Let's Talk Sense Archives

Message board comments
from July through August 2002

Date:: 07/01/02
Time:: 03:43 AM

Comments

Messages from May through June have been archived

Date:: 07/01/02
Time:: 09:22 PM

Comments

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-...."

Notice the 2 refrences to God I capitalized in the above direct quote from the Declaration of Independence. I guess all you liberals think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional also.

Happy 4th of July. Say a prayer for peace.

Date:: 07/02/02
Time:: 04:17 PM

Comments

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" - President George Washington, September 17th, 1796

"To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian." - George Washington, during a public prayer at Valley Forge

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." - Thomas Jefferson

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." - President John Quincy Adams

"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" - Benjamin Franklin Address at the Constitutional Convention Thursday June 28, 1787

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." - James Madison

Date:: 07/02/02
Time:: 05:30 PM

Comments

Your strawman has no legs. Go away now.

Date:: 07/03/02
Time:: 07:20 AM

Comments

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

Thomas Jefferson

Date:: 07/03/02
Time:: 07:28 AM

Comments

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

John Adams

Date:: 07/03/02
Time:: 07:34 AM

Comments

The Christian Right continues to spread the falsehood that the United States of America is a Christian nation because prominent founders and presidents were Christian. These quotes should help to set the record straight:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian Doctrine." George Washington

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln

Date:: 07/03/02
Time:: 10:29 PM

Comments

Pat,

In case you have forgotten, the GOP also brought us the McCarthy Era with its communist witch hunt, Nixon and Watergate, and more recently, an orchestrated campaign to "get Clinton" at all costs. The GOP has also rejected meaningful protection of the environment by claiming that global warming doesn't exist, supported resumption of nuclear testing, rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (that has already been ratified by most civilized nations, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the former states of the Soviet Union), withdrawal from the chemical and biological warfare treaty, withdrawal from the small arms treaty, rejection as well as withdrawal of our signature from the treaty of Rome that established the World Criminal Court to try war criminals and violators of human rights, and an agenda to turn this country into a theocracy under the guise of "family values" and idiotic rhetoric that declares this country to be a Christian nation--something that certainly was not envisoned by many of our founding fathers who were actually Deists.

At present, the GOP has sponsored legislation to allow churches the ability to participate in political campaigns without losing their tax-exempt status. This is the sort of thing that threatens to corrupt both the institution of government as well as our religious institutions. At one time, I actually identified with much that the Republican Party represented, and I have supported many people in the past who ran for office on the GOP ticket, but the face of the GOP has changed a great deal over the past 30 years. Now, I cannot in good conscience support a political party that seeks to blur the distinction between church and state and whose agenda is blatantly anti-woman. And, yes, I find these things to be thoroughly repugnant!

There are certainly members of the GOP that I have a great deal of respect for (Lincoln Chaffee, as well as his late father, John Chaffee, John McCain, Lowell Weicker, among others), but they are few and far between these days, particularly in the House where we have the likes of Tom DeLay and Dick Armey.

As to the issue of term limits, that is a joke! Every single one of the GOP who supposedly "claimed" to back term limits, changed their tune when it came time for them to step aside! Personally, I do not believe in term limits since the voters can certainly set term limits at the ballot box. As to so-called "family values", that term is used to mask an agenda that seeks to devalue and discriminate against gays and any other person who doesn't fit into some preconceived notion of what a "family" should look like.

Martha

Date:: 07/04/02
Time:: 11:29 AM

Comments

You said:

"The Christian Right continues to spread the falsehood that the United States of America is a Christian nation because prominent founders and presidents were Christian. These quotes should help to set the record straight....."

Did you make those up? Sounds different than the first quotes posted on this page. Maybe they were early democrats and changed their beliefs according to which poll was popular that day.

Date:: 07/04/02
Time:: 01:40 PM

Comments

No, I didn't make up those quotes. Anyone can go to www.google.com and type in Lincoln+Christianity or Jefferson+Christianity. All the quotes are there. I don't know the dates on which these men said these things, but I will try to find to find out and post it. All of them were known as Deists and not Christians, and all of them believed in the total separation of church and state. This is why there is NO mention of God in our Constitution.

Date:: 07/04/02
Time:: 02:20 PM

Comments

The fact that there was no mention of God in the constitution does not necessarily mean that they believed in separation of Church and State or that they were not Christians.

Date:: 07/04/02
Time:: 02:30 PM

Comments

The following quotes should make it clear that Thomas Jefferson was certainly not a "Christian" in the traditional sense, nor did Mr. Jefferson support the idea of this nation as a "Christian Nation".

... the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or that such a character existed. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies. The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods (undated), referring to "our particular superstition" Christianity, from by John E. Remsburg, Six Historic Americans: Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Franklin Steiner, Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents (1936), "Thomas Jefferson, Freethinker"

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander Smyth, January 17, 1825

We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. -- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus. He who follows this steadily need not, I think, be uneasy, although he cannot comprehend the subtleties and mysteries erected on his doctrines by those who, calling themselves his special followers and favorites, would make him come into the world to lay snares for all understandings but theirs. These metaphysical heads, usurping the judgment seat of God, denounce as his enemies all who cannot perceive the Geometrical logic of Euclid in the demonstrations of St. Athanasius, that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three nor the three one. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Canby, September 18, 1813

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to his nephew, Peter Carr

Date:: 07/04/02
Time:: 02:38 PM

Comments

To view more quotes that demonstrate our founding fathers did not intend this country to be a "Christian nation", check out the following links:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/

Date:: 07/04/02
Time:: 10:46 PM

Comments

Martha,

I will not take on the task of defending the Republican party, nor for that matter any other party. I have better use for my time. My personal opinions cover too much of both ends of the spectrum for any party to fulfill all my requirements, and I will not have some bozo politician dictate what I should think.

My comments were in response to absolute statements that basically all Republican proposals and all Republicans were "repugnant". Had you written that all Democrats were repugnant, I could have posted the same reply with only a few word substitutions. I will agree some Republicans may be repugnant, but then again, would you like to defend Ted Kennedy's actions at Chappaqiddick or Hillary's cattle's futures miracle? A little objectivity has never killed anyone, but judging from some of the posts on this board, some people are not taking any chances.

Regarding any of the above topics you mentionned, I will be glad to debate them with you if you can get past a mindset that adheres to the Democratic line with a conviction that is more commonly associated with religious fanaticism.

pat

Date:: 07/05/02
Time:: 12:21 AM

Comments

Pat,

Since you have not challenged me on any of the issues that I presented, I think that it is up to you to present an argument in favor of any Republican initiative that is currently pending which you support. I find very little in their agenda with which I agree. I did not support the tax cut because it was clear to me that it overwhelmingly benefitted the people who least needed tax relief and because it was fiscally irresponsible. I certainly do not support the steel tariffs, or anything else, for that matter, that impedes free trade.

