David Lynch's Fascinating Visions

David Lynch, director of "Mulholland Drive," "Blue Velvet," the hit TV series "Twin Peaks" and more, will be on the Monday, March 4 show of "The Screen Savers" at 7 p.m. Eastern.   Read about what makes Lynch fascinating from "Screen Savers" segment producer Sarah Lane.

http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/showtell/story/0,24330,3374072,00.html

Craig Ranapia

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."

Emma Goldman

One for the perverse files… Not pornographic, but certainly not recommended for those with nervous dispositions, heart conditions or taking medication.

http://geocities.com/georgewgirls/

Craig Ranapia

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."

Emma Goldman

"I'm against pork as well, but what I was talking about isn't exactly
pork.
They actually have no idea where 25% of the money that goes to the
Pentagon
ends up, and I'm not talking about "black budget" stuff."

It's my understanding that this is a problem that plagues all government
agencies, and I think it is truly a slap in the face of every American
taxpayer that agencies that suffer from disappearing funds are not
audited by an outside company immediately and thoroughly.

It's easy to harp on about the evil of corporate America because their
dirty laundry is aired on the 6:00 news, but this type of corruption has
never been limited to the private sector, in fact, if history is any
indicator it's usually MORE RAMPANT in government because there is no
capitalist competition factor that keeps them in check.

It's obvious that, in the private sector, if you're flim-flamming an
operation like Enron, it's only a matter of time before it catches up
with you.  However, the same can not be said of government operations
who's budgets increase EVERY YEAR no matter what their level of
performance.

Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: GREYEYED@... [mailto:GREYEYED@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:46 AM
To: lynch-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lynch-list] Democrats want to STOP spending?!?!?!

In a message dated 02-03-01 00:11:40 EST, you write:

<< Chad:
  God help me, I'm actually in total agreement with you.  We need a fit
of
  what I call Kosher Government - NO PORK!  Of course, pig becomes mighty
  tasty when it's being served up in your district - all the Democrats
are
  interested in making sure the barbecue is going to their voters and
  contributors!
  Craig Ranapia  >>

I'm against pork as well, but what I was talking about isn't exactly
pork.
They actually have no idea where 25% of the money that goes to the
Pentagon
ends up, and I'm not talking about "black budget" stuff.  The 60 Minutes

piece had a guy who was supposed to be an accountant (or auditor or
something) for the Pentagon, and he recounted a story of trying to
discover
what happened to a specific 300 million dollars.  His supervisor asked
him
why he cared about "this stuff" (which strangely--or maybe not so
strangely--reminded me of the "X-Files").  To reiterate, the SUPERVISOR
of
the auditor asked the AUDITOR why he cared about actually AUDITING.

I don't believe he ever did find out what happened to that money,
primarily
because no one seemed to care--the guy couldn't get anywhere in his
investigation due to apathy or stonewalling.  The 60 Minutes piece ended
by
citing how much money was "lost" by the Pentagon during the time it took
to
air the segment, and it was astronomical--indeed, it made the 300
million
"lost" dollars look like a routine occurance.

Chad
greyeyed@...


Community email addresses:
   Post message: lynch-list@egroups.com
   Subscribe:    lynch-list-subscribe@egroups.com
   Unsubscribe:  lynch-list-unsubscribe@egroups.com
   List owner:   lynch-list-owner@egroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.egroups.com/community/lynch-list

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  1:12:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, "RRGSC `"
<geoffciani@...> writes:

> <<A fetus.  Honestly, I don't think it's a question that can ever be
> settled.  Some will always decide it's a human from conception, some will
> disagree.  The problem for those who disagree is deciding at what point the
> fetus *does* become human.  On what basis do you make such a call?>>
>
> Well, without the abortion, the fetus develops into a human, you agree with
> THAT, no?

Sure.

> I say it's always a human. It has human DNA, no????? It's not a feline or a
> canine - it's a human!   :)

But is it a person in the same sense that you or anyone else is?

> As Brian said, there are points when limbs form, heart starts beating, it
> REACTS to pain stimuli as a baby would - it's HUMAN!   :)

The above apply to lots of non-human living things as well.

> Liberals love rationalizing the fact that this unborn human (and make no
> mistake, without the procedure, these inevitably become human - with THE
> SAME DNA!!) - it's, well....sad.

So who's worse, me, who doesn't equate a fetus with a person and supports
abortion rights out of concern for women--or you, who cheerfully insists a fetus
is a baby, a person, unmistakably human, who really doesn't give a shit about
the consequences for desperate women and girls if abortion isn't legally
available, and who nevertheless thinks there aren't enough abortions and would
love to see more?

> ALl I do know is if I punched a pregnant woman REALLY HARD in the stomach,
> and that child died, I would be charged with murder.

In which states?  Under what criteria?

> <<This is a highly dubious proposition.  In fact, it's well known that the
> gap between income for the guys at the top of corporations and the peons
> beneath them has been steadily widening over the years.>>
>
> And it will forever increase! That does not mean that all boats do not rise
> (they do). And things DO trickle down in economics.

Uh-huh.  Like piss on a urinal mint.  You really fall for that laughable
nonsense, huh?  You're exactly the kind of tool Ken Lay (used to) thank his
lucky stars for every day.

Garry

In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  3:47:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
GREYEYED@... writes:

> There is a cool special on PBSU that dives into statistics about the 20th
> century.  We sometimes forget about the convenience of washing machines,
> dryers, wrinkle-free clothes, microwaves, refrigerators, etc.  The amount of
> time spent doing chores has gone down dramatically in 80-100 years, and the
> amount of time spent with children has gone up (contrary to popular belief).
> On the whole, life has become much more convenient for everyone.

That's entirely beside the point.  Christian and Geoff insist that the poor are,
well, less poor than they were in the past, which is a pretty vague assertion. 
Exactly what time frame are we talking about here?

Garry

In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  4:53:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
GREYEYED@... writes:

> In a message dated 02-02-27 11:31:00 EST, you write:
>
> << Chad, since when have you started having your e-mails ghost written by
> Geoff and/or Christian?  You seem to miss the point, but I'm not going to
> rehash it.
>
>  Garry >>
>
> I didn't miss the point.  You're saying that criminals who are rich are
> treated differently than criminals who are poor--even with minor traffic
> infractions.  You're not going to change that with community service.
>
> I simply feel that pushing around the responsibility for criminal
> behavior--especially at such a low level as traffic infractions--is silly.
> No matter what your income, you know the consequences for breaking said law.
> If you can't afford it, don't break the law and you have nothing to worry
> about.

I'm sorry, but that's not relevant to my point.  Pretty much everyone is going
to get a speeding ticket sometime in their lives, sometimes honestly without
realizing you were past the limit.  With a set fine, you are de facto handing a
lesser punishment to the well-off than the to the poor.  $150 fine will mean
next to nothing to you if you're Bill Gates--or even if you "only" earn in six
figures or less.  But a guy who makes, say, $18,000 pushing a broom will likely
have a serious problem on his hands.  It could conceivably fuck up his life big
time.  It's inarguably unfair.

Garry

In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  5:03:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, "RRGSC `"
<geoffciani@...> writes:

> <<I simply feel that pushing around the responsibility for criminal
> behavior-especially at such a low level as traffic infractions--is silly.>>
>
> The Voice of Reason - you tell him, Chad!!   :)
>
> <<No matter what your income, you know the consequences for breaking said
> law.
> If you can't afford it, don't break the law and you have nothing to worry
> about.>>
>
> It really is that simple!   :)

It's that simple to you because you have the ethical sense of a pit viper,
Geoff.

Garry

> Christian and Geoff insist that the poor are, well, less poor than they were
in the past, which is a pretty vague assertion.  Exactly what time frame are we
talking about here?
>
>
Any time frame that you like, Garry.

It's called progress and its not a vague assertion at all.  In fact, its been
the key feature that has defined this country since its inception.  What is
vague is how you choose to define the word "poor" -- always based purely on some
absolute dollar figure, or the gap between the rich and the poor, or anything
based purely on money alone where you know that you can manipulate the data to
support your position.  It's an incredibly vague definition because -- in
essence -- you are denying the reason that money even exists -- to purchase
goods and services.

The real measure of wealth in a society is not who has what money, but who can
purchase what and when. I could have a trillion dollars and be stuck on a desert
island,  would you call me wealthy?  Why?

The key here is what you can do with your money, and, thanks to the free market,
we live in a world where our purchasing options are ever expanding, hence by
comparison a poor person today is by definition much better off than a poor
person twenty years ago.

	 If you can't see that your money continually buys you a better product with
more value, like a safer car, or a faster computer, etc., and that what's
important here is not the arbitrary dollar figure, but the real value figure,
then I don't know how to explain this to you.

	 Christian...

> ----------
> From:  GarryDMessick@...
> Reply To:  lynch-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent:  Friday, March 1, 2002 12:00 PM
> To:  lynch-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:  Re: [lynch-list] Just Wondering
>
> In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  3:47:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
GREYEYED@... writes:
>
> > There is a cool special on PBSU that dives into statistics about the 20th
> > century.  We sometimes forget about the convenience of washing machines,
> > dryers, wrinkle-free clothes, microwaves, refrigerators, etc.  The amount of
> > time spent doing chores has gone down dramatically in 80-100 years, and the
> > amount of time spent with children has gone up (contrary to popular belief).
> > On the whole, life has become much more convenient for everyone.
>
> That's entirely beside the point.  Christian and Geoff insist that the poor
are, well, less poor than they were in the past, which is a pretty vague
assertion.  Exactly what time frame are we talking about here?
>
> Garry
>
>
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: lynch-list@egroups.com
>   Subscribe:    lynch-list-subscribe@egroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  lynch-list-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>   List owner:   lynch-list-owner@egroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.egroups.com/community/lynch-list
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  5:09:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, James
Sweeney <jim.sweeney@...> writes:

> I think Jesus did pray in public.  However, he was against using prayer as a
> public show of piety.

Look at that quote again.  Clearly, JC would not have condoned people gathering
in groups and praying.  He's pretty explicit on the subject.

Garry

<<But is it a person in the same sense that you or anyone else is?>>

Is a 2month old a person in the same sense as a 10 year old? As a 40 year
old? As a 90 year old?

Let me ask this:
In your mind, what's the difference between a fetus and a person.

<<The above apply to lots of non-human living things as well.>>

True. But we are discussing a developing stage in HUMAN fetuses, which if
left alone, WILL develope into a human! I'm not talking about other species.

<<So who's worse, me, who doesn't equate a fetus with a person and supports
abortion rights out of concern for women->>

Ahh! All in the name of the well-being of the women!   :)

What if Suzie Slut doesn't want to have an abortion but Johnny Dirtbag does?
Are you concerned about poor Johnny Dirtbag and the child support he's gonna
have to pay?

<<-or you, who cheerfully insists a fetus is a baby, a person, unmistakably
human,>>

How anyone can argue that a fetus ISN'T human seems to me beyond the realm
of reasonableness!

<<who really doesn't give a shit about the consequences for desperate women
and girls if abortion isn't legally available,>>

I don't give a shit about them! Much like I don't give a shit about the
heroine addict who can't get his fix because heroine is illegal!

<<and who nevertheless thinks there aren't enough abortions and would love
to see more?>>

Wouldn't you, a supporter for women, want more women to excercise their
right to choose?

<<In which states?  Under what criteria?>>

I'll look into that - but I know for a fact that such cases have happened.


>(they do). And things DO trickle down in economics.

<<Uh-huh.  Like piss on a urinal mint.  You really fall for that laughable
nonsense, huh?  You're exactly the kind of tool Ken Lay (used to) thank his
lucky stars for every day.>>

Come on Garry!

:)

You know that tax cuts are good for all! You just don't want to admit it,
because than it will take money from Suzie SLut and her bastard child!

Geoff

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

<<Pretty much everyone is going to get a speeding ticket sometime in their
lives, sometimes honestly without realizing you were past the limit.  With a
set fine, you are de facto handing a lesser punishment to the well-off than
the to the poor.  $150 fine will mean next to nothing to you if you're Bill
Gates--or even if you "only" earn in six figures or less.  But a guy who
makes, say, $18,000 pushing a broom will likely have a serious problem on
his hands.  It could conceivably fuck up his life big time.  It's inarguably
unfair.  >>

INARGUABLY?!?! The Leader of Failed Liberal Ideologue has spoken! He weilds
his Tourch of Enlightment so that it can shine for all to see!

:)

Seriously Garry, sometimes people HONESTLY don't know they're speeding? Last
time I checked, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it!

As Chad said, if you know you're poor, and you don't want to pay a
violation, then BE VERY CAREFULE and don't violate any traffic laws!

Is Chad the only reasonable liberal on this list???

Geoff

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

<<It's that simple to you because you have the ethical sense of a pit viper,
Geoff.>>

No Enlightened One!   :)
It's that simple because it's THAT SIMPLE - exactly as Chad wrote it.

Besides, you must factor in that the poor have inferior cars, and therefore,
cannot often speed as fast as those who are better off!

Ya know, I think I know the solution here! Raise the minimum wage - that's a
logical liberal conclusion! $5.25 an hour??? That's not fair! That's not
family values! So let's raise it. To what should we raise it?
Hmmmm....$6.25? Is that family values? No - no, no, no! $10 per hour?
Closer, but still not quite fair....hmmmm....I KNOW!! Why not guarantee
every American a six-figure salary!

There's the solution, Garry! Guarantee every American a minimum wage of
$100,000 annually, and it will be fair!

:)

Seriously though, you seem to be forgetting that:

Driving is not a right; DRIVING IS A PRIVILIDGE!!!!!

Geoff

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: GarryDMessick@... [mailto:GarryDMessick@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:57 AM
To: lynch-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lynch-list] Just Wondering

In a message dated Wed, 27 Feb 2002  1:12:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, "RRGSC `" <geoffciani@...> writes:

> <<A fetus.  Honestly, I don't think it's a question that can ever be
> settled.  Some will always decide it's a human from conception, some will
> disagree.  The problem for those who disagree is deciding at what point the
> fetus *does* become human.  On what basis do you make such a call?>>
>
> Well, without the abortion, the fetus develops into a human, you agree with
> THAT, no?

Sure.

> I say it's always a human. It has human DNA, no????? It's not a feline or a
> canine - it's a human!   :)

But is it a person in the same sense that you or anyone else is?

> As Brian said, there are points when limbs form, heart starts beating, it
> REACTS to pain stimuli as a baby would - it's HUMAN!   :)

The above apply to lots of non-human living things as well.

> Liberals love rationalizing the fact that this unborn human (and make no
> mistake, without the procedure, these inevitably become human - with THE
> SAME DNA!!) - it's, well....sad.

So who's worse, me, who doesn't equate a fetus with a person and supports abortion rights out of concern for women--or you, who cheerfully insists a fetus is a baby, a person, unmistakably human, who really doesn't give a shit about the consequences for desperate women and girls if abortion isn't legally available, and who nevertheless thinks there aren't enough abortions and would love to see more?

> ALl I do know is if I punched a pregnant woman REALLY HARD in the stomach,
> and that child died, I would be charged with murder.

In which states?  Under what criteria?

> <<This is a highly dubious proposition.  In fact, it's well known that the
> gap between income for the guys at the top of corporations and the peons
> beneath them has been steadily widening over the years.>>
>
> And it will forever increase! That does not mean that all boats do not rise
> (they do). And things DO trickle down in economics.

Uh-huh.  Like piss on a urinal mint.  You really fall for that laughable nonsense, huh?  You're exactly the kind of tool Ken Lay (used to) thank his lucky stars for every day.

Garry





Community email addresses:
  Post message: lynch-list@egroups.com
  Subscribe:    lynch-list-subscribe@egroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  lynch-list-unsubscribe@egroups.com
  List owner:   lynch-list-owner@egroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://www.egroups.com/community/lynch-list

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:29:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Brian"
<cabrian@...> writes:

Garry writes:
> I'm pro-choice because the fact is that many women will get abortions
> whether the practice is legal or not.  If women get illegal, back-room
> abortions, or try to perform them themselves, they may well end up
> killing or seriously injuring themselves *as well* as their unborn
> child, which is what often happened years ago.  So I think abortion
> needs to be a legal option, within certain limits.
>
> **So if the consensus is with the side of doing something objectively,
> legally and morally wrong you will go along with it?

I don't care about consensus, I'm talking about my own opinion.  And I'm not
sure how objectively wrong it is.  Legally wrong?  No, I feel it should be
legal. It IS legal in this country, within certain restrictions.

The same arguments
> were used against slavery - "I'm personally opposed to it but I think it
> should be kept legal."

Apples and Oranges.  It's an entirely different issue and has no bearing.  A lot
of people are against drinking but don't support prohibition.  Are these people
being misguided relativists?

> For me it's not a question of whether the fetus is alive.  Of course it
> is.  But it is far from being a person until perhaps it has reached the
> stage of being viable outside the womb.
>
> **You said earlier you don't argue that the fetus is alive.  The
> viability question is most interesting because it is further
> rationalization for what we know to be evil.

Are you assuming I agree with you that it's evil?

We've established
> life and it is an actual being that exists, not defined by what that
> being can accomplish in function.  It is not a "potential person" but a
> life who is yet to function as fully developed.

Depends on your definition of person.  I would say the fetus is a potential
person. I don't assign the same value to it that I would someone who is already
out and around in the world.  Clearly, despite the DNA, there is a huge
difference.  Chimps are 97% genetically identical to humans.  Should they be
entitled to 97% of the rights we enjoy?

> > As I said, I don't support late term abortion.
> >
> > **I'm glad to hear that and think if this country would have
> > substantive debates and inquiries about abortion we could easily
> > outlaw the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortions.
>
> I do support the option of late term abortion if the mother's life is at
> risk.
>
> **We're just making headway, don't equivocate now.

Do you deny that there are ever instances where a mother's life is at risk?  If
so, shouldn't her life take precedence?

> But I have a question for you.  I'm pretty sure you'd say a fetus is
> fully a person at inception.  So do you subscribe to the notion that
> abortion is murder?  Even a very early one?  Is it as heinous a crime
> as, say, shooting a convenience store clerk or is murder murder, period?
>
> **Yes, to your above questions.

So logically, if you support long prison terms or perhaps the death penalty for
murder one (surely an abortion is premeditated), you would support those
punishments for women who have abortions and the people who perform them?

Garry

In a message dated Thu, 28 Feb 2002  8:15:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
"steve_lukeman_13" <steve_lukeman_13@...> writes:

> That is a pretty close paraphrase.
>
> It is refering to individuals, not groups. Church is a public place.
> So is Congress.

Exactly.  And Jesus specifically says don't go out in public to pray, go into
your room alone and shut the door.  So it seems even praying in church wouldn't
meet with his approval either.

Garry

<<I believe abortion should be legal for rape/incest, or when the mother's
life is in danger.>>

Whenever someone brings this up the abortion argument always becomes more
interesting!   :)

From the RIght, it brings 'moral' contradiction to their 'normal' stance -
rationalized hypocricy.

In fact, I think most pro-life folk usually leave room for these exceptions
to the pro-life rule. What is the Church's position on this, Brian?

I think the mother's life being in danger carries more weight in terms of
consistancy for the righties than does the rape scenario. (How many women
actually become pregnant from getting raped each year? How many women get
raped per year? How much MORE likely is it for a black man to rape a white
woman than it is for a white man to rape a black woman? Of rapes committed,
what is the breakdown in diversity of the rape offenders?)

<<I guess overall I believe that it should be kept legal for safe and
sanitary abortions, because as Garry has already stated, these young girls
in trouble would seek out some back alley shit>>

Hmmmm....just like dope addicts. Should we legalize heroine (I'm not being
sarcastic, I'm being serious? Since the government is placing abusive taxes
on cigarettes, shouldn't they just legalize all drugs, and put an even more
abusive tax burden on them?)

<<The one thing I can't stand is women who have had multiple abortions and
think it's just as good a birth control device as any, or older women or
more financially stable women (not little girls) who decide that they need
an abortion because having a baby would be "inconvenient".>>

Agreed! Those are often of the femi-Nazi types - they like excercising the
Sacred Sacrament of RADICAL feminism (which is not at all representative of
the average American woman!)

<<The only thing that pisses me off more than hat is these stupid fuckers
(not to make generalizations here, but most are fanatical
Christians/Catholics etc., and/or right wing) who picket and scream at the
women going into the clinics, try to interfere with the doctors etc.,>>

Or the one's who actually MURDER doctors who perform abortions!   :)
That's a bit hypocritical! Much like the anti-War protesters who blew up
government buildings 'in the name of peace', pro-life folk who murder 'in
the name of life' - well, I don't think I need to explain.

:)

<<Because adopting a baby would be "inconvenient"...(Oh, and another
classic: most pro-lifers are anti birth control)>>

CLONE!!

:)

Geoff

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

<<I believe abortion should be legal for rape/incest, or when the mother's
life is in danger.>>

Whenever someone brings this up the abortion argument always becomes more
interesting!   :)

From the RIght, it brings 'moral' contradiction to their 'normal' stance -
rationalized hypocricy.

In fact, I think most pro-life folk usually leave room for these exceptions
to the pro-life rule. What is the Church's position on this, Brian?

I think the mother's life being in danger carries more weight in terms of
consistancy for the righties than does the rape scenario. (How many women
actually become pregnant from getting raped each year? How many women get
raped per year? How much MORE likely is it for a black man to rape a white
woman than it is for a white man to rape a black woman? Of rapes committed,
what is the breakdown in diversity of the rape offenders?)

<<I guess overall I believe that it should be kept legal for safe and
sanitary abortions, because as Garry has already stated, these young girls
in trouble would seek out some back alley shit>>

Hmmmm....just like dope addicts. Should we legalize heroine (I'm not being
sarcastic, I'm being serious? Since the government is placing abusive taxes
on cigarettes, shouldn't they just legalize all drugs, and put an even more
abusive tax burden on them?)

