Free Republic

These "anybody but Bush" people are BIGOTS.

This is bigotry: obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own opinion and beliefs, with intolerance of opinions opposed to them. A bigot is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion - a hypocrite, especially a superstitious one.

Call them what they are.

These "anybody but Bush" people are BIGOTS.

This is bigotry: obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own opinion and beliefs, with intolerance of opinions opposed to them. A bigot is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion - a hypocrite, especially a superstitious one.

Call them what they are.

These "anybody but Bush" people are BIGOTS.

This is bigotry: obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own opinion and beliefs, with intolerance of opinions opposed to them. A bigot is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion - a hypocrite, especially a superstitious one.

Call them what they are.

These "anybody but Bush" people are BIGOTS.

This is bigotry: obstinate and unreasoning attachment to one's own opinion and beliefs, with intolerance of opinions opposed to them. A bigot is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion - a hypocrite, especially a superstitious one.

Call them what they are.

When 23 companies used to produce vaccines, why are there only two now? There was a set-to by Sens. Frist and Clinton about vaccines last year. The basic issues that affect vaccine shortages follow.

Extracts from INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN CHIDREN, Dec 2002, article by Bryan Bechtel

"Vaccines have traditionally been high-risk, low-profit ventures for pharmaceutical companies. Investors tend to shy away from vaccines because they require extensive and expensive clinical testing before licensure and tend to favor projects on potential blockbuster drugs.

"The idea of government owned or sponsored manufacturing has been proposed as one strategy, but the pharmaceutical industry has largely rejected that idea, saying it would be redundant and unnecessary. Instead, several advisory panels have suggested incentives or tax-breaks to manufacturers to keep them interested in making vaccines.

"The costs of bringing a new vaccine to market can be astronomical, but they pale in comparison to the risks companies face when those products reach consumers. There has been anecdotal evidence that cost of investment has kept some smaller biotechnology companies from participating in vaccines, but it is a well known fact that fear of liability has caused some pharmaceutical companies to drop out of the market.

"Congress created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to adjudicate claims of vaccine harm in 1986 after years of contentious litigation led some companies to stop production of vaccines. The program pays claims based on a predesigned table without the need for trial by jury.

"But now, trial lawyers have found unique ways to circumvent the process, particularly with thimerosal litigation. Several lawsuits claim thimerosal to be a contaminant, not a preservative, and therefore, not covered by the injury table, while several class-action suits seek money for medical monitoring. However, a new provision to the Homeland-Security Bill will block these claims.

"Another suggestion is a review of the regulatory process to make licensing vaccines more predictable and to make sure manufacturers stay compliant with current Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Supplies of several vaccines, including MMR and varicella (Varivax, Merck) and some formulations of hepatitis B vaccine became scarce after FDA inspections found issues with manufacturing conditions.

"Pharmaceutical companies have complained that the FDA’s current GMP are ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Meanwhile, the FDA has said that its standards are intentionally vague so they can be dynamic and reflect the latest advances in technology.

"The FDA’s licensing review process has also come under fire. While not a direct cause of vaccine shortages, regulatory requirements have made it difficult for companies to maintain viability and may be a disincentive for new companies to enter the market."

I, too, remember Hilary calling vaccine profits "obscene". I also remember a huge government stockpile of vaccine going bad in New Jersey in the nineties. Is there also a link with the anthrax and smallpox vaccine problems?

Beware of anybody who uses "motive" as an accusation. It was Stalin who boasted that he could win every debate if he could switch the arguement to "motivation." By implying bad motives like greed and revenge, you can "discover" that the opposition has been saying one thing while thinking another. Who's to prove you wrong? It's all mind-reading, but it appeals to well-coached "victims."

The weird thing is the Dems' gift for "projection." They probably, actually think he's lying, that he's power-hungry and greedy, because that's what they are. They know whereof they speak and they can make a good case for it. They can really read minds.

My underestanding is that, when telling the truth, your brain zaps over to the memory site, quick, easy. If you elect to fabricate, your brain engages in labor-intensive sorting of reasonable alternatives. This can involvce real memories or created ones, either of which are going to pump blood and activate several different parts of your brain. It has nothing to do with guilt or fear.

This testing might be very interesting if used with children who remember abuse after social workers have talked to them. They think they remember; is there such a thing as a valid, implanted memory?

You all missed the point.

Motives are feelings, unknowable (to quote somebody or other), unprovable, emotional, ephemeral, changable, personal. If one acts on the motivation, the act is immutable, finite, and affects someone else.

Conservatives, understanding human nature, recognize that unworthy motivations exist. The measure of the moral person is the extent to which he responds to positive motivations and restrains harmful ones.

Liberals, changing the playing field, takes an act and thinks back to its motivation, which, because of its unknowableness, is wide open to speculation. The only evidence of motivation is from the one injured because the actor, of course, will conceal his real motivation (which only he knows). Thus, feelings are presented as proof of injury and their flavor indicates the motivation. Hence "water buffalo" becomes a racial slur not an exasperated cry for peace and quiet. If you are black and noisy, it is more righteous to turn the accusation against the accuser than to be quiet.

It is the unknowableness of motivation that is insideous and the importance it has assumed in judgement calls. Pain and suffering, hate crimes, consumer confidence, Arab opposition, the mere mention of perception being more important than truth, prognistication rather than reporting the news, school is fun, bosses hate employees.

Philosophically, this emphasis on how you feel and that it is the responsibility of someone else to keep you happy, is self-centered and self-justifying. We have the right to pursue happiness, not demand it. We have the right to exact compensation for provable material damage not (immeasurable) emotional damage. It is the excuse socialists use to redistribute life's lottery.

I am greatly concerned than none of my responders reached the same conclusion I did. Stalin has won post mortem.

I thought I read it in "You Can Trust the Communists" but I can't find it.

This was a mind-blower for me. It explains the Bush, Zealot or Panderer articles, the rationale for hate-crimes and gun laws, the reporter who asks,"how did you feel?" instead of "what did you do?". Even the ubiquitous "No Blood for Oil."

Canny Stalin knew that reading minds was a psychological guessing game and very satisfying for crooks who want to shift blame or teachers who say education should be fun. It protects the anti-Americans who claim they are not unpatriotic. They can read your mind but you can't read theirs.

Bush is results oriented and liberals fear this. He draws lines; he sees things as won or lost, black or white, good or bad.

Help me find the quote and disseminate it.

Starbreed

Wow! what are these other ways. Don't leave us in suspense. Or else we'll think you're spoofing.

General statements as rebuttal don't wash. Gotta have numbers from the scientists. The circular reasoning in question at least had terms I could identify with. Just give a few external indicators and the name of that radioisotope they help calibrate for accuracy...

Fairfax, California, home of Johnny Jihad, hosted the first peace protests in the nation and we tried to put a stop to it. Here's what happened:

posted 10.6.01:

"For three days there's been a "Give Peace a Chance" mob perched on the steps of Fairfax, CA's bus stop. They have no permit. Their right to demonstrate was allowed by Les Tremayne, local left-wing extremist and town council member, in conspiracy with the new town manager. No permit, no meeting with other members of the council, no fees, all restrictions waived by oral agreement between the two of them. The police were ordered not to dislodge the demonstrators and the fire department was alerted to wash off the graffiti when they left each night.

"Over nineteen complaints were registered by townsfolk bringing the majority of disgust to 7.

"The police are angry at being expected to do the bidding of the petty despot Tremayne. They agree that the special treatment given the peace mob constitutes conspiracy to break the law which is a felony. They agree that having firemen wash the steps is misappropriation of town funds. They agree that the mob misrepresents Fairfax and that it is exercising its free speech by special fiat of one man in power."

We called all the local TV, radio stations and newspapers. As far as I know, nobody was interested. Fairfax, as a municpality, is controlled by the left who operate it as a private show place. We are a nuclear-free zone. We cannot plant a non-native tree in our own yard. Our Representative is Lynn Woolsey, local welfare mother, who threw a tantrum in Jesse Helms Committee. Is it any surprise that Walker-Lindh cut his hate-America teeth here?

Fairfax, California, home of Johnny Jihad, hosted the first peace protests in the nation and we tried to put a stop to it. Here's what happened:

posted 10.6.01:

"For three days there's been a "Give Peace a Chance" mob perched on the steps of Fairfax, CA's bus stop. They have no permit. Their right to demonstrate was allowed by Les Tremayne, local left-wing extremist and town council member, in conspiracy with the new town manager. No permit, no meeting with other members of the council, no fees, all restrictions waived by oral agreement between the two of them. The police were ordered not to dislodge the demonstrators and the fire department was alerted to wash off the graffiti when they left each night.

"Over nineteen complaints were registered by townsfolk bringing the majority of disgust to 7.

"The police are angry at being expected to do the bidding of the petty despot Tremayne. They agree that the special treatment given the peace mob constitutes conspiracy to break the law which is a felony. They agree that having firemen wash the steps is misappropriation of town funds. They agree that the mob misrepresents Fairfax and that it is exercising its free speech by special fiat of one man in power."

We called all the local TV, radio stations and newspapers. As far as I know, nobody was interested. Fairfax, as a municpality, is controlled by the left who operate it as a private show place. We are a nuclear-free zone. We cannot plant a non-native tree in our own yard. Our Representative is Lynn Woolsey, local welfare mother, who threw a tantrum in Jesse Helms Committee. Is it any surprise that Walker-Lindh cut his hate-America teeth here?

Re: FDR and the German nationals, masquerading as Americans, provided with funds, intent on mass terror and sabotage. They were secretly tried by a military commission, found guilty and executed within two months of landing off their submarines.

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the enemy who "without uniform, comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property" is an "unlawful combatant" who is not entitled to access our jury system. quote from Michelle Malkin's article 10.24.01.

So don't think this relates only to bin Laden, but to any illegal alien caught in the US doing or having the purpose to do bad things. The only misgiving I have is: are we at war? Does it make a difference or has Bush just jumped that gate?

Teaching how our government works is teaching facts.

Not teaching it is propaganda by repression. It is censorship. Students have the right to know the facts.

Lessee. That ought to enlist the backing of the mainstream media, the NEA, the anti-war crowd.

The Pentagon is badgered daily for the "facts" by the media. The Teachers' Union lobbies constantly against censoring obscene literature. Anti-war activists protest for equal coverage of ideas...oops, got that wrong.

I have noticed that the "others" attribute their own characteristics to us. If they practice censorship, they think we will. If they hide the facts, if they repress opposition viewpoints, if they shout down freedom of speech, they think we will. I swear they are from another planet. They really don't think like we do.

Unfortunately, following the same paradigm, we think they think like us. We support the same rights to everyone. While we see this as equality, they interpret this as weakness. Equality arms the opposition, levels the playing field, lets them confront false ideas. You can't win with that kind of competition. And winning is everything.

The Taliban = Pakistan

I need substantiation for this statement. If Taliban runs part of a government (a strategic part) that doesn't make them the whole. It appears they have been ejected from even that.

The unpleasantness with India may be largely orchestrated by this militant, but powerful, minority. Eliminating the terrorists would suit both India and Pakistan and would be a very easy position for Bush to argue.

Diplomacy and compromise never get breathing room with an uncontrollable faction shooting and bombing. ie Isreal/Palestine. Especially if neither side is properly responsible for the disruption since it comes from a third direction with a different agenda.

I firmly believe that once terrorism is defeated, the world will gratefully, maturely, relax into economic competition and make great strides toward freedom. Just as a sociopath in a family convulses normal life and exhausts resources, frays nerves and sets one member against the other, the envious rage and lies of international sociopaths frustrate concrete national growth.

Why could I open it yesterday, and not today? No WebTV trouble, or resources for that matter.

I have sent it to my savvy son and he can't get it either.

I am reading "SEVEN PILLARS OF WISDOM". The opening of Chapter I, which Lawrence subtitled "Morality of Battle", "Strangeness and Pain", and "Detachment", provides astounding insight into the mentality of the Taliban.

This might be interesting to you

Chapman a Liberal?

This writer is a snake hiding in the folds of the Conservative Chronicles. Lately, I have found him to be outrageously liberal and can't figure why CC keeps him in the company of Sowell, Limbaugh, Williams, Buckley, Coulter

The main theme of the September 20 is to change our unsuccessful policy to fit our war against terrorism. First the blame game: We neglect the Arab and Muslim world; (some would rejoice that we’re not telling them how to run their countries.) We bully them: by preventing Iraq from taking Saudi Arabia, (and they were grateful not resentful.) However, Chapman says this policy continues, “year in year out.” That is how one anthrax death in Florida gets transmogrified to epidemic proportions. We are to blame for the starving children in Iraq by means of blockade (he means sanctions by the UN), and should stop. Better we should smash Hussein on general principles. Then the children will be fed. We should make up with Iran because, although they are still supporting terrorism, they’re relatively moderate now. Our switching from hate to love should convince Iran that Usama is the only villain in this war, he hopes. We should exert pressure (again) on Israel to submit to yet another betrayal by Arafat. He ignores the fact that terrorism, what this is all about, is the major impediment to any peaceful resolution by anyone. Finally, “We shouldn’t appease those who won’t ever be satisfied”. . .(like Iraq, Iran, Palestine. . .right?)

Diversity in patriotism is his theme for September 23. He identifies first the peace activists. Then they are representatives of multiformity. Then the victims of rabid, hyper patriots. I loved especially the quote, "No soldier ever sees these socks." If that wasn’t purposeful demoralizing of war effort and injection of distrust in the nation’s leadership, I don’t know what is. That’s sedition. He resurrects the guilt for Japanese internment; (how do the polls rate Arabic deportation today? Let’s have some sensitive understanding for the rage we feel when our citizens are massacred on our own soil.) He calls forth the ubiquitous liberal phrases: “innocent people are tarred as subversives,” “Nixon’s paranoia,” “illegal surveillance,” “harassed dissidents,” “self-styled patriot,” ”questioning the war was tantamount to betraying your country,” “Either you’re a loyal American who loves the Stars and Stripes, or you’re a filthy communist.” and after 9.11, "the flurry of flag-waving" (damning with faint praise.) The last swipe is the smarmy, insinuating thought that things might go poorly and the national consensus unravel. "Some causes require committing America to war. Some causes don't." Chapman is writing this less than two weeks from 9.11.

October 11, he declares this war is different and follows with several descriptions in double negative which suggest exactly what he is denying, no mission, no chance for clear victory. Then he states that Usama struck NYC because we’re cowards and retreat a lot. Usama miscalculated because on home ground we can retreat no farther. Chapman cites those nebulous "some" voices out there who discuss the demise of the Powell doctrine -don’t use force if there is no goal, no exit strategy, no firm public support, unwillingness to use decisive force. But there is no contradiction (contradiction?), he says, since our stakes are too high. Moreover, other stronger voices insist we expand the war to Saddam Hussein, to do that thing the Powell doctrine would have properly discouraged. This is a bad thing: we can’t prove Hussein is complicit; he is so well-loved by the other muslim nations that attack on him will be attack on all, and we don’t want to fight a[nother, successful] ground war in Iraq. Hussein is going to go all wobbly seeing us project the reconstituted Powell doctrine all over Afghanistan. He won’t risk war because we can’t prove he has supplied Usama the WMD that we have never seen. We must continue the tedious and unsatisfying containment of Iraq that has starved millions of citizens, and which the other Muslim states think is stupid and futile.

Wait a minute didn’t Chapman say punish or remove Saddam Hussein?

You're proposing to self-treat yourself or your family if you think you might have anthrax? What you're suggesting is not only dangerous, it may be deadly--not only for you, but for others as well who might truly need it. If we all started stockpiling antibiotics, esp. the multi-spectrum, strong ones like Cipro, there would be none left for those who would really need them--like when flu season hits in a few weeks. And if you take an antibiotic like Cipro on a whim, then if you really got sick and needed it, it might be ineffective for you. Think of the implications of what you're suggesting. It plays into the worst fears and selfishness of the citizenry.

The implicatios that you miss is the right of the people to look to their own self-defense. The zero-sum arguement is nihilistic -- the law of supply and demand is already working. Bayer pharmaceuticals is gearing up to produce huge quantities of Cipro and the several other antibiotics successful against anthrax.

If I suspect I have been infected, I would take an antibiotic until the tests came back (two days?), and then stop or continue. This program does nothing to affect resistance.

This is not a "whim". It is a sensible precaution that I can do for myself and incidentally relieve the burden on official health professionals. I would not "stockpile" (I hear the pejorative word, hoard), just enough for the ten days needed.

Contrary to your final statement, I think self medication is the essence of self determination and independence and not wasting the time and resources of the health industry is the best way to serve my fellow citizen.

You imply we are panicky and selfish as a people. Universal examples now exist that prove the reverse. Passengers on hijacked planes do not lose their heads; inhabitants of burning, crumbling buildings do not trample each other to get to the exit. And, gun owners do not go around shooting at everything in sight.

There is a parallel with gun control in your arguement . And your solution would be to ration Cipro and distribute it to those who qualify for it. Control, delay, discrimination.

Fie on you.