Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
Jul 29th 2006 | 12:24 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
>From the Washington Post:
Pander and Run
Friday, July 28, 2006
"After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept.
11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's
called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine
sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more
enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay.
It's jingoism with a liberal face.
The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House
members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either
retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address
Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by
U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's
puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because,
unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have
no hope of surviving on its own.
Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he
articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different
from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising:
Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab
country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion.
Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of
political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.
But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words
or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn
Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself
raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can
play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing
stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens.
Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.
How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an
American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never
explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really
about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W.
Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White
House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.
Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February
Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for
allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over
operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats
insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact
homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not
represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats'
attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration,
playing against type, argued that America's long-term security required
treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially
countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against
jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after
spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world
opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such
logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political
cheap shot -- their very own Panama Canal moment -- in which they
proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.
Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was
considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who
had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans
to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's
government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their
arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would
never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to
carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important
negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they
could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats
congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right,
unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for
Iraqi peace in the process.
Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly
been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a
competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even
politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single
biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats
are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that
they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the
party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to
understand why."
Pander and Run
Friday, July 28, 2006
"After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept.
11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's
called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine
sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more
enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay.
It's jingoism with a liberal face.
The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House
members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either
retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address
Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by
U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's
puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because,
unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have
no hope of surviving on its own.
Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he
articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different
from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising:
Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab
country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion.
Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of
political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.
But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words
or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn
Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself
raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can
play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing
stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens.
Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.
How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an
American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never
explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really
about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W.
Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White
House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.
Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February
Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for
allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over
operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats
insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact
homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not
represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats'
attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration,
playing against type, argued that America's long-term security required
treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially
countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against
jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after
spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world
opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such
logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political
cheap shot -- their very own Panama Canal moment -- in which they
proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.
Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was
considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who
had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans
to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's
government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their
arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would
never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to
carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important
negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they
could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats
congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right,
unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for
Iraqi peace in the process.
Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly
been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a
competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even
politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single
biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats
are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that
they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the
party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to
understand why."
Jul 29th 2006 | 2:23 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>From the Washington Post:
<lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
Peej,
Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>>From the Washington Post:
<lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
Peej,
Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Jul 29th 2006 | 3:07 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
Funny. I thought that getting mad that we installed an openly
pro-terrorist government in Iraq justified. I'm not paying taxes so
that Bush can create another radical terrorist religious fundementalist
government in the Middle East. I paid my taxes so that Bush could
destroy all those WMDs that he promised us that Iraq had. No WMDs.
Instead, it turns out that he just wanted to turn off the flow of oil
so as to raise oil prices for his friends at Exxon and Chevron. On top
of that, he installs a radical pro-terrorist government.
God, Republican policies make me sick.
------------
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> >From the Washington Post:
> Pander and Run
> Friday, July 28, 2006
> "After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept.
> 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's
> called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine
> sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more
> enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay.
> It's jingoism with a liberal face.
> The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House
> members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either
> retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address
> Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by
> U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's
> puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because,
> unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have
> no hope of surviving on its own.
> Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he
> articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different
> from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising:
> Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab
> country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion.
> Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of
> political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.
> But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
> Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words
> or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn
> Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself
> raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can
> play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing
> stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens.
> Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.
> How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an
> American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never
> explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really
> about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W.
> Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White
> House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.
> Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February
> Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for
> allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over
> operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats
> insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact
> homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not
> represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats'
> attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration,
> playing against type, argued that America's long-term security required
> treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially
> countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against
> jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after
> spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world
> opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such
> logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political
> cheap shot -- their very own Panama Canal moment -- in which they
> proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.
> Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was
> considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who
> had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans
> to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's
> government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their
> arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would
> never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to
> carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important
> negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they
> could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats
> congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right,
> unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for
> Iraqi peace in the process.
> Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly
> been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a
> competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even
> politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single
> biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats
> are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that
> they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the
> party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to
> understand why."
pro-terrorist government in Iraq justified. I'm not paying taxes so
that Bush can create another radical terrorist religious fundementalist
government in the Middle East. I paid my taxes so that Bush could
destroy all those WMDs that he promised us that Iraq had. No WMDs.
Instead, it turns out that he just wanted to turn off the flow of oil
so as to raise oil prices for his friends at Exxon and Chevron. On top
of that, he installs a radical pro-terrorist government.
God, Republican policies make me sick.
------------
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> >From the Washington Post:
> Pander and Run
> Friday, July 28, 2006
> "After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept.
> 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's
> called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine
> sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more
> enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay.
> It's jingoism with a liberal face.
> The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House
> members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either
> retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address
> Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by
> U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's
> puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because,
> unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have
> no hope of surviving on its own.
> Maliki took a small step in that direction this week when he
> articulated a view of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict quite different
> from that of the Bush administration. His views were hardly surprising:
> Iraq is not only a majority-Arab country; it is a majority-Shiite Arab
> country. And in a democracy, leaders usually reflect public opinion.
> Maliki's forthright disagreement with the United States was a sign of
> political strength, one the Bush administration wisely indulged.
> But not congressional Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
> Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words
> or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn
> Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself
> raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can
> play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing
> stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens.
> Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.
> How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an
> American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never
> explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really
> about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W.
> Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White
> House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.
> Reid's letter is not an anomaly; it is part of a pattern. In February
> Democrats (and some Republicans) slammed the Bush administration for
> allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over
> operation, though not management, of several U.S. ports. Democrats
> insisted that they were standing up for homeland security, but in fact
> homeland security experts overwhelmingly said the move did not
> represent a security risk. The principle animating the Democrats'
> attack was not security, it was politics. The Bush administration,
> playing against type, argued that America's long-term security required
> treating Arab countries with fairness and respect, especially
> countries, such as the UAE, that assist us in the struggle against
> jihadist terrorism. One might have thought that the Democrats, after
> spending years denouncing the Bush administration for alienating world
> opinion and thus leaving America isolated and weak, would find such
> logic compelling. But what they found more compelling was a political
> cheap shot -- their very own Panama Canal moment -- in which they
> proved they could be just as nativist as the GOP.
> Then, in June, the media reported that the Iraqi government was
> considering an amnesty for insurgents, perhaps including insurgents who
> had killed U.S. troops. Obviously the prospect was hard for Americans
> to stomach. But the larger context was equally obvious: Unless Maliki's
> government gave local Sunni insurgents an incentive to lay down their
> arms and break with al-Qaeda-style jihadists, Iraq's violence would
> never end. Democrats, however, rather than giving Maliki the freedom to
> carry out his extremely difficult and enormously important
> negotiations, made amnesty an issue in every congressional race they
> could, thus tying the prime minister's hands. Once again, Democrats
> congratulated themselves for having gotten to President Bush's right,
> unperturbed by the fact that they may have undermined the chances for
> Iraqi peace in the process.
> Privately, some Democrats, while admitting that they haven't exactly
> been taking the high road, say they have no choice, that in a
> competition with Karl Rove, nice guys finish last. But even
> politically, that's probably wrong. The Democratic Party's single
> biggest foreign policy liability is not that Americans think Democrats
> are soft. It is that Americans think Democrats stand for nothing, that
> they have no principles beyond political expedience. And given the
> party's behavior over the past several months, it is not hard to
> understand why."
Jul 29th 2006 | 4:20 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
<No WMDs.......
God, Republican policies make me sick.
DefendUSA>
10/17/2005
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to
give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq could face a
political problem - ...
..Their pro-war votes -... - could haunt them as they seek early
support among die-hard Democrats and gauge whether to launch formal
candidacies for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.."
"In a 97-0 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate signed off on the
money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill...."
97-0, leftists!
And the beat goes on...
President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
support for his
Iraq Liberation Act
HR.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent (including *ALL*
Democrats).
The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in '03.
God, Republican policies make me sick.
DefendUSA>
10/17/2005
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to
give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq could face a
political problem - ...
..Their pro-war votes -... - could haunt them as they seek early
support among die-hard Democrats and gauge whether to launch formal
candidacies for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.."
"In a 97-0 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate signed off on the
money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill...."
97-0, leftists!
And the beat goes on...
President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
support for his
Iraq Liberation Act
HR.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent (including *ALL*
Democrats).
The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in '03.
Jul 29th 2006 | 10:58 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
cross posting troll
Jul 29th 2006 | 3:40 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>From the Washington Post:
> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
> Peej,
> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."
Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> --
> PB
> The return address has been MUNGED
> My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
news:[email protected]...
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>From the Washington Post:
> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
> Peej,
> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."
Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> --
> PB
> The return address has been MUNGED
> My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Jul 30th 2006 | 12:51 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
> ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
> now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
> anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
> Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
> death your right to say it."
The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
opinion contrary to theirs.
Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
nation under God, or get the hell out!"
Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.
Pete
> ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
> now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
> anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
> Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
> death your right to say it."
The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
opinion contrary to theirs.
Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
nation under God, or get the hell out!"
Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.
Pete
Jul 30th 2006 | 1:28 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
oh minding about OT now just because it is right wing ???
Just mind about ALL OT's and it will be fine, but there is a lot to sweep
away on rec.travel.europe...
"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email protected]...
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>From the Washington Post:
> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
> Peej,
> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
> --
> PB
> The return address has been MUNGED
> My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Just mind about ALL OT's and it will be fine, but there is a lot to sweep
away on rec.travel.europe...
"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news: [email protected]...
> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>From the Washington Post:
> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
> Peej,
> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
> --
> PB
> The return address has been MUNGED
> My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Jul 30th 2006 | 2:37 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
"Planet Visitor II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>From the Washington Post:
>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>> Peej,
>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>to say it."
>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
Let's see if I understand this: Peej posts off-topic right-wing stuff
here, and it is freedom of speech; I ask him to **** off, and it is a
denial of freedom of speech.
So tell me: why should I not have the freedom to ask Peej to **** off?
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>From the Washington Post:
>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>> Peej,
>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>to say it."
>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
Let's see if I understand this: Peej posts off-topic right-wing stuff
here, and it is freedom of speech; I ask him to **** off, and it is a
denial of freedom of speech.
So tell me: why should I not have the freedom to ask Peej to **** off?
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Jul 30th 2006 | 4:50 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>> ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
>> now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
>> anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
>> Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
>> death your right to say it."
> The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
> and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
> them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
> branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
> and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
> that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
> of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
> opinion contrary to theirs.
> Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
> especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
> and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
> religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
> nation under God, or get the hell out!"
My point was that "freedom of speech" should not be an issue
between the left and the right, but it is. In this particular case,
a leftist was shouting down views which disagreed with his,
insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel." While not addressing
a single point raised by that "right wing" poster. Telling the poster
to essentially "shut the **** up." If he had been civil about it,
it would not have raised my comment. He could have politely
said -- "Please limit your comments to the newsgroup you
intend them to go to." Or "Please do not cross-post to
rec.travel.europe." In which case I would have silently applauded
his comment. But if that left-wing critic cannot remain civil,
how can he expect a civil answer?
Understand that I do not disagree with much of what you say,
while my criticism was meant to express disgust with a left-wing
comment meant to deny freedom of speech from those who hold
views different from his.
In the interest of civility in rec.travel.europe I will not engage in any
dialog regarding the differences between the left and right in that
group. I understand that you already have one "cross to bear"
with the anti-American raving of Earl Evleth.
Perhaps you might consider contributing to alt.activism.death-penalty,
since if you are from the left they can use all the help they can muster,
given the brutal intellectual savaging they have experienced in opposing
the death penalty, in a group dedicated to supporting and improving the
death penalty in the U.S.
> Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.
And that means it should be irrelevant?
Yours in humble respect for your views...
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> Pete
>
>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>> ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
>> now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
>> anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
>> Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
>> death your right to say it."
> The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
> and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
> them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
> branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
> and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
> that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
> of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
> opinion contrary to theirs.
> Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
> especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
> and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
> religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
> nation under God, or get the hell out!"
My point was that "freedom of speech" should not be an issue
between the left and the right, but it is. In this particular case,
a leftist was shouting down views which disagreed with his,
insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel." While not addressing
a single point raised by that "right wing" poster. Telling the poster
to essentially "shut the **** up." If he had been civil about it,
it would not have raised my comment. He could have politely
said -- "Please limit your comments to the newsgroup you
intend them to go to." Or "Please do not cross-post to
rec.travel.europe." In which case I would have silently applauded
his comment. But if that left-wing critic cannot remain civil,
how can he expect a civil answer?
Understand that I do not disagree with much of what you say,
while my criticism was meant to express disgust with a left-wing
comment meant to deny freedom of speech from those who hold
views different from his.
In the interest of civility in rec.travel.europe I will not engage in any
dialog regarding the differences between the left and right in that
group. I understand that you already have one "cross to bear"
with the anti-American raving of Earl Evleth.
Perhaps you might consider contributing to alt.activism.death-penalty,
since if you are from the left they can use all the help they can muster,
given the brutal intellectual savaging they have experienced in opposing
the death penalty, in a group dedicated to supporting and improving the
death penalty in the U.S.
> Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.
And that means it should be irrelevant?
Yours in humble respect for your views...
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> Pete
>
Jul 30th 2006 | 5:58 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:40:28 -0500, "Planet Visitor II"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>From the Washington Post:
>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>> Peej,
>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>to say it."
>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
What a ****ing stupid thing to say, considering that he was merely
speaking freely.
Are you drunk/high/stupid?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>From the Washington Post:
>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>> Peej,
>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>to say it."
>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
What a ****ing stupid thing to say, considering that he was merely
speaking freely.
Are you drunk/high/stupid?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Jul 30th 2006 | 8:28 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
<follow-ups appropriately redirected>
Planet Visitor II wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>>> ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
>>> now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
>>> anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
>>> Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
>>> death your right to say it."
>> The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
>> and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
>> them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
>> branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
>> and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
>> that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
>> of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
>> opinion contrary to theirs.
>> Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
>> especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
>> and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
>> religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
>> nation under God, or get the hell out!"
> My point was that "freedom of speech" should not be an issue
> between the left and the right, but it is. In this particular case,
> a leftist was shouting down views which disagreed with his,
> insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel."
<snip>
IOW, he was exercising his right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. He was obviously
stating his OPINION, to which he is entirely entitled, be it right, wrong,
rude or civil.
Not to mention, he in NO WAY WHATSOEVER impinged on the ANYONE'S right to
say whatever that **** they want, completely contrary to your unsupported,
fuzzy logic, thinly veiled assertions of censorship.
The fact is, NOBODY IN ANY WAY impinged on anyone else's right to express
themselves in any way they choose. It NEVER HAPPENED. NO ONE was in ANY WAY
prevented from saying ANYTHING. Nobody, and by that, I mean NOT ANYBODY, can
"shout down" anyone here. There is no volume control on Usenet, nor is
civility a requisite attribute of free speech.
You see, contentious debate is the very essence of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Witness your responses. Neither I nor anyone else has any right to stop you
from espousing asinine cognitive diarrhea in the form of a scotch tape and
rubber band tautology that would, and rightly so, embarrass a 4th grader.You
have every right to fart incredible whatever incredible idiocy you wish.
Concurrently, I have every right to point out that it is, indeed, idiocy and
state exactly why. I have every right to express disgust with your drivel,
as the OR did with the OP's drivel, and to poke yet more holes in your leaky
sieve of an argument.
I also have every right to point out the painfully irony of your fool's
choice to attack what you wrongly perceive as an attack on freedom of speech
with - wait for it - AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Your ONLY point here is
you didn't like what the OR said about the OP. Tough shit. Nobody cares what
YOU like.
I have no idea if you are on the left or the right or in the middle,
politically. Nor do I give a skinny rat's ass. Foolishness is not a purely
partisan trait. Nor is an utter inability to analyze an argument using even
the most basic logic. Idiots and fools can be found in disturbingly large
concentrations across the entire political spectrum.
You are absolutely right that all of this is off topic for RTE, with the
possible exception of how it might affect impressions of, and consequently
treatment of, Americans traveling abroad. AFAIK, that hasn't been brought up
in this thread, rendering pretty much all of it off topic, including my
response. Yet there/here it is.
Anyone could have steered the discussion back on topic at any time. Anyone
can choose to simply ignore off topic intrusions, as many no doubt did.
Anyone could have trimmed their responses and/or follow-ups, as I have done,
to deflect the discussion back to where it more properly belongs. Nobody
did.
BFD. No real harm done.
But you do win a prize!
Congratulations! You have been unanimously awarded the prestigious Irony
Cross! How terribly proud you must be at a moment like this...
Now, are you clear on this whole "free speech" thing or shall we tattoo it
backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
That, BTW and FYI, is what is known sarcasm, which, along with its kissin'
cousin parody, is one of the most protected forms of speech. I don't really
think you're an idiot. I merely think your argument is unsupported by any of
the available facts. That, and I find humor in such blatant irony.
Schadenfruede it may be, but so it goes.
Let freedom ring, baby!
(but please try to stay on topic)
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on
tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th
percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
------
Planet Visitor II wrote:
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>>> ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is
>>> now dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly
>>> anything PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to
>>> Voltaire -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the
>>> death your right to say it."
>> The left started the death of freedom of speech during the 1980s
>> and 1990s with their reactions against anyone who disagreed with
>> them. If you made comments against any black person, you were
>> branded racist. The same was true of anything related to sexism
>> and orientationism (if that is a word). The left went so far down
>> that road that on a few American university campuses entire editions
>> of student newspapers were stolen by lefties intent on suppressing an
>> opinion contrary to theirs.
>> Now the right has taken the same approach. Republicans,
>> especially Fox News, accuse anyone who disagrees with Bush
>> and his war policy as being un-American. The same is true of
>> religion. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "One
>> nation under God, or get the hell out!"
> My point was that "freedom of speech" should not be an issue
> between the left and the right, but it is. In this particular case,
> a leftist was shouting down views which disagreed with his,
> insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel."
<snip>
IOW, he was exercising his right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. He was obviously
stating his OPINION, to which he is entirely entitled, be it right, wrong,
rude or civil.
Not to mention, he in NO WAY WHATSOEVER impinged on the ANYONE'S right to
say whatever that **** they want, completely contrary to your unsupported,
fuzzy logic, thinly veiled assertions of censorship.
The fact is, NOBODY IN ANY WAY impinged on anyone else's right to express
themselves in any way they choose. It NEVER HAPPENED. NO ONE was in ANY WAY
prevented from saying ANYTHING. Nobody, and by that, I mean NOT ANYBODY, can
"shout down" anyone here. There is no volume control on Usenet, nor is
civility a requisite attribute of free speech.
You see, contentious debate is the very essence of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Witness your responses. Neither I nor anyone else has any right to stop you
from espousing asinine cognitive diarrhea in the form of a scotch tape and
rubber band tautology that would, and rightly so, embarrass a 4th grader.You
have every right to fart incredible whatever incredible idiocy you wish.
Concurrently, I have every right to point out that it is, indeed, idiocy and
state exactly why. I have every right to express disgust with your drivel,
as the OR did with the OP's drivel, and to poke yet more holes in your leaky
sieve of an argument.
I also have every right to point out the painfully irony of your fool's
choice to attack what you wrongly perceive as an attack on freedom of speech
with - wait for it - AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Your ONLY point here is
you didn't like what the OR said about the OP. Tough shit. Nobody cares what
YOU like.
I have no idea if you are on the left or the right or in the middle,
politically. Nor do I give a skinny rat's ass. Foolishness is not a purely
partisan trait. Nor is an utter inability to analyze an argument using even
the most basic logic. Idiots and fools can be found in disturbingly large
concentrations across the entire political spectrum.
You are absolutely right that all of this is off topic for RTE, with the
possible exception of how it might affect impressions of, and consequently
treatment of, Americans traveling abroad. AFAIK, that hasn't been brought up
in this thread, rendering pretty much all of it off topic, including my
response. Yet there/here it is.
Anyone could have steered the discussion back on topic at any time. Anyone
can choose to simply ignore off topic intrusions, as many no doubt did.
Anyone could have trimmed their responses and/or follow-ups, as I have done,
to deflect the discussion back to where it more properly belongs. Nobody
did.
BFD. No real harm done.
But you do win a prize!
Congratulations! You have been unanimously awarded the prestigious Irony
Cross! How terribly proud you must be at a moment like this...
Now, are you clear on this whole "free speech" thing or shall we tattoo it
backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
That, BTW and FYI, is what is known sarcasm, which, along with its kissin'
cousin parody, is one of the most protected forms of speech. I don't really
think you're an idiot. I merely think your argument is unsupported by any of
the available facts. That, and I find humor in such blatant irony.
Schadenfruede it may be, but so it goes.
Let freedom ring, baby!
(but please try to stay on topic)
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on
tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th
percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
------
Jul 30th 2006 | 1:35 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
> My point was that "freedom of speech" should not be an issue
> between the left and the right, but it is.
I agree.
> In this particular case, a leftist was shouting down views which
> disagreed with his, insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel."
It is possible for opinions to be mindless right (or left) wing drivel,
but only if someone is repeating another's opinions without giving
it some analysis. I have no idea if that was the case here.
> In the interest of civility in rec.travel.europe
Civility on an Internet newsgroup? Surely you jest.
> I understand that you already have one "cross to bear"
> with the anti-American raving of Earl Evleth.
I wouldn't consider Earl to be anti-American. My beef with him
is that he constantly posts OT news.
> if you are from the left
Oh no. I think the left is as bad as the right today. I hold opinions
from both extremes after carefully analyzing each issue, i.e. I am
an independent thinker.
>> Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.
> And that means it should be irrelevant?
Not at all. Methinks you misunderstood my meaning. Voltaire
should be relevant everywhere, all the time - but in reality he is not.
Pete
> between the left and the right, but it is.
I agree.
> In this particular case, a leftist was shouting down views which
> disagreed with his, insisting they are "mindless right wing-drivel."
It is possible for opinions to be mindless right (or left) wing drivel,
but only if someone is repeating another's opinions without giving
it some analysis. I have no idea if that was the case here.
> In the interest of civility in rec.travel.europe
Civility on an Internet newsgroup? Surely you jest.
> I understand that you already have one "cross to bear"
> with the anti-American raving of Earl Evleth.
I wouldn't consider Earl to be anti-American. My beef with him
is that he constantly posts OT news.
> if you are from the left
Oh no. I think the left is as bad as the right today. I hold opinions
from both extremes after carefully analyzing each issue, i.e. I am
an independent thinker.
>> Voltaire became irrelevant long ago in the USA.
> And that means it should be irrelevant?
Not at all. Methinks you misunderstood my meaning. Voltaire
should be relevant everywhere, all the time - but in reality he is not.
Pete
Jul 30th 2006 | 3:21 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Planet Visitor II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>From the Washington Post:
>>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>>> Peej,
>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>>to say it."
>>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
> Let's see if I understand this: Peej posts off-topic right-wing stuff
> here, and it is freedom of speech; I ask him to **** off, and it is a
> denial of freedom of speech.
That's about it.
> So tell me: why should I not have the freedom to ask Peej to **** off?
Huh??? You can certainly do it, but you are denying him HIS freedom
of speech in what you insist is the exercise of yours. I suppose you
could argue that you would be exercising the "supreme sovereignty"
of your body by also pistol whipping him into submission.
Let me put this to you... you also have the "right" to be a neo-Nazi, or
even a racist, but is that how you want others to see you? Now
do not take this the wrong way... I am not calling you a neo-Nazi or a
racist. Not in the slightest. I am only making the point of how you
want others to see you -- as someone concerned with the freedom
of speech of another, or simply someone willing to shout down another
in a Fascist expression of your own freedom of speech? It's all about
how others perceive you. When you act out in what I found to be an
immature manner in the way you did, you essentially lower your
standards well below those of the one you are complaining about...
while no one is saying you do not have the right to lower your own
standards using your freedom of speech. Yet you do want to appear
BETTER than he is, don't you?
What would have been "right" would have been for you to be more
civil, and suggest that he consider not cross posting to rec.travel.europe,
since you have enough problems dealing with Earl Evleth exercising
his freedom of speech in rec.travel.europe.
Nonetheless, it appears I am communicating with a cretin, so please
exercise your freedom of speech in telling others to "shut the **** up,"
as much as you wish. Tell me to do so, if it pleases you. I am sure
rec.travel.europe has enough trouble dealing with you exercising
your freedom of speech for me to concern myself with it. So....
never mind....
With warm personal regards, I remain respectfully....
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> --
> PB
> The return address has been MUNGED
> My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
news:[email protected]...
> "Planet Visitor II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>From the Washington Post:
>>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>>> Peej,
>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>>to say it."
>>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
> Let's see if I understand this: Peej posts off-topic right-wing stuff
> here, and it is freedom of speech; I ask him to **** off, and it is a
> denial of freedom of speech.
That's about it.
> So tell me: why should I not have the freedom to ask Peej to **** off?
Huh??? You can certainly do it, but you are denying him HIS freedom
of speech in what you insist is the exercise of yours. I suppose you
could argue that you would be exercising the "supreme sovereignty"
of your body by also pistol whipping him into submission.
Let me put this to you... you also have the "right" to be a neo-Nazi, or
even a racist, but is that how you want others to see you? Now
do not take this the wrong way... I am not calling you a neo-Nazi or a
racist. Not in the slightest. I am only making the point of how you
want others to see you -- as someone concerned with the freedom
of speech of another, or simply someone willing to shout down another
in a Fascist expression of your own freedom of speech? It's all about
how others perceive you. When you act out in what I found to be an
immature manner in the way you did, you essentially lower your
standards well below those of the one you are complaining about...
while no one is saying you do not have the right to lower your own
standards using your freedom of speech. Yet you do want to appear
BETTER than he is, don't you?
What would have been "right" would have been for you to be more
civil, and suggest that he consider not cross posting to rec.travel.europe,
since you have enough problems dealing with Earl Evleth exercising
his freedom of speech in rec.travel.europe.
Nonetheless, it appears I am communicating with a cretin, so please
exercise your freedom of speech in telling others to "shut the **** up,"
as much as you wish. Tell me to do so, if it pleases you. I am sure
rec.travel.europe has enough trouble dealing with you exercising
your freedom of speech for me to concern myself with it. So....
never mind....
With warm personal regards, I remain respectfully....
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> --
> PB
> The return address has been MUNGED
> My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Jul 30th 2006 | 4:21 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Even the Washington Post now claims the Left has no real Mideast policy, just anti- Bush political posturing
"Dave Frightens Me" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:40:28 -0500, "Planet Visitor II"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>From the Washington Post:
>>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>>> Peej,
>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>>to say it."
>>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
> What a ****ing stupid thing to say, considering that he was merely
> speaking freely.
> Are you drunk/high/stupid?
Temper, temper, Dave (or whatever)... you apparently do not have the
slightest idea that I pay not one bit of attention to your raving since I
looked at your very first post in AADP. But let me put this to you... I
do not deny him his freedom of speech to be a Nazi, or a racist, or
a preacher of hate, or uses his freedom of speech to claim he can
heal the crippled, cancer ridden, or lame if only one calls 1-800-555-5555
with a sizeable contribution, or uses it to be a "shudder" Socialist, or
even if he is the most stupid person in the world. It's his choice. I
was just hoping he could rise above it. Now I realize that I was
overly optimistic, and should be more concerned about you
rising above it. So you may now return to your other ravings using
your freedom of speech.
With warm personal regards, and deep concern that you stay on
your psychotropic meds... I remain, respectfully...
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> --
> ---
> DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
> ---
> --
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:40:28 -0500, "Planet Visitor II"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>From the Washington Post:
>>> <lots of stuff irrelevant to rec.travel.europe>
>>> Peej,
>>> Please **** off with your mindless right-wing drivel.
>>ROTFLMAO... The left-wing insists that freedom of speech is now
>>dead. Sounds quite fascist to me. I don't agree with hardly anything
>>PJ produces, but as the words commonly attribute to Voltaire --
>>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>>to say it."
>>Too bad you find yourself on the other side of that argument.
> What a ****ing stupid thing to say, considering that he was merely
> speaking freely.
> Are you drunk/high/stupid?
Temper, temper, Dave (or whatever)... you apparently do not have the
slightest idea that I pay not one bit of attention to your raving since I
looked at your very first post in AADP. But let me put this to you... I
do not deny him his freedom of speech to be a Nazi, or a racist, or
a preacher of hate, or uses his freedom of speech to claim he can
heal the crippled, cancer ridden, or lame if only one calls 1-800-555-5555
with a sizeable contribution, or uses it to be a "shudder" Socialist, or
even if he is the most stupid person in the world. It's his choice. I
was just hoping he could rise above it. Now I realize that I was
overly optimistic, and should be more concerned about you
rising above it. So you may now return to your other ravings using
your freedom of speech.
With warm personal regards, and deep concern that you stay on
your psychotropic meds... I remain, respectfully...
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
> --
> ---
> DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
> ---
> --
