OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

January 4, 2004

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER CRITICIZES MOVEON.ORG FOR POSTING AD COMPARING BUSH
TO HITLER

The Simon Wiesenthal Center sharply criticized MoveOn.org for accepting and
posting an ad comparing President George Bush to Adolf Hitler.

"Politics and preparing for a presidential election is one thing, but
comparing the Bush Administration's fight against Al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein with the policies of Adolf Hitler is shameful and beyond the pale
and has no place in the legitimate discourse of American politics," said
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Center's dean and founder.

"This ad is not about Democrats or Republicans - it is about lies and a
distortion of history," he added.

MoveOn.org was right to pull the ad but they should apologize for not using
better judgment in posting it in the first place," Hier concluded.

The Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human
rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States.
It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO,
the OSCE, and the Council of Europe.

For more information, contact the Center's

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB

Who placed the ad?

The article says who ran it, but *you* state it was placed by the Democrats.

Bush has a lot more detractors than just the Democrats.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is outrageous.
That would be on par to stating that people who exercise a first amendment
right to criticize the government are all traitors. No
person with a shred of intelligence would do so.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB

Who placed the ad?

The article says who ran it, but *you* state it was placed by the
Democrats.

Over the past five years, MoveOn.org says, it has grown to 1.4 million
"members" (plus "another 700,000 people outside the country" eager to
manipulate America's government) and raised $6.5 million in political
contributions, the only beneficiaries of which have been Democratic and
other Leftist candidates.



Bush has a lot more detractors than just the Democrats.


Sure. And moveon.org is collecting money from foreigners to run ads meant
to influence our country's political campaigns. That doesn't worry you?


Comparing Bush to Hitler is outrageous.
That would be on par to stating that people who exercise a first amendment
right to criticize the government are all traitors. No
person with a shred of intelligence would do so.

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our country

--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our troops

--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

Sure. And moveon.org is collecting money from foreigners to run ads meant
to influence our country's political campaigns. That doesn't worry you?

I think you'd be quick to defend any foreign
contributions that benefitted Bush or other right wing candidates. "Freedom of
speech, free market, anybody can buy an ad, etc"

If your numbers are accurate, this "Move.on" group is no sort of player at all
on the campaign stage. 2.1 million contributors have ponied up a total of less
than $7 million over the last five years? That would include the 2000
elections.
That's less than $1 a year per member.
Sure, some give nothing and some might give a couple of hundred thousand....

A couple hundred thousand = enough money to air *one* TV commercial during a
prime time slot.

How much money do foreign coporations, (and corporations who have moved much of
their operations offshore to avoid American taxation, environmental, and labor
relations
rules) give to the radical right?

I guess I'm bothered more by stunts like Republicans funding Ralph Nader's
campaign in 2000- just to open up another avenue of attack on a political
opponent.
(Ref: Anti-Gore ads featuring Ralph Nader blasting Gore's environmental record
were admittedly paid for by the Republican Leadership Conference)

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sure. And moveon.org is collecting money from foreigners to run ads
meant
to influence our country's political campaigns. That doesn't worry you?

I think you'd be quick to defend any foreign
contributions that benefitted Bush or other right wing candidates.
"Freedom of
speech, free market, anybody can buy an ad, etc"

If your numbers are accurate, this "Move.on" group is no sort of player at
all
on the campaign stage. 2.1 million contributors have ponied up a total of
less
than $7 million over the last five years? That would include the 2000
elections.
That's less than $1 a year per member.
Sure, some give nothing and some might give a couple of hundred
thousand....

My statistics were from August 2003. In November, George Soros contributed
$5 million to 'em.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sure. And moveon.org is collecting money from foreigners to run ads
meant
to influence our country's political campaigns. That doesn't worry you?

I think you'd be quick to defend any foreign
contributions that benefitted Bush or other right wing candidates.
"Freedom of
speech, free market, anybody can buy an ad, etc"

If your numbers are accurate, this "Move.on" group is no sort of player at
all
on the campaign stage. 2.1 million contributors have ponied up a total of
less
than $7 million over the last five years? That would include the 2000
elections.
That's less than $1 a year per member.
Sure, some give nothing and some might give a couple of hundred
thousand....