For all of Clinton's flaws, he was a far stronger proponent for free trade than the current inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And Clinton paid a political price for his support of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO with his base constituency. I cannot see that Bush has dared to do a single thing for this country that might cost him political capital, yet there ARE many areas where the best solution is not the most popular solution with his core constituents. One example is his ludicrous solution to stem cell research--a solution that was clearly designed to curry favor with his core constituency of the religious right. Forget that such research will proceed with or without his support, but it will end up outside of this country. Another area where Bush acted "politically" instead of doing the right thing is the steel tariffs. The steel tariffs demonstrates just how totally hypocritical Bush is. He calls himself a "free trader", but he invokes these tariffs to curry favor with voters in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, two "swing" states that he hopes to win in 2004. Bush's support for the farm subsidies is yet another place where his support was more political than doing what was "best" for this country.

As to fighting terrorism, what does this administration initially propose for our country? Why, missile defense, of course! Even though a missile defense system would have done NOTHING to prevent 9/11, this is where Bush and Cheney want to spend billions of dollars. In spite of the number of physicists and engineers around the country who have stated that such a system is untenable and in spite of the number of people already indicted and convicted of fraud for the previous missile defense initiative, THIS administration wants to throw good money after bad!

And don't even get me started on civil liberties! The Clinton administration had an abysmal record with regard to civil liberties, but with John Ashcroft and his hingemen, the Clinton administration is looking better and better every day!

As to Hillary's cattle futures, perhaps you need to take a look at the business transactions of the current administration--her deal was small potatoes by comparison. I will not defend Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick, although I do not find it so nearly as reprehendible as the cavalier attidude of Mr. Bush in setting a record for executions in Texas. In addition, for all of his faults, Mr. Kennedy has been an outstanding statesman. He is co-authored more legislation enacted into law than any person in history--and a great number of those bills have been the result of a bipartisan effort. He is one of the few people in Congress that I trust to do what he thinks is right as opposed to doing what is politically and financially beneficial. BEFORE you engage in further character assassination, you should check out the following website:

http://www.realchange.org

It is nonpartisan and has information about previous candidates for predident as well as a few other prominent politicians. In particular, take a look at the page they have on Mr. Bush. There's enough dirt there to fill a major landfill.

Date:: 07/07/02
Time:: 09:54 PM

Comments

Martha

My last post attempted to be conciliatory. The futility of that effort is obvious. If you will reread my posts, you will find that I asked questions, brought out a few facts,and exposed what I thought were some inconsistencies in what you had written. As a result you assume me to be your counterpart, a Republican apologist. I stated that I would not defend the Republican agenda, but that message seems to have gone in one ear and out the other without meeting resistance. I did not challenge you on any issue. I only offered to debate with a caveat you have obviously chosen to ignore, as you charge back driveling the same Democratic party line.

It is amazing that you only condemn Ted Kennedy in passing. Please allow me to refresh your memory: This married man took a young woman "for a drive", ran off the road, then deserted the scene. Mary Jo would be left to linger trapped in a submerged vehicle for two hours before drowning. This champion of women's rights then tried to cover it up (In case you have forgotten, Mr. Nixon was impeached not for a break-in about which he knew nothing, but for his role in the ensuing cover-up). Yet you seem to forgive Ted because of all the good legislation he has since enacted. With mind boggling logic, you credit him as "one of the few people in Congress that I trust to do what he thinks is right". A person with your principles could admire John Wayne Gacy's work with children, and overlook that one slight flaw.

You go on to state that Mr. Kennedy actions at Chappaquiddick are "not nearly as reprehensible" as Mr. Bush's attitude on capital punishment. I have no problem with you wish to condemn Mr. Bush in such a way, but I would then ask you to consider the case of Rickey Ray Rector. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Rector's execution would make it most interesting for a person of your convictions to rationalize.

No issue is black and white, and an opinion should be established after studying both sides. Looking into any such an issue should generate questions, engendering more reading, which often brings more questions and so on. I must compliment you on the research that must have gone into the twenty some topics you have listed in your last two posts alone. While I agree with many more of your ideas than you may suspect, I find it impossible to have an intelligent exchange with someone who is so obstinately and intolerantly devoted to her own opinions and prejudices as to preclude a meaningful discussion. Please refer to my reply to you of 6/30.

Repugnantly

pat

Date:: 07/08/02
Time:: 01:17 AM

Comments

Pat,

If you had really wanted to be “conciliatory”, you might have started by apologizing for initially attempting to characterize me as a bigot—even going so far as to accuse me of racism. Instead, you prefer to use typical Republican drivel to attack the favorite Democratic targets of the GOP—Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. You do not attack their political ideology, but instead, you choose to attack their personal conduct, a subject that I doubt either you or I can truly assess to any degree since neither of us has all the facts. In spite of the tone of your posts, I attempted to raise some issues for you to address. Instead of addressing a single one of the issues, you continue in your “attack mode”, again trying to characterize my ideology and my opinions instead of addressing the issues raised. Instead of addressing the issues, you once again launch into character assassination by trotting out Chappaquiddick. And as a typical Repugnant response, you have mistakenly characterized Mr. Nixon’s downfall as the result of a mere cover-up of a second-rate break-in. Perhaps you need a little education in this regard. Mr. Nixon’s downfall came about as the result of his misuse of the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS. It was not the cover-up that did Nixon in—it was his wholesale abuse of power that eventually forced him from office—an action that was only brought about 2 years after the break-in at the Watergate. Your comparison of Mr. Kennedy’s actions in one incident that was certainly not planned or desired on his part to Mr. Nixon’s premeditated abuse of office is really mind boggling. But then, why should I have expected anything different? If you are not a Republican, you could certainly have fooled me because you went out of your way to diminish Nixon’s malfeasance—typical Repugnant rhetoric that really undermines your credibility.

You obviously do not want to debate anyone on this forum. Based on the lack of substance in you posts and the general tone, it seems that you would rather belittle others and disrupt any meaningful discourse rather than address issues. If you and I do agree on anything, it is certainly not clear to me because you have gone out of your way to make it appear just the opposite by failing to address a single issue that I have raised. You have also done everything in your power to insult me and basically denigrate my point of view without offering anything substantive yourself. If you have something to offer other than the usual Repugnant drivel (which is all that I have read from you thus far), by all means, do so. Once again, I challenge you to state just ONE current Republican initiative with which you agree.

As to being “obstinately and intolerantly” devoted to my own “opinions and prejudices”, there are certainly areas in which I have reached my own opinion that is unlikely to change because I have thoroughly researched the subject and reached my own conclusions. Since my own opinion about any particular issue is based on my research of that topic, it is hardly a product of my own prejudices but instead is a product of my own enlightenment on a particular subject. If you are a thinking person, you have likewise reached similar conclusions about particular subjects. Does that mean that you are a “bigot”? As to “obstinacy and intolerance”, you might take a good, hard look in the mirror because your prejudices are crystal clear to me. No, you do not admit that you are a Republican, but you certainly use arguments that only a partisan Republican would make, as in the characterization of Watergate as merely a cover-up of a second-rate break-in or trotting out “family values” as an issue without stating any policy or agenda associated with that term. If I were to make a guess at how you view yourself, I would suspect that you identify yourself as either a freeper or a libertarian, which from my own experience translates into a closet Republican. Frankly, the constant mantra of all government is “bad” and private enterprise is “good” is shallow and simplistic, in my opinion, and basically does nothing to address the problems we face as a country. Hence, there is little that I can learn from most freepers and libertarians. I have heard those arguments before, and there is little that can be said along those lines that will change my own personal ideology. I happen to agree with libertarians in the areas of personal freedom and free trade, but I disagree with them vehemently in the arena of public education and government regulation of the marketplace.

As to the execution of Rickey Ray Rector, I found it totally reprehensible that then Governor Bill Clinton went out of his way to return to Arkansas during his bid for the presidency to sign Rector’s death warrant. I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, and I certainly do not defend Clinton’s actions in this regard. When I supported Clinton for president, it was in spite of that action. I did not support Mr. Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but there was NO WAY that I wanted four more years of Mr. Bush, whom I did support initially in 1988. I might add that Mr. Clinton never mocked someone condemned to execution as Mr. Bush mocked Karla Faye Tucker. In addition, Mr. Clinton did not go out of his way to set a record for executions as Mr. Bush did. You might want to take a look at some of the cases that were rejected for review by Mr. Bush—cases where attorneys slept throughout the trial or were intoxicated as well as one case where DNA completely exonerated the man (Bush rejected the review—said that the man should appeal it in court, a lengthy, expensive process that eventually set the man free much later).

As to my own personal ideology, I certainly do not agree with the Democratic Party on every issue, but I have found far more agreement with my own system of beliefs within that party than within the GOP. At one time, I actually identified with the Republican Party. Heck, I even voted for Nixon! But the agenda of the Republican Party has drifted so far to the right that there is no way that I can presently support that party or its candidates (a position that I have held since 1992). When the GOP cleans up its act and rejects the domination of the religious right and extremists in setting their agenda, I might reconsider my choices at the poll. I support candidates for office whose ideology most closely mirrors my own, and for the past 10 years, that has meant that I have voted for Democrats. If I were in Rhode Island, I would have certainly supported Lincoln Chaffee. Similarly, if I were in Arizona, I would probably have supported John McCain, a man that I could have easily supported as president, unlike the idiot currently in charge. But these are not the mainstream of the GOP today. Instead, they are pariahs in their own party, which is yet another reason that I cannot support the GOP.

One final note—quit trying to hide your obvious partisanship. It insults my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone else reading your posts.

Date:: 07/08/02
Time:: 01:20 PM

Comments

I was sent this link from a news group, and I found it to be VERY informative! This is a MUST READ for anyone interested in the domination of the religious right in mainstream politics these days.

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/dictionary.html

Date:: 07/09/02
Time:: 03:33 PM

Comments

"President Bush wants to pose as tough on crime now, but he came to office tailoring his rhetoric and administration to fit Reagan's pattern. He campaigned against the "excessive regulation" of the Clinton years. He appointed the accountants' lobbyist, Harvey Pitt, to head a "kinder and gentler" SEC. His first SEC budget proposed eliminating 57 staff positions, including 13 in the office of full disclosure and 12 in the office charged with preventing fraud. His Treasury secretary immediately shut down intergovernmental efforts to monitor the offshore corporate tax havens at the heart of Enron's financial maneuvers. And the president still opposes reforms to curb the executive stock options that allowed CEOs to plunder their own companies."

Robert L. Borosage
Washington Post

Read full article

Date:: 07/09/02
Time:: 05:43 PM

Comments

"In a Washington Post column, Dana Milbank wrote that Bush’s approval rating has to do with the high numbers he polls for his personal integrity. This is mind boggling, since Bush is the sleaziest and most corrupt President in US history. I challenge any Republican to name one thing that Bush has done in his entire life to demonstrate that he is a man of character."

Date:: 07/10/02
Time:: 05:23 AM

Comments

"It's time for wholesale reform in this country but that will only happen when the people make it clear that they know the court-appointed Bush Administration to be as illegitimate and untrustworthy as the corporate criminals currently impoverishing millions so that they can live in obscene splendor. Business will never clean up its act until the people clean up the government. We must redouble our efforts to defeat Bush at every turn, to elect people who stand against white-collar criminality and to awaken our fellow citizens to the theft of our very lives."

Barry Crimmins

Date:: 07/10/02
Time:: 07:12 AM

Comments

The problem with all this talk about Bush and Harken Energy is that is only the tip of the iceberg of Bush's malfeasance as a businessman. There are STILL some very unhappy people in Arlington over his real estate venture involving the Ballpark at Arlington. When the original owners of the land where the Ballpark in Arlington now resides did not want to sell, Bush and his cronies had the land condemned with the owners paid less than 1/6th of its fair market value! For details of this and other areas of Bush's crooked business dealings, go here:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#hypocrisy

Date:: 07/10/02
Time:: 05:28 PM

Comments

"Come November 5, 2002, Americans will have the opportunity via the midterm Congressional elections to thwart some of the more egregious abuses of the Bush administration by electing Democrats to an unassailable majority within the legislative branch. In 2004, we will be afforded the chance to toss these robber barons out on the street, bag and baggage."

William Rivers Pitt

Date:: 07/11/02
Time:: 12:30 PM

Comments

"Bush told reporters at his press conference that, for clarification of his financial activities as a Harken board director, 'You need to look back on the director's minutes.' But the White House refuses to release such records, claiming it doesn't have access to them, and refuses to ask Harken for such records. Then why did Bush tell the reporters that they need to look at those records as proof of his innocence? This is a stonewall. Keep in mind that Agnew was forced to resign during the Nixon administration for not documenting a corporate loan of less than Bush's loan from Harken."

POLITEX July 11, 2002

Date:: 07/15/02
Time:: 07:52 AM

Comments

As I watched a history of the Nazi party in America on the History channel, I was struck by the fact that Fritz Kuhn used "family values" to rally the German-American Bund in the '30's. So much of the early Nazi party in the U.S. (as well as in Germany, for that matter!) was brought to the forefront by so-called religious right ideology. Sort of scary when you think about it. Here's an interesting link that provides some of this history:

http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/documents/ChristianRight.html

I must admit that I have always had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the term "family values", and I am now beginning to see why!

Date:: 07/15/02
Time:: 10:55 AM

Comments

Check out the 21st century version of the bumper sticker called the bumper banner. With our free interactive website you can print bumper stickers right from you pc and display them on your vehicle with our thin clear acrylic sign holder. Choose from over 500 on the site or make your own with our interactive section. If you have and suggestions let us know and we will put them up on the site. Click on www.thebumperbanner.com/liberal.php to see how it works. Thanks Rich Costello

Date:: 07/16/02
Time:: 12:57 PM

Comments

-----Original Message-----
From: Dwight Lemoine []
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:08 PM
To: matilda@letstalksense.com
Subject: your picture

GOD YOU LOOK HIDEOUS IN THAT PICTURE ON YOUR WEBSITE. NO WONDER YOU ARE SO FUCKING DERANGED AND HATE THE WORLD SO MUCH. HURRY UP AND DIE SO WE CAN BURY YOUR UGLY ASS.

