I don't know whether he does or doesn't. I asked you to describe the content of YOUR statement. Now answer, please. What does RM being Jewish have to do with anything?
Of course his being a Jew has to do with something, however his being a Jew has nothing to with his practicing Judaism or not practicing Judaism... Oy vey...the statement content speaks for itself...
OH!!!!!!! So he's a drug addicted JEW, is he? A drug addicted JEW!!!!!. And he's a BIGOT, is he??? A BIGOT!!! You're such a fucking disgusting hypocrite. But even for you, to combine these two statements in the same post!!. It just proves that we can't use the ignorance argument to explain your idiotic behaviour. Will you please, now, retire the Z alias? It would be more like a mercy killing at this point.
Anyone...? I mean, can anyone see any semblance of reason in this sequence? What in the hell is this last sentence??
The guy has seriously gone off the deep end. He is the epitomy of speaking before thinking (or typing before thinking in this matter).
........... oops..... lol... it's weird. I can read RM's destruction of Z which points out that Z makes posts like this simply to get a reaction, and not because he believes in any of the nonsense, and yet I still react! My bad...
Everything the Bushies are parroting has all been heard before especially the national security shrieking by the lackeys. Have a look for yourselves - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/nixon.html The NYT, or any big paper for that matter, can punch this admin into the pavement with ink. Looks to me like King George is bleeding power every day now. He'd be a fool to keep pushing this -- ought to shut his trap and move on.
An interesting article by the New York Times editorial page right after 9/11. You can go to drudge report to find it. What I wonder is why the Times has shifted gears from the time the article was written to today. They believe that cooperation with foreign banking authorities is important, and then they expose a classified program that is doing just that. The article states that Bush needs to do more about following the money trail. They say in the article he isn't doing enough, and then when he is doing what the article suggested, they say it is too much or not important. In my eyes, this only points to the fact that no matter what Bush does, the media just doesn't like him and will flip flop on their own position as long as it opposes him. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014523.php Reader Douglas Rose has drawn our attention to this September 24, 2001 New York Times editorial ("Finances of Terror") (access limited to TimesSelect): Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists. The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies. Osama bin Laden originally rose to prominence because his inherited fortune allowed him to bankroll Arab volunteers fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Since then, he has acquired funds from a panoply of Islamic charities and illegal and legal businesses, including export-import and commodity trading firms, and is estimated to have as much as $300 million at his disposal. Some of these businesses move funds through major commercial banks that lack the procedures to monitor such transactions properly. Locally, terrorists can utilize tiny unregulated storefront financial centers, including what are known as hawala banks, which people in South Asian immigrant communities in the United States and other Western countries use to transfer money abroad. Though some smaller financial transactions are likely to slip through undetected even after new rules are in place, much of the financing needed for major attacks could dry up. Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace them. The Treasury Department also needs new domestic legal weapons to crack down on money laundering by terrorists. The new laws should mandate the identification of all account owners, prohibit transactions with "shell banks" that have no physical premises and require closer monitoring of accounts coming from countries with lax banking laws. Prosecutors, meanwhile, should be able to freeze more easily the assets of suspected terrorists. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush. New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one. If America is going to wage a war against terrorism, it must indeed act on all fronts. In 2006, it needs to act on the home front and direct its attention to those whose war on the administration is unconstrained by the espionage laws of the United States.