I've been expecting this for a while - the crime of seditious libel is alive and well in the rank and file! And with seditious libel, if what you say is true, it magnifies the crime.
It's pretty amusing that on a list well subscribed to by the foil hat crowd and extremists of every stripe, that a mild, persistent devotion to fairness and facts gets one banned. Sure I've had a little mild fun at Bill Clinton's expense - but it's notthing compared to the wild slander thrown at prominent democrats by democrat lovers like Holly and Liberal Girl (can you tell me - are they the same person? That would be just about one of the saddest and silliest things I've heard of in a while - somebody joining their own list under another identity, and then praising themselves for saying such smart things - but that is about the only way Holly is going to hear that, and I don't know how else soembody who's been on a list less than a month is a moderator!)
But all of this is pretty much what I expected - this is only the latest time of several that I've been thankful that amateur inquisitors are only that, and don't wield any power in the real world!
On 8/17/06, chris nolan <cedgarnolan@yahoo.com> wrote:
hey matt -I appologize for that last post of mine - however, Holly has blocked your messages.
Matt Love < matt.mattlove1@gmail.com> wrote:There is something wrong with my gmail account. I attempted to reply to your e-mail via the list. It certainly can't be that I've been banned by Holly for pointing out obvious things like Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, or that Bill Clinton is a horndog.
It certainly can't be that I've been banned here in the land of the free, home of the brave, home of free speech and all those yummy things that the republicans hate, but the democrats love.
I'm sure it's just a passing problem, and I'll soon be posting factual, useful, logical posts to the list again - the kind the list really, really needs. Please communicate this to other folks.
Now onto the message I was trying to send.
You wrote:
Hey Matt:go screw yourself.
I wrote:
"Well, I'd rather screw myself than be screwed by Bill.
Or HIllary.
You'd like it to. You'd never go back to Democrats."
Have a great day!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yahoo! Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 18 Aug 2006 03:19:57 -0000
Subject: Unable to deliver your message
To: matt.mattlove1@gmail.com
We are unable to deliver the message from < matt.mattlove1@gmail.com>
to < GWB_BiteMe@yahoogroups.com>.
You are not allowed to send email to this group. There are two possible
reasons for this:
1. This group may only accept postings from moderators.
2. The moderator of this group may have removed your ability to post to
this group.
To contact the group moderator, send mail to GWB_BiteMe-owner@yahoogroups.com
For further assistance, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Matt Love" <matt.mattlove1@gmail.com >
To: GWB_BiteMe@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:18:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [GWB_BiteMe] Re: *Bill [Clinton] burns Bush*
Well, I'd rather screw myself than be screwed by Bill.
Or HIllary.
You'd like it to. You'd never go back to Democrats.
On 8/17/06, chris nolan <cedgarnolan@yahoo.com > wrote:--- LIEBERMAN IS NOT A DEMOCRAT YOU IDIOT. Don't waste my time.
Holly
In GWB_BiteMe@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Love" <matt.mattlove1@...>
wrote:
>
> I could never hate democrats the way that your group does, "Holly."
> just look at what you and they have to say about Lieberman (still a
> democrat until he runs as an independent) and his supporters (still
> Democrats, probably to their dying breath).
>
> Why don't you guys find a group that hates Democrats as much as you
> do, and leave this group to the reasonable people?
>
> BTW, I don't find anything wrong with with being sex positive...
it's
> the deceit that's the problem with Clinton. Not that he's
deceiving
> Hillary, she knows exactly what the deal is, their arrangement was
> made early on (see attached). The same sort of arrangement that
the
> Roosevelts, and Eisenhowers, and Kennedys, and Johnsons and George
and
> Barbara Bush, and Goerge and Laura Bush had/have, though apparently
> not the Nixons, Reagans, Carters, or Fords (for those who think
that
> politically powerful men must express themselves in the sack, or
they
> will be too repressed ot do their jobs - and there are people that
> maintain that, proud of the virility of Kennedy and Clinton,
disgusted
> at the hypocracy of Bush I, and the free pass given to Bush II).
>
> edited by alexander cockburn and jeffrey st. clair
> August 11, 1999
>
>
> The First Lady Syndrome (con't)
>
> There are differences between the two, {Princess Di and HIllary
> Clinton] of course. The late Princess Diana campaigned
against
> land mines, whereas Hillary Rodham Clinton was an enthusiastic
> advocate for the cluster bombs that now litter the Serbian and
> Kossovan landscapes, set to kill or cripple for the next half
> century. But memories are short. Who knows? Perhaps we will soon
see
> HRC clutching some Balkan infant, bent over the maimed tike
in
> the approved Di manner, and who will then recall that she
bears
> some responsibility for that lost limb? "I urged him to
bomb,"
> she confided to Lucinda Franks. "You cannot let this go on at
> the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our
> time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of
> life?"
>
> For the better part of the past decade HRC has been a not
> insubstantial part of the same NATO-defended "way of life," a
> lead player in the world spectacle, just as Diana was,
> advertising for public edification and enjoyment the
> tribulations of the married state. Diana of course took her
narrative
> a few chapters further than Hillary. Her amours and revenges,
> after separation from the heir apparent, were flagrant. With
> Hillary there is only, as yet, allegation and surmise. In his
> thin and humdrum account -- Bill and Hillary: The Marriage --
> Christopher Anderson insists that Hillary had a long affair with
> Vincent Foster rounding up all the usual Arkansas state troopers
> to support that claim. Otherwise there are scant indications
> that she sought sexual distraction from the flagrant serial
adulterer
> she so eerily reckoned, almost from Day One, to be a sure
thing
> for the White House. She certainly seems to have known, almost
> from Day One, that every time she turned her back Bill was
screwing
> the campaign volunteers, the flight attendants, the
> receptionists, the pretty girls in the front row, the pretty
> girls in the back row, this woman he saw in church, that high
> school teacher, this woman in the real estate office, that
other
> woman in the real estate office and so on, and on and on.
>
> Anderson has this vignette from the McGovern
campaign: "Hillary
> was on the end of the line. 'What do you think you are doing
to
> me? To us?' she screamed, her words clearly audible to the
> workers in the room. 'Hillary, I don't know what you heard,
> but...' 'Don't fuck with me, Bill,' she yelled as his face
> turned crimson. 'You are a real shit, do you know that, Bill?
> Christ, a real SHIT.' But...' 'You know, Bill, there's a guy
> here who has been trying to get me to go to bed with him and
> that is exactly what I'm going to do.' With that, Bill began
> sobbing. 'I'm begging you, Hillary,' he cried, 'don't go and
do
> something we'd both be sorry for.' Well, did she? We don't
know.
>
> In the old days First Ladies, like Elizabeth the Queen, or
> Elizabeth the Queen Mother or Jackie (Camelot vintage) were
> there to advertise the essential solidity of marriage. It was
> the role of film stars to underline its inherent frailty.
> Hillary has a far more complex assignment. Her core constituency,
> women who came of age reading Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan,
> Simone de Beauvoir, the Boston's Women's Health Collective and
> maybe Shulamith Firestone, scarcely want as their standard bearer
> Woman as Doormat. Women know that men are beasts, and part of
> the infinite superiority of women is their capacity to persevere
> in the face of this beastliness.
>
> But there are limits. If the dialectic of women's liberation
> taught anything, it's surely that a woman doesn't have to
put up
> with unending crap such as Bill has been serving Hillary down
> the years. So Hillary has to reassure that constituency that
> yes, she does draw the line somewhere, that in post Lewinsky
> months she can't bear to be in the same room, the same city
or
> even the same country as the First Man.
>
> Yet at the same time, knowing not only from more or less Day
> One that Bill couldn't keep his pants zipped up, but also that
> she could get both of them into the White House, (and out the
> other end sans impeachment conviction) she's always had to act
> out the other half of the pantomime and display the ties that
> bind. So, yes! After months of coolness he gets to hold her hand.
> Hillary's chief of staff, Melanne Verveer, is order to lob the
> red meat of passion to a waiting world and she dutifully confides
> to the press that "We've slowly seen a physical passion come
> back into their lives."
>
> So the generation that came of age reading De Beauvoir, Greer
> and maybe Firestone find themselves, with the Hillary
narrative,
> reading a story endlessly in contradiction with itself.
>
> Germaine Greer has spoken of Hillary harshly and in truth we
> have in our First Lady the whole sad arc of middle-class
> radicalism since the late l960s, endlessly in contradiction of
> its early heroic premises. Given a couple of dice rolling another
> way, Hillary could have been a Weatherperson, could have died
> amid the rubble of that bomb depository on West 11th St. But
> like almost all of her generation she never did take opposition
> to the Vietnam War as far as reading manuals on bomb fuses.
>
> Hardly had she raised her foot to step over the threshold of
> radicalism than she turned back. She declined to go with the
> SNCC, turned down an offer to work with Saul Alinsky as a
> community organizer in Chicago. Anderson quotes her political
> science prof at Wellesley, Alan Schecter, as saying that by the
> late l960s his pupil had decided that the best radical strategy
> was to "'use the legal system' as an agent of change." She
> wasn't alone in that calculation. The long march of the left
> through the courtrooms was under way: the world would become
a
> better place, courtesy of courtroom briefs, complaints and
class
> action suits.
>
> And so what we have seen, across the last three decades, is
the
> left vanishing into the quicksands of regulation. All
society's
> problems could be fixed by a statute, a rule, a waiver, a
> program. Much of the antiwar left vanished into the consumer
> movement, the environmental movement and legal fixitry. The
mass
> movement died and litigation -- often successful --
flourished
> amid the ruins.
>
> Let's pay Hillary the compliment of taking her seriously as a
> woman set on bringing about social change. She declines the
road
> that led to West 11th St and goes instead to Yale Law School.
> She works for John Doar, helping draft articles of
impeachment
> against Nixon. The road seems clear. She'll rise effortlessly
> through the ranks of non-profit, do-goodery; she'll shuttle
> comfortably up and down the Northeastern corridors of power.
>
> But she makes a far riskier bet. The road to the White House
> runs through Little Rock, so South she goes, with bottle
> glasses, bell bottoms, and according to another woman in
Bill's
> life at the time, Dolly Kyle browning, hairy legs and a
dislike
> of deodorants. Year after year she puts up with Bill's crap.
She
> hold his hand, puts up with the most terrible humiliations,
> drives him forward.
>
> In l993 she finally wins her incredible wager with Destiny.
And
> here she is, the First Woman, in the White House with a
mandate
> from the First Man to fix American health care. Was there ever
> a person who could gaze back at the late l950s and at the
strategy
> she had selected and say with more apparent justification, I
> did the right thing?
>
> The strategy bombed, as we all know. In l993 there was a huge
> constituency, an explosive constituency for health reform.
The
> First Woman had it in her power to lead a mass movement to
that
> goal. She flirted with the idea, issued a few denunciations
of
> the health care industry and then led health reform straight
> into the deepest of all quicksands, a regulatory labyrinth so
> baroque in its complexity that even its designers were
unable to
> issue any reliable guidemaps.
>
> Somewhere in the early months of the health battle an
advocate
> of universal health care met with Hillary and pointed out that
> over 70 percent of Americans favored this radical course. He
> reported later that Hillary gazed at him and said coldly, "Tell
> me something interesting." Hillary, as with so many of the
> brightest minds of that generation, no longer had any
concept of
> a mass movement, beyond a spike on one of Dick Morris's polling
> graphs. Supremely "realistic," she'd lost contact with
reality.
> She won her bet. She lost the war.
>
> When Hillary Clinton made her radical graduating speech at
> Wellesley attacking the Vietnam war in l969 a third of the
world
> had broken with capitalism. But 1999 capitalism's triumph had
> been so absolute that Bill scarcely had to work the phones to
> get the okay for his war. Russia and china soon came to heel.
> The triumph of neo-liberalism is absolute.
>
> It's scarcely surprising therefore that Hillary should have
> urged the First Man to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to
defend
> "our way of life". It was another logical step for all those
> radical "realists" embarking on careers in the early l970s.
> War is more social engineering; fixitry via high explosive,
> social therapy via the nose cone of a cruise missile.
>
> There's not much of a left any more. Bet there are plenty of
> therapeutic cops around, and Hillary is their leader, the very
> essence of social worker liberalism. All it takes to usher in
> the New Jerusalem are counselors, community action programs and
> tougher gun laws which is what Hillary called for after Columbine,
> not long after she gave the First Man that bit of advice about
> bombing the Serbs. As a tough therapeutic cop, Hillary does not
> shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy, the
> death penalty.
>
> In this perspective perhaps we ought to look at her
commitment
> to Choice as at least in part another piece of therapeutic
> policing. Steve Levitt, an economist at the University of
> Chicago, and John Donohue III, a law prof at Stanford, have
been
> circulating a paper -- reporting in the Chicago Tribune on
> August 8 of this year, that the legalizing of abortion in the
> early l970s has contributed to the falling crime rate in the
> l990s. Indeed they claim that legalized abortion may account
for
> as much as half the overall crime drop between 1991 and 1997.
> Levitt says abortion "provides a way for the would-be
mothers of
> those kids who are going to lead really tough lives to avoid
> bringing them into the world." The authors cite stats from
five
> states that legalized abortion before the Roe v Wade
decision of
> 1993. These five states with high abortion rates in the early
> 1970s had greater crime drops in the l990s. The Trib's story
> quotes Cory Richards, a policy wonk at the Guttmacher Institute
> as saying, "This is an argument for women not being forced to
> have children they don't want to have. This is making the
point
> that it's not only bad for the women, but for children and
> society."
>
> So, from the social engineering, crime fighting point of view
> the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1977 saw Roe v
Wade
> as its logical precursor and concomitant. That's not the way
> Germaine Greer or the Boston Women's Health Collective saw
the
> Choice issue, but one can certainly imagine Hillary argue for
> abortion as socially therapeutic. She comes from the liberal
> social engineering tradition that sponsored the great sterilizing
> boom earlier in the century, whose rampages in Vermont are only
> now coming to light.
>
> Hillary, never forget, is a Methodist and that bleak creed of
> improvement is bedrock for her. She's a social cleanser.
This is
> the cold steel that stiffens her spine and carries her
forward,
> self-righteous amid the untidy mess of all her
contradictions.
>
> On 8/17/06, Holly Venn <lovecats_888@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And "Matt" is our voice of reason? lol........I don't think
so........I really wish you would just leave, Matt.....why don't you
go find a group that hates Democrats?
> >
> > Christopher Bates <dfwchris1@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Me too! LOL!
> > CB
> >
> > chris nolan <cedgarnolan@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, I've been a long time opponent of abstinence.
> >
> > Matt Love <matt.mattlove1@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yeah, The Horn Dog is popping up everywhere these days, speaking
truth to power.
> >
> > For example, at the at the 16th International Aids conference in
Toronto he said:
> >
> > "Empowering women to protect themselves seems so elemental, and
yet when I hear people pontificating against Aids and acting as if
we can do everything through abstinence," he said.
> > "I think they don't know what most women are up against in too
many parts of the world today."As long as he's showing up around the
globe pontificating about this and that, he's hoping as many of them
as possible will be up against him!
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/16/06, Liberal Girl <liberal_grl@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Leave it to The Big Dog to put things in perspective and dump
some
> > > reality on Bush.
> > >
> > > << "They [the Bush gang] seem to be anxious to tie it to Al
> > > Qaeda," he said. "If that's true, how come we've got seven
> > > times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan?
> > >
> > > Why have we imperiled President [Hamid] Karzai's rule and
> > > allowed the Taliban to come back into the southern part of
> > > Afghanistan?">>
> > > .
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > *Bill burns Bush*
> > >
> > > by MICHAEL McAULIFF
> > > The New York Daily News
> > > August 16th, 2006
> > >
> > > << WASHINGTON - Former President Bill Clinton got in the
current
> > > President's face yesterday, slamming the Bush administration
for linking
> > > the London bomb plot and the war on terror to the war in Iraq.
> > >
> > > "The Republicans should be very careful in trying to play
politics with
> > > this London airport thing, because they're going to have a
hard time
> > > with the facts," Clinton said in an interview.
> > >
> > > "I don't think the foiling of that London bomb plot has any
bearing on
> > > our Iraq policy," he said.
> > >
> > > Clinton's broadside, delivered on ABC's "Good Morning
America," came as
> > > President Bush spent his second day in the wake of the defused
British
> > > terror plot holding high-profile national security meetings.
> > >
> > > "America is safer than it has been, but it's not yet safe,"
Bush said at
> > > the National Counterterrorism Center.
> > >
> > > "The enemy has got an advantage when it comes to attacking our
> > > homeland," he said. "They've got to be right one time, and
we've got to
> > > be right 100% of the time."
> > >
> > > He praised U.S. and British intelligence for stopping a plot
to blow up
> > > 10 airliners.
> > >
> > > Clinton, who never mentioned Bush by name, suggested the
> > > administration's claims that the British plot looks like the
work of Al
> > > Qaeda reveals a flaw in its strategy.
> > >
> > > "They seem to be anxious to tie it to Al Qaeda," he said. "If
that's
> > > true, how come we've got seven times as many troops in Iraq as
in
> > > Afghanistan? Why have we imperiled President [Hamid] Karzai's
rule and
> > > allowed the Taliban to come back into the southern part of
Afghanistan?"
> > >
> > > He also said the administration and GOP leaders in Congress
had opposed
> > > tighter security on cargo containers at ports and airports.
> > >
> > > White House spokesman Tony Snow said there had
been "considerable
> > > efforts" to ensure container safety.
> > >
> > > "So President Clinton, I know, is sort of committing some
politics here
> > > and accusing Republicans in so doing," Snow said. "I think in
the same
> > > position he'd be looking at the same options."
> > >
> > > The former President also said Democrats who had voted to give
Bush the
> > > .authority to go to war in Iraq -- including his wife, Sen.
Hillary
> > > Clinton (D-N.Y.) -- had hoped the threat of war would force
former Iraqi
> > > leader Saddam Hussein to comply with UN inspections. But the
Bush
> > > administration went to war before the UN's work was complete,
he said.
> > >
> > > The dueling Presidents weren't alone in the debate, with Vice
President
> > > Cheney telling GOP donors in Arizona the "central front" in
the war on
> > > terror is Iraq.
> > >
> > > He pointed to Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman's primary loss
to
> > > anti-war liberal Ned Lamont last week, saying Democrats booted
a man of
> > > courage in favor of a candidate who wants "to give up the
fight against
> > > the terrorists in Iraq."
> > >
> > > [NOTE FROM ME: Joe Lieberman is NOT "a man of courage"; he is
> > > a pompous, self-interested twit who has done NOTHING to make
> > > us safer.]
> > >
> > > But Democrats are determined to stop the GOP from running
successfully
> > > on national security as it did in 2002 and 2004, and Clinton
was echoed
> > > yesterday by other party leaders in conference calls and
statements.
> > >
> > > "These claims that we are safer just don't resonate," said
Sen. Carl
> > > Levin (D-Mich.).
> > >
> > > Clinton, who campaigned for Lieberman, also took a shot at
Lieberman for
> > > complaining that he lost to Lamont because of left-wing
partisan
> > > attacks.
> > >
> > > "There were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position,
which was,
> > > 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass
> > > destruction,' " Clinton said. "His position was the Bush-
Cheney-Rumsfeld
> > > position."
> > >
> > > The former President's interview came as he was attending an
> > > international conference in Toronto on AIDS. He did have words
of praise
> > > for the Bush administration's AIDS efforts, saying the United
States is
> > > spending more to fight the epidemic than any other
government. >>
> > >
> > > [NOTE FROM ME: Well, I would hope we would give the most
> > > money; we ARE the wealthiest nation on the face of the Earth.]
> > >
> > > Read this at:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/United-Stands-
America/message/82330
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even
though I wasn't here." â€"at the President's Economic Forum in
Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GWB_BiteMe
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone
> call rates.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > ________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US
(and
> 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Power_of_Intention/
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and
30+
> countries) for 2¢/min or less.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger�s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
__._,_.___
SPONSORED LINKS
Holy land tour Holy basil Holy land Holy bible Holy land gifts
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "CanYoAssDigIt" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__,_._,___