Date:: 07/16/02
Time:: 12:58 PM

Comments

My dear Dwight...

You are so right. That is a hideous picture of me. But you're wrong about my hating the world. I am very concerned about the direction my country has taken and you should be too. I have always loved my country, I served in the Navy in World War II. You must be a very unhappy person to write me such an ugly letter. Shame on you.

Here's an article you would do well to read and think about seriously: M. Lipscomb

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=490

Date:: 07/16/02
Time:: 04:00 PM

Comments

Hi Matilda,

Dwight is a jerk! If I did not know you were 81, I would never have guessed it from your photo--you look GREAT! It's sad that so many who would disagree with your point of view are so consumed by hate. I tend to chalk up such vitriole to a person with a fundamentally weak argument who has such a poor self-image that he feels he must insult others to feel like a "big" man. Too bad that such people do not realize how really small they appear to the rest of the world!

Martha

Date:: 07/17/02
Time:: 09:52 PM

Comments

Martha

I feel I presented enough verifiable facts for an intelligent objective person to form an opinion of Mr Kennedy's character (N.B.:character, not politics). It is impressive that you feel that we do not have all the facts to judge Ted's character, yet you apparently have all the facts necessary to vilify "the likes of Tom Delay and Dick Armey ". Do you note the double standard, and are you terminally incapable of understanding the difference between a man's politics and his character?

Regarding Mr Nixon, I refered to him to draw a parallel to Mr Kennedy's initial attempt at a cover-up, a point that apparently eluded you. I fail to see how you read that as excusing his actions. There is enough evidence for a reasonable person to draw conclusions on Nixon's ethics. If you wish to compare the two events, fine. Both started simply enough, Mr Kennedy ran off the road, an event that was undoubtedly unintentionnal, and members of Nixon's re-election commitee broke into the Watergate Hotel. Both events could have been overlooked by history. The ensuing respective behavior of each man , Nixon over the next several months and Kennedy for a few hours, is nothing short of despicable. The first of the Articles of Impeachment, obstruction of justice, was a consequense of Mr Nixon's attempt at a cover-up. Mr Kennedy, while avoiding charges of vehicular homicide, saw his dreams of winning the Presidency extinguished. Either man's accomplishments may be debatable, but to make excuses for either's behavior is a disgrace.

You have noted that I shy from specific discussions. You no doubt agree with the Gwich'in (Someone who "has known a few thousand people of color" should know a few hundred Eskimos), but can you explain why the Inupiat's arguments should be ignored when drafting ANWR policy? What is the importance of the Kaibab plateau with regards to understanding animal population dynamics, and how would it influence your views on hunting? Should the unintended effects of Smoot-Hawley be considered in deciding present day trade policies? Only a simple mind can be satisfied with simple predigested soundbit answers to complex problems, and it is impossible to discuss adequately any of these topics here. I also doubt it was Matilda's intent to have her message board used as the forum for such dicussions.

If you will read previous posts, I have not challenged your ideas and opinions. I only challenged the logic and objectivity of your statements, a subtlety that continues to fly over your head. If you will go back to my original post, I challenged someone calling Matilda senile and your categorization of all Republicans as Repugnant. Wheras the other poster had the good sense to not try to justify the indefensible, you are the one who went into attack mode. I started with an observation of lack of civility and fairness, and you are the one who branched off into numerous specific issues. I will stand by and will not apologize for what I wrote. Anyone who lumps all people of a particular class under an epithet is bigotted, and the only difference between you and a racist is the targetted class.

pat

P.S. I have to agree with your last post. Matilda not only looks great, she is a wonderful person.

Date:: 07/18/02
Time:: 03:02 AM

Comments

Pat,

Since your memory seems to be failing, I will remind you what YOU said that you now seem inclined to ignore:

"Regarding the person who refers to Republicans as 'Repugnants', I can only imagine the cute little monikers you must have to refer to African-Americans."

As I said before and still contend, the current agenda of the GOP is repugnant to me! I have repeatedly asked that you state just ONE current initiative proposed by the GOP that is of merit. Instead, you persist in defending the indefensible--that is, your thinly veiled attempt to equate my disdain for the current agenda of the Republican party with racism. Such an assertion is patently absurd, yet you persist by labeling me as a bigot because I do not support the current Republican agenda, an assertion that you repeat over and over as though repeating it justifies it. It doesn't.

Your only mention of recent GOP platforms, policies, or initiatives refers back to 1994. You first cite "family values" which is not a platform, policy, or an initiative but pure rhetoric--the SAME rhetoric used by fascists and Nazis for years. You also mentioned term limits, an issue that was quickly abandoned as soon as those advocating term limits were elected to office.

I will not belabor your attempt to minimize Nixon's abuse of office--most people know better. Your comparison of Kennedy to Nixon is still a pathetic comparison. Again, you attempt to justify the absurd.

As to the few substantive issues raised--the issue of ANWR and the opinion of Eskimos is silly. Of course, the Eskimos (along with most residents of Alaska) favor drilling in ANWR! It's called GREED! All residents in Alaska get money from oil and gas produced in that state each year. Hence, more drilling--more money for each resident of that state! Since the little bit of oil that would be generated by drilling in ANWR would make very little difference in providing energy, I cannot see the point. It would make far better sense to improve efficiency and seek alternative, renewable sources of fuel.

As to animal population dynamics, it seems to me that this was partially addressed by the reintroduction of wolves. As seems to be the case all too often, when a particular animal species becomes extinct or nearly extinct, it can have a dramatic effect on every other species in that particular habitat. Exactly how is the theory of the predator-prey relationship to animal population dynamics supposed to affect my attitude toward hunting? What's your point?

I thought that my opinion of Hawley-Smoot was crystal clear--I believe in free, open markets. If history has taught us anything, it's that protectionism is an economically disastrous policy--something that Bush obviously hasn't learned.

As to your own taking offense by my labeling of Republicans as Repugnants, it is a very thin-skinned person that takes offense to such labels, especially when those labels currently reflect the attitude of a substantial portion of the population toward the GOP. I have seen the GOP labeled the "stupid party", and Republicans referred to as fascists, bigots, old white men, and various other invectives. Similarly, I have witnessed Democrats labeled as communists, socialists, anti-capitalists, and every other imaginable derision. By comparison, my label is rather tame, a point that seems to have eluded you. I do not apologize for the label because I continue to be repulsed by most of the Republicans in the House, and I have seen very little positive from the GOP in the past 10 years.

As to your assertions concerning the distinction between "character" and "politics", I stated from the beginning that I was not interested in the character assassination with which you seem obsessed. (As to your stated "verifiable facts" concerning Mr. Kennedy, the ONLY facts that are absolutely verifiable are that Mary Jo Kopechne died in the accident, and Mr. Kennedy was in the auto with her--who drove and how it happened are both subject to debate). Instead, I judge politicians by their actions in office, a point that I very clearly stated. If those actions involve the abuse of power as a result of their position, as in the case of Mr. Nixon, it is no longer a matter of character but is a reflection of their job performance. Whether a politician is an adulterer has very little to do with his performance in office--something that should be obvious from the proclivities of some of our former presidents and their various performances in office.

Based on your posts to date, I can see that there is very little that you have to offer me. You apparently have such a high opinion of yourself and your own opinions that you cannot imagine that you might actually ever be "wrong" or that someone else might actually know more about a subject than you do. You also seem to live in the delusion that those who do not share your point of view must be uninformed, are not logical, or are prone to propaganda from sound bites. This is my last communication with you because like so many men, you think that you are somehow superior to others and you must constantly try to "prove" that point. Instead, you only continue to demonstrate what a really small person you are by persisting with absurd personal attacks directed at me. Character assassination and personal attacks demonstrate to me that you lack the capacity for any serious political debate. It seems that it is YOU who lacks logic and objectivity! If you actually possessed logic and objectivity, you would not substitute accusations of racism and bigotry for a rational dialogue.

Date:: 07/18/02
Time:: 02:25 PM

Comments

My good friends,

It seems to me that what Bush and Ashcroft are really trying to do with this insane TIPS program is GET VOTES!!!! They're officially deputizing a mammoth citizen's posse to "smoke 'em out". And they'll even provide them with some kind of official insignia, I understand.

But I truly don't think they care about or expect to learn anything from the program. They probably won't even try to process or follow up on all the paranoid calls they are sure to receive. They have nowhere near the facilities to do this. But just think of all the enthusiastic clowns who are SURE to vote for them.

Of course, if you're working to help Bush prevent terrorism, you're certainly NOT going to vote against him. And enthusiastic "team members" are the kind that make it their business to vote.

The whole idea is VILE, but it's real purpose is insidious and sinister!!! Its real aim is not to detect terrorists.............it's to insure votes!!! They're counting on the gullibility of the ordinary citizen, and they have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of Americans. This administration clearly has no sense of decency!!!

Matilda

Date:: 07/18/02
Time:: 10:37 PM

Comments

Martha,

Wow. I ask rhetorical questions to prove the absurdity of discussing them with inane soundbits, and you make my point.

Just a few corrections to your post. It is absurd to lump all Eskimos as pro-drilling, but not suprising from someone who lumps all Republicans as Repugnants. Do your studies (doubtful), and you will find that the Gwich'in are against drilling, while the Inupiats are for it; Likewise, hunting was the variable in the Kaibab equation. We actually agree on free trade as well as many other issues, but there is no fun in discussing those. We again agree on another thing, that there is little that I can offer you.

I sincerely wish you well

pat

"Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes" - Voltaire

Date:: 07/19/02
Time:: 12:47 PM

Comments

18 July 2002

You don't allow a friend to drive drunk. We have now got a drunk at the wheel of America; Britain needs to take the keys away from him.

What George W Bush is proposing, taking military action against Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein, will effectively mean that Osama bin Laden will have won.

Whatever the faults of Saddam Hussein, and he is a brutal dictator, his regime is also secular. If Saddam does indeed fall, which Bush and Blair want, it is highly likely that an Islamist regime will take over after US troops leave, as they will sooner or later.

There is a good chance that a domino effect will come into play. We could see Saudi Arabia fall, Kuwait fall, Jordan fall, Egypt fall and the entire region being swept up in a sea of anti-Western, Islamic fundamentalism. Vast numbers of ordinary Arabs will swing behind the aims of al-Qa'ida. The invasion of Iraq is the quickest path to losing the war on terror and giving legitimacy to the criminal who attacked the US and the entire freedom of the world on 11 September.

This war is being driven by right-wing armchair generals in the States. The military men who wear uniforms believe it is ludicrous, but they are being driven towards it by people around Bush.

Many Iraqi defectors being trumpeted by Washington as experts on the Baghdad regime can be discredited. As an intelligence official I know you never publicise having a defector. They have a code name and you milk them for all the information you have, not parade them.

I took an oath when I joined the Marine Corps, and I still love the code and my country, but this is wrong.

Scott Ritter

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 08:30 AM

Comments

Jehovah's Witness Landlord Rips Down Tenant's American Flag After 911:

http://www.ustelevision.focusindia.com/JWs_In_Charge01.html

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 10:53 AM

Comments

20 July, 2002

CHENEY IN NUMBERS

Cheney's 2000 income from Halliburton: $36,086,635 Increase in government contracts while Cheney led Halliburton: 91% Minimum size of "accounting irregularity" that occurred while Cheney was CEO: $100,000,000 (One hundred MILLION dollars) Number of the seven official US "State Sponsors of Terror" that Halliburton contracted with: 2 out of 7 Pages of Energy Plan documents Cheney refused to give congressional investigators: 13,500 Amount energy companies gave the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign: $1,800,000

Tony Mauro

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 03:46 PM

Comments

What is the Israeli involvement in 9-11? Is the U.S. being manipulated into war with the Arabs? We should conclusively rule this out before going into Iraq.

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 03:50 PM

Comments

RE:DUBYA ET AL:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 04:11 PM

Comments

Benjamin Franklin once said,

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

IF SOME ACTION IS NOT TAKEN SOON BY THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, I AM VERY AFRAID THAT THE ABOVE IS JUST WHAT WE WILL ALL WIND UP WITH!

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 04:17 PM

Comments

I live in an apartment complex and I am not allowed to tie yellow ribbons on this property...as it is not mine. I wasn wondering if perhaps we could make a call to WEAR yellow ribbons? I think that would make a statement too!

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 05:11 PM

Comments

Don't listen to that one. You look terrific. Your ideas are sound, too! Yellow ribbons are a good idea, too.

Date:: 07/20/02
Time:: 05:49 PM

Comments

SORRY! YELLOW RIBBONS AREN'T GOING TO SOLVE A DAMN THING! SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CUBA DO TO PROTEST!! (THEY HAVE NO WEAPONS OR ANY OTHER MEANS TO PROTEST). NOTE THE POST ABOVE ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE -

"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT THEY SHOULD ... YELLOW RIBBONS AND OTHER RIDICULOUS PROTESTS LIKE THAT OBVIOUSLY DO NOT WORK - I MEAN LOOK WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN TERMS OF WHAT FED GOV IS DOING TO US ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING US ALL FROM TERRORISM. THEY HAVE TOTALLY SHIT CANNED THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND OUR LIBERTIES! AND YOU THINK WEARING YELLOW RIBBONS IS THE ANSWER?? GET SERIOUS - THEY ARE!!!

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 01:27 AM

Comments

Good for you, Matilda Lipscomb!

I fear that millions of people have not bought "the Big Lie," but have bought many convenient lies in many aspects that affect their daily lives. This has added up to big trouble.

What can we do? We can yet win. We who learn facts which contradict the daily, even hourly monotone of "official" Bush administration, et al, propaganda, must take it upon ourselves as REAL patriots to the United States, simply to inform our neighbors.

I've been doing it. I've been met with a good deal of irrationality. People simply don't want to believe, for example, what is in the "Patriot Act," or that it is being implemented.

We must be persistent, energetic, and patient.

A first somewhat sickening phase of the "Patriot Act" is shortly to be implemented. As of August, our postpeople, truckers, and so on, will have been enlisted as gestapo style "snitchers."

The assertion that this is simply to keep us on the lookout for "terrorists" is a convenient lie. It is to build personal dossiers on American citizens. If Joe Jones of 123 Elm street has a pornography collection, for example, this will go in his dossier.

Perhaps Joe Jones wouldn't like the public to know about his pornography collection. Joe's political affiliation would also be listed, and if it wasn't the political affiliation consistent with the principles of, say, John Ashcroft, who enjoys religious fantasies (slathering himself in cooking oil at public meetings) rather than sexual fantasies, Joe's pornography collection might serve as a useful tool to help him admit the superiority of John Ashcroft's choice of fantasy.

Helpfully, the newly reorganized Neighborhood Watch, at its next organizational meeting, could bring up the fact that while Joe isn't yet known to be a terrorist, his pornography collection doesn't quite fit John Ashcroft's profile of a proper American Citizen.

The Nazis, on whose Gestapo the Homeland Security organization is modeled (Tom Ridge is an avid Nazi admirer, and was outspoken until told to tone it down if he wanted a good job), did things like this.

Furthermore, keep a watch that someone doesn't get shot this August. Not a suspected terrorist, but a poor, heroic, patriotic TIPS lunatic, who has been deliberately set up to spy on, say, a known militia gun-nut with a short temper.

John Ashcroft already has a file on all the known militia gun-nuts and where they live. They all need their meters read, too... and maybe their living rooms or bedrooms looked through, on the way to the basement, say.

The assassination of a heroic, patriotic TIPS lunatic by said militant gun-nut would of course have an outraged patriotic congress requiring more legislation away of American's rights, and more taxpayer money to put down unpatriotic people who don't understand good citizenship as seen through the wall-eyed vision of the religious lunatic Ashcroft, as well as various others who have usurped the government under your sleeping noses.

Harrumph. But keep an eye out.

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 02:17 AM

Comments

Woops. Forgot to mention: I'm Tom. That's my post on what we can do and to watch that an assassination of a TIPS lunatic isn't staged.

You two bickering over Republican vs. Democrat, cut it out. What is at stake is the reality of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in this country, and our government's plans, whether Republican, Democrat, Bilderberger or 6-legged Green Tyrants from the Planet Chaboozagolia to stand in the way of these three inalienable human qualities.

Once again: START TALKING TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. TELL THEM WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED. Think this is "useless"? If you do, YOU are useless. There are probably maybe 10 million of us who have realized what a fraud is being perpetrated by our current highly venal, highly materialistic government. There are probably 60 million of us who... kinda suspect --

Like for instance, the guy who just posted here and realized that the term "family values" creates an odd little twitch in the mind... woops... didn't the Nazis stand for "family values"? Surprise surprise, they did! (And guess what? There isn't a single word about "family values" or anything like it anywhere among the sayings attributed to Jesus. He said "I come to set father against son and mother against daughter." Remember? No? Get reading.)

Anyway, there are probably about 60 million people who just... sense... something weird is going on, and they sort of don't want to know about it.

There are probably 30 million people who would explode in a display of emotional fireworks if they realized that George "Dubya" Bush was not the least bit Christian, but a drunken shill on Prozac, taking orders from his father.

There are probably 70 million people who don't know what to think, and think you might be crazy because you're spouting all this "conspiracy theory," but gee whizz, this is a democracy and things like that don't happen here. And they're tough to talk to. You have to be persistent.

That leaves a hundred million people, probably, kids, teens, and grownups who are rather irresponsible but like being told what to do; and these types will listen to whatever seems to have the brightest noises. The Bush PR firms direct all their propaganda at this sort of person. That's why so much coming from the Bush PR firms sounds like, as Andy Rooney put it, "talking to us like we're children." Indeed they are.

I'm making this little thumbnail up out of my personal demograph, what kind of people I've spoken to in the past 9 months or so. I've just divvied up the proportion of people I've met and projected it across the U.S. population numbers.

Us ten million or so tend to be highly intelligent. But we must cease being holier-than-thou snobs, or I-Told-You-So martyrs. We are not the least bit above the fray. This country is in danger of breaking up. Real patriots will take it upon themselves, individually, without need of a damned budget or some willy-nilly leader to follow, to do what they can, right where they are.

Sounds to me like you're one of them, Matilda. You'd have been very handy in the little political battles I served in, at a county level, in New York State, and California. With NO budget, we killed a $15 million pork barrel scheme in Schuyler Co., NY, and a $250 million good ol' boy scheme in Calaveras County, CA. We killed it. With no financial resources. We just got on the phones to our neighbors. Everybody did what they could.

It'll work across this country. But you HAVE to stop pounding your fists on the table and railing about how "stupid" everybody else is. If you're not alerting your neighbors with what you've learned, YOU are stupid.

Yes the issue is somewhat religious in nature. Jefferson was a spiritually brilliant man. The religious fundamentalists of his day HATED him, and spewed venom at him from every pulpit. Read Henry Adams, a superb historian.

Jefferson understood that the populace was boiling with lunatic Christian religious cults who considered themselves as different from each other as pigs from silk purses. His contribution to the formation of a stable government in this country, rather than an Afghanistan-style quiltwork of primitive voodoo cults, was, and remains sheer genius. Ashcroft would also have hated Jefferson, mortally.

But the religious problem we are facing, in part, is the sheerly pathetic gullibility of masses of people who are allowing their Christian cultural echoes to be played upon. This very thing was how the abominable Prohibition law got onto the Constitution.

The trouble is now, this sick and childish propaganda about "good vs. evil" that Bush's writers are making up for him is a wonderful smokescreen to continue to rape the United States Treasury, which is happening, and to herd the U.S. population into convenient, low paid workforces, who will serve financiers who manage to get drunken yokels like Dubya Bush into power.

It's all there in the "Patriot Act," kids. "Emergency" by "emergency" that fake "Christian" yokel of goodness has the paperwork to assume personal control of the entire U.S. economy.

I KNOW it sounds crazy. But keep your eye on Argentina. Its economy has been destroyed, and this "New World Order" experiment is about to go down over there, too.

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 02:36 AM

Comments

I have found a excellent program you can download for free that saves time in contacting anyone in congress. The site is http://governmail.com They list all of congress, world leaders in all countries and their e-mail addrss and all major news paper and news stations addresses. You send the email from their site. This is a must for anyone who is taking action.

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 06:08 AM

Comments

This is for my reader who wrote that Yellow Ribbons are useless. You're absolutely right about their not "solving anything". They were never meant to. What they do is permit people to identify themselves to other people. If you are displaying or wearing a yellow ribbon, folks are very likely to ask you what it stands for. And you can tell them!! It says "I don't like the direction my country is taking." I think bumper stickers do pretty much the same thing, but we don't stop cars and discuss the issues. We can talk about things to other Yellow Ribbon people. We can even give them some ribbon to wear or display.

The lying corporate media has been insisting for almost a year that Bush has tremendous popular support. This causes many dissatisfied Americans to refrain from speaking out. No one enjoys being in the minority. And even worse, it has caused our Congressmen to back off!!! Go to the Update page of this website and read my article entitled "Fifty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong". It's dated November 20, 2001. My hope is that when we realize that we are MILLIONS who feel the same way, we will be less reticent about protesting.

Think about this, read that November 20th article and then let me know if you still feel the idea is ridiculous. And thank you for your feedback and ideas.

Matilda Lipscomb

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 04:35 PM

Comments

I think you're absolutely right, Matilda. People are not nearly aware enough that the president's "approval" rating is false.

For example, Michael Moore's book, "Stupid White Men" is a good case to yank Bush out of the White House and jail him for treason, and it has been number ONE on the New York Times Best Seller list for months. Yet there is not a single word about it in the "corporate media."

I think the yellow ribbon is a good idea, except for two queasy associations it has in public memory. One, it is from a song about a thug who was released from jail who is uncertain that his girlfriend wants anything to do with him any more. Two, it was used as a way of welcoming home our boys and girls from the phony "Gulf War," which has yet to be explored publicly for the treasonous, murderous fraud it was.

Why can't we use red, white and blue ribbons? Of a certain shape? Why must we hand over even our traditional symbols and colors to filth, plutocrats, and pot-bellied cowards? Do not the flag-waving religious lunatics being stirred up by the Bush administration instead deserve yellow?

Tom

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 08:36 PM

Comments

Thank god that there are white people, americans mainly, in this country who can think for themselves. The first step to taking action is protesting the United State's support of the true terroristic state Israel and boycotting the child murdering liars, Israel.

Date:: 07/21/02
Time:: 08:42 PM

Comments

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT GOVERNMAIL SITE! I'LL BE TELLING EVERYONE ABOUT IT.

Date:: 07/23/02
Time:: 09:18 PM

Comments

http://www.tarpley.net/bushint.htm

This is a must-read. The introduction, written in 1991, was prophetic.

Date:: 07/24/02
Time:: 06:14 PM

Comments

With the possibility of impending war at the hands of an incompetent governing body, it is more than unseemly to wage war over the requirement for prayer, or the muttering of the word "god" for any reason, or under any condition, save in the privacy of your place of worship or within your abode.

Do you imagine the word will protect us from the lunacy of an administration which is hell bent on making it's horrendous mark in history?

There are far more burning issues at stake than ones personal religious sentiment. Your beseechment of the heavens will not stop your sons, daughters, husbands, brothers, cousins, friends and lovers from dying on some foreign shore in the event this administration has it's way.

Do you imagine that the nearly bloodless (for America) military actions to date will go on indefinitely? When you are gone to soldier, you are gone to martyrdom in the name of your belief. With a voluntary militia, such as exists now, the majority of those serving are there because they either seek opportunity to better their circumstances, or because they believe in the rightness of the military life.

What they do not consider in times of peace, when they enlist, is that they will be called upon to die for their country, if the country is attacked, or if it falls into the the hands of a lunatic king.

Will the word "god" in the pledge of allegiance, console you when Johnny doesn't come marching home again?

Put your energies to better use than these childish arguments. Protest against pre-emptive strikes where no discernable viable threat is present.

And if you insist on the importance of the word "god", use it to mourn the poor souls who are called collaterral damage by the men in charge, as casually as one might order a hamburger for lunch.

And because you do nothing but bicker in the most petty way regarding your narrow view of religious freedom, beat your chest and say "mea culpa". Because you are guilty of looking away from the real and present danger. T.R.W.

Date:: 07/25/02
Time:: 12:05 AM

Comments

Concerning Jefferson and Christianity...

Ashcroft should have read Jefferson

By D. Haynes

I've long been weary of seeing Thomas Jefferson's brilliant prose in the Declaration of Independence appropriated by Bible-punching fundamentalist preachers as proof that the Founding Fathers wanted Jesus rammed down everybody's throat in the new nation they risked their lives to found in 1776.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," Jefferson had penned.

Elsewhere in the hallowed document Jefferson referred to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"-- a clear allusion to Jefferson's Deism or nature-centered conception of deity.

In another paragraph in which the signers sought to further justify their bold intentions, reference was made to the "Supreme Judge" of the world as the final arbiter of the actions of men.

Finally, in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson and the 12 other brave men about to affix their signatures to a document that would become their death warrants if the revolution failed, made reference to their "reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."

From the slender thread of usage of the terms, "Creator", "Nature's God", "Divine Providence" and "Supreme Judge"-- never "Jehovah" or the "Christian God" or the "Son of God" or "Jesus"-- Ashcroft and 10,000 other protestant preachers have since elected to conclude that their brand of militant, emotional, unreasoning, Pentecostal religious fervor was authorized by the Founding Fathers.

Nothing could be further from the case.

Jefferson, like many other American Revolutionary patriots (Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense and The Crisis, for example), was a child of the Age of Reason, not of brush arbor frontier evangelism. Jefferson was a brilliant writer, philosopher, thinker and inventor whose musings transcended those of frontier preachers considerably.

Jefferson was, in fact, a Deist and his philosophy was more closely attuned to the Unitarianism of his day than to conventional protestantism. He was a friend and champion of English scientist and Unitarian pastor Joseph Priestley who had emigrated to America after persecution for his refusal to accept the concept of the Trinity and other trappings of the Church of England. The two thinkers exchanged correspondence for many years.

Concerning Jefferson's conception of the role of Jesus in human history, Jefferson biographer and researcher Martin A Larson, wrote in a 1977 work,The Essence of Jefferson, "...it is certain that he (Jefferson) regarded Jesus simply as a great ethical teacher and that he rejected all doctrines which attributed to him a supernatural birth, a divine mission, miraculous powers, a resurrection from the grave, or any expectation of a Second Coming. In short, his general position was nearly that of a modern Unitarian or perhaps a Humanist. In fact, in one letter he declared that he hoped the entire American nation would one day become Unitarian."

In a 1787 letter to a student contemplating religious study Jefferson wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfold fear."

So where do Ashcroft and the rest of them get off appropriating Thomas Jefferson for their own purposes?

Interpolating from his writings, Jefferson would probably disapprove of Ashcroft's theology. And I'm almost certain he'd abhor George W. Bush's aberrant "faith-based" initiative proposal.

Jefferson biographer Larson wrote, "In every way and at all times, Jefferson's watchword ... was the unlimited freedom of the human mind. And let us note that when he said he had sworn on the altar of God eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man, the declaration was directed, not at the English government or the hated financiers, but toward two Protestant denominations which were attempting to drive from educational institutions those who would not subscribe to their dogmas."

