Here's hoping "the curse" is swift and merciless.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Michael Moore on tonight's episode
S15E03 The President Wore PearlsliveNov 16, 2003, 2:03 PM ET6 hours before it aired51 posts by 17 posters
51 posts
I hope you and your family are on the show, then the curse strikes, and all of you die miserably, you piece of shit. Your whole family's a collective piece of shit.
Whether or not you like Micheal Moore his interview with Kent was actually the funniest thing in "The President Wore Pearls."
"The Man" wrote in message news:[email]...
"Jake Lennington" wrote in message news:[email]...
actually
I totally agree with you - I laughed so hard when he came on, and ended it with "your mother"
one
Actually, it was. I had imagined Moore's part to be a lot more legitimate.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Hmmmm, have I offended you in some way?
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
You and your whole family, it would seem. evan
I guess a guy can't openly wish for Michael Moore's quick and painful death anymore without being attacked.
What's happening to this country?
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
headbanger:
Dude, where's my country?
I saw a woman reading that book on the subway here in NYC last week. When she saw me snicker at her she asked if I was laughing because I was one of those right-wing dittoheads who oppress blacks and rob the poor. I simply smiled and said "No ma'am, I simply find it hard to fathom that a woman who looks as intelligent as you do would read comic books".
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
If I was in her place I would probably conclude that you are that type of all-American guy, which thinks that every book is a comic book because he's never seen a non-comic one in his entire life.
I've never seen/read a non-comic book written by Michael Moore. Comparing his crap to comic books is insulting to the comic book industry.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:38:31 -0500 (EST), [email] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Chris_=AE?=) wrote:
Oh wow you really got her there, dude. <rolling eyes as far back as they can go>
Why thank you. I always feel a witty and polite response is better than rude, nasty namecalling.
[sarcasm snipped]
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Chris � wrote:
It's suffering an outbreak of freedom of speech. ;)
There's a witty comeback. You should be writing for the show.
"Chris �" wrote in message news:[email]...
*snicker*
Actually, just airdrop that communist gasbag to The Worker's Paradise of Cuba and see how much he takes freedom of speech for granted.
On 2003-11-17, BrewMaster wrote:
I actually thought his extrmely small part in the episode was pretty funny. Saying how they'd end up in one of his movies or whatever.
A little historical persective courtesy of www.counterpunch.org:
....
Most of our people [in pre-Revolutionary Cuba] were either illiterate or semi-illiterate and they depended on a miserable job arbitrarily handled by an employer or an elected official. The people had no choice, as they even lacked the minimum indispensable knowledge to decide on the increasingly complex issues of this world.
As for the history of our homeland, they only knew the legend passed down by the grandparents and the parents about past heroic struggles fought in the colonial days; eventually, it was fortunate that it was that way. As for the traditional political parties, where the oligarchies that served the empire prevailed, how could our people understand them? Who could teach them?
The brilliant and heroic effort of the leftist intellectuals of the time, who made remarkable progress under those circumstances, clashed with the insurmountable walls of a new imperial system and the centuries old experience of the ruling classes to keep the peoples oppressed, exploited, confused and divided.
The only property right known by most Cubans before 1959 was the right of the big foreign companies and their allies of the national oligarchy to own enormous amounts of farmland in our country, as well as the country's natural resources and biggest factories, the crucial public services, the banks, the storage facilities, the ports, the hospitals and the private schools that served with excellence a negligible minority of privileged population.
....
In the cities, very few owned their dwellings for which they had to pay very high rents. I never saw hospitals or schools for ordinary people and their children; I did not see brigades of doctors and teachers. I only saw extreme poverty, injustice and hopelessness everywhere. The Cuban people had been confiscated and stripped of any property.
It was imperative to resume the struggle. The chains had to be broken. A deep revolution was indispensable. We had to be willing to either win or die for it. And we decided to fight.