A couple hundred thousand = enough money to air *one* TV commercial during
a
prime time slot.

How much money do foreign coporations, (and corporations who have moved
much of
their operations offshore to avoid American taxation, environmental, and
labor
relations
rules) give to the radical right?

I guess I'm bothered more by stunts like Republicans funding Ralph
Nader's
campaign in 2000- just to open up another avenue of attack on a political
opponent.
(Ref: Anti-Gore ads featuring Ralph Nader blasting Gore's environmental
record
were admittedly paid for by the Republican Leadership Conference)

I'm more troubled by foreign governments (like the Chinese) funnelling money
into our political system in order to influence government policy regarding
those countries.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our country

--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our troops

--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.

So, in your world, wishes, and repeated negative comments are acts of
treason? This pretty much puts you in the same league as Stalin, Hitler,
and all their lackeys.

Keep telling us how you really feel, NOYB, it is a wonderfully clear
insight to what the rightwing hopes to bring to America.

Rick

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
NOYB wrote:

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our country

--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our troops

--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.

So, in your world, wishes, and repeated negative comments are acts of
treason?

OK, Rick. Will you agree that they're acts of sedition then?

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553
ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15,
1917.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make
or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or
convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of
the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or
enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter,
print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language about the form of government of the United States, or the
Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the
United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign
enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of
production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of
the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or
act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States
is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not
more than twenty years, or both....

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:


OK, Rick. Will you agree that they're acts of sedition then?

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

Is this act still in force? Seems to me it was repealed amid a big political
stink including a McCarthy-esque Red scare.



SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make
or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States,

Vice President Cheney is clearly guilty of this part

. . . or incite insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of
the United States,

former Senator Jesse Helms is 'way guilty here.

Looks like another case of "the rules only apply to the other side" wishful
thinking.... are you capable of any other kind, NOBBY?

DSK

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


OK, Rick. Will you agree that they're acts of sedition then?

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

Is this act still in force? Seems to me it was repealed amid a big
political
stink including a McCarthy-esque Red scare.



SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully
make
or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States,

Vice President Cheney is clearly guilty of this part

. . . or incite insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces
of
the United States,

former Senator Jesse Helms is 'way guilty here.

Looks like another case of "the rules only apply to the other side"
wishful
thinking.... are you capable of any other kind, NOBBY?


Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising contributions
over the internet? It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Let's answer the question, NOBBY. Or do you realize that even a
less-than-totally-factual answer will reveal the hollowness of your position?



Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising contributions
over the internet?

"Acceptable"? WTF?? Is it legal? Yes. Is it a good idea? Personally, I don't
think so, but on a moral scale including such quantifiables as 'starting a war &
killing tens of thousands of people for the profit of private interests', it's
not even on the map.


It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

heh heh is that why BushCo is encouraging corporate flight to offshore tax
shelters? So far he seems to be a record-setting campaign contribution
harvester.... a lean mean moneygrubbin' machine!

DSK

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Let's answer the question, NOBBY. Or do you realize that even a
less-than-totally-factual answer will reveal the hollowness of your
position?


What question?




Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election
laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising
contributions
over the internet?

"Acceptable"? WTF?? Is it legal? Yes.

For now.

Is it a good idea? Personally, I don't
think so

Good.

but on a moral scale including such quantifiables as 'starting a war &
killing tens of thousands of people for the profit of private interests',
it's
not even on the map.

Oh ****...here we go again. Do you and Harry read from the same manual?
Every time those on the left are caught doing something shady, the argument
changes to "well that's not as bad as...."






It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that
will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

heh heh is that why BushCo is encouraging corporate flight to offshore tax
shelters?

WTF are you talking about? The exodus of manufacturing jobs started long
before Bush took office. No new legislation has been passed in the past 3
years that would "encourage corporate flight to offshore tax shelters".


So far he seems to be a record-setting campaign contribution
harvester.... a lean mean moneygrubbin' machine!

His money is raised domestically...acquired from people that actually have
the constitutional right to vote for him. That's a far cry from a
non-American trying to buy the U.S. Government.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

"Acceptable"? WTF?? Is it legal? Yes.

For now.

heh heh when will BushCo think up something really keen, like making it illegal
to make a campaign contribution to the Democrat Party. That should cover the
bases.

BTW you are terrible at dodging questions that show you up. -10 pts. Or are you
willing to answer the question about sedition, especially the parts about
various seditious & treasonous right-wing actions & speeches?



but on a moral scale including such quantifiables as 'starting a war &
killing tens of thousands of people for the profit of private interests',
it's
not even on the map.

Oh ****...here we go again. Do you and Harry read from the same manual?

Why do you try to link me with Harry? I don't know him and don't agree with many
of the things he posts here, in fact I rarely read his posts. Do you think there
are libby-rull terrorists hiding under your bed? Maybe they replaced the Commies
after Reagan chased the pinkos out?


Every time those on the left are caught doing something shady, the argument
changes to "well that's not as bad as...."

It matches the chorus from the right-wing whackos about how immoral Clinton
is/was.

And it certainly doesn't get you any points to dodge yet another uncomfortable
issue.



heh heh is that why BushCo is encouraging corporate flight to offshore tax
shelters?

WTF are you talking about? The exodus of manufacturing jobs started long
before Bush took office.

Yep. And it has sped up dramatically since 2001.
That's WTF I'm talking about.
Is that clear enough for you?




So far he seems to be a record-setting campaign contribution
harvester.... a lean mean moneygrubbin' machine!

His money is raised domestically...acquired from people that actually have
the constitutional right to vote for him.

And corporations, let's not forget them. BTW are you *sure* that 100% of Bush's
campaign contributions come from U.S. backers?

Bush & Cheney... the finest Executive Branch money can buy!


DSK

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

January 4, 2004

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER CRITICIZES MOVEON.ORG FOR POSTING AD COMPARING BUSH
TO HITLER

The Simon Wiesenthal Center sharply criticized MoveOn.org for accepting and
posting an ad comparing President George Bush to Adolf Hitler.


Indeed. Although they're both odious, Hitler takes the prize. And on
another level, the comparison isn't fair: Hitler was smarter than Bush.


--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Acceptable"? WTF?? Is it legal? Yes.

For now.

heh heh when will BushCo think up something really keen, like making it
illegal
to make a campaign contribution to the Democrat Party. That should cover
the
bases.

BTW you are terrible at dodging questions that show you up. -10 pts. Or
are you
willing to answer the question about sedition, especially the parts about
various seditious & treasonous right-wing actions & speeches?



but on a moral scale including such quantifiables as 'starting a war &
killing tens of thousands of people for the profit of private
interests',
it's
not even on the map.

Oh ****...here we go again. Do you and Harry read from the same manual?

Why do you try to link me with Harry? I don't know him and don't agree
with many
of the things he posts here, in fact I rarely read his posts. Do you think
there
are libby-rull terrorists hiding under your bed? Maybe they replaced the
Commies
after Reagan chased the pinkos out?


Every time those on the left are caught doing something shady, the
argument
changes to "well that's not as bad as...."

It matches the chorus from the right-wing whackos about how immoral
Clinton
is/was.

See? Another example of "well, that's not as bad as..." You just can't
help yourself.



And it certainly doesn't get you any points to dodge yet another
uncomfortable
issue.

Dodge what? I've been talking about an existing loophole which allows
foreign entities to skirt our campaign contribution laws...and you're trying
to argue that it's OK for Democrats to commit seditious acts because those
on the right did it too.





heh heh is that why BushCo is encouraging corporate flight to offshore
tax
shelters?

WTF are you talking about? The exodus of manufacturing jobs started
long
before Bush took office.

Yep. And it has sped up dramatically since 2001.
That's WTF I'm talking about.
Is that clear enough for you?

No. It's not clear. In fact, you hypocritically snipped a portion of my
post because you couldn't provide a decent rebuttal.
So, I'll say it again: "No new legislation has been passed in the past 3
years that would encourage corporate flight to offshore tax shelters." Bush
simply is not responsible.


So far he seems to be a record-setting campaign contribution
harvester.... a lean mean moneygrubbin' machine!

His money is raised domestically...acquired from people that actually
have
the constitutional right to vote for him.

And corporations, let's not forget them. BTW are you *sure* that 100% of
Bush's
campaign contributions come from U.S. backers?

No, I'm not sure. Are you *sure* that he's receiving foreign money through
organizations that can be described as the right wing answer to gropus like
moveon.org?




Bush & Cheney... the finest Executive Branch money can buy!


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB

Comparing Bush to Hitler is outrageous.
That would be on par to stating that people who exercise a first amendment
right to criticize the government are all traitors. No
person with a shred of intelligence would do so.

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our country

*If* they do, that's a reasonable wish. Those of us in the civilized
zone have already taken our hits. If there is another attack, let it be
in Bush Country. BTW, you do know what *if* means, eh?


--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our troops

For a huge percentage of our armed forces, the military is the employer
of last resort. As for their capabilities, well...there have been two
large-scale, contested wars involving us since our victory in WW II. In
Korea, we fought to a draw. In Vietnam, we lost. Since then, we've been
involved in skirmishes, mainly, against poorly-led, poorly-motivated
troops of greater inferior capabilities. You want to hazard a guess as
to how we'd do in a non-nuclear war against, say, the People's Republic
of China?

Of course, the PRC doesn't have to fight us: it has won without shooting
a shot. We're going downhill, towards an impoverished nation ruled by
fascists and corporate greed, and the PRC is going to the top. Within
your lifetime, the United States will be bankrupt, its currency worth
zip, its wealth looted for others, and its cities unprotected from
enemies who want to strip out the copper piping.

Your boy Bush is setting the stage for our demise.




--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.





--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

January 4, 2004

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER CRITICIZES MOVEON.ORG FOR POSTING AD COMPARING
BUSH
TO HITLER

The Simon Wiesenthal Center sharply criticized MoveOn.org for accepting
and
posting an ad comparing President George Bush to Adolf Hitler.


Indeed. Although they're both odious, Hitler takes the prize. And on
another level, the comparison isn't fair: Hitler was smarter than Bush.

Most of the truly ****ed up sociopaths are extremely smart people...which is
the *only* reason why I'm inclined to believe that Harry really is an
extremely smart person.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
NOYB wrote:

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our country

--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our troops

--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.

So, in your world, wishes, and repeated negative comments are acts of
treason?

OK, Rick. Will you agree that they're acts of sedition then?

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553
ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15,
1917.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make
or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or
convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of
the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or
enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter,
print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language about the form of government of the United States, or the
Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the
United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign
enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of
production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of
the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or
act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States
is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not
more than twenty years, or both....


Oh no, not the frippin' right-wing alien and sedition act. PAssed to
stifle dissent. No wonder Noy Brains likes it.


--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article .net,
says...

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising contributions
over the internet? It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

I think you're a little late to the party there doc. There's all sorts
of scurrilous freaks who're liable to thwart the system in order that
their interests are addressed.

Take the Republican's investment in Nader's campaign, for instance.

Then there's the voluminous body of evidence that puts Jim Baker and
other Republican operatives gallivanting the world in an effort to make
certain the Iran hostages weren't released prior to the Carter-Reagan
election.

The Republican governor of Florida and his operatives who invest in a
"felons list" that ends up preventing thousands of legitimate voters
from from voting?

Is this the kind of election manipulation of which you speak? Or is it
just foreign interests that frighten you?

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Within
your lifetime, the United States will be bankrupt, its currency worth
zip, its wealth looted for others, and its cities unprotected from
enemies who want to strip out the copper piping.


No wonder you're so friggin' grumpy. Can't your wife get you some SSRI's?
Or at least move back to Jacksonville...cause your SAD is getting the better
of you.



Your boy Bush is setting the stage for our demise.

The stage for our demise was set when the previous administration sold US
policy to the highest bidding foreign government.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
NOYB wrote:

It takes more than criticism of the government. For instance:

--wishing terrorist attacks will hit the fly-over areas of our
country

--constantly denigrating the intelligence and capabilities of our
troops

--wishing ill health or harm on a sitting president

Those kind of comments would make someone a traitor, IMO.

So, in your world, wishes, and repeated negative comments are acts of
treason?

OK, Rick. Will you agree that they're acts of sedition then?

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp
553
ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15,
1917.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----

SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully
make
or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully
make or
convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite
insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces
of
the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or
enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter,
print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language about the form of government of the United States, or the
Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of
the
United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign
enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any
curtailment of
production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any
of
the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word
or
act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United
States
is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States
therein,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for
not
more than twenty years, or both....


Oh no, not the frippin' right-wing alien and sedition act. PAssed to
stifle dissent. No wonder Noy Brains likes it.

Indeed, I *do* like it. I hope someone dusts off the legislative annals
pretty soon, and brings it back to the forefront.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

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

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election
laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising
contributions
over the internet? It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to
how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that
will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

I think you're a little late to the party there doc. There's all sorts
of scurrilous freaks who're liable to thwart the system in order that
their interests are addressed.

Take the Republican's investment in Nader's campaign, for instance.

Then there's the voluminous body of evidence that puts Jim Baker and
other Republican operatives gallivanting the world in an effort to make
certain the Iran hostages weren't released prior to the Carter-Reagan
election.

The Republican governor of Florida and his operatives who invest in a
"felons list" that ends up preventing thousands of legitimate voters
from from voting?

Is this the kind of election manipulation of which you speak? Or is it
just foreign interests that frighten you?

Just foreign interests.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

Every time those on the left are caught doing something shady, the
argument
changes to "well that's not as bad as...."

Why is it that every time a "conservative" is caught committing fraud, robbery,
or treason, you have to make excuses for them by saying "all you lefties are
complaining about this"?

DSK

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:


Dodge what? I've been talking about an existing loophole which allows
foreign entities to skirt our campaign contribution laws...and you're trying
to argue that it's OK for Democrats to commit seditious acts because those
on the right did it too.

Please quote where I said any such thing.

Try not to lie too much, I know you have little fact and no logic, but outright
lying wll earn you even fewer points than dodging the question.

DSK

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:39:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

No problem, we'll just invade another country and award Open Society
Institute a no bid, open ended contract. Soros will be able to make his
money back overcharging us for gasoline.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:39:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

No problem, we'll just invade another country and award Open Society
Institute a no bid, open ended contract. Soros will be able to make his
money back overcharging us for gasoline.

The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

Now Soros is out to burn Bush because Bush "didn't bring in the Gulf
connection" for him.

Isn't OSI supposed to support campaign finance reform, and government
openness? What a laugh!

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:52:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

LOL You've cut the best part of that quote: "He was not much of a
businessman."

Now Soros is out to burn Bush because Bush "didn't bring in the Gulf
connection" for him.

Harken was peanuts to Soros. If he's out to burn Bush, it's because he's
seen Bush up close *and* Soros has known liberal credentials.

Isn't OSI supposed to support campaign finance reform, and government
openness? What a laugh!

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article . net,
says...

Let's compare the two Hilter ads submitted by people nobody ever heard
of to the current spiritual leader of Republican anti-tax initiatives...

I give to you the formidable Grover Norquist...



Out of Their Anti-Tax Minds

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, January 6, 2004; Page A17


This is the way things happen in my business. In October the extremely
influential GOP activist and White House insider Grover Norquist was
interviewed by Terry Gross on her National Public Radio program, "Fresh
Air." By December a portion of that interview was reprinted in Harper's
magazine, where, over the holidays, I happened to see it. I am writing
about it today because, among other things, Norquist compared the estate
tax to the Holocaust.

This remark, so bizarre and tasteless that I felt it deserved checking,
sent me to the transcript of the show, where, sure enough, it was
confirmed. In it Norquist referred to the supposedly specious argument
that the estate tax was worth keeping because it really affected only "2
percent of Americans." He went on: "I mean, that's the morality of the
Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. I mean, it's
not you. It's somebody else."

From the transcript, it seems that Gross couldn't believe her ears.
"Excuse me," she interjected. "Excuse me one second. Did you just . . .
compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?"

Norquist explained himself. "No, the morality that says it's okay to do
something to a group because they're a small percentage of the
population is the morality that says the Holocaust is okay because they
didn't target everybody, just a small percentage." He went on to liken
the estate tax to apartheid in the old South Africa and to the communist
regime of the old East Germany. How he neglected Iraq under Saddam
Hussein I will never know.

It's hard to overstate Norquist's importance in contemporary Washington.
He is head of Americans for Tax Reform, is an intimate of Karl Rove, the
president's chief political aide, and has easy access to the White
House. He presides over a weekly meeting of important Republican
activists and lobbyists where the agenda -- at least Norquist's -- is to
ensure that taxes are reduced to a bare minimum, the government is
starved and everyone, the rich and the poor, is taxed the same, which is
to say almost not at all.

The Bush administration has mindlessly applied this doctrine. It has
three times reduced taxes -- mostly on the rich -- careening the federal
budget from a surplus to a deficit without end. The rich, who can afford
their schools or health care, will not suffer. But the poor and the
middle class will hurt plenty -- and state and local taxes, often the
most regressive, will go up.

To my mind, the Holocaust should be compared only to itself. I make some
allowance for, say, Rwanda or the massacre of Muslims at Srebrenica or
the gulag of Stalin's Soviet Union. But when it comes to legalized
murder by a state, almost nothing can approach it -- not in its size,
not in its breadth and not in its virtually incomprehensible bestiality.
The morality of the Holocaust, I would argue, is somehow different from
that of the estate tax.

For some time now, the estate tax has been a demagogue's delight.
Republicans, including George Bush, like to call it the "death tax." It
is said to have produced the demise of the cherished family farm --
although the government can offer not a single example. It is, however,
the tax most hated by those who hate taxes the most.

Inexplicably, Norquist's "Holocaust" has somehow left quite a few
survivors. Among the 10 richest Americans, for instance, are five
Waltons -- heirs to the fortune left by the storied Sam, the founder of
Wal-Mart. Forbes magazine says they are each worth $20.5 billion. The
rest of Forbes's list of the 400 richest Americans is peopled by other
heirs, although some got only a billion or two.

In fact, the moral equivalency Norquist concocts is his own -- and it
speaks volumes about the morality of anti-tax Republicans. To them, the
rich owe nothing -- just like the poor, they would say. (The difference
between rich and poor escapes them.) This is unbridled selfishness in
the guise of ideology and makes wealth the moral equivalent of ethnicity
or religion or even sexual preference. To Norquist, distinguishing
between rich and poor is like making a selection at Auschwitz. It not
only trivializes the Holocaust, it collapses all moral distinctions.

When Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond, the longtime segregationist (and
laundry room Lothario), he revealed a mentality that not even Senate
Republicans could publicly support -- and Lott had to resign as majority
leader. Norquist has gone even further, likening the morality of mass
murder to the imposition of a tax on the rich. At his next meeting of
GOP activists, someone ought to ask him if he's out of his mind. If no
one does, it's because they all are.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article . net,
says...

This wouldn't be news if it weren't for the RNC. The two ads were
submitted to MoveOn under a contest and MoveOn took no position as to
their validity or worthiness.

Both ads were given very low marks and never had the slightest
possibility of airing. That didn't stop Ed Gillespie, ****ing idiot,
from claiming that MoveOn could end up using these ads in a national
television campaign.

In fact, the contest brought hundreds of creative ads from all over the
country. The finalists are a far cry from comparing Bush to Hitler.

