OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by Davi » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:02:14

January 9, 2005

Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every
American

Note: This January 9, 2005 BuzzFlash Editorial marks the ninth in 20
consecutive editorials BuzzFlash will be publishing through January
20th.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Even though the nation was warned by GIs and whistleblowers that most
Humvees were not properly armored prior to the Iraq war -- and that
many soldiers did not have body armor, "Le Donald" held forth almost
daily with a bizarrely idiotic display of doublespeak and sweeping
hand gestures at Pentagon news conferences ensuring us that our troops
were protected.

Rumsfeld and Cheney have been sidekicks since the Nixon
Administration, and you can assume that he, Cheney, and the Pentagon
Psy-Ops division is pretty much running the abysmal failure known as
the war in Iraq.

Of course, Rumsfeld assured Congress that the army was in top shape
and fully ready to meet the needs of overthrowing Saddam. The problem,
of course -- almost 1500 GI deaths later, with thousands more wounded
-- is that he was wrong.

Rumsfeld was a wrestler at Princeton, and he loves to dodge and weave,
but he's a complete failure at pinning down his opponent, except when
the grappler he is facing is himself. This guy, as Jon Stewart, has
pointed out, appears to hold full blown press conferences with
himself, where he asks and answers his own questions, without
providing any real answers at all. In fact, his most famous rhetorical
trick is asking himself a question before the media, and then
answering it with more questions, which means he doesn't REALLY have
any answers -- or none that make any sense to a resident of this
planet.

His position basically appears to be: "I'm here. I'm Rumsfeld. I ain't
going anywhere as long as Cheney's heart holds up. So F*** off."

Of course, when a soldier had the audacity to ask Rumsfeld why all the
Humvees weren't armored, the Pentagon suddenly went into media
blitzkrieg PR overtime showing how hard they were working to protect
the Humvees and the soldiers. Uh, but the factory providing the armor
said that the Pentagon had never asked it to increase its pace of
production and that it wasn't working nearly to capacity.

Oh, that "Le Donald." He's such a kidder.

And what a thin skin that "Le Donald" has. Clearly, he must be aware
of how he serves the American people, as the following example from
the book "Six*** Acres," illustrates. It concerns a dinner at the
White House in 2004 in remembrance of September 11th, at which:

One fearless firefighter's widow found herself at a table with
Rumsfeld, then very busy trying to get control of the nation that he
had conquered the spring before. He asked her what she thought of the
war with Iraq. "You don't want to know what I think of it," she
answered, and when Rumsfeld said he did, she told him: "I resent that
you are exploiting the death of my husband." The secretary of defense
stormed off, leaving his wife behind to patch things up.

Maybe Rumsfeld has learned from that experience, but we highly doubt
it. "Le Donald" is not into "personal growth." His office, however,
claims that he has stopped having an automatic signature sign
"personal" letters of "condolence" to the families of men and women
soldiers killed in Iraq. Now, he'll have his secretary personally sign
the letters for him, we guess.

What a guy, that "Le Donald" is.

If you know of anyone more incompetent, let us know.

Of course. We forgot. There's the rest of the Bush cabinet.

And Bush, of course.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by dxAc » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:08:18


[BS snipped as usual]

Still stuck on stupid?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by RHF » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:04:19

DaviD,

So here is another one of your 'enlightened' "Liberal" [Off Topic]
Posts.
.
For the most part your 'enlightened' "Liberal" posts here are to
SHOVE Your Liberal View Point in the Faces of Conservative-Moderates
like myself here; and to PROVOKE a Response by both Conservatives
and Moderates. [ Seeking to Generate a Home Invasion Response. ]
.
As a Conservative-Moderate, I view your posts here as an Overt Action
that is designed to DISRUPT this NewsGroup.  A Plan-of-Attack by
you create ill feelings and Trash the NewsGroup.
.
When I see a Lie or Distortion posted by you as a so called
'enlightened' "Liberals": I will reply with what I believe to
be the Facts and the Truth.
[ I Do Not Concede this NewsGroup to you or any other Liberal. ]
.
NOTE - I listen to a variety of Shortwave, Talk Radio and NPR Programs
to have a better grasp of "What-is-the-Truth" to the best of my
knowledge
and understanding.  What 'you' post here fails to meet this Standard.
.
at least this is the 'opinion' of one conservative-moderate ~ RHF
.
.

