bike cop shoots driver from hood of car

Mark Hickey wrote:

I must say it really IS amusing to see the left suddenly put so much
importance on telling the truth. Just a few years ago it seems that
trying to get someone to tell the truth constituted a witch hunt.
Heh.

Slick Willy's confabulations, in addition to being none of your
business, didn't leave a nation in ruins with a generation of orphans.
They also didn't crush any remaining vestiges of respect for the US
regime that might have been held by the rest of the world-- though the
witch hunt itself did some of that. Neither did they cost many scores
of billions of taxpayer dollars, which represent countless people's
working lifetimes sacrificed just to sow misery and destruction.

Clinton in many ways showed himself to be a less-than-faithful friend
of his people, but GWB Inc. is most assuredly the enemy of even his
own hornswoggled supporters.

I think Arab News said it well during the US invasion:
"For Washington, there can be no equivalence between Iraqis and
Americans. Yet consider this: One of them has a warmongering,
bloodthirsty president, elevated to his position in a sham election,
who is happy to slaughter innocents to promote his world vision. The
other has Saddam Hussein."

Chalo Colina

(Hunrobe) wrote:

I do however hope he succeeds in avoiding both cops and criminals since
that would mean he won't be either an offender or a victim.

To decent folks the people you term "cops and criminals" are the same,
differentiated by dress but equally dangerous, costly, and unpleasant
to have to deal with.

If cops would relinquish their pervasive cowardice and stop using
firearms as everyday accessories and tools of first resort, then they
might step up a level and join the ranks of annoying but benign
municipal employees such as license clerks and tax assessors.

Chalo Colina

"Chalo" wrote

I do however hope he succeeds in avoiding both cops and criminals since
that would mean he won't be either an offender or a victim.

To decent folks the people you term "cops and criminals" are the same,
differentiated by dress but equally dangerous, costly, and unpleasant
to have to deal with.

If cops would relinquish their pervasive cowardice and stop using
firearms as everyday accessories and tools of first resort, then they
might step up a level and join the ranks of annoying but benign
municipal employees such as license clerks and tax assessors.

Leaving the already armed criminals to run rampant. Or do you think the
criminals will "stop using firearms as everyday accessories" and just leave
everyone else alone?

You and I are somewhat less likely to be shot/injured/killed by a policeman
than a criminal. Remove the police element first, and the criminal element
will rule.

The trick is to remove the criminal element first. Then we won't need so
many cops. Until then...

Pete

"Chalo" wrote in message
om...
(Hunrobe) wrote:

I do however hope he succeeds in avoiding both cops and criminals since
that would mean he won't be either an offender or a victim.

To decent folks the people you term "cops and criminals" are the same,
differentiated by dress but equally dangerous, costly, and unpleasant
to have to deal with.

If cops would relinquish their pervasive cowardice and stop using
firearms as everyday accessories and tools of first resort, then they
might step up a level and join the ranks of annoying but benign
municipal employees such as license clerks and tax assessors.

To most "decent folks", the police are performing a difficult
job and generally doing it very well. I would consider it to
be very stupid if the police in the U.S. weren't equipped
with firearms and ready to use them when they encounter
armed criminals.

Your Hotmail userid is very appropriate for you.

(Chalo) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I must say it really IS amusing to see the left suddenly put so much
importance on telling the truth. Just a few years ago it seems that
trying to get someone to tell the truth constituted a witch hunt.
Heh.

Slick Willy's confabulations, in addition to being none of your
business, didn't leave a nation in ruins with a generation of orphans.
They also didn't crush any remaining vestiges of respect for the US
regime that might have been held by the rest of the world-- though the
witch hunt itself did some of that. Neither did they cost many scores
of billions of taxpayer dollars, which represent countless people's
working lifetimes sacrificed just to sow misery and destruction.

S'okay, Chalo. Lots o' people thought the same about pulling in the
gangplank and ignoring the problems in the late '30's as well. Ignore
Hitler and he'll go away. Maybe you could explain to me how the US
was universally loved before...

Clinton in many ways showed himself to be a less-than-faithful friend
of his people, but GWB Inc. is most assuredly the enemy of even his
own hornswoggled supporters.

Quite the opposite, IMHO.

I think Arab News said it well during the US invasion:
"For Washington, there can be no equivalence between Iraqis and
Americans. Yet consider this: One of them has a warmongering,
bloodthirsty president, elevated to his position in a sham election,
who is happy to slaughter innocents to promote his world vision. The
other has Saddam Hussein."

And if you think mass graves with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis,
millions dead in wars of aggression, and an absolute dictatorship is
somehow a lesser evil than anything GWB ever dreamed of doing, you're
too naive to live in the real world. Be careful out here...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:33:53 -0500, wrote:
Clinton's blow job lies = zero lives lost, one person's sexual privacy
invaded.

Clinton's lies resulted in bringing out one
very important item about him that strongly
disqualifies him from being a good president.

He didn't know the meaning of the word "is",
which is a majorly important word to know.

--
Rick Onanian

"Pete" wrote in message ...
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
om...
Mark Hickey wrote in message
. ..

I must say it really IS amusing to see the left suddenly put so much
importance on telling the truth. Just a few years ago it seems that
trying to get someone to tell the truth constituted a witch hunt.
Heh.

I don't think of myself as a member of "the left" - in fact, I've got
liberal friends who are convinced I'm a right-wing reactionary. ;-)

But it seems to me there's a big difference between "Tell us the most
intimate details of your life" and "Tell us why we should waste our
nation's money and our soldier's lives."

Well..it's not like uncle Bill didn't initiate a bunch of military actions:
Kosovo
Bosnia
Somalia
Afghanistan
Sudan
continual plinking in Iraq

But we're off-topic, aren't we?

Did that ever matter in here?

Apparently not. We were talking about presidents telling the truth or
not telling the truth. But you've just jumped to "initiating military
actions."

I think, if you want to complain about lies about one's intimate life,
there's probably an "alt" discussion group for it. But it seems silly
and petty to me.

If you plan to complain about initiating military actions, there's a
long string of presidents to complain about. There's Bush I, there's
Reagan, there's Carter, there's ... hell, the list runs through two
Roosevelts, a Lincoln, and probably has only rare misses all the way
back to Washington.

If you want to complain about initiating tremendous, unprovoked,
national-economy-crippling military actions based on false
justification (and apparently _deliberate_ false justification)
there's a much smaller list to complain about. Certainly, there's
only one in the list can still be dealt with.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:56:34 -0500, wrote:
At least he wasn't subject to greed-based hallucinations that place
weapons of mass destruction in oil-rich countries.

It's so hard to believe that anybody would
think there are no such weapons in such places.
I know that deep inside your head, you know how
it really is, but you feel that you must say
stuff like that to go with your anti-Bush-ness.

It's okay. Most people do have inconsistencies
between what they believe and what they say/do.

--
Rick Onanian

(Chalo) wrote in
om:

OK, how about affairs in jolly awful olde England: The usual city
flatfoot there does not carry a gun any more than he does a
firehose.

You are way too far down the road for that to work.

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Chalo) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I must say it really IS amusing to see the left suddenly put so much
importance on telling the truth. Just a few years ago it seems that
trying to get someone to tell the truth constituted a witch hunt.
Heh.

Slick Willy's confabulations, in addition to being none of your
business, didn't leave a nation in ruins with a generation of orphans.
They also didn't crush any remaining vestiges of respect for the US
regime that might have been held by the rest of the world-- though the
witch hunt itself did some of that. Neither did they cost many scores
of billions of taxpayer dollars, which represent countless people's
working lifetimes sacrificed just to sow misery and destruction.

S'okay, Chalo. Lots o' people thought the same about pulling in the
gangplank and ignoring the problems in the late '30's as well. Ignore
Hitler and he'll go away.

Hitler had imposed himself on several countries before the US
got involved in WW2. And the American entrance into the first Gulf War
was justified, because it was a case of Iraqi aggression.
But please explain the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the US
that justified the most recent war.

Maybe you could explain to me how the US
was universally loved before...

Granted, world opinion of the US was declining before GWB,
but the decline has been precipitous since he took office.