Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: brzezinski - as a member of the guess-who-camp

Expand Messages
  • LeaNder
    ... can ... the ... circles, i ... If his intention was to be chased and kicked out by the security guards and stage himself as a fake-martyr ] he no doubt
    Message 1 of 19 , May 1, 2007
      > > What do you mean here, Vig? [see below: Relevance?] One definitely can
      > > argue that Zbig has the advantage of being outside the power circles
      > > that acted on / or had to act in the post 9/11 environment.
      >
      >
      > VMANN: so? whether or not luke is secretly evil has no relevence to the
      > matter at hand. neither does zbig's access to the POST 911 power circles, i
      > would suggest.

      If his intention was to be chased and kicked out by the security guards and  stage himself as a fake-martyr ] he no doubt succeeded.

      Concerning Zbig's access to  power, yes that is something I consider important, and it  is mirrored in Luke's film. He point out older decisions by Zbig in his movie , to him Zbig really is the guilty one, after all he helped create this guys. That's what he seems to suggests.  Pol Pot does not matter in this context, but the Taliban matter no doubt.  Why didn't he confront him with this, instead of insulting him??

      The problem is at the moment Zbig stands for the anti-war front. He stands against the war-mongers. Have  you noticed that Brzezinski (as Sean) is put into the the guess-who-camp by now?:

      Brzezinski finds fault

      "By lumping Lieberman into this mix (and by mentioning only him and not McCain, for example), Brzezinski seems to be pointing to the nefarious influence of... guess who?"

      Which brings us full circle, everybody who criticizes the neocon's WWIII/IV is anti-American and anti-Semitic. [As there is a tendency to put the whole left without further consideration into this guess-who-camp. Anti-Authoritarianism of cause is not good in time of war. In times of war people have to obey take orders. Is this what your Luke wants to support? Does he fear people start to think if WWIII/IV is really something they should support? Many different voices seem agree on these basics. And I think that is what Sean calls: Neocon op. A loose network of supporters and their actions. Pretty similar to Al Qaeda]
      >
      >
      >
      > As one could> definitely confront him with his own earlier decisions, BUT
      > whatever> despot Saddam was, Iraq was secular and not "islamofascist". This
      > should> not be allowed to slip down the memory hole. This is a very central
      > > issue. And it is at the center of interest for many people,>
      > > understandably.
      > > > Now what could make you want to attack Brzezinski now, he is among the
      > > few that has apparently been a consistent critic of the WWIII/IV
      > > neocon strategy? And that is the reason why people are listening to Zbig
      > > now.
      >
      >
      > VMANN: well, luke and the boys also confronted willian kristol, iirc. zbig
      > just happened to be speaking at the local YMCA.


      "just happened to be speaking at the local YMCA". Noticed at the last moment? not much time to think about how to confront him? not much time to think about why he should be confronted now at all???

      Or do you mean to express: he  is simply on a list of people that should be confronted and insulted no matter what there they say or stand for at the time????
      >
      >
      >
      > > I can't believe this mad act is a neocon directed op, but I ask myself
      > > what feeds the heightened emotionality of this guy, his anger his
      > > madness his prejudice and stupidity. And the only thing that comes to
      > > mind in this context is the constant fear rap and ideas from right wing
      > > circles.
      >
      >
      > VMANN: what evidence is there of heightened emotionality, prejudice and/or
      > stupidity? also, give relevance.


      I do not know your Luke, never heard of him before and maybe should consider the possibility that he hurls insults at people at a regular basis without experiencing the slightest emotional attacks. I haven't known somebody like this before, admittedly.  Insulting  expresses for me immense helplessness and a heightened emotional state that finds a valve in this actions. 


      > > What is this guy's intent? What makes him so sure that Zbig is the
      > > ultimate evil NOW? The only motive I can see is he does not want people
      > > to listen to him, why??? Is he supporting the government, the war on
      > > terror?
      > > Don't you agree it was a badly planned and stupid act?
      >
      >
      > VMANN: well, to be honest, seeing these young kids doing this stuff warms
      > my heart. i was in a similar position with the feminazis, back in the day.
      > vigilius haufniensis


      You are easy to please. Are the feminazis you met the source of your personal frustration? Or is this tag obliquely meant for me? Don't bother to answer, coming from you: I'll wear it as a badge of honor.
    • Vigilius Haufniensis
      ... If his intention was to be chased and kicked out by the security guards and stage himself as a fake-martyr ] he no doubt succeeded. VMANN: not sure what
      Message 2 of 19 , May 1, 2007
        > VMANN: so? whether or not luke is secretly evil has no relevence to the
        > matter at hand.
        neither does zbig's access to the POST 911 power circles, i
        > would
        suggest.

        If his intention was to be chased and kicked out by the security guards and  stage himself as a fake-martyr ] he no doubt succeeded.
         
         
        VMANN:  not sure what you mean, since he got away.  relevance?
         


        Concerning Zbig's access to  power, yes that is something I consider important, and it  is mirrored in Luke's film. He point out older decisions by Zbig in his movie , to him Zbig really is the guilty one, after all he helped create this guys. That's what he seems to suggests.  Pol Pot does not matter in this context, but the Taliban matter no doubt.  Why didn't he conront him with this, instead of insulting him??
        The problem is at the moment Zbig stands for the anti-war front. He stands against the war-mongers. Have  you noticed that Brzezinski (as Sean) is put into the the guess-who-camp by now?:
        Brzezinski finds fault
        "
        By lumping Lieberman into this mix (and by mentioning only him and not McCain, for example), Brzezinski seems to be pointing to the nefarious influence of... guess who?"
         
         
        VMANN:  yeah, luke and the dudes have also confronted neocons.  theyre not "pro trilateral" like sean.  theyre against globalists generally.
         


        Which brings us full circle, everybody who criticizes the neocon's WWIII/IV is anti-American and anti-Semitic. [As there is a tendency to put the whole left without further consideration into this guess-who-camp. Anti-Authoritarianism of cause is not good in time of war. In times of war people have to obey take orders. Is this what your Luke wants to support? Does he fear people start to think if WWIII/IV is relly something they should support? Many different voices seem agree on these basics. And I think that is what Sean calls: Neocon op. A loose network of supporters and their actions. Pretty similar to Al Qaeda]
         
         
        VMANN:  it seemed to me that luke was for national sovereignty.  and against false flag terror.
        are we, in fact, at war?
         
         
         
         

        > VMANN: well, luke and the boys also confronted willian kristol, iirc. zbig
        > justhappened to be
        speaking at the local YMCA.


        "just happened to be speaking at the local YMCA". Noticed at the last moment? not much time to think about how to confront him? not much time to think about why he should be confronted now at all???
        Or do you mean to express: he  is simply on a list of people that should be confronted and insulted no matter what there they say or stand for at the time????
         
         
        VMANN:  again, you are changing the subject from brzezinski to luke.
        luke stood up and asked a question.  then he was attacked.  ever been in that position?
         
         
         
         

        > VMANN: what evidence is there of heightened emotionality, prejudice and/or
        > stupidity? also,
        give relevance.


        I do not know your Luke, never herd of him before and maybe should consider the possibility that he hurls insults at people at a regular basis without experiencing the slightest emotional attacks. I haven't known somebody like this before, admittedly.  Insulting  expresses for me immense helplessness and a heightened emotional state that finds a valve in this actions. 
         
         
        VMANN:  so, youre saying that he is blameworthy, because he was in a "heightened emotional state" after standing up and being attacked for answering a question?  are the security guards also blameworthy for attempting to physically attack him and steal his tape?  what about the crowd?
        are americans only praiseworthy if they sit back and maintain a socially casual attitude after false flag terror attacks, not becoming "emotionally aroused" enough to question any government figure, no matter how many times these figures openly call for more false flag terror?



        > VMANN: well, to be honest, seeing these young kids doing this stuff warms
        > my heart. i was
        in a similar position with the feminazis, back in the day.
        > vigilius
        haufniensis


        You are easy to please. Are the feminazis you met the source of your pesonal frustration? Or is this tag obliquely meant for me? Don't bother to answer, coming from you: I'll wear it as a badge of honor.
         
         
        VMANN:  so, now YOURE the martyr, not luke?  nice try.  nice subject change too.
        in college, i was bullhorned whenever i would try to go to class by feminazis who got tens of thousands of dollars to write essays about how "the system" was against them and who would jump in my face with bullhorns and say WHY DO YOU HATE ME?  which is like saying "WHY DO YOU BEAT YOUR WIFE?"
        or "WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS?"
        boo hoo hoo.  perhaps it is your position that, while people who oppose the neocons should be allowed to do so, anyone who questions the trilaterialists or the CFR should be hauled off to The Ovens?
        vigiluis haufniesis
      • LeaNder
        ... change too. in college, i was bullhorned whenever i would try to go to class by feminazis who got tens of thousands of dollars to write essays about how
        Message 3 of 19 , May 1, 2007
          > VMANN:  so, now YOURE the martyr, not luke?  nice try.  nice subject change too. in college, i was bullhorned whenever i would try to go to class by feminazis who got tens of thousands of dollars to write essays about how "the system" was against them and who would jump in my face with bullhorns and say WHY DO YOU HATE ME?  which is like saying "WHY DO YOU BEAT YOUR WIFE?" or "WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS?" boo hoo hoo.  perhaps it is your position that, while people who oppose the neocons should be allowed to do so, anyone who questions the trilaterialists or the CFR should be hauled off to The Ovens?
          > vigiluis haufniesis

          no
        • Sean McBride
          1. I m a globalist only in the sense that I believe that the world needs to work together on those pressing problems that require cooperation across borders,
          Message 4 of 19 , May 1, 2007
            1. I'm a "globalist" only in the sense that I believe that the world needs to work together on those pressing problems that require cooperation across borders, and that ethnic nationalism and religious nationalism, and all forms of provincialism, are confining and boring.  I'm for meritocracies and talentocracies across the board, including internationally (which also means you couldn't find a better friend of most Jews than myself).  I also have strong libertarian instincts which make me suspicious of all schemes by global (AND local) enterprises to acquire too much power.
             
            2. Luke the Mook: he fits the classical profile of an agent provocateur -- people keep falling for these same tired tricks over and over again.  I don't know that is he one, but if he behaves like one, same difference.  He didn't simply question Brzezinski, he rudely assaulted him with a pile of ignorant verbal abuse.  I repeat: ZB is one of the few people on the planet capable of preventing the neocons from pushing the United States completely over the cliff into Armageddon.  This idiot is attacking the wrong target.  Foreign policy realists have plenty of skeletons in their closets, but the neocons are much, much worse.  In the real world, it always comes down to the lesser of two evils.


            Vigilius Haufniensis <thehatefulnerd@...> wrote:
            > VMANN: so? whether or not luke is secretly evil has no relevence to the
            > matter at hand. neither does zbig's access to the POST 911 power circles, i
            > would suggest.

            If his intention was to be chased and kicked out by the security guards and  stage himself as a fake-martyr ] he no doubt succeeded.
             
             
            VMANN:  not sure what you mean, since he got away.  relevance?
             


            Concerning Zbig's access to  power, yes that is something I consider important, and it  is mirrored in Luke's film. He point out older decisions by Zbig in his movie , to him Zbig really is the guilty one, after all he helped create this guys. That's what he seems to suggests.  Pol Pot does not matter in this context, but the Taliban matter no doubt.  Why didn't he conront him with this, instead of insulting him??
            The problem is at the moment Zbig stands for the anti-war front. He stands against the war-mongers. Have  you noticed that Brzezinski (as Sean) is put into the the guess-who-camp by now?:
            Brzezinski finds fault
            "
            By lumping Lieberman into this mix (and by mentioning only him and not McCain, for example), Brzezinski seems to be pointing to the nefarious influence of... guess who?"
             
             
            VMANN:  yeah, luke and the dudes have also confronted neocons.  theyre not "pro trilateral" like sean.  theyre against globalists generally.
             


            Which brings us full circle, everybody who criticizes the neocon's WWIII/IV is anti-American and anti-Semitic. [As there is a tendency to put the whole left without further consideration into this guess-who-camp. Anti-Authoritariani sm of cause is not good in time of war. In times of war people have to obey take orders. Is this what your Luke wants to support? Does he fear people start to think if WWIII/IV is relly something they should support? Many different voices seem agree on these basics. And I think that is what Sean calls: Neocon op. A loose network of supporters and their actions. Pretty similar to Al Qaeda]
             
             
            VMANN:  it seemed to me that luke was for national sovereignty.  and against false flag terror.
            are we, in fact, at war?
             
             
             
             

            > VMANN: well, luke and the boys also confronted willian kristol, iirc. zbig
            > justhappened to be speaking at the local YMCA.


            "just happened to be speaking at the local YMCA". Noticed at the last moment? not much time to think about how to confront him? not much time to think about why he should be confronted now at all???
            Or do you mean to express: he  is simply on a list of people that should be confronted and insulted no matter what there they say or stand for at the time????
             
             
            VMANN:  again, you are changing the subject from brzezinski to luke.
            luke stood up and asked a question.  then he was attacked.  ever been in that position?
             
             
             
             

            > VMANN: what evidence is there of heightened emotionality, prejudice and/or
            > stupidity? also, give relevance.


            I do not know your Luke, never herd of him before and maybe should consider the possibility that he hurls insults at people at a regular basis without experiencing the slightest emotional attacks. I haven't known somebody like this before, admittedly.  Insulting  expresses for me immense helplessness and a heightened emotional state that finds a valve in this actions. 
             
             
            VMANN:  so, youre saying that he is blameworthy, because he was in a "heightened emotional state" after standing up and being attacked for answering a question?  are the security guards also blameworthy for attempting to physically attack him and steal his tape?  what about the crowd?
            are americans only praiseworthy if they sit back and maintain a socially casual attitude after false flag terror attacks, not becoming "emotionally aroused" enough to question any government figure, no matter how many times these figures openly call for more false flag terror?



            > VMANN: well, to be honest, seeing these young kids doing this stuff warms
            > my heart. i was in a similar position with the feminazis, back in the day.
            > vigilius haufniensis


            You are easy to please. Are the feminazis you met the source of your pesonal frustration? Or is this tag obliquely meant for me? Don't bother to answer, coming from you: I'll wear it as a badge of honor.
             
             
            VMANN:  so, now YOURE the martyr, not luke?  nice try.  nice subject change too.
            in college, i was bullhorned whenever i would try to go to class by feminazis who got tens of thousands of dollars to write essays about how "the system" was against them and who would jump in my face with bullhorns and say WHY DO YOU HATE ME?  which is like saying "WHY DO YOU BEAT YOUR WIFE?"
            or "WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS?"
            boo hoo hoo.  perhaps it is your position that, while people who oppose the neocons should be allowed to do so, anyone who questions the trilaterialists or the CFR should be hauled off to The Ovens?
            vigiluis haufniesis

          • LeaNder
            My last note for a while!!! [B-)] Promised! Meritocracy is what it is all about for the neocon s too, simply some do more merit rule than others: If you
            Message 5 of 19 , May 1, 2007
              My last note for a while!!! B-) Promised! 
              Meritocracy
              is what it is all about for the neocon's too, simply some do more merit rule than others:

              If you follow the links from the site below to campus watch you can see that Juan Cole is simply an-un-meriting-scholar, or put another way: his scholarship is deemed insufficient. And did you know, that he desperately tries to leave Michigan, but since he has no merits no other university wants him? something he does not tell his blog readers? Too bad, he does not ruminate the standard Bernard Lewis line of thought: Everything you ever wanted and needed to know about the Middle East.  Oh Rashid Khalidi is another non-merito-crat.


              Brown University's Middle East Studies Workshop 

              By Cinnamon Stillwell
              Brown University, with a Middle East studies department currently offering no courses and losing one of its few professors in the field, is hosting a workshop titled "The Study of the Middle East and Islam: Challenges After 9-11" on May 3-4.
              ...
              The fear of accountability on display across the board at the Brown University workshop speaks to the latent power of public scrutiny over the onceinsulated world of academia and in particular, Middle East studies. Itwas in fact the attacks of 9-11 that galvanized oppositionto the intellectual bullying characteristic of the field. The resulting hysteria may be an indication that such professors are at last feeling the pressure.

              One can only hope.

              Cinnamon Stillwell is the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch.
              Contact Cinnamon and read her website and blog."


              http://www.campus-watch.org/weblog/id/67
               

              The full story of Cole and Yale, "Juan Cole and Yale: The Inside Story," was written by David White for Campus Watch and published August 3, 2006. Here are three key paragraphs from White's article:

              According to several insiders, Cole's scholarship, which severalprofessors deemed insufficient, was the decisive factor in the finaldecision against his appointment. Cole faced strong opposition fromsome of the most senior, influential, and highly-regarded members ofYale's history department, including prominent Yale historians DonaldKagan and John Lewis Gaddis. And that was kiss of death, because theSenior Appointment Committee wants a faculty vote that's nearlyunanimous.

              About the blog (emphasis added):

              Regarding the role played by Cole's often polemicalblog, sources close to Yale's decision argued that although it openedthe eyes of many professors, it hardly killed Cole's chances. As Yalepolitical science professor Steven Smith explained, "It would be verycomforting for Cole's supporters to think that this got steamrolledbecause of his controversial blog opinions. The blog opened people'seyes as to what was going on. He was a kind of stealth candidate. Ididn't know anybody that knew about this coming in; he was just kind ofsmuggled. And I think the blog opened people's eyes as to who this guywas, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something aboutthe quality of his mind.

              And:

              A current Yale political science professor argued, "when it came tocrunch time, of course the blog was a factor, but it's not what peoplelooked at most seriously. At the end of the day, it wasn't his blog; itwas his scholarly work. And that's why he was denied the position."

              Cole was also turned down for a job at Duke last year, although hehasn't argued that he was treated unfairly by external agitator typesin that case. In fact, he hasn't mentioned it all on his blog, perhapsbecause he didn't want to draw attention to his efforts to leaveMichigan, since he wrote on his blog last June that he wasn't trying toleave Ann Arbor:

              Second, it is important in interpreting these things to know whoinitiated the looking. I am not actively seeking other employment, anddid not apply to Yale; they came to me and asked if they could look atme for an appointment.

              Another Campus Watch article, again written by David White: "Cole Case," covers the Duke story and strikes a familiar cord on Cole's academic record:

              [A]ccording to several professors familiar with the proceedings,Cole's presentation was unimpressive. According to [Malachi] Hacohen,'It was one of the worst job talks I have heard in my life,' '[it was]logically faulty,' and 'the talk seemed as if it were directed more toCNN viewers than to an academic audience.' Michael Munger, chair of Duke's department of political science, explained that Cole's lecture'was just not at a level we were expectingÂ…it was more like anundergraduate lecture.'


              I start to understand why you keep calling them revolutionaries.  reminds me of the Culture Revolution. This grandiosity makes me sick.  I met a couple of  professors, I couldn't stand, but on none of them I would have wished this manhunt.

              Strange very, very strange.




              --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride <smcbride2@...> wrote:
              >
              > 1. I'm a "globalist" only in the sense that I believe that the world needs to work together on those pressing problems that require cooperation across borders, and that ethnic nationalism and religious nationalism, and all forms of provincialism, are confining and boring. I'm for meritocracies and talentocracies across the board, including internationally (which also means you couldn't find a better friend of most Jews than myself). I also have strong libertarian instincts which make me suspicious of all schemes by global (AND local) enterprises to acquire too much power.
              >
              > 2. Luke the Mook: he fits the classical profile of an agent provocateur -- people keep falling for these same tired tricks over and over again. I don't know that is he one, but if he behaves like one, same difference. He didn't simply question Brzezinski, he rudely assaulted him with a pile of ignorant verbal abuse. I repeat: ZB is one of the few people on the planet capable of preventing the neocons from pushing the United States completely over the cliff into Armageddon. This idiot is attacking the wrong target. Foreign policy realists have plenty of skeletons in their closets, but the neocons are much, much worse. In the real world, it always comes down to the lesser of two evils.

              http://www.campus-watch.org/weblog/id/67

              The full story of Cole and Yale, "Juan Cole and Yale: The Inside Story," was written by David White for Campus Watch and published August 3, 2006. Here are three key paragraphs from White's article:

              According to several insiders, Cole's scholarship, which severalprofessors deemed insufficient, was the decisive factor in the finaldecision against his appointment. Cole faced strong opposition fromsome of the most senior, influential, and highly-regarded members ofYale's history department, including prominent Yale historians DonaldKagan and John Lewis Gaddis. And that was kiss of death, because theSenior Appointment Committee wants a faculty vote that's nearlyunanimous.

              About the blog (emphasis added):

              Regarding the role played by Cole's often polemicalblog, sources close to Yale's decision argued that although it openedthe eyes of many professors, it hardly killed Cole's chances. As Yalepolitical science professor Steven Smith explained, "It would be verycomforting for Cole's supporters to think that this got steamrolledbecause of his controversial blog opinions. The blog opened people'seyes as to what was going on. He was a kind of stealth candidate. Ididn't know anybody that knew about this coming in; he was just kind ofsmuggled. And I think the blog opened people's eyes as to who this guywas, and what his views were.... It allowed us to see something aboutthe quality of his mind."


              >
              >
              > Vigilius Haufniensis thehatefulnerd@... wrote: > VMANN: so? whether or not luke is secretly evil has no relevence to the
              > > matter at hand. neither does zbig's access to the POST 911 power circles, i
              > > would suggest.
              >
              > If his intention was to be chased and kicked out by the security guards and stage himself as a fake-martyr ] he no doubt succeeded.
              >
              >
              > VMANN: not sure what you mean, since he got away. relevance?
              >
              >
              >
              > Concerning Zbig's access to power, yes that is something I consider important, and it is mirrored in Luke's film. He point out older decisions by Zbig in his movie , to him Zbig really is the guilty one, after all he helped create this guys. That's what he seems to suggests. Pol Pot does not matter in this context, but the Taliban matter no doubt. Why didn't he conront him with this, instead of insulting him??
              > The problem is at the moment Zbig stands for the anti-war front. He stands against the war-mongers. Have you noticed that Brzezinski (as Sean) is put into the the guess-who-camp by now?:
              > Brzezinski finds fault
              > "By lumping Lieberman into this mix (and by mentioning only him and not McCain, for example), Brzezinski seems to be pointing to the nefarious influence of... guess who?"
              >
              >
              > VMANN: yeah, luke and the dudes have also confronted neocons. theyre not "pro trilateral" like sean. theyre against globalists generally.
              >
              >
              >
              > Which brings us full circle, everybody who criticizes the neocon's WWIII/IV is anti-American and anti-Semitic. [As there is a tendency to put the whole left without further consideration into this guess-who-camp. Anti-Authoritarianism of cause is not good in time of war. In times of war people have to obey take orders. Is this what your Luke wants to support? Does he fear people start to think if WWIII/IV is relly something they should support? Many different voices seem agree on these basics. And I think that is what Sean calls: Neocon op. A loose network of supporters and their actions. Pretty similar to Al Qaeda]
              >
              >
              > VMANN: it seemed to me that luke was for national sovereignty. and against false flag terror.
              > are we, in fact, at war?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > VMANN: well, luke and the boys also confronted willian kristol, iirc. zbig
              > > justhappened to be speaking at the local YMCA.
              >
              > "just happened to be speaking at the local YMCA". Noticed at the last moment? not much time to think about how to confront him? not much time to think about why he should be confronted now at all???
              > Or do you mean to express: he is simply on a list of people that should be confronted and insulted no matter what there they say or stand for at the time????
              >
              >
              > VMANN: again, you are changing the subject from brzezinski to luke.
              > luke stood up and asked a question. then he was attacked. ever been in that position?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > VMANN: what evidence is there of heightened emotionality, prejudice and/or
              > > stupidity? also, give relevance.
              >
              > I do not know your Luke, never herd of him before and maybe should consider the possibility that he hurls insults at people at a regular basis without experiencing the slightest emotional attacks. I haven't known somebody like this before, admittedly. Insulting expresses for me immense helplessness and a heightened emotional state that finds a valve in this actions.
              >
              >
              > VMANN: so, youre saying that he is blameworthy, because he was in a "heightened emotional state" after standing up and being attacked for answering a question? are the security guards also blameworthy for attempting to physically attack him and steal his tape? what about the crowd?
              > are americans only praiseworthy if they sit back and maintain a socially casual attitude after false flag terror attacks, not becoming "emotionally aroused" enough to question any government figure, no matter how many times these figures openly call for more false flag terror?
              >
              >
              >
              > > VMANN: well, to be honest, seeing these young kids doing this stuff warms
              > > my heart. i was in a similar position with the feminazis, back in the day.
              > > vigilius haufniensis
              >
              > You are easy to please. Are the feminazis you met the source of your pesonal frustration? Or is this tag obliquely meant for me? Don't bother to answer, coming from you: I'll wear it as a badge of honor.
              >
              >
              > VMANN: so, now YOURE the martyr, not luke? nice try. nice subject change too.
              > in college, i was bullhorned whenever i would try to go to class by feminazis who got tens of thousands of dollars to write essays about how "the system" was against them and who would jump in my face with bullhorns and say WHY DO YOU HATE ME? which is like saying "WHY DO YOU BEAT YOUR WIFE?"
              > or "WHY DO YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS?"
              > boo hoo hoo. perhaps it is your position that, while people who oppose the neocons should be allowed to do so, anyone who questions the trilaterialists or the CFR should be hauled off to The Ovens?
              > vigiluis haufniesis
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.