http://www.techcentralstation.com/041504I.html
Why did Nixon push for a [DDT] ban? We may never know. A few older
Washington DC policy experts have suggested that some of his election
campaign supporters were chemical companies that produced alternatives to
DDT and so stood to gain handsomely
http://tinyurl.com/2o9cu
State Department official described extreme frustration that months of
pressure produced no real change.
But Rumsfeld's aides point out that at least two major internal
assessments were ordered at the time. In one, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D.
Miller, the commander of the
Mike Lee wrote:
But Gary has gone way over the line. I can't wait to see what y'all will
say now. I don't expect much, so surprise me, prove you're not just a
cozy
coterie of moral dilettantes.
I don't really give a rat's ass what the dick-hat thinks about Gary but in
case other's
This disaster is George W. Bush's responsibility and this scandal is a
direct reflection of the incompetence of his administration and their
tendency to ignore competent experts in favor of loyal cheerleaders when
making policy.
The only good that can come of this is that any chance that this
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0517/p09s01-coop.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/ypcov
On Abu Ghraib and war itself: See through relativism of abuse
By Earl Martin and Pat Hostetter Martin
exerpt:
Before the United States launched the optional war in Iraq,
practitioners of nonviolence were advocating
Gautam wrote:
Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many
occasions that he agreed with the Bush
Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat,
that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience
there, Doug.
Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate
Iraqis with an
JDG wrote:
At 06:14 PM 5/19/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04272004/commenta/commenta.asp
I can't believe that anyone found this diatribe coherent.
That's because you're a resident in good standing in
Bushworld!! 8^)
--
Doug
This is the (long) Hersh article that has been making headlines this past
week.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
or
http://tinyurl.com/3awqm
In an odd way, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights
Watch, said, the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a
On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:55:44 -0400, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 11:45:11AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
This is the (long) Hersh article that has been making headlines this
past
week.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
or
http://tinyurl.com
JDG wrote:
I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this
issue.
Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same
intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating
intelligence as a black box.They weren't saying I wonder if
The Fool wrote:
All discussions involving JDG morph into an abortion discussion. It's as
if he had an agenda...
I have my adamant differences with John, but I have to say I'm kind of
sick of these personal attacks. Not only don't they do anything to
advance your argument, they're
Gautam wrote:
Dear Friends,
Today marks my last day at McKinsey, and virtually my last day in New
York.
Wow, Gautam, big news. Best of luck in all your endeavors...
Hey, we haven't had any baseball talk yet this year. Have you been too
busy to pay attention? It sure is shaping up to be an
John Horn wrote:
Friday, 1988 - 2004. RIP.
My condolences to you and your family, John. I didn't realize how much my
dog Lucky meant to me until she passed last fall. Now we're slowly
loosing our 10 1/2 year old white boxer, Ali, to heart disease. 8^(
--
Doug
David wrote:
I never read this one, so I resisted the temptation to rate it
useless.
You were tempted to rate a book you haven't read?
I did rate the C.S. Lewis books, _Perlandra_ etc,
as useless. Mentioning other planets does not make an
allegory into science fiction. (Similarly for _Animal
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the
Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, What
are all those clocks for?
St. Peter answered, Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a
Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move.
David wrote:
I got 38/71 on general knowledge, and guesses.
(How many guesses? Wow, an actual real-life application of
algebra! Solving (71-x) + (x/4) = 38, I get that around
44 were guesses.)
44/71 - Southern Sympathizer
Ha.
I lived in South Carolina for about a year while in the Navy, and
JDG wrote:
I thought it was funnier when Republicans passed this joke around about
Bill Clinton
JDG - And that probably wasn't the first time, Maru
P.S. Of course if Bush is such a calculating liar then he can't exactly
be a bumbling fool, now can he?
Get a grip, John, it's just a dumb joke.
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:07:07 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:14 PM 6/9/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
On 10 Jun 2004, at 2:07 am, The Fool wrote:
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=131
Rats! Not hang-gliding nudists then...
That would be a
On the strength of the lists rating of P.J. Farmers Riverworld book _To
Your Scattered Bodies Go_ I picked it up a long with the second two books
of the series. My reaction after having read the first 3/4s or so: gawd,
this won a Hugo? And was top rated by brin-l???
Beyond the meandering,
I finished this one a month or so ago and while some of it was interesting
I thought the endless train of riddle solving got tiresome and that the
twist near the end was poorly done. Has anyone else here read it?
--
Doug
___
David Hobby wrote:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Somewhere around half-way through it, I started yelling at the
characters, saying something on the order of, Take the stupid
puzzle box to an CAT scanner already!
Getting out of so many tight squeezes was another thing that bothered me.
The twist at
Erik wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:01:04PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Beyond the meandering, pointless plot, the flat, uninteresting
characters and the asinine dialog, the whole idea seems a bit dumb to
me. I'm sorry if I'm trashing someone's favorite book, but it's just
terrible so far
Robert wrote:
The book just before The DaVinci Code, Angels And Demons, is a much
better book and a lot more fun. It had me wondering why people made
such a big deal over TDC.
Good to know. I bought that when I was enthused with TDC (in the
beginning) but haven't started it because of my
I'm feeling so badly for the Lakers now that they're down 3-1 in the
finals. Poor Kobe. Poor Shaq. Poor Phil. Poor L.A.
--
Doug
Go Pistons maru.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gary Nunn wrote:
How lame can this be?
The heart of the article..
Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality
For now, five justices said the court could not rule on the case because
California atheist Michael Newdow does not have full custody of his
daughter.
They definitely whimped out. What
John Horn wrote:
I agree with that but it is a completely different issue. If
someone was planning on blowing up the Lincoln Memorial with a pack
of playing cards they would still be liable to be prosecuted with
that even if it is completely impossible, right?
I see your point, but would the
Gary wrote:
Of course this threat is no different that any other terrorist threat,
it's just a little closer to home for me. I have always said that the
best way to create true terror would be the random bombing or
destruction of small town targets that have no strategic value.
Aye, look at the
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:59:14 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:46 PM 6/14/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
They definitely whimped out. What this means to me is that they were
afraid to rule because of the impact their ruling would have, so they
found a way to weasel out of making any
Julia wrote:
And what, if anything, does the ACLU have to say about the white crosses
at roadside spots where people were killed in automobile accidents? I
know there would be a lot of angry people if they tried to have those
banned.
I think the gist of the decision is summarized in this quote
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:32:52 -0400, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Oh, that twist! As I recall, that was 100 pages from the end.
(Yes, a fair-sized book.) I thought you meant the ironic
big pile of historical documents
JDG wrote:
I don't think you said that right. I am unaware of any Constitutional
provision against exclusionary and offensive speech on federal lands.
JDG - Something about defending your right to say it, Maru .
Come on John, you know that one of the reasons for the bill of rights,
perhaps
JDG wrote:
Come on John, you know that one of the reasons for the bill of rights,
perhaps the preeminent reason, was to protect people that might
otherwise
be excluded by the majority. That's what separation of church and state
is all about.
But aren't you the first person to also mention that
William wrote:
If this was the only similar case in the pipeline then fair enough. But
with such an egregious violation that seems surprising. Again, if it
was the only such case, fair enough. But otherwise why pick this one
which can be eliminated on a technicality?
Presumably any other similar
JDG wrote:
At 09:36 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that
is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S.
Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision,
their
involvement
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:17:32 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:09 AM 6/16/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
The VFW often burns flags John. :-)
You caught me!
Still, even if the VFW were unceremoniously burning flags in Mojave, I
think that they'd probably have a lot more support on Brin-L
JDG wrote:
You have stated that you believe the VFW is Constitutionall prohibited
because it is, quote, exclusionary and offensive.
I don't believe I ever said anything about the VFW except that their
involvement in this argument is irrelevant. By allowing the religious
symbol to remain
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson, a
committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so
good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist
From a letter to Jasper Adams, president of the College of Charleston, 1832
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions doubts on
Ronn! wrote:
What is really bad is that _Star Trek_ is considered an *old* television
show . . .
So What Does That Make Its Viewers? Maru
Turning fifty in about 32 days?
--
Doug
The Final Frontier Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:05 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A pretty selective sampling there, Doug.
It's enough to show that the constitution provided a wall of separation
in the minds at least some of the more prominent founders.
It also neglects the fact, that your reading of the
JDG wrote:
Thus, this Court ruling would appear to jeopardize NPS preservation of
religious cultural resources in a number of Parks, included preserved
churches in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cape Lookout National
Seashore, as well as Native American ceremonial kivas at numerous Parks
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:08:29 +0900, G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Wrote:
Turning fifty in about 32 days?
--
Ah, you're still a puppy :-)
George A
Woof (cough) woof.
--
Doug
___
Dan wrote:
I'm sure that one can deconstruct it to mean anything, but the word
creator meant at the time being who created. I'm not really an
origional intent guy, but I think using the same mapping of combination
of letters onto ideas as they used at that time is really a good idea.
In
other
Ronn! wrote:
Was your father a lot older at that age, or was it only mine?
Way, way, way older. Ancient.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Erik wrote:
Unless a very large super-majority agrees with you, you would be wrong
to do so. You would be taking something that you do not have the right
to take. Besides being unjust, it is also likely to be inefficient --
wasting your time on short-term, trivial matters instead of applying
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Bill Clinton is _still_ the best in the business.
My God, what a genius.
His was the only speech I caught, but it left me second guessing the term
limit. If he were running this year it would already be over.
John wrote:
Kudos to Red State for finding that. And for noting: It should be noted
that the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the
plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his
fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing 'nobody could
JDG wrote:
And isn't Kerry being a little hypocritical to say that he would have
done something different were he being paid the big bucks, given his own
stated reactions?
No. You react much differently to a situation when you have the
responsibility for controlling it. Frex, if you are the
Dan wrote:
Have you looked in the papers to see where the movie is playing in Bush
states? I have, but then again I live in one. It didn't play in the
Woodlands, but it did play in multi-plexes well into Bush country around
Houston...not just the Third Ward. :-)
It was playing in every real
JDG wrote:
It is worth noting that there are an awful lot of 1, 2, and 3-child
Catholic families thanks to NFP.
It's probably even more worthy to note that there are probably many times
more 1 2 and 3 child Catholic families thanks to the pill.
JDG wrote:
Thus, given that the incredibly insulting allegations of these
Democrats have now proven to be demonstrably false in short order, in
polite society an apology would be in order.
Do you want to apologize for the Republican reaction to Clinton's attempts
to go after bin laden
Julia wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:57:57 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It brought back a great memory of the first time I managed to
print a sine wave with asterisks on a (30 baud) Teletype.
Reminds me of the story of someone who attempted to log into a BBS at
300 baud by
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:56:11 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry... I momentarily had thought you were the *other* Julia in your
response.Anyhow, I reacted so forcefully in part because there is a
long history of anti-religious, anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic
sentiment on this List.
JDG wrote:
Doug, I think there is a huge difference between the religious attitudes
of Brin-L members vs. Brin-L posts. Quite simply, this List is
consistently bombarded with a plethora of anti-religious,
anti-Christian, and yes,
anti-Catholic posts. For whatever reason, very few people,
Dan wrote:
As for bigotry in America, put yourself in the shoes of an non-believer
for a moment and you'll feel real bigotry.
Out of curiosity, are you actually told that you are deluded, have a
mental
block, evil on a daily basis because you don't believe?
Read the posts here straight. The
Gautam wrote:
Worth mentioning a few famous Michael Moore quotes as
well:
Moore interview the British newspaper The Mirror,
speaking about Americans:
Sh**, that's nothing compared to this beauty from our president:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop
Dan wrote:
I cannot point to the gene for free will any more than I can point to the
gene for reflective self-awareness. :-)
But isn't the evidence for reflective self-awareness in humans much more
compelling than the evidence against free will in pumas?
--
Doug
It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved in part as a survival
mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage and an intellectual
advantage. For instance, a shaman that convinced his community that the
spirits punished those who killed their spiritual leaders would stand a
Warren wrote:
zim wrote:
Rape is favored in some sense in that males who have little or no
chance of non-coercive copulation can procreate through rape.
This is similar to what Dan mentioned about Ghengis Khan -- but it's
still disseminating genes, not actually changing a species. At best rape
Bryon wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but as I see it, the question is whether everything a
person does, are all choices made purely a function of his biology,
society, environment, etc, or is it real choice? Are we more than
the sum of our inputs?
I think that while it's possible (probable?) that we
William wrote:
Bryon wrote:
or is it real choice?
the same as that? Why do you think there are two different things?
Well, as you are aware, some people believe there is an omnipotent being
that could control all the factors composing that choice. If such a being
exists, there can be no real
Sorry, I have to copy messages from the archives because I'm not receiving
them all and I forgot to copy the subject line.
William wrote:
Bryon wrote:
or is it real choice?
the same as that? Why do you think there are two different things?
Well, as you are aware, some people believe there is an
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:13:36 -0400, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:47:32PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Free will, pretty well be definition, means that it is possible to
make
Except you don't have a useful definition of free will, as you well
know.
Is there a
Dan wrote:
If that makes it virtually indistinguishable, then, photons also have
free will in the same sense that we dobecause we cannot in principal,
predict where they hit. We only give probabilities, but we can measure
with enough precision to in the same manner that humans do?
Photons
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:34:18 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis under
Saddam Hussein?
It's of course worth mentioning that AIDS kills as many people in a couple
of years as Hussein did in his entire tenure (and no less
William wrote:
Not a Catholic today then?
Even here in the U.S., four out of five Catholics belive that it's OK to
use birth control.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gautam wrote:
And that you absolutely despise the first American
President to even attempt to do something about the
problem.
It's a special kind of tunnel vision that Bush supporters have, isn't it?
http://www.thebody.com/whitehouse/wad2000.html
Today, President Clinton will join international
The Clinton Record:
http://www.thebody.com/hhs/clinton.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/3w6ed
The Clinton Administration has responded aggressively to the significant
threat posed by HIV/AIDS with increased attention to research, prevention,
and treatment. Overall funding for AIDS-related programs
Dan wrote:
Well, that's kind of what I was trying to say - that it doesn't really
matter weather or not we really have free will until someone is able to
prove otherwise
What type of proof are you talking about? Absolute, or proof, given a
few reasonable assumptions.
Proof would be the ability
JDG wrote:
The astounding chutzpah to imply that Bush has somehow drastically
deteriotaed AIDS policy from the golden age they had under Clinton
utterly discredits this source.
Can you substantiate that statement?
Your quotes remind me of the National Parks Conservation Association, who
amazingly
David Hobby wrote:
The Fool wrote:
ghostpost snipped
Let's NOT have a flamewar with the TITLES of our posts?
Seconded.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
JDG wrote:
If the rest of the world can be alienated by liberating Iraq, I am not at
all convinced that they would not be alienated by efforts to tackle AIDS
in African countries.
Indeed, given that Iraq has now been liberated, and the rest of the world
is actively bot just sitting on their
JDG wrote:
1) You supplied several pages of hagiography on Clinton's AIDS policy -
i.e. almost all positive, hardly a negative word to be found.
2) You then submitted the same group's AIDS reportcord of the Bush
Presidency, which included 100% below-average to failing marks.
It seems nearly
Dan wrote:
Reading through this post, it seems as though it might be interpreted as
being written from antagonistic viewpoint. That is not my viewpoint. It
is more in the nature of exploring axioms sets to look for inconsistencies
and theorems that can be derived from them.
It doesn't sound
Dan wrote:
I realize that this involves a switch in worldview because most of us
were taught a convenient fiction in school. I certainly believed that
the
Nazi's had a police state, even for the Ayrians, from the start. I
thought the Holocaust was very secret. But now, I accept the evidence
Dan wrote:
BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the
beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they
would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew
what was going on, and respected them for it.
When you hold a government
Warren wrote:
That is, I don't think you can have an I in a vacuum.
In fact, I think your I's pop right out in a vacuum...
--
Doug
headed for the hills
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Erik wrote:
Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's may want you to sew your lip shut and
never talk again, but in reality, they can't stop you as long as you
don't reveal secret information, and it is certainly possible to write a
short email without having any possibility of revealing secrets.
Jane's
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:09:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will govenments that inhibit stem cell research
be viewed?
Poorly, I imagine. I don't support this particular
position of the President's. Although the apparent
Democratic
Salon
http://tinyurl.com/4gjhc
Linda Allison's story, never before published, contradicts the Bush
campaign's assertion that George W. Bush transferred from the Texas Air
National Guard to the Alabama National Guard in 1972 because he received
an irresistible offer to gain high-level experience
Robert wrote:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob
Robert wrote:
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the
United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the
Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into
that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released
Tuesday.
IMO
William wrote:
Which enemy?
(There must be a pun about enemas in there somewhere...)
Well, the only way we're likely to get aid and comfort in the coming years
is to give the executive branch a double dose of barium up the old wazoo,
but the Saudi thing goes beyond mere politics. If the
Dan wrote:
But, that is totally dependant on mindset; not data. For example, the
complexity of nature was long thought to be a compelling argument for a
designer. We now realize that there is another explanation that works
as well. The complex actions of human beings was long thought to be
JDG wrote:
This is aid and comfort to the enemy, IMO.
Not that you would *ever* question the patriotism of _your_ political
opponents.
JDG - Uh huh, Maru
OK, John, justify the cover up. Please.
--
Doug
___
JDG wrote:
That presumes a cover-up.
It doesn't presume a cover up. It presumes what Grahm says is true. If
it's true then there _is_ a cover up. So prove him wrong.
All I am pointing out, Doug, is that you have been the *most sensitive*
and the *loudest* person on this List to any perceived
JDG wrote:
Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism
alerts and counter-intelligence that is made.And anyone who thinks
otherwise
has a particularly craven view of politics.
I guess you didn't hear that he said the war wasn't winnable the other day.
No time for a
JDG wrote:
At 06:55 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
That presumes a cover-up.
It doesn't presume a cover up. It presumes what Grahm says is true. If
it's true then there _is_ a cover up. So prove him wrong.
Uh yeah that's what I said. If, however, what Graham is saying
JDG wrote:
Lastly, in regards to Saudi Arabia - I agree with you that Saudi Arabia
is a real problam. I think, however, that it would have been suicidal
to
American interests to apply pressure to the Saudi regime so long as
Saddam Hussein remained in power. Quite simply, one Party is for
JDG wrote:
It was a clear misspeak and retracted immediately. I am sure that you
have never misspoken... just like you would never question the patriotism
of *your* political opponents.
It was not a misstatement, he was speaking his mind and in fact agree with
his logic (and not with Kerry's.)
Travis wrote:
laughing Reminds me of Jeffrey Miller - former list member - and his
little quote of - I love being inconsequential, it takes all the
responsibility off me.
Ahem. He's actually still here and carrying his share.
--
Doug
___
Bryon wrote:
I was just thinking about Chad also... Are you still around, Chad?
How are you doing?
Ronn is the one I was wondering about - did he go on a long vacation?
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:09:32 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:45 AM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Maybe if they nuked NYC _and_ DC?
That's a low blow. :-(
Sorry. I see what you mean, but that's not how I meant it. Those are
just the two most likely targets, IMO.
--
Doug
JDG wrote:
Still, she was at least nominall a Democrat - which hardly supports the
theory of a Republican conspiracy to, quote, cheat.
Sounds like the ultimate cheat to me; switch parties in order to influence
the election from the inside.
--
Doug
___
JDG wrote:
At 01:19 PM 9/11/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
Still, she was at least nominall a Democrat - which hardly supports the
theory of a Republican conspiracy to, quote, cheat.
Sounds like the ultimate cheat to me; switch parties in order to
influence
the election from the inside.
Its
JDG wrote:
Doug, you've now changed the subject. None of your links has anything
to do with a conspiracy involving the Palm Beach County Board of
elections.
Heck, Dionne's column didn't even alledge fraud of any sort!
The common theme you apparently missed was that the Republican party has a
Robert wrote:
If W were not president, Jeb would likely be in jail now.
And if Jeb had not been Governor, Shrub would likely be back to putting
companies out of business by now.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
JDG wrote:
As opposed to the Sainted Democrats, of course, who have no history of
illegal election activity.
The Democrats may have competed, but the GOP's won all the medals.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:07:04 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Democrats may have competed, but the GOP's won
all the medals.
--
Doug
Doug, that's absurd. Speaking purely as an historical
point, that's a ludicrous statement
David Brin wrote:
THESE are the monsters of the moment, John. When
commies come back, I will fight them too.
Perhaps part of John's difficulty with understanding your concept of
balance is one of perspective. The U.S. has been on a conservative swing
for over two decades now, and is probably
701 - 800 of 1541 matches
Mail list logo
