In article ,
says...
jps wrote:


And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact.

You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those
"editorials" which support your biased viewpoint?

I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any
signs of progress.

Your biased opinions are not enlightening. That you pass them off as
fact is intellectually irresponsible.

I do not "pass them off as fact" I merely post them to perhaps soften
your thick skull. You're probably not the best subject.


In reality (which
is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and
speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal
motives for what he says here so speculative.

The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush
Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the
speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism.

What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal
motives?

Principle. Something you should "edify" yourself on.

WTF are you talking about? Principle? How are these two things related
by principle? The Bush Administration's policies are stated publicly
and we have plenty of smart people's insight from which to draw. I
don't know how you could consider Wilbur an expert on Harry's private
affairs since Harry doesn't publish them nor is it in any way obvious
the nature of his motivation other than as a past time.

You are the one who needs edifying on Principles. Talk to your wife
about the government's desire to control her reproductive rights. Let
us all know what she says and tell us about how your principles match
up.


Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush
administration isn't.

No, but you claiming certain things about the Bush Administration's
motives is stating your opinion. And like in your example of Wilbur and
Harry, you know nothing about it.



Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration
than Joe blow from Hackensack?

No, and I don't attempt to present myself as if I do.

Likewise, my opinions are my opinions. The fact that I present them
strongly doesn't preclude that "fact."


Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken
Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who
harbor them?

Yes, so what's your point? Can you prove any of these alleged
"connections"? Until you can, you're only speculating.

Speculating based on stated ambitions and the results of those
ambitions? That's not speculation, it's opinion. Look up the
definitions and get "edified."


What is there to know other than this?

If you had any character and intellectual honesty, you'd already know
the answwer to this.

Again, go ask your wife about her rights to reproduce or not. Until
then, don'talk to me about "intellectual honesty." Yours seems to come
straight from the Republican doctrine.

You probably cast yourself as a "conservative." I have news for you,
the Republicans are anything but conservative at this point in history.
Perhaps you should take this opportunity to "edify" yourself.



And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a
conclusion, which is even more outrageous.

And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly
quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is
even more outrageous.

There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but
innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush.

Again, your opinion. Most of what I've heard Rush state, are true
happenings. He may spin them a little more to appeal to certain
emotions, but the underlying factoid is true. And calling the liberals
for the manipulative, scheming, divisive, and conniving weasels that
they are, is not "hate" it's bringing appalling activities into the
public light.

Appalling activities like Head Start, protecting the environment,
desiring equal education for all, hoping to protect people from cultural
and race discrimination, protecting the middle class, trying to create
education and jobs for people that'll be more than poverty wage based,
etc.???????

There's no culture of greed in the liberal doctrine as in the
Republican, it's about looking out for others and the world we live in.

Get a ****ing clue Dave. Rush is there to rip things apart and sell
little tiny ideas to dense idiots like yourself.

Taken apart, it's
nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came
to a conclusion based on those assumption.

Much like you do when you read (and then post here) the political tripe
that you think is "objective journalism".

You rag on me about reading "objective journalism" when you listen to
the crap that Rush spews??? He's admitted publicly that half the ****
he comes up with is simply to ignite people and keep his listenership.
At least journalists are trying to do honest work. Rush is a bold faced
liar.


Your logic is flawed, your loyalties are clear. You have nothing in
that head resembling independent thought.

My logic is, as always, sound. That you cannot see that you are guilty
of the same things that you accuse others of is almost laughable.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!


Dave, did you ever approach your wife to ask her if she thinks the
government shoud have a say is whether she should procreate or not.

Did you ask your wife whether she thinks the government should take more
of her money to feed and care for illegal aliens?

Yes, she's in favor. She wants to make certain kids are fed and given a
proper education.

Now, go ask your wife about her reproductive rights and what the
government should be able to demand of her.

My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to
yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and
you break out of your box to your true remailing self.

Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle.

But it's still crap.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I just thank God it's
yours and not mine.

The sad irony is that you can't even see it.

See what? See, I'm using your logic now.

The sad part of this is that you'd spend so much time mounting such weak
arguments.

But at least my arguements are based on more than speculative opinions.


Who says, you?

"jps" wrote in message
...


Appalling activities like Head Start.....snip

Head Start is pure nonsense. If infants can't earn a living and buy their
own damned baby formula or day care, I say phuck 'em. It makes no sense to
introduce people to welfare at such a young age.

In article ,
says...
"jps" wrote in message
...


Appalling activities like Head Start.....snip

Head Start is pure nonsense. If infants can't earn a living and buy their
own damned baby formula or day care, I say phuck 'em. It makes no sense to
introduce people to welfare at such a young age.


