You "feel" the need to insult us and maintain the belief that we are wrong about whatever we are speaking about, but you do not offer the tiniest bit of intelligent thought to back up whatever opinion you have. There is a reason for this - you have no intelligent argument to address the facts within this website. You can only make the feeblest attempt to attack us without showing a single shred of evidence to back up your argument, whatever that argument is. All you can muster up is a weak opinion in essence stating, "You are wrong because you disagree with me." Moreover, you do this without offering a single fact. Whatever level of education you have, you are an insult to it. Congratulations, your e-mail is an insult to all intelligent and rational thinking people everywhere. You have just proved many points stated in the editorial "Are You A Liberal". You must be the pride of the Liberal community in your area as your e-mail displays the level of intolerance that is inherent with the Liberal mindset today.
None of this is unusual. This is exactly what we expect from those that believe as you do. You do not possess the ability to argue facts, so you resort to insults based on nothing more than "feelings" and emotional filled hysterical rhetoric and ranting rather than any sort of "intelligent" argument to back up whatever opinion you are trying to convey.
You have no argument. You do not even have a good excuse.
--TOP--
E-mails from Tami Vashon
1 of 2
29 November 2008
Tami Vashon wrote:
Instead of wasting a web page on bashing the ALF, why don't you join the fight to abolished animal cruelty. Animal Rights activists are growing nation wide, We are Doctors Lawyers, Teachers, Nurses, Parents Air Traffic Controllers, CEO's . We will all continue to do whatever is necessary to stop the exploitation, abuse, suffering. "You must be a Sarah Palin Fan"
Sincerely, Tamara Vashon, Proud Animal Rights Activist
We are not bashing the ALF, we are reporting on their actions and apparently accurately because you did not dispute a single fact. It is very reassuring to hear that animal cruelty will be a distant memory and soon thanks to your involvement. You never did share with us the actual career field that you found worthy of your time. Which one are you - a Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Nurse, Parent, Air Traffic Controller, or CEO?
The problem is that if we do not do something to fight the fire bombings and the vandalism of neighborhoods, then who will. If we do not stand against the evil that advocates people to take the law into their own hands and deal out justice as they see fit with no oversight, then what will happen to society? While you continue to take the law into your own hands and do whatever you "feel" is necessary to justify the violence against others who have not broken any laws, we will be there to keep a record.
"More and more I come to the view that in a really tremendous world struggle, with a great moral issue involved, neutrality does not serve righteousness, for to be neutral between right and wrong is to serve wrong."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, (Morrison letters, Vol. 8, 903; Morrison, Elting, "The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 volumes, Harvard University Press, 1851-54.)"
While you took the time to bring it up, "Yes," everyone here is a Sarah Palin fan. What we believe in resonates with like-minded people. We all believe in equal rights, free speech, and equal opportunity for ALL women, not just the Liberal ones. We do not discriminate. We also believe in respecting the law, something that the left seems unable or unwilling to do. Did you ever notice that if you are a drug addict, serial offender, criminal, or on welfare, you are ten times more likely to support the Liberal/Democrat candidate? This absolutely means that at no point would we ever confuse you with a Sarah Palin fan. It would be our guess that just as we are all Sarah Palin fans, you are probably an Ernesto "Che" Guevara fan.
--TOP--
E-mails from Tami Vashon
2 of 2
29 November 2008
Tami Vashon wrote:
The Men and Women of Target of Opportunity:
I am a Risk Manager by profession, thanks for asking. I am also a registered republican, although I voted democrat in the election due to the vice president pick. I have read your website in it's entirety. I actually stumbled across your page when researching an article on Ann Berlin. As for the Direct Action of the Animal Liberation Front in regards to firebombing, vandelalism of neighborhoods, etc, that is the result of our local, state and federal authorities for not enforcing the regulation's that they established i.e. USDA Animal Protection Act. ALF generates publicity by their actions, property might be destroyed, however no one is ever injured. U.S. citizens begin to take notice, laws begin to change. It's is unfortunate in the 21st that direct action is needed. I am requesting you visit Y-TUBE and search for undercover videos on Huntingdon Life Science, Factory Farming, and while your at it, animals in the Fur industry. Then tell me if that doesn't evoke rage! Your group might consider Direct Action also.
I have enjoyed our discussion and good luck with your mission. One more thing, did you notice the ALF has close to six million hits?
Being a registered Democrat or Republican makes no difference at all. Registration to a particular political party only gives you certain voting rights in the Primary Election. Many people move back and forth between parties so they can vote in the Primary Election. Republicans did it hoping to boost Hillary Clinton. Democrats did it in 2000 hoping to boost Senator John McCain.
Let us define "Direct Action" by what it really is.
Direct Action - an action seeking to achieve an immediate or direct result -
1. The action of taking the law into one's own hands and implementing justice as an individual or group determines as most deserving.
How is this any different from the Islamic terrorists that have attacked Mumbai? You say, "Property might be destroyed, however no one is ever injured." You still suffer from denial. There is no "might be destroyed", property IS destroyed; homes are vandalized. This affects the families. Perhaps you considered this a victimless crime we do not. Would you say the same if someone burned your home to the ground after months or years of vandalism? Think about all of your possessions that cannot be replaced. Beyond that, what happens when someone is killed, what then? Is that "unforeseen and accidental death" going to change anything? Are you going to send flowers to the funeral or the burn center? Are you going to send a card signed, "This is what you get, love the ALF"?
Consider the grave desecration committed by the Animal Rights people. You may consider that acceptable behavior, we do not. It is not on YouTube.com but does this evoke any rage in you or do you support it as acceptable Direct Action, after all, by your standards no one is hurt? This is merely a "result of our local, state and federal authorities for not enforcing the regulations..."
Are you suggesting that we should break the law and burn down someone's home? Should we go further? Where should we draw the line? Is it acceptable to hurt someone, but not kill them? Should we follow the advice of the leaders of the ALF?
"Some say it is morally unacceptable but it is equally unacceptable to use animals in experiments. The children of those scientists are enjoying a lifestyle built on the blood and abuse of innocent animals. Why should then be allowed to close the door on that and sit down and watch TV and enjoy themselves when animals are suffering and dying because of the actions of the family breadwinner? They are a justifiable target for protest."
-- Robin Webb, Press Officer Animal Liberation Front
"If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they're doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary."
-- Jerry Vlasak, ALF spokesman, in the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley, aired on CBS on Sunday November 13, 2005
"I am personally not advocating violence. I am simply saying that it is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation. I don't know."
-- Jerry Vlasak, ALF spokesman, from a BBC interview
Does any of this evoke any rage with you?
Addressing your comment about the 6 million hits on the ALF website, what are we to make of that? If you consider this relevant, what is your response to the same number of hits on Aryan and Nazi websites? You are close to suggesting because of popularity i.e. the 6 million hits on the ALF website, a "Mob Rules" mentality should prevail.
--TOP--
28 November 2008
~* Dominika *~ wrote:
Hi,
I just have a quick comment. I don't get how you can say ALF is a danger to society...
It is easy to understand if you are in control of your emotions. We just look at their actions and from that, we are able to determine that these people present a danger to law-abiding citizens through intelligent and rational thought.
I do get what you mean by destroying property, however, you're saying it is okay to abuse animals, to cause them suffering??
We never said that it is okay to abuse animals.
So you justify puppy mills, or fur farms-for ex. there are foxes getting their fur ripped right off while they are still alive and left with only meat and blood on their bones, and they're laying there in extreme pain blinking their innocent eyes while someone gains pleasure from this.
We do not justify puppy mills and we never stated that we did.
Specifically who gets pleasure from the above scenario and where did we advocate the deliberate torture of any creature for the sake of torture? You, in an emotional state, just want to believe that we participate in this pastime every day. Such is not the case at all.
Or how about the animals getting beat up in a circus? Or animal testing-where innpocent animals are enduring extreme and unimaginable torture! I am damn proud that ALF and other groups stand up and won't tolerate animal abuse. Animals cannot speak or defend themselves against the evils and cruelty of people so ALF is there to help. Someone has to.
You forgot about the animals that are eaten alive every day on the vast expanse of the Serengeti. The struggle for survival and the laws of nature where millions and millions of animals die everyday are a reality and humanity is not exempt from these laws.
Animal testing brings new drugs to the market and to ensure safe products. If you think this is morally wrong, then perhaps you should volunteer to test the new drugs and products without any liability on the part of the researcher. Perhaps if corporations were not worried about litigation, the animal testing would not be necessary. If women would stop using cosmetics, testing on animals would unnecessary.
All people do is exploit animals, treat them as objects meant to do with as they please. That is wrong. Animals are not on this planet so we can impose suffering on them, so we can turn our backs on their feelings. They are creatures just like us and we are supposed to be sharing the planet. Instead people are barbaric, cruel and greedy.
Here is a quote that states a simple and easy to understand truth about nature.
"In the natural world, every living thing, be it plant or animal, exploits every other living thing that exists on the planet in order to survive just one more day regardless of the degree of separation. Like it or not, that is nature.
-- David Meyer, July 2006
What part of that statement is incorrect? What part of nature is not barbaric and cruel? If the lion does not kill the water buffalo, the lion will die. If the water buffalo does not see the lion early enough and then run fast enough, the water buffalo will die. The lion exploits the weaknesses of the larger and slower water buffalo in order to survive another day. The water buffalo exploits the weaknesses of the lion in order to escape being ripped apart and eaten by the lion while still alive. That is a perfect example of exploitation. This story has been the way of nature since the beginning of life. One creature lives only when another creature dies. When has man not been part of this equation?
Why is it that if a man rapes a woman everyone sends the cavalry to catch him but if someone imposes torture on an innocent animal which has done nothing wrong then they are not punished, and the people that rescue them are??
Have you actually looked at what groups like the ALF actually do? They do not rescue very many animals. They usually release captive animals into the wild. These animals are hopeless lost and end up being road kill or dinner for a capable predator, being attacked, ripped apart, and eaten alive. Have you ever seen what a hawk or eagle does to a small furry animal, like the ones that the ALF loves to free into the wild?
Yes I am part of the human species and not proud of it. It makes me sick to be part of a species that can be so heinous and commit such disturbing acts.
Well, what are you going to do about it? Like other creatures, humans are predators. We use the brain that nature gave us to survive. We use what we can in nature to survive. You are not going to change the genetic predisposition that has been a part of human survival since the dawn of humans. There is only one way to change what you consider flaws in the species that you hate. But allow us to present you a possible solution. You should contact The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. PeTA President, Ingrid Newkirk decided to accept their solution to "The Human Problem" and perhaps this might be of interest to you.
Humans are cowards, and are stupid, you know we will be the end of us with everything we have done,humans fight with one another, murder each other, start wars, its absurd. It is all s sad when for ex. all the those people lost their lives in 9-11 or in the holocaust. People cover their mouthes in shock of what went on even cry. Animals are living things too, and yet it is okay what they go through?? What they have to endure?? So when you have people that are actually taking a stand against something that is sick-animal torture, cruelty- then good for them they are brave and to an animal they are its saviour. An animal wants to be rescued! It does not want to feel pain and suffering. And it does.
If you think that a company or individual is violating a law, there is a legal resolution. That is why we have a law enforcement community. They are there to fix this. If all you do is to threaten people and try to burn down businesses and homes, you are not helping a single animal. In reality, you are only standing in the way of laws that might actually do what you want done. There is a fact that you do not realize - the Animal Rights Movement does not actually care about helping animals. Read "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement".
So I do not understand how any one could justify the atrocities done to any animal, or how they can turn their back on an animal in need. Someone needs to say enough is enough and that is what ALF does. A danger to society?? Why protect and defend people that have no conscience, that are capapble of imposing cruelty on animals. Those are the people that need to be punished.
yes i said quick comment guess i lied.
Dominika K
Did you even bother to read the article on the Animal Liberation Front? It is clear that you did not, because if you did, would see the danger to society they present. They firebombed the house of an elderly woman and her tenant. They have clearly stated that children are acceptable targets of their agenda. They do not care if someone is killed, but we are sure that these terrorists are happy to have your support. When they kill someone, please do not hesitate to write us back and show your pride in their actions.
--TOP--
24 October 2008
Tim DS wrote:
I am glad to know the amount of people world-wide to take websites as yours as serious, diminishes daily. Everyone with some intelligence, a clear view on the world and a mind of their own, will leave your site with a feeling of pity, rather than the feeling of having learnt something new.
The true enemies, of both America and the rest of the world, are people who cannot see the difference between the noble struggle and revolution for something better, and the uncalled for violence against both humans, non-human animals and our environment, in name of tradition, religion and economics.
You obviously have a lot of time on your hands. Maybe consider spending it on actually improving something in this world, instead of spreading anger and hate. Therefor, this is not "hate mail". It is simply the message that the world needs a more positive way of manifestation.
So, you think that anyone with intelligence would disagree with this website, is that right? Like most that criticize this website, it is done without actually stating what is inaccurate or untrue and your e-mail is no different. Your e-mail was written without any intelligent thought, but rather relying on emotional feelings to guide your way. You have not disputed a single fact nor have you challenged any of the website content. If you had actually read this website, you would have noticed that the only ones that have expressed hatred toward others are the very ones that are the subject or our articles.
Who do you consider to be the "true enemies" of America and why are the people and groups listed on this website not included on your list?
Regarding your concern to our time management and that we should "consider spending it on actually improving something in this world, instead of spreading anger and hate." We are spreading the truth about those that do focus their lives on hatred and violence and warning the public about these groups is an important and worthwhile expenditure of time.
Based on the first two sentences, your e-mail sounds like it can be classified as "Hate Mail" to us. It is certainly worthy of being printed and shared with anyone that reads this website.
--TOP--
15 October 2008
mirza@***********.com wrote:
Did you have nothnig better to do?
Stop to write shit about Islam.
I now why you write this?
You have no job & nothing to do. You are a tipical loser in this world.
bye.
You did not finish your first thought. That should read, "Did you have nothing better to do than state the truth?" The fact is this information needs to be out there so others can be aware of the reality and the truth about Radical Islam. We are sorry you do not like us for clearly reporting on the hatred and violence that has become the definition of Islam.
The lack of any intellectual argument contained within the words of your e-mail certainly speaks volumes about you. You did not dispute a single word on this website proving that you do not challenge the validity of the content, but if we have written anything that is inaccurate, please correct us. Be aware that your e-mail just provides us with another example showing your hatred of our existence.
--TOP--
03 September 2008
feracov@***.com wrote:
It's a shame what are you writing about Islam and muslims , but Jesus may peace and blessings be upon him once said to his deciples:" What is in who, it commes out. So beware, if you are good, good is comming out, for if you are bad , bad is comming out of you "! Go back to your scripture and learn your religion. Your religion will tell you about Islam, about Muhammad peace and blessing of God be upon him ! Jesus p.b.u.h., mantioned him in numerous places in Bible. About the man who with respect talks about Marry and her blessed son Jesus peace and blessing of God be upon him . Not as a jews who said for Mary that she commited adultry and illegal sexual relationship, and for Jesus p.b.u.., God forbit, that he is bastard ! The man who taught us MUSLIMS to love and respect him, for as if we don't , we can't be muslims. Your texts that you post here is just prof of what the Bible and satan made from you . Bible that in several places talks about killing . Bible that is so perverte in many places, that instead of talking about ONE GOD, talks about sex, killing and other bad stuffs ... Moses p.b.u.h., talked about Muhammad p.b.u.h., aswell. May God guide you to the straight paht. Ameen ! For if He don't and if you don't seek that , you are lost ! Thanks to Allah Almighty, it's He who guides people to the straight path, and for that today we have hundreds of thousands jews and christians who follows the teachnig of Muhammad p.b.u.h.
The story of Mary and the birth of Jesus in Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0SlfIrVwUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbhCAHyZJp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e7N2Xh9XPY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YbYj8dScJ8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpd-Ek1-RRc&feature=related
I invite you on nice, respectfull and peacefull conversation.
We appreciate the invitation for a respectful and peaceful conversation.
Everything we have written about Islam is true. Everything we have written about Radical Islam is true. We have no problem with someone practicing any religion that promotes peace. We have no problem with any religion that maintains certain taboos and restrictions about life. However, when you start bombing, killing as fast as you can, and saying it is in the name of Allah, God, or anyone else, we have a problem.
Look at the editorial entitled "Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism". What have we stated that is not true? We understand your hatred you have for us for writing and recording the truth for all to see, but that does not change the fact that what we have recorded is indeed, true and accurate. What we have reported is the bad that is coming out of Islam from the very people that embrace the teachings of Islam. Islam is their excuse and justification for terrorism.
We do not know why you started speaking of what Islam says of Jesus. We have not addressed the subject nor are we going to address the subject. It is beyond the scope of this website. It is interesting how you condemn us for writing about Islam but you used a sermon from a Muslim Cleric to try and teach everything about Christianity in 5 minutes in an attempt to trash the religion as your example.
--TOP--
29 August 2008
Calvin wrote:
Hi,
It's kinda sad you have a section devoted to hate mail. Why invite that into your life, and why revel in it? From a strictly what you see is what you get point of view, what the heck's the point inviting hatred into your life?
The fundamental flaw with your website is you feel war is a viable option. It's not.
We have the "Hate Mail" section so we can share the opinions of people that differ from our own. We are not afraid to show what our critics have to say on the subject matter contained within this website. It allows others a chance to present their views and ideas in the best way they know how.
War is a last option, but sometimes a necessary one. Sometimes you have to stand and fight. You may believe that coming to the rescue of Europe and parts of the Pacific in WWII as well as Kuwait more recently might have been a bad idea. Would you consider it a bad idea to stop the only country that has used Biological Weapons in warfare?
If you believe war is not a viable option anytime, what do you do if you are attacked?
--TOP--
21 August 2008
Chuck Pond wrote:
You're a conservative if:
"You see what Liberals and Marxist philosophies have in common."
We can agree with that statement about Conservatives because we believe that the opposite is true. You are a Liberal if:
"You cannot see what Liberals and Marxist philosophies have in common. If you are in power, you are trying to advance and incorporate Socialist programs into daily life."
What do they have in common? Do you know what the true definition of liberalism is?
Yes we do know the difference. We clearly printed it on the very page you are referencing and that is "Are You A Liberal". In this editorial, we have clearly presented examples of the views of Liberals as we present the views of Conservatives in the editorial "Are You A Conservative". We did make the following statement.
"The above definitions can be confusing as to whether or not they accurately define the modern day Liberal. So allow us to present examples that accurately describe the behavior and mindset that define "Liberals"."
To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name..." You can give the Liberal agenda and those that follow it whatever name you like, but that does not change what they are. Liberals are firmly behind greater government control.
Classical liberals believe that the only true freedom is freedom from coercion, and thus they believe in Laissez-Faire economics. They are CAPITALISTS, namely the enemy of any Marxist. Did you know that?
Look at the definition of Laissez faire.
Laissez Faire - (from the French, meaning to leave alone or to allow to do) -
1. an economic and political doctrine that holds that economies function most efficiently when unencumbered by government regulation. Laissez faire advocates favor individual self-interest and competition, and oppose the taxation and regulation of commerce.
2. the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.
3. the practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, esp. with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.
4. a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.
5. a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action.
What Liberal can be associated with that definition? Liberals are always for bigger government. Have you ever heard of Universal Healthcare? Today's Liberals definitely do not believe that economies function most efficiently when unencumbered by government regulation. All Liberals want to do is to regulate as much as they can. Have you ever heard of Carbon Credits and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards? All Liberals speak of today is "Big Oil" and how they must be regulated. What about the policies concerning the Redistribution of Wealth, what part of the Laissez Faire doctrine does that represent? What Liberal politician has ever opposed taxation? Taxation is what Liberals live to do.
Your statement about Laissez-Faire economics and Capitalists being the enemy of any Marxist, accurately describes the Ronald Reagan Administration with the exception of using the word "Liberal". Are you saying that President Ronald Reagan was a Liberal? There are many Liberals that would be very surprised to hear that Ronald Reagan was a "Liberal". As of this date, there are 286 Liberal Democrats in Congress (237 in the House of Representatives and 49 in the Senate). Name the Liberal Democrat(s) that believe in Laissez Faire economics.
Social liberals believe in the SOCIAL CONTRACT, which states that there exists an unwritten contract between society and government, in which society gives up certain freedoms for safety that the government allegedly provides. Marxists, on the other hand, believe that government is a coercive entity that serves only as a means of commerce. So again, any Social Liberal is an enemy of any true Marxist.
We have never mentioned "Social Liberals" anywhere on this website. As we have stated, you can give any name to Liberals, but that does not change what they are. We understand that you do not like the name "Liberal" in the context it is commonly known. We do not blame you. We do not like it either. Whom do you consider a "Social Liberal"?
Looks like you're full of sh*t.
If you want anyone to believe that Liberals want to help business and oppose taxation, you know not of what you speak. President Ronald Reagan and his beliefs were directly in line with the definition of Laissez Faire, but by your definition, President Ronald Reagan was a Liberal. What are you thinking? The subject of "Liberalism" seems to be beyond your level of comprehension.
You don't even know what the difference is between a Liberal (in essence, a capitalist) and any leftist-type person. A Marxist, or a Communist, or an Anarchist, or a Socialist would not be caught dead supporting any "liberal." Besides, Marxism or Communism or Socialism are ECONOMIC THEORIES. They cannot, and should not be compared to liberalism.
Are you trying to say that Hillary Clinton, Walter Mondale, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore are not Liberals? They claim to be. They definitely are not Conservatives and they all believe in higher taxes and bigger, more intrusive government.
Where do you think modern day Liberals get their ideas? Universal Healthcare as offered in Socialist countries in Europe, and the Redistribution of Wealth. Where do you think they get those ideas? Those are certainly not Conservative values, they are completely Liberal values based on the actions of people known as Liberals today.
As far as your page on "Are You A Liberal...." its just completely ridiculous. Not all "liberals" live in "hillside estates" or make millions of dollars by making films about the war on terror. That actually sounds very similar to the situation of a lot of conservatives I know. Not everyone who get's a weekly paycheck gets it from a profiteering corporation. There are *some* "good" corporations, and even then not everybody works for a corporation.
Did we hit a nerve with that editorial? Those are the beliefs that most Liberals have. While you may not like it, and it is clear you do not, they are an accurate representation based on Liberal actions and rhetoric.
Your attempts at making it seem like conservatives are modest, hardworking people (some are....but what about all the Enron execs, and every single goddamn CEO? ) while slandering "liberals" as rich, pompous bastards is pretty weak. Fox News does a better job. Can't you see that this is pointless?
You seem to think that all Conservatives are Enron executives and corporate CEOs that make millions. The truth is that Conservatives are, for the most part, modest and hardworking people. People serving in the military tend to vote for the Conservative candidate approximately 4 to 1. Are you saying that they are not modest and hardworking? Look at the voting blocks. Look at the red states. Middle America is predominately Conservative, not Liberal. If you want the truth, the 10 richest people in Congress are Liberal Democrats. Bill Clinton cannot help but tell people how rich he is whenever he gets the chance.
Here is a factual observation you will not like - if you are a drug addict, serial offender, or on welfare, you are more prone to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate.
This first map shows the 2000 Presidential race with the Republican/Conservative counties in Red, and the Democratic/Liberal counties in Blue. Most of rural Americans, the hardworking, modest types, voted Republican, while urban areas tended to vote Democratic. Here is a fact that you seem unable to comprehend - Republican voters tend to hold to Conservative values as opposed to Democratic voters who lean toward more Liberal, Socialist ideas.
The second map is from the 1988 Presidential race between George Bush and Michael Dukakis. George Bush ran as a Conservative Republican, Michael Dukakis ran as a Liberal Democrat. Dukakis proudly referred to himself as a "Card Carrying Liberal". If you are going to say that Liberals favor free market, Laissez Faire doctrine, and unobtrusive limited government, it is clear that you no comprehension of what a Liberal really is.
While the following statement might be an oversimplification of the issue, there are essentially two views of government in the United States - "Liberal" and "Conservative". Different political parties adhere to certain qualities from each viewpoint. Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals believe in a government presence in every aspect of everyday life.
The reality is that neither conservatives nor liberals in government really care about anybody other than themselves and their class. They are elitists, no more, no less. They all suck. Can we agree on that?
You are absolutely right. Government should absolutely be limited in its involvement in the lives of its citizens. Perhaps it is the role of government that offers the biggest difference between Conservatives and Liberals and it is this; Conservatives think that government should provide what the individuals cannot provide for themselves. Liberals think that government should provide as much as possible.
--TOP--
16 August 2008
Leah Donovan wrote:
Before today, I had never heard of your website. In looking through it, I noticed a few things I just wanted to comment on. While I do firmly agree with what you're trying to do, and I think it's important for uninformed activists who want to make a difference to have this kind of information so they can know exactly what types of organizations to AVOID, I found it disturbing how political your site is. While I understand that Liberals in general do tend to overly defend the rights and emotions of citizens who don't deserve to have that protections as they themselves trample over the rights of everyone else (criminals, terrorists, etc), it's inaccurate to label this kind of behavior as Left-wing. In fact, if you go back in history, some of the worst domestic terrorist violence incidents that have occurred have sprung from Right-wing sentiment. Anti-abortion groups; the KKK, the New Order and other racist groups existing during the Civil Rights movement and today; anti-immigration groups; etc, are among these. While many activist groups today are Liberals, it would seem that violent activism as a practice in fact has deep roots in Conservative ideology. Maybe the creators of Target of Opportunity are in fact hypocritical, and feel as though Left-wing groups are the only ones which should be held accountable for their actions, in which case I made a mistake in venturing onto this site, but I strongly feel that your website has left out some very serious offenders who maintain Conservative viewpoints. At the same time, I can't be entirely certain that groups I've mentioned above (examples of which can be found here http://www.milnet.com/domestic/dtgmain.htm and on other sites) have ever labeled themselves as "peaceful" or "nonviolent" either, so that may in fact be the reason they are left out.
The reason for our existence is to record and report what groups not so well known to the public are doing and saying. We maintain a record of these actions and statements. We understand your concern and your desire to be accurate in any debate you have with others. Unfortunately, there is a clear dividing line with these groups and they are political in nature. Some are Liberal with very Communist/Marxist/Socialist doctrine. This is clearly visible when you see their protests and listen to their rhetoric. Going back to the 1960s, you will note that the KKK, while considered "Right-Wing" by Liberals, the Left-Wing, and all other groups that hate Conservatives and Republicans, had the support of Democrats. No former members of the KKK are serving as Republicans/Conservatives in Congress. The Democrats/Liberals cannot say the same. White Supremacists are not Conservative at all. They maintain Nazi ideals and Nazi ideals are Socialist in nature, i.e. the government controls as many aspects of life as possible. This is Liberal doctrine, not Conservative doctrine.
As far as your assertion that TargetOfOpportunity.com is hypocritical, we are not. At no point have we ever supported any violence associated with anti-abortion groups, the KKK, or any Neo-Nazi group. In fact, if you bothered to look on the Links Page, you would see that we have clearly placed Nazi links in the "Anti-American" column. There is absolutely no facet of the Nazi Movement that we find redeeming.
If you think we are being hypocritical, you are free to dispute some particular fact we have stated. You will find that many of the groups listed on the link you sent are on this website and have been for years.
Several of the groups mentioned on the link in your e-mail clearly state:
"No major illegal activity has been directly traced to this organization."
If they have not done anything illegal, why should we view them as anything other than living their lives the way they wish?
My point is not that you shouldn't focus on politics at all though, rather, I think that it would be more beneficial to provide a non-partisan, purely informational place where people won't feel as though they are not welcome or automatically considered part of the "to blame" group purely because of how they vote, as I felt when reading from your Mission Statement. I am registered as an Independent, and while I may tend to swing more towards the Left when it comes to social politics, that does not make me any more sympathetic to these disgusting excuses for American citizens. I often wish that members of these groups, particularly codePINK as my brother and fiance have both served our country in Iraq, would post THEIR home addresses and personal contact information so that anyone who disagrees with them may respond to their actions in kind. Not that I'm condoning violence, I just find it laughable that they dare to publish the kind of information about others that they would never disclose about themselves - all in the interest of "freedom of information."
While your point is that we should not focus on politics, the subject of politics is a clear dividing line among these groups. You cannot dismiss the heavily woven framework of Liberal politics within the agenda of these groups. To ignore the reality that Liberals believe what they believe and that they want to advance a Liberal agenda is ignorance. These agendas have nothing to do with "Freedom" or "Liberty"; they are the means for increased government control and the reduction of "Freedom" and "Liberty". You cannot ignore certain facts as distasteful as they may be.
Liberal politics tend to have a certain following just as Conservative politics do. The groups on this website tend to associate with Liberal politics exclusively making Liberal politics are a common trait with these groups. That does not mean that all Liberals are inherently evil. No one here has ever said that, but no one can deny the Liberal connection of these groups.
--TOP--
27 June 2008
tim toner wrote:
you ignorant most uneducated people on earth. Read a book or some resarch befor you come up wth the biggest lies that can only prove how ugly you are.
You think that we are the most uneducated people on Earth. Did you even bother to read your own e-mail?
What lies? We have done the research and we found the facts presented on the website. We have the quotes. What lies are you talking about? Could you at least present an actual argument containing some rational and intelligent thoughts rather than resorting to hysterical and emotional ranting that contain nothing resembling intelligent thought?
You say we should read a book. What book do you recommend? Where do you feel that our research contains inaccurate or untrue information? Could you at least present some specifics that give your argument some valid reference?
Based on your well thought out e-mail, it sounds like you have no argument at all; you just do not like us, but thank you for visiting the website.
--TOP--
Jamie Bickers wrote:
why not add this to your list of "hate mail" as you so choose to call it, you use phrases like "mission statement" and "enemies of America" which can be read as incitement of hatred and violence as a mission is generally thought of as something military and enemies are often stereotypically violent.
We use the phrase "Mission Statement" because it is important for anyone reading this to know why this website exists. We explain ourselves in the very first sentence. Perhaps you should read it again, this time with an open mind.
We use the phrase "Enemies of America" because it accurately describes the hatred for this country and/or the support that is given to people and groups that encourage and desire the death of Americans and the destruction of America.
There is no incitement of hatred and violence on our part. However, we have presented several examples that you seem willing to ignore.
If you would like to see some quotes of people with a desire to incite violence, here you go.
"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many [doctors involved with animal testing] ... I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."
-- Jerry Vlasak, spokesmen for the Animal Defense League, Animal Rights 2003 convention August 3, 2003
"I am convinced that we can shut down a lot of these animal abuse industries whether the public agrees with it or not. And whether these industries are shut down by violent or non-violent acts in the end, to me, doesn't really matter."
-- David Barbarash, Animal Liberation Front Spokesman, BBC Documentary, "Beastly Business", October 2000
"No one is gonna listen to people walking in the streets with signs, not if there's profit on the line. But something will happen when there's people in the street with Molotov cocktails."
-- Zachary Jenson, Earth Liberation Front (ELF) activist, quote from his online journal
"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps. It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."
-- Tim Daley, Animal Liberation Front Leader, BBC interview, 1987
"When jihad becomes an individual duty, it applies to women too, because women do not differ from men when it comes to individual duties, the brothers of apes and pigs [the Jews] who should taste the bitterness of death."
-- Yunis al-Astal, speaking about the need for suicide bombers and the importance of martydom in a sermon on 11 April 2008
"Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians. For as long as I can remember, I have felt tormented and at war, and have felt hatred and animosity for Americans."
-- Osama Bin Laden, Leader of al-Qaeda
If you want more quotes from people that want to incite violence, look at "The True Agenda of the Animal Rights Movement" and "Quotes From Famous People".
also i would like to know how many of the quotes used in your website are incomplete or edited to suit your needs.
None of the quotes were edited to suit the needs of this website. While we did not print the entire speech, the context of the quotes is not changed. However, if you think that we have misquoted someone or taken what they have said out of context, please let us know and please be specific.
one more point i would like to make is that nobody can tell who you allow to be added to your hate mail section, what i suspect is that anybody with a legitimate point is not posted on the site for fear of embarrassment.
Do you have a legitimate point? This e-mail would have been the time to present it. What legitimate point from whom are you referring?
how do you value life then?
Life is sacred and worth protecting.
is life important to you?
Life is very important to everyone here. It is not that our life is so important, but rather the lives of others. That is why we are willing to stand up to people that want to that want to take away Life and Liberty and why we are willing to risk everything to protect it. Is Freedom and National Security important to you?
would you kill because of your religion or beliefs?
Would you kill because of your religion or beliefs? Do you support people that do kill in the name of religion?
What beliefs are you referencing? Are you talking about the belief of a person's right to defend one's life? Are you talking about protecting one country from the invasion of another country? Are you talking about defending yourself because others want to kill you because their religion differs from your own?
do you feel a sense of patriotism when an American dies in combat or because of a "terrorist" bomb for example the 9/11 bombings?
What kind of a question is that? Do you feel a sense of patriotism when a Police Officer dies in the line of duty? Everyone at this website feels a strong sense of patriotism all the time. We feel a strong sense of patriotism when America is delivering aid to tsunami victims. We feel a strong sense of patriotism when America is combating terrorists that have no problem cutting the throat of innocent people and bombing civilians for the sole purpose of killing them because they are not Muslim. We feel an extreme sense of loss when an American dies or is wounded in combat. To us, the 2000th, 3000th, and 4000th dead Soldier or Marine was not another goal to celebrate or a reason to feel empowered as it has been and continues to be with CodePINK and the rest of the "Peace Movement".
Did you feel a strong sense of patriotism because of the attack on 9-11? We felt shock, outrage, and anger. The 9-11 attack was just another example of the danger of Radical Islam and why total victory in the war on terrorism is so important. If you need more historical data and references on the subject, read the editorial "When World War III Started".
Did you believe that 9-11 was our fault? We did not. We know who was responsible and we support any action it takes to make sure that it will never happen again.
because if you do then you should also feel guilty that every day that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan nobody her cares about them, would you necessarily value them lives as much as a "fellow American"?
Being in the military is a tough job. With the exception of a couple of women here, everyone with this website has served proudly in the military. We all volunteered, as did everyone serving in the American military today. It is a dangerous job and we support them and their mission. For example, joining the Marines is not for the person that wants the easy way through life. It is for the person that is willing to make a commitment to do a tough and dangerous job. You are often placed in harm's way and for very little pay and no accolades and you do it for people that protest your existence, your choice, and your mission.
please add this to your website and let the response be truthful and honest.
(hiding ones identity is a form of cowardice)
regards as a human.
Running from an enemy that has sworn to kill you is an act of cowardice. Trying to negotiate with them is an act of stupidity. If you keep running and giving in to their demands, one day, you will not have anywhere else to run and they will have you.
--TOP--
02 June 2008
Allen Brooks wrote:
I suppose you are trying to foster violence against anyone you don't like, is that your end?
You would suppose wrong. Where have we ever advocated violence against anyone on this website? Where have we ever tried to silence anyone from speaking his or her mind? It seems that everyone gets upset when we write down and record what is clearly stated. It does not surprise anyone at this website that you should have a problem. All we do is maintain a record as is indicated on the Home Page of this website. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with it at your earliest convenient opportunity.
Don't bother trying to slur me I am an eleven year veteran of the Armed Forces and I can tell you that Susan Van Haitsma is as gentle of a souls as ever lived.
So, you are an eleven-year veteran of the Armed Forces. Here are a few questions to you. Let us see if you have the courage to answer them without trying to dodge the questions or change the subject.
