[1568] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
OUT OF THE CLOSET
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Zhelinrentice Scott)
Tue Oct 19 22:48:08 2004
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:04:00 -0700
From: Zhelinrentice Scott <zheclampitt@YAHOO.COM>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1098200561.417535f15e0f5@webmail.mit.edu>
I am offically out of the closet.
I AM A REPUBLICAN. Why? Because being democrat
means being PRO CHOICE. PRO CHOICE = 48 million black
babies being killed.
Margaret Sanger was a racist who hated GOD, Blacks,
and jews. She subscribes to the population control
theories as well. CHECK HER SPEECHES IT'S ALL THERE.
The dixiecrats/democrats HATE BLACK PEOPLE.
That is why they support abortion and
make it extremely difficult for black babies
to be adopted. STROM THURMOND is a WELL KNOWN
Dixie crat.
Do you want to know WHY DAVID HOROWITZ had
BODYGUARDS when he came to speak at MIT?
IT IS BECAUSE THE FBI and LOCAL POLICE ARE CORRUPT.
Richard Denholm, supervising agent for the ENTIRE
PUblic Corruption unit of the FBI has REFUSED TO HELP
ME even when I've told him that my life is in
danger. I've worked for the FBI and I KNOW how
corrupt they are. Aimee Smith KNOWS THIS TOO. GOD IS
THE ONLY THING THAT IS PROTECTING ME, MY HUSBAND, and
MY DAUGHTER.
Currently, the only thing protecting my family is
GOD. Simply because I think to much. I know
too much.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for:
--OPPRESSION
--RACIST POLICIES
--PUTTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE HANDS OF People
WHO HATE US
--AGAINST GOD who blessed this nation in the first
place
--THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY to control
BLACKS ON EMOTION INSTEAD OF FACTS.
--CORRUPT POLICE, CIA, and FBI
A VOTE FOR KERRY IS A VOTE FOR THE DEVIL!!!
Zhe
--- Presley H Cannady <revprez@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> First, let's get this out in the open.
>
>
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf
>
> So for all you Mooreniks out there entertaining
> fantasies of the military vote
> breaking against Bush, the dream is over.
>
> Anyway.
>
> Quoting "Shayna H. Hirshfield" <shaynahh@umich.edu>:
>
> > You might find the following article from the New
> York Times interesting.
> > The first thought that comes to my mind after
> reading the article you sent is
>
> > of my grandparents and many other older folks with
> whom I've talked in the
> > last year from across the board - people who were
> alive and politically aware
>
> > during WWII - who consistently say that what they
> see in the current US
> > administration reminds them of the Nazi buildup
> prior to WWII, and is
> > consequently one of the scariest regimes they have
> ever seen.
>
> Any specific, meaningful parallels?
>
> > Yes, steadfastness is important. So is freedom.
> Denying freedom and liberty
>
> > has never worked to make a populace safer -
> witness Japanese internment
> camps
> > and COINTELPRO - yet that is exactly has been
> done, in the most insidious of
> > ways, through the Patriot Act.
>
> You cannot say that the Japanese interment camps or
> COINTELPRO did nothing to
> enhance American security. We can argue whether
> certain counterintelligence
> policies are more effective than others, but at
> minimum both COINTELPRO and
> internment hindered the enemy's ability to recruit
> in country and commit acts
> of espianoge.
>
> > The author of the article you sent refers to a
> "nation that tamed a
> > frontier;" surely that person is talking about the
> "conquest" of this
> > continent, when genocide was committed flagrantly
> against scores of nations
> > who had been living here for centuries.
>
> You're exaggerating. The American wars against
> Indian nations yielded nothing
> compared to the atrocities committed by European
> imperialists a full century
> before. And whether or not we judge historical
> figures by present day values,
> the fact remains that the United States successfully
> pacified a turbulent west
> and brought civilization and prosperity to our part
> of the continent.
>
> > What a thing to glorify!
>
> It is. The American war against various Indian
> tribes were far more humane than
> comparable conflicts in Africa, Asia and Europe.
>
> > Doing
> > "great things" and bringing democracy to the
> Middle East... surely we've
> > tried this before, in Iran, in Latin America...
> we don't exactly have a good
>
> > track record with that, and we're not building one
> now.
>
> Actually, we do have a good track record. Within
> the past twenty years the US
> has assisted the growth of democracy and free market
> capitalism in over a
> hundred countries. We can disagree over whether it
> was wise to support one
> authoritarian interest over another in some specific
> place at some particular
> time, but it betrays a lack of seriousness to
> dismiss the very real, two-decade
> long global march towards democracy.
>
> > On the contrary, we
> > are creating even more chaos for people who were
> already suffering.
>
> Based on what indicators? Even the Brookings Iraq
> Index indicates that the
> Iraqi people are suffering no more than they were
> before the war and doing a
> little bit better.
>
> > (I am not so myopic as to say that Saddam was a
> good leader, but come on, was
>
> > it our duty to oust him on such a thin
> justification?)
>
> Thin justification? The Duelfer Report has
> conclusively demonstrated Iraqi
> capacity to develop WMD in short order and the
> intentions to do so once the
> sanctions regime collapsed. That and the world has
> Iran in an ideal strategic
> strangle hold, boxed in between 150,000 US and
> Coalition troops in the west,
> another 11,000 in the east, Russia and the Persian
> Gulf.
>
> > 1,082 American soldiers have
> > already died in Iraq last I checked, and we're
> only marginally - dubiously -
> > closer to peace than we were when the "official"
> war ended over a year ago.
>
> Marginally? Dubiously? Political transition did
> occur. Preparations for
> January elections are proceeding. The Iraqi armed
> services have sufficient
> strength presently to participate in SASO. The only
> thing dubious I see here
> are characterizations belittling the enormous amount
> of progress made in such a
> strategically vital region at such an historically
> low cost.
>
> > Does this speak to our being on the right path?
> Hardly. Cheney himself,
> > under the first President Bush, said that we
> would be stupid to attack Iraq
> > for a number of reasons.
>
> He did not say it would be stupid to attack Iraq.
>
> > Every justification that has been offered by this
> > administration - retaliation, WMDs, etc - has been
> shot down.
>
> Really? How so? Before the war the quibbling over
> stockpiles amounted to a
> debate over a few hundred tons of material--about as
> much as the Duelfer report
> indicate Iraq could produce in a matter of days or
> weeks; a capability the
> UNMOVIC inspectors had suspected but could not
> uncover precisely because they
> couldn't control the environment in which Iraqi
> scientists were interviewed.
> The 9/11 commission found Hussein's contacts with
> Bin Laden sufficiently
> compelling to include in their final report, and the
> Senate Intelligence
> Committee concluded that the IC had reasonably
> assessed Hussein's relationship
> with al Qaeda as it pertains to the provision of
> sancturary and training in the
> handling and use of non-conventional weapons.
>
> When you get down to it, every reason for war the
> Administration laid out was
> borne out in the post-war assessment. The question
> is over a matter of
> emphasis, and even then the difference of opinion
> is, by any objective
> standard, small and inconsequential.
>
> > The vast majority of scholars of the Middle East
> said at the outset of this
> > war that we should not do it that it was a doomed
> venture, that we had no
> > idea what we were getting into.
>
> I don't know about that. Was there a poll? And
> besides, how many Middle East
> scholars are also strategic analysts and/or
> warfighters? Why should I care
> what somebody like Juan Cole, a man who's made a
> career out of arriving at
> wrong conclusion about Islamic societies and has no
> special expertise in
> strategic studies, thinks about the Coalition
> mission in Iraq?
>
> > Yet we went ahead, like the shoot-from-the-hip
> cowboy does,
>
>
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