Above all else Mr. Jefferson of Monticello wanted the federal government to maintain an impenetrable chasm of separation from sectarian organizations, however successful or unsuccessful, popular or unpopular, politically correct or incorrect, sensible or foolish, a given denomination might appear to be.

I wish that George W. Bush was as wise.

Date:: 07/25/02
Time:: 11:55 PM

Comments

Tom here.

I used to live in Upstate New York, around the Finger lakes, not far from Palmyra, where Mormonism started.

Various people have turned the churches that still stand there into private homes. Religion isn't what it used to be in those parts.

But when it used to be, it was a problem. There still stand 4 churches to a corner here and there in that area, whence people migrated during the "Great Awakening," or mass religious hysteria, of the 1840s. People attending the one corner church snubbed those on the other three corners, or started fights and feuds. Mormons say that the constant religious squabbling around Palmyra drove poor young Joseph Smith to attempting to form a religion in which they could all agree... a religion with its roots on this continent, not from Europe.

Jefferson's genius was in structuring a form of government that could hold up under the squabbling, vicious, sometimes murderous behavior of the Christian sects, which, while condemning Jefferson from the pulpit for it (as Ashcroft is now doing most hypocritically in deed), they accepted.

These were not solid, democratic, tolerant, open-minded U.S. Citizens. They were religious cultists. They went into frenzies and hysterias and performed bizarre rituals (just like Ashcroft). They "knew" everybody but themselves was condemned to an eternity in hell. This didn't make them feel sorry for everyone else, it made them more prone to stealing from and defrauding each other.

It isn't that George Bush should "be as wise." It's that he shouldn't be within a thousand miles of the presidency, and never should have been in the first place. His claims to Christianity are obviously a mere political convenience. Any further inspection would leave one asking why anyone should believe that a pill-and-liquor soaked rich kid who can't even control his own children's drinking should have been taken for a "practicing Christian," even in the cultish and intolerant terms of present day American puritan religious fashion.

Once again: read the book for which I've posted a URL above. It is highly documented, and an incredibly ugly surprise; it should be mandatory reading for every American, period.

Date:: 07/27/02
Time:: 07:57 AM

Comments

27 July, 2002

Former Reagan press secretary Larry Speakes identified the importance of repetition as a propaganda technique when he said, "If you tell the same story five times, it’s true." This propaganda technique is still in force as conservatives keep pushing the tired myth of a liberal media.

Michael Dolny

Date:: 07/27/02
Time:: 07:58 AM

Comments

Michael Dolny

Date:: 07/27/02
Time:: 08:08 AM

Comments

Michael Dolny,

You only posted it twice. If you want us to believe you, you need to post it three more times.

Date:: 07/28/02
Time:: 01:04 PM

Comments

This is by way of apology and explanation to the last person who posted a message. First of all, the message was posted twice because I usually screw up the mechanics of posting it. Secondly, the quote was written by Michael Dolny.....I simply posted it. And third, you have a delightful sense of humor, whether you're a republican or a democrat. Thanks. Matilda Lipscomb

Date:: 07/28/02
Time:: 01:51 PM

Comments

I am part of a group working to prevent the coming war in Iraq. War will kill many Americans in uniform, and many innocent Iraqis already suffering under Saddam's rule -- including infants and children. We urge trying a better alternative.

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq is not now a threat to the United States. Weapons inspections can prevent Iraq from a threat. Ritter, a former Marine intelligence office wrote a book,Endgame, "Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All."

Even if we have no choice but to attack some day, inspectors would help determine the best course of action. But President Bush is leading us headlong into an unneccesary war.

Congress must allow Scott Ritter to testify at the hearings on Iraq. As a former UN weapons inspector and former Marine Colonel, Mr. Ritter is more qualified to testify on Iraq than any other witness. Congress should welcome his expert analysis, but incredibly, they have refused to invite Mr. Ritter so far.

I urge everyone to contact Congress and ask they listen to this expert on Iraqi weapons facilities who can offer advice that will save lives. Time is running out.

We demand to inspect Iraq, not attack. We don't want to spill American blood in an unnecessary, costly war.

Mike Hersh

Date:: 07/29/02
Time:: 12:57 AM

Comments

http://www.tarpley.net/bushint.htm

It's me, Tom. Once again: read that book. Did any of you know, for instance, that John Hinckley, Jr., the attempted Reagan assassin, would have been known by then V.P. George Bush? John's brother had been invited to dinner at son Neil Bush's house the night of the assassination attempt. John Hinckley, Sr., worked for a "religious" mission in Africa that happens to be a CIA front.

Is any of this stuff true? As time goes on, we find at least a good amount of it is. And we find it's never been in the "corporate media." The researchers who find this out are smeared and libeled. I've done a little reporting, however, and I can tell you reporters lie and conceal, all the time. It's no conspiracy or orders from secret places. They lie and slant to please their editors. Their editors are beholding to corporate sleazes, or local "old family" interests, etc.

This book gives a good overview on what happened with the bizarre and sickly "Gulf War" as well. Iraq never needed attacking then, and certainly doesn't need it now.

What needs a most vigorous attack is the somnolent ignorance of your own neighbors.

Half the eligible voters voted in the 2000 election. Fewer than half of those voted for President Oil Princeling. This means that the "Bush agenda," which includes all the hideous gestapo-modeled plans being implemented by the religious lunatic Ashcroft, is vastly outnumbered. Only 24 percent of the voting public voted for Bush. And one of them apologized to me, personally, for it.

Yet the entire country is now in danger of becoming a police state -- overtly, rather than covertly, which it has been in certain respects. This means programs such as the National ID card -- and routine checkpoints for commuters, and the use of the military to herd people daily -- every single day -- and every private aspect of one's daily life -- is in jeapordy of coming under the direct auspices of goverment control.

Those plans are indeed there. It's important to read the book I've suggested, as background.

People "give up some of their freedoms in return for more safety" because they don't know what their freedoms even are... when they do become aware of them on occasion, they're afraid to use them. This means doom, where cartels of "world leaders" see that abridgement of certain freedoms increases profits, and/or promotes the enforcement of various remarkably foolish crackpot ideas, like David Rockefeller's, or the religious lunacy lurking behind John Ashcroft's law enforcement motives.

The first freedom we have allowed to atrophy is the First Amendment. We have not sufficiently exercised our inalienable right to speak our minds. Not wanting to "make trouble," we've instead allow our own government to be lassoed by a consortium of religious lunatics and white-collar pirates.

Talk to your goddam neighbors, personally. Take the heat. I'm doing that. I'm discovering what I already know anyway -- few people are convinced by this fake "war on terror" and all that. But few are resolving to take their civic responsibility into their own hands.

Then they're leaving Nazi afficionados like Tom Ridge to do it for them.

Each of us, individually, need to speak to our friends, relatives, and neighbors, and let all know we're doing this. This is where it starts -- and not in some damned political party headquarters.

So? Are any of you also doing this? What are your reports, then?

Date: