The REAL insurgency

In 2005 in California ALONE their were 2503 homicides (but thats ok if youre
a fn lefty). 57 Troops killed in Iraq during the same time frame. The
hypocrisy is sickening.
http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/c...d05/crimes.pdf

These numbers can be directly attributed to the liberal policies of
California politicians for the past 30+ years.

Politically speaking the entire left wing media has done very well hiding
these numbers all the while SCREAMING that the war in Iraq is a total
failure. Pure political rhetoric (emotion based) by the same bunch of loser
flower children that lost theVietnam war which directly caused millions of
Vietnamese deaths.

Illegal aliens alone have committed more violence against Americans than in
3 years than the terrorists in Iraq but you sure wont hear that from the NY
or LA Times.

Pull your heads out of your asses before its too late....

At some point the entire left wing will be held accountable. Sedition comes
to mind...

Mitch

There are groups available for posting this crap, Why not head on over?

Don

"Mitch_A" > wrote in message
. ..
> In 2005 in California ALONE their were 2503 homicides (but thats ok if
> youre a fn lefty). 57 Troops killed in Iraq during the same time frame.
> The hypocrisy is sickening.
> http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/c...d05/crimes.pdf
>
> These numbers can be directly attributed to the liberal policies of
> California politicians for the past 30+ years.
>
> Politically speaking the entire left wing media has done very well hiding
> these numbers all the while SCREAMING that the war in Iraq is a total
> failure. Pure political rhetoric (emotion based) by the same bunch of
> loser flower children that lost theVietnam war which directly caused
> millions of Vietnamese deaths.
>
> Illegal aliens alone have committed more violence against Americans than
> in 3 years than the terrorists in Iraq but you sure wont hear that from
> the NY or LA Times.
>
> Pull your heads out of your asses before its too late....
>
> At some point the entire left wing will be held accountable. Sedition
> comes to mind...
>
> Mitch
>

Mitch_A wrote:

<snipped right wing brain fart>

> At some point the entire left wing will be held accountable. Sedition comes
> to mind...
>
> Mitch

Hey, you forgot something...

> Sieg Heil
> Mitch

"Mitch_A" > wrote in message
. ..
> In 2005 in California ALONE their were 2503 homicides (but thats ok if
> youre a fn lefty). 57 Troops killed in Iraq during the same time frame.
> The hypocrisy is sickening.
> http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/c...d05/crimes.pdf
>

I'm guessing that these numbers are taken to be the best that you can come
up with. What are the numbers for 2006? American soldier deaths in Iraq
began to rise after the period you speak of. I think that if you look at
any country at war, you might see the same kinds of data.

> These numbers can be directly attributed to the liberal policies of
> California politicians for the past 30+ years.
>

Nice to say, but you give no supporting information. Are you implying that
if the Death Penalty were institued, that these numbers of homicides would
be substantially decreased (overall, I don't think research has supported
the deterrent effect of the Death Penalty)?

How about some hard facts on these policies and their effect on the rise of
murders in California.

> Politically speaking the entire left wing media has done very well hiding
> these numbers all the while SCREAMING that the war in Iraq is a total
> failure. Pure political rhetoric (emotion based) by the same bunch of
> loser flower children that lost theVietnam war which directly caused
> millions of Vietnamese deaths.
>

This is an old argument. I think you lose some of the force of your
contention when you use the world "liberal". It makes it appear that you
are another crazed lunatic from the fringe right spouting off without any
real factual foundation.

Oh-- you're blaming the Vietnam war on the people? Not hardly the case.
More likely unpreparedness of the armed services, no idea of the enemy, poor
planning, and squeamishness was the real reason for the loss. What was true
in Vietnam is true with Iraq. The Bush Administration had no plan for Iraq,
except for vengenace against Saddam and grabbing the oil in order to spread
the wealth internally.

> Illegal aliens alone have committed more violence against Americans than
> in 3 years than the terrorists in Iraq but you sure wont hear that from
> the NY or LA Times.
>

I see. Could you give some hard facts? "Committing violence" is an awfully
loose term. How do you define it and what facts do you have to support your
supposition?

> Pull your heads out of your asses before its too late....
>
> At some point the entire left wing will be held accountable. Sedition
> comes to mind...
>

It's always common to blame others. Let's face it, this idea of the
so-called "left-wing" being responsible for the failure of the war is
pedestrian. Aren't Americans responsible-- left, right, and center? And of
this wide spectrum, isn't the Bush Administration of primary responsibility?
The Buck does stop at the president's desk. All politicians and policy
makers-- no matter the slant-- are responsible. But the Commander in Chief
is the leader and is responsible for those below him, and so bears the
largest responsibility for the failure.


Alanb

Hey Mitch the Bitch, go blow Bush and Limbugh, you asshole!!

"Alan Bernardo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mitch_A" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In 2005 in California ALONE their were 2503 homicides (but thats ok if
>> youre a fn lefty). 57 Troops killed in Iraq during the same time frame.
>> The hypocrisy is sickening.
>> http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/c...d05/crimes.pdf
>>
>
> I'm guessing that these numbers are taken to be the best that you can come
> up with. What are the numbers for 2006? American soldier deaths in Iraq
> began to rise after the period you speak of. I think that if you look at
> any country at war, you might see the same kinds of data.
>
>> These numbers can be directly attributed to the liberal policies of
>> California politicians for the past 30+ years.
>>
>
> Nice to say, but you give no supporting information. Are you implying
> that if the Death Penalty were institued, that these numbers of homicides
> would be substantially decreased (overall, I don't think research has
> supported the deterrent effect of the Death Penalty)?
>
> How about some hard facts on these policies and their effect on the rise
> of murders in California.
>
>> Politically speaking the entire left wing media has done very well hiding
>> these numbers all the while SCREAMING that the war in Iraq is a total
>> failure. Pure political rhetoric (emotion based) by the same bunch of
>> loser flower children that lost theVietnam war which directly caused
>> millions of Vietnamese deaths.
>>
>
> This is an old argument. I think you lose some of the force of your
> contention when you use the world "liberal". It makes it appear that you
> are another crazed lunatic from the fringe right spouting off without any
> real factual foundation.
>
> Oh-- you're blaming the Vietnam war on the people? Not hardly the case.
> More likely unpreparedness of the armed services, no idea of the enemy,
> poor planning, and squeamishness was the real reason for the loss. What
> was true in Vietnam is true with Iraq. The Bush Administration had no
> plan for Iraq, except for vengenace against Saddam and grabbing the oil in
> order to spread the wealth internally.
>
>> Illegal aliens alone have committed more violence against Americans than
>> in 3 years than the terrorists in Iraq but you sure wont hear that from
>> the NY or LA Times.
>>
>
> I see. Could you give some hard facts? "Committing violence" is an
> awfully loose term. How do you define it and what facts do you have to
> support your supposition?
>
>> Pull your heads out of your asses before its too late....
>>
>> At some point the entire left wing will be held accountable. Sedition
>> comes to mind...
>>
>
> It's always common to blame others. Let's face it, this idea of the
> so-called "left-wing" being responsible for the failure of the war is
> pedestrian. Aren't Americans responsible-- left, right, and center? And
> of this wide spectrum, isn't the Bush Administration of primary
> responsibility? The Buck does stop at the president's desk. All
> politicians and policy makers-- no matter the slant-- are responsible.
> But the Commander in Chief is the leader and is responsible for those
> below him, and so bears the largest responsibility for the failure.
>
>
> Alanb
>

Although more than a few Democrat leaders are working very hard to turn the
USA into a socialist Nanny state, 2008 presidential candidate Senator
Hillary Clinton blatantly threw down her gauntlet on Friday. In an apparent
attempt to outdo Venezuela's Marxist leader Hugo Chavez, Hillary announced
that-if elected president of the United States-she will seize (in a true and
pure communistic manner) all profits made by oil companies and redirect them
into her [own] programs. Clinton said: "I want to take those profits and put
them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative
smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the
direction of independence." Although the mainstream media has summarily
ignored and not reported on it until recently, President Bush has been
proposing alternative energy sources' legislation since his first
administration. However, the president's program does not include the theft
of oil companies' profits from their stockholders.

Note: Recently, Emperor-to-be Chavez announced that he is confiscating the
Venezuelan media, telecommunications companies, oil companies, banks etc.
and placing them under his personal control. He has also rewritten the
Venezuelan constitution to allow him to take total control of the country
and has even gone so far as to set himself up as the leader of Venezuela's
church. With newly proposed anti-free speech and other
communistically-inspired bills, the now-back-in-power leftist Democrats are
attempting to affect much the same in the United States. Reps Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) are diligently working to bring
back the falsely named "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to control or
completely shut down conservative talk-radio and other conservative media.
If passed, this dogma would force conservatives to include the leftist point
of view on their programs-and, presumably, in written commentary. As
leftists already control the lion's share of the current media, this would
be anathema and an extremely effective way to silence the left's opposition
voices

"Mitch_A" > wrote in message
. net...
> Although more than a few Democrat leaders are working very hard to turn
> the USA into a socialist Nanny state, 2008 presidential candidate Senator
> Hillary Clinton blatantly threw down her gauntlet on Friday. In an
> apparent attempt to outdo Venezuela's Marxist leader Hugo Chavez, Hillary
> announced that-if elected president of the United States-she will seize
> (in a true and pure communistic manner) all profits made by oil companies
> and redirect them into her [own] programs. Clinton said: "I want to take
> those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin
> to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to
> move us toward the direction of independence." Although the mainstream
> media has summarily ignored and not reported on it until recently,
> President Bush has been proposing alternative energy sources' legislation
> since his first administration. However, the president's program does not
> include the theft of oil companies' profits from their stockholders.
>

Yeah, that is true about Bush. Six years of having the majority has
produced nothing but war, morality legislation, and other uselessness.

You use "seize", someone else uses "take". If I made 118,000 dollars a
minute, I might find ways to be a little more philanthropic.

In a word, I think you have a definite problem. Thank god that you don't
have a say-so in what goes on in this country.

> Note: Recently, Emperor-to-be Chavez announced that he is confiscating the
> Venezuelan media, telecommunications companies, oil companies, banks etc.
> and placing them under his personal control. He has also rewritten the
> Venezuelan constitution to allow him to take total control of the country
> and has even gone so far as to set himself up as the leader of Venezuela's
> church. With newly proposed anti-free speech and other
> communistically-inspired bills, the now-back-in-power leftist Democrats
> are attempting to affect much the same in the United States. Reps Dennis
> Kucinich (D-OH) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) are diligently working to bring
> back the falsely named "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to control or
> completely shut down conservative talk-radio and other conservative media.
> If passed, this dogma would force conservatives to include the leftist
> point of view on their programs-and, presumably, in written commentary. As
> leftists already control the lion's share of the current media, this would
> be anathema and an extremely effective way to silence the left's
> opposition voices
>
>

People believe what they want to believe. I doubt very much that what you
say is going to happen is even being considered, though if the tables were
reversed, and you had a voice in shutting down free speech that was not to
your liking, you sound like a person who would do it.

Your anti-communist rhetoric went out a long time ago. Extremism will get
you nowhere. Your ideas or your understanding of what is going on sound
foolish.

Your PLONK rate has just gone up to 85%, especially since you rant and rant
but refuse to reply to anyone else's comments upon your weird sense of what
is going on.

An extremist troll-- what a wonderful and quite common combination.


Alanb

What's wrong in taking control over national resources and giving the
reaps to the people of that nation? Espescially when the same people is
undereducated, undernourished? What is wrong in giving back what is
theirs in the first place?

I really can't see any reason not to do that?

Well I can see one reason; if you want to divide a population to
maintain deeply unjust structures and social images, letting the few
control the wealth would be an excellenet idea.

Sometimes, when I discuss things with americans, I tend to fall back to
one single term: "Civilization". What does civilization mean, really?
What separates us from animals is the ability to take care of those who
cannot take care of themselves. The strong taking care of the weak,
irrespectible of skin color, genetic heritage, abilities, that is what
civilization is all about.

And in light of that, what can be wrong in giving the people back what
is rightfully theirs?

--A--

Mitch_A wrote:
> Although more than a few Democrat leaders are working very hard to turn the
> USA into a socialist Nanny state, 2008 presidential candidate Senator
> Hillary Clinton blatantly threw down her gauntlet on Friday. In an apparent
> attempt to outdo Venezuela's Marxist leader Hugo Chavez, Hillary announced
> that-if elected president of the United States-she will seize (in a true and
> pure communistic manner) all profits made by oil companies and redirect them
> into her [own] programs. Clinton said: "I want to take those profits and put
> them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative
> smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the
> direction of independence." Although the mainstream media has summarily
> ignored and not reported on it until recently, President Bush has been
> proposing alternative energy sources' legislation since his first
> administration. However, the president's program does not include the theft
> of oil companies' profits from their stockholders.
>
> Note: Recently, Emperor-to-be Chavez announced that he is confiscating the
> Venezuelan media, telecommunications companies, oil companies, banks etc.
> and placing them under his personal control. He has also rewritten the
> Venezuelan constitution to allow him to take total control of the country
> and has even gone so far as to set himself up as the leader of Venezuela's
> church. With newly proposed anti-free speech and other
> communistically-inspired bills, the now-back-in-power leftist Democrats are
> attempting to affect much the same in the United States. Reps Dennis
> Kucinich (D-OH) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) are diligently working to bring
> back the falsely named "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to control or
> completely shut down conservative talk-radio and other conservative media.
> If passed, this dogma would force conservatives to include the leftist point
> of view on their programs-and, presumably, in written commentary. As
> leftists already control the lion's share of the current media, this would
> be anathema and an extremely effective way to silence the left's opposition
> voices
>
>

dumbass

"Ernesto Guzman" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hey Mitch the Bitch, go blow Bush and Limbugh, you asshole!!
>
> "Alan Bernardo" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Mitch_A" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In 2005 in California ALONE their were 2503 homicides (but thats ok if
>>> youre a fn lefty). 57 Troops killed in Iraq during the same time frame.
>>> The hypocrisy is sickening.
>>> http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/c...d05/crimes.pdf
>>>
>>
>> I'm guessing that these numbers are taken to be the best that you can
>> come up with. What are the numbers for 2006? American soldier deaths in
>> Iraq began to rise after the period you speak of. I think that if you
>> look at any country at war, you might see the same kinds of data.
>>
>>> These numbers can be directly attributed to the liberal policies of
>>> California politicians for the past 30+ years.
>>>
>>
>> Nice to say, but you give no supporting information. Are you implying
>> that if the Death Penalty were institued, that these numbers of homicides
>> would be substantially decreased (overall, I don't think research has
>> supported the deterrent effect of the Death Penalty)?
>>
>> How about some hard facts on these policies and their effect on the rise
>> of murders in California.
>>
>>> Politically speaking the entire left wing media has done very well
>>> hiding these numbers all the while SCREAMING that the war in Iraq is a
>>> total failure. Pure political rhetoric (emotion based) by the same
>>> bunch of loser flower children that lost theVietnam war which directly
>>> caused millions of Vietnamese deaths.
>>>
>>
>> This is an old argument. I think you lose some of the force of your
>> contention when you use the world "liberal". It makes it appear that you
>> are another crazed lunatic from the fringe right spouting off without any
>> real factual foundation.
>>
>> Oh-- you're blaming the Vietnam war on the people? Not hardly the case.
>> More likely unpreparedness of the armed services, no idea of the enemy,
>> poor planning, and squeamishness was the real reason for the loss. What
>> was true in Vietnam is true with Iraq. The Bush Administration had no
>> plan for Iraq, except for vengenace against Saddam and grabbing the oil
>> in order to spread the wealth internally.
>>
>>> Illegal aliens alone have committed more violence against Americans than
>>> in 3 years than the terrorists in Iraq but you sure wont hear that from
>>> the NY or LA Times.
>>>
>>
>> I see. Could you give some hard facts? "Committing violence" is an
>> awfully loose term. How do you define it and what facts do you have to
>> support your supposition?
>>
>>> Pull your heads out of your asses before its too late....
>>>
>>> At some point the entire left wing will be held accountable. Sedition
>>> comes to mind...
>>>
>>
>> It's always common to blame others. Let's face it, this idea of the
>> so-called "left-wing" being responsible for the failure of the war is
>> pedestrian. Aren't Americans responsible-- left, right, and center? And
>> of this wide spectrum, isn't the Bush Administration of primary
>> responsibility? The Buck does stop at the president's desk. All
>> politicians and policy makers-- no matter the slant-- are responsible.
>> But the Commander in Chief is the leader and is responsible for those
>> below him, and so bears the largest responsibility for the failure.
>>
>>
>> Alanb
>>
>
>

"Asgeir Nesoen" > wrote in message
...
> What's wrong in taking control over national resources and giving the
> reaps to the people of that nation? Espescially when the same people is
> undereducated, undernourished? What is wrong in giving back what is theirs
> in the first place?
>
> I really can't see any reason not to do that?
>
> Well I can see one reason; if you want to divide a population to maintain
> deeply unjust structures and social images, letting the few control the
> wealth would be an excellenet idea.
>
> Sometimes, when I discuss things with americans, I tend to fall back to
> one single term: "Civilization". What does civilization mean, really? What
> separates us from animals is the ability to take care of those who cannot
> take care of themselves.

This Mitch guy is a real ideas lunatic. In the same breath, he frets over
this free speech, free market stuff while at the same time being told how to
think by FOX news and other such conservative radio show conglomerates. His
rhetoric has been hard-wired, leaving no room for his mind to consider
alternate ideologies. Like some huge volcano he erupts with these worn out
ideas of communist infiltration and left-wing conspiracies while at the same
time being unable to recover from the ashes of stagnant thinking.

Alan