soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Jews should know what await them - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/248540d1b3587d2
* ALLHU AKBAR! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/cee8bd87bfad4a94
* India is a nuclear proliferator - Says a paki - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/74bdfc9b08d4aa3f
* King of the Jews was a Faggot - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/44ec445a5a0fbe82
* Afghan Man Sentenced to Death for Converting - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/bd295e44b8e99935
* Is the US getting it's ass kicked again? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c3e720f581a7b047
* BUSH BOMBS BIG TIME! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/e60e7f0a5dc2d31d
* BLACKLISTING AN AMERICAN HEROINE - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f69fcc00c58349
* Uhh, ahhh, uhhh, ahhh, I'm too dumb to understand the question so I'll talk
about turirists - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/e9233bdec0b183c4
* EVEN KING DAVID PROPHESIED GOD INCARNATE IN THE FLESH AS SAVIOUR - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fe78c41383cd53a
* BUSH AND HIS ZIONAZIS ON THE VERGE OF MADNESS - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/813664b143d3942f
* Are persons who were born in Africa and now live in America also "African
Americans"? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/54b711da16c782f4
* about minidisc........ - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f7f91cc51510f410
* Shias add fuel to hatred with 'gangsta-rap' incitement - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/cfdd29c7dd22d1bb
* YOU CALL THIS "RAPE"????? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8256272973888002
* A Question "Pro-Life" Christians Are Too Cowardly to Answer - 2 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1f0d605fcbcefff0

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jews should know what await them
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/248540d1b3587d2
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:31 pm
From: "serwad"

Not a single Albanian , Kosovar or Bosnian jew was sent to concetration
camps by muslims!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:33 pm
From: "serwad"

<mike@premierpic.com> wrote in message
news:1143063506.056168.194270@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What's it like to know that your entire race / religion of people are
> the weakest people on earth and could be wiped out by a tiny little
> country like Israel.
Using a Jewish schnoozle?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:42 am
From: "Mexican Bandolero"

"Salah Jafar" <codeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iCjUf.8652$I7.8085@trnddc03...
When you hahahahah, is there is anyting up your ass?
SJ

Back to your dog house Salah doggie doggiee!
You need to get some Physical exam!
Hold your dick and stick your tongue out.
Now sit down and rub your testicles on the ground in a circular motion!
Do this twice, Salah doggie!

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:47 am
From: "Mexican Bandolero"

"Salah Jafar" <codeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X2jUf.4885$hC.3142@trnddc08...
Jews or so called today Jews, all of them come from Russia, Germany, Poland,
Ukraine, and other slums of Europe. They have through out history been
protected by Moslem and Arab country. Example is Turkey and Bosnia. But as
one can see, they have betrayed the Bosnians and supported Molasovic the war
criminal who massacred thousand of Moslems. During the Hitler era, Moslem
protected their Jewish neighbors with love and compassion, In return you saw
what the Jewish artificial state did, nothing. When world war 4 start,
hopefully it will be the end of the so called Jews. I ask all Moslem and
Arab country, to build special ovens for those fucking Parasites.
SJ

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do some practice on what you have learned, Salah doggie doggie!
This trick is easy for you.
Sit down and rub your testicles on the ground in a clockwise rotation.
Now, rub your testicles on the ground in a counterclockwise rotation!
Vereerrryyyy gooood!
Do this Salah doggie, ten times a day.
You need to be perfect on this kind of trick!
MB

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ALLHU AKBAR!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/cee8bd87bfad4a94
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:34 pm
From: "serwad"

<drdavez28@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143083634.761674.118650@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I wonder what it is about islam that attracts sexual deviants,
> miscreants and other misfits.

You got it arse about, sexual deviants are made nine inches shorter in a
flash. Michael Jackson is none of those, so sayeth the judge!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: India is a nuclear proliferator - Says a paki
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/74bdfc9b08d4aa3f
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 7:35 pm
From: "StupidGeek"

rkusenet wrote:
> " A reason advanced for signing the March 2 agreement in Delhi was that India, unlike Pakistan,
> has not been a nuclear proliferator. The facts are to the contrary. India's role in aiding and
> abetting Iran's nuclear programme is well known. So also is its shady dealings with Iraq. To cite
> just one example: On January 19, 2002, the Los Angeles Times headline on the front page said
> "Indian firm aided Iraq". The disclosure came at a time when the US was abuzz with war
> preparations against Baghdad. "

I searched online archieve of Los Angeles Times, there is nothing about
India or Iraq on that day. Would you mind to give a URL? Even a google
search "site:latimes.com indian aided iraq" did not give any results
relevant to the topic. This shows that afterall pakistani's are not
really blind, they are made to believe imaginations of the journalists.

>
> Strange that no other country, specially US seem to think so. They all think that
> pakistan is rogue state when it comes proliferating nukes.
>
> http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/23/op.htm

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:17 pm
From: "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101@dont.reply>

"rkusenet" <rkusenet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dGmUf.6599$qX6.182150@news20.bellglobal.com...
>" A reason advanced for signing the March 2 agreement in Delhi was that
>India, unlike Pakistan, has not been a nuclear proliferator. The facts are
>to the contrary. India's role in aiding and abetting Iran's nuclear
>programme is well known. So also is its shady dealings with Iraq. To cite
>just one example: On January 19, 2002, the Los Angeles Times headline on
>the front page said "Indian firm aided Iraq". The disclosure came at a time
>when the US was abuzz with war preparations against Baghdad. "
>
> Strange that no other country, specially US seem to think so. They all
> think that
> pakistan is rogue state when it comes proliferating nukes.

Here are some of the problems with your Indian education and the arguments
you build based on that education:

1. One Pakistani does not mean all of Pakistan
2. You are attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.
3. Who has ever called Pakistan a "rogue" state?

..... too many others to list.

>
> http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/23/op.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: King of the Jews was a Faggot
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/44ec445a5a0fbe82
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:37 am
From: "Mexican Bandolero"

"Salah Jafar" <codeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wFjUf.8655$I7.6055@trnddc03..

What are you talking about, you Salah doggie.
Sit down doggie and sit still.
You need to take a dog bath, Salah doggie.
Ticks and lice are all over your body.
And your balls are crowded fleas and Mexican "Garrapatas".

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Afghan Man Sentenced to Death for Converting
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/bd295e44b8e99935
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:38 pm
From: "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101@dont.reply>

"Mohd Kaffir" <fragrance28_693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143009226.491929.207160@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Top posting is the only way to talk to here,
> The conversation below shows you don't know what you are talking about.
> You are here only to change the subject.
>
> Criticize the stupid law of _death_sentence_ for conversion in
> Afghanistan.

You need to understand the basics about law. The law in question is not the
"death sentence" as you put it. The law is anti-conversion. The punishment
is death upon finding of guilt. This is the law in Afghanistan. You violate
this law with a priori knowledge, you may or may not face the consequences.
It is Afghanistan after all -- not a bastion of freedom.

Now, that we have established that the principle under discussion is one of
anti-conversion, and not death penalty per se, we must realize that even
India from whence you came, has a long history of anti-conversion laws. I
have provided laws from the Hindu princely states and I have provided a
recent (circa 2002?) law from Tamil Nadu punishing those who convert.

So, now the point I am trying to make is that while the Tamil Nadu law may
not impose death penalty de juro, it does impose death penalty de facto.
Whether the said imposition is de facto or de juro is hardly relevant to the
poor convert who is already lynched and long dead.

Do you understand now? Are you still mad? Are you willing to tone down your
insults towards me.

>
>
> Seeker wrote:
>> "Mohd Kaffir" <fragrance28_693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142839446.968150.203240@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Seeker wrote:
>> >> <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1142827387.493171.274500@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Seeker wrote:
>> >> >> "Mohd Kaffir" <fragrance28_693@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1142816666.653454.229280@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Seeker wrote:
>> >> >> >> <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1142810312.667284.210060@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> > Seeker wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> <visualseeplus@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>> >> >> >> >> > Religion of Peace folks.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan man who allegedly converted
>> >> >> >> >> > from
>> >> >> >> >> > Islam
>> >> >> >> >> > to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and
>> >> >> >> >> > could
>> >> >> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> >> > sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Harami Hindu, you have such laws in India too where pain of
>> >> >> >> >> death
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> imposed
>> >> >> >> >> on anyone converting out of Hinduism.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > There is no such law.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I distinctly remembering reading about such a law in Tamil Nadu.
>> >> >> >> Has
>> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> law been repealed?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Really? Are you which universe you are talking about?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 5 October 2002, the state government of Tamil Nadu, India,
>> >> >> issued
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> ordinance that effectively (when interpreted according to Hindutva
>> >> >> ideology)
>> >> >> outlawed religious conversion.
>> >> >> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10497.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > In the Tamilnadu law (repealed in 2004), a proselytizer was required
>> >> > to
>> >> > inform officials of the local district about the conversion; he did
>> >> > not
>> >> > require any permission to perform conversion ceremonies. It was up
>> >> > to
>> >> > officials to take him to court with a charge of converting by
>> >> > force*,
>> >> > allurement* or fraud* and it was upto a judge (not Hindutva
>> >> > ideologists) to determine whether the charge had merit.
>> >>
>> >> The judges are Hindutaa ideologues. The political climate in Tamil
>> >> Nadu
>> >> is
>> >> Hidutva.
>> >
>> >
>> > You are a shameless liar.
>> > Prove that the political climate in Tamil Nadu is "hundutaa".
>>
>> It is. Your beloved Tamil Nadu is right behind Gujarat in terms of
>> espousing
>> the hatred philosophy of Hindutva
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, why did you claim that it provided for a death penalty for
>> >> > apostates? It provided for no penalty for a person who converted
>> >>
>> >> Because that's what I remembered it did. So pain of death for a
>> >> convert
>> >> is a
>> >> defact law in Tamil Nadu.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Again, prove it.
>>
>> That should have read "defacto law."
>>
>> > Stop making stupid claims you are sufferring from amnesia.
>>
>> What do I have to gain from suffering from amnesia? You, OTOH, are known
>> to
>> deny that there is anything wrong with India. You are not a trusted party
>> in
>> this argument.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> > himself, there was a penalty only for converting other people (and
>> >> > only
>> >> > if converted by force, allurement or fraud), and the penalty was
>> >> > certainly not death; it was (a maximum of) a fine and imprisonment.
>> >>
>> >> Why is this even needed. If someone converts a Hindu by fraud, you can
>> >> convert that person back to Hinduism by fraud.
>>
>> You still haven't answered why the dalits need to be protected from their
>> own "stupidity." After raping them for over 5000 years, do you still
>> think
>> they are inferior to you?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > * Definitions: (a) "allurement" means offer of any temptation in the
>> >> > form of - (i) - any gift or gratification, either in cash or kind;
>> >> > (ii)
>> >> > - grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise. (b)
>> >> > "convert" means to make one person to renounce one religion and
>> >> > adopt
>> >> > another religion; (c) "force" includes a show of force or threat of
>> >> > injury of any kind including threat of divine displeasure or social
>> >> > ex-communication; (d) "fraudulent means" includes misrepresentation
>> >> > or
>> >> > any other fraudulent contrivance.
>> >> >
>> >
>

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:41 am
From: "Mark Donovan"

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143083888.816250.309570@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Seeker wrote:
>> <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...

I thought that's what we've been struggling to establish in that region: an
extreme islamic fundamentalism. Isn't it true? No? Why? What are we trying
to establish there?

Mark

>> >> On 5 October 2002, the state government of Tamil Nadu, India, issued
>> >> an
>> >> ordinance that effectively (when interpreted according to Hindutva
>> >> ideology) outlawed religious conversion.
>> >> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10497.htm
>> >
>> > In the Tamilnadu law (repealed in 2004), a proselytizer was required to
>> > inform officials of the local district about the conversion; he did not
>> > require any permission to perform conversion ceremonies. It was up to
>> > officials to take him to court with a charge of converting by force*,
>> > allurement* or fraud* and it was upto a judge (not Hindutva
>> > ideologists) to determine whether the charge had merit.
>>
>> The judges are Hindutaa ideologues.
>
> Do you have a survey?
>
>> The political climate in Tamil Nadu is
>> Hindutva.
>
> Ho ho!
>
>> > himself, there was a penalty only for converting other people (and only
>> > if converted by force, allurement or fraud), and the penalty was
>> > certainly not death; it was (a maximum of) a fine and imprisonment.
>>
>> Why is this even needed. If someone converts a Hindu by fraud, you can
>> convert that person back to Hinduism by fraud.
>
> I haven't said it is needed; I have only said that the law you refer to
> doesn't say "do not proselytize or convert" but rather says, "it's
> illegal to convert by force, bribery or fraud". Be that as it may,
> changing the question to: why is this deemed neecessary even by some
> people who support the right to convert and proselytize, the
> paradoxical answer is that there are schools of thought that some kinds
> of proselytism infringe on religious liberty.
>
> An example of a discussion of the subject outside India:
> http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/190/1/37/
> experts were invited by the International Religious Liberty Association
> (IRLA) and the Ministry of Justice of Spain to a May 1999 meeting in
> Madrid. A consensus statement describes "bad" proselytism as an
> unethical activity that can take many forms, including willful
> misrepresentation of the beliefs and practices of others, or the use of
> force, coercion, compulsion, mockery, or intimidation to press for
> conversion
>
> As for why it is deemeed necessary by people who oppose the right to
> convert and proselytize, if they can't get approval for laws to ban
> proselytism, the next best thing they can aim for is laws to regulate
> proselytism, and to then look for ways to find proselytizers in
> violation of the regulations.
>
>> > * Definitions: (a) "allurement" means offer of any temptation in the
>> > form of - (i) - any gift or gratification, either in cash or kind; (ii)
>> > - grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise. (b)
>> > "convert" means to make one person to renounce one religion and adopt
>> > another religion; (c) "force" includes a show of force or threat of
>> > injury of any kind including threat of divine displeasure or social
>> > ex-communication; (d) "fraudulent means" includes misrepresentation or
>> > any other fraudulent contrivance.
>

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:49 pm
From: "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101@dont.reply>

<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143083888.816250.309570@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Seeker wrote:
>> <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>> >>
>> >> On 5 October 2002, the state government of Tamil Nadu, India, issued
>> >> an
>> >> ordinance that effectively (when interpreted according to Hindutva
>> >> ideology) outlawed religious conversion.
>> >> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/10497.htm
>> >
>> > In the Tamilnadu law (repealed in 2004), a proselytizer was required to
>> > inform officials of the local district about the conversion; he did not
>> > require any permission to perform conversion ceremonies. It was up to
>> > officials to take him to court with a charge of converting by force*,
>> > allurement* or fraud* and it was upto a judge (not Hindutva
>> > ideologists) to determine whether the charge had merit.
>>
>> The judges are Hindutaa ideologues.
>
> Do you have a survey?

I will never survey Hindutva jerks.

>
>> The political climate in Tamil Nadu is
>> Hindutva.
>
> Ho ho!

Ha ha.

>
>> > himself, there was a penalty only for converting other people (and only
>> > if converted by force, allurement or fraud), and the penalty was
>> > certainly not death; it was (a maximum of) a fine and imprisonment.
>>
>> Why is this even needed. If someone converts a Hindu by fraud, you can
>> convert that person back to Hinduism by fraud.
>
> I haven't said it is needed; I have only said that the law you refer to
> doesn't say "do not proselytize or convert" but rather says, "it's
> illegal to convert by force, bribery or fraud". Be that as it may,

Unh, unh, unh. Hold on pardner. Let us not forget that the burden of proof
in this particular finding can never be met all things equal.

> changing the question to: why is this deemed neecessary even by some
> people who support the right to convert and proselytize, the
> paradoxical answer is that there are schools of thought that some kinds
> of proselytism infringe on religious liberty.

And that thought it self infringes on the liberty of religion. Furthermore,
it denigrates those who convert to mere "low caste simpletons" incapable of
guiding their heart, mind and soul to a free choice in matters pertaining
religion. And more offensive, is the idea that anyone would convert others
by force, fraud etc when in reality Hindus are scared of the superior
intellectual appeal provided to the converts by religions other than
Hinduism, but this is a natural consequnces when you pour lead in the ears
of the lower castes for even listening to the word of veds and gita.

>
> An example of a discussion of the subject outside India:
> http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/190/1/37/
> experts were invited by the International Religious Liberty Association
> (IRLA) and the Ministry of Justice of Spain to a May 1999 meeting in
> Madrid. A consensus statement describes "bad" proselytism as an
> unethical activity that can take many forms, including willful
> misrepresentation of the beliefs and practices of others, or the use of
> force, coercion, compulsion, mockery, or intimidation to press for
> conversion

You know what this IRLA ain't the law anywhere so far as I can tell.

>
> As for why it is deemeed necessary by people who oppose the right to
> convert and proselytize, if they can't get approval for laws to ban
> proselytism, the next best thing they can aim for is laws to regulate
> proselytism, and to then look for ways to find proselytizers in
> violation of the regulations.

But such matters do not need statutory measures or regulations. Regardless
of what IRLA says, the principal of freedom of religion is fundamental one
in all democracies except India. Therefore, India does not have a right to
criticize Afghanistan.

>
>> > * Definitions: (a) "allurement" means offer of any temptation in the
>> > form of - (i) - any gift or gratification, either in cash or kind; (ii)
>> > - grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise. (b)
>> > "convert" means to make one person to renounce one religion and adopt
>> > another religion; (c) "force" includes a show of force or threat of
>> > injury of any kind including threat of divine displeasure or social
>> > ex-communication; (d) "fraudulent means" includes misrepresentation or
>> > any other fraudulent contrivance.
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 7:57 pm
From: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"

Seeker wrote:
> "Mohd Kaffir" <fragrance28_693@hotmail.com> wrote ...

> > The law of farud prevention had no relation to "castes".
>
> Of course it does. The one who were converting were the lower castes (sc,
> tribals etc). These conversions were viewed as fraud by the largest
> democracy. Meaning, lower castes are stupid and incapable of seeing the
> fraud; therefore, a law was passed to tell the lower castes that they don't
> have the right to convert because all such conversions are fraud and the
> lower castes are incapable and lacking mental faculty to see it.

The law does not tell lower castes anything. It only tells
proselytizers something.

> Right to practice religion freely is so fundamental, yet the worlds largest
> democracy can't seem to provide this right to its lower castes.

The primary ones it can't seem to provide this freedom to is its
Muslims. Can you find any instances of speeches to Muslims telling them
of their right to take up kufr and invite other Muslims to kufr and
shirk?

> >> >> > Harami Hindu, you have such laws in India too where pain of death is
> >> >> >>> imposed on anyone converting out of Hinduism.
> > I am still waiting for proof on your above statement.
> > Put up or shut the fuck up.
> I provided you with the law in Tamil Nadu that makes it illegal for anyone
> to convert out of Hinduism.

The law you quoted does not even mention Hinduism.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is the US getting it's ass kicked again?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c3e720f581a7b047
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:38 am
From: "Mark Donovan"

"HelpmaBoab" <FU2@yahoo.co.zpc> wrote in message
news:bhoUf.8054$JZ1.288956@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Will they never learn. The Yanks got their asses kicked in Vietnam and now
> it is happening again in Iraq - even Afghanistan. Innocent Yanks suffer
> while the chimp in the whitehouse stays in power.
>
>
> Tam
>

Every country has the government it deserves. ---Joseph Marie de Maistre

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BUSH BOMBS BIG TIME!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/e60e7f0a5dc2d31d
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:46 pm
From: "serwad"

On the third anniversary of the beginning of his Iraq catastrophe, President
Bush yet again dealt in denial, but this time the carefully screened
audience at the Cleveland City Club wasn't buying it.

Perhaps most on target was an elderly gentleman who cited what he said were
the three main reasons for going to war in Iraq -- WMD, Iraq's ties to the
Sept.

11, 2001, terrorists and the alleged purchase of nuclear material from
Niger -- and then noted dryly that all three of these rationales turned out
to be false.
"How do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and
to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?" he asked
the president.

How indeed? "That's a great question," began Bush by way of dissembling.
"First, just if I may correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said --
at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between
Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein."

Really? So when he said in his May 1, 2003, "Mission Accomplished" speech on
the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln that "we have removed an
ally of al Qaeda," he meant a different gang with the same name as the one
blamed for the attack on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon? It
is his way of finessing the firm conclusion of the bipartisan Sept. 11
commission that Hussein was an opponent of al Qaeda and never an ally. Yet
that didn't stop Bush from again on Monday insisting that "the central front
on the war on terror is Iraq."

Meanwhile, that old "central front," wooly Afghanistan, is now all sewed up,
Bush reassures. "Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is
no longer a safe haven for the terrorists." Apparently the president missed
the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Maples,
giving testimony to Congress a few weeks ago that Taliban resurgence now
presents "a greater threat to the Afghan central government's expansion of
authority than at any point since late 2001."

To be sure, occupied Iraq is useful to al Qaeda and its ilk -- as a
recruiting poster. In this and myriad other ways, the United States
military's continued heavy-handed presence in Iraq strengthens the hands of
extremists and demagogues who can appeal to latent Iraqi nationalism and
Muslim pride. Yet we seem to have forgotten that terrorists don't really
need Iraq as "a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our
nation," as Bush put it -- they are just as likely to be drawn from
countries that are nominally our allies, such as the 15 hijackers recruited
under the noses of the Bush family's sheikh friends in Saudi Arabia.

Finally, for old times sake, Bush trotted out his now hoary excuses for
those missing Iraqi WMD he so trumped up to get us psyched for a
"pre-emptive" war three years ago, again blaming the deception on everyone
except himself. "Like you, I asked that very same question, 'Where did we go
wrong on intelligence?'." he plaintively responded to his questioner. "The
truth of the matter is that the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction."

Not so, most of the world thought it best to wait for the U.N. inspectors,
then on the ground in Iraq, to complete their work before answering that
question. Those inspectors had found no such evidence of WMD and this
president knew full well that would likely be their final conclusion when he
ordered the pre-emptive invasion. Yet he justified it by referring to the
Sept. 11, 2001, attack warning, "We cannot wait for the final proof -- the
smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that a treasure trove of
translations of audio tapes of top-level Iraqi meetings involving Hussein,
released at the request of U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the Republican chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, show that Iraq destroyed its WMD
program by 1992. Those tapes were obtained soon after the 2003 invasion, yet
the Bush administration kept them secret while continuing to assert that
Iraq had an active WMD program.

As opposed to ordinary people in this country and the world, Bush has access
to the same detailed information that the Sept. 11 commission used to
conclude that the terrorist acts of Sept. 11 and others conducted by al
Qaeda bore no relation to Iraq. It is hardly an advertisement for American
democracy that he has been able to operate before the war and as recently as
this week as if the truth will never be allowed to hold him accountable --
though not in Cleveland, which is something to cheer about.

Robert Scheer is editor of truthdig.com.

begin 666 media;nickname=robert-scheer;tile=3;sz=300x250;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;abr=!ie6;ord=123456789_.dat
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( !`````/___R'Y! $```$`+ `````!``$```("3 $`.P``
`
end

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BLACKLISTING AN AMERICAN HEROINE
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/6f69fcc00c58349
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:52 pm
From: "serwad"

"DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote in message
news:3xoUf.29906$ty4.28723@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Alex, you don't need to post something 9 times.
Three times!
>
> "serwad" <serwad@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:9toUf.606$q6.564@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> Censorship of the Worst Kind
>> By VANESSA REDGRAVE
>>
>> I am urging the Royal Court Theatre to sue the New York Theatre Workshop
>> for the cancellation of the production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie". Not
>> because I donated money for this production, which the Royal Court have
>> been fundraising for--a target of 50,000 pounds, underwritten by Alan
>> Rickman.
>>
>> This is censorship of the worst kind. More awful even than that.It is
>> black-listing a dead girl and her diaries.A very brave and exceptional
>> girl who all citizens, whatever their faith or nationality, should be
>> proud and grateful for her existence. They couldn't silence her voice
>> while she lived, so she was killed. Her voice began to speak again as
>> Alan Rickman read her diaries, and Megan Dodds became Rachel Corrie.Now
>> the New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that dear voice.
>>
>> I shall never forget the glimpse, at the close of Alan Rickman's
>> production, of Rachel when 10 years old, shot on a little family movie
>> camera, making her speech about world poverty and the urgent need to end
>> the misery. The New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that little girl,
>> as well as the girl who confronted the Israeli army Caterpillar
>> bulldozer.
>>
>> There has to be a court case on the sheer fact of the cancellation of
>> this production. I suppose lawyers were consulted about the word
>> "postponed". We in the theatre know however what cancelling a production
>> means, whatever words are used. Megan Dodds, and a crew lose their jobs.
>> The Royal Court Theatre lose a production that was a few weeks from
>> opening in New York City.
>>
>> For the Royal Court Theatre were producing "Rachel Corrie", with the New
>> York Theatre Workshop, and putting up a lot of money--$100,000 dollars.
>>
>> I hope that all theatre artists, writers, designers, actors, directors,
>> independent producers and artists' representatives will make their
>> protests known publicly as well as directly to the New York Theatre
>> Workshop management. I hope that American Actors Equity will be asked to
>> take up and support the Royal Court Theatre producer, Elyse Dodgson, the
>> director, Alan Rickman, and the actress Megan Dodds.
>>
>> If this cancellation is not transformed into a new production, somewhere
>> in New York, immediately, we would be complicit, all of us, in a
>> catastrophe that must not be allowed to take place. This play is not
>> about taking sides. It is about protecting human beings.
>>
>> In this case, Palestinian human beings who have no protection, for their
>> families, their homes or their streets.
>>
>> Rachel Corrie gave her life to protect a family. She didn't have or use a
>> gun or bomb.
>>
>> She had her huge humanity, and she gave that to save lives.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:55 am
From: "DoD"

"serwad" <serwad@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:eUoUf.618$q6.338@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "DoD" <thecats@ss.mil> wrote in message
> news:3xoUf.29906$ty4.28723@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> Alex, you don't need to post something 9 times.
> Three times!

I know, I was just exagerating.

>> "serwad" <serwad@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:9toUf.606$q6.564@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> Censorship of the Worst Kind
>>> By VANESSA REDGRAVE
>>>
>>> I am urging the Royal Court Theatre to sue the New York Theatre Workshop
>>> for the cancellation of the production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie".
>>> Not because I donated money for this production, which the Royal Court
>>> have been fundraising for--a target of 50,000 pounds, underwritten by
>>> Alan Rickman.
>>>
>>> This is censorship of the worst kind. More awful even than that.It is
>>> black-listing a dead girl and her diaries.A very brave and exceptional
>>> girl who all citizens, whatever their faith or nationality, should be
>>> proud and grateful for her existence. They couldn't silence her voice
>>> while she lived, so she was killed. Her voice began to speak again as
>>> Alan Rickman read her diaries, and Megan Dodds became Rachel Corrie.Now
>>> the New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that dear voice.
>>>
>>> I shall never forget the glimpse, at the close of Alan Rickman's
>>> production, of Rachel when 10 years old, shot on a little family movie
>>> camera, making her speech about world poverty and the urgent need to end
>>> the misery. The New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that little
>>> girl, as well as the girl who confronted the Israeli army Caterpillar
>>> bulldozer.
>>>
>>> There has to be a court case on the sheer fact of the cancellation of
>>> this production. I suppose lawyers were consulted about the word
>>> "postponed". We in the theatre know however what cancelling a production
>>> means, whatever words are used. Megan Dodds, and a crew lose their jobs.
>>> The Royal Court Theatre lose a production that was a few weeks from
>>> opening in New York City.
>>>
>>> For the Royal Court Theatre were producing "Rachel Corrie", with the New
>>> York Theatre Workshop, and putting up a lot of money--$100,000 dollars.
>>>
>>> I hope that all theatre artists, writers, designers, actors, directors,
>>> independent producers and artists' representatives will make their
>>> protests known publicly as well as directly to the New York Theatre
>>> Workshop management. I hope that American Actors Equity will be asked to
>>> take up and support the Royal Court Theatre producer, Elyse Dodgson, the
>>> director, Alan Rickman, and the actress Megan Dodds.
>>>
>>> If this cancellation is not transformed into a new production, somewhere
>>> in New York, immediately, we would be complicit, all of us, in a
>>> catastrophe that must not be allowed to take place. This play is not
>>> about taking sides. It is about protecting human beings.
>>>
>>> In this case, Palestinian human beings who have no protection, for their
>>> families, their homes or their streets.
>>>
>>> Rachel Corrie gave her life to protect a family. She didn't have or use
>>> a gun or bomb.
>>>
>>> She had her huge humanity, and she gave that to save lives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Uhh, ahhh, uhhh, ahhh, I'm too dumb to understand the question so I'll
talk about turirists
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/e9233bdec0b183c4
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:52 am
From: "Mark Donovan"

"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in message
news:FrCdnWyXY6yjkr_ZRVn-qg@comcast.com...

Each and every day almost seven thousand Americans die, many of them from
preventable causes, which could be taken care of using a small fraction of
the fortune now being wasted on perpetual tearing down and rebuilding of
Iraq.

Each and every day some 1500 Americans die from cancer. This is a problem.
Terrorism is not!

Mark

> Here's a telling transcript from Bush's press conference in Cleveland.
>
>
> QUESTION: Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the
> City Club.
>
> My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin
> Phillips in his latest book, "American Theocracy," discusses what has been
> called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government
> and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have
> reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise
> of terrorism as signs of the Apocalypse.
>
> QUESTION: Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of
> terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse?
>
> And if not, why not?
>
> BUSH: Hmmm.
>
> (LAUGHTER)
>
> The answer is I haven't really thought of it that way.
>
> (LAUGHTER)
>
> Here's how I think of it.
>
> First, I've heard of that, by the way.
>
> I guess I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed, after September the 11th,
> that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And my
> attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.
>
> I knew we were at war. I knew that the enemy obviously had to be
> sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes into facilities that
> would be killing thousands of people, innocent people, doing nothing, just
> sitting there, going to work.
>
> I also knew this about this war on terror: that the farther we got away
> from September the 11th, the more likely it is people would seek comfort
> and not think about this global war on terror as a global war of terror.
>
> And that's good, by the way. It's hard to take a risk if you're a
> small-business owner, for example, if you're worried that the next attack
> is going to come tomorrow. I understand that.
>
> But I also understand my most important job, the most important job of any
> president today, and I predict, down the road, is to protect America.
>
> And so I told the American people that we would find the terrorists and
> bring them to justice and that we needed to defeat them overseas so we
> didn't have to face them here at home.
>
> I also understood that the war on terror requires some clear doctrine. And
> one of the doctrines that I laid out was, if you harbor a terrorist,
> you're equally as guilty as the terrorist.
>
> And the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in Afghanistan.
> I guess the Taliban didn't believe us -- or me. And so we acted.
> Twenty-five million people are now free, and Afghanistan is no longer a
> safe haven for the terrorists.
>
> And the other doctrine that's really important, and it's a change of
> attitude -- it's going require a change in attitude for a while -- is that
> when you see a threat, you've got to deal with it before it hurts you.
>
> Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact we had two ocean protecting
> us. If we saw a threat, we could deal with it if you needed to you think,
> or not, but we'd be safe.
>
> My most important job is to protect you, is to protect the American
> people. Therefore, when we see threats, given the lesson of September the
> 11th, we've got to deal with them.
>
> That does not mean militarily, necessarily. Obviously, the first option
> for a president has to be the full use of diplomacy.
>
> That's what you're watching in Iran right now. I see a threat in Iran.
>
> I'm, kind of, getting off subject here, but not because I don't want to
> answer your question. But I guess that's what happens in Washington, we
> get a little long-winded.
>
> (LAUGHTER)
>
> But now that I'm on Iran, the threat from Iran, of course...
>
> (LAUGHTER)
>
> (APPLAUSE)
>
> The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our
> strong ally Israel.
>
> That's a threat. A serious threat. It's a threat to world peace. It's a
> threat in essence to a strong alliance.
>
> I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military
> might to protect our ally Israel.
>
> (APPLAUSE)
>
> And at any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically.
>
> And so our message must be a united message; a message from not only the
> United States, but also Great Britain and France and Germany, as well as
> Russia, hopefully, and China -- in order to say loud and clear to the
> Iranians, "This is unacceptable behavior; your desire to having a nuclear
> weapon is unacceptable."
>
> So to answer your question, I take a practical view of doing the job you
> want me to do, which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt
> us and how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize? What do
> we do to protect us from harm? That's my job.
>
> And that job came home on September the 11th for me, loud and clear. And I
> think about my job of protecting you every day. Every single day of the
> presidency I am concerned about the safety of the American people.
>
> QUESTION: Mr. President, at beginning of your talk today, you mentioned
> that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the
> events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three
> years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken.
>
> Before we went to war in Iraq, you said there were three main reasons for
> going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was
> sponsoring terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had
> purchased nuclear materials from Niger. Now, all three of those turned out
> to be false.
>
> My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in
> their leaders and to be sure that the information they're getting now is
> correct?
>
> (APPLAUSE)
>
> BUSH: That's a great question.
>
> First, if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said --
> at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between
> September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say he was a state sponsor
> of terror.
>
> (more lies follow)
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: EVEN KING DAVID PROPHESIED GOD INCARNATE IN THE FLESH AS SAVIOUR
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/fe78c41383cd53a
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:55 am
From: "Mexican Bandolero"

"Linda Lee" <lindaleekeller.1@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1143064311.371185.194220@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Apparently, you confuse love with sex. He said nothing about 'laying'
> with either one.
>
> I don't suppose you have any love for your brothers or sisters.
>
> You're ignorant trolls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who says he is a troll?
He is a dog under training, but a slow learner.
A trick he always forgot is:
Sitting down and rubbing his balls on the ground
in a clockwise and counterclockwise rotation!
MB

==============================================================================
TOPIC: BUSH AND HIS ZIONAZIS ON THE VERGE OF MADNESS
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/813664b143d3942f
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:59 pm
From: "serwad"

The War Party in Disarray
by Justin Raimondo
It isn't looking so good for the War Party. As things fall apart on the
ground in Iraq, a similar process of disintegration is occurring on the home
front. It seems as if there are almost daily defections from the ranks,
and - as the blame game gets underway - our war birds are turning on each
other, with Donald "Super-Stud" Rumsfeld, once hailed as the War Party's
answer to George Clooney, now in the neocons' crosshairs. As for our
commander in chief, his poll numbers are at an all-time low, and he seems to
have retreated so deeply into a world of delusion that not even the outbreak
of full-scale civil war in Iraq can shock him out of his mental catatonia.

Worse yet, as the ostensible rationales for the invasion of Iraq are
debunked and fall by the wayside, the War Party's real motivation for
bringing about what Gen. William E. Odom has rightly called the biggest
strategic disaster in our history has come out in the wash. "The Israel
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a study by John J. Mearsheimer, the doyen of
foreign policy realism, and Stephen M. Walt, dean of the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard, has blasted the scales from our eyes. While
not falling into the trap of identifying the efforts of "the Lobby" as the
sole reason for the radicalization of U.S. foreign policy in the post-9/11
era, their research clearly shows that this was the decisive factor.

I have to say that this conclusion was fairly obvious early on: after all,
if all the other rationalizations - WMD, Iraq's alleged links to al-Qaeda,
uranium-pilfering in Niger - were pure bunk, then, by means of a simple
process of elimination, we come to the geopolitical explanation as the only
logical alternative. If the U.S. is systematically dismantling regimes from
Baghdad to Beirut to Tehran - and perhaps beyond - then the primary
geostrategic beneficiary leaps out at any objective analyst. As I put it way
back in 2003:

"The Iraq war, as we are beginning to discover, had nothing to do with
'weapons of mass destruction,' zero to do with al-Qaeda, and zilch to do
with implanting 'democracy' in the inhospitable soil of Iraq. The first
phase of the second Yom Kippur War is revealing, in action, the strategic
doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern policy: the installation of
Israel as regional hegemon."

I am glad to see the Kennedy School is finally catching up to the level of
analysis long available here at Antiwar.com: it's a good sign, albeit long
overdue.

Another good sign is the wellspring of hysteria that has arisen in the wake
of the study's publication. Already Alan Dershowitz has smeared the
distinguished authors as anti-Semites, and the Usual Suspects have launched
a deafening chorus of caterwauling. Among the "arguments" raised by the
study's detractors: David Duke has praised it, the Washington office of
Fatah is handing out copies, and the Muslim Brotherhood likes it, too. None
of which proves anything - except for the thesis, advanced by the study's
authors, that the role of the Lobby is to prevent any objective analysis and
rational discussion of the very "special relationship" Israel enjoys with
key U.S. policymakers.

The Mearsheimer-Walt study is an important step in identifying how and why
we are bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, but it is only a first step. The
second, third, and fourth steps will come as we unravel the complex web of
lies that lured us in on a variety of pretexts. What were the sources of the
phony "intelligence" that made U.S. policymakers believe - or pretend to
believe - Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" primed to launch at a
moment's notice? More importantly, how did this ersatz data get pumped into
the U.S. intelligence stream, and who injected it? As I wrote two years ago:

"The concept of the Iraq war as a successful Israeli covert operation is
altogether plausible. It would hardly be the first time a foreign government
made a concerted effort to drag us into war on their side. "

Those who are crying the loudest about this study are the same people who,
when confronted with the news of an FBI raid - two of them! -on the
headquarters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the
powerful pro-Israel lobby that has long dominated the debate of Middle East
policy on Capitol Hill, were either uncharacteristically silent or else in
total denial. The arrest of Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, and charges of
spying on behalf of Israel lodged against longtime AIPAC leader and spark
plug Steve Rosen, and his associate Keith Weissman, should have alerted even
the most loyal pro-Israel stalwarts that where there's so much smoke there
has to be some real fire. Seen as background to the mid-April trial of Rosen
and Weissman, the Mearsheimer-Walt study throws some real light on a
situation that has long been untenable and may now be finally coming to a
head.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

Speaking of the effort to drag us into war on Israel's behalf, I see that
The American Conservative has put my piece, "Hillary the Hawk," online.
While this very canny politician takes every opportunity to condemn the Bush
administration for misleading the American people on Iraq, she is equally
opportunistic when it comes to a very similar effort by the War Party to
menace Iran. And all too many "antiwar" Democrats are falling for it, I'm
afraid: perhaps my piece will do something to open their eyes.

In any case, I apologize for the brevity of this column: I'm in the middle
of preparing for a 10-day trip to New York and Connecticut, where I'll be
speaking to the Yale Political Union on April 10. I'm also working on a
book, tentatively titled The Bizarro War, which expands on my thesis that
9/11 blasted us into an alternate reality where the rules of logic are
inverted and the insane is the "rational."

So check out "Hillary the Hawk," and the rest of that issue of The American
Conservative, too: there is some really great stuff in there, especially
this, and this, and certainly this - not to mention this, and that.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are persons who were born in Africa and now live in America also "
African Americans"?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/54b711da16c782f4
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 3:54 am
From: sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)

On 3/22/06, T R U E <TRUE@trueart.biz> wrote:

From: "gypsy photographer" <gypsyphotographer@gmail.com>

A Program for High School Students of African Descent

www.actso.org

What is ACT-SO?
ACT-SO is an acronym for Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological
and Scientific Olympics. ACT-SO is a year long enrichment program
designed to recruit, stimulate, improve and encourage high academic
and cultural achievement among African-American high school students.

I have a question:

My daughter has a classmate in school, age 5, who is of African
descent.

Not only that, she was born in Africa, in Ghana to be exact.

Over the Christmas holidays she went back to Ghana to visit her
relatives.

Almost all of the checkout girls at the supermarket where I shop are
from Africa, by that I mean really from Africa. I can tell from the
cut marks on their faces and the strange languages they speak.

Are such people allowed to join this program? As more and more people
immigrate here from Africa, is it not a bit silly to call people whose
ancestors have been here for 250 years "African-Americans" while
excluding the real Africans from this designation?

Also, are white people who were born in South Africa and now live in
the United States "African Americans"?

Sam Sloan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: about minidisc........
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f7f91cc51510f410
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:02 pm
From: "Damned-Virus-Data Miner providers"

Hello all,
The sound that played from minidisc is such that you can hear the
background music clearly and the music is very sharp. The bass and
treble needless to be adjusted as the the music on the minidisc has
been adjusted properly....try minidisc today at your local
stores.......:-)))

From: PhD (Prof) in political science from Cambridge University.
PhD (Prof) in Neuroscience from Cambridge University.
PhD (Prof) in Technology from Cambridge University.
PhD (Prof) in Security System from Cambridge University.
PhD (Prof) in Computer Application (theory) from Cambridge
University.
PhD (Prof) in film from Cambridge University.
Bachelor degree in computer studies from Techco University.
Zakkers film director

Dr Ang Poon Kah
pu_n_ka@email.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shias add fuel to hatred with 'gangsta-rap' incitement
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/cfdd29c7dd22d1bb
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:09 pm
From: Voice Of Reason <>

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:11:15 -0800, Von Bailey
<ovbailey@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:54:33 -0500, Voice Of Reason <> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 12:19:06 GMT, God's Creator
>>>>>>><Why_Are_Gods@Always.Bro.Ke> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Thus spake God's Creator*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gangsta-Rap music now being used to stir up the
>>>>>>>> Iraq insurgents in their war against the invaders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rap songs are directed at the Sunis and the Shites
>>>>>>>> in such a way as inflame their hatreds of each other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wirq105.xml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many young people in America have allowed this violence
>>>>>>>> provoking art-form ("called Rap") to make murderers of them,
>>>>>>>> or cause them to end up dead, or in prison. :-(
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let the fools music PLAY on... :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's also a fool who blames music for the actions of human beings.
>>>>>>>These people were killing each other prior to the introduction of rap
>>>>>>>to their culture. To blame rap music for people killing each other in
>>>>>>>war zone is ridiculous. Try asking WHY the young man has these
>>>>>>>feelings of a need to kill instead of chastising the vehicle he uses
>>>>>>>to communicate these feelings. The vehicle did not create the
>>>>>>>feelings any more than rap created violence in the United States.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well then I suppose it's just a coincidence that the list of cRappers
>>>>>>(http://wayoflife.org/fbns/rapper-deathstyle.html) who have been cut
>>>>>>down in one violent way or another is long, albeit not terribly
>>>>>>distinguished.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It's no longer than a list of white mothers killing their children
>>>>>that didn't listen to rap.
>>>>
>>>>Where is that list?
>>>>
>>>Are you saying such a list of women don't exist or that the list
>>>wouldn't be as long?
>>
>>I'm saying yer mixing apples and oranges. Nice red herring.
>>
>>>>>>I suppose it's also a coincidence that one *never* has to wait too
>>>>>>long for the next news story about cRap-related violence, like the
>>>>>>shooting of Busta Rhyme's bodyguard a few weeks ago during one of his
>>>>>>recording sessions. Probably won't be long now until the next
>>>>>>cRap-related shooting and/or killing news breaks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Won't be long before some white guy kills another white guy either.
>>>>>What's your point?
>>>>
>>>>There are hundreds of millions of white guys on the planet. So one
>>>>killing another hardly defies the law of averages.
>>>
>>>There are also hundreds of millions of black guys on the planet but
>>>I'm willing to bet you have some different standard for them
>>>regardless.
>>
>>Actually, you lose again. Quite the contrary, I believe everyone
>>should be held to the same standards.
>
>LOL!!! You 'believe' you believe that (denial allows all kinds of
>delusions). Your words demonstrate that you have varying standards
>for just about everything.

Where's the evidence?

>> Which is why I oppose AA,
>
>...but say nothing about things like Alumni admissions which favor
>white people or the inherent processes that favor whites in the system
>as a whole.

Wrong, alumni admissions don't only favor white folks, they favor
equally all those who are descendants of previous students. So given
that many blacks have gone to college over the past 2 or 3 decades,
it's fair to say their children will benefit equally from alumni
connections.

>>relaxed standards, set-asides, "diversity" targets and the like. But
>>you made a nice attempt to dodge my point above about cRappers and the
>>news.
>
>You provide 'anecdotes' and presume that they represent whole groups
>of people and I point out how bigotted that is. You don't like it, to
>bad.

Wrong again, I've provided *much more* than mere anecdotes. Like a
lengthy, fact-filled list of cRappers who died young and violent
deaths, for example. And like I said, you don't even need me to point
this out, just read the daily news and sooner or later, another
cRapper will be involved in some violent news story, joining that list
of long and undistinguished miscreants. Like Busta Rhymes did a few
weeks ago.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: YOU CALL THIS "RAPE"?????
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8256272973888002
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 4:12 am
From: "Bo Raxo"

"G.Mack" <shihminlu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143082154.172187.54720@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> It's very simple, the law says that an adult having sex with an
> underage person is rape. Don't like it, move to another country or
> build a time machine, cause it's not going to change any time soon.
>
> That said, any stright adult man would have loved to have boned her at
> 14 or 40.

And you happen to know this kid is straight?

Perhaps you should use your telepathic powers for more noble purposes.

Bo Raxo

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Question "Pro-Life" Christians Are Too Cowardly to Answer
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/1f0d605fcbcefff0
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:15 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Ken Chaddock <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Ken Chaddock <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken Chaddock <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>David W. Barnes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>No Ray, in the opinion of Planned Parenthood USA and most other
>>>>>>>mainstream pro-choice organizations as well...read the literature (some
>>>>>>>of which *I* wrote) and you will see exactly what I'm talking about...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not that it matters, since "the vast majority of abortions ARE carried
>>>>>>out for "body rights" reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to Planned Parenthood USA or the CDC,
>>>>
>>>>Now you're lying since neither make any claim about "convenience".
>>>
>>> Well Ray, when you do something, it's either because it's "fun" and you
>>>like doing it, or it's *necessary* and you have to do it or suffer some
>>>unpleasant consequences or it's "convenient" and you do it because it
>>>your situation will improve or be better because you do it.
>>
>> And childbirth involves "unpleasant consequences".
>
> Yet what is an "unpleasant consequence" at one time seems not to be at
>another because most women who have abortions (presumably because they
>find pregnancy such an overwhelmingly "unpleasant consequence") go on to
>suffer this again to become mothers...hummm

Just as many women make love to their husbands and object to being
raped.

>> Thus no abortion is done for convenience and anybody who claims otherwise is a liar.
>
> For some women it may be an "unpleasant consequence" to have to
>financially support an unwanted child rather than spend her money on
>clothes and vacations and cosmetics.

Just like you spend your money on entertainment and not on starving
children.

>>> Socio-economic almost always equals convenient.
>
>> What a truly stupid statement.
>
> Bull.

So you let children die because it's convenient?

>> Apparently you think that a lifetime of poverty is merely
>> "inconvenient". Well here's a clue: Poverty kills.
>
> No, and if you (are honest enough to) recall, I said before that one
>"socio-economic" issue that borders on "body rights" would be the
>situation where another child would strain the family finances so badly
>as to cause a threat to the wellbeing of the family, particularly to
>other children...

In which case we should force YOU to provide support?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:16 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Ken Chaddock <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Ken Chaddock <chaddock@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I guess that would depend upon how your define "convenience". The
>>>definition I recognize is the one that I find in the major dictionaries
>>>of the English and American languages, like the Oxford English
>>>Dictionary and Merriam Websters...since your "definition" seems to vary
>>>from these, can you explain what *you* mean by "convenience" ?
>>
>> Since childbirth involves injury,
>
> Sometimes it does,

Always.

>> thousands of dollars in expenses
>
> as does abortion.

Liar.

>> pain,
>
> Sometimes it does,

Always.

>> and a real risk of death,
>
> Yes, there is a small chance of death as a result of pregnancy, in the
>US about 0.0043% or about 1 in 23,000 in the US...399 in 2001, or about

How many people are you allowed to murder? 0.0043%?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.

To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com