<<The one thing I can't stand is women who have had multiple abortions and
think it's just as good a birth control device as any, or older women or
more financially stable women (not little girls) who decide that they need
an abortion because having a baby would be "inconvenient".>>

Agreed! Those are often of the femi-Nazi types - they like excercising the
Sacred Sacrament of RADICAL feminism (which is not at all representative of
the average American woman!)

<<The only thing that pisses me off more than hat is these stupid fuckers
(not to make generalizations here, but most are fanatical
Christians/Catholics etc., and/or right wing) who picket and scream at the
women going into the clinics, try to interfere with the doctors etc.,>>

Or the one's who actually MURDER doctors who perform abortions!   :)
That's a bit hypocritical! Much like the anti-War protesters who blew up
government buildings 'in the name of peace', pro-life folk who murder 'in
the name of life' - well, I don't think I need to explain.

:)

<<Because adopting a baby would be "inconvenient"...(Oh, and another
classic: most pro-lifers are anti birth control)>>

CLONE!!

:)

Geoff

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

So what do you conservatives make of Judicial Watch, the conservative group that
sued the Clinton administration six ways to Sunday now bringing suits against
the Bush administration?  Has Limbaugh been ranting about this?  Personally, I'm
laughing my ass off.

Garry

> So what do you conservatives make of Judicial Watch, the conservative group
that sued the Clinton administration six ways to Sunday now bringing suits
against the Bush administration?  Has Limbaugh been ranting about this? 
Personally, I'm laughing my ass off.
>
Honestly this is the first time I'm hearing about it, but Limbaugh is much more
critical about Dubya than you would think.  He's been incredibly critcal of
Dubya's stance on CFR for one thing.

Christian...

> ----------
> From:  GarryDMessick@...
> Reply To:  lynch-list@yahoogroups.com
> Sent:  Friday, March 1, 2002 12:59 PM
> To:  lynch-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:  [lynch-list] Judicial Watch--my heroes!
>
> So what do you conservatives make of Judicial Watch, the conservative group
that sued the Clinton administration six ways to Sunday now bringing suits
against the Bush administration?  Has Limbaugh been ranting about this? 
Personally, I'm laughing my ass off.
>
> Garry
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: lynch-list@egroups.com
>   Subscribe:    lynch-list-subscribe@egroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  lynch-list-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>   List owner:   lynch-list-owner@egroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.egroups.com/community/lynch-list
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

In a message dated Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:50:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
"jonnyangel" <junkopardner@...> writes:

>
> Then there's the famous "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye
> of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." In other
> words, damn near impossible. There are one or two other rather harsh remarks
> attributed to him about the rich, but I can't remember them
> offhand.
>
> Garry
I
> remember seeing that satirical book cover spoof of Bill Gates "Build a bigger
> needle, breed a smaller camel" Always made me chuckle....Good to see you back
> Garry :)

Thanks, Jonathan.  I've been back for about a week now,  Where've you been?

Garry

<<Depends on your definition of person.>>

Geeze! First Slick Willy, now Garry the Liberal!

<<I would say the fetus is a potential person.>>

You gotta be fucking joking!   :)
Garry's full of shiot now - a potential person?  :)
That's ridiculous! Funny....but ridiculous.   :)

<<I don't assign the same value to it that I would someone who is already
out and around in the world.  Clearly, despite the DNA, there is a huge
difference.  Chimps are 97% genetically identical to humans.  Should they be
entitled to 97% of the rights we enjoy?>>

Nice try!

We're not speaking of the genetic similarities between different species.
We're not even speaking of the genetic make-up of what makes one a human.

We ARE speaking about the genetic make-up of an individual, from fetus to
human - it's the SAME!!

So if the fetus (or 'potential person' :) of you're next child is in the
womb - we are speaking of the genetic make-up of said fetus and said human
to follow.

And besides, we can't give apes 97% of our right! The NAACP would go ape (no
pun)! I mean, blacks only got 3/5 representation of a person, and had no
rights, some rights, or all rights depending upon where they were located
and during which era.

:)

Geoff


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

I have no problem...none, nada, zero, zip, zilch with condoms,
contraceptive cream, the rythem method, etc. for birth control.

I don't think they should be handed out to HS students though. Tell
them, in school, point blank exactly what might/will happen to them
if they have sex even once.

Let the parents decide if they should give their kids birth control
methods, like the ones I mentioned above.

I'm not sure yet about various pills.

There was a birth control pill that was out before "Are you
for '86'"?. That was better than the original pill. I'm not clear on
the name, but I remember reading about it.

Then there are certain positions which are less likely to get a girl
pregnant. Based on how her parts are made up.

Steve

--- In lynch-list@y..., "RRGSC `" <geoffciani@h...> wrote:
> <<In regards to abortion, what do you (those conservative or
antichoice)>>
>
> "Antichoice" - talk about liberal rhetoric!   :)
>
> <<think about pills such as RU486 (the morning after pill), again,
just
> wondering?>>
>
> I'm sure the pro-life crowd is likely against that, being they
believe life
> starts at conception.
>
> However, myself, being pro-ABORTION - I think instead of handing
out condoms
> in school - they should give every female over the age of 13 such
pills -
> just in case they happen to be naughty!
>
> :)
>
> Geoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Fair opinion.

I think a more appropiate observation (on my part) would be "A few
taxes are ok, even necassary, but don't go overboard".

The gov't has clearly gone overboard.

Steve

--- In lynch-list@y..., James Sweeney <jim.sweeney@m...> wrote:
> That's not what I got from the statement.  When the religious
leaders asked
> Jesus if he was in favor of paying taxes to the Romans, they were
trying to
> trap him.  Either answer would be potentially damaging.  Jesus'
response
> underlined the notion that taxation is a purely human concern and
that money
> itself is meaningless with respect to God's eternal kingdom.  His
answer was
> pointedly neutral  :)
>
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat022.html#17
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mar/Mar012.html#17
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk020.html#22
>
> Jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: steve_lukeman_13 [mailto:steve_lukeman_13@y...]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:03 AM
> > To: lynch-list@y...
> > Subject: [lynch-list] Re: Just wondering
> >
> > When he says, give to Rome what is theirs and give to God/The
Church
> > what is theirs. In other words, make up your mind about who you
want
> > to serve.
> >
> > This is a statement against gov't and taxation.

> There was a birth control pill that was out before "Are you
> for '86'"?. That was better than the original pill. I'm not clear on
> the name, but I remember reading about it.

It used to be called RU486. The FDA just approved another 'version' of it,
called mifepristone. From what I understand it is a very high dose of
estrogen and progesterone (basically, an extremely potent version of a birth
control) that will cause a woman's body to shed the lining of the uterus and
consequently expel anything that might be attached to it.

It's obviously extremely controversial - it's been available in Europe as
RU486 since the late 80s, from what I can remember. You can't just get a
bottle prescribed. You need to have a doctor confirm that you are pregant
and you have 49 days from conception to legally take the drug - the doctor
gives you one pill and monitors the results. It's been referred to also as
"the morning after pill" or "the abortion pill".

I can't really confirm, but I suspect that it is also part of a rape
treatment kit.

> Then there are certain positions which are less likely to get a girl
> pregnant. Based on how her parts are made up.

Yes, you're correct. Like, you won't get pregnant if you have sex standing
up. Also, if you jump up and down after sex, or douche with pepsi after sex
you won't get pregnant. You can also get pregnant from blowjobs or dry
fucking.

And normally I wouldn't say this, because I would think this is obvious, but
the above is SARCASM. Steve, your lack of knowledge about reproduction
scares me.

--Elena

p.s. Geoff, Christian, Garry - I'm going backward here - I've got a lot of
catching up to do! Sheesh you guys are outta control!

LOL...Geoff, how do REALLY feel about them?

Seriously, I believe you forgot "Fucking Traitors".

Steve

> Don't be too shocked! It's DEFENSE SPENDING they want to cut!
> Those fucking bastards!! Scum bag, low life, prick-nosed, cock-
sucking
> bastards!!  :)
>
> What a misguided bunch.

Actually, in theory, there is no need for a "State", that is gov't.

This is the true definition of anarchy...each and every one of us
deciding for ourselves how to run our lives.

I suppose I like this idea even better, knowing full well that there
will be abortions and drug abuse...but since there would be a lack of
gov't, there would not be any gov't officials to arrest you for
politey informing someone of the hazards of abortion.

Drug use...well, over time we would become a more moral society.
Resulting in less drug use.

This is why libs hate the idea of anarchy and also why they continue
to paint it as a bad thing.

Steve

>Steve's statement seemed to suggest an "either/or" proposition,
which isn't
> there at all--in fact, Steve's statement would seem to suggest we
need to
> merge the state with religion, which seems completely contrary to
the
> statement.  The realm of spirituality/God is far too holy to be
muddled in
> with taxes and the politics of men.)
>
> Chad
> greyeyed@a...

Princess Di had the right idea by trying to ban land mines.

If they get banned, then there is no need to spend $$$ on military
equipment to detect them. And the civilian defense contractors and
many hi-tek companies, who, I suspect, make them, could spend their
r 'n d $$$ on other things as well.

Steve

--- In lynch-list@y..., GREYEYED@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 02-02-28 16:57:27 EST, you write:
>
> << Don't be too shocked! It's DEFENSE SPENDING they want to cut!
>  Those fucking bastards!! Scum bag, low life, prick-nosed, cock-
sucking
>  bastards!!  :)
>
>  What a misguided bunch. >>
>
> If they found out where that 25% of missing funds goes to in the
Pentagon,
> they would in effect have a 33% increase in funding with no
additional funds.
>
>
> I should run for congress.  I could solve all these problems just
by watching
> 60 Minutes!
>
> Chad
> greyeyed@a...

Henry "Dr. Strangelove" Kissinger was/is secretly a commie globalist
scumbag. And a war profiteer.

His decisions concerning foriegn affairs were affected by his
business dealings.

I have no problem with charging him with war crimes. Him and him
alone, this means NOT disparaging "Tricky Dick" who I believe was set
up. More or less.

Steve

--- In lynch-list@y..., "Christian Twiste" <christian.twiste@d...>
wrote:
>
>
COLLEGE PARK, Maryland (AP) -- A few weeks before ordering an
escalation of the Vietnam War, President Nixon matter-of-factly
raised the idea of using a nuclear bomb. The notion was quickly shot
down by national security adviser Henry Kissinger.

Nixon's abrupt suggestion, buried in 500 hours of tapes released
Thursday at the National Archives, came after Kissinger laid out a
variety of options for stepping up the war effort, such as attacking
power plants and docks, in an April 25, 1972, conversation in the
Executive Office Building.

"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," Nixon responded.

"That, I think, would just be too much," Kissinger replied.

"The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" Nixon asked. "I just want
you to think big."

The following month, Nixon ordered the biggest escalation of the war
since 1968.

In a 1985 interview, Nixon acknowledged that he had considered "the
nuclear option."

He told Time magazine then: "I rejected the bombing of the dikes,
which would have drowned 1 million people, for the same reason that I
rejected the nuclear option. Because the targets presented were not
military targets."

Nixon showed less regard for the North Vietnamese in his 1972 taped
conversations.

In a conversation from June, he told domestic adviser Charles
Colson, "We want to decimate that goddamned place."

He added: "North Vietnam is going to get reordered. ... It's about
time, it's what should have been done long ago."

The conversations were in the archives' largest-ever release of Nixon
tapes. The material covers mostly the first six months of 1972,
including everything from Nixon's groundbreaking trip to China to the
early days after the Watergate break-in.

With this release, historians and researchers for the first time are
being allowed to use their own recording equipment to copy the Nixon
tapes.

"The sheer volume and contents of the tapes will give historians and
others plenty of research opportunities," said Karl Weissenbach,
director of the Nixon Presidential Materials staff at the archives.

The archives now has made public roughly 1,700 of the 3,700 hours of
conversations Nixon taped. Most of the segments related to Watergate
had been previously released, but the new tapes contain a few
additional conversations, and include full conversations where
previously only excerpts had been available.

The public now can hear what was said before and after the infamous
181/2-minute gap in the Watergate tapes three days after the break-
in, and hear the full context of the "smoking gun" snippet, which
revealed that the president was interested in using the CIA to derail
the FBI's investigation of the break-in.

"This time, you're getting the total historical perspective and
complete context surrounding the Watergate break-in," Weissenbach
said.

If there is a road in your town that needs fixing (or built), it may
not get done. The Sociocrats took that $$$ for themselves. A few
repubs too, I think.

Steve

--- In lynch-list@y..., "Craig Ranapia" <high_windows@y...> wrote:
> Chad:
>
>
>
> God help me, I'm actually in total agreement with you.  We need a
fit of
> what I call Kosher Government - NO PORK!  Of course, pig becomes
mighty
> tasty when it's being served up in your district - all the
Democrats are
> interested in making sure the barbecue is going to their voters and
> contributors!
>
>
>
> Craig Ranapia
>
> "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."
> Emma Goldman

Dead link :~(

It happens with this internet thingy...

Steve

--- In lynch-list@y..., "Craig Ranapia" <high_windows@y...> wrote:
> One for the perverse files. Not pornographic, but certainly not
> recommended for those with nervous dispositions, heart conditions or
> taking medication.
>
> http://geocities.com/georgewgirls/
>
>
> Craig Ranapia
>
> "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."
> Emma Goldman