Re: [asterisk-biz] Re: OT: Gore Still Ahead

[Bob Smith]

If you slightly understand Kennedy's passing and anything involving 
guns. money and power you will notice drugs is always involved.

FYI , CIA provisioned the afghans with necessary help to grow heroin etc 
in afghan to sell in russia when afghan - Russia conflict where part of 
this world.. in fact i read somewhere that as much as 15% of all russian 
soldiers where users at one point.

but hey let your fingers to the walking..



Ben laden and cia where working closely. once they realized they 
financed billions for terrorism they drew back and well we know the rest.

Now when theres a nice deal between (FOX and BUS..) you know the drug 
controls will be loosened. actualy waht is americas response to drug 
lords passing stuff via borders and shooting on border patrols with 50 
MM 's and shit ? nothing.. its so easy to put force in this matter with 
all the equipment and firepower usa has.. there's abvousely economical 
and political reasons for not talking action..

the 3 strikes your out system is the best thing since sliced bread and 
if i was pres.. id apply every where and make it 2 strikes for several 
high crime places..

the power is in the defense these days and prosecutors have no power 
whatsover over the $$$ the crooks have..

only 2 good pres i can think of was kennedy for not accepting to attack 
cuba for the cia wich he died for and clinton wich refusing several 
aspects got a shameless act on him to remove from whitehouse..

latest one is actualy using 60% of hitlers strategics in terms of power 
then anyother .. REF: the media control tactics used b y several big 
companied to sell theyre producsts , and the way hitler used  destroying 
is own turf to create  ampathy to declaring war..



Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 19:53 -0400, C F wrote:
  
On 10/5/06, Matthew Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
    
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 12:02 -0500, James wrote:
      
OK,

Send your kid to public school.
If he survives the random shootings and the drugs,
        
        Practically everyone survives public school without any shootings. The
drugs are even worse in private schools (I can attest), as can be the
violence (ditto). Home schooling can create kids with even worse
antisocial problems.
      
I went to private school all my life, I have never seen what drugs
looks like in real life (not even outside school), and yes I grew up
in Brooklyn. I guess the private school you went to is worse than the
public school system.
I do agree though on the home schooling.
    

        I went to private school in the 1980s in the richest zipcode in the USA
(2 miles outside NYC). Drugs everywhere. I also went to Andover, Bush
Jr's highschool: drugs anywhere. And I live in Brooklyn, which has had
so much drug use that it takes willful shelter to never see it (which is
available in some private schools). Avoiding all contact with drugs is
mainly dependent on one's parents, with which I'm sure we both agree.


  
then you can send him to
the District of Columbia to be an aid.
There he can be influenced by powereful men (and women) to do some really
neat things.
        
        That is clearly the problem. The power of politicians to escape
responsibility exactly when they must be *more* responsible than the
general public. The government as a whole is infected: cops can kill
someone without justification and just get fired, when anyone else would
go to jail. America has reversed our fundamental philosophy of
distrusting the government, running it so wrongdoers are more easily
caught, into creating a privileged class (which is increasingly
hereditary, in dynasties).
      
Couldn't agree more with you on this, it's a problem with any type of
government;

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter."

~ Winston Churchill

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others
that have been tried."

~ Winston Churchill
    

        There we go, agreeing again.


  
He can live in a city where violent crime is high and civilians can't buy a
handgun to protect themselves.
        
        Or in the country where people shoot each other because they can get
away with it. NYC was much less safe when we could easily buy handguns.
The violent crime rates are usually higher where guns are easier to get.
More urban states are more or less in the middle, so clearly there's
another controlling factor than whether a target lives in a city or not.
      
It is still very easy to get a handgun in the City, it's just very
hard to hide it. The NYPD at the moment has more intelligence on the
street than the CIA has about OBL. They are one of the most
sophisticated intelligence agency that exists, except that it gathers
intelligence only for street crimes and not for politics, or military.
Their crime stats program doesn't allow for either a cop to get
corrupted in a neighborhood, or for the crime to jump just in one
place.
    

        No, it's not easy. Believe me, my family has had handguns and other
guns for generations, often defending family businesses in bad areas of
NYC (Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx). I've known of people getting
illegal guns to buttress their paranoia through the decades. And it's
much harder now to get a gun in NYC. So much harder that most of them
come from other states, but still fewer come in.

        If you're using cop corruption as a measure of how tight is NYPD intel,
then you should at least read the NY Post, though Google can help, too:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22corrupt%20cops%22%20nyc%20-movie%
20-film . Much tighter, of course, is the "Blue Wall" that covers up cop
corruption. And then there's the stats that cover up NYC crime rates,
converting violent crimes to less enraging stats. And then there's the
crimes by cops who intimidate people into keeping their crimes in the
neighborhoods cops don't protect, so they don't get reported. Most of
the crime drop is the result of social services since the late 1960s
that have reduced the numbers of desperate people who do crime. But I
don't expect you believe that, because it shows how abortions, foster
care, violence education, job training, and other engagement of poor
people by government people can make everyone's lives better, without
using a gun to get there. AFAICT, we don't agree that much.


