May is Pedophilia Month on NBC the Pedo Network

[NBC is Pedo Heaven]

This is like the 7th or 8th week in a row of NBC's never ending pedo
extravaganza. Tonight they're airing yet another pedo sting marathon.
They sure love their pedos. Why don't they just switch to all pedo
programming all the time. They're almost there anyway.

Catchy advertising slogan: NBC, when you just gotta get your pedo fix

[Amber]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:20:34 -0400, NBC is Pedo Heaven
<nbcis@pedoheaven.nbc> wrote:

This is like the 7th or 8th week in a row of NBC's never ending pedoextravaganza. Tonight they're airing yet another pedo sting marathon.They sure love their pedos. Why don't they just switch to all pedoprogramming all the time. They're almost there anyway.Catchy advertising slogan: NBC, when you just gotta get your pedo fix

The only people it's bothering ARE the pedophiles.

[ameijers]

"Rich" <me@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:brfs72tgqrrqdl1pudkr6f6ildd7qj2hfj@4ax.com...

On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:20:34 -0400, NBC is Pedo Heaven <nbcis@pedoheaven.nbc> wrote:

The only people it's bothering ARE the pedophiles.

It doesn't bother me, but it does bore me. And that should scare the ****
out of the network and the advertisers. If the show is boring, I'll never
see their ads.

aem sends...

[hubcap]

NBC is Pedo Heaven <nbcis@pedoheaven.nbc> writes:

Catchy advertising slogan: NBC, when you just gotta get your pedo fix

It's good they're getting these guys busted, but you have a point there.

I lasted about five minutes on Dateline last night...

... and here's the picture this child molester posted of
his weenie...

click

-Mike "good grief"

[Bruce]

NBC is Pedo Heaven <nbcis@pedoheaven.nbc> wrote:

This is like the 7th or 8th week in a row of NBC's never ending pedoextravaganza. Tonight they're airing yet another pedo sting marathon.They sure love their pedos. Why don't they just switch to all pedoprogramming all the time. They're almost there anyway.Catchy advertising slogan: NBC, when you just gotta get your pedo fix

That idiot Chris Hansen is the worst of all. I don't think anyone
takes him seriously as a journalist except himself. The way he comes
out suddenly from behind the door, all puffed up and God-like, to
point the finger at the poor fools who fall into his entrapment net
and say "My child, you have sinned, you're going to hell. But first
there will be a little detour to jail." I'd love to see one of those
guys just pull out a gun and shoot him and the rest of the pedo
perverts from creepy justice. Then they'd finally get the ratings
they so desperately crave.

[Geoff Miller]

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes:

For hundreds of years, slavery was legal and being a woman was little better than being a slave. This is a different time, except in places like US- occupied Afghanistan.

: Excuse me? It was the U.S. "occupation" and toppling of the
: Taliban that _ended_ the oppression of women in Afghanistan.

That must be why their government now executes people for converting to Christianity.

Allow me to clarify the discussion for you. I'll type really
slowly so you can keep up. Now take your hand out of your pants
and pay attention. Ready? Here we go.

The previous poster ("Sally," apparently a paid-up member of
the Blame America First Society) wrote of the oppression of
women in Afghanistan and insinuated that it began with, and
was somehow the result of, the American occupation.

I followed up to Sally, pointing out that not only was the
oppression of women in Afghanistan *not* the result of the
American invasion and occupation, but that the toppling of
the Taliban that was the result (and the goal) of the Amer-
ican invasion actually put a _stop_ to the oppression of
women in Afghanistan: girls can now attend school legally
and openly, women are no longer forbidden to leave their
homes unless accomanied by a male relative, and women aren't
shot in the head before audiences in the Kabul football
stadium for violations of Islamic law.

http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm

How soon we forget, eh?

Then you jumped in with a comment about Christianity, Now
what in the name of sweet sheep-dipped Jesus does that have
to do with the oppression of women by the Taliban, which is
the topic of discussion? You liberals are all over the
friggin' map. You just can't stay on topic, can you?

In any case their government doesn't "execute," present tense,
people for converting to Christianity. As I recall, they
*wanted* to excute some guy (Abdul Rahman, known to his pals
as "Top"), but enough of a hue and cry went up (largely from
those evil Americans) that they didn't.

The Vietnam mentality. When will it die?

Never, I hope. There are a lot of flyblown Third World ****holes
that are in need of a serious straightening out. And there's no
one better qualified, professionally or temperamentally, to go to
those places and kick the people's asses up between their shoulder-
blades than the U.S. military.



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

[Jack F. Twist]

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message news:e5ndus$6cd@u1.netgate.net...

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes:

: Excuse me? It was the U.S. "occupation" and toppling of the : Taliban that _ended_ the oppression of women in Afghanistan.

Allow me to clarify the discussion for you. I'll type really slowly so you can keep up. Now take your hand out of your pants and pay attention. Ready? Here we go. The previous poster ("Sally," apparently a paid-up member of the Blame America First Society) wrote of the oppression of women in Afghanistan and insinuated that it began with, and was somehow the result of, the American occupation. I followed up to Sally, pointing out that not only was the oppression of women in Afghanistan *not* the result of the American invasion and occupation, but that the toppling of the Taliban that was the result (and the goal) of the Amer- ican invasion actually put a _stop_ to the oppression of women in Afghanistan: girls can now attend school legally and openly, women are no longer forbidden to leave their homes unless accomanied by a male relative, and women aren't shot in the head before audiences in the Kabul football stadium for violations of Islamic law. http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm How soon we forget, eh?

And how easily your tiny pea brain is washed of all reason and
objectivity. The fact is, the "new" government in Afghanistan is
even worse than the old one. It's still every bit a thug Islamic
theocracy, but because of U.S. involvement the "new" regime
has far more credibility than the Taliban ever had. They're still
relegating women to the sixth century, their "new" constitution
calls for Christian coverts to be executed, their primary source
of revenue is still opium/heroin production, and on and on.

It's the exact same waste of time and life that is happening in Iraq.
The lives of our sons and daughers were (and still are) sacrificed
simply to appease your infinite evil. Just like you were happy to
see the lives of over 58,000 American kids (average age: 19)
flushed directly down the toilet in Vietnam. And thousands more
in Korea.

But when all's said and done it's nothing more than natural selection
hard at work. I sincerely hope those who wish to fight and die for
nothing continue to do so. But the fact is, the last objectively noble
use of our armed services was during WWII, it's everything since
has been nothing but Pentagon military adventurism and Executive
Branch penis waving.

[Amber]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:50:24 GMT, "Jack F. Twist"
<jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> wrote:

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message news:e5ndus$6cd@u1.netgate.net...

And how easily your tiny pea brain is washed of all reason andobjectivity. The fact is, the "new" government in Afghanistan iseven worse than the old one. It's still every bit a thug Islamictheocracy, but because of U.S. involvement the "new" regimehas far more credibility than the Taliban ever had. They're stillrelegating women to the sixth century, their "new" constitutioncalls for Christian coverts to be executed, their primary source

Which is why Afghanistan needs what Cambodia had, only a little
different. Cambodian communists (when they got in, in-part thanks
to the American capitulation in Vietnam) proceded to systematically
murder all intellectuals, teachers, anyone with an education, in order
to bring in a pure Moaist agrarian system. 1.5 million people died.
What Afghanistan needs is a grassroots effort to wipe the religious
maniacs off the face of their Earth. The only way to set that country
on the road to civilization is literally to kill off all the
extremists. Short of that it is a waste of time being there.

[Geoff Miller]

Rich <me@nowhere.com> writes:

Which is why Afghanistan needs what Cambodia had, only a little different. Cambodian communists (when they got in, in-part thanks to the American capitulation in Vietnam) proceded to systematically murder all intellectuals, teachers, anyone with an education, in order to bring in a pure Moaist agrarian system.

"Thanks to the American capitulation in Vietnam?" You're a real
Blame America Firster, aren't you, Noam Chomsky?

America "capitulated" in Vietnam thanks to the American Left's
successfully undermining support for the war at home. Well, they
got what they wanted -- and then, when word about the carnage
following Communist victories in Vietnam and Cambodia got out,
they weren't responsible or intellectually honest enough to admit
what they'd done, let alone to condemn the Communist regimes.

The truth, as they say, is out there. Recommended reading:
_Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties_,
by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. The authors are former
New Left radicals.

Here's the relevant Amazon.com link: http://tinyurl.com/hzu94



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

[Jack F. Twist]

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message news:e5pinb$58m@u1.netgate.net...

Rich <me@nowhere.com> writes:

"Thanks to the American capitulation in Vietnam?" You're a real Blame America Firster, aren't you, Noam Chomsky? America "capitulated" in Vietnam thanks to the American Left's successfully undermining support for the war at home.

Oh please. More bomb tonnage was dropped in Vietnam than was
used during ALL of WORLD WAR II. They're STILL clearing
minefields over there, 30+ years later.

Vietnam was a civil war, and we had as much business getting
involved in it as the Vietnamese would have had getting involved in
our own civil war 150 years ago.

Geoff you're simply pathetic. A delusional remnant of last century's
Pax Americana.

[Geoff Miller]

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes:

: America "capitulated" in Vietnam thanks to the American Left's
: successfully undermining support for the war at home.

Oh please. More bomb tonnage was dropped in Vietnam than was used during ALL of WORLD WAR II. They're STILL clearing minefields over there, 30+ years later.

Yup. And much more would've been dropped if the support of the
electorate hadn't been subverted by the Left.

Be that as it may, whether the war could've been won by bombing
is a different matter entirely. Your focusing only on bombing
reveals your ignorance of a basic tenet of modern war-fighting:
that as useful and important as they can be, bombers can't take
and hold ground. They're a tool, not a panacea.

Vietnam was a civil war, and we had as much business getting involved in it as the Vietnamese would have had getting involved in our own civil war 150 years ago.

People today tend to forget what the world was like during the
Cold War. Containing Communism and stopping its expansion was
paramount. Many sneer at the Domino Theory today as they do at
"trickle-down economics" or "Star Wars," but it was a very real
concern at the time.

And considering what happened not just in Vietnam but also in
Cambodia, Laos, and Burma after we pulled out, the concern was
a valid one: those dominoes _did_ fall. Now, that was largely
mooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union a decade and a half
later. But we couldn't have known at the time how history would
eventually play out. And the amount of misery that resulted from
those Communist victories is incalculable, as a friend of mine who
spent four years in a Vietnamese re-education camp could attest.

Geoff you're simply pathetic. A delusional remnant of last century's Pax Americana.

Am I? Tell ya what: go do some reading, and then maybe we'll talk.




Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

[Jack F. Twist]

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message news:e5q2eu$h2c@u1.netgate.net...

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes: : America "capitulated" in Vietnam thanks to the American Left's : successfully undermining support for the war at home.

Yup. And much more would've been dropped if the support of the electorate hadn't been subverted by the Left. Be that as it may, whether the war could've been won by bombing is a different matter entirely. Your focusing only on bombing reveals your ignorance of a basic tenet of modern war-fighting: that as useful and important as they can be, bombers can't take and hold ground. They're a tool, not a panacea.

Uh, so you're claiming hundreds of thousands more ground troops
would have made a difference? It would have been another Iraq,
i.e. we'd "control" the ground upon which we stood, and no more.

You war mongers just never learn.

[Geoff Miller]

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes:

: Be that as it may, whether the war could've been won by bombing
: is a different matter entirely. Your focusing only on bombing
: reveals your ignorance of a basic tenet of modern war-fighting:
: that as useful and important as they can be, bombers can't take
: and hold ground. They're a tool, not a panacea.

Uh, so you're claiming hundreds of thousands more ground troops would have made a difference? It would have been another Iraq, i.e. we'd "control" the ground upon which we stood, and no more.

I don't recall mentioning ground troops. Moreover, your obsession
with singular approaches (more bombs, or more ground troops) only
serves to reveal your lack of sohphistication in regards to military
matters.

More of both would've been part of it, of course; it's just that
neither by itself would've been a panacea. A more aggressive
overall strategy would've made a major difference, rather than
fighting what turned into a war of attrition. Another problem
was that the war was being micromanaged from Washington, with
LBJ himself approving targets at one point.

Nuking Hanoi and Haiphong (preferably at the same time) would've
sent a pretty unambiguous message, I think. And maybe even saved
lives in the long run.

There were silly, overly restrictive rules of engagement, such as
American pilots not being allowed to fire on enemy aircraft unless
they'd been fired on first, and not being allowed to bomb and strafe
anti-aircraft emplacements in Haiphong harbor because they were
(deliberately) set up on docks adjacent to Soviet freighters --
which brought munitions and other war supplies to our enemies.

This stuff is common knowledge and in the public domain. The trouble
is, you leftists never bother to educate yourselves about suich things.
You apparently feel that actually becoming knowledgeable about warfare
and war history would taint your oh-so-pristine worldview. So instead
of fielding a credible argument, you babble ignorantly and shriek about
how "war is unhealthy for children and other living things."

You war mongers just never learn.

I'd have to say it's you defeatists who just never learn. You want
the enterprise in Iraq to fail so badly that you can taste it. Why?
Because it would harm American prestige, and since you hate America,
that would bring you joy. And so you've convinced yourselves that
it _will_ fail.



Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

[Jack F. Twist]

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message news:e5qebe$osp@u1.netgate.net...

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes:

I'd have to say it's you defeatists who just never learn. You want the enterprise in Iraq to fail so badly that you can taste it. Why? Because it would harm American prestige, and since you hate America, that would bring you joy. And so you've convinced yourselves that it _will_ fail.

To the contrary, if the only way war "works" in your book is to
nuke entire populations of civilians, I'd say you pretty much hold
a monopoly on misguided hatred. Satan is firmly on your side
not mine.

[William December Starr]

In article <e5q2eu$h2c@u1.netgate.net>,
geoffm@netgate.net said:

Yup. And much more would've been dropped if the support of the electorate hadn't been subverted by the Left.

You're right. This mighty, manly nation could never have lost
a war on its own. It must have been stabbed in the back by
weak traitors from within. Bet they were JEWS too.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>

[Amber]

On 2 Jun 2006 07:41:47 -0700, geoffm@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller)
wrote:

Rich <me@nowhere.com> writes:

"Thanks to the American capitulation in Vietnam?" You're a realBlame America Firster, aren't you, Noam Chomsky?

The American capitulation emboldened the Kymer Rouge, they as
much as said so. As for me, I wish the U.S. had invaded the North
of Vietnam and killed off the leadership. That was the only rational
way to fight that war.
-Rich

[tjab]

In article <e5qebe$osp@u1.netgate.net>,
Geoff Miller <geoffm@netgate.net> wrote:

Nuking Hanoi and Haiphong (preferably at the same time) would'vesent a pretty unambiguous message, I think.

What message would that have been?

[Jack F. Twist]

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:e5s96q$6a7@rac1.wam.umd.edu...

In article <e5qebe$osp@u1.netgate.net>, Geoff Miller <geoffm@netgate.net> wrote:

What message would that have been?

That Geoff Miller's penis is bigger than his brain.

It's the same message George W. Bush has been sending about
himself to the world for the last five years.

[trotsky]

Rich wrote:

On 2 Jun 2006 07:41:47 -0700, geoffm@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:

The American capitulation emboldened the Kymer Rouge, they as much as said so.

Yeah, and they're a credible source. Idiot.

[Amber]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:54:26 GMT, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

Rich wrote:

Yeah, and they're a credible source. Idiot.

Just as the leadership of the North Vietnamese said after the war
that the anti-war movement in the U.S. was a very important part
of their victory. Yeah, they are all liars. Sure.

[Geoff Miller]

Jack F. Twist <jack_invalid_f_twist@earthlink.net> writes:

: I'd have to say it's you defeatists who just never learn. You want
: the enterprise in Iraq to fail so badly that you can taste it. Why?
: Because it would harm American prestige, and since you hate America,
: that would bring you joy. And so you've convinced yourselves that
: it _will_ fail.

To the contrary, if the only way war "works" in your book is to nuke entire populations of civilians, I'd say you pretty much hold a monopoly on misguided hatred.

Nice attempt at diversion. We're talking about Iraq; when did I
advocate nuking Iraq? (I think we should've used a tactical nuke
on Fallujah, but since I hadn't mentioned that here until now, you
couldn't have had that in mind.)

In the case of Vietnam, yes, I think we should've nuked their two
largest cities, because that would've stood a reasonable chance of
saving lives in the long run by ending the war sooner, just like
it did in Japan.

In the case of Iran, I'd like to see us incinerate Mahmoud Ahmadin-
ejad in his bed, along with several square miles of surrounding
territory just to make sure. But again, that'd be a far cry from
"nuk[ing] entire populations of civilians."

And by the bye, why is it that when you leftists discuss the use of
nuclear weapons, you always take it as axiomatic that anyone who'd
use them would "nuke entire populations of civilians?" There are
ways of empoying atomic munitions other than the Cold War scenario
of dropping multi-megaton "city killer" nukes on cities, you know.
If you knew anything at all about warfare, you wouldn't spout st00pid
**** lik ethat.

Satan is firmly on your side not mine.

Satan? Aren't you leftists supposed to be athiests who believe in
moral relativism? Or do you just invoke symbols of absolute good
and evil when it suits your purposes to do so?



Geoff

--
"How is it that presumably rational people -- indeed, compassionate
people who weep over lost terriers and felled oaks -- blink not an
eye and shed not a tear over the massive brutality of abortion?"
-- Michael M. Uhlmann, National Review, June 6, 2006

[Geoff Miller]

William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> writes:

[bombs on Veet Nahm]

: Yup. And much more would've been dropped if the support of
: the electorate hadn't been subverted by the Left.

You're right. This mighty, manly nation could never have lost a war on its own.

Sure it could...but it didn't then.

(I note that you use "manly" as a thinly-disguised pejorative.
Only liberals engage in that sort of self-emasculation. How
sad...)

It must have been stabbed in the back by weak traitors from within. Bet they were JEWS too.

A disproportionate number of them were, actually -- as any student
of the Sixties and the New Left can tell you. Not because of any
sort of conspiracy, but because as a group, Jews tend to be further
to the left politically than the general population. The (Jewish)
columnist and talk-show host Dennis Prager has written fairly exten-
sively about that phenomenon. You might want to check out his
archived columns at http://www.townhall.com.



Geoff

--
"How is it that presumably rational people -- indeed, compassionate
people who weep over lost terriers and felled oaks -- blink not an
eye and shed not a tear over the massive brutality of abortion?"
-- Michael M. Uhlmann, National Review, June 6, 2006

[Geoff Miller]

tjab <tjab@wam.umd.edu> asks:

: Nuking Hanoi and Haiphong (preferably at the same time) would've
: sent a pretty unambiguous message, I think.

What message would that have been?

A message of the American determination to defeat the Communists in
Vietnam, Clue Bunny. What the hell message did you *think* I was
alluding to?



Geoff

--
"How is it that presumably rational people -- indeed, compassionate
people who weep over lost terriers and felled oaks -- blink not an
eye and shed not a tear over the massive brutality of abortion?"
-- Michael M. Uhlmann, National Review, June 6, 2006

[tjab]

In article <e618t9$19a@u1.netgate.net>,
Geoff Miller <geoffm@netgate.net> wrote:

tjab <tjab@wam.umd.edu> asks:: Nuking Hanoi and Haiphong (preferably at the same time) would've: sent a pretty unambiguous message, I think.

A message of the American determination to defeat the Communists inVietnam, Clue Bunny. What the hell message did you *think* I wasalluding to?

I knew what message you were alluding to. My question was a vain
effort to make you think.