On Saturday, May 31, 2003, at 08:45 PM, Eric Burgess wrote:





--- THE KID < the-kid@sbcglobal.net > wrote:


Mrs. Daschle Earns Boeing Bucks Again!


May 27, 2003


It happened again, folks! The Boeing company, said to be "struggling financially since the September 11th attacks," won a $16 billion U.S.

Air Force contract in which the government will lease one hundred 767 jetliners to be used as refueling tankers. There's a term for this: "corporate welfare." It's like a rip-off car lease, where we taxpayers pay all these billions for the planes and then have the option to buy them after the end of the six-year lease for $4 billion each.


This is the second time this has happened! On May 8, 2002, Senator John McCain (R-Media) issued a statement on the rental of the last 100 jets from Boeing for this same purpose. Quote: "Dan Crippen, Director of CBO, wrote that the total cost of the leasing proposal as analyzed by the CBO would total $37 billion while an outright purchase of the tanker aircraft would cost the taxpayers $25 billion." Of this latest deal, Senator McCain said: "It's a lousy deal for the Air Force and for the American taxpayer." But a great, sweet deal for Mr. & Mrs. D.


Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said, "[T]he people who fly these planes and the soldiers who rely on them win." It's one of the few Murray quotes sympathizing with the military. You know, if these billions and billions going to Boeing were a tax cut, Daschle and Murray would scream that the money "came out of Social Security." Yet no new spending program is ever said to come out of the mouths of seniors - especially not when Linda Daschle is a paid lobbyist for the beneficiary. She's the wife of cunning, soft and sweet Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle so she gets a pass. This pair slurps up piles of money from this company every year. "How much money, Rush?" We don't know how much, because the happy couple refuses to release their tax returns . Isn't it great to be a Democrat, and to know the mainstream press will never call you on this stuff?




On Sunday, June 1, 2003, at 09:01 PM, Eric Burgess wrote:


ok, jack, is this the best to which you can point your republican outrage?





Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:12:22 -0700

Subject: Re: it's about time

From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> \

"Liberalism, it's not a choice, it's a psychosis"


The Democrats have begun their campaign to frighten voters before the fall elections.  It's nothing but a replay of past elections, the only difference being that they seem to be starting the scare tactics a bit early this year.  I guess you can't blame them.  Nothing else has worked.  The tried to hand the Florida election problems on Bush.  No go.  Then it was the economy, and that didn't work either.  They gave a stab at the "Bush is stupid" routine, but Americans aren't buying it.  Enron looked worse for Clinton than it did for Republicans, so the Social Democrats had to give up on that one too.  So, it's time to go back to Democratic roots.  Try to scare the beejezus out of older voters.  It's worked in the past -- so it will surely work this time.


The ploy is simple.  Convince wrinkled citizens that the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security.  It’s an old trick, tried and true.  The Democrats roll this one out every single election.  This time the point men are Richard Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe.  They're both telling voters that the evil Republicans have a "secret" plan to reduce Social Security benefits as soon as they are reelected. 


So .. now that the Democrats have opened this whole “secret plan” idea – what about the secret plans of the Democratic Socialists?  Just what legislative agenda does the Democrat Party plan to pursue if and when they gain control of the Senate, the House and the presidency?  Well, watching these socialists for years, and taking notes, here are just some of the goodies the Social Democrat Party has in store for the people of America.  


Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes


This is the biggie – and they’ve made no attempt to hide their goals here.  The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans.  The idea is simple.  Using “refundable” tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers.  Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes.  The Democrats are close to their goal.  When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich.  Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress. 


Shift Social Security and Medicare Taxes to the "Rich"


 Payroll taxes, as you know, are basically Social Security and Medicare taxes. The Democrats have almost achieved their goal of shielding the so-called "poor" from any income tax liability at all.  But --- the poor saps still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.  Democrats conveniently ignore the fact that these same people will get full Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach  the magic age ... and those benefits must never be touched!  It's OK, though, to excuse these people from the responsibility of actually having to pay the premiums for these insurance and retirement benefits.  So ..... the next element of the Democrats' Secret Plan!  The elimination of payroll taxes for the poor! 


This is a plan that was put forth by Democrat Robert Reich on the Hannity and Colmes show on Fox News Channel on July 31, 2002.  The idea is to, as Reich puts it, "lift the tax burden off the poor" by eliminating payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of income.  Here's how you do it.  The Democrats pass a law which says that nobody has to pay any payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income.  Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride!  They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters.  But wait!  Isn't that going to cost the government money?  Are you kidding?  Of course it's not!  It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues!  Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes.    To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear.  Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income.  In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000.  They would just round it off to $20,000.


So, there you go.  Shifting the burden for the cost of Social Security and Medicare for low income earners onto high income earners.  The Democratic way.  


Massive increase in Social Security taxes


As we’ve said, Social Security is a mainstay when it comes to Democrat vote-buying.  Social Security was, is and always will be nothing more than a giant income redistribution scheme designed to create dependency on government and loyalty to the program’s protectors in congress.  The more money you pour into Social Security benefits, the more the wizened class loves you, depends on you and will be dedicated to keeping you in office.  The Democrats need massive new funding sources to pay expanded Social Security benefits --- but they must get that money without raising Social Security taxes on the middle and lower income groups.

 The solution?  The Democrats have a “secret plan” to expand the wage base for Social Security taxes.  Right now you only pay these taxes on the first $88,000 or so of income.  Give the Democrats the power and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond.  The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn … no matter how much that is.    There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners.

 The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy. 


End the home mortgage interest deduction


Democrats have been after this income tax deduction for decades.  They call it a "subsidy."  Now the more intelligent among us will clearly understand that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earn can hardly be called a "subsidy." But we're talking about the more intelligent among us.  These people aren't likely to be voting for Democrats anyway!


As soon as the Democrats manage to gain control of the federal government they will move to eliminate this "subsidy for the rich."  They know that there will be little adverse political fallout.  After all -- the mortgage interest deduction is only valuable to people who actually pay income taxes AND who itemize their deductions. Democrats have already succeeded in removing most of their core constituency from the income tax rolls --- so what is there to lose?  


When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell.


Socialized Medicine


They already tried this will Hillary Care.  It failed.  Democrats aren’t discouraged by failure.  They just try and try again until they finally get you to swallow the poison pill.  There are two basic reasons the Democrats are working so hard for complete government control of this huge segment of our economy.  One, of course, is power.

 Health care comprises about 15% of our national economy.  If the government can seize control of this large a segment of our economy a giant step toward a socialist economy will have been achieved.  The second reason is control.  Think about it.  If you control a person’s access to healthcare … you effectively control that person.


Right now the Democrats have had to put their plans for socialized medicine on hold.  Those pesky Republicans in the House and the White House are making things tough.  Democrats have to be satisfied with just sitting up there in the Beltway blocking any efforts to introduce competition into the medical marketplace.


Democrats live in quaking fear of free market competition.  This was one of the reasons they worked so hard to defeat Bush’s economic stimulus plan.  There was a provision in that plan that would allow laid-off workers to go out into the marketplace to find health insurance.  They would then be allowed a tax credit to cover the cost of that health insurance premium.  Democrats wanted federal funds to be paid to employers to encourage employers to extend health insurance benefits to laid-off workers.  Democrats knew that if private individuals ventured into the free marketplace to find health insurance they might just find that free market competition could deliver a superior insurance product at a reduced price.


Tax your pension funds


This idea first received serious consideration in the early Clintonista years.  As soon as the Republicans took control of the Congress the idea disappeared.  Right now it’s being “secretly” incubated by Democrats to be hatched when they regain control.    The idea is simple.  There are trillions of dollars out there in various private pension and 401K plans.  All of these trillions of dollars are earning interest for (gasp!) private investors and individuals and not for the government!  To make matters worse – most of these private pension and 401K plans are owned by the evil, hated upper income earners.  


The “secret” plan?  A one-time 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all private pension and 401K retirement plans.  This money would be paid into the general fund of the federal government and used to fund various social programs for low and middle-income earners.  


Is this a dangerous plan for Democrats?  Not really.  The plan would take money chiefly from those who earn enough money to actually pay income taxes and contribute to pension plans.  These people do not make up the core of Democratic voters.


Tax your pension contributions also


After the Democrats levy their 15% tax on the outstanding balance of all pension and 401K plans, they intend to follow up with a tax on all future contributions to these plans.  The theory is that “rich” people shouldn’t be allowed to contribute that money to these plans tax free when “poor” people don’t have that opportunity.  


The Magic of Imputed Income


Imputed?  What does "imputed" mean?


One definition is to “credit.”  So, by imputed income, we mean that you are credited with income you didn’t necessarily earn. 


The goal is clear.  Democrats want to milk the high-achievers for as much money as they possibly can.  There are really only two ways Democrats can get more income tax out of you.  One way is to raise the tax rates.  At some point this is going to prove to be politically risky.  So, how else can they bleed you for more?  Even Democrats who have been to government schools can do simple math.  They know they can get more money out of you if that line on your income tax return that reads “taxable income” can be increased.  Forty percent of $120,000 is more than 40% of $90,000.  All you have to do is impute – credit – more income to the poor taxpaying high-achiever.


So --- here is the idea that the Clinton Administration was tossing around prior to the voter revolution of 1994.  They were going to impute – credit – extra income to people who own their own homes.   This was going to be done for two reasons.  First, to push more people into the higher income brackets where Clinton tax increases could reach them.  Second, to increase the amount of taxes actually collected from these people.   Here’s how Clinton's imputed income scheme was going to work:


Let’s say you own a home worth $250,000.  Your payments on that home are about $2,000 a month.  The government uses census data (there is a reason they ask all of those extra questions) to figure out what a $250,000 home in your neighborhood would rent for.  Let’s say it would rent for $3000 a month.  This means that  you could rent your home for $1000 a month more than your payments.   But you're not renting your home, y ou’re living in it.  You must know that this just  isn’t fair to people who have to rent homes.  They don’t get the tax deductions you get.  They don’t own their own homes because, unlike you, they haven’t, as Dickie Gephardt likes to phrase it,  “won life’s lottery.”   


Well .. since you're so rich and since you own your own home, the Democrats would really like to get a little more money from you  to spend on those poor renters and people who aren’t as “fortunate” as you are.  This would all be in exchange of their votes, of course.


So … here is this element of the Democrats' secret plan for you and your bank account.  When you fill out your tax return you will have to consult certain tables and government data to determine what a home like yours would rent for in your neighborhood.   Using the example above, y our home would rent for $3000.  You’re paying $2000 a month to your mortgage company.  You will be instructed to take the difference ($1000 a month) and multiply it by 12.  This gives you $12,000.  That’s your imputed income.  Add that to your other earnings to come up with your taxable income.  That adds up to more than $4,500 in additional income taxes if you're in the top tax bracket.  Hey, it's only fair ...

you being rich and all.


Don’t gripe.  This is all for those needed government programs for the “less fortunate.”


By the way --- you should know that there is an imputed income bill in the Congress.  It’s about child support, not home mortgages.  If you’re a deadbeat dad who owes back child support you would, under this law, have to add the amount of your arrearage to your taxable income and pay taxes on it.  Fact is, you’ve already paid taxes on this income once.

 The bill would just punish you for not forking it over to the ex wife by making you pay tax on it a second time.  Today, child support.

 Tomorrow, that money you could be making if you would only rent your home instead of live in it.  


Economically Targeted Investments -- controlling your pension fund investments.


Here we are, right back at your pension funds and 401K funds again.  Again  --- there is so much money in these funds, trillions of dollars, that the Democrats just can't leave them alone.  All of this money just sitting there and not one penny of it is being used to buy votes for Democrats.  So --- here comes the idea of Economically Targeted Investments.  "ETIs" the Democrats call them, and they're a huge part of the Democrat "secret" agenda.  All they need is control in Washington.


Here's the deal.  The government grants various tax breaks to these retirement plans.  As you know, or as you should know, tax breaks are usually granted to force some individual or corporation to act and behave in some manner pleasing to government.  The Democrats plan to change the rules on pension and 401K accounts.  Instead of just investing these funds in stocks and bonds, fund managers will be required by the government to invest these funds in certain investments dictated by government -- by Democrats.  In this way the governments can fund some of their spending schemes, but without using government funds.  The Democrats will simply pass laws requiring fund managers to invest in corporations building low income housing; or companies who are hiring workers off welfare roles.  Other "allowed" investments will be in such things as environmental protection, waste recycling and other causes popular with the left. In short order the Democrats will have rules in place which state that these pension funds cannot be invested in companies that are "unfriendly" to unions.  To a Democrat ... any company with a non-union workforce is "unfriendly" to unions.  Corporations who have affirmative action programs will get the not.  Companies who hire and promote on merit will not.  


All of this will mean that the Democrats can claim credit for spending on some of their favorite programs without going to the taxpayers.  They can just, in effect, use pension money.  The end result, of course, is lower returns on pension fund investments -- and lower pension benefits to retirees.  That doesn't bother the Democrats, though.  The less money you have to retire on the more dependent on government you will be.


Force employers to pay for “family leave.”


Right now the Family Leave Act requires employers to give employees about 12 weeks of unpaid  “family leave” to take care of certain family events and emergencies, such as having a baby, illness, death or some other situation.  The key here is that the family leave is unpaid.  The Democrats want employers to continue to pay the employees while they take their extended vacation.  The Democrats “secret” plan is to begin with a law requiring payment of about one-half of the employee’s salary.  This will give Democratic candidates the opportunity to campaign in future years on the basis of increasing the percentage paid to those on family leave.    Paying people for not working --- a Democrat staple.


Seizure of property of those who flee Democratic tyranny


As Democrats work diligently for more control over our economy and increase levels of income redistribution many high-achieving Americans are making plans to run.  The greater the confiscation of wealth becomes the more people start looking for other countries in which to base their businesses.  Democrats have a “secret plan” to impose confiscatory taxes on any Americans who try to move their wealth or their business interests out of this country.


Government paid childcare for majority of voters


 The absolute last thing a Democrat would ever do would be to suggest to anyone that they shouldn’t have a baby they can’t afford to raise.

 Democrats know that children are the absolute more important thing in the lives of millions of Americans.  They have been working for decades to impose ever more expensive rules and regulations on private child care agencies.  They have also been working to raise taxes to the point that it is difficult beyond reason to raise a child on the income of one working parent.  Thus … the necessity of child care.  If the government steps in and provides the funds for that child care then, to that extent, the parents become just that much more dependent on government … and Democrats.


Government control of all childhood education (indoctrination)


Democrats are the party of big government.  Democrats are more than thrilled with the increased propensity of many Americans to look to government for the solution to virtually all problems they face in their daily lives.  Democrats know that to teach people that they can expect the government to be there to solve all of their problems you have to start with the children.  Catholic schools can be expected to teach their students that Catholicism is good.  Jewish private schools are going to sing the praises of Judaism.  Christian schools will teach the children that Jesus is really cool.  Government schools?    Government schools will promote what?  Government!  Thus, Democrats see a clear need to keep as many children in government education programs as possible.  The “secret” plan?  Continue to work against any ideas that would make it easier for parents to remove their children from government schools.  This means working against such ideas as vouchers or tax credits to help parents afford the cost of private schools.

 They will also work to add increased regulations to parents who make the decision to home school their children.


Government imposed limits on executive income


This one is really going to have to wait until Democrats have a solid control of the federal machine.  The Social Democrat party has plans to institute limits on executive compensation.  The idea is to impose confiscatory corporate income taxes on companies who pay their top executives more than X-times the compensation paid to the lowest-paid employees.   


Repealing the Second Amendment


Haven't you ever thought it a bit odd that leftists and Democrats are generally opposed to the concept of the private ownership of firearms, while conservatives and libertarians favor the idea?  Well, there's a reason.  Those who value and celebrate the worth of the individual and of individual freedom generally believe that the individual should be permitted to own and bear arms.  Those who put the power of government over and above the power of the individual would just as soon see the individual unarmed.  Armed individuals are, of course, a threat to tyranny.


Destroy talk radio


Democrats aren't fond of talk radio.  They know that Rush Limbaugh played a huge role in the voter revolution of 1994.  Leftists realize that almost all successful talk radio shows are hosted by people who do not share their political views.  They will try to neutralize talk radio through regulation.  Since Democrats love the "fair" word so much, they'll try to resurrect something called the "Fairness Doctrine."  How would this law work?  Well, for example, a talk show host would not be allowed to voice opposition to a particular Democrat goal without finding some Democrat to go on the air to defend that goal.  Talk radio soared in listenership and popularity following the death of the Fairness Doctrine.  Democrats know that talk radio can once again be pushed into the radio background with new regulations that stifle conservative and libertarian voices.  Give them the power -- and it's time for me to retire.  You should be aware that at a recent meeting of the Democratic Party of Oregon a resolution was adopted to use the power of government and the "fairness doctrine" to reign in those horrible right wing talk show hosts.  Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!






Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:57:44 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "Joseph Vasquez" <jvasque8@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time


i am glad to see that messuier is upset to learn that mrs. daschelle is fleecing this country with her boeing connections. perhaps messuier could also fume and chomp at the proverbial bit whenever halliburton recieves a fat contract, or when the carlye(sic) group turns a profit. by the way, since you bring up enron, isn't it interesting that while clinton may have been much too close to the energy scandal than many of his supporters would like, it was W who proclaimed him a righteous dude (and i do paraphrase). you falsely accuse the democrats of socialist leanings. they may fiegn it from time to time, but they are after the same thing the republicans are: absolute power. wise up working man!

quit buying into the idea that if you work hard enough, the invisible and holy american spirit will wave over your head and make it all better. hard work is good, but what good is it when the ceo, who does shit for the company, makes more than 100 times your salary? you think the tax cuts are for you? how much will you save in dividends tax? when you die, what sort of estate will you pass on that will even come close to the threshold of the "death tax"? jesus christ, a tax cut for those who drive hummers as a "business expenxe"? i have no problem with your trashing the democratic party, they have sold their souls. but to think, to suggest that the republicans have your/our best interests in mind? our system is shit; unless we, as a country, wake up and abandon the two party system and stop saying "oh, theiy're taking away my rights, but fuck it, as long as bin laden doesn't kill me, it's ok", this shit will get worse.

sorry for the profanity, but i'm pissed. fight the power, damn the man, DO SOMETHING!


p.s. there is no false consciousness . . . those who feel they are powerless make themseleves so. wake up, act up, don't let it happen. in spain, there was revolution . . . in america, there is pop music.

messuier jack, i count on you to throw the first stone at the system that exploits us all. come on, you know you want to. all is not well. something wicked this way comes.




From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: it's about time

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:59:24 -0700


Looks for a Stone....


I'm sure Eric is getting all red and veiny in the face right now looking for one too... LOL


I wonder if this will make "Garry & Wyatt" take another "Mental Health Day?"





From: "Brian Day" <therealslimbrian@hotmail.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time

Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 00:23:33 -0700



you called us out, I felt inspired, I almost took to the empty streets of Arcadia...then I remembered that the man shouting from the mountain is likely still wearing the self-cut mullet he had on Friday. You just want to party!!! You almost got me brother. Almost. Keep rockin'





Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "Joseph Vasquez" <jvasque8@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time


complacency wins again. the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

bravo jack . . . usher in the age of newspeak. who needs words when lol is readily available.




From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: it's about time

Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:25:01 -0700






From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: it's about time

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:10:09 -0700


The Democrats' WMD fraud


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists," the president of the United States warned. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."


The secretary of state loyally followed this hard line, defending the U.N.

sanctions on Saddam Hussein: "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."


Leveraging U.N. resolutions to support military action, the secretary of defense said: "The United Nations has determined that Saddam should not possess chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, and what we have is the obligation to carry out the U.N. declaration."


The officials argued that U.N. inspections weren't enough. "It is ineffectual; it is not able to do its job by its own judgment," the president's national security adviser said of the U.N. inspections regime.

"It doesn't provide much deterrence against WMD activity."


The president's congressional loyalists stood behind him. "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction," said a prominent senator, sounding a familiar theme, "but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."


"For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description," said another hawk, taking aim at the split in the international community. "France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach."


Who were the political leaders who, according to critics of the Iraq war, perpetrated this fraud on the American people by making overblown warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Respectively, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen.

John Kerry.


They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to "degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush administration.


The failure so far to find WMD in Iraq is a major embarrassment for President Bush, and congressional hearings into the intelligence prior to the Iraq War are welcome. But the post-Iraq debate shouldn't proceed on false pretenses: Everyone this side of famed Iraqi prevaricator Baghdad Bob believed that Iraq had WMD. In the run-up to the war, the United Nations, the "axis of weasel" (France and Germany) and high-profile Democrats all agreed about WMD.


The specific figures in Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N.

presentation about Iraq's unaccounted-for WMD came from U.N. inspectors. France and Germany didn't argue that Saddam had no WMD, but inspections could rid him of them. Clinton and Al Gore dissented from aspects of Bush's policy, but agreed about WMD. "We know," Gore said, "he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons."


The question was what to do about a dictator with ties to terrorism who for 12 years had defied the procedures set out by the world to confirm that he no longer had dangerous weapons. For the Bush administration, Sept. 11 meant erring on the side of safety, and so continuing to accept Saddam's denials and defiance wasn't an option.


As someone once warned: "This is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of the reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century." Even if the rhetoric was shrill, Bill Clinton had a point.


You know Joey, There comes a time to join the side you're on.


¡Venga en Joey, usted lo puede hacer!




Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 4:25 PM

Subject: Re: it's about time


does this mean that if i declare myself a democrat you will declare yourself a facist? it is not a black and white world. for someone who hates to be defined, you sure love to do it. eh, what should i expect from a man who calls himself the kid.





THE KID < the-kid@sbcglobal.net > wrote:


Awww did I hit a nerve there Joey? Are you saying a democrat equals a Fascist? LOL


You going to make fun of me cause I use "LOL?" LOL or because my nickname for years has been "The Kid?" LOL


Is that the best you can do? BTW (I know you love those abbreviations LOL) where did you come up with the "I hate to be defined?


You guy's are all the same, you can dish it out by the truck load, but you can't take it.


And when you can't, you attack in an ad hominem manner, and are so smug and proud of it.


How can I expect anything else from this group since all of this began back in March?






Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 06:56:27 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "Eric Burgess" <zteecher@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time


you can research the internet archives all you want and pull as many quotes from the past in a feeble and desperate attempt to vindicate your ignorant fool in the white house but the bottom line remains this: whatever clinton, gore, et. al may have believed about saddam's presumed wmd cache, and however tempted they may have been to invade iraq, they NEVER did. they were wise enough to listen and respect world opinion and employ some common sense, something 43's administration clearly chooses to avoid. let the facts speak for themselves: this was the most blatant assassination attempt in history, one which the world condemned. the democrats are finally saccing up and beginning to ask the important questions. let's see what new lies and misleading press releases ari can spin. the few countries that supported the u.s.'s occupation of iraq were simply posturing for a position in line for the spoils of war. this is seen now as the u.s., britain, australia et. al are being awarded the juicy contracts to rebuild iraq and pump oil. it's all about the benjamins. bush even went out of his way in krakow the other day to praise the great friendship between the u.s. and poland. POLAND? wtf?


this is the same country that builds submarines with screen doors and loses wars because its soldiers hold the grenades and throw the pins (we all have a million pollack jokes).


don't even get me started on the bush tax cuts. i know jack doesn't support this misguided and fiscally irresponsible legislation (do you?)






Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:55:05 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "Joseph Vasquez" <jvasque8@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time


did you hit a nerve? no. you completely missed it. you make no pints jack. you consistently remind us of clinton's misguided attempts to create a new world order. i agree. i also believe w is doing a much more destructive job. do you honestly believe that the way to reach peace is to kill all those who oppose us? if so, then i guess you are a jacksonian democrat.

remember him? he led the indian wars that wiped out many native americans. sure, they were attacking settlers, why shouldn't they? this was their land!

isn't w's excuse (and yours) for invading rogue nations because they threaten our livelihood? when we invade them, what are we doing? to end terrorism, policing is needed, a change in foreign policy is required, but that new world will never be explored because the powers that be have scared too many people, yourself included, into hating words like socialism and liberalism. what's wrong with free health care, good public works projects, etc? why fear a nation where more money is spent to help people rather than kill or incarcerate them? i realize my words fall on deaf ears, but at least take a moment to think about something different than fascism (the belief that one's nation is inherently better than all others and that it is constantly under threat from subversive forces outside and from within). when people grow tired of a country that allows itself to move further to the right, they will move. who will be left? the larger question should be: what would jesus do?





From: "Brian Day" <therealslimbrian@hotmail.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:35:30 -0700


I'll tell you what Jesus would do. He'd be all like, "Hey bitches, why you killin' and shit?" And then He'd be all, "Where are my Catholics at boyyyy?" And then He'd take us Catholics to heaven, and send even more plague and famine and death to go with our wars. "Later motherfuckers!

In God we trust!" Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.






From: "THE KID" <the-kid@sbcglobal.net> 

Subject: Re: it's about time

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:32:26 -0700


Yeah Eric and your attempts of justifying Clinton's years as president aren't? You're as misguided as "Maureen Dowd" and "Robert Scheer" are...



And as far as Ignorant Fools go, I guess everyone who fell for Clintons 8 years of smoke and mirrors administration are the biggest ignorant fools in the world. You gotta give it to old Slick Willy, he seduced you guy's as if you were all interns!


Your boy may have never invaded Iraq, because he was too busy screwing everything (literally) else up. And as myopically pathetic as you are with worrying about "The Worlds Opinion" and that he even had common sense (define common sense Einstein, f'ing around with an intern, then lying about it under oath? that's what he was impeached for, not for having sex, then playing semantics when trying to explain what "Is" is? There I just gave you a fat one to hit out of the park Eric, now go get your Sammy Sosa bat and hit it to the "Self Righteous" section of the bleachers) and now your categorizing it as an "Assassination" attempt? Oh Brother...


Let me ask you this, where do you think the WMD's disappeared to? Back in 98 Slick Willy said they were there, the UN inspectors said they were there, and what about all the biochemical weapons they had in all those vials that even Iraq admitted to? where did they go? it's been a little over a month now since the "Assassination attempt" has been over. Now all of you Clintonistas are screaming bloody murder about where are these WMD's?




Here are a few interesting quotes from that man you all pine for...


1) Clinton quote from 1998: "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." Do any of those words sound like Clinton thinks Saddam doesn't have an arsenal? To you, probably not.


2) On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."


3) February 17, 1998, Bill Clinton: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."


In President Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union he specifically cited the information gathered by the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Bill Clinton as a basis for his conclusion that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In my view, Saddam either hid them or destroyed them prior to the end of months of diplomacy and dithering with the UN. Maybe he shipped them out of the country most likely to Syria. So if you conclude that Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney lied, you have to add all these other folks into the list, right?


More from Clinton: "And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." Of course, Saddam's son-in-law was killed when he returned to Iraq. Now, I know that everybody on the right said Clinton was using Iraq to distract from his impeachment scandal.

You have a point, but screw it. This is what Clinton said, and I think someone should point it out to his supporters who are now out there saying there were never any WMD in Iraq.


Clinton always spoke about Hussein's arsenal as a "fact" with none of his characteristic wiggle room or hedging and of the dictator's determination to build it as a fact. At the time, Democrats from Al Gore to Senator Tom Daschle backed Clinton 100%. So did the United Nations. President Clinton and the UN relied on intelligence information similar to the information relied on by Bush, folks. Yet when it was suggested that Clinton acted out of personal reasons to deflect from his criminal offenses, today's Bush critics dismissed that as "politics." Of course unlike Clinton and the UN, Bush is not a liberal. He took effective steps to destroy Saddam Hussein - and for that, he's attacked.




If Saddam Hussein never had WMDs, why didn't he just let the UN Inspectors into his nation so he could keep on torturing and building palaces? If he never had WMDs, what did he use to gas the Kurds? Why if he didn't have them, didn't he just let the UN inspectors in 2 weeks, 2 days or 2 hours before the "Assassination Attempt" began? Anybody who's "Intellectually Honest", whatever their politics, knows Saddam had those weapons. The question is, "Where are they, and what condition are they in?" But I'm sure you'll dismiss these questions too.


The run-up to the Iraq war was 14 months. That's a long time for Saddam Hussein to hide and disperse this stuff, thanks to all of you who urged diplomacy. One of the reasons you people are so ready to believe Bush lied on this, is the hangover from Clinton's reign. We had eight years of, "Well, they all do it," as reaction to any and all proven allegations against politicians. President Bush is a different animal when it comes to this, which is why I can tell you with confidence that these weapons did exist.

Besides, Clinton himself cited many of the same intelligence sources in talking about Iraq's WMD programs when he was in office! So if William Jefferson Clinton said it, IT MUST BE TRUE!


Let's see if you can actually answer a question I ask you without answering it with a question a la Slick Willy. If I were to have lets say a hundred vials of deadly chemicals each the size of a soda can and even larger weapons to hide in any part of the state of California (which is more or less the size of Iraq) and I had "TWELVE YEARS" to hide them and then had 14 more months notice as to when you would start looking for these weapons, do you think you and a thousand other people could find them in a month? 6 months? a year? Don't you think that I would have destroyed them and cleaned up the evidence as Saddam has done with all of that time to do it in? Bush had what it takes to finally force Iraq to get rid of them and if it took an "Assassination Attempt" so be it, now they are gone and now the rest of the world knows we mean business. Oh Boo Hoo how will I sleep at night knowing the world will no longer think of us as door mats, oh Boo Hoo oh the humanity.


I know your way of thinking is worry about what people think about us first rather than worry about ourselves first because, yes Eric it's all about the Benjamin's. France isn't all about them huh? with their sweet little deal going on with Iraq for oil while supplying them with weapons and technology just like Russia and Germany did that could eventually be used against us one day by them or by the people they sell them to. Don't worry about them right? Just worry about what they think about us, not what they're secretly doing behind closed doors to plot against us. But in your feeble logic, you believe we deserve anything that happens to us (Like a Rock Thrown back) being that we've been "Terrorists" since 1899. Yeah Eric we've been the "ONLY" country in the whole world who is evil and if any other country is, it is because we made them that way huh? What a great way to think, that'll be a great world for your child to look forward to and grow up in as you indoctrinate him with those beliefs.


You liberals are in danger of creating your own John Birch Society, and putting them in charge of the DNC. We run from our kooks, but you embrace yours! Everybody at the UN, European Union, France, Germany and Russia, you name it, knew the weapons existed. Saddam admitted it, and the inspectors found banned weapons in 1998. To think that nothing was done from 1998 to 2002 on these weapons is sophistry (had to bust out the thesaurus on that one). This stuff is just too deadly and too easy to hide to play political games with, and I'll tell you this, it's going to be the Wellstone Memorial all over again when these WMDs are found all over Iraq.


You and your comrades here should consider going to live in that utopia called Cuba. All I here from these big time celebrities and other limousine liberals is what a Genius and Humanitarian that Fidel is, and that he cares so much for his people. And Cuba's political system is exactly the way you and your comrades want America's to be like right?

SocialistMarxistCommunistic... take your pick. What a privilege and honor it must be for the Cuban people to live there? I can't understand why all those people would risk their lives in shark infested waters on life rafts or just some boards tide together to swim 90 miles to enter this despicable country? Why is that?


(Pushing the "Start" button) tell me "Eric Buffet" oh wise one, about the fiscally misguided tax cut? You support giving more money to people who don't pay taxes? (DOH! well of course you do, your social "istic" conscience wouldn't let you think any other way right?) Should that be called a welfare Bonus? That I should give more of my money to the government so they can waste it on social programs that enable people to get money by not having to work?


It's funny how the Dem's went on and on about it just like you are yet now because these "Poor People" who didn't get anything from this cut (besides the welfare their already on or the taxes they don't pay to begin with) they want to amend this cut to include these people when their screaming that it's "Fiscally misguided" to begin with and then they cut Bush' original figure because it was "Fiscally Misguided" but now they are (what's that word you used?) saccing up to make themselves look good by fighting for these "Poor People's" cut too. Where is that money going to come from if they were saying it wasn't there to begin with? Yeah, there's no political agenda there right? Maybe to these "Poor People" it will make the Dem's look good like they're actually looking out for the little guy, but in actuality they're just doing this so that they can get their votes from these people who they "Look Out" for. How Liberal!


DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED lol about the Democratic Bigotry regarding the DNC firing of 10 African American staffers then saying oops! our bad, we made a mistake, but only when the public found out about it. It gets better.


The Democratic leadership knows they have the black vote in the bag.

That is why they are causally firing qualified minority staffers. That is why there has been no suggestion of a black vice presidential candidate on the 2004 Democratic ticket. That is why the Democratic leadership does not feel any pressing need to acknowledge the support of school vouchers among black voters. Of course, supporting vouchers would put the Democrats at odds with some of their biggest contributors GASP! the teachers' unions. The union votes come first, and so the hope of equal access to a decent education falls by the wayside. Meanwhile, black voters just get the same old story about how they're supposed to vote Democrat. Perhaps it's time they start asking why?


But I digress...


Are you going to start again with the cuts from schools? when I keep on hearing that every year we're spending more and more on education but somewhere down the line the money gets misappropriated by some executives or that nearly 300 million dollars has been wasted on a school that still hasn't been built yet or to pay teachers who aren't teaching Johnny to read because they could care less because the teachers have this union that instead of firing that teacher like any other place of employment would, just reprimands him without any real threat of termination while Johnny still can't read? And before you start with Brian losing his job which I said before is unfortunate because you said he was actually one of the teachers that cared, I don't wish for anyone to lose their jobs except those who just mail it in at both the students and taxpayers expense.


All these dem's talking about if there was just some more money for the school system which they say is improving, (muffled laughter) I wonder how many of these caring "For The People" dem's actually send their kids to public schools? Will you be sending your kid to a public school if you had the money to send him to a private school? or would you just teach him yourself?


And I'll leave you with these words from "Willy Stern" that pretty much sums up what we commoners have been thinking about Liberals/Democrats/Socialists/Marxist etc. etc., which has been put into words that hit the nail on the head dean on. Which is EXACTLY the one thing that the "Academic Elite" will not tolerate, which is equal opportunity in the area of Free Speech. Isn't it ironic?


"HYPOCRISY ABOUNDS" (For the full article, "If you dare" is right here http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2003/1322/t_gamut.html I just CUT AND PASTED a few paragraphs.)


Of course, the rationales that would absolve those who talk about "asshole Republicans" from the charge of bigotry are no more than verbal claptrap. Such rationales are poor attempts to justify hypocritical behavior that ought not to be justified. And that is precisely what this issue boils down to at its purest: Hypocrisy.


The sad fact of the matter is that many progressive Democrats are intolerant and mean toward those with whom they disagree politically.

Their behavior doesn't hurt so much as amuse. I've been sitting at their dinner parties for two decades now, sipping Chardonnay, munching on salmon steaks, and listening to self-professed progressive thinkers talk like bigots.


The profile of people who use the term "Republican" in a bigoted fashion tends to be fairly straightforward: Educated, intellectually gifted and generally thoughtful in their speech. They are the very people I sat next to in newsrooms in New York, Chicago, Tokyo, and Johannesburg.

They are my friends and neighbors. They are academics, lawyers, bankers and stay-at-home moms-decent, kind and sensitive people, for the most part.


But they are, and remain bigots. They are just as bigoted as the redneck I filled up my car next to last week in Pegram, Tenn., who was carrying on about the "fuckin' niggers." But there is an important distinction between the bigotry of the lower-middle classes in rural areas like Pegram and that of limousine liberals in urban centers: The liberals you'll find at university soirees engage in a form of bigotry that has become socially acceptable.


I have led a double life, of sorts. I often wonder: What will they think of me if, or when, they learn that I'm a Republican? Even as I type out these words, I wonder how my teaching career at Vanderbilt will be affected by my "coming out" in this article.


How Smart?


The bigotry of America's left-leaning intelligentsia is based upon cold logic that unfolds in the following predictable, if venal, fashion: "I'm very smart. I'm well educated. So are most of my friends. I give generously to liberal causes. I'm a kind and caring human being. I defer to nobody in my exemplary set of values. I care about equality. I believe in a just society. These values are integrated into the core of who I am.

I work diligently to teach these values unto my progeny. And these are just the values that, generally speaking, have been represented by the policies and actions of the Democratic Party."


(What a great bumper that would make huh? LOL)


The corollary logic continues: I don't have much respect for the values of the Republican Party. Oversimplified, Republicans stand for the rich, for the status quo, for selfishness, and for war-mongering.

These logical trains of thought are tinged with intellectual arrogance and gross stereotyping. Of course, some liberals who speak ill of Republicans have an ulterior motive. They use the tactic to undermine the credibility of all Republicans, who must be evil, stupid-or both. (He forgot to include "Ignorant Fools")


Reagan, and his crowd, were a bunch of cowboys. NRA supporters are dumbfucks from Wyoming. The Christian Right is the imbecilic underbelly of the South, led by money-grubbing preachers. George W. may have gone to Yale and the business school, but he's basically a shallow frat boy and-yikes!-a Christian. Locals who line up with such thinking tend to be knee-jerk right-wingers with low IQs.


In short, the justification for bigoted comments directed at those with whom the educated left disagrees politically is based on two foundations: 1) We're a lot smarter than they are; and 2) We're better people than they are. That logic leads to three inescapable conclusions: We're right. They're wrong. QED: All Republicans are assholes.


Have at it Eric.


Joey, you said that "when people grow tired of a country that allows itself to move further to the right, they will move." Well I must say you were right! But unfortunately and much to your dismay and others with your ideology, America has come to that same conclusion of growing tired of a country that has allowed itself to move itself to the "Far Left" and will no longer tolerate it, and they have moved. You can deny it all you want, come up with all the excuses you want, make all the ad hominem attacks you want on the people who don't think like you do, but the bottom line is...

It's over Joey!


You want the United States to be like Russia/China/France/Cuba then buy your ticket or inflate your raft and become a citizen of one of those countries.

Those of us who "grew tired" of moving to the "Left," like America just like it is, for better or for worse. Move to Cuba and criticize Fidel as that "Ignorant Fool" as one pundit here said our President was, and see what happens to you there. Hell, even with Clinton, if you were about to expose him for his illegal dealings <coughRon Brown-Vince Fostercough> you just might end up accidentally "Committing Suicide" or while on that flight to your adopted country, you might accidentally "Get Shot in the Back of the Head" and right as that's happening your plane will accidentally "Crash."


And as far as your "Larger Question" goes, you didn't have to call Eric to get a little insight on me, which I don't mind because I've asked him the same about all of you, all you had to do was ask me. I would have told you I was a "Christian," and that I use to be a Catholic who later in life accepted "Jesus Christ" as my Lord and Savior, and that I believe the Bible is the word of God. So when you go the "What would Jesus do" card I'd be willing to discuss that with you provided you actually know anything from the Bible or about Jesus let alone believe in him or the Bible. But if you think that just by saying that thinking you know that Jesus wouldn't approve of all of this, or that because I am a Christian I shouldn't have the political beliefs like I do, well then you would be wrong.


I've dealt with so many people who once they know I'm a Christian and they aren't, right away they invoke "I thought God (if he exists) is a God of Love" or "What would Jesus do" when they don't hold themselves to any moral standard what so ever yet because that person is a Christian, they think they should be "Perfect" and that they should be passive and spineless.

I've never brought up the issue of anyone's beliefs or lack thereof including my own regarding all of these discussions we've been having for months because that's a whole other can of worms. Although there is a much bigger picture (Spiritual side) in all of this that I believe in (as a Christian), that is in the Bible, but to even begin to discuss that would lead to responses like Brian's, which is offensive, but he's entitled to it and I wouldn't expect anything less from him.







Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:45:56 -0700 (PDT)

From:  "Joseph Vasquez" <jvasque8@yahoo.com> 

Subject: Re: it's about time


jack, you certainly do not disappoint. another email full of sound an fury representing nothing. when was this country ever to the far left? the clinton years were not a triumph of socialism, despite what michael savage, dennis prager or any other self described conservative may think. do i wish we were like the ussr, china or cuba? of course not. when i criticize the government and the nation is is because i appreciate what it has done for freedom and humanity and want it to do more, not less in the future to maintain a humanitarian agenda. as for france, well, have you been there? it is quite amazing. they have six week vacations, the workers' voices are quite often listened to, and they have universal health care. is it perfect, no, but nowhere is. even rush limbaugh would say that the us is a flawed country.

perfection is not possible. my main point is, stagnation is not conducive to what we call civilization. a stronger social policy seems to me a progression, cutting back on the new deal programs of fdr appears to be regression. what would have happened if slavery were maintained because abolishing it would have hurt the economy? would you argue that companies should have been able to maintain monopolies like those that existed at the start of the twentieth century? as a nation we mythologize the 1950s as the heyday of america. this was a time when segregation, lynchings, and other racial abuses ran unchecked. over time things changed because of the desires of the progressives, people whose modern day counterparts you vilify. sure, some of those on the left are out of whack, but are you willing to align yourself with everyone on the right? do you agree that 9/11 occurred because of homosexuals, abortion rights activists, ect. as was expressed by jerry falwell? i hope not, if so, you are truly sad. and as for the wwjd question, i did not ask eric about you. a few months ago he offered info, but it made sense. while not all christians are conservative, many conservatives are christian. so it was an easy guess. i was not trying to show you up, just trying to engage in an intelligent discussion (i know, i know, i should have known better). i don't think you're ignorant jack. i believe you have no other way to express yourself but through rage. take that anyway you like, but your emails support this conclusion. it is my understanding that christianity is not a religion of domination.

this is based on study of the bible and christianty, both from an academic and a faith based approach. i too was raised catholic. many of my friends and family are practicing some form of christianity (by the way, catholics, as followers of christ, are christians as well). i have no disdain for those who honestly believe in any religion. i do have a problem with those who try to use the teachings of a man who thought a staff was too much of a luxury to impose their will upon the world. i am not an atheist or an agnostic, probably more of a deist. i live my life according to a morality very similar to the golden rule, a doctrine that is found in nearly every civilization, regardless of religious affiliation. i have written too much. in the end, jack, i think you should reread the beatitudes: blessed are the meek, they shall inherit the earth; blessed are the peacemakers. did jesus fight to save his life? no, he stopped his apostles when they tried to save him. make all the catholic jokes you want, but look to the pope or mother theresa for examples of good christians. i don't agree with many of their opinions, but at least they stay true to the bible and remain consistent, unlike others (this is not an insult, i am referring to all those who pervert goodness, including slick willy). have a good weekend.

joe p.s. brian was right to believe that jesus will take sides, but i've heard he's a jew, so we may all be screwed.