notes from my ex-wife
Correspondent:: ZOOGZRIFT@hotmail.com (ZOOGZ RIFT)
Date: 21 Oct 2004 16:58:48 -0700
--------
Laura Rift writes:
Hi folks,
I am sending out this e-mail
requesting that you all consider
very carefully who you are going to vote
for president this November. I am sending
this to my son but blind copying everyone
else in the interest of not publicly exposing
the e-mail addresses of some who might
not want their addresses so exposed.
I am 49 years old and my political views
have changed over the years. But whether
I have considered myself liberal, conservative,
libertarian, or just plain independent
feminist (which is pretty much how I define
myself politically right now) I have NEVER
been as opposed to a president as I am to
this president we have now.
Why? Here's the reasons in a nutshell.
1. Bush is not only interested in criminalizing
abortion, he is against stem-cell research and
is for a Human Life Amendment which would
give a single cell, a zygote, the same right to life
as a woman. Presumably, this would lead
not only to all abortions being made illegal,
but IUDs and birth control pills as well (both
IUDs and birth control pills can interfere
with the implantation of a fertilized egg),
and in-vitro fertilization.
2. As a result of his anti-abortion views, his
administration has re-instituted a gag rule that
has cut off family planning aid to millions
of Third World women. Keep in mind
that hundreds of thousands of women DIE
as a result of complications of pregnancy,
childbirth, and during botched abortions,
most of these deaths would be preventable
if women could prevent unwanted and unaffordable
pregnancies, and if necessary secure safe abortions.
How does the gag rule work? Any country that
accepts family planning funds from the US can't
even counsel women on abortions or perform
abortions, even if they use their OWN money
for the abortion counselling and abortion
services. Abortion is LEGAL here but heaven
forbid that women whose lives are threatened
by pregnancy should be able to get abortions
in the Third World where they need them the most.
3. The attacks under 9/11 occurred during
Bush's watch. How dare he and his lackey
Cheney (or is it the other way around) imply
that this nation is safer under the Bush
administration. Bush was warned
REPEATEDLY by the CIA that
Al Queda and specifically Osama bin Laden
was planning an attack against the US and IGNORED
those warnings (as well as information from the
FBI and from sources within its own administration).
The idea that planes could be used as bombs
was KNOWN to the intelligence community
from the mid-90s onward. As early as 1994
the French prevented an attempt to run a plane
into the Eiffel tower.
Our "macho" leaders couldn't protect us
against FOUR, count 'em FOUR, planes
headed toward the World Trade Center,
Pentagon, and the White House. It
took passengers to save the White House.
Clearly, Bush and the members of his
administration aren't the only ones responsible
for the intelligence lapse--members of
the CIA, FBI, and past administrations
dating all the way back to the Reagan
administration bear some responsibility.
It is interesting, however, that Bush
opposed an independent commission
to look into the causes of 9/11 and
only gave in when political pressure
mounted. (I'm also still wondering why
those planes weren't shot out of the
sky by the military as soon as it became
known what was going on. They should
have been. Hundreds would have still
died but at least a thousand or two
would have most likely been saved.)
.
4. Bush launched the war in Iraq under false
pretenses and then failed to enact a PLAN
for the reconstruction of Iraq, as a result he
is making this country and this world a
more dangerous place to live in by aiding
and abetting our REAL enemies, which
are Muslin fundamentalists.
Keep in mind that Saddam was a SECULAR
dictator that the US supported in the 80s. So
much for the "axis of evil." The attacks on 9/11 were
committed by Islamic fundamentalists who are now
STRONGER then they were previously. Our sons
and daughters are dying for something worse than
nothing--they are inadvertently aiding the enemy.
5. Bush pretends that countries like Saudi Arabia
and Pakistan are our allies, when both countries
treat women horribly (an example: a woman in Pakistan
was recently sentenced to be gang-raped because
HER BROTHER accused a high status male
of sexually abusing him) and are connected at least
indirectly with Al Queda. Osama bin Laden is
a Saudi and most of the 9/11 attackers were
Saudis. The Saudis have funded schools over
all the Middle East that teach hatred toward
the US and western values. Many of these
schools are in Pakistan.
Pakistan also has leaked nuclear information to our
known enemies and has a population, from everything
I've read, that is extremely hostile to the US, viewing
Osama bin Laden as a hero.
6. Bush has spent BILLIONS of dollars
on this failed war instead of spending the money
securing our ports, securing our nuclear arsenal,
securing our chemical plants, producing
vaccines against bioterrorist threats--and just
producing vaccines, period--and most
importantly creating energy independence so
we can stop the idiocy of pretending that Arab
countries are our friends. WE need their oil
and we need to stop needing their oil.
This country needs a massive R&D plan for
energy independence enacted NOW.
7. Over 1,000 American lives have been lost in
GW Bush's "catastrophic success" (his words,
not mine) and who knows how many Iraqi lives in order
to rid the world of a dictator who was not
threatening us.
Please note that the world is filled with dictators
and monarchs every bit as murderous as Saddam
Hussein was. Presently, hundreds of thousands
of Sudanese are being killed, tortured and raped
by Arab militias and millions are in imminent
danger of death, all with the tacit support of the
Sudanese government, and we are doing nothing.
In any case, the greater enemy, Iran, is next
door. From what I've read, Saddam wanted
Iran to believe he had nuclear weapons because
he knew Iran might have such a capacity and he
thought Iran would not attack Iraq if Iran thought
Iraq was similarly endowed.
So what do we do? We attack Iraq. Imagine
the irony if Iran drops a nuclear bomb on us
when our boys are dying next door in Iraq.
8. Before 9/11 the Taliban was supported by the
Bush administration, given millions of dollars,
OUR money, this to people who treat women
worse than we are allowed to treat cats and dogs.
To be fair, other administrations also supported
the Taliban and this country has supported foreign
dictators in the fight against Communism (and
before that in the fight against Nazi Germany)
for decades. That said, GW Bush has carried
the "natural" hypocrisy of government to
new extremes with his idiotic "axis of evil"
comments. Presumably none of these
countries were terribly evil in the past.
North Korea, Pakistan, and possibly
Iran have nuclear weapons and all three
of these countries have either leaders
or populations extremely hostile toward
the US. Why aren't we invading these
countries?
9. Halliburton and other companies directly
or indirectly associated with the Bush
administration are winning no-bid
contracts to reconstruct Iraq. The reconstruction of
Iraq should be run mainly by Iraqis and the
Iraqi people should be the main
beneficiaries. Americans should not get rich
from the destruction wrought by American
bombs.
10. GW Bush is a lying "born again"
ex-boozer, ex-thief, ex-vandal (yes,
Bush had been arrested for drunk driving
and disorderly conduct well past his teen years)
who was apparently a failure in everything he
attempted before he entered politics
despite all the advantages wealth could buy;
a wastrel who blew one million dollars of taxpayer
money avoiding service in Vietnam learning to
fly an obsolete plane and "serving" in Alabama
doing God knows what. He and Cheney, another
liar--imagine accusing Kerry and Edwards of being
absent from the Senate when he knows damn
well they have been on the campaign trail for many
months--play the role of macho men but neither one
of these cowards fought in Vietnam. Kerry, for all his
faults, did. (Cheney, by the way, has two drunk
driving arrests).
Check out http://www.blogd.com/bushrecord.html
for Bush's record of shame.
From what I've read, Ted Kennedy accused
Bush of "arrogant ideological incompetence."
Sounds right on the money to me. Not a fan
of Mr. Ted but when you're right, you're right.
Please think about the future of this country,
when you vote in November.
Please remember that we cannot be the policeman
of the world. Free women here refuse to breed
cannon fodder and when our military fills up
with noncitizens and illegal immigrants we
will be headed the way of the Roman Empire
which stretched itself so thin it ended up
hiring mercenaries to fight its endless battles
until it finally collapsed as much from the
inside out as from the outside in.
Of course, Bush could try to reinstate
the draft and force poor young men to die for
his miserable mistake, and once re-elected
he just might. Right now, he's putting off
a major military offensive until AFTER
the election. What colossal nerve--the
fate of Iraq, its people, and our soldiers
are simply a ploy in his election campaign.
This is the kind of man who makes me
remember Richard Nixon with a great
deal of fondness.
I urge you all to vote and to encourage all
whom you know to vote as well.
--Laura Rift
Correspondent:: dennis6449@yahoo.com (Dennis B)
Date: 22 Oct 2004 02:54:29 -0700
--------
ZOOGZRIFT@hotmail.com (ZOOGZ RIFT) wrote in message news:...
> Laura Rift writes:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I am sending out this e-mail
> requesting that you all consider
> very carefully who you are going to vote
> for president this November. I am sending
> this to my son but blind copying everyone
> else in the interest of not publicly exposing
> the e-mail addresses of some who might
> not want their addresses so exposed.
>
> I am 49 years old and my political views
> have changed over the years. But whether
> I have considered myself liberal, conservative,
> libertarian, or just plain independent
> feminist (which is pretty much how I define
> myself politically right now)
"she madw a little speech then..."
I have NEVER
> been as opposed to a president as I am to
> this president we have now.
>
> Why? Here's the reasons in a nutshell.
>
> 1. Bush is not only interested in criminalizing
> abortion, he is against stem-cell research and
> is for a Human Life Amendment which would
> give a single cell, a zygote, the same right to life
> as a woman. Presumably, this would lead
> not only to all abortions being made illegal,
> but IUDs and birth control pills as well (both
> IUDs and birth control pills can interfere
> with the implantation of a fertilized egg),
> and in-vitro fertilization.
>
> 2. As a result of his anti-abortion views, his
> administration has re-instituted a gag rule that
> has cut off family planning aid to millions
> of Third World women. Keep in mind
> that hundreds of thousands of women DIE
> as a result of complications of pregnancy,
> childbirth, and during botched abortions,
> most of these deaths would be preventable
> if women could prevent unwanted and unaffordable
> pregnancies, and if necessary secure safe abortions.
>
> How does the gag rule work? Any country that
> accepts family planning funds from the US can't
> even counsel women on abortions or perform
> abortions, even if they use their OWN money
> for the abortion counselling and abortion
> services. Abortion is LEGAL here but heaven
> forbid that women whose lives are threatened
> by pregnancy should be able to get abortions
> in the Third World where they need them the most.
>
> 3. The attacks under 9/11 occurred during
> Bush's watch. How dare he and his lackey
> Cheney (or is it the other way around) imply
> that this nation is safer under the Bush
> administration. Bush was warned
> REPEATEDLY by the CIA that
> Al Queda and specifically Osama bin Laden
> was planning an attack against the US and IGNORED
> those warnings (as well as information from the
> FBI and from sources within its own administration).
> The idea that planes could be used as bombs
> was KNOWN to the intelligence community
> from the mid-90s onward. As early as 1994
> the French prevented an attempt to run a plane
> into the Eiffel tower.
>
> Our "macho" leaders couldn't protect us
> against FOUR, count 'em FOUR, planes
> headed toward the World Trade Center,
> Pentagon, and the White House. It
> took passengers to save the White House.
> Clearly, Bush and the members of his
> administration aren't the only ones responsible
> for the intelligence lapse--members of
> the CIA, FBI, and past administrations
> dating all the way back to the Reagan
> administration bear some responsibility.
> It is interesting, however, that Bush
> opposed an independent commission
> to look into the causes of 9/11 and
> only gave in when political pressure
> mounted. (I'm also still wondering why
> those planes weren't shot out of the
> sky by the military as soon as it became
> known what was going on. They should
> have been. Hundreds would have still
> died but at least a thousand or two
> would have most likely been saved.)
> .
> 4. Bush launched the war in Iraq under false
> pretenses and then failed to enact a PLAN
> for the reconstruction of Iraq, as a result he
> is making this country and this world a
> more dangerous place to live in by aiding
> and abetting our REAL enemies, which
> are Muslin fundamentalists.
>
> Keep in mind that Saddam was a SECULAR
> dictator that the US supported in the 80s. So
> much for the "axis of evil." The attacks on 9/11 were
> committed by Islamic fundamentalists who are now
> STRONGER then they were previously. Our sons
> and daughters are dying for something worse than
> nothing--they are inadvertently aiding the enemy.
>
> 5. Bush pretends that countries like Saudi Arabia
> and Pakistan are our allies, when both countries
> treat women horribly (an example: a woman in Pakistan
> was recently sentenced to be gang-raped because
> HER BROTHER accused a high status male
> of sexually abusing him) and are connected at least
> indirectly with Al Queda. Osama bin Laden is
> a Saudi and most of the 9/11 attackers were
> Saudis. The Saudis have funded schools over
> all the Middle East that teach hatred toward
> the US and western values. Many of these
> schools are in Pakistan.
>
> Pakistan also has leaked nuclear information to our
> known enemies and has a population, from everything
> I've read, that is extremely hostile to the US, viewing
> Osama bin Laden as a hero.
>
> 6. Bush has spent BILLIONS of dollars
> on this failed war instead of spending the money
> securing our ports, securing our nuclear arsenal,
> securing our chemical plants, producing
> vaccines against bioterrorist threats--and just
> producing vaccines, period--and most
> importantly creating energy independence so
> we can stop the idiocy of pretending that Arab
> countries are our friends. WE need their oil
> and we need to stop needing their oil.
> This country needs a massive R&D plan for
> energy independence enacted NOW.
>
> 7. Over 1,000 American lives have been lost in
> GW Bush's "catastrophic success" (his words,
> not mine) and who knows how many Iraqi lives in order
> to rid the world of a dictator who was not
> threatening us.
>
> Please note that the world is filled with dictators
> and monarchs every bit as murderous as Saddam
> Hussein was. Presently, hundreds of thousands
> of Sudanese are being killed, tortured and raped
> by Arab militias and millions are in imminent
> danger of death, all with the tacit support of the
> Sudanese government, and we are doing nothing.
>
> In any case, the greater enemy, Iran, is next
> door. From what I've read, Saddam wanted
> Iran to believe he had nuclear weapons because
> he knew Iran might have such a capacity and he
> thought Iran would not attack Iraq if Iran thought
> Iraq was similarly endowed.
>
> So what do we do? We attack Iraq. Imagine
> the irony if Iran drops a nuclear bomb on us
> when our boys are dying next door in Iraq.
>
> 8. Before 9/11 the Taliban was supported by the
> Bush administration, given millions of dollars,
> OUR money, this to people who treat women
> worse than we are allowed to treat cats and dogs.
> To be fair, other administrations also supported
> the Taliban and this country has supported foreign
> dictators in the fight against Communism (and
> before that in the fight against Nazi Germany)
> for decades. That said, GW Bush has carried
> the "natural" hypocrisy of government to
> new extremes with his idiotic "axis of evil"
> comments. Presumably none of these
> countries were terribly evil in the past.
> North Korea, Pakistan, and possibly
> Iran have nuclear weapons and all three
> of these countries have either leaders
> or populations extremely hostile toward
> the US. Why aren't we invading these
> countries?
>
> 9. Halliburton and other companies directly
> or indirectly associated with the Bush
> administration are winning no-bid
> contracts to reconstruct Iraq. The reconstruction of
> Iraq should be run mainly by Iraqis and the
> Iraqi people should be the main
> beneficiaries. Americans should not get rich
> from the destruction wrought by American
> bombs.
>
> 10. GW Bush is a lying "born again"
> ex-boozer, ex-thief, ex-vandal (yes,
> Bush had been arrested for drunk driving
> and disorderly conduct well past his teen years)
> who was apparently a failure in everything he
> attempted before he entered politics
> despite all the advantages wealth could buy;
> a wastrel who blew one million dollars of taxpayer
> money avoiding service in Vietnam learning to
> fly an obsolete plane and "serving" in Alabama
> doing God knows what. He and Cheney, another
> liar--imagine accusing Kerry and Edwards of being
> absent from the Senate when he knows damn
> well they have been on the campaign trail for many
> months--play the role of macho men but neither one
> of these cowards fought in Vietnam. Kerry, for all his
> faults, did. (Cheney, by the way, has two drunk
> driving arrests).
>
> Check out http://www.blogd.com/bushrecord.html
> for Bush's record of shame.
>
> From what I've read, Ted Kennedy accused
> Bush of "arrogant ideological incompetence."
> Sounds right on the money to me. Not a fan
> of Mr. Ted but when you're right, you're right.
>
> Please think about the future of this country,
> when you vote in November.
>
> Please remember that we cannot be the policeman
> of the world. Free women here refuse to breed
> cannon fodder and when our military fills up
> with noncitizens and illegal immigrants we
> will be headed the way of the Roman Empire
> which stretched itself so thin it ended up
> hiring mercenaries to fight its endless battles
> until it finally collapsed as much from the
> inside out as from the outside in.
>
> Of course, Bush could try to reinstate
> the draft and force poor young men to die for
> his miserable mistake, and once re-elected
> he just might. Right now, he's putting off
> a major military offensive until AFTER
> the election. What colossal nerve--the
> fate of Iraq, its people, and our soldiers
> are simply a ploy in his election campaign.
>
> This is the kind of man who makes me
> remember Richard Nixon with a great
> deal of fondness.
>
> I urge you all to vote and to encourage all
> whom you know to vote as well.
>
>
> --Laura Rift
Correspondent:: djcameron60616@yahoo.com (delfuego)
Date: 22 Oct 2004 08:57:36 -0700
--------
Hi Laura,
I agree with most of what you said. My comments are in between the
lines.
ZOOGZRIFT@hotmail.com (ZOOGZ RIFT) wrote in message news:...
> Laura Rift writes:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I am sending out this e-mail
> requesting that you all consider
> very carefully who you are going to vote
> for president this November. I am sending
> this to my son but blind copying everyone
> else in the interest of not publicly exposing
> the e-mail addresses of some who might
> not want their addresses so exposed.
>
> I am 49 years old and my political views
> have changed over the years. But whether
> I have considered myself liberal, conservative,
> libertarian, or just plain independent
> feminist (which is pretty much how I define
> myself politically right now) I have NEVER
> been as opposed to a president as I am to
> this president we have now.
Bush is quite possibly the worst president we have ever had or could
have. I prefer seeing the independent candidates on the major
channels during debates, but with the exception of perot, it rarely
happens. I wonder why.
> Why? Here's the reasons in a nutshell.
>
> 1. Bush is not only interested in criminalizing
> abortion, he is against stem-cell research and
> is for a Human Life Amendment which would
> give a single cell, a zygote, the same right to life
> as a woman. Presumably, this would lead
> not only to all abortions being made illegal,
> but IUDs and birth control pills as well (both
> IUDs and birth control pills can interfere
> with the implantation of a fertilized egg),
> and in-vitro fertilization.
ok.
>
> 2. As a result of his anti-abortion views, his
> administration has re-instituted a gag rule that
> has cut off family planning aid to millions
> of Third World women. Keep in mind
> that hundreds of thousands of women DIE
> as a result of complications of pregnancy,
> childbirth, and during botched abortions,
> most of these deaths would be preventable
> if women could prevent unwanted and unaffordable
> pregnancies, and if necessary secure safe abortions.
> How does the gag rule work? Any country that
> accepts family planning funds from the US can't
> even counsel women on abortions or perform
> abortions, even if they use their OWN money
> for the abortion counselling and abortion
> services. Abortion is LEGAL here but heaven
> forbid that women whose lives are threatened
> by pregnancy should be able to get abortions
> in the Third World where they need them the most.
You lost me here .. why would the U.S care what happens regarding
abortion in third world countries, or fund them?
>
> 3. The attacks under 9/11 occurred during
> Bush's watch. How dare he and his lackey
> Cheney (or is it the other way around) imply
> that this nation is safer under the Bush
> administration. Bush was warned
> REPEATEDLY by the CIA that
> Al Queda and specifically Osama bin Laden
> was planning an attack against the US and IGNORED
> those warnings (as well as information from the
> FBI and from sources within its own administration).
> The idea that planes could be used as bombs
> was KNOWN to the intelligence community
> from the mid-90s onward. As early as 1994
> the French prevented an attempt to run a plane
> into the Eiffel tower.
>
> Our "macho" leaders couldn't protect us
> against FOUR, count 'em FOUR, planes
> headed toward the World Trade Center,
> Pentagon, and the White House. It
> took passengers to save the White House.
> Clearly, Bush and the members of his
> administration aren't the only ones responsible
> for the intelligence lapse--members of
> the CIA, FBI, and past administrations
> dating all the way back to the Reagan
> administration bear some responsibility.
> It is interesting, however, that Bush
> opposed an independent commission
> to look into the causes of 9/11 and
> only gave in when political pressure
> mounted. (I'm also still wondering why
> those planes weren't shot out of the
> sky by the military as soon as it became
> known what was going on. They should
> have been. Hundreds would have still
> died but at least a thousand or two
> would have most likely been saved.)
Bush seems to be playing on the idea of fear or nationalism in this
election especially.
> .
> 4. Bush launched the war in Iraq under false
> pretenses and then failed to enact a PLAN
> for the reconstruction of Iraq, as a result he
> is making this country and this world a
> more dangerous place to live in by aiding
> and abetting our REAL enemies, which
> are Muslin fundamentalists.
>
> Keep in mind that Saddam was a SECULAR
> dictator that the US supported in the 80s. So
> much for the "axis of evil." The attacks on 9/11 were
> committed by Islamic fundamentalists who are now
> STRONGER then they were previously. Our sons
> and daughters are dying for something worse than
> nothing--they are inadvertently aiding the enemy.
The Middle East mindeset has not changed for centuries. There will
always be extremists in any culture, it just so happens with the
middle east, the underlying theme happens to be more along the line of
who can suck what to get lesser prices for oil, set up intelligence
towers of haliburton smack dab in the center, and set up "Strong,
secure, democracies", much like in the central america area in the
80's.
>
> 5. Bush pretends that countries like Saudi Arabia
> and Pakistan are our allies, when both countries
> treat women horribly (an example: a woman in Pakistan
> was recently sentenced to be gang-raped because
> HER BROTHER accused a high status male
> of sexually abusing him) and are connected at least
> indirectly with Al Queda. Osama bin Laden is
> a Saudi and most of the 9/11 attackers were
> Saudis. The Saudis have funded schools over
> all the Middle East that teach hatred toward
> the US and western values. Many of these
> schools are in Pakistan.
>
> Pakistan also has leaked nuclear information to our
> known enemies and has a population, from everything
> I've read, that is extremely hostile to the US, viewing
> Osama bin Laden as a hero.
Don't forget about politicians who are not U.S. citizens, the failed
border cotntrol, and opening wide a barn door for offshoring and H1B
visas, bringing our U.S. citizen workforce to its knees.
>
> 6. Bush has spent BILLIONS of dollars
> on this failed war instead of spending the money
> securing our ports, securing our nuclear arsenal,
> securing our chemical plants, producing
> vaccines against bioterrorist threats--and just
We have no threats except one -- Bush.
Who says 9/11 was not staged?
> producing vaccines, period--and most
> importantly creating energy independence so
> we can stop the idiocy of pretending that Arab
> countries are our friends. WE need their oil
> and we need to stop needing their oil.
> This country needs a massive R&D plan for
> energy independence enacted NOW.
>
> 7. Over 1,000 American lives have been lost in
> GW Bush's "catastrophic success" (his words,
> not mine) and who knows how many Iraqi lives in order
> to rid the world of a dictator who was not
> threatening us.
Many soldiers are refusing to take anthrax vaccines or other vaccines
.. primarily because they are then carriers, if there is no open
threat of biological weapons. Add to that the side effects soldiers
in Desert Storm had from chemical weapons .. if the military cannot
even tell them how to properly wear a gas mask, how can they win a war
of this size?
> Please note that the world is filled with dictators
> and monarchs every bit as murderous as Saddam
> Hussein was. Presently, hundreds of thousands
> of Sudanese are being killed, tortured and raped
> by Arab militias and millions are in imminent
> danger of death, all with the tacit support of the
> Sudanese government, and we are doing nothing.
>
> In any case, the greater enemy, Iran, is next
> door. From what I've read, Saddam wanted
> Iran to believe he had nuclear weapons because
> he knew Iran might have such a capacity and he
> thought Iran would not attack Iraq if Iran thought
> Iraq was similarly endowed.
In 1994 U.S. News and Word report had an article on nuclear weapons
trafficking through asia and toward africa. It started in china, down
through korea, through pakistan/india, and stopped at iraq/iran. If
htis route had takers along every single area, we at least know that
korea and china obviously have them, russia probably has some; this
mean the entire "End of the cold war" was bullshit. No third, second
or first world country will ever get rid of their nukes unless they're
idiots.
>
> So what do we do? We attack Iraq. Imagine
> the irony if Iran drops a nuclear bomb on us
> when our boys are dying next door in Iraq.
>
> 8. Before 9/11 the Taliban was supported by the
> Bush administration, given millions of dollars,
> OUR money, this to people who treat women
> worse than we are allowed to treat cats and dogs.
> To be fair, other administrations also supported
> the Taliban and this country has supported foreign
> dictators in the fight against Communism (and
> before that in the fight against Nazi Germany)
> for decades. That said, GW Bush has carried
> the "natural" hypocrisy of government to
> new extremes with his idiotic "axis of evil"
> comments. Presumably none of these
> countries were terribly evil in the past.
> North Korea, Pakistan, and possibly
> Iran have nuclear weapons and all three
> of these countries have either leaders
> or populations extremely hostile toward
> the US. Why aren't we invading these
> countries?
Because we ran out of money.
> 9. Halliburton and other companies directly
> or indirectly associated with the Bush
> administration are winning no-bid
> contracts to reconstruct Iraq. The reconstruction of
> Iraq should be run mainly by Iraqis and the
> Iraqi people should be the main
> beneficiaries. Americans should not get rich
> from the destruction wrought by American
> bombs.
Who is going to stop them?
> 10. GW Bush is a lying "born again"
> ex-boozer, ex-thief, ex-vandal (yes,
> Bush had been arrested for drunk driving
> and disorderly conduct well past his teen years)
That's not a reason to get someone out of office, everybody makes
mistakes in life, some just get caught.
> who was apparently a failure in everything he
> attempted before he entered politics
> despite all the advantages wealth could buy;
> a wastrel who blew one million dollars of taxpayer
> money avoiding service in Vietnam learning to
> fly an obsolete plane and "serving" in Alabama
> doing God knows what. He and Cheney, another
He was reserves -- not exactly your "rise through the ranks" career
military person.
> liar--imagine accusing Kerry and Edwards of being
> absent from the Senate when he knows damn
> well they have been on the campaign trail for many
> months--play the role of macho men but neither one
> of these cowards fought in Vietnam. Kerry, for all his
> faults, did. (Cheney, by the way, has two drunk
> driving arrests).
>
> Check out http://www.blogd.com/bushrecord.html
> for Bush's record of shame.
>
> From what I've read, Ted Kennedy accused
> Bush of "arrogant ideological incompetence."
> Sounds right on the money to me. Not a fan
> of Mr. Ted but when you're right, you're right.
No politician is ever 100% honest.
>
> Please think about the future of this country,
> when you vote in November.
>
> Please remember that we cannot be the policeman
> of the world. Free women here refuse to breed
> cannon fodder and when our military fills up
> with noncitizens and illegal immigrants we
> will be headed the way of the Roman Empire
> which stretched itself so thin it ended up
> hiring mercenaries to fight its endless battles
> until it finally collapsed as much from the
> inside out as from the outside in.
I have been wondering about the likelihoos within ten years of a civil
or revolutionary war occurring again.
Revolutionary war to throw away the corrupt government, or a civil war
to restore the class system.
>
> Of course, Bush could try to reinstate
> the draft and force poor young men to die for
> his miserable mistake, and once re-elected
> he just might. Right now, he's putting off
> a major military offensive until AFTER
> the election. What colossal nerve--the
> fate of Iraq, its people, and our soldiers
> are simply a ploy in his election campaign.
>
> This is the kind of man who makes me
> remember Richard Nixon with a great
> deal of fondness.
>
> I urge you all to vote and to encourage all
> whom you know to vote as well.
>
>
> --Laura Rift
Peace out.
They are all corrupt.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:26:08 GMT
--------
delfuego wrote:
> I have been wondering about the likelihoos within ten years of a civil
> or revolutionary war occurring again.
> Revolutionary war to throw away the corrupt government, or a civil war
> to restore the class system.
1. The Bush administration returns to the White House with the Supreme
Court's help.
2. A non-ultraconservative member of the Supreme Court retires or dies.
3. Bush appoints an ultraconservative justice, finally giving the
radical right an unstoppable majority.