This would be a big yawn if the RNC hadn't have made hay of it.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

This wouldn't be news if it weren't for the RNC. The two ads were
submitted to MoveOn under a contest and MoveOn took no position as to
their validity or worthiness.

Typical.

Whatever the most extreme person on the left says, the rw establishment grabs
hold, raises it aloft, and says "See! This is what *all* liberals think!"

When Pat Robertson makes a statement that God has already called the 2004
election in favor of GWB, he's dismissed as a lovable old kook, not a
spokesman.
When Anne Coulter accuses everyone left of center in the country of "treason",
it's defended as freedom of speech.

The right needs to walk carefully. Very easy to trip over a double standard and
land smack on your nose.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:52:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing
company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

LOL You've cut the best part of that quote: "He was not much of a
businessman."

Sure I did. Soros's opinion of Bush is irrelevant. The important and
relevant portion of the entire quote was where Soros admitted to trying to
buy political influence and Bush's Gulf connection.

Apparently, old Georgie boy never provided what Soros expected...and now
Soros is ****ed.



Now Soros is out to burn Bush because Bush "didn't bring in the Gulf
connection" for him.

Harken was peanuts to Soros. If he's out to burn Bush, it's because he's
seen Bush up close *and* Soros has known liberal credentials.

Harken isn't the issue. Soros thought he could "buy" himself a politician
with strong ties to the Gulf. He thought wrong...and now has a vendetta
against Bush.


Isn't OSI supposed to support campaign finance reform, and government
openness? What a laugh!

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:30:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Harken isn't the issue. Soros thought he could "buy" himself a politician
with strong ties to the Gulf. He thought wrong...and now has a vendetta
against Bush.

Except that Bush, at the time, was a businessman, not a politician.
Besides, what else did Bush bring to the table? Certainly not his
business acumen. Arbusto/Spectrum 7 were headed into the dumpster if it
weren't for Harken money. Personally, I just don't see a vendetta, just a
difference in political philosophy.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:30:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Harken isn't the issue. Soros thought he could "buy" himself a
politician
with strong ties to the Gulf. He thought wrong...and now has a vendetta
against Bush.

Except that Bush, at the time, was a businessman, not a politician.
Besides, what else did Bush bring to the table?

A last name that had a lot of clout in the political arena.



Certainly not his
business acumen. Arbusto/Spectrum 7 were headed into the dumpster if it
weren't for Harken money. Personally, I just don't see a vendetta, just a
difference in political philosophy.

Yeah, right. Soros has described himself as the "moral conscience of the
world" (or some similar bull**** mumbo-jumbo). Is "buying political
influence" a trait you would expect from the "moral conscience of the
world"? Or perhaps legalizing drugs is a more "moral issue"? The guy is a
rich, spoiled, blow-hard who is used to getting his way...and got ****ed
when Bush decided to (to paraphrase Steve Miller band) "take the money and
run".

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:37:17 -0800, jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...

Let's compare the two Hilter ads submitted by people nobody ever heard
of to the current spiritual leader of Republican anti-tax initiatives...

Article snipped.

jcs, how many times are you going to post the same thing?

Read the following excerpt please:
***********************************
"Excuse me," she interjected. "Excuse me one second. Did you just . ..
compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?"

Norquist explained himself. "No, the morality that says it's okay to
do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the
population is the morality that says the Holocaust is okay because
they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage."
**************************************

Norquist did not compare the estate tax to the Holocaust. He compared
'moralities' of a group who would tax estates because only 2% were
affected and a group who would say the Holocaust is OK because only a
small percent were affected.

Norquist himself answers the question, "No..." He then goes on to
explain the reasoning in a fairly straightforward manner. It is
Richard Cohen who makes something out of this that it is not. It is
simply showing more of the Washington Post's liberal bias.

Do I disagree with the estate tax? That question was not addressed.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
When Pat Robertson makes a statement that God has already called the 2004
election in favor of GWB, he's dismissed as a lovable old kook, not a
spokesman.
When Anne Coulter accuses everyone left of center in the country of
"treason",
it's defended as freedom of speech.