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by running dog » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:07:21


> DaviD,

> So here is another one of your 'enlightened' "Liberal" [Off Topic]
> Posts.
> ..
> For the most part your 'enlightened' "Liberal" posts here are to
> SHOVE Your Liberal View Point in the Faces of Conservative-Moderates
> like myself here; and to PROVOKE a Response by both Conservatives
> and Moderates. [ Seeking to Generate a Home Invasion Response. ]

You know, you're right. I've never seen "David" post any loggings, or
anything remotely shortwave related. He always posts "OT" stuff he finds
on the net. And it DOES provoke a response. I just happen to be liberal,
and it seems I can't resist responding to the conservative responses to
the liberal OT posts. Let's stop the vicious cycle by not responding to
ANY of David's OT political posts. That means Ace shouldn't post his "go
tote it, tard" response to these posts, because he and David always get
in an insult fight that takes up bandwidth. If we just IGNORE all posts
that are "OT" then we can get back to discussing shortwave. I've seen
little discussion lately of such things as the BPL threat to HF.

Quote:> ..
> As a Conservative-Moderate, I view your posts here as an Overt Action
> that is designed to DISRUPT this NewsGroup.  A Plan-of-Attack by
> you create ill feelings and Trash the NewsGroup.
> ..
> When I see a Lie or Distortion posted by you as a so called
> 'enlightened' "Liberals": I will reply with what I believe to
> be the Facts and the Truth.
> [ I Do Not Concede this NewsGroup to you or any other Liberal. ]

But if you do this, then David and M II (and unfortunately myself and a
few other liberals) will respond back to you and try to correct you.
Then you try to correct us, and the vicious cycle continues. And David
has once again successfully taken up bandwidth and disrupted the group.

Quote:> ..
> NOTE - I listen to a variety of Shortwave, Talk Radio and NPR Programs
> to have a better grasp of "What-is-the-Truth" to the best of my
> knowledge
> and understanding.  What 'you' post here fails to meet this Standard.

I like to listen to shortwave to balance out the "opinion news" of
corporate owned American media.

Quote:> ..
> at least this is the 'opinion' of one conservative-moderate ~ RHF
> ..
> ..

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by cuhu.. » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:54:51

They would have to cut me mitts off before I would vote demo***or
lib.All of my family members including myself have always and forever
will be, REPUBLICAN'S.
cuhulin
 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by Telamo » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:12:34



> > DaviD,

> > So here is another one of your 'enlightened' "Liberal" [Off Topic]
> > Posts.
> > ..
> > For the most part your 'enlightened' "Liberal" posts here are to
> > SHOVE Your Liberal View Point in the Faces of Conservative-Moderates
> > like myself here; and to PROVOKE a Response by both Conservatives
> > and Moderates. [ Seeking to Generate a Home Invasion Response. ]

> You know, you're right. I've never seen "David" post any loggings, or
> anything remotely shortwave related. He always posts "OT" stuff he finds
> on the net. And it DOES provoke a response.

< Snip >

The countermeasure is called a kill file. Use it.

Quote:> But if you do this, then David and M II (and unfortunately myself and a
> few other liberals) will respond back to you and try to correct you.
> Then you try to correct us, and the vicious cycle continues. And David
> has once again successfully taken up bandwidth and disrupted the group.

< Snip >

The countermeasure is called a kill file. Use it.

< Snip >

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by Stinge » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:49:26


<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>

Quote:> I like to listen to shortwave to balance out the "opinion news" of
> corporate owned American media.

Oh yes, if it has ANYTHING to do with a "corporation," then it's
automatically bad, isn't it?

The main reason lefties don't like corporations is that they are a big part
of the capitalist system, which is (of course) what they REALLY dislike.

And as far as media is concerned, of course those losers would LOVE to go
back to the days of three major news outlets controlling all the news.  Back
then, the only debate you'd hear was liberal Democrats debating moderate
Democrats.

Would you like some government cheese with your whine?

-- Stinger

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by running dog » Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:54:59




> <<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>
> > I like to listen to shortwave to balance out the "opinion news" of
> > corporate owned American media.

> Oh yes, if it has ANYTHING to do with a "corporation," then it's
> automatically bad, isn't it?

Not necessarily. The corporate entity isn't automatically "bad", just
like any other thing isn't bad or good, it's just a vehicle. There are
many small corporations out there, and many medium sized ones, that
focus on keeping their customers happy and don't try to force their
hands. But anything can get too big and too powerful, and when something
or somebody gets too powerful they tend to try to bend everybody to
their will and not see anything wrong with trying to force the hand of
their customers. It is this phenomoenon of something that is so big and
powerful that is has the power to force the will of millions of people
to go along with its wishes that liberals are against, not
"corporations" per se.

Quote:

> The main reason lefties don't like corporations is that they are a big part
> of the capitalist system, which is (of course) what they REALLY dislike.

Some do. I don't. Capitalism as originally concieved had many sellers
and many buyers competing freely. But when there are too few sellers or
too few buyers or both the market gets distorted and one or a handful of
sellers or buyers has the power to force the other side to do what it
wants, often against its will. That's not competition, which is the
essence of capitalism (not corporations). When there are too few sellers
AND buyers then you get what some call "sweetheart deals". These can be
fine if it doesn't entail bending other third parties to the will of the
sweetheart deal. But if there are third parties involved, the sweetheart
deal usually goes sour. The no bid contracts given to Halliburton by the
feds are one such sweetheart deal that forced millions into situations
they didn't agree with.

Quote:

> And as far as media is concerned, of course those losers would LOVE to go
> back to the days of three major news outlets controlling all the news.  Back
> then, the only debate you'd hear was liberal Democrats debating moderate
> Democrats.

Unlike today, when the only debate you hear is far right Republicans
"debating" moderate right Republicans. Same devil, different cloak. Same
bad situation.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by Davi » Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:00:47

Do you have a substantive refutation of anything in the article or are
you just defending narrowmindedness in general?



 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by Davi » Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:08:58

Unregulated corporations have a tendency to become monsters.
Corporate owned media is generally pretty lame, especially concerning
political-economic coverage.  What's best for the people is usually
against the best interests of a megacorp.  That's why I try to spread
a little sanity everywhere I go.

The last thing the current administration wants is a healthy and
diverse media landscape.  To that extent my OT postings are less OT
than they may first appear.

Ability to listen to shortwave radio is one of the things
totalitarians restrict.





>> <<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>
>> > I like to listen to shortwave to balance out the "opinion news" of
>> > corporate owned American media.

>> Oh yes, if it has ANYTHING to do with a "corporation," then it's
>> automatically bad, isn't it?

>Not necessarily. The corporate entity isn't automatically "bad", just
>like any other thing isn't bad or good, it's just a vehicle. There are
>many small corporations out there, and many medium sized ones, that
>focus on keeping their customers happy and don't try to force their
>hands. But anything can get too big and too powerful, and when something
>or somebody gets too powerful they tend to try to bend everybody to
>their will and not see anything wrong with trying to force the hand of
>their customers. It is this phenomoenon of something that is so big and
>powerful that is has the power to force the will of millions of people
>to go along with its wishes that liberals are against, not
>"corporations" per se.

>> The main reason lefties don't like corporations is that they are a big part
>> of the capitalist system, which is (of course) what they REALLY dislike.

>Some do. I don't. Capitalism as originally concieved had many sellers
>and many buyers competing freely. But when there are too few sellers or
>too few buyers or both the market gets distorted and one or a handful of
>sellers or buyers has the power to force the other side to do what it
>wants, often against its will. That's not competition, which is the
>essence of capitalism (not corporations). When there are too few sellers
>AND buyers then you get what some call "sweetheart deals". These can be
>fine if it doesn't entail bending other third parties to the will of the
>sweetheart deal. But if there are third parties involved, the sweetheart
>deal usually goes sour. The no bid contracts given to Halliburton by the
>feds are one such sweetheart deal that forced millions into situations
>they didn't agree with.

>> And as far as media is concerned, of course those losers would LOVE to go
>> back to the days of three major news outlets controlling all the news.  Back
>> then, the only debate you'd hear was liberal Democrats debating moderate
>> Democrats.

>Unlike today, when the only debate you hear is far right Republicans
>"debating" moderate right Republicans. Same devil, different cloak. Same
>bad situation.

>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
>---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 
 
 

OT Indulging "Le Donald" Endangers the Personal Security of Every American

Post by running dog » Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:37:33


> Unregulated corporations have a tendency to become monsters.

Unregulated *ANYTHING* has a tendency to become a monster. I'm reminded
of the early 20th century when the progressives were in the lead and
they threw a lot of restrictions on corporations but left unions
unregulated. Only after the mob took over the big unions did they
realize what a bad idea it was.

Quote:> Corporate owned media is generally pretty lame, especially concerning
> political-economic coverage.  What's best for the people is usually
> against the best interests of a megacorp.  That's why I try to spread
> a little sanity everywhere I go.

So you post offtopic stuff in OTHER groups too? Do you waste as much
bandwidth there as you do here? Anyway, yeah corporate owned media is
only focused on profits, which means that the news division is turned
into a profit center, and what draws in the advertising bucks is
ENTERTAINMENT, not news, so news becomes entertainment, with as little
depth as a Reality TV show.

Quote:

> The last thing the current administration wants is a healthy and
> diverse media landscape.  To that extent my OT postings are less OT
> than they may first appear.

You COULD waste less bandwidth by just posting links and let people go
to the link if they so choose instead of downloading a big long post.

Quote:

> Ability to listen to shortwave radio is one of the things
> totalitarians restrict.

True, so go listen to it. You could post what stations agree most with
your viewpoint, at least that would be a LITTLE on topic.





> >> <<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > I like to listen to shortwave to balance out the "opinion news" of
> >> > corporate owned American media.

> >> Oh yes, if it has ANYTHING to do with a "corporation," then it's
> >> automatically bad, isn't it?

> >Not necessarily. The corporate entity isn't automatically "bad", just
> >like any other thing isn't bad or good, it's just a vehicle. There are
> >many small corporations out there, and many medium sized ones, that
> >focus on keeping their customers happy and don't try to force their
> >hands. But anything can get too big and too powerful, and when something
> >or somebody gets too powerful they tend to try to bend everybody to
> >their will and not see anything wrong with trying to force the hand of
> >their customers. It is this phenomoenon of something that is so big and
> >powerful that is has the power to force the will of millions of people
> >to go along with its wishes that liberals are against, not
> >"corporations" per se.

> >> The main reason lefties don't like corporations is that they are a big part
> >> of the capitalist system, which is (of course) what they REALLY dislike.

> >Some do. I don't. Capitalism as originally concieved had many sellers
> >and many buyers competing freely. But when there are too few sellers or
> >too few buyers or both the market gets distorted and one or a handful of
> >sellers or buyers has the power to force the other side to do what it
> >wants, often against its will. That's not competition, which is the
> >essence of capitalism (not corporations). When there are too few sellers
> >AND buyers then you get what some call "sweetheart deals". These can be
> >fine if it doesn't entail bending other third parties to the will of the
> >sweetheart deal. But if there are third parties involved, the sweetheart
> >deal usually goes sour. The no bid contracts given to Halliburton by the
> >feds are one such sweetheart deal that forced millions into situations
> >they didn't agree with.

> >> And as far as media is concerned, of course those losers would LOVE to go
> >> back to the days of three major news outlets controlling all the news.  Back
> >> then, the only debate you'd hear was liberal Democrats debating moderate
> >> Democrats.

> >Unlike today, when the only debate you hear is far right Republicans
> >"debating" moderate right Republicans. Same devil, different cloak. Same
> >bad situation.

> >----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> >---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---