1. Did you like what the lovely and gracious Susan Van Haitsma had to say about the military?
2. Did we misquote her?
3. Did we portray an inaccurate depiction of her based on her comments?
4. Do you believe that a drill sergeant who orders strict conformity is a protector of freedom? (In the Marines, we refer to them as Drill Instructors)
5. Do you believe anyone who serves in the American military is a protector of freedom?
6. What if harm falls on any of the men and women that served with you because of her actions, what will you do then?
7. Do you think that work with "Nonmilitary Options for Youth and Austin Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation" has helped the military and the people you served with or has made their job more dangerous?
8. Is this group a "Pro-Military" group or an "Anti-Military" group?
9. Does Susan Van Haitsma tend to be "Pro-Military" or "Anti-Military" in her convictions while still claiming to "Support the Troops" despite her "Non-Military Options" group she advocates?
If any harm ever befalls as a result of your website, rest assured your anonymity won't hide you for long "Top".
Ooooooooooohhhhh... That sounds like a threat or even an incitement to violence against us.
It is typical that you don't have the gumption to attach your names to this website so that all might know who you uber-patriots are! Just why is that, huh "Top"? This sort of thing is sadly all too typical of the type of people we have masquerading as big brave heroes nowadays in this Country.
Totally disrespectfully,
Allen Brooks
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."-H.L. Mencken
Our voice and message are what is important and where did we ever claim to be listed as heroes? We are not trying to be heroes and we have never made any claim of vanity. Besides, we love the way it irritates you Left-Wing Liberals not knowing anything about us.
Your response to this website is typical of those that complain and even advocate violence against us without disputing a single word contained within the 125+ pages of this website. It is too bad you have no argument for the facts. Why do you care who any of us are? You obviously do not want to socialize with us.
Did you ever bother reading the quote by Henry Louis Mencken that forms the signature of your e-mail? Is it not strange that we try to print the truth and all you can do is detest us for doing just that?
--TOP--
30 May 2008
Kirk wrote:
Is the purpose of your site to defend your fellow Americans (who agree with you)? Or is it to promote your backwater, archaic, hillbilly rhetoric? Folks like you are quickly becoming the minority. Grow up and evolve, or you'll soon be left behind.
The purpose of this website is to record history. We do not want anyone to forget what these people have said and done. We thought that the Home Page and the Mission Statement were clear on this.
What is it that you consider "backwater, archaic, hillbilly rhetoric"- the part where we present the facts or the part where we offer an opinion based on those facts? You seem to disagree with this website, but you are not exactly clear where you disagree with it. Do you believe the facts presented are not accurate? If so, please correct us. If that is not the case, then you must disagree with our opinion of these facts. The third option is that you loathe our existence because we disagree with your beliefs.
I must say though, your site is an interesting read! I've never seen such schizophrenic paranoia in print!
We get comments like this a lot from people that never challenge the facts we have presented, so we will ask again, what is on this website that is inaccurate or untrue? All we do is offer facts and opinions based on these facts. What people or groups have we written about that have offended you?
Best of luck to you guys, you're going to need it! (And before you get bent out of shape, relax, that wasn't a threat. You're safe, your families are safe, no one is going to break down your door to kill you, no one is going to strip you of your traditions or your way of life. Put away those guns and stop looking over your shoulders folks, you're safe!)
Regards,
Kirk
Actually, when you really take a close look, you will see people like us that provide the security that keeps your family safe and keeps others from stripping you of your traditions or your way of life. However, from the tone of this e-mail, it is easy to see where you fall on Gun Control.
The subject of your e-mail to us was "Love your site". Based on the tone of your e-mail, we are of the opinion that you are being somewhat disingenuous with that statement. Did you think that we would not answer your e-mail if you were honest with us? Make no mistake; we are not afraid to stand behind every word that we have written. If we have made an error, we will be happy to make the necessary correction, but so far, you have not stated that we are wrong on anything. In fact, you have not disputed a single word. Do you not at least have an argument that forms the basis of your opinion, whatever that opinion is? Aside from your apparent dislike of our existence, we have not actually discovered what your view is and where you disagree with anything we have stated on this website.
Ps..The Walmart link at the bottom of your page was noted, such a wholesome slice of Americana. When will you ever stop being predictable?
What is it that you have against Wal-Mart? If you do not like them, do not shop there.
--TOP--
26 March 2008
rami ??? wrote:
Wow, WOOOWWWWW, that is really ...weird. Your website is not fact, it is opinions. You think that all islam is about al qaeda and osama bin laden. It is not. That is just the bad side you have to research a bit more and you can get the FACTS. Oh. you probably started this OPINION based website because your poor mommy or daddy died in 9/11. thank god for 9/11. thats what the united states gets for nagasaki and hiroshima. god bless osama bin laden
Here you show the hatred and violence that is inherent with Islam. Your comment about Nagasaki and Hiroshima shows your ignorance about history. The best thing that happened to Japan was to end the war and the use of the Atomic Bomb did that. Ending the war made Japan a very close friend of America and a global financial Superpower. It also brought peace to the Pacific region of the world - a peace that has remained to this day. An Allied invasion would have killed more than 10 million Japanese, but let us not confuse your argument with historical facts.
You like the fact that 9-11 happened. You hate America and yet this is where you chose to live. Just like the rest of radical Islam, you support terrorism. No surprise here. It is exactly what this website states with the facts and the 9-11 attack is fact.
You say that we "think that all islam is about al qaeda and osama bin laden". Your last sentence makes that association.
Your e-mail gives credibility and helps to prove that everything on this website about Islam is true. It is a religion to be feared not embraced, a religion designed to spread fear and terror to other people and religions.
--TOP--
10 March 2008
Brent Caldwell wrote:
I think you're all afraid of change. I think you're afraid of a progressive, peaceful America where all people can live equally, and all animals too. Here's my question: Who died and made America special? Why does our country have to go around the world starting wars with countries just because they have oil? Oh wait, I answered myself. How about the poor kids in Uganda who are living in terror of a rebel uprising in Sudan. Why aren't we over there liberating them? Because there's no oil I suppose? Just people. I mean, if we have to interfere with something, it should be worthwhile. I detest the country that I live in. Patriotism is not loving the place you're from just because it's where you're from. I'm more of a patriot than every conservative in the world, because I question the government, and I don't listen to everything they say and take it to be truth just because they say it. The idea that the 9/11 terrorist attacks could have been orchestrated by the government in conjunction with the Bin Laden clan and weapons manufacturers state-side is a frightening notion to the conservatives world-over, but a very real possibility it is! Something I believe with all my heart as a matter of fact. Need I remind you that this country was founded by a REVOLUTIONARY war? R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N! Of course, this was after the white people came over here and slaughtered the Natives and stole their land, but that's another story all together! If you truly believe in free speech, put this up in your hate mail section of your website.
Brent. Yes, I am a Liberal
Brent,
That was a very interesting e-mail. It was polite and civil. Not many people would admit to being a Liberal with these beliefs, as it is everything we expect from the Left-Wing. Allow us to respond on a point-by-point basis.
I think you're all afraid of change. I think you're afraid of a progressive, peaceful America where all people can live equally, and all animals too.
There are things that do give us reason to be afraid. Adoption of Marxist ideas is a good example. When Liberals speak of "progressive", they mean the destruction and removal of what made America great.
Your statement conveys the very ideas that cause us great concern. What you should say is all people are equal under the law, but that is not what you say. You want to make everyone equal and the fact is that not all people are equal. You may not believe this, but some people can do things better than others and these people should be able to profit for their level of performance. That is Capitalism and Free Enterprise at work.
What you want to do is to make everyone equal everywhere. The idea that you want to promote is that no one should have more than anyone else should and that concept is WRONG. It is unethical, immoral, and against the natural will of a human to be free. It requires the redistribution of all wealth. It requires those who work hard to make equal those that do not. It is a Utopian principle that lowers standards for everyone.
We love peace. It is a great ideal. What do you do when someone tries to take away the peace? Either you stand against them or you allow them to take whatever they want. Allow us to ask you a question. How does peace between people with different backgrounds happen? You can talk all you want to, but in order to give your talking points strength, you must make the consequences of an attack known and severe.
To top it off, you want to make all animals equal to humans. Do you believe that the rights of humans drop to the level of cockroaches or the rights of cockroaches rise to the level of humans? What animal deserves the same rights as humans and why?
Here's my question: Who died and made America special? Why does our country have to go around the world starting wars with countries just because they have oil? Oh wait, I answered myself.
Only a Liberal would ask that question. First, you have to believe that America is special. You do not. Perhaps a trip to Arlington National Cemetery is in order, but that would only be an insult to those buried there, as you do not seem to respect their sacrifice. It is a shame that you believe the lies your side has been spouting.
What war did America start for the sole purpose of acquiring oil rich land reserves and where has this happened? Be careful when you answer that question.
How much oil have we gotten from Iraq? Where are the oil fields in Fallujah? Why do we not hear about the Marines guarding the oil fields in Iraq instead of protecting the civilians living in Fallujah against al-Qaeda terrorists planting IEDs around the city? Have you ever seen any video footage on the news where Marines were guarding oil fields?
America still has a strong military presence in Afghanistan. How much oil does Afghanistan produce? War for Oil - it is a catchy slogan, but it bears no semblance of truth in the reality of the world.
How about the poor kids in Uganda who are living in terror of a rebel uprising in Sudan. Why aren't we over there liberating them? Because there's no oil I suppose? Just people. I mean, if we have to interfere with something, it should be worthwhile.
You already addressed that. You posed the question "Who died and made America Special?" What you are asking is, "What reason should America go to war?" If America did, the first questions you would ask are, "Who is America that we should interfere with another country's domestic policy and why are we over there?"
Where else are there just people? Somalia, Mogadishu... We sent food and aid to that country and the warlords were confiscating the supplies, so we sent troops to help distribute the aid. Remember that bit of history. What about Bosnia? This is an example where we have troops in a country with no oil reserves. Let us not forget World War II. Remember Hitler, the Holocaust and the German invasion of Europe. There was also the Japanese invasion of China and the Rape of Nanking. Do not forget the Korean War. We stopped North Korea from invading South Korea and spreading Communism. Compare the two countries today. South Korea is a financial power due to the efforts of the United States. Was any of this worthwhile?
A better question might be, "Why do other countries always come to the United States for help?"
You seem to believe that the United States invades for reasons of conquest. You could not be more wrong.
"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
-- Colin Powell, Secretary of State
It would be our guess that you do not serve in the military.
I detest the country that I live in.
No kidding... (Note sarcastic tone) That is easy to see.
If you detest America, there are many other countries where you could go live. No one is stopping you from leaving. The door is open for you to go and even renounce your citizenship, but you are not going to do so. You would not dare give up the freedoms and liberties that are the envy of the world.
Patriotism is not loving the place you're from just because it's where you're from. I'm more of a patriot than every conservative in the world, because I question the government, and I don't listen to everything they say and take it to be truth just because they say it.
You consider yourself a patriot BECAUSE you hate your country not because you serve your country or love your country. You claim that you are "more of a patriot than every conservative in the world". A bold statement especially after you state, "I detest the country that I live in." You detest America, and somehow that makes you patriotic. At a minimum, you claim to be patriotic even though you "detest" your country. You must be the pride of Liberals everywhere.
The idea that the 9/11 terrorist attacks could have been orchestrated by the government in conjunction with the Bin Laden clan and weapons manufacturers state-side is a frightening notion to the conservatives world-over, but a very real possibility it is! Something I believe with all my heart as a matter of fact.
You certainly are well informed. There is no doubt about it, there is no way that al-Qaeda could have masterminded the 9-11 attack. It had to be an inside job. All of the experts agree - Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, Michael Moore, and the other Hollywood like-minded experts in foreign policy. (Note sarcastic tone)
Need I remind you that this country was founded by a REVOLUTIONARY war? R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N!
What was the reason for the Revolutionary War? The Liberal answer is because a bunch of rich, white, slave owning men did not want to pay their taxes.
Why do you want to fight a revolution instead of living in peace? You want a revolution because America is the leader of freedom in the world and you do not think that is fair. Why should America have so much when others have so little? Your fix - take away from America and give to the other countries. This only makes America poor.
Whenever a country gets into trouble, the first country they go to for help is the United States of America. The reason is because America is so affluent. Yet, you want to revolt against this affluence. Perhaps you are not for peace as much as you claim.
Of course, this was after the white people came over here and slaughtered the Natives and stole their land, but that's another story all together!
Actually, you mean "White Males", do you not?
Where in history has the control of land not been an issue that involved some violent action? Do you think that the American Indians did not fight each other over the land they controlled? How would you remedy this bit of history?
If you truly believe in free speech, put this up in your hate mail section of your website.
This statement is ignorant on so many levels. It shows you do not understand what the Right of Free Speech is and what it means. The Right of Free Speech does not require us to print your e-mail. We are under no moral or ethical obligation to even acknowledge an e-mail. We may print an e-mail if we believe that it is worthy of printing. As luck would have it, your e-mail met this standard. However, the concept of Free Speech does not require us to print anything. Free Speech is not a requirement, it is an individual right.
Brent. Yes, I am a Liberal
You believe that America is not special, yet everyone else in the world is clamoring to get into this country. They see something in America that you do not understand. You "detest the country you live in." Again, we will note the fact that you are free to leave anytime for any reason.
You believe in a revolution against this country.
You believe that you are a patriot because you question the government and you only believe what you want to believe as long as it fits your agenda.
You believe that we should use military force in liberating the people in Uganda from a government that is not attacking or endangering America, but not Kuwait from invading Iraqi military forces or al-Qaeda for the terrorist attacks against America around the world.
You believe that the US government worked with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the 9-11 attack on America.
You certainly are a Liberal. You fit the criteria exactly as stated in the editorial "Are You A Liberal".
--TOP--
21 February 2008
Kyle Crabb wrote:
YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT JAY BENNISH IS A LOAD OF HORSE SH*T! Jay Bennish has sparked more ideas in my head, and has inspired me more than ANY of the normal "conformist" teachers have. Mr. Jay bennish is one of my heroes and deserves respect. You only cover one side of the story. Give the other side you Conservative PRICKS! The worst part is your going to post this as another cheap shot against Mr. Bennish. For your informatrion WE INSTATED SADDAM! And as for all of your question, Bennish is NOT insisting that we invade others, or that we destroy columbia, He is making points ARGUING that we SHOULDN'T be doing what we are. NO F*CKING SH*T YOU IGNORANT D*CK-SUCKERS!!! And I have nothing against gays, infact, I myself am bi-sexual so go piss up a tree and die.
Thank you,
Kyle Crabb of Aurora, CO.
Mr.Bennish's student.
Kyle,
It is clear that Jay Bennish has taught you well. Instead of explaining your view, all you can do us show everyone your command of the English language by resorting to profanity, insults and personal attacks to explain your point of view. Well done... Your teachers must be proud of your accomplishment. (Note sarcastic tone) You have not offered a single intelligent opinion. Here was your chance to give the "other side" of the story and you fail to do so. All you could do was to resort to name-calling and insults. You never did offer the other side of the story. What did you want to say?
You wrote an e-mail to this website not offering any dialog or intelligent ideas supporting your opinion that Mr. Bennish is a great teacher worthy of respect. You did not contradict a single fact presented here. The article about Mr. Bennish is accurate. If you wanted to present an opposing view, you could have, but you chose not to do so.
You make the claim that Mr. Bennish "has sparked more ideas in my head, and has inspired me more than ANY of the normal 'conformist' teachers have". Hitler also sparked many ideas based on the same anti-Semitic rants and we know what happened there. When we say, "We know what happened", we are not specifically referring to you, Kyle Crabb, as we have no idea what you know about the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi movement, and the events that followed.
The help America gave Saddam Hussein is not in question. The main reason we did it was to counter Iran's new radical Islamic government. Nowhere at this website was this fact contradicted. America gave him arms such as Sarin and Mustard Gas during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s. These chemical weapons are WMDs. That is one of the reasons we know he had them.
His entire rant is nothing but bashing America. You probably refuse to realize this, but Mr. Bennish is engaged in indoctrination, not teaching.
Look at this part of his lesson plan.
...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!
Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!
The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.
He is teaching that America is the most violent nation on the planet. He is teaching that Democracy is evil. These are lies. Nothing could be further from the truth. What are we to make of this? Why is he telling his students this? He is not teaching, but rather attempting to indoctrinate. He is planting the seed that Democracy is not a good thing. Concerning Democracy as known today and for the last 400 years, what two truly democratic nations have gone to war with each other? Democracy is the cure for war between nations. The reason is that the citizens are involved in the government process.
He refers to America as the most violent nation on earth, but who is the first country that every country in the world runs to whenever a disaster occurs? The United States of America and the reason is because America is always there to help, yet somehow, Mr. Bennish makes the claim that we are the most violent nation on earth. That is a lie. Who was it that came to the aid of Kuwait when Iraq invaded? It was America. Kuwait would be a small part of Iraq and would cease to exist if it was not for America.
Then Mr. Bennish starts his anti-Semitic rhetoric about Zionists and their terrorism. Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with UN Resolution 181. It seems he deliberately left that part of history out of his lesson plan. If you want to know who invented and implemented the use of the car bomb, you need to look at the PLO after the 1967 war but let us not confuse Mr. Bennish's argument with a bunch of facts that disprove his argument. If you want the historical truth about the history of modern day Israel, read "The Truth About the Palestinian People". Make no mistake; there was Israel's War for Independence in 1948. The Arab nations did not want Israel to exist and went to war with the newly formed Jewish state. The Arab states attacked Israel, not the other way around. Mr. Bennish was deliberately deceptive about the historical facts so they would fit the agenda he was trying to promote.
Why do you feel the need to share your sexual preference with us? We do not care about any sexual behavior or conquests you choose to engage or make the focus of your life. We never asked you about your sexual preference nor do we want to know anything about your sexual lifestyle. Your bi-sexuality may be how you measure yourself as a person, but we do not care to know anything of your sexual exploits.
--TOP--
14 February 2008
William Perritt wrote:
Subject: Gift
We received an e-mail containing only this graphic. There was nothing else in the e-mail. There is no intelligent thought, no ideas, no comments, or no theories. We receive many e-mails like this and in true form, it is nothing more than a feeble attempt to insult us and refer to us as "Fascists". This cowardly attack is equal to a drive-by shooting. This correspondence shows much more than what the author of this asinine, brainless, and half-baked e-mail intended it to show. It shows the lack of ideas and the complete and total absence of an intelligent response to any argument. In reality, it is an insult to the intelligence of the author of this e-mail and to this e-mail, we issue this reply.
William,
As someone who has written us countless times over the years, we expected so much more from you. Perhaps that was over optimistic on our part. Right out of the Liberal playbook, you refer to us as "Fascists". It is the default reply from the Left-Wing. It would be our guess that you read the Berkeley City Council page. This was a weak attempt to say something intelligent. You are not paying attention to which Fascist organizations are actually siding with us and which ones are siding with groups like CodePINK.
No fascist organizations side with this website.
Who is siding with CodePINK?
You have proved that our assertion is correct when we state item #54 of "Are You A Liberal" and that is:
You constantly equate Conservatives to Nazis or Fascists as your defense whenever anyone dissents against your position on anything.
You prove our point. All you can do is throw insults. You do not even try to add any intelligent reasoning to whatever argument you try to sustain. What are we to make of your e-mail? It is totally devoid of rational content. Is this how you represent your values? Is this the total capacity of your argument? The answer to these questions is an undeniable "YES". Not a single fact challenged. The only thought you have is the hatred and loathing toward anyone that does not agree with your views of the world.
--TOP--
08 January 2008
Rick Patterson wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen,
Please dust off your copies of The Federalist Papers or Poor Richard's Almanack or anything that was current at the time that your great nation was putting itself together against all odds and in the face of a tyrannical (Paine's term) oligarchy (not a democracy, because British parliamentary democracy was still some decades in the future). In spite of the fact that they could have been pardoned for adopting a hostile, vindictive, partisan attitude, you will find that people like Franklin and Adams and Jay are remarkably consistent in not seeking out "enemy targets" for invective and vitriol. Franklin adopted the Enlightenment position that was summarized by his statement, "I disagree with everything you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Where has anyone at this website ever stopped anyone from speaking their mind? There is not a single instance where we have tried to stop anyone from exercising their right of Free Speech. Are we not allowed to have the right to comment or have an opinion on these statements or actions? Maybe the question should be why have you not adopt Franklin's enlightened position?
What have we printed on this website that is contrary to either of the two examples you offered?
I search without success for such an attitude in your site. It is not liberalism or socialism or any ism at all that is your enemy; it is closed-mindedness and an unwillingness to question your own authority, which would mean testing it for weaknesses and striving to build on its strengths. An America that has divided itself along partisan lines and defensively snaps at anyone who is not the correct shade of blue or red is an America that is already far from its original ideals and would not be recognized by the authors of the Constitution that you supposedly defend.
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, but I wish you a lot more grace and humility.
Rick Patterson
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
rickshaw@****.ca
This is a very familiar attitude that we see in many of the e-mails we receive at this website. You focus on what you perceive as an attitude of close-mindedness. All we have done is presented facts about a subject - facts that you have not disputed. You may not like what we have to say but you have not disputed a single fact on this website. Instead, you adopt an "emotional" take on our right to present what we have presented without "intellectually" challenging anything we have actually stated.
If you really want to see the truth, maybe you should take a closer and more honest look at who is actually trying to divide America along partisan lines based on their actions and commentary.
--TOP--
Back to the Top
Total Website Count
©Copyright 2005 - 2016 TargetOfOpportunity.com
|