Posted by Chris Mattern on 04/26/07 21:05

In article <afmdnYWdMYCqlazbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, edonline wrote:
>
>"Chris Mattern" <syscjm@sumire.eng.sun.com> wrote in message
>news:1331vk2g6306d4f@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <4630b9a3$0$9942$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, kswymford@.com
>> wrote:
>>> Perhaps you should read it. I am afraid that it just may be over your
>>>power of comprehension, however.
>>
>> Browser technology is security weak; I don't like going to sites I
>> don't trust, like those run by paranoid conspiracy nuts. Not much
>> into giving you a click count, either.
>>
>>
>
>FWIW, the piece had been printed in a few news sources, such as the
>Guardian. no worries about giving someone's personal blog or website any
>clicks.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
>
Nope, doesn't work.

No number 2. Guantanamo is not a gulag. At best, even Naomi can
only argue that it *will become* a gulag, and I don't see that
happening. They're actually trying to dismantle the place; it's
become too much of a PR disaster.

No number 3. She really reaches here. Neither security companies
or Republican poll watchers even begin to qualify as the new
Brownshirts.

Very weak number 5. She gives no evidence of real harrassment
of citizen's groups, only some evidence of surveillance.

No number 6. She gives absolutely no evidence of arbitrary
detention on any scale, only two isolated incidents, at
least one of which isn't even an arbitrary detention since
authorities apparently at one point honestly believed Yee
was guilty; they brought charges. The case fell apart,
yes. There was good amount of incompetence to go around,
but I don't see any intention to arbitrarily detain Yee.

Makes claims for number 7, but except for the firing of
eight US attorneys, offers no evidence or even any details.

No number 8. If Bush is trying to control the press, all
I can say is he should demand his money back, since he's
not getting it done. Even Naomi admits he can't do it.

No number 10. Bush shows a disturbing tendency to want to
weasel out of laws he doesn't like, but the fact is there
still rule of law here. I firmly believe that if real
evidence surfaced that Bush actually broke the law,
there would be an impeachment.

In the end, even Naomi admits there can't be a fascist
takeover like Hitler or Mussolini here. Instead, she
says, it'll be done another way. So why is she even
trying to draw analogies to Hitler and Mussolini when
she herself says it wouldn't happen that way? Why not
draw analogies with where it *did* happen the way she says?
Oh, yeah, that's right, there aren't any. Besides,
proclaiming Bush as the new Hitler is *so* much better
for making good headlines. Makes the left feel so
warm and fuzzy inside.

--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

[Back to original message]