The socialist revolution has created in Cuba more property owners than all those created by capitalism throughout centuries. Today, hundreds of thousands of peasant families own their land, for which they do not even pay taxes. Others have it in usufruct, free of charge, and they exploit it either individually or in cooperatives; they are the owners of the machinery, the workshops, the livestock and other goods. But, most important of all is that the Revolution gave the people the property of their own country. What the Revolution eradicated was the property of the basic means of production, of the financial institutions and of other crucial services which were in the hands of those who plundered and exploited the people --and made fortunes on the workers' sweat-- or that only served the rich and the privileged, leaving the poor and the black people out.
The nostalgia over their property that the leader of an imperial government might feel could be overcome by seeing that, in addition to the farmers, millions of families in the cities presently own their dwellings, for which they do not even pay taxes.
Out of a historical necessity to leave behind a legacy of underdevelopment, Cuba shares with foreign companies those productions that it would not have access to with its own technologies and funds, but no international financial institution or foreign private capital can determine over our destiny.
Nor does a single penny end up in Castro's pockets or those of his followers [i.e. no trillion-dollar bills taken from any Springfield capitalist exploiter either]. No senior Cuban revolutionary leader has a dollar in a bank, or a personal bank account in hard currency in Cuba or anywhere else. None of them can be bribed. The hundreds of foreign companies doing business in Cuba today know that very well. None of our leaders is a millionaire like the President of the United States, whose monthly wage is almost twice that of all the members of the State Council and the Council of Ministers in a year. None can be included in the long list of Mr. W's neoliberal friends in Latin America who are Olympic champions of misappropriation and theft since the few who do not steal from the public coffers and State taxes steal from the poor and the hungry the surplus value of their work while killing hundreds of thousands of Latin American children every year whose lives could be saved. That is the system that Mr. W. longs to impose on Cuba as a model. His insults are unwarranted, thus, he should not complain from our tough responses.
The end of the exploitation of human beings and true equality and justice is, and will be, the objective of a Revolution that will never cease to be what it is.
"somedude" wrote in message news:[email]...
<snip>
That was, bar none, the biggest steaming pantload I have ever read.
Critisize "Il Presidente" or his "Glorious Revolution" and you'll end up in one of his prisons faster than you can say Karl Marx
Yeah, but in order to add value to the above statement you have to name at least one place where the same type of critisizing will _not_ land you in prison. Otherwise, it just a primitive demagogy.
Antarctica, perhaps?
"Andrey Tarasevich" wrote in message news:[email]...
or
handled
they
in
Ummm......... Try the United States of America perchance?
"BrewMaster" wrote in message news:...
that's why there's the USA Patriot Act, to put you critics in jail. Now shut up, quit thinking for yourself, start worshiping Bush, and only get your news from the Fox "News" Channel.
On 18 Nov 2003 17:52:14 -0800, [email] (Jsonitsac) wrote:
Care to quote the provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes a person's imprisonment for criticizing anything or anyone?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107aQFB66::
Most critics of the Patriot Act don't even know what it really is. It's RICO for terrorism. Nothing more. Listening to their hysteria can be quite entertaining, though.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
[email] (Chris �) wrote in message news:...
*pats these two idiots on the back* Silly fools, the deffiniton of terrorist groups has been expanded under this law. And guess what it can include, peace marchers! Hmmm, since they tend to oppose war mongering, that means they are terrorists. And Patriot II is going to be even better! It can deport US Citizens to nations like Jordan, where torture is illegal. But, so long as you don't question, like John Ashcroft want's you to ("A patriot does not question"-John Ashcroft) you'll be fine. Because, in the end, you are "either with us, or against us."
On 19 Nov 2003 05:09:52 -0800, [email] (Jsonitsac) wrote:
Again, *what provision of the act* defines "terrorist groups" to include peaceful demonstrators?
You couldn't possibly not know what the hell you're talking about, could you? Not you, the great Thinker-For-Himself! Could it be that you just heard some leftie nit make this claim, and swallowed it whole, without even bothering to look it up? Naaaah. It would take one of those Fox-News-watching right-wing troglodytes to do something that shameful and stupid, wouldn't it?
Therefore, I have every confidence that your next post will include the requested citation.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107
or http://snurl.com/2cu1
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:13:26 GMT, Scott Munro wrote:
Hello? hello hello hello
Echo! echo echo echo
Now batting for Pedro Borbon: Manny Mota! mota mota mota
run "soundofsilence.mp3"
LOL.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
``(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that
are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States
or
of any State;
``(B) appear to be intended--
``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population;
``(ii) to influence the policy of a
government
by intimidation or coercion; or
``(iii) to affect the conduct of a
government
by mass destruction, assassination, or
kidnapping;
andUnless a peace marcher has a good lawyer, (s)he could easily be put away by B ii. And just being accused of being a terrorist, means that you have no appeal and can be detained up to six months without even being charged. (See 236A)
Peace marchers try to influence the policy of our government. "Coercion" charges can be easily trumped by an overzealous attorney, especially if violence happens to erupt. (Here's how it can happen: A peace marcher steps over a line, a policeman maces the marcher, another marcher gets pissed and starts a fight with the policeman. The entire contigent of marchers gets arrested even if only a handful were involved in the violence. It could happen. It did happen during the WTO protest marches in Seattle. The difference was that the marchers couldn't be charged with domestic terrorism. Now they can.)
Generally, the more power that an organization possesses, the more likely it is that the power will be abused.
On 20 Nov 2003 17:11:02 -0800, [email] (Tieus Albert) wrote:
Section 236A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (which the Patriot Act amends) deals with "Detention of Terrorist Aliens." And even aliens have habeas corpus rights, and can then appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, so I'm not sure what you mean by "no appeal."
The provision you cite does not, in fact, authorize charges of domestic terrorism even in the situation you made up. Still less does it mean that "the deffiniton [sic] of terrorist groups...can include...peace marchers" which was the claim.
[email]
Look, any law can be abused by unscrupulous people. That's why the system has safeguards, including the right to counsel, habeas corpus, jury trial, etc. *Could* the hippie cretins you invented be charged with domestic terrorism? Sure, I guess it's possible. Will those charges stick? Not a chance. They'll be thrown out the first time it comes before a judge, probably accompanied by some strong remarks from the bench directed toward the prosecutors who would do such a stupid thing. Even you seem to agree that such an action would be an abuse of power, rather than a mere application of the law.
Now, I happen to think that this definition of "domestic terrorism" is a pretty good one. If you disagree, then by all means, agitate for it to be changed. If you think that people *should* be permitted to engage in criminal acts which endanger life in order to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, than make your case.
But conjuring up implausible scenarios under which this law *might possibly someday* be abused, and then trying to bolster your case by hysterically conflating domestic terrorism laws with the laws regarding suspected terrorist *aliens* just doesn't do it. In fact, I'd say you're further from making your case than ever. Even if you have a good point to make about flaws in the Patriot Act (and I'm not claiming that Patriot is perfect; nothing human is), who's going to bother listening to it?
An acquaintance of mine, who happens to be a devout Muslim, was locked up shortly after 911 for three months without access to legal counsel. Do you think it couldn't happen to you or me?
My acquaintance had access to none of these rights.
*Could* the hippie cretins you invented be charged
Have either you or any of your friends ever been through the U.S. Legal system? You obviously have not seen overly conservative judges in action.
They'll be thrown out the first time it
You really do live in an idealized world, don't you?
Even you seem to agree that such an action would be an abuse of
The more power an organization has, the easier it is to abuse this power.
I send money to the ACLU. I'm making my case by proxy.
My "implausible scenario" was a natural extension of events that have actually occurred. Laws are currently abused. Often. Making the laws even more draconian makes it easier to abuse them.
and then trying to bolster your case by
It needs to be shaken up by the ACLU. It needs to be examined critically. (I merely examined it for five minutes and found flaws.) Fortunately, we are still allowed to do this. I think you probably agree that this is a good thing.
- You're probably just making that up
- The Patriot Act did not yet exist at that time
- Nothing in the Patriot Act would allow that
Try again.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Great quote. It is interesting to see how it shut this "Scott Munro" up. If you didn't provide your hypotetical example for him to sink his teeth in, he'd probably resorted to personal insults.
An iteresting fresh article on the subject
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/23/MNGG53925E1.DTL
This country strides in giant paces. Just yesterday it was trying to copycat the Soviet 80's and today it's in the 70's already.
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:08:34 -0800, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
Uh, Andre, buddy? I responded to that post. Try to keep up, would you?
I saw that you did formally "respond" to that post. But you couldn't say anything relevant about the actual quote - that's what I meant when said that "it shut you up". Instead, you decided to pick on Tieus' hypotetical example about "peace marhers and policemen". Sorry, but doesn't exactly qualify as a "response". What would you do if he didn't include this example in his post?
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:50:10 -0800, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
Oh. I thought when you said that it "shut [me] up," you meant that it shut me up. My mistake.
Probably done exactly what I did at the end of that post: explained that it sounded like a very good definition of "domestic terrorism" to me, and invited him to explain how he thought it should be changed.
In fact, if he hadn't included his little made up situation, I would have been baffled at what his problem with the quoted provision could have been. Surely criminal activity which endangers life, and is intended to influence the policy of a state or intimidate or coerce the populace, is terrorism, whether it is committed by Saudis or Americans.
I am not, however, baffled at why this provision horrifies *you*. I simply assume that you support such activity.
I withdraw (and have cancelled) my previous post, in which I admit I went too far.
Not only did he respond to it, he systematically destroyed whatever pathetic point that person was trying to make.
More left-wing fantasy crap. If you can't do better than that, give up now.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
More bullshit. Are you just making this stuff up or are you getting it from reliable sources such as salon.com?
I never understood the left's ability to tell outright lies until this subject appeared.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:41:25 -0500 (EST), [email] (Chris �) wrote:
Perhaps they do it to conceal the real threats to our freedoms (which do not emanate from the Neanderthal Right):
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200311190844.asp
Depressing piece, that.
It doesn't really matter whether such provision is there or not. No one cares. "Patriot Act" is nothing more than a buzzword, which can be used (and is used) as a quick way to justify _any_ imprisonment. Nobody is really going to look into the document for that simple reason that majority of the american population neither cares about it nor possesses the intellectual ability to apprehend the document.
When it comes to civil freedoms, today's USA is virtually exact copy of Soviet Union of the 80s with the only difference that USSR was moving forward in time while USA is moving backwards. Wait till it gets to the Soviet 30s...
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:44:29 -0800, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
You're an idiot.
This "translation" is much better than any of the half-assed attempts made by "Chris" here. Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say to you - you're an idiot. Looks like I made it a bit too elaborate for your taste.
Translation: it's not there and never was in any way.
Translation: most people don't agree with me.
Translation: I've got no ammo, so I'll make shit up.
Translation: I've lost this argument, so I'll throw a temper tantrum and insult the vast majority who refuse to buy what I'm selling.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
LOL. As long as you and people like you keep their lists of "translations" armed and ready you'll be OK. And primitive tricks like the aforementioned act will work like a charm.
Unfortunately, I cannot rationally respond to your posts because they lack anything of substance to rebut.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
With typical content of your posts you aren't exactly regarded here as a person who is able to tell a substantial post from a meaningless one (a signature alone speaks volumes). Needless to say, this devaluates the above comment of yours to virtually nothing. Sorry, but you simply don't get to say that.
"Jsonitsac" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
illiterate
end up
name
Ohhhhh guess you told me!
The Patriot Act hasn't a single provision that curbs free speech. It's so nice to see that the left still argues at the level of a 6 year old when backed into a corner. "Shut Up" is an argument that Socrates would've been proud of.
"BrewMaster" wrote in message news:...
Give me a break. Both sides have laypersons that make stupid arguments, and grouping everyone who is more liberal together is ridiculous.
I will say I don't know much about the Patriot Act, but from what I have read about it, it seems like it can violate privacy of people simply suspected to be terrorists.
Also, some of Bush's administration's comments come out pretty bad, particularily if they were quoted in context. I suspect I might be asked to hunt some down, even though I'm sure Scott and Chris will already know some making it a pointless endeavor.
Personally, I wouldn't say I'm left or right, I side with each group on different issues, and some issues have no easy answer where both groups can have reasonable stances.
So could RICO, of people simply suspected of being involved with organized crime, according to that logic.
Any law can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. The broad interpretation is not necessarily be the only one we must use for this debate, but it seems to be the one the left is obsessed with.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.