.
The survey found that 52 percent of the public says Bush should talk to
Sheehan, who has repeatedly asked for a meeting with the president, while 46
percent said he should not. Fifty-three percent support what she is doing while
42 percent oppose her actions, according to the poll.
Knock, knock. Pauly. Anyone in there???
There are three individuals from the 1960s who could be credited
with launching the Modern libertarian movement:
Ayn Rand
Barry Goldwater
Dana Rohrabacher
Newsflash Paul: ALL THREE OF THEM ARE/WERE PRO-DEFENSE/STRIDENTLY
ANTI-COMMUNIST AND YES
As a member of the American Legion since 1974 and a life member, I
am outraged that the American Legion would essentially vote to abolish
the First Amendment.
I intend to make very clear that I, unlike the 4000 delegates to the
American Legion National Convention, do not support Bush's
I dropped my membership years ago over their enthusiasm for statist flag
desecration amendments. I recently received another come back to us
letter. Fat chance of that now.
__
James Landrith
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
While I sympathize with your desire to disassociate yourself from
error, stupidity or worse, I intend to retain my membership since
I think I can criticize more effectively from within. I may even wear
my Legion cap at an antiwar demonstration.
The problem with good people leaving the American
Cutting oil supplies is, next to supporting the Zionist state of
Israel, the most plausible explanation I have heard for Bush's irrational,
unconstitutional, unnecessary, terrorist-recruiting war on Iraq.
Furthermore, the fact that the establishment media are suppressing
the obvious realistic
The Police State is slowly taking over all institutions. Welcome to the
last days of the Weimar Republic.
M
David Macko wrote:
As a member of the American Legion since 1974 and a life member, I
am outraged that the American Legion would essentially vote to abolish
the First Amendment.
I intend
Whether or not they tune in to MTV or like our culture is irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any other attacks by
Bin Laden or Al Queda.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Eric Dondero Rittberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Paul, then I guess you're saying that Bin
Pro-Defense is not what you are. You are pro-offense. You are for
using unprovoked force against those who have not attacked us.
Also Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater would be solidly against the war in
Iraq and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Nolan had more to do with the Libertarian
Okay, I read the article. I too, am a long-standing member of the
American Legion.
I didn't see anything in the article that indicated that the
American Legion was calling for infringements on American's rights
to freedom of speech.
They urged fellow Americans, to protest in other ways,
There's nothing in the article to indicate that the American Legion
supports legislative moves to outlaw freedom of speech.
They are just urging their fellow Americans to exercise caution in
their protestations, and consider the fact that their actions might
cause dire consequences for the
Good question. No, actually they don't.
To be quite specific, the High Status Males in Muslim societies have
multiple wives. The Low Status Males have few if any wives (or
girlfriends). This is precisely the cause of all the angst. The
Low Status Males, simply cannot get laid at all. Nor
You go ahead and wear your American Legion hat at an anti-War
rally. I've got the weekend off and am strongly considering going
on up to Crawford, about a 2 1/2 hour drive for me, and waving a
Sign, Libertarians Support The War, The President Our Troops.
Just gotta check the funds, and if
That figures.
Dave Macko
- Original Message -
From: Eric Dondero Rittberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Libertarian@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: American Legion votes to abolish First Amendment
There's nothing in the article to indicate
I would sue for slander except that you must prove damage which generally
means someone must believe the slander.
Dave Macko
- Original Message -
From: Eric Dondero Rittberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Libertarian@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: [Libertarian]
Ayn Rand would have been opposed to the War in Iraq, huh?
Then why was it I saw her Henchman Leonard Peikopf on Bill O'Reilly
a year ago calling for massive bombings across the Middle East to
stop the Terrorism. Made even O'Reilly cringe.
And Goldwater? You really think Goldwater's would
Likewise, whether we support Israel, or have our troops stationed in
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Kuwait is irrelevant too. It has nothing
to do with the 9/11 attacks by Bin Laden or Al Queda.
It's not our foreign policy Stupid, it's our culture.
You think Theo van Gogh's views on foreign
How do you figure? I'm a Deist/Agnostic who despised Christianity.
And I'm gung ho Pro-War.
Leonard Peikopf of the Ayn Rand Institute is a flaming Atheist and
he and the Randians are fanatically anti-Muslim and Pro-War.
Christopher Hitchens is also an Atheist and he too is fanatically
Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether or not they tune in to MTV or like our culture is irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any other attacks by
Bin Laden or Al Queda.
well it has everything to do with. have you actually done any research
or is this just your guess?
Vic
Goldwater would not have favored attacking someone
(Saddam Hussein) who had nothing to do with the
September 11 attacks. He was rational.
Ron Paul advocated using letters of marque and reprisal
to capture Osama bin Laden. Of course, your buddy, Bush's
policy worked so much better. By the way,
It is very important to distinguish between neoconned Christians,
many of whom, including Pat Robertson, have become quite bloodthirsty,
and Christians who choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ rather
than George Bush.
The neoconned Christians are being exploited, which may eventually
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
~-
We would like to remind you
They are equating anti-war, First Amendment protected speech with
providing comfort and aid to the enemy. This is an attempt to outlaw
freedom of speech via serious false accusations that can land someone in
jail.
Quite frankly, you previously referred to Bush as an extreme libertarian
in this
Quote from the article: ...the group's national commander called for an
end to all 'public protests' and 'media events' against the war, even
though they are protected by the Bill of Rights. Does it mean he's OK
with public demonstrations in favor of the war? It looks like it.
When they say
I will remain with the Legion myself, but having joined the Armed
Forces to defend the Constitution and the People of our country, I
can't say I agree totaly with the afore mentioned statements.
Iraq is a complex issue, while I was against going to war with Iraq
from the start, I am also
No, all libertarians are not pussies, cowards, liars, or idiots. But
you are all of the above and I'll happily tell you to your face.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Eric Dondero Rittberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You go ahead and wear your American Legion hat at an anti-War
rally. I've
That would be tough. There are almost no sane people with enough
intelligence to be capable of human speech, who would actually believe
anything Eric has to say.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, David Macko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would sue for slander except that you must prove damage
Leonard was her boyfriend, not her henchman and he was NOT her and
doesn't speak for her. She would NOT have supported the war in Iraq
and neither would Goldwater. That doesn't mean Goldwater would do
nothing. He probably would have done something intelligent,
reasonable, and in line with the
It is our foreign policy, and only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Only a brainless, nationalistic, jingoistic, dickhead would claim the
9/11 attack had anything to do with something other than America's
foreign policy.
Not one person in Al Queda or any other group has attacked America
because
True, my agreeing to something doesn't mean it's connected to reality.
The fact that what I'm saying is completely truthful and associated
directly to reality does mean it's connected to reality.
There are absolutely NO actual libertarians who support the war in
Iraq. Supporting the war in Iraq
It's a fact. I realize you're not too familiar with facts since you
seem to base most of the garbage you spew from conspiracy theories,
and anarchist stupidity. The FACT is we were attacked because
millions of people in the middle-east have died as a result of our
meddling in their affairs,
I would like to have some documentation for your position. You quote
a few boogiemen that have called for reduction in population as if
their dreaded names alone can make the metastasizing of human
population and ok thing. Lets hear your sources. Don't just tell me
from where you got the
Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government Ever Tried
by Bevin Chu
by Bevin Chu
The best argument against
- Original Message -
From: Eric Dondero Rittberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
America will continue being a target as long as we have MTV, Rock
Music, Sexy Blondes, Desperate Housewives, Loud Mouth Comedians and
HBO.
Read my lips Paul...
IT HAS VERY FUCKING LITTLE TO DO WITH OUR FOREIGN
Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are absolutely NO actual libertarians who support the war in
Iraq. Supporting the war in Iraq automatically disqualifies you.
its a tautology. its in fact not related to reality. sorry.
Vic
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
35 matches
Mail list logo