4. The new court uses strict constructionalism (the legal equivalent of
fundamentalism) as an excuse to "return" many rights Americans take for
granted "to the states." The microsecond they're free to do so, red
states gleefully strip their residents of said rights (God hates fags,
God hates abortion, God hates Muslims, God hates progressives, etc).
Dissenters who are able flee to the blue states which haven't turned the
clock back fifty or a hundred years.
6. Presto! The country is deeply divided along both political AND
geographic lines. Political interest and geographic interest are one
and the same. The last time this happened, there was a civil war.
Not saying it's probable or even likely, but it IS possible.
Correspondent:: djcameron60616@yahoo.com (delfuego)
Date: 23 Oct 2004 01:03:18 -0700
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message news:...
> delfuego wrote:
>
> > I have been wondering about the likelihoos within ten years of a civil
> > or revolutionary war occurring again.
> > Revolutionary war to throw away the corrupt government, or a civil war
> > to restore the class system.
>
> 1. The Bush administration returns to the White House with the Supreme
> Court's help.
>
> 2. A non-ultraconservative member of the Supreme Court retires or dies.
>
> 3. Bush appoints an ultraconservative justice, finally giving the
> radical right an unstoppable majority.
>
> 4. The new court uses strict constructionalism (the legal equivalent of
> fundamentalism) as an excuse to "return" many rights Americans take for
> granted "to the states." The microsecond they're free to do so, red
> states gleefully strip their residents of said rights (God hates fags,
> God hates abortion, God hates Muslims, God hates progressives, etc).
> Dissenters who are able flee to the blue states which haven't turned the
> clock back fifty or a hundred years.
>
> 6. Presto! The country is deeply divided along both political AND
> geographic lines. Political interest and geographic interest are one
> and the same. The last time this happened, there was a civil war.
>
> Not saying it's probable or even likely, but it IS possible.
Possible is good.
So what would it take for a revolutionary war rather than a civil war?
Chucking Hatian immigrants into the bay?
I say we just go for all out anarchy. No stockpil;ing or hording.
just smash and grab, raping and pillaging. Like Blackbeard, only
cooler. Like a game show.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:54:21 GMT
--------
delfuego wrote:
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message news:...
>> delfuego wrote:
>>
>> > I have been wondering about the likelihoos within ten years of a civil
>> > or revolutionary war occurring again.
>> > Revolutionary war to throw away the corrupt government, or a civil war
>> > to restore the class system.
>>
>> 1. The Bush administration returns to the White House with the Supreme
>> Court's help.
>>
>> 2. A non-ultraconservative member of the Supreme Court retires or dies.
>>
>> 3. Bush appoints an ultraconservative justice, finally giving the
>> radical right an unstoppable majority.
>>
>> 4. The new court uses strict constructionalism (the legal equivalent of
>> fundamentalism) as an excuse to "return" many rights Americans take for
>> granted "to the states." The microsecond they're free to do so, red
>> states gleefully strip their residents of said rights (God hates fags,
>> God hates abortion, God hates Muslims, God hates progressives, etc).
>> Dissenters who are able flee to the blue states which haven't turned the
>> clock back fifty or a hundred years.
>>
>> 6. Presto! The country is deeply divided along both political AND
>> geographic lines. Political interest and geographic interest are one
>> and the same. The last time this happened, there was a civil war.
>>
>> Not saying it's probable or even likely, but it IS possible.
>
> Possible is good.
> So what would it take for a revolutionary war rather than a civil war?
> Chucking Hatian immigrants into the bay?
> I say we just go for all out anarchy. No stockpil;ing or hording.
> just smash and grab, raping and pillaging. Like Blackbeard, only
> cooler. Like a game show.
Okay, and when that's done, then what?
Correspondent:: polar bear
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:02:18 -0700
--------
In article , Cardinal
Vertigo wrote:
> delfuego wrote:
> > Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> delfuego wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have been wondering about the likelihoos within ten years of a civil
> >> > or revolutionary war occurring again.
> >> > Revolutionary war to throw away the corrupt government, or a civil war
> >> > to restore the class system.
> >>
> >> 1. The Bush administration returns to the White House with the Supreme
> >> Court's help.
> >>
> >> 2. A non-ultraconservative member of the Supreme Court retires or dies.
> >>
> >> 3. Bush appoints an ultraconservative justice, finally giving the
> >> radical right an unstoppable majority.
> >>
> >> 4. The new court uses strict constructionalism (the legal equivalent of
> >> fundamentalism) as an excuse to "return" many rights Americans take for
> >> granted "to the states." The microsecond they're free to do so, red
> >> states gleefully strip their residents of said rights (God hates fags,
> >> God hates abortion, God hates Muslims, God hates progressives, etc).
> >> Dissenters who are able flee to the blue states which haven't turned the
> >> clock back fifty or a hundred years.
> >>
> >> 6. Presto! The country is deeply divided along both political AND
> >> geographic lines. Political interest and geographic interest are one
> >> and the same. The last time this happened, there was a civil war.
> >>
> >> Not saying it's probable or even likely, but it IS possible.
> >
> > Possible is good.
> > So what would it take for a revolutionary war rather than a civil war?
> > Chucking Hatian immigrants into the bay?
> > I say we just go for all out anarchy. No stockpil;ing or hording.
> > just smash and grab, raping and pillaging. Like Blackbeard, only
> > cooler. Like a game show.
>
> Okay, and when that's done, then what?
Move to Canada?
pb
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:15:13 GMT
--------
polar bear wrote:
> In article , Cardinal
> Vertigo wrote:
>
>> delfuego wrote:
>> > Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message
>> > news:...
>> >> delfuego wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have been wondering about the likelihoos within ten years of a civil
>> >> > or revolutionary war occurring again.
>> >> > Revolutionary war to throw away the corrupt government, or a civil war
>> >> > to restore the class system.
>> >>
>> >> 1. The Bush administration returns to the White House with the Supreme
>> >> Court's help.
>> >>
>> >> 2. A non-ultraconservative member of the Supreme Court retires or dies.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Bush appoints an ultraconservative justice, finally giving the
>> >> radical right an unstoppable majority.
>> >>
>> >> 4. The new court uses strict constructionalism (the legal equivalent of
>> >> fundamentalism) as an excuse to "return" many rights Americans take for
>> >> granted "to the states." The microsecond they're free to do so, red
>> >> states gleefully strip their residents of said rights (God hates fags,
>> >> God hates abortion, God hates Muslims, God hates progressives, etc).
>> >> Dissenters who are able flee to the blue states which haven't turned the
>> >> clock back fifty or a hundred years.
>> >>
>> >> 6. Presto! The country is deeply divided along both political AND
>> >> geographic lines. Political interest and geographic interest are one
>> >> and the same. The last time this happened, there was a civil war.
>> >>
>> >> Not saying it's probable or even likely, but it IS possible.
>> >
>> > Possible is good.
>> > So what would it take for a revolutionary war rather than a civil war?
>> > Chucking Hatian immigrants into the bay?
>> > I say we just go for all out anarchy. No stockpil;ing or hording.
>> > just smash and grab, raping and pillaging. Like Blackbeard, only
>> > cooler. Like a game show.
>>
>> Okay, and when that's done, then what?
>
> Move to Canada?
Weather sucks there. I'm thinking Australia.
Correspondent:: "That Big 5-0"
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:23:09 -0700
--------
Is she hot?
"ZOOGZ RIFT" wrote in message
news:a9e511c9.0410211558.14c3d5d5@posting.google.com...
> Laura Rift writes:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I am sending out this e-mail
> requesting that you all consider
> very carefully who you are going to vote
> for president this November. I am sending
> this to my son but blind copying everyone
> else in the interest of not publicly exposing
> the e-mail addresses of some who might
> not want their addresses so exposed.
>
> I am 49 years old and my political views
> have changed over the years. But whether
> I have considered myself liberal, conservative,
> libertarian, or just plain independent
> feminist (which is pretty much how I define
> myself politically right now) I have NEVER
> been as opposed to a president as I am to
> this president we have now.
>
> Why? Here's the reasons in a nutshell.
>
> 1. Bush is not only interested in criminalizing
> abortion, he is against stem-cell research and
> is for a Human Life Amendment which would
> give a single cell, a zygote, the same right to life
> as a woman. Presumably, this would lead
> not only to all abortions being made illegal,
> but IUDs and birth control pills as well (both
> IUDs and birth control pills can interfere
> with the implantation of a fertilized egg),
> and in-vitro fertilization.
>
> 2. As a result of his anti-abortion views, his
> administration has re-instituted a gag rule that
> has cut off family planning aid to millions
> of Third World women. Keep in mind
> that hundreds of thousands of women DIE
> as a result of complications of pregnancy,
> childbirth, and during botched abortions,
> most of these deaths would be preventable
> if women could prevent unwanted and unaffordable
> pregnancies, and if necessary secure safe abortions.
>
> How does the gag rule work? Any country that
> accepts family planning funds from the US can't
> even counsel women on abortions or perform
> abortions, even if they use their OWN money
> for the abortion counselling and abortion
> services. Abortion is LEGAL here but heaven
> forbid that women whose lives are threatened
> by pregnancy should be able to get abortions
> in the Third World where they need them the most.
>
> 3. The attacks under 9/11 occurred during
> Bush's watch. How dare he and his lackey
> Cheney (or is it the other way around) imply
> that this nation is safer under the Bush
> administration. Bush was warned
> REPEATEDLY by the CIA that
> Al Queda and specifically Osama bin Laden
> was planning an attack against the US and IGNORED
> those warnings (as well as information from the
> FBI and from sources within its own administration).
> The idea that planes could be used as bombs
> was KNOWN to the intelligence community
> from the mid-90s onward. As early as 1994
> the French prevented an attempt to run a plane
> into the Eiffel tower.
>
> Our "macho" leaders couldn't protect us
> against FOUR, count 'em FOUR, planes
> headed toward the World Trade Center,
> Pentagon, and the White House. It
> took passengers to save the White House.
> Clearly, Bush and the members of his
> administration aren't the only ones responsible
> for the intelligence lapse--members of
> the CIA, FBI, and past administrations
> dating all the way back to the Reagan
> administration bear some responsibility.
> It is interesting, however, that Bush
> opposed an independent commission
> to look into the causes of 9/11 and
> only gave in when political pressure
> mounted. (I'm also still wondering why
> those planes weren't shot out of the
> sky by the military as soon as it became
> known what was going on. They should
> have been. Hundreds would have still
> died but at least a thousand or two
> would have most likely been saved.)
> .
> 4. Bush launched the war in Iraq under false
> pretenses and then failed to enact a PLAN
> for the reconstruction of Iraq, as a result he
> is making this country and this world a
> more dangerous place to live in by aiding
> and abetting our REAL enemies, which
> are Muslin fundamentalists.
>
> Keep in mind that Saddam was a SECULAR
> dictator that the US supported in the 80s. So
> much for the "axis of evil." The attacks on 9/11 were
> committed by Islamic fundamentalists who are now
> STRONGER then they were previously. Our sons
> and daughters are dying for something worse than
> nothing--they are inadvertently aiding the enemy.
>
> 5. Bush pretends that countries like Saudi Arabia
> and Pakistan are our allies, when both countries
> treat women horribly (an example: a woman in Pakistan
> was recently sentenced to be gang-raped because
> HER BROTHER accused a high status male
> of sexually abusing him) and are connected at least
> indirectly with Al Queda. Osama bin Laden is
> a Saudi and most of the 9/11 attackers were
> Saudis. The Saudis have funded schools over
> all the Middle East that teach hatred toward
> the US and western values. Many of these
> schools are in Pakistan.
>
> Pakistan also has leaked nuclear information to our
> known enemies and has a population, from everything
> I've read, that is extremely hostile to the US, viewing
> Osama bin Laden as a hero.
>
> 6. Bush has spent BILLIONS of dollars
> on this failed war instead of spending the money
> securing our ports, securing our nuclear arsenal,
> securing our chemical plants, producing
> vaccines against bioterrorist threats--and just
> producing vaccines, period--and most
> importantly creating energy independence so
> we can stop the idiocy of pretending that Arab
> countries are our friends. WE need their oil
> and we need to stop needing their oil.
> This country needs a massive R&D plan for
> energy independence enacted NOW.
>
> 7. Over 1,000 American lives have been lost in
> GW Bush's "catastrophic success" (his words,
> not mine) and who knows how many Iraqi lives in order
> to rid the world of a dictator who was not
> threatening us.
>
> Please note that the world is filled with dictators
> and monarchs every bit as murderous as Saddam
> Hussein was. Presently, hundreds of thousands
> of Sudanese are being killed, tortured and raped
> by Arab militias and millions are in imminent
> danger of death, all with the tacit support of the
> Sudanese government, and we are doing nothing.
>
> In any case, the greater enemy, Iran, is next
> door. From what I've read, Saddam wanted
> Iran to believe he had nuclear weapons because
> he knew Iran might have such a capacity and he
> thought Iran would not attack Iraq if Iran thought
> Iraq was similarly endowed.
>
> So what do we do? We attack Iraq. Imagine
> the irony if Iran drops a nuclear bomb on us
> when our boys are dying next door in Iraq.
>
> 8. Before 9/11 the Taliban was supported by the
> Bush administration, given millions of dollars,
> OUR money, this to people who treat women
> worse than we are allowed to treat cats and dogs.
> To be fair, other administrations also supported
> the Taliban and this country has supported foreign
> dictators in the fight against Communism (and
> before that in the fight against Nazi Germany)
> for decades. That said, GW Bush has carried
> the "natural" hypocrisy of government to
> new extremes with his idiotic "axis of evil"
> comments. Presumably none of these
> countries were terribly evil in the past.
> North Korea, Pakistan, and possibly
> Iran have nuclear weapons and all three
> of these countries have either leaders
> or populations extremely hostile toward
> the US. Why aren't we invading these
> countries?
>
> 9. Halliburton and other companies directly
> or indirectly associated with the Bush
> administration are winning no-bid
> contracts to reconstruct Iraq. The reconstruction of
> Iraq should be run mainly by Iraqis and the
> Iraqi people should be the main
> beneficiaries. Americans should not get rich
> from the destruction wrought by American
> bombs.
>
> 10. GW Bush is a lying "born again"
> ex-boozer, ex-thief, ex-vandal (yes,
> Bush had been arrested for drunk driving
> and disorderly conduct well past his teen years)
> who was apparently a failure in everything he
> attempted before he entered politics
> despite all the advantages wealth could buy;
> a wastrel who blew one million dollars of taxpayer
> money avoiding service in Vietnam learning to
> fly an obsolete plane and "serving" in Alabama
> doing God knows what. He and Cheney, another
> liar--imagine accusing Kerry and Edwards of being
> absent from the Senate when he knows damn
> well they have been on the campaign trail for many
> months--play the role of macho men but neither one
> of these cowards fought in Vietnam. Kerry, for all his
> faults, did. (Cheney, by the way, has two drunk
> driving arrests).
>
> Check out http://www.blogd.com/bushrecord.html
> for Bush's record of shame.
>
> From what I've read, Ted Kennedy accused
> Bush of "arrogant ideological incompetence."
> Sounds right on the money to me. Not a fan
> of Mr. Ted but when you're right, you're right.
>
> Please think about the future of this country,
> when you vote in November.
>
> Please remember that we cannot be the policeman
> of the world. Free women here refuse to breed
> cannon fodder and when our military fills up
> with noncitizens and illegal immigrants we
> will be headed the way of the Roman Empire
> which stretched itself so thin it ended up
> hiring mercenaries to fight its endless battles
> until it finally collapsed as much from the
> inside out as from the outside in.
>
> Of course, Bush could try to reinstate
> the draft and force poor young men to die for
> his miserable mistake, and once re-elected
> he just might. Right now, he's putting off
> a major military offensive until AFTER
> the election. What colossal nerve--the
> fate of Iraq, its people, and our soldiers
> are simply a ploy in his election campaign.
>
> This is the kind of man who makes me
> remember Richard Nixon with a great
> deal of fondness.
>
> I urge you all to vote and to encourage all
> whom you know to vote as well.
>
>
> --Laura Rift
Correspondent:: ZOOGZRIFT@hotmail.com (ZOOGZ RIFT)
Date: 23 Oct 2004 12:30:01 -0700
--------
"That Big 5-0" wrote in message news:...
> Is she hot?
Hot-headed is more like it...
Correspondent:: "Voot Zombo"
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:41:15 -0700
--------
"ZOOGZ RIFT" wrote in message
news:a9e511c9.0410231130.19facf90@posting.google.com...
> "That Big 5-0" wrote in message
news:...
> > Is she hot?
>
>
> Hot-headed is more like it...
"She puts her head in-to the fire, makes you red-hot perspire..."
Correspondent:: jammerjmc@charter.net (Jammer Jay)
Date: 24 Oct 2004 08:17:29 -0700
--------
Of course this administration would never tell you that God hates
Muslims because this administration seems to embrace the theory of a
"one world religion" where we all supposedly worship the same god
although differently. Why? In prearation for the corperate controlled
"One World Government" the Bush family has been pushing for decades.