Text 19591, 154 rader
Skriven 2006-05-05 14:29:18 av JOHNJWILSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: Rush Limbaugh
=====================

-> This is the kind of crap that Sakowski posts day in and day out...

Surely you don't believe that Sakowski (and I) are the only two that
espouse such opinions?

  You warned
-> him about personal attacks on Stan, and his compliance lasted all of one
-> goddamn day.
-> 
His opinions are political ones arguing with Stan, which is
an attack on his personal political views, not his person. OK, not
necessarily his person :-)


-> His message is NOT political speech - it is a tissue of lies...

It is NOT a tissue of lies it IS political speech. So there!
Phfffft! :-)


  Every single
-> statement he made is a lie...

You mean here that you know that Bob thought otherwise when he made these
statements? Hard to believe.


, and has been proven as such...

Maybe to your satisfaction, but some pretty high-level government and
military people say otherwise.

I do envy your propensity to certitude. And I believe your opinions are
honistly held. 

I have never claimed to be an intellectual. Your cat has been fairly
assesed.

Your "White guilt" post contains several very interesting ideas
Anti-left though it be...

Very early in my life I felt grateful that I was white, a boy,
and an American. Why was I so blessed? - I've been asking myself
for most of my life. I figured army service partial pay-back...
As are taxes...

  He refuses to engage
-> in any kind of honest debate - will not discuss the pros and cons of an
issue -
-> except to call names and trash anybody who doesn't bow down and kiss his
ass.
->
His rants, extreme as they are, are becoming more correlative
with some big wigs in Washinton (who say the same thing with politer
language. This does not make the rants true nor have they been
"proven" incorrect.


 
-> We're tired of it, Gary.
-> 
No we're not, Gary

Do you want this echo to only echo the opinions from the right?
Really?


-> 
->  BS> George W. Bush trashes 700+ laws saying HE will decide which laws
he
->  BS> will obey
->  BS> and you are good with that.
->
I too object to the grasp of presidential power overstepping
the constitutional limitations, even in the midst of an
undeclared war...


->  BS> George W. Bush trashes the Constitution (it's only a goddamn piece
of
->  BS> paper,
->  BS> right?) and you are good with that.
-> 
I do think that's a valid quote...mebbie not.

->  BS> George W. Bush institutes torture as policy and you are good with
that.
-> 
Rumsfeld defends it, he micro managed it, he was in charge of
it...he 'spins' it...I am not proud of the torture done and
I don't think accountabiity has been shown.


->  BS> George W. Bush lies in order to invade another country and you are
good
->  BS> with
->  BS> that.
-> 
More and more, it appears that the war was a fraud, percieved ends
justifying means; a "noble lie" (necessary, says Plato)


->  BS> George W. Bush once again is using lies in order to go to war with
Iran
->  BS> and you
->  BS> are good with that.
->
I think Bush will get a lot of agreement vis-a-vis Iran: If Iran gets the
delivery capability, all hell could break loose...stragesic bombing, even
with tatical nukes doesn't seem too feasable...
Sanctions? China/Russia say "Fine! You sanction, we'll buy the oil."
War? Bush know, thanks to Rumsfeld, that's not an option.

 
->  BS> George W. Bush and his republican enablers in the congress fail to
->  BS> supply the
->  BS> troops with equipment necessary for their protection and you are
good with
->  BS> hat.
->
Unfair. There are no mistake-less wars.
 
->  BS> George W. Bush and his republican enablers in the congress are
placing a
->  BS> mountain of debt on our children, grandchildren and beyond and you
are
-> good
->  BS> with that.
->
Non-neo-conservatives are begining to shake in their boots
over government's reckless spending.

 
->  BS> Through all that and more, all you can do it obsess on Clinton's
penis.
->
And that is pretty much a truth :-)
 
->  BS> I understand, finally, why the army did not want you as a career
officer
->  BS> Stan,
->  BS> because it would seem that duty, honor, country is not your strong
suit.
-> 
THAT is unfortunate. I've been called worse. Hell I think _you've_
called me worse. A pity a;; 'round.

All views should be heard. Don't tire of it John, it's...uh...
...uh....it's American!

Cheers, from the left...
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)