The Republicans answer to societal challenges is push them onto the
private sector since charitable acts are really how these ills should be
addressed.

They're the same people who say "if you're so interested in supporting
these leaches, send them the money you saved on lower taxes."

They dilude themselves into thinking the worst of the poor and
uneducated. Fact is, our education system is woefully imbalanced and
favors the wealthy and most of the poor are, in fact, working.

Greedy fochers.

Makes me shake my head daily.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca
plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return,
unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of
the
coalition?

I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that
"making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That
sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased
efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO.

1) They were asked to participate with soldiers. They did not. No big deal.
Lots of countries said "no, thanks".

2) In the same way congressman will write a piece of legislation regarding
highway funds, and tag on some totally unrelated nonsense declaring a
National Tampon Day, the Colombians negotiated more aid for their anti-drug
exercises. A number of African countries also negotiated more aid, in return
for....what? Probably an agreement to vote a certain way if we ever consult
the U.N. again on terrorism issues. None of this is surprising, but it
shouldn't be called a "coalition".

File this under the heading "splitting hairs".



3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to
plant coca mixed in with food crops.

Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of
course, they're really not a silent party to it.


The government spots the coca plants
from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of
health problems which are known to the companies which make these
herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops.
It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's
not meant to be used anywhere near food crops.

So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal
drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away.


4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.

Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot
over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of
the health of their fellow countrymen. I would organize a revolt against
these drug lords, and put the blame for the conmtamination where it
belongs, on their shoulders. They need to be run out of Dodge on rails.
At some point, when the choice becomes one of living healthy or growing
drugs crops, the choice will become easier.

Dave

jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:


And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact.

You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those
"editorials" which support your biased viewpoint?

I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any
signs of progress.

Your biased opinions are not enlightening. That you pass them off as
fact is intellectually irresponsible.

I do not "pass them off as fact" I merely post them to perhaps soften
your thick skull. You're probably not the best subject.


If the information that you present, is full of obvious bias and hides a
hidden agenda, how does that convince me to consider it with anything
more than the skepticism it deserves?


In reality (which
is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and
speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal
motives for what he says here so speculative.

The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush
Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the
speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism.

What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal
motives?

Principle. Something you should "edify" yourself on.

WTF are you talking about? Principle? How are these two things related
by principle? The Bush Administration's policies are stated publicly
and we have plenty of smart people's insight from which to draw. I
don't know how you could consider Wilbur an expert on Harry's private
affairs since Harry doesn't publish them nor is it in any way obvious
the nature of his motivation other than as a past time.

Harry "publishes" his opinions every time he hits the send key on this
newsgroup. He's as easy to read as all those "smart" people you allude
to, who you seem to feel have the inside track to the inner workings of
the Bush administration. In other words neither are any more credible.
Get the picture yet?


You are the one who needs edifying on Principles. Talk to your wife
about the government's desire to control her reproductive rights. Let
us all know what she says and tell us about how your principles match
up.

You really area a one hit wonder aren't you? What difference does it
make what my wife thinks? She might think that it's ok to shoot liberals
on sight, but that doesn't make it right does it?

Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush
administration isn't.

No, but you claiming certain things about the Bush Administration's
motives is stating your opinion. And like in your example of Wilbur and
Harry, you know nothing about it.



Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration
than Joe blow from Hackensack?

No, and I don't attempt to present myself as if I do.

Likewise, my opinions are my opinions. The fact that I present them
strongly doesn't preclude that "fact."

Right, and especially, it does not give those opinions any more
credibility than Wally's opinion of Harry.

Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken
Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who
harbor them?

Yes, so what's your point? Can you prove any of these alleged
"connections"? Until you can, you're only speculating.

Speculating based on stated ambitions and the results of those
ambitions? That's not speculation, it's opinion. Look up the
definitions and get "edified."

Maybe you should take your own advice, since you seem to hold a very
narrow definition of the term "speculation". Would you feel more
comfortable with the term "conjecture"? Whatever the case, an opinion
formed by conjecture is not necessarily a credible one.


What is there to know other than this?

If you had any character and intellectual honesty, you'd already know
the answwer to this.

Again, go ask your wife about her rights to reproduce or not. Until
then, don'talk to me about "intellectual honesty." Yours seems to come
straight from the Republican doctrine.

My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be
murder, as do I.

I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a
degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it.
That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the
blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference
between liberals and conservatives.



You probably cast yourself as a "conservative." I have news for you,
the Republicans are anything but conservative at this point in history.

What would you know about conservatives or republicans? You seem to
formulate your opinions based on the opinions of other biased reporters
who are anything but impartial. You think conservatives are akin to
"nazis". If you only knew how laughable that is to a true conservative.


