying
> little friends surprise me but that one was really good. I'll
> certainly treasure that one for a long time.

Bullies usually do hope their words (and posturing, etc.) will
frighten.

Your arrest record preceeds you, O Great Slapper of Women.

I guess I could google to find how many times you've threatened
someone physically ("hope I run into you sometime") but whatever,
believe me, I get the message <g >.

Judging from the number of times you've let a jibe of mine pass un-
retorted, I'd have to guess I'm up there on the "hope I run into him
sometime" Kunich Revenge List.

Well, am I? That is: In danger should we ever meet in person, by your
mighty manly hand, Mr. Kunich? --D-y

Date: 18 Oct 2007 06:47:49
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 18, 5:47 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:39 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hey, you don't want to believe it that's up to you.
>
> Ironic, in that I'm one of those people who wants to believe.

Sure you are. But here's a clue - I couldn't care less either way.
You're a faceless and nameless boob who feels the need to use a
pseudonym designed to make people think you're more thinking than you
demonstrate you're capable.

> > So I don't give a lot of credence to cowards.
>
> How about bullies?

So words on an screen frighten you? Very little you and your scurrying
little friends surprise me but that one was really good. I'll
certainly treasure that one for a long time.

Date: 18 Oct 2007 13:19:26
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1192715269.700835.171310@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>SNIP
You're a faceless and nameless boob who feels the need to use a
> pseudonym

SNIP

OK Mr. Cyclintom...

Date: 18 Oct 2007 06:42:33
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 17, 10:30 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> Interesting that you talk about this, yet never name a rider or date.

And you know it is SOO important to me that I've, like, written it
down so that I could NEVER forget the radiator mechanic who was riding
the bike and the year it was in.

You know what Howard - I've seen and done a whole lot of things and
somehow I never thought it necessary to remember all the details of
these things. Unlike you whose life must be so empty that you have to
treasure every little detail of the stuff around you. Do you really
keep a diary? Does it have a pink ribbon around it?

I predict that one day you'll find true love and he'll be riding a
Harley.

Date: 18 Oct 2007 23:44:36
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192714953.741546.10170@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 17, 10:30 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting that you talk about this, yet never name a rider or date.
>
> And you know it is SOO important to me that I've, like, written it
> down so that I could NEVER forget the radiator mechanic who was riding
> the bike and the year it was in.

Well, you talk about like it's a momentous thing. Seems like it wouldn't be that
hard to remember a couple of simple details.

> You know what Howard - I've seen and done a whole lot of things and
> somehow I never thought it necessary to remember all the details of
> these things.

Actually, Tom, that's called being perceptive and self-aware. I've seen and done a
lot of things, too, but I have no trouble remembering who was driving the car when we
did well at the races. Here's the thing: you've dropped this story before and in a
way that makes it obvious that you are using it to prove how important you are (which
you commonly do). The trouble is, it has many very implausible aspects and now you
can't recall what ought to be fairly significant details. It adds up to a bad smell.

> I predict that one day you'll find true love and he'll be riding a
> Harley.

Surprise, surprise. Tom drops the homo reference. How imaginative of you.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Oct 2007 06:35:58
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 17, 10:30 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1192627557.109838.242...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 4:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1192545571.896184.327...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >http://thehill.com/
>
> > > > "In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta
> > > > Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth,
>
> > > Would that be the same Van Natta and Gerth that got everything on
> > > Whitewater
> > > wrong, Tom?
>
> > So you're saying that they're wrong here? By all means tell me - are
> > they the glorious Friends of the People if they report against
> > Conservatives and Abject Liars if they report things deleterious about
> > Ultra Liberals?
>
> No, Tom, Gerth and Van Natta have a track record of bad reporting on the Clintons,

I love it! These guys "have a track record of bad reporting" on the
CLINTONS but why they're pure magic with the conservatives huh?

> > Every time you post you demonstrate what a joke you
> > are. Maybe you ought to go turn a bolt.
>
> Right, says the Klown Prince of the group. You spend a lot of time bloviating
> about "manliness" but you aren't manly enough (or, apparently, smart enough) to know
> when someone else actually does know what they're talking about. Just look at that
> recent thread on the molding of Look cleats for a fine example.

Say, aren't you the guy who is too manly to ride with the
Freewheelers?

Date: 18 Oct 2007 23:44:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192714558.578159.302730@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 17, 10:30 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <1192627557.109838.242...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

> > No, Tom, Gerth and Van Natta have a track record of bad reporting on the
> > Clintons,
>
> I love it! These guys "have a track record of bad reporting" on the
> CLINTONS but why they're pure magic with the conservatives huh?

You're sputtering a bit there, T. Mellow out. Anyway, why would you be (or pretend
to be) surprised that reporters could be hacks and deliver conservative talking
points on the Clintons or progressives but not do the same job on conservatives?

> Say, aren't you the guy who is too manly to ride with the
> Freewheelers?

Huh?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Oct 2007 05:47:45
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 17, 8:39 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey, you don't want to believe it that's up to you.

Ironic, in that I'm one of those people who wants to believe.

Then I read your usual "I know this guy..." and I remind myself:
Forrest Gump was a movie. Only a movie...

> But then you're
> one of those guys shaking in your boots that someone might identify
> YOU.

I'm ID'd. You know that. Go pound your chest (or whatever) on your own
time, would you?

> So I don't give a lot of credence to cowards.

How about bullies?

> BTW - thanks for
> reminding me of Ascot Park in Gardena.

You never forget that for long.

> It must REALLY pain you to
> think that I had something to do with such a long standing record
> there. Until Kenny Roberts broke that record it had stood for 12
> years.

Oh no, I'm a fan of sorts. Went to the Springfield Mile a couple of
times. Hundred miles an hour for the first lap, standing start? Even
if slightly stretched, nothing but admiration for that show, here.

> Well, I personally HEARD the discussion and you can lie about it all
> you want and that doesn't change what he actually said.

So post a sound clip already. --D-y

Date: 17 Oct 2007 14:25:19
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:

> The rules only apply to the little people!

Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.

"I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
BF, 1759

Date: 18 Oct 2007 15:37:24
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> The rules only apply to the little people!
>
> Yet another example of how guvmint makes anything possible.
>
> "I suppose if the solution to the problem of guvmint is more guvmint,
> then the solution to the problem of cancer must be more cancer." -- --
> BF, 1759
>
>

http://www.governmentwedeserve.org/

Date: 17 Oct 2007 06:40:15
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 17, 12:29 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> smokey wrote:
> > There are plenty of political newsgroups on Google.
>
> Do I hear a snort from off stage ?

Probably your mother.

Date: 17 Oct 2007 06:39:44
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 8:25 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 3:11 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You can believe what you want. I happened to know one of the men who
> > was on that aborted "rescue" mission into Iran. He said that it was
> > designed to fail from the start.
>
> Was that the guy who was riding the motorcycle that broke the record
> even after the chain fell off, or the Nobel Prize winner from the dope
> lab, among the thousands of important "guys" you know?

Hey, you don't want to believe it that's up to you. But then you're
one of those guys shaking in your boots that someone might identify
YOU. So I don't give a lot of credence to cowards. BTW - thanks for
reminding me of Ascot Park in Gardena. It must REALLY pain you to
think that I had something to do with such a long standing record
there. Until Kenny Roberts broke that record it had stood for 12
years.

> The Rush bullshit is on transcript for any/all to read. USA Today,
> that bastion of the Left, covered it. Even with their slant (attempted
> gloss-over "correction"), Rush has a problem. He said "soldiers", not
> "soldier", meaning not just the one (alleged) phony mentioned in the
> story. That was a really lame attempt by USA today to wash, clean, and
> ('scuse me) press that one.

I don't read USA Today and it seems to me that when I have read it
when nothing else was available it had about the same attention to
detail as The National Enquirer so I find it interesting that you are
willing to use their claim of an added "s".

Well, I personally HEARD the discussion and you can lie about it all
you want and that doesn't change what he actually said.

Date: 17 Oct 2007 22:30:56
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192628384.161827.176550@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 16, 8:25 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 3:11 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > You can believe what you want. I happened to know one of the men who
> > > was on that aborted "rescue" mission into Iran. He said that it was
> > > designed to fail from the start.
> >
> > Was that the guy who was riding the motorcycle that broke the record
> > even after the chain fell off, or the Nobel Prize winner from the dope
> > lab, among the thousands of important "guys" you know?
>
> Hey, you don't want to believe it that's up to you. But then you're
> one of those guys shaking in your boots that someone might identify
> YOU. So I don't give a lot of credence to cowards. BTW - thanks for
> reminding me of Ascot Park in Gardena. It must REALLY pain you to
> think that I had something to do with such a long standing record
> there. Until Kenny Roberts broke that record it had stood for 12
> years.

Interesting that you talk about this, yet never name a rider or date. You know,
Ascot Raceway Park was the hotbed of flat track racing in SoCal (and quite possibly
the entire nation). There were top name riders there on a weekly basis, so the
competition was stiff. Furthermore, if the primary chain broke (as you claim), it'd
be quite surprising that the bike wouldn't sieze up due to the chain getting tangled
up in the cases. As Ascot has short turns and long straights (and the start/finish
line is a bit *past* the center of the straight), it'd be Quite Amazing Indeed for a
bike without any drive to the rear wheel to be able to coast the last part of a lap
and still be quick enough to set a lap time that was faster than all other attempts
for twelve years, particularly in light of the factors noted at the beginning of this
graf.

Call me dubious.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Oct 2007 06:29:41
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 4:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1192565501.800684.22...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Apparently you haven't any idea what the hell he said and are having
> > all sorts of fun repeating absolute lies about what he did say. I
> > don't listen much to Rush but I happened to be changing channels on
> > the car radio JUST as he said that and heard it from his very mouth.
>
> Ah, what a happy coincidence, that.

Yes indeed since I'm seldom not working in the middle of the day when
he's on the radio.

> > So I KNOW that the Democrats are lying absolutely about this and
> > you're right there to help them along.
>
> I guess the recordings of him saying it and the original transcript are fake? Huh,
> funny thing that after the loudmouth got called on it, he tried to claim that those
> bits of evidence were phony and proved it by chopping a minute and thirty-five
> seconds out of the originals.

Cutting two words out of the middle of a paragraph and presenting them
as somehow being an insult to soldiers when he was in fact talking
about those who WEREN'T really soldiers or had claimed action when
they had never been there (NOTE: The "Winter Soldier" business with
John Kerry turned out that of all of the "witnesses" he was the ONLY
one who could truthfully claim to have been in Vietnam - the rest were
stateside liars or in many cases NEVER WERE IN THE SERVICE).

The real fun is when absolute asses such as you are willing to accept
gross lies because you'd prefer that others have said that.

Date: 17 Oct 2007 22:30:54
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192627781.311577.139930@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 16, 4:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <1192565501.800684.22...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Apparently you haven't any idea what the hell he said and are having
> > > all sorts of fun repeating absolute lies about what he did say. I
> > > don't listen much to Rush but I happened to be changing channels on
> > > the car radio JUST as he said that and heard it from his very mouth.
> >
> > Ah, what a happy coincidence, that.
>
> Yes indeed since I'm seldom not working in the middle of the day when
> he's on the radio.

Uh, Tom, the point was that you *just happened* to catch the controversial bit,
live and when it happened.

> Cutting two words out of the middle of a paragraph and presenting them
> as somehow being an insult to soldiers when he was in fact talking
> about those who WEREN'T really soldiers or had claimed action when
> they had never been there

"Cutting two words out of the middle of a paragraph" isn't what happened. The
cutting of paragraphs happened when Rushbo chopped up the transcript after the fact
to alter what he said to match his lies. about it. Are you trying to say that he
wasn't calling any soldier that thinks the war in Iraq isn't a Grand Success a "phony
soldier"? Because that's exactly what he was doing.

> The real fun is when absolute asses such as you are willing to accept
> gross lies because you'd prefer that others have said that.

Gross lies like the original, uncut versions of the pill-popper's transcripts?
____________________
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers.
They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve.
They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to
sacrifice for their country.
____________________

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Oct 2007 06:25:57
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 4:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1192545571.896184.327...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >http://thehill.com/
>
> > "In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta
> > Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth,
>
> Would that be the same Van Natta and Gerth that got everything on Whitewater
> wrong, Tom?

So you're saying that they're wrong here? By all means tell me - are
they the glorious Friends of the People if they report against
Conservatives and Abject Liars if they report things deleterious about
Ultra Liberals? Every time you post you demonstrate what a joke you
are. Maybe you ought to go turn a bolt.

Date: 17 Oct 2007 22:30:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192627557.109838.242450@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 16, 4:37 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > In article <1192545571.896184.327...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >http://thehill.com/
> >
> > > "In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta
> > > Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth,
> >
> > Would that be the same Van Natta and Gerth that got everything on
> > Whitewater
> > wrong, Tom?
>
> So you're saying that they're wrong here? By all means tell me - are
> they the glorious Friends of the People if they report against
> Conservatives and Abject Liars if they report things deleterious about
> Ultra Liberals?

No, Tom, Gerth and Van Natta have a track record of bad reporting on the Clintons,
so it stands to reason to take what they say now with a grain of salt. Besides, why
aren't you getting as wrapped around the axle about the Bush admin.'s pressuring the
telecoms into turning over phone records without a warrant within *five weeks* of
assuming office? The fact that they want to push through an immunity clause in the
so-called update of FISA screams that they know what they were doing is illegal.

> Every time you post you demonstrate what a joke you
> are. Maybe you ought to go turn a bolt.

Right, says the Klown Prince of the group. You spend a lot of time bloviating
about "manliness" but you aren't manly enough (or, apparently, smart enough) to know
when someone else actually does know what they're talking about. Just look at that
recent thread on the molding of Look cleats for a fine example.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Oct 2007 20:25:17
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 3:11 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> You can believe what you want. I happened to know one of the men who
> was on that aborted "rescue" mission into Iran. He said that it was
> designed to fail from the start.

Was that the guy who was riding the motorcycle that broke the record
even after the chain fell off, or the Nobel Prize winner from the dope
lab, among the thousands of important "guys" you know?

The Rush bullshit is on transcript for any/all to read. USA Today,
that bastion of the Left, covered it. Even with their slant (attempted
gloss-over "correction"), Rush has a problem. He said "soldiers", not
"soldier", meaning not just the one (alleged) phony mentioned in the
story. That was a really lame attempt by USA today to wash, clean, and
('scuse me) press that one.

IOW, anyone who criticises is a phony, whether they served or not...

This was in the USA Today "Comments" section, sorry for lacking
attribution:

<"I'd Follow You to the Gates of Hell, Col. Rush!"

At times like this, when Cut-and-Runners are seizing control of the
country from God-loving Americans who would take this battle to the
gates of the religious fanatics around the world, I'm reminded that
America has a long tradition of Outstanding Private Citizens who,
having reaped the bounties of God's righteous capitalism, founded and
armed their own regiments to fight Jesus' good fight. Nathan Bedford
Forrest comes to mind...when confronted with the peril of the Yankee,
Forrest having been blessed with vast wealth from the cotton and slave
trades, formed his own regiment, privately paid for, which he then led
as a Colonel, to smite the Iraqi Infidels of his day. In this present
age of Private Smiting Forces (Blackwater, for example), might it not
be a good time for the Good Colonel, that Righteous Firebrand of Godly
Warfare on the radio to rise up and lead us in his own regiment in
this time. For years, the libs have branded him as a fat, bigoted loud-
mouth, too-clever by half--an elitist fatcat content to protect the
wealthy aristocracy and send others off to do the dying for him and
the American ruling class while hiding behind a microphone. Now is the
time to rise up, Col. Rush and lead us to smite the Iraqi Invaders who
attacked us on 9/11. I'm not part of the aristocracy, but I can say
that, as a commoner, I'd be honored to follow great Americans like
Lord Limbaugh and Lady Ann Coulter into battle, if only they'd lead
us! Let us smite with the bayonet, and not just the microphone! >

Rush is a Chickenhawk, don't forget. Ingrown hair follicle on his ass
plus who knows what other shenannigans, got him a pass on risking his
butt in 'Nam. Not to mention problems with getting drugs (more than
one addiction, remember) on base, I guess.

(Remember, laws only apply to the little people, even the laws that
are aimed at The Biggest Problem in the USA Today-- "white guys doing
drugs and getting away with it").

I guess he was like Dick Cheney and had other things to do besides
defend his country against that older enemy, Big C Communism?

Or maybe his apparent lassitude IRT righteous patriotic fervor had
other grounds:

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07142005.html

Enjoy! --D-y

Date: 17 Oct 2007 22:30:52
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192591517.607610.281810@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com >,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

> On Oct 16, 3:11 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You can believe what you want. I happened to know one of the men who
> > was on that aborted "rescue" mission into Iran. He said that it was
> > designed to fail from the start.
>
> Was that the guy who was riding the motorcycle that broke the record
> even after the chain fell off, or the Nobel Prize winner from the dope
> lab, among the thousands of important "guys" you know?

You forgot the Iranian prince...

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Oct 2007 16:37:33
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192545571.896184.327620@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> http://thehill.com/
>
> "In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta
> Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth,

Would that be the same Van Natta and Gerth that got everything on Whitewater
wrong, Tom?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Oct 2007 14:12:32
From: smokey
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

Date: 17 Oct 2007 09:29:20
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

smokey wrote:
> There are plenty of political newsgroups on Google.

Do I hear a snort from off stage ?

Date: 16 Oct 2007 13:11:41
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 9:07 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:39 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html
>
> Remember Iran-Contra? What was it that made that OK, again?

You can believe what you want. I happened to know one of the men who
was on that aborted "rescue" mission into Iran. He said that it was
designed to fail from the start.

> http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/iran_contra/
>
> IOW, did the CIA bring any of the drugs into the USA that figured in
> some painful family history chez Kunich?

Too bad that you'll take the word of some know-nothing and those who
lie purposely.

A couple of days ago General Sanchez raised hell with the media saying
that they were reporting false stories and were even hiring Al Queda
sympathizers in Iraq to "cover" news events.

What did the press print?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/123518.html (UPI)

"Sanchez said that in Iraq the United States is "living a nightmare
with no end in sight.""

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/13/iraq/main3363824.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3363824

"He called current strategies - including the deployment of 30,000
additional forces earlier this year - a "desperate attempt" to make up
for years of misguided policies in Iraq."

And more - All in order to do one thing - to misrepresent what the
General said.

These are the people you're willing to put first. So enjoy yourself.
With any luck the Democrats will elect Hillary and she'll be the last
President elected.

Seems like your kind of world.

> I see Limbaugh got his draft-dodging, hemorrhoid-infested ass in
> another pinch recently. His defenders are calling him a "private
> citizen".

Apparently you haven't any idea what the hell he said and are having
all sorts of fun repeating absolute lies about what he did say. I
don't listen much to Rush but I happened to be changing channels on
the car radio JUST as he said that and heard it from his very mouth.
So I KNOW that the Democrats are lying absolutely about this and
you're right there to help them along.

Date: 16 Oct 2007 16:37:36
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

In article <1192565501.800684.22660@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

> Apparently you haven't any idea what the hell he said and are having
> all sorts of fun repeating absolute lies about what he did say. I
> don't listen much to Rush but I happened to be changing channels on
> the car radio JUST as he said that and heard it from his very mouth.

Ah, what a happy coincidence, that.

> So I KNOW that the Democrats are lying absolutely about this and
> you're right there to help them along.

I guess the recordings of him saying it and the original transcript are fake? Huh,
funny thing that after the loudmouth got called on it, he tried to claim that those
bits of evidence were phony and proved it by chopping a minute and thirty-five
seconds out of the originals.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Oct 2007 09:40:47
From:
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

rec.BICYCLES.RACING

Date: 16 Oct 2007 09:07:18
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Who's Surprised?

On Oct 16, 9:39 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://thehill.com/
>
> "In their book about Clinton's rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta
> Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth,
> who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote:
> "Hillary's defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the
> microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status
> of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she
> listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of
> Clinton critics plotting their next attack.
>
> "The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface
> with allegations about an affair with Bill," Gerth and Van Natta wrote
> in reference to Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton.
> "Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the
> tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."
>
> A GOP official said, "Hillary Clinton's campaign hypocrisy continues
> to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen
> in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse
> to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being
> conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton
> can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of
> the next year."
>
> Seems like the Democrats are being shown for what they really are.

Yeah, "people who learned something from the Carter years" for one
thing.

Have allegations surfaced to the effect that Hillary has been treating
with foreign nations before the election/innaugaration or something?
That would make her, at least, equally dirty as Reagan-BushCo :

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

Remember Iran-Contra? What was it that made that OK, again?

http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/iran_contra/

IOW, did the CIA bring any of the drugs into the USA that figured in
some painful family history chez Kunich?

I see Limbaugh got his draft-dodging, hemorrhoid-infested ass in
another pinch recently. His defenders are calling him a "private
citizen". Ha ha. "Felon" would be better. Oh yeah, that's right, he
used his power and influence to escape punishment he prescribed (to
fix "the biggest problem in the country") for others who did exactly
the same thing he did but didn't want to go to jail for.

Well, why should he? The rules only apply to the little people!

Have you seen any trigger-happy convoys in California yet? --D-y