The right needs to walk carefully. Very easy to trip over a double
standard and
land smack on your nose.


It sounds to me like you are doing the exact same thing you accuse the
"right" of doing. Many conservatives find the right wing radio host boring
and predictable, and do not listen to them, but still consider themselves
conservatives.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:39:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Should Dean win the Presidency, he'll owe more to guys like George Soros
than Cheney could ever owe to Halliburton.

No problem, we'll just invade another country and award Open Society
Institute a no bid, open ended contract. Soros will be able to make his
money back overcharging us for gasoline.

The irony is that Soros owned Harken Energy, bought Bush's failing company
Spectrum 7 for Harken stock, and then made Bush director and consultant.
Why? According to Soros: "He (Bush) was supposed to bring in the Gulf
connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political
influence. That was it."

Well, of course...why else would you bring in the Bush Bozo...certainly
not for his brain power.





--
Email sent to is never read.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article GXIKb.78889$xX.558024@attbi_s02, says...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
When Pat Robertson makes a statement that God has already called the 2004
election in favor of GWB, he's dismissed as a lovable old kook, not a
spokesman.
When Anne Coulter accuses everyone left of center in the country of
"treason",
it's defended as freedom of speech.

The right needs to walk carefully. Very easy to trip over a double
standard and
land smack on your nose.


It sounds to me like you are doing the exact same thing you accuse the
"right" of doing. Many conservatives find the right wing radio host boring
and predictable, and do not listen to them, but still consider themselves
conservatives.

I disagree, since I work with and count as personal friends many who
consider themselves conservatives who consider Rush a buffoon. I'm
certain that Chuck has a similar experience.

Conversely, there's a number of fools in this group who utter dittospeak
on regular occasions, regular enough to recognize their
Rush/Savage/Coulter political pedigree.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article . net,
says...

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

Let's get back on topic here, Doug...

Do you think it's acceptable for foreign entities to skirt our election
laws
via a loophole which allows soliciting campaign advertising
contributions
over the internet? It's a scary thought if Americans are limited as to
how
much they can donate towards a candidate's campaign...but non-American
people, companies, and governments can spend an unlimited amount that
will
go towards advertising for a specific candidate.

I think you're a little late to the party there doc. There's all sorts
of scurrilous freaks who're liable to thwart the system in order that
their interests are addressed.

Take the Republican's investment in Nader's campaign, for instance.

Then there's the voluminous body of evidence that puts Jim Baker and
other Republican operatives gallivanting the world in an effort to make
certain the Iran hostages weren't released prior to the Carter-Reagan
election.

The Republican governor of Florida and his operatives who invest in a
"felons list" that ends up preventing thousands of legitimate voters
from from voting?

Is this the kind of election manipulation of which you speak? Or is it
just foreign interests that frighten you?

Just foreign interests.

Certainly wouldn't pain you if the princes of saudi arabia spilled tens
of millions of dollars into GW Bush's campaign coffers.

Right?

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article . net,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Oh no, not the frippin' right-wing alien and sedition act. PAssed to
stifle dissent. No wonder Noy Brains likes it.

Indeed, I *do* like it. I hope someone dusts off the legislative annals
pretty soon, and brings it back to the forefront.


That'd be dusting off annals for anals.

OT--Dem sleaze tactics not working as planned.
 

In article . net,
says...


Yeah, right. Soros has described himself as the "moral conscience of the
world" (or some similar bull**** mumbo-jumbo). Is "buying political
influence" a trait you would expect from the "moral conscience of the
world"? Or perhaps legalizing drugs is a more "moral issue"? The guy is a
rich, spoiled, blow-hard who is used to getting his way...and got ****ed
when Bush decided to (to paraphrase Steve Miller band) "take the money and
run".

Man you are a dunderhead. Look Soros up and look at the legitimate
investments he's made in seeding democracy and you'll have to admit he's
doing this work from his soul, not his wallet.

He's using his wallet to leave the place better than he found it, like
any good guest.

jps