"Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems."
Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
In article <13ubbs7k7no072f@corp.supernews.com>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Here's a quote:
"Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
belief systems."
From "Picking Up the Pieces: Practical Guide for Surviving Economic Crashes" by Sorcha Faal and David Booth
___________________________ "Note:. There is no such person as ¨Sorcha Faal, Russian academic ¨Sorcha Faal is actually David Booth, an American computer programmer ¨Sorcha is alleged to be a Russian academic but there is absolutely no record of anyone with such a name in Russian academia. These periodic eruptions have absolutely no basis in any kind of fact or reality and are typical of the nonsense bespangling the internet." ___________________________
That's good - you chose a source that's completely worthless. As usual. Oh well, I suppose you cold have chosen Jonah Goldberg. Oh, sorry, that'd have the same result.
Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
What segment of society are the "Liberals" separating and persecuting or denying equality?
This sounds like yet another case of Tom Kunich argument by assertion.
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:17:00 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Here's a quote:
"Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a
fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a
specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or
belief systems."
Apparently those who claim to be "Liberals" want to use fascistic
methodology and pretend that it is somehow correct.
Orwell was right, "nazi" and "fascist" have become synonyms for stuff we want people to hate. There are real definitions for these words and they're occasionally used correctly, but for the most part there's no need to bother with them.
And, uh, your definition is wrong.
True there are plenty of fascists on the left (we may see them in action in Denver) but that isn't why or how they got that way.
Michael Baldwin 23 March 2008 16:27:19 [ permanent link ]
The often prophetic Tom Kunich wrote,"Somehow No One Seems To Think"
Tom, so far your subject/header phrase has been _supported_ in this threads replies!
I'm a Libertarian. When it comes to political discussions, I invest little if any energy, regarding politics, in anyone over the age of 30. For the past 35 years I've been a self study of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover" a flaw in their _original_ works. I've submitted to the possibility that our nation has "mis-placed" it's moral compass. I've used the word _moral_ in the sense that the framers & founders did. Likewise, I'm not ashamed to call myself an American in the "Spirit of 76". Well there, that should fan the embers!
Fred Fredburger 23 March 2008 18:55:35 [ permanent link ]
Michael Baldwin wrote:
The often prophetic Tom Kunich wrote,"Somehow No One Seems To Think"
Tom, so far your subject/header phrase has been _supported_ in this
threads replies!
I'm a Libertarian. When it comes to political discussions, I invest
little if any energy, regarding politics, in anyone over the age of 30.
For the past 35 years I've been a self study of our nations framers &
founders. I've yet to "discover" a flaw in their _original_ works.
I've submitted to the possibility that our nation has "mis-placed"
it's moral compass. I've used the word _moral_ in the sense that the
framers & founders did.
Likewise, I'm not ashamed to call myself an American in the "Spirit
of 76".
Well there, that should fan the embers!
Re: Libertarianism. Slave O' Da State pushes that agenda nicely. Some might disagree, but I basically agree with him.
Re: Over the age of 30. Do you find that those under the age of 30 are more open/reasonable in political discussions? I would have expected the age to be ~20 years lower,
Re: "framers & fathers...". There's been MUCH discussion and re-invention of the founding fathers. So much, in fact, that I don't know what anyone means when they refer to them any more. Most people have a fuzzy idea of what liberty means, and they're sure the ff's would agree with them. So one could generally replace the phrase "founding fathers" with "those guys who lived a long time ago and agreed with everything I say". In any event, you'd have to be more specific if you wanted to fan any flames.
Michael Baldwin 23 March 2008 23:10:10 [ permanent link ]
Fred asks Mike about age and political discussions,
Over the age of 30. Do you find that those
under the age of 30 are more open/reasonable in political
discussions?
Fred, to answer your question, those under the age of thirty are my future leaders when I'm really old and tired. That's why I invest my time in them. I'm currently working with 3 young men all under the age of 25. While their knowledge of history is rather weak, their ability to understand why things are the way they are today is refreshing. They don't enter the debate with bias. They clearly understand the meaning of the following phrase, reward of freedom is responsibility. The majority of my friends (40 - 60 years of age) are stuck in the eighties. Many willingly support the established system of government social _AND_ corporate welfare programs. "Get "it" while the gettin's good." they all say. That's what I mean when I say we as a nation have lost our moral compass. But hey. When you're dealing with a general populace that wants to blame "government" for everything and then have a "government" willing to accept that blame, what more could a career politician, bureaucrat or lobbyist hope for? Example - I think the tradegy at Waco is my fault. Had I voted for George Bush instead of Ross Perot then maybe Bill Clinton would not have become President. Same holds true for China's "most favored nation status", NAFTA, the bombing of the WTC, our embassys, and the U.S.S. Cole, Bin Laden's escape from justice, 9/11, the Iraq war, the price of oil, all my fault. Not "government".
Michael Baldwin 24 March 2008 06:43:56 [ permanent link ]
For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul
Paul, the F&F's knew that holding any people in servitude was wrong, however they also knew that to release slaves as freemen would have meant genocide in the pre-1800's. At the time, the debate over the issue of slavery wasn't as much about whether or not the practice should end, but rather how to end it. Again in pre-1800, post colonial America, only _landowners_ had a vote. The F&F's debated at length over the issue of how to establish a system of land grants so that _landholders_ could vote as well. As far as the electoral college goes, how else can a democratic republic be without such a system? Democracy in itself is mob rule. The F&F's knew that say, New York shouldn't elect the president and I for one agree with that premise yet today. So you see Paul. If the _original_ system was "flawed", involuntary servitude may still be in effect yet today. Woman may still be without a voice or a vote. And some vast city called "Voteropolis" would elect our nation's president. The F&F's devised a system of self-government which will always serve those willing to exercise their rights to participate in it. A federal system serving the interests of individuals, not just the majority, for the sake of an entire nation.
In article <46e0d780-7106-4abd-ab40-d5db9da47f7d@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
These'll be folk heroes and probably be working for MoveOn, or Obama
by next week. His Pastor, Wright, is already being painted as a
victim.
Cite on the positive commentary by left-leaning people of stature on this, please? As well, how about a cite by a left-leaning person of stature painting Wright as a victim?
Along those lines, why is it that Wright and Obama have been such a focal point? Yeah, the media say that Wright is "un-American" and has said "anti-American" things. The media demands that Obama "denounce" Farrakhan when Obama did not ask for his endorsement. Yet there no focus on McCain and his religious backers, John Haggee or Rod Parsley and their un-American statements. McCain sought out those guys for their endorsements.
Apparently, if you're black, anything you say is suspect. If you're white, it's a different story.
In article <25392-47E64CA7-1614@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net>, MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
The often prophetic Tom Kunich wrote,"Somehow No One Seems To Think"
Tom, so far your subject/header phrase has been _supported_ in this
threads replies!
Mike, the only person that has written anything that supports the subject/header is the original poster, Mr. Kunich himself. He picked a phrase out of some wacko rightwing site that agreed with some aspect of his hate- and fear-filled worldview and posted it. He got the mocking he earned.
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
On Mar 23, 7:43 pm, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
For the past 35 years I've been a self study
of our nations framers & founders. I've yet to "discover"
a flaw in their _original_ works.
Um.... slavery? Allowing women to vote? The electoral college? Those
are just three GLARING flaws in their _original_ works. What
WAS forward-thinking was providing a means to amend the constitution.
-Paul
Some of the Founders knew that writing slavery into
the constitution was a desperate and morally repugnant
deed. They did it because they felt keeping the free
and slave states in the same union was more important
for the survival of the future country, and if they hadn't
written it in, the slave states could have taken their
ball (and chain) and gone home. But these people
also knew that it was a flaw, perhaps a fatal flaw.
Nothing is perfect; pretending that the Republic was
not born in sin, when the three-fifths rule was written
into the Constitution, is willful blindness.
One flaw with the "original intent" (of the Constitution) argument is that
times change and what may have seemed like a great idea back then turns out to be
not particularly good now. The Founders knew this, and that's why they made it so
the Constitution could be amended.
I'm not a constitutional scholar (I reboot computers for a living), but I don't think that's a flaw with "original intent" interpretations of the constitution (is that still what we're talking about?) I think "originalism" is largely a defensible judicial philosophy, and the forseen solution for the constitution deviating from the needs and the rights assumed for the people is the amending formula.
Women's suffrage (or for that matter, sufferage for men other than land-owners) could not be seen to emanate from the penumbrae of the constitution except by the most fantastical constitutional interpreter. On the other hand, that right could be enacted through the amending formula, and although the battle for the 19th amendment was long and boring and (in retrospect) obviously the right side of the argument, the system worked.
The constitution of any nation should not be seen as a perfect document. But it's a bad idea to change its interpretation substantially outside the means of an amendment.
That said, it is possible for a constitution to be so poorly constituted that only re-creating it (sometimes in a fundamentally extraconstitutional fashion; in modern times, usually by some reasonably legitimate constitutional convention followed by a national referendum in the best cases) can save the nation.
I don't know which nation has the hardest-to-amend constitution; Canada has a very hard bar to attain, not to mention considerable complexity: most substantial amendments require ratification by 2/3rds of the provinces (ie at least 7) representing at least 50% of the population (at present, that would have to include at least Ontario or Quebec among the ratifiers).
Basically, the constitution has had no substantial amendments since its enactment.
Conversely, Singapore has a very easy amending formula (same amendment has to be passed by the legislature twice, separated by a general election), and the UK and Sweden have virtually no formal constitution at all, but make it work regardless.
-- Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message news:8c34e082-d29d-406d-8113-1d274d7eea5f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Mar 24, 9:25 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
Many representatives of the slave states argued that
slavery was both permanently economically necessary,
and morally justifiable.
Just for informations sake when bjw says "Many" he means everyone - even
representatives of non-slave states. He won't brook argument.
Not sure where you're coming from.
Maybe I'm coming from the idea that the most white Americans killed in a war was that war to free us from slavery. Scum sucking nobodies like trash talking fools here are only interested in making themselves appear to be nice Liberal when the truth is that they would NEVER actually take any actions themselves. Instead they pretend to be superior beings with the ability to judge people and circumstances they can't even imagine.
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message news:2fd2bfbc-8ecb-4428-93dd-43e1a8896c87@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
You've got to admit that most of them, except for a handful of nutjobs,
agreed with, and supported going into Afghanistan after the Taliban.
Seems to me that most of them still support that mission which we are
screwing up because of Georgie's Iraq adventure.
Firstly, Afghanistan is doing so much better than it was under the Taliban that it is sort of shocking to read in print about how bad it's doing. That's pretty much a lie.
What we were sold, on Iraq, and what it really was are two
totally different stories IMO, that's why I don't hold anything
against those folks who voted for it.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
I could go on and on.
I AM pissed at the administration for their actions, and totally agree
with thwe folks who want prosecution as soon as they are out of
Michael Baldwin 25 March 2008 02:31:16 [ permanent link ]
Ben called me out so, maybe he would like to level his charges against Mr. James Madison as well, who wrote:
It ought be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppression of their European brethren!
Fred Fredburger 25 March 2008 04:46:03 [ permanent link ]
Howard Kveck wrote:
In article <14ednVKG6bQDKHvanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.
That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
$50 that says Kunich will remain confused.
That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not* remaining
confused.
Right. Kunich isn't confused because Limbaugh hates McCain, there are other reasons for that.
Limbaugh doesn't hate McCain, either. This is the point in the campaign where it's his job to act like a bold free thinker who questions the Republican establishment. After the convention, he has to tow the line. But for now, he's busy providing evidence that he's not a boot-licking toad to anyone who's inclined to be selective in their perceptions.
Michael Baldwin 25 March 2008 07:11:23 [ permanent link ]
To me and others, writing slavery into the constitution was
a *GLARING* flaw in "their _original_ works", a totally repugnant
abomination. But hey, I admit it, I'm a liberal- just
like Abraham Lincoln.
-Paul
So Paul, as an abolitionist you realize your ambition to free the slaves would have been motivated by money don't you? The vast majority of abolitionist after all supported the _exportation_ of freed Africans. You see Paul, there really were only three _period_ specific solutions to ending slavery in post colonial America. Abolish slavery and export the freeman back to a land which those born into slavery had never even seen. Many anti-abolitionists opposed this plan out of humanitarian concerns for the freeman. Most feared, freeman would never "survive" the journey back to Africa. Next, simply free the slaves. Without the necessary social skills to assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many freeman would have surely suffered great hardship and probable genocide. Again this option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons. The final option became the reality of the situation. The Founders & Framers knew that the very nature of our Democratic Republic would eventually resolve the problem. But it would and did take time. I trust that 200 years from now (or sooner) a similar debate will take take place regarding our Nation's current state of affairs. I'm sure there will be a side that will say we could have all done better. I trust there will be a side that will say "They were Americans, they thought they were doing the best they could." I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
"Michael Baldwin" <MLB5611@webtv.net> wrote in message news:2036-47E86D5B-1637@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
I trust that 200 years from now (or sooner) a similar debate will
take take place regarding our Nation's current state of affairs.
I'm sure there will be a side that will say we could have all done
better. I trust there will be a side that will say "They were Americans,
they thought they were doing the best they could."
I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
I would word that a little differently. I don't think that people who act so high and mighty about slavery have even the slightest inkling what the problems were in a society where there was no cash to use and every deal was made via trades.
On most of the plantations the majority of the worth of the plantation was tied up in the slaves. It wasn't that slave holders wouldn't free the slaves but that they simply couldn't without leaving themselves not just broke but with no way to pay workers on their plantation.
It all eventually worked its way as the society advanced but it makes a lot of those posting here look pretty ridiculous when they act as if freeing the slaves was simply a matter of waving your hands.
By the way - indentured servants which were almost all white people from Great Britain, had a FAR worse life with few of them living past their indentures. After you got over your indenture there was no place to go to earn a living. That meant actually starving to death and many resigned indentures to remain working. This wasn't a case of the evil landholders but a case of it being far cheaper to get another indentured servant than to pay a free man here.
In article <aaydnR8QZYvN1nXanZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@comcast.com>, Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
Howard Kveck wrote:
In article <14ednVKG6bQDKHvanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
He's confused because R. Limbaugh hates J. McCain.
That's only temporary, Limbaugh will eventually come around. I've got
$50 that says Kunich will remain confused.
That's not much of a bet, is it? There's not much hope of him *not*
remaining
confused.
Right. Kunich isn't confused because Limbaugh hates McCain, there are
other reasons for that.
Limbaugh doesn't hate McCain, either. This is the point in the campaign
where it's his job to act like a bold free thinker who questions the
Republican establishment. After the convention, he has to tow the line.
But for now, he's busy providing evidence that he's not a boot-licking
toad to anyone who's inclined to be selective in their perceptions.
Limbaugh is about hating on the "other" a whole lot, and the "other" right now is the entirety of Islam. Giulianni was best at hating on them, so Rush liked him. But everyone else hated Mayor Mc9-11, so all that's left is McCain. Yes, you're correct that Rush will come around (and your reasoning is spot on). He's just going to be quiet about it for a while.
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote in message news:1ddd0eb2-0d66-4ff0-8419-5de3da1fb458@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, as I recall the slaves were pried from the cold, dead hands of
the slave owners. But it was more like squeezing a trigger than waving
hands. But thanks for the lesson on the economics of slavery and the
motivations of the slave owners. I have to agree that some posting
here "look pretty ridiculous".
Thanks for demonstrating precisely what I was talking about. Morons such as yourself who talk 21st century ethics believe that they're superior to everyone else that lived before.
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote in message news:45e6aa96-434d-4c0f-91d9-44ebcd969c73@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
What part of "I'm a liberal- just like Abraham Lincoln" is it that
you don't understand? Hell, I'd pry those slaves from the cold, dead
fingers of their conservative masters- just like Lincoln did.
What part of "Lincoln was a Republican" don't you understand? Too bad that if you'd bothered to actually learn something about the civil war you'd know that Lincoln knew that slavery would die of its own accord and so had no intention of freeing the slaves until AFTER the Civil War started.
Ah- I never looked at it that way- they kept them enslaved for
humanitarian reasons. This is very educational for someone like me
who's never been exposed to this type of thinking.
Let me guess - you've never bothered to actually read anything about history?
Michael Baldwin 26 March 2008 03:26:03 [ permanent link ]
I think I can do better, how about yourself Paul?
Oh, I *know* you can do better; just read what
you wrote. As for myself- I'm feeling morally superior
just about now. Why mess with success?
Insult duly noted Paul. Please allow me to share with you the words of another defender of the Framers & Founders.
They [the Declarations signers] meant simply to declare the right, [equality] so enforcement of it may follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which would be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly obtained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be as,- thank God -, it is now proving itself - a stumbling block to all those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
Abraham Lincoln
Paul, it goes without saying, I'm a simple man. My only agenda in life is to make my families life better than mine has been to date or ever will be. I know my openness and honesty is easily mocked in modern society. You however, through parsed words and innuendo have insulted my character by suggesting that I'm a racist, all the while yourself claiming to be "morally superior". I will pre-concede the final words on this discussion to you. Choose those words wisely, or they may echo hollow forever, for all the world to see.
What part of "I'm a liberal- just like Abraham Lincoln" is it that
you don't understand? Hell, I'd pry those slaves from the cold, dead
fingers of their conservative masters- just like Lincoln did.
What part of "Lincoln was a Republican" don't you understand?
You really think the Republicans of Lincoln's time are even remotely similar to the GOP of today? If you do, you're even further out to lunch than you've let on (and you've let on that you're pretty far out to lunch).
Too bad that if you'd bothered to actually learn something about the civil war
you'd know that Lincoln knew that slavery would die of its own accord and so had
no intention of freeing the slaves until AFTER the Civil War started.
Ah- I never looked at it that way- they kept them enslaved for
humanitarian reasons. This is very educational for someone like me
who's never been exposed to this type of thinking.
Let me guess - you've never bothered to actually read anything about
history?
Let me guess - you're just making this up as you go along.
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
After you told me I was a Stalinist Maoist FARCer, I happened to hear a song by the Stranglers called "No More Heroes" - that's where the lines are from, and why it appealed to me at the time I attached it as a sig file. Did you actually think I was favorably commenting on Trotsky?
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
The 50 is overblown, but it's pretty clear that this is fairly common,
and many are fairly serious. Of course you will just dismiss it all
because you don't like the messenger.
You made the argument earlier that "Direct Actions" were
understandable, and justified when the people are disenfranchised, and
not represented by the State.
I can't think of a single situation where I would condone violence,
illegal actions, and violating others here in the US today. Everyone
has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups.
Who says that I agree with and support what those people are doing? Secondly, if everyone has the ability to be heard and represented by influential groups, why are we in Iraq? there were marches of hundreds of thousands of people and Bush said that he doesn't make decisions based on public opinion. Cheney re-asserted that in the last week. I find it funny to think back to those marches - a couple of times there were counter-protests. At one, there were 86 reporters to cover 45 people demonstrating in favor of the war. That got bigger coverage in several major news outlets than the antiwar march. So I don't buy that argument.
Given your position, would those folks who consider abortion to be
murder, and who are as marginalized as it's possible to be, in the
State of Massachusetts, be justified in violence, and intimidation to
try and stop what they see as murder, here in Mass?
I say NO. Your position seems to say yes.
People who consider abortionto be murder are marginalized? Hmm, I guess visits to the White House and promises of Supreme Court members who'll overturn Roe v. Wade is as marginalized as one can get.
-- tanx, Howard
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky? He got an icepick That made his ears burn.
Michael Baldwin 28 March 2008 03:16:27 [ permanent link ]
Someone anonymous claiming to be Paul G. writes;
Thanks for pointing that out. I think I understand it
now. As Mr. Baldwin so eloquently put it:
" Next [option], simply free the slaves. Without the necessary
social skills to assimilate into a predominantly white culture, many
freeman would have surely suffered great hardship and probable
genocide.
Again this option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for
humanitarian reasons."
Just can't stop quoting me out of context can you Paul ? Have I gotten under skin Paul? You've yet to back a single word of your spew with one historically _and_ period correct fact or quote. I thought you'd ignore Lincoln's Springfield quote and you did. You're so predictable. Lincoln said the Framers & Founders got it right. See the _TRUTH_. See Paul run. See Paul run. LOL! Get your Keds on Paul, because here's another fact that you can run from. President Van Buren (Democrat) was a well noted abolitionist. What he hated even more than slavery was _slaves_, as did many abolitionist of that _era_. When you can quote Humes, Hutcheson, Kames or Smith then I'll take your charges under consideration. Until then I'll just consider you to be some anomynous Usenet troll who used to carry water to the Legends of Re-pack.
just regards - Mike Baldwin
PS - No self-described Liberal would ever drive a Ford Explorer you fake.
"Michael Baldwin" <MLB5611@webtv.net> wrote in message news:25178-47EC2ACB-67@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
PS - No self-described Liberal would ever drive a Ford Explorer you
fake.
Around here you can tell the Liberals - they're the one's driving the Mercedes-Benz M-Class, BMW X5, Cadillac Escalades, Ford Expeditions and Chevy Suburbans. They're the one's complaining about $100 fillups and trying to get gas prices down as low as possible.
Oh, yeah, and they're the one's telling the rest of us how corrupt we are.
