[lbo-talk] conspiramongering

[Joseph Wanzala]

wrong, it is 'conpiracizing' to question the governments obviously phony 
version of events of what happened... obedient progressives do not ask any 
questions lest they are branded with the dreaded 'conspiracist' tag. I don't 
get what you mean about unions and all (I happen to have worked for the late 
Victor Van Bourg, the firebrand union lawyer, who was something of a 
conspiracist himself)


>From: Stephen Philion <philion at hawaii.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: [lbo-talk] conspiramongering
>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:01:59 -0600
>
>After 9-11, Justice O'Connor visited Ground Zero and said that this would
>have implications for individual freedoms.
>Scalia has also said that individual freedoms can be significantly scaled
>back from that they are now, because we currently grant more than the
>Constitution requires.
>But then of course this is mere conspiracizing, or is that conspirasinging,
>or perhaps conspirawringing......
>
>--no, it's not conspirawringing to state that 9-11 set the environment to
>rationalise attacks on the constitution. it is conspiramonging to be
>claiming that Bush planned 9-11 to do that or the like.
>newsmax would probably agree with your thoughts though....a man who is
>against the conspirators and against the right to organize unions without
>getting fired....now there's an ally!
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
> From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you’ll find a 
range of helpful holiday info here.  
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx