Now to really **** you off

I'm sure Republicans of an earlier age are
turning over in their graves given the anitcs of the current crew that
bears their proud name.

Why do you hate America so much, you, you, ,,,, what the hell are you?
British, Canuckistanian, Welsh???
By the way, a very good insight into the politics of the US. Thanks.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:40:11 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:

And BTW, I'm not name calling when I label them as fascists,
I'm using the word in it's correct political context, not as a slur.
Fascism is a legitimate political philosophy, no matter how
distasteful it might be. I won't let "fascist" the slur prevent me
from using the word appropriately.

OK. You're a Nazi, but I mean it in the nicest possible
sense...G...seriously, while fascism might be argued to be a
"...legitimate political philosophy, no matter how distasteful..." so
could "violent, despotic dictatorship." And I'm pretty sure that any
government, even a violent, despotic dictatorship, would consider it a
slur to be called that. And moreover, when you look at fascism, it is a
more "middle-class" bank clerk/mid-level manager thing. Peter, you're
normally pretty accurate, but this time, IMO, you're pretty far off the
mark - good, bad, or indifferent, they just ain't fascists.

Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
familiar?

Yeah, to one degree or another, sorta like Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Thatcher, King,
Trudeau, Gorbachev, Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Blair, Bush, Chirac,
and nearly every other person who has been the leader or in a
significant leadership role of a major country (and even Canada G),
including most of the communist countries, since, oh, about the big
bang...and when it's done in a limited fashion, it's a damned good thing
that they do so.

TC,
R
Hey, Bill Gates might be richer than even he ever dreamed, but there are
a ****load of others that nobody ever heard of at Microsoft that are a
heck of a lot better off then they ever expected, too...

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
...I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.

It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich...

The most distressing aspect of this has nothing to do with ideology. People
like Milloy are no more ideologues than Hitler or Stalin were. Ideologues
are people like Marx......they are strange, unpleasant, often smell bad and,
more often than not, are pitiable. People like Hitler and Stalin......and
their followers, people like LaCourse and Bottom.....are simply murderous
pigs. People like Milloy are whores. They just don't care about humanity.
The most distressing aspect of all this is that hundreds of millions of
people all over the world......perhaps a majority.....would rather be lied
to than go through the excruciating process of thinking. They would rather
kill other people's children and offer up their own as martyrs than do what
they pretend to teach their children......to share.

Allen, are you surprised that people mistook your intention? How could a
thing like that happen......huh?

Wolfgang
oh yeah, and snedeker is an idiot.

Peter Charles writes:
snipped
God Lord, that was well-put!
thanks, Tom

In article , Peter Charles
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:51:28 -0400, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Tom
Littleton wrote:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is, the
Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to anything
other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based conclusions,
from
a
host of advisory committees. NO administration has ever done so before,
NONE!!
Tom
Tom,


Allen

As soon as I read this:

"It was quite an ironic charge coming from a self-described activist
group whose left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-biotechnology,
anti-chemical, anti-nuclear, anti-defense and anti-business screeds
embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity."

then I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.

It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich.

Am I guilty of doing the same thing? Just read the article and
similar ones by these ideologues and show me where the article isn't
at least in part about insult, invective, fear-mongering, pandering,
and ignorance. Can the left idulge in some of this? Of course it
can, but the ideology can stand on its own without it, and so can
traditional Republican (conservative) values, but this current version
can't. Without IIFP&I, it has nothing left to offer.

Hilter gained power democratically by appealing to fear and ignorance.
The "Jew" became his social bogeyman that motivated the ignorant and
selfish to vote him in. To see what I mean, take a lot of the crap
spewed about Liberals, remove "Liberal" and insert the word "Jew".

Traditional Conservatism is a proud ideology with an equally proud
history but this current crew are far more fascist than conservative.
Neo-cons are simply fascists with better PR and better suits. They
give thinking conservatives everywhere a bad name. And BTW, I'm not
name calling when I label them as fascists, I'm using the word in it's
correct political context, not as a slur. Fascism is a legitimate
political philosophy, no matter how distasteful it might be. I won't
let "fascist" the slur prevent me from using the word appropriately.
Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
familiar?

I've mentioned this a few times, but what the political discourse of
the Western World needs to do is rehabilitate the word "Fascism" so it
can be used appropriately, plus consider the possibility of creating a
new label, "Democratic Fascism", a philosophy that generally plays by
the democratic rule of law but is otherwise dedicated to the
principles of Fascism. I'm sure Republicans of an earlier age are
turning over in their graves given the anitcs of the current crew that
bears their proud name.


Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html


Peter,
I guess I get an "F" on irony. That was my whole point of posting it
was that I found the interview, the interviewee, and his website full
of right wing nonsense. Those that have actually sat down and had a
beer with me know I'm (politically) a pretty darn moderate guy.

Missed you at Penns and the Rapid Peter.

Allen
www.bullmooserepublicans.com

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
...I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.

It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich...

The most distressing aspect of this has nothing to do with ideology. People
like Milloy are no more ideologues than Hitler or Stalin were. Ideologues
are people like Marx......they are strange, unpleasant, often smell bad and,
more often than not, are pitiable. People like Hitler and Stalin......and
their followers, people like LaCourse and Bottom.....are simply murderous
pigs. People like Milloy are whores. They just don't care about humanity.
The most distressing aspect of all this is that hundreds of millions of
people all over the world......perhaps a majority.....would rather be lied
to than go through the excruciating process of thinking. They would rather
kill other people's children and offer up their own as martyrs than do what
they pretend to teach their children......to share.

Allen, are you surprised that people mistook your intention? How could a
thing like that happen......huh?

Wolfgang
oh yeah, and snedeker is an idiot.

Allen writes:
You, again miss my point and showed that you never even looked at the
link.

I did, actually.

And you're a ****ing head in the sand idiot if you think that ALL
administrations, federal, state and local have not manipulated science
for their goals.

see my posts, elsewhere. I agree, but the science continued.

Good god man they're politicians. It's not even worth
debating who's worse than whom.

unfortunately, yes, it is worth it. It has gotten to that.
Tom

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:51:28 -0400, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Tom
Littleton wrote:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is, the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to anything
other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based conclusions, from
a
host of advisory committees. NO administration has ever done so before,
NONE!!
Tom
Tom,


Allen

As soon as I read this:

"It was quite an ironic charge coming from a self-described activist
group whose left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-biotechnology,
anti-chemical, anti-nuclear, anti-defense and anti-business screeds
embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity."

then I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.

It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich.

Am I guilty of doing the same thing? Just read the article and
similar ones by these ideologues and show me where the article isn't
at least in part about insult, invective, fear-mongering, pandering,
and ignorance. Can the left idulge in some of this? Of course it
can, but the ideology can stand on its own without it, and so can
traditional Republican (conservative) values, but this current version
can't. Without IIFP&I, it has nothing left to offer.

Hilter gained power democratically by appealing to fear and ignorance.
The "Jew" became his social bogeyman that motivated the ignorant and
selfish to vote him in. To see what I mean, take a lot of the crap
spewed about Liberals, remove "Liberal" and insert the word "Jew".

Traditional Conservatism is a proud ideology with an equally proud
history but this current crew are far more fascist than conservative.
Neo-cons are simply fascists with better PR and better suits. They
give thinking conservatives everywhere a bad name. And BTW, I'm not
name calling when I label them as fascists, I'm using the word in it's
correct political context, not as a slur. Fascism is a legitimate
political philosophy, no matter how distasteful it might be. I won't
let "fascist" the slur prevent me from using the word appropriately.
Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
familiar?

I've mentioned this a few times, but what the political discourse of
the Western World needs to do is rehabilitate the word "Fascism" so it
can be used appropriately, plus consider the possibility of creating a
new label, "Democratic Fascism", a philosophy that generally plays by
the democratic rule of law but is otherwise dedicated to the
principles of Fascism. I'm sure Republicans of an earlier age are
turning over in their graves given the anitcs of the current crew that
bears their proud name.


Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist".

Allen, why do you assume all scientiests are either left-wing wackos
or right-wing wackos?

Most scientists I've known over the past 40 years have been pretty
solid, thoughtful, moderate people.

Scientific training encourages one to be careful not to "go beyond the
data" and to be skeptical of evidence until it's corroborated.

This doesn't always carry over into one's life away from the lab, but
it tends to.

In any case, how would you KNOW if a scientist is a left- or
right-wing wacko?

vince

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
I don't believe left wing wacko "scientist" any more than I believe
right wing wacko "scientist".


In any case, how would you KNOW if a scientist is a left- or
right-wing wacko?

vince

A left-wing wacko scientist gets his/her groceries from federal grants.

A right-wing wacko scientist gets his/her groceries from federal salary.

Conjecture based on experience.

John