  
While he is learing how to avoid being raped or mugged, he can dodge the
terrorist plane crashings.
        
        I don't think a single incident has any statistical significance. I
don't think the 9/11/2001 planebombings indicate anything about what
it's like to live in a city, or have anything to do with any of this.
Except maybe a reflection of how you hate NYC, and find an excuse to say
those planebombings are "just another bad thing that happens in NYC". As
a New Yorker, I think that sucks.


      
Responsibility starts at home, with the parents.  Would you really want to
send your child out to play on the "Hill"?
Most aids come from affluent households with educated parents.
I would guess that there's not a one of them that would have morgatged thier
house and loand Foley the money for a year, but they freely hand over their
children...
        
        The bigger point being made about Foley's child molesting is how it was
being covered up by his fellow Republicans. How are the kid's parents to
blame for that? Even if what the abused page's sponsoring Rep, Rodney
Alexander (R-LA), said was true, that the kid's parents, when
"informed", said they didn't want to make a big deal over it, that
doesn't excuse the rest of those Republicans from ignoring their
responsibility to protect the rest of the pages.

        It's hard to blame most parents for trusting that their kids won't be
sexually abused by letting them work for Congressmembers. Until now.
Which is some of the extreme damage done to our country by Foley and his
coverup conspiracy.


      
Foley screwed up and I think the latest remarks about alcoholism and being
molested as a child are copouts.
        
        That's clear to us individuals watching closely, but already yesterday
I heard a 5-second radio news bulletin that mentioned Foley as a child
molesting Congressman, contextualized with "Foley claims he was abused
as a child by a clergyman". Millions of people are hearing this story
peripherally to their real lives, boiled down to those two details.
Foley deliberately threw that out there to define himself as "the
molested Congressman" rather than "the molester Congressman". What a
scumbag. And if others in his coverup conspiracy planned that media spin
with him, they should burn, too.


      
Yes, it is time to clean house.  Five year term limits for a couple of
generations will do more to cure these problems than any arguments about
Republicans or Democrats.
        
        I don't think that term limits do nearly as much as reporting
politicians' records to voters. When incumbents are found manipulating
the electoral process, that is a reason for term limits. But when their
party is conspiring to cover up their lawbreaking, their exploitation of
children in the government's care, then term limits mean nothing. Unless
you mean forced turnover of a party's majority, which is clearly
antidemocratic, though perhaps consistently republican (small letters
intended). The real reform is to outlaw parties as illegal conspiracies,
which they of course always are, even when they're not conspiring to
protect child molesters. Maybe just outlaw exclusive party membership,
but then criminal conspirators will game that system.

        I say we start by throwing out the party which has specifically proven
it is covers up child molestation by its members. Republicans were
getting thrown out anyway - it's a gift to them that they can blame
Foley for "losing Congress", rather than everything else people are
holding against them this year.


      
James Taylor



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk
Discussion" <asterisk-biz@lists.digium.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Re: OT: Gore Still Ahead


        
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:03:28AM -0400, Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
          
Are you looking for ways to excuse the child molesting Foley did just
because he continued carrying on after the boys were legally men?
            
Let's be *perfectly clear* here, shall we?

"Talking dirty" to them does not constitute "child molestation" under
any construction of anyone's law that I'm aware of.

And 16 isn't exactly a child, either.

          
What kind of depraved child molester protector are you? Other than
"Republican" - that much is so obvious that it's redundant. Now tell us
that I shouldn't go so hard on Foley, because it's not his fault that
god made him gay.
            
You can go as hard on Foley as you like.  I hope he takes the whole,
sordid, hypocritical Republican establishment down with him.  just lets
be hard on him for the right reasons: he owed a duty to his
constituency not to get embroiled in a scandal, and he owed a duty to
those pages *specifically*, because he was or had been in a position of
direct power and control over them.  He failed in those duties.

Would this have been less likely to have happened had he been out about
his preference?  (For men, I mean, not for boys.)  Yeah, probably.

Is it society's fault that he felt he needed to be even partially in
the closet?  Yes?

Am *I* gay?  No.

Do I want people to confuse me for Donald Rumsfeld?  Not even on your
birthday.  :-)

You can tell the repubs apart from the dems because, by and large, the
dems utilise the tools of rational argument, and are calm and cool, and
the repubs appeal to emotion, fear, and (dare we say this) terror.

Not all of either side, certainly, but a statistically significant
majority.

Alas, demagoguery works better with the electorate than pedagogy.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC
2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87
e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647
1274

"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

          
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
        
--

(C) Matthew Rubenstein

_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz

      

_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
  http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz