Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, representing the Students for  Increased Beverage Access (SIBA), writes:   >Oh? Then why did the smoke and flames start from three different places? >In particular, three different places where there were no APV's?   Well, I only saw it start in one place.  A tank punched a hole in a wall, and as it withdrew flames came out and spread quickly in the direction that a 30+ mph wind was blowing.  I saw a diagram in USA Today yesterday, and fires started at 2 of the 3 holes that the tanks made.  A terrible, negligent accident.   >And if the government did start the fire, then why weren't people trying >to get out of the compound?   Maybe they couldn't.  I've often marvelled at how people could get burned alive in the upstairs of a 2 story house on fire, but it happens all the time. What if they were in sealed rooms, trying to avoid the gas, and didn't know about the fire until it surrounded them?  Remember the Israelis hiding in sealed rooms during Desert Storm to avoid gas-bearing Scuds?  Cripes, Mark, are you REALLY a college student?  Maybe you ought to stop worrying about increased beverage access and start clearing your head. Ever heard of questioning authority?   >And besides... oh, I don't know why I'm even bothering.   OK, I'll buy that.  You _do_ seem totally clueless...   >I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem eager to believe >a murderous, heavily-armed religious cult, despite much evidence to the contrary.   Wellllll....  They weren't murderous.  They'd never harmed or even threatened  anybody until they were attacked by a paramilitary force using military weapons and hardware.  And as far as "evidence", what are you talking about?   Everything the Feds have said they've retracted practically as soon as they get questioned in detail about it.  Maybe you and your Increased Beverage Access buddies, sitting around the bar slurring stuff like "they shoulda killed 'em all 51 days ago" don't feel that way, but then you're probably one of those people still saying about Klinton "Give the guy a chance, we don't even know what he's gonna do! (Burp)   >Thought Experiment: Suppose this exact same thing happened under >the Bush administration. What would your answer be then? Would you still >prefer to believe the cultists?  >(No, I don't really expect a response to that challenge.)  No problem, you don't have any questions that scare any of us.  Most of our minds are apparently more developed than yours.    The answer is:  *YES!*  In a f*cking heartbeat!    Thought Experiment:  Would you be mindlessly down on your knees with your mouth  open, blissfully sucking up anything the Feds said if Bush were the president? What, no comeback?  (OK, go ahead, say it.  "Read my lips, no new taxes" %^P   )   >>But then >>again, that is how Mr. Clinton was elected, by people who believe that >>his campaign promisses would be respected by him once he got into office.  >Um, isn't that how all politicians are elected?  Not in such a great degree.  Bush broke one promise, maybe two (taxes/guns) and we held him accountable for it.  Of course, it took him the better part of 4 years to do it;  Slick's only been in office 101 days and he's broken lots of them.  Anddd...  I imagine he'll also be held accountable for that.  (I can just see the campaign buttons now:   "ABC - Anybody But Clinton")  >So is there any particular reason the gummint decided to slaughter eighty >people? Are they, like, just plain evil, or what? Did they just wake up >one day, stretch and yawn, and throw a dart at a map of the United States >to figure out who to oppress that day? I'm eager to know.  Hmmm.... Apparently you just got here.  Nobody's claiming that it was anything but a stupid mistake by a bunch of incompetent public employees who normally don't get this kind of scrutiny when the mess up.  And as far as how they picked the Davidians, who knows?  Maybe they figured that nobody'd care about such a politically incorrect group as a bunch of fundies out on the Texas prairie. Maybe they figured they'd just go in there and run roughshod over the BDs during their religious services (which was the reason the Feds gave for the timing of the raid) rather than running into resistance.  Maybe they KNEW that the BDs weren't ANYWHERE NEAR as violent as the Feds' spin doctors are trying to tell the public.  Maybe they were AFRAID to try this kind of thing on the Crips and Bloods.  Maybe it was because the ATF's budget is up for approval and they seem to favor doing something dramatic whenever that is the case.  Of course, their reasoning doesn't matter, only what they did, and this time, people are just paying more attention to it.   >And does Bill Clinton have cooler theme music than Darth Vader?   Not if you mean that stupid "don't stop thinking about tomorrow"...  >How is he on diabolical laughter?   All I've ever heard is Hillary's diabolical giggle.  Waffle Man seems to have lost his sense of humor...  >Does he look good in a cape?   Don't know, never seen him in one.  He probably looks fat and puffy faced, just like in a suit.  I saw him in the Rose Garden the other day, and I couldn't get over how much he is starting to look like Teddy Kennedy.