Perhaps you should take this opportunity to "edify" yourself.

Once again, you should follow your own advice.



And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a
conclusion, which is even more outrageous.

And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly
quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is
even more outrageous.

There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but
innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush.

Again, your opinion. Most of what I've heard Rush state, are true
happenings. He may spin them a little more to appeal to certain
emotions, but the underlying factoid is true. And calling the liberals
for the manipulative, scheming, divisive, and conniving weasels that
they are, is not "hate" it's bringing appalling activities into the
public light.

Appalling activities like Head Start, protecting the environment,
desiring equal education for all, hoping to protect people from cultural
and race discrimination, protecting the middle class, trying to create
education and jobs for people that'll be more than poverty wage based,
etc.???????

How about creation division along socio-economic and racial lines by
instituting programs which single out people based on nothing more than
skin color or gender? How about the redistribution of wealth from those
who worked hard for it, to those who dont? How does increasing income
taxes to the middle class protect it? How do you propose the government
"create" jobs, when there is no market for them.? Do you know anything
about a free market economy? Do you understand what is happeneing in the
world, as we become more and more globalized? Have you seen the latest
rift where Bush now has to decide whether to lift tariffs on imported
steel, or face retaliatory tarriffs placed on our exports by the EU? Do
you have any understanding at all that we are not the only player in
this market, and can not just "make jobs happen"?
I suppose you would then cripple the ability of the remaining
manufacturing businesses by requiring them to comply with all sorts of
environmental regulations. Do you want jobs, or a squeaky clean
environment? If these companies decide that the cost of environmental
compliance is greater than the coist to move offshore, who do you blame
when they do move off-shore? Can you, in all honesty, blame GWB for the
low wages and cheap labor in places like Malaysia? Are American
businesses supposed to, out of some sense of duty, remain here, at a
competative disadvantage, while foreign companies clean our clocks with
cheaper goods? What utopian planet are you spending time on? Wake up
man! Things will never be what they were. We have to move forward and
adapt to the emerging market, not cry to get back the old one.


There's no culture of greed in the liberal doctrine as in the
Republican, it's about looking out for others and the world we live in.

Right! Liberals want to impress their utopian ideals onto everyone
whether they like it or not. Freedom is a farce to liberals. They claim
to favor freedom, but the reality is that freedom is what gives people
the incentive and the ambition to rise above the common person. Once
someone does that, they are demonized as one of the "evil" rich, and
subject to liberal scorn and increased taxes.


Get a ****ing clue Dave. Rush is there to rip things apart and sell
little tiny ideas to dense idiots like yourself.

Some day you might wake up and smell the real world for what it is,
rather than what you'd like to see. The problem with liberal ideals is
that they rely on people to "do the right thing" on their own. Since
people will only do what they have to do unless they are forced to, the
only way liberal ideals can be implemented is by government mandate; AKA
socialism. Socialism removes all incentive to better oneself, because it
removes the rewards for doing so. Socialism is nothing more than the
breeding ground of mediocrity.


Taken apart, it's
nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came
to a conclusion based on those assumption.

Much like you do when you read (and then post here) the political tripe
that you think is "objective journalism".

You rag on me about reading "objective journalism"

That's "subjective journalism". There's no objectivity in the biased
crap you post.


when you listen to the crap that Rush spews???

I don't listen to Rush. I prefer Hannity. He's much more skilled at
debate, and presents his points logically. And like that old saying,
what's one man's trash (or crap), is another man's treasure (or
objective journalism). I find it hypocritical of you to call what I
listen to as "crap", while presenting your version of the same as
"objective". The only difference is your perspective, and what you want
to believe. Since I beleive that a person should be his own master, and
be responsible and entitled to the fruits of their efforts and the
consequences of failure, I tend to sign on to conservative ideals. I
don't believe it's society's or the government's place to make those
choices for us.


He's admitted publicly that half the ****
he comes up with is simply to ignite people and keep his listenership.

And the other half is truth.


At least journalists are trying to do honest work.

You're kidding right?


Rush is a bold faced liar.

And you can prove this, with something more substantive than the
opinions of people with an axe to grind?


Did you ask your wife whether she thinks the government should take more
of her money to feed and care for illegal aliens?

Yes, she's in favor. She wants to make certain kids are fed and given a
proper education.

Then she should adopt them herself so that she can continue to "help"
people to weaken the gene pool, while the rest of us let the chips fall
where they would naturally.

Now, go ask your wife about her reproductive rights and what the
government should be able to demand of her.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record.


My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to
yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and
you break out of your box to your true remailing self.

Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle.

But it's still crap.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I just thank God it's
yours and not mine.

It makes it no less valid.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers
to
plant coca mixed in with food crops.

Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of
course, they're really not a silent party to it.

The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military officers,
journalists. The government cannot stop it.



The government spots the coca plants
from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of
health problems which are known to the companies which make these
herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food
crops.
It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds.
It's
not meant to be used anywhere near food crops.

So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal
drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away.

Do I need to explain everything to you? If they refuse to plant, they're
murdered, or they "go away on trips" on never come home. Which newspaper
did you say you read regularly, from front to back?


4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may
still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing
to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.

Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot
over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of
the health of their fellow countrymen.

That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because they're
better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to the
military, but it seems to vanish.



I would organize a revolt.....

....and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your
captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of their
captives.

Here's a crazy thought, although you'll never follow through because you're
a unpatriotic little pussy: Write to your representatives and tell them 30
years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for
Colombia.

Tourists Taken in Colombia Shown in Video
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...apped-Tourists
..html

Organize a revolt, Dave.

A little more "local flavor" from South American, Dave:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...6A35752C1A9659
C8B63

World Briefing | Americas: Ecuador: Account Of Arms Trafficking Rejected
By Juan Forero (NYT)

The government said its ambassador to Colombia would not be returning to his
post until Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, offered an explanation for
his assertion that rogue Ecuadorean military officers had furnished
Colombian leftist rebels with a rocket launcher used in a failed
assassination attempt last month. The government recalled the ambassador on
Friday, after Mr. Uribe said the weapon used by rebels who tried to kill the
president of the Colombian cattlemen's association had come from the
Ecuadorean military. Ecuadorean Army officers vigorously denied the charge,
and Ecuador's president, Lucio Gutiérrez, a former colonel, has supported
them, saying Mr. Uribe has shown no proof to back his claim. Juan Forero
(NYT)

More background info to help Dave when he "organizes a revolt". All articles
were published within the past 30 days.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...08EDDA90994DB4
04482

FOREIGN DESK | October 23, 2003, Thursday
Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen As Warning on U.S. Drug Policy

By LARRY ROHTER (NYT) 1257 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Overthrow of Pres Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada of Bolivia is
potentially crippling blow to Washington's anti-drug policy in Andean
region; United States officials minimize importance of drug issue in Sanchez
de Lozada's downfall, but many Bolivians and analysts say coca problem is
intimately tied to broader issues of impoverishment and disenfranchisement
that stoked explosive resentments in Bolivia and fueled month of often
violent protests before he stepped down; Bolivian officials recall that Pres
Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada told Pres Bush last year that he would push ahead
with plan to eradicate coca but that he needed more money to ease impact on
farmers, or he would be overthrown; recall that Bush merely wished him good
luck; Dr Eduardo Gamarra, Bolivian scholar at Florida International Univ,
says events in Bolivia are warning that US drug policy may sow still wider
instability in region; US has earmarked $211 million for 'alternative
development' program for coca farmers, but critics claim that amount is not
enough to compensate all of those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by
eradication campaign; photo (M)
================================================== ====

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A15753C1A9659
C8B63

October 22, 2003, Wednesday

FOREIGN DESK
World Briefing | Americas: Colombia: Mass Arrests Of Politicians

Hundreds of police officers and soldiers rounded up at least 25 politicians
with suspected ties to leftist guerrillas in raids across the state of
Arauca, one of the most violent regions of Colombia. Rights groups denounced
the arrests as a government attempt to stifle opposition ahead of elections
on Sunday for municipal and state offices. Those arrested included the mayor
of the city of Arauca, the president of the regional assembly, a candidate
for state governor and five candidates for mayors of towns in the province.
Two former Arauca governors were arrested in Bogotá. The attorney general,
Luis Camilo Osorio, acknowledged that the timing of the arrests was
''uncomfortable'' while the defense minister, Martha Lucía Ramírez, said,
''Unfortunately, terrorist groups have infiltrated the Department of Arauca
at every level.''

October 21, 2003, Tuesday

================================================== ====

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...2A15753C1A9659
C8B63

FOREIGN DESK
World Briefing | Americas: Colombia: Rebel Leader Killed

Government troops killed a guerrilla commander accused in the kidnapping in
February of three Americans identified as Defense Department contractors,
the army said. The rebel, Edgar Gustavo Navarro, second in command of a unit
of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, was killed in a gunfight near
San Vicente del Caguán, 175 miles southwest of Bogotá. It was doubtful that
his death would affect the hostages, who are being guarded by the guerrilla
group's high command and who have become potentially valuable leverage for
the rebels.

In article ,
says...

My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be
murder, as do I.

I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a
degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it.
That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the
blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference
between liberals and conservatives.


Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time
to banter with you.

You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times.

Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to
bring her pregnancy to full term?

I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you
probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I
consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact."