http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/11/13/state/n033119S00.DTL&type=politics

he targeted the usual hardcore villans, like David Letterman and Jon Stewart.

and he's an avid Free Republic poster... no surprise there
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2701099

Why do something that profoundly retarded? 

Why do something that profoundly retarded? 


If you read through the posts he made over at Free Republic (and other places they've found), you get the impression he has intense hatred of the Democrats.  Posting at places like that help to re-enforce the hatred and eventually he had to act on it. 

Isn't that "white powder to Dems" bit getting a little old.  Next thing you know someone's going to be sending corn starch to Nancy.

Isn't that "white powder to Dems" bit getting a little old.  Next thing you know someone's going to be sending corn starch to Nancy.


this guy already did, before the mid-term election. 

sounds like something a former member of here would have done ::)

OMG poor Nancy, her only crime being a Democrat 

freaky. that's one thing about the election, the backlash from all these right-wing people who think violence and terrorism is the answer to their political obsessions.

i emailed white powder to some libertarians once but it didn't have the same effect.

freaky. that's one thing about the election, the backlash from all these right-wing people who think violence and terrorism is the answer to their political obsessions.

i emailed white powder to some libertarians once but it didn't have the same effect.
Well, that's because the white powder you mailed was "usable" ;)

Well, that's because the white powder you mailed was "usable" ;)

Ummm does this involve wiping the nose??? ::)

I don't like to call people "loser," but this guy....


sounds like something a former member of here would have done ::)

I was just thinking the same thing!
;)

So you see, Chucky, before you cast aspersions on Free Republic, ask yourself if you'd want inthe00s judged on the postings of you-know-who!


Of course, I wanted join the Free Republic forum just to ask those guys what it's like to type without opposable thumbs.
:P

Where would this dufus learn to hate Democrats?  I never see anybody out there in the media depicting Democrats in an unfavorable light.  I just can't figure where he'd get these notions.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif

So you see, Chucky, before you cast aspersions on Free Republic, ask yourself if you'd want inthe00s judged on the postings of you-know-who!


who? the asian porn guy?

who? the asian porn guy?

Was the porn guy Asian or was the guy peddling Asian porn?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

freaky. that's one thing about the election, the backlash from all these right-wing people who think violence and terrorism is the answer to their political obsessions.


As opposed to violence and backlash from the Left?

Look, you have whackos and agressive people from all ends of the political spectrum.  And for every "Far Right" hate attack, I can probably name one from the "Far Left".

So what?  How about not trying to treat these people as "Right" or "Left", and simply treating them as the criminals they are.  I do not care if a person like this sent them to Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Pee-Wee Herman.  A criminal is a criminal, plain and simple.

And portraying somebody like this is really unfair to the others.  I would hardly blame Maxwell for the actions of the Weathermen, nor would I imply that such actions were the norm for "Liberals".  How about giving the same courtesy in return.

well, the philosophy of the left is much more anti-violence as a general rule. i mean yes, you have your weathermen and black panthers, etc., but from what i've seen of conservatism, particularly in its more religious strains, the administration of perceived righteous violence is much more acceptable and, really, part of the culture. that can be understood as good or bad, but the discrepancy in philosophies regarding violence on the left and the right is pretty much objectively verifiable. so i don't really think the equivalency works the way you're trying to make it work.

well, the philosophy of the left is much more anti-violence as a general rule. i mean yes, you have your weathermen and black panthers, etc., but from what i've seen of conservatism, particularly in its more religious strains, the administration of perceived righteous violence is much more acceptable and, really, part of the culture. that can be understood as good or bad, but the discrepancy in philosophies regarding violence on the left and the right is pretty much objectively verifiable. so i don't really think the equivalency works the way you're trying to make it work.


Hello, socialist revolutions worldwide!
Hello, Quebec Liberation.
Hello, SLA!

The far left is in no way non-violent. I think a fairer statement would be, whenever any ideology is taken to it's very most literal and extreme point, it will end in violence. Man has an inherent propensity for violence.

well, i guess i was thinking more about the right's readiness to engage in warfare and its willingness to apologize for the misuse of police and state power. that strikes me as a lot more mainstream on the right than the stalinist wackiness on the left is. after all, the left came up with stuff like passive and nonviolent resistance, i went to a few demonstration workshops and here's this guy saying, if someone hits you in the face during a protest, do NOTHING. this will cause them to question their own use of violence. and that's a far-left guy! fat chance of the minutemen or operation rescue ever saying, if somebody hits you in the face just stand there.

what do the anarchists do? throw chairs through the windows of starbucks and engage in "violence" against property. i guess the closest analog to the anarchists on the right i'd think would be soccer hooligans, who tend to break one another's bones as a matter of course.

and when the socialists talk about uniting, what are they talkign about most often? industrial action and organized strikes. it's just a tough argument to make that the left is as violent as the right, but i'm willing to keep playing along with this little discussion.

well, i guess i was thinking more about the right's readiness to engage in warfare and its willingness to apologize for the misuse of police and state power. that strikes me as a lot more mainstream on the right than the stalinist wackiness on the left is. after all, the left came up with stuff like passive and nonviolent resistance, i went to a few demonstration workshops and here's this guy saying, if someone hits you in the face during a protest, do NOTHING. this will cause them to question their own use of violence. and that's a far-left guy! fat chance of the minutemen or operation rescue ever saying, if somebody hits you in the face just stand there.

what do the anarchists do? throw chairs through the windows of starbucks and engage in "violence" against property. i guess the closest analog to the anarchists on the right i'd think would be soccer hooligans, who tend to break one another's bones as a matter of course.

and when the socialists talk about uniting, what are they talkign about most often? industrial action and organized strikes. it's just a tough argument to make that the left is as violent as the right, but i'm willing to keep playing along with this little discussion.


I think the Socialists are actually the most dangerous. You saw what happened with the Union strikes against Thatcher. A whole country bought to a standstill, people freezing to death in their homes. Mmmm, socialism in action.

I think the main difference is that the Left engages in violence against what they perceive to be unfair, leftist causes start violent actions and call it a revolution. The right engages in reactionary violence. I.e - You killed somebody, now we're going to kill you.

I think the Socialists are actually the most dangerous. You saw what happened with the Union strikes against Thatcher. A whole country bought to a standstill, people freezing to death in their homes. Mmmm, socialism in action.

I think the main difference is that the Left engages in violence against what they perceive to be unfair, leftist causes start violent actions and call it a revolution. The right engages in reactionary violence. I.e - You killed somebody, now we're going to kill you.
hmm, interesting. in both cases, the questions sorta depends. if the strike is really in response to unfair labor practices then it'd be easy to argue that the management is really responsible for any deaths that result from a strike. and if the act of violence being responded to by the right was genuinely unprovoked then you can argue the initiator of the violence is really to blame for the backlash and any lives that are lost as a result.

so in specific instances it's context-dependent. which is why i'm trying to focus more on philosophies.

hmm, interesting. in both cases, the questions sorta depends. if the strike is really in response to unfair labor practices then it'd be easy to argue that the management is really responsible for any deaths that result from a strike. and if the act of violence being responded to by the right was genuinely unprovoked then you can argue the initiator of the violence is really to blame for the backlash and any lives that are lost as a result.

so in specific instances it's context-dependent. which is why i'm trying to focus more on philosophies.


OK, I understand where you're coming from here.

But I don't think that either 'side' as it were has a specific agenda of violence. For instance, in Nazi Germany, Hitler wanted to get rid of certain individuals. Now, they wouldn't leave of their own accord, thus he was forced to have them killed. Does this make Fascism inherently violent, no.

Again, opposite side of the coin. Stalin couldn't trust his Generals, Majors etc. Now, communism wasn't necessarily all about violence, but the only option available to him was to have them killed.

I think what I'm trying very to say.. very badly.. is that no Philosophy is dedicated to violence (with the exception of football supporters and Father's who encourage their sons to play hockey) it's just bought out as the only available option. Wether as a cause, a reaction or a rebellion.

well, yeah, we're starting off with this clunky "left/right" polarity which is a really awkward and not terribly productive way of boiling down political complexities. like, does anybody not sorta chuckle when someone likens bush to hitler (on the putative grounds that they're both "right wing"?) or when people talk about the "left-wing bias" in the mass media and then in the next breath liken left-wing philosophy to socialism? when the mass media are about as capitalistic as you can get?

hitler's a funny case. i've heard some real controversial theories about him: a. that he never wanted to go to war with the US, and admired america except for its tendency to spoil its youth and engage in carnal dancing and such; b. that originally he didn't want to exterminate the jews but only to deport them; and c. that he only wanted to claim certain lands in europe rather than engage in world conquest. i dunno how true it is. i know one of his philosophies was that real masculinity was forged in the crucible of war and men tended to atrophy in times of peace. things like that are part of what i'm referring to, violence as a rite of passage. much more frequently seen in conservative rhetoric than in liberal, broadly speaking, to my experience -- although i'm sure stalin and certain revolutionaries felt similarly.

As opposed to violence and backlash from the Left?

Look, you have whackos and agressive people from all ends of the political spectrum.  And for every "Far Right" hate attack, I can probably name one from the "Far Left".

So what?  How about not trying to treat these people as "Right" or "Left", and simply treating them as the criminals they are.  I do not care if a person like this sent them to Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Pee-Wee Herman.  A criminal is a criminal, plain and simple.

And portraying somebody like this is really unfair to the others.  I would hardly blame Maxwell for the actions of the Weathermen, nor would I imply that such actions were the norm for "Liberals".  How about giving the same courtesy in return.

Why, Mark Rudd was like my diddy, he took me on his knee at the age of three, he teached me everything I know!
;D

The political spectrum is not a line, but a horshoe.  In doctrine, Nazism was the polar opposite of Communism.  However, Hitler and Stalin had more in common with each other than either one had an in common with FDR or Churchill.

The "ism" to watch out for is "authoritarianism" in any form.  That's the kernal of all major violent movements.  The Weather Underground was a rare consensus among intellectuals to take violent action.  The Weather Underground spent their existence as fugitives from the FBI, their true numbers never exceeded more than a few dozen, and they disbanded after a few years.  That's about as far as a violent movement can go without an "authoritarian" doctrine.

Who broke more laws and killed more people, the Weather Underground or the GW Bush Administration?

This is why I remove any extreemists far away from the political foundation they claim to embrace.

Islam is a religion of peace, but some use it to kill others.
Christianity is a religion of peace, but some use it to kill others.
"Socialism" itself has peacefull and benevolent goals, but tens (if not hundreds) millions have been slaughtered by such governments.
"National Socialism" was in reality an evil dictatorial government.

Some people are so sure of their own "rightousness", that they will put the evils of the world on those they see as their "political oponents".  I have never done that, and never will.  While some see "Political Debate" was a war to be fought savagely, I simply see it as 2 different points of view, where a concensus is the best course of action.

God help the people like me if the "other side" ever declairs "my side" to be "enemies of the state".

you're kinda extremist though.

you're kinda extremist though.


OMG, me, extremist?

I would absolutely love to know how you reach that conclusion.  I am actually about as "middle of the road" as you can get.

Maybe you should consider the alternate concept: that you are so extreme, that you assume anybody that dissagrees with you must be extreme.

OMG, me, extremist?

I would absolutely love to know how you reach that conclusion.  I am actually about as "middle of the road" as you can get.

Maybe you should consider the alternate concept: that you are so extreme, that you assume anybody that dissagrees with you must be extreme.
i disagree with people on this board all the time. you're the only one who gets all weird and takes it personally on a regular basis. you're the only one who has taken the bush administration's tack on EVERY policy decision they've ever made.

you're the only one on this board who's okay with police who have a history of abusing their authority repeatedly electrifying civilians. and the only one who has never in any way questioned this obvious fiasco of a war in iraq.

dude, you are way way way way way right wing. it's pretty much obvious to everyone but you.

hitler's a funny case. i've heard some real controversial theories about him: a. that he never wanted to go to war with the US, and admired america except for its tendency to spoil its youth and engage in carnal dancing and such; b. that originally he didn't want to exterminate the jews but only to deport them; and c. that he only wanted to claim certain lands in europe rather than engage in world conquest. i dunno how true it is. i know one of his philosophies was that real masculinity was forged in the crucible of war and men tended to atrophy in times of peace. things like that are part of what i'm referring to, violence as a rite of passage.


Hitler was in many ways a contradiction.

He did not want to go to war with either the US or England.  Like Admiral Yamamoto, he knew how ferocious the US could be, and how powerful it's industry was.  And that the UK was a true global "Super Power", that had won almost every major conflict it had ever been in, no matter how long the odds were against it.

Hitler tried very hard to keep England out of the war (some believe he personally sent Rudolph Hess to England in May 1941 to arrange an end to hostilities so they could concentrate on their true enemy: the Soviet Union).  And he never understood why England declaired war against Germany for invading Poland, yet ignored the USSR doing the same thing (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave the USSR to invade themselves).  And the major reason he invaded France was with the idea of "getting revenge" for them embarasment of loosing to France in World War I.  In "long term plans" found after the war, Hitler always intended to return soverenty back to the French once the war was over.  But he wanted to humiliate them first, like Germany was humiliated after World War I.

I am sure that if Hitler could have looked ahead, he never would have declaired war against the US.  He did so, even though it was not required unde the Tripartide Act (he was only required to declair war if Japan was attacked, not if Japan instigated the attack).  He fully assumed that once he declaired war against the US, Japan would return the favor by declairing war against the Soviet Union.  If Japan had done so, this would have split the USSR on a two front war, and they might have actually won the war.  But they did not, so both of them were bled into submission.

And don't forget, Hitler actually did try to export his Jews before the start of the war.  But country after country refused to allow them to enter the country.  England (and her colonies), France, even the US sent thousands of them back to Germany.  "The Final Solution" may well have never had happened, if he was able to find another way to eliminate them by exporting them.  After all, the way they got rid of them was both wastefull in resources and manpower, and not very efficient.

Now realize none of this is either a form of "apology", or an excuse.  I find Hitler a morally corrupt despot, who took power democratically and turned around and formed one of the most bloodthirsty dictatorial governments in history.  But I often find myself wondering "what if".

If Hitler was really honest after he took over the Sudetenland and did not try to annex any other land, how would he have been remembered?  Probably as a hero who took a poor and demoralized nation and gave them pride and hope.  But he was not satisfied, and led the the world into war, and his nation into ruin.  In the end, that is probably the image we are best left with.  As a warning as to how horrible man can be to his fellow man.  And hope that his likeness is never seen again.

you're the only one on this board who's okay with police who have a history of abusing their authority repeatedly electrifying civilians. and the only one who has never in any way questioned this obvious fiasco of a war in iraq.

dude, you are way way way way way right wing. it's pretty much obvious to everyone but you.


*laughs*

Actually, I very much question the way things are going in Iraq.  I still believe that it was the right decision, for many reasons.  And I still think we need to be there today.

However, that does not mean I think we should always be there.  At the moment, I think that a "rough timeline" should be set, and that most US forces should probably be pulled out within 2-3 years (unless things change).  And that has always been a rough timeline as to how long I think we should be seriously involved over there.

The invasion happened in 2003.  Assuming 1-2 years for the Governement to "get it's act together", that has always given a period 6-7 years for either Iraq to solve their own problems, or be left by themselves.  And by that very timeline, they have 2-3 years left to either get controll of their country, or be stuck with the consequences.

And to be honest, I am not very confident in the Iraqi government.  They have repeatedly shown a tendency to support extremists like Al-Sadar, and not really trying to form a coalition government.  Ancient factions are still tearing them apart, and there seem to be no end in sight.  The influence from outside countries like Syria and Iran only compound the problem.

Myself, I am actually finding myself more and more in support of seperating the nation into 3 different "states".  Fairly similar to what was done with the former Yugoslavia.  Saddam was very much the Middle Eastern version of General Tito, and only he was able to keep such a fractured nation working (mostly through fear and violence).  And without a strong government saying "get along or we will kill you", the various segments will probably keep fighting unless seperated.

To be honest, I think we should always have at least some troops there.  Much like we have troops in almost every other country in the world: as advisors.  Military Advisors work two ways.  For one, they help a foreign nation to solve their problems.  In another, they use that experience to learn, and are able to pass that long to US forces once they return.  We have such advisors in England, India, Japan, even Russia, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.  I have no problem with "advisors" (5.000-10,000) being in Iraq permanently.  But within 2-3 years I would like to see all of the combat forces returned to the US.  Because either by that time Iraq will have learned to take care of their country themselves, or they will never learn to take care of their own country and will be in a constant state of warfare with themselves.

In many ways, this is similar to the concept of "Vietnamization".  President Nixon gave South Vietnam 4 years to get their act together.  And as we all know, after 4 years, they were not able to do that.  The US pulled out, and 3 years later their country ceased to exist.  The geopolitics is a "sink or swim" environment.  Either a country gets it's act together, ot it is not a country for very long.  And seeing how Iraq is, I am getting cloer to the point where I am willing to throw it into the pool and see what it does.  We have given them a chance to set their own course, and now it is up to them to take advantage of that.

But you see, most of the arguments in here tend to be around "we should never have gone there", or "we should not be there now" type of arguments.  If I had my way, we would still be in Somalia, because the genocide there still sickens me, and I thought it was wrong to leave when we did.  Yet, I should think that we did the right thing by leaving, since I am a "Conservative", right?  Was it not Republicans that blasted President Clinton for going there in the first place?  Myself, I actually fought against pulling out of Somalia, because it was morally wrong to withdraw from a nation where genocide was a daily occurence.

And here is a real irony.  I served in the Marines for almost 10 years, all of that under a Democrat controlled Congress.  And hopefully, within the next 1-2 weeks I will be back in the military (all the paperwork is finally done - I am now only waiting for the Department of the Army to approve me).  And once again, almost all of that will probably be spent under a Democrat controlled Congress.  And I do not care.  Because if I have learned anything in almost 42 years, it is that the party in controll does not really matter.  We will still get involved (or avoid) wars, and that the other party will always protest those decisions.  And I will make up my own mind, no matter what "my party" thinks.

And do you want to know something?  I really do not care.  And here is another shocker: It really does not matter.  When I serve the Nation, that is exactly what I serve, the Nation.  Not the President, not Congress, not a political party.  And I fully believe that if Al Gore had been elected President in 2001, we still would have had 9/11.  And we still would have invaded Afganistan.  And more then likely, we still would have ended up in Iraq.

Iraq is a mess.  But it is not a fault of the Republicans.  It is not the fault of the Democrats.  It is not a fault of the President.  It is the fault of the extremists over there that refuse to get along with each other, and are hell-bent on killing each other to settle ancient scores.  And of foreign extremists that egg them on, to comit greater and greater atrocities.

*****

By the way, this "Radical Conservative" is also neutral on Abortion (it is a personal decision to me, and should not be made illegal, I simply have a moral issue with "free abortion on demand"), in favor of gun control (with strong penalties for criminals that use guns), strongly opposed to discrimination of any kind, 100% in favor of "Gay Civil Union", with full rights given to heterosexual and gay couples (I only choose that name to take ammo away from the "religious extremists", informally I would still call it a "marriage"), support environmental conservation (with very severe penalties to companies that damage or destroy the environment - up to and including disolving a corporation that abuses the "trust" given to it), and full equality: racially, sexually, and religiously.  I am 100% against Genocide, and feel that any country that engages in that practice should be dealt with harshly, including invasion, and "crimes against humaity" trials for those guilty of such atrocities.  I believe that companies should take care of their employees, and any company that abuses this relationship should be delt with harshly.  I believe fully in the right of employees to unionize, and that unions can be a great force for good (but can equally be abused by corrupt-greedy unions officials).

If you look beyond the fact that we often dissagree on the levels of various beliefs, you would actually find that we agree on a great many things.  We just agree in different ways.  If Maxwell, Cat, Don Carlos, and I agree on so many things, I obviously am not as "radical" as you seem to think.

And personally, I always laugh whenever people are shocked when Max, Cat, Don Carlos, or myself agree on something.  A great many times we actually agree in principal on things, we simply disagree on how far each other should go in those beliefs.

And to your original remark on police, I fully believe that Police Brutality is wrong, and should never be accepted.  We simply dissagree on what constitutes such brutality.  In reguards to the UCLA student, I see it as a case where the student instigated the altercation, and did nothing but make things worse by his actions.  If he was a simply student walking across the campus and fully complied with what the police told him to do, you would see me among those screaming for the heads of said cops.  But he was not some innocent student, and himself deserves at least half of the blame for what transpired.