You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   350-374   375-399   400-424   425-449 
 450-474   475-499   500-524   525-536       
 
Author Message
25 new of 536 responses total.
klg
response 400 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 03:48 UTC 2003

Same "Carl Worden" as mentioned in this 2002 item the Anti-Defamation 
League did on "militias?"  If so, nice try, but no cigar.


The Militia Movement 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Origins: Mid-to-late 1993
Prominent leaders: John Trochmann (Montana), Ron Gaydosh (Michigan), 
Randy Miller (Texas), Charlie Puckett (Kentucky), Mark Koernke 
(Michigan), Carl Worden (Oregon), Gib Ingwer (Ohio)
Prominent groups: Kentucky State Militia, Ohio Unorganized Militia 
Assistance and Advisory Committee, Southeastern Ohio Defense Force, 
Michigan Militia (two factions using the same name), Southern Indiana 
Regional Militia, Southern California High Desert Militia-and many 
others
Outreach: Gun shows, shortwave radio, newsletters, the Internet
Ideology: Anti-government and conspiracy-oriented in nature; prominent 
focus on firearms
Prominent militia arrests: Multiple members of the following groups 
have been arrested and convicted, usually on weapons, explosives, or 
conspiracy charges: Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, Georgia Republic 
Militia, Arizona Viper Militia, Washington State Militia, West 
Virginia Mountaineer Militia, Twin Cities Free Militia, North American 
Militia, San Joaquin County Militia.
 
gull
response 401 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 14:32 UTC 2003

When you get wayyyy out on the right, out past most of the GOP and into
the libertarian fringe, political party loyalties get hazy and don't
work quite the way you'd normally expect.  That's why I find right-wing
political shortwave broadcasts so fascinating.
tod
response 402 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 18:43 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

gull
response 403 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 19:41 UTC 2003

And having their silver-amalgam fillings removed.
happyboy
response 404 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 20:43 UTC 2003

haw!  you people have NO IDEA.


/closes the curtains, shuts off the light
 & hunkers down with bru to lissen to the
 police scanner while cleaning our guns
slynne
response 405 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 21:59 UTC 2003

I'm scared
goose
response 406 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 9 23:49 UTC 2003

RE#403 -- Could you elaborate? (I thought silver-amalgam fillngs were a good
thing to have replaced..)
klg
response 407 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 17:10 UTC 2003

Algore has issued his presidential endorsement.  "I've seen a candidate 
who has what it takes to reach out to the independent, mainstream 
Americans who will make the difference . . . particularly in the 
South," Gore said.  "He's going to send George Bush packing and bring 
the Democratic Party home."


(It didn't seem to help a lot when he said that about Michael Dukakis 
in 1988.  Any reason to think it'll be more use to Dean this time 
around?------By the way, at least in 1988 he didn't stab his loyal, 
former runningmate in the back.)
twenex
response 408 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 17:19 UTC 2003

Be sure to put that in Al Gora.
gull
response 409 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 18:42 UTC 2003

Re resp:406: A lot of fringe types believe that the mercury in
silver-amalgam fillings is dangerous.  They also won't get vaccinated
because of mercury-based preservatives used in some vaccines.  I'm not
aware of any mainstream medical science backing up those claims.
tod
response 410 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 19:24 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

klg
response 411 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 20:37 UTC 2003

Shucks!
richard
response 412 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 20:47 UTC 2003

#410..tod why do you say that?  I think Gore's endorsement only helps Dean.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush in the last election, he won the popular
election.  He is the uncrowned champion.  His endorsement carries a lot of
clout within the party.  That said, Dean didn't really need Gore's
endorsement, he was already doing just fine without it
klg
response 413 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 20:57 UTC 2003

(Certainly it must, Mr. richard!  Look at how effective Gore's 
endorsement was in the 1988 election.  Didn't Mr. Bush lose that 
election, too?)
gelinas
response 414 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 21:23 UTC 2003

(Fifteen years ago, Gore was just another senator.  Things have changed a bit
since then.)
tod
response 415 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 21:26 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

gull
response 416 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 21:47 UTC 2003

A Clark vs. Bush race would be interesting.  Or Lieberman vs. Bush. 
I've always wondered what would happen if two Republicans ran against
each other for President.
scott
response 417 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 23:36 UTC 2003

Interesting, anyway.  Lieberman tends to rub me the wrong way for some reason,
but not as much as Bush.  Dean or Clark would be interesting.
jp2
response 418 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 10 23:59 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

rcurl
response 419 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 11 01:03 UTC 2003

Lieberman is too sanctimonious for me. He is less so, though, than
Bush.
richard
response 420 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 11 07:10 UTC 2003

The problem is that Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt are traditional democrats.
They symbolize the Democratic leadership in Congress in the nineties when the
Demcrats became the minority party there.  They do not inspire any passion.
People don't care about them, they see them as politics as usual, and I do
not think they will vote out Bush in favor of someone who represents the
same-old same-old

Dean inspires a great deal of passion, particularly among younger voters. 
Gore recognizes this.  He recognizes that the party can't beat Bush without
a candidate they can get passionate about.  They can't get passionate about
and aren't getting passionate about these others.  It is Dean that has the
grass roots movement behind him and that means it is Dean who has the best
chance to beat Bush.  General Clark is the only alternative IMO and I think
there is too much distrust of the military among the party's rank and file
to nominate a general.

But what does that leave for the strongest ticket, the  ticket that could
inspire the most independent voters, and the most new voters, logically a
Dean/Clark ticket.  Face it, if Gephardt or Kerry run against Bush, a lot of
voters won't care.  They'll stay home.  They'll see the same-old same-old.
Why replace Bush with one of the Democratic leadership in Congress when many
voters think both sides have failed in recent years?  To win, to beat Bush,
the Democrats must give the voters someone different, someone outside
Washington who has shown political skills and the willingness to get right
in Bush's face and stare him down.  That is Howard Dean.
remmers
response 421 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 11 12:30 UTC 2003

According to a story in today's New York Times, Bush's advisers are
now assuming that Dean will be his opponent in 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/politics/campaigns/11REPU.html?hp
other
response 422 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 11 15:29 UTC 2003

I'm assuming America will be his opponent.
twenex
response 423 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 11 15:51 UTC 2003

rotflmao. How true.
remmers
response 424 of 536: Mark Unseen   Dec 11 17:15 UTC 2003

(We can hope...)
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   350-374   375-399   400-424   425-449 
 450-474   475-499   500-524   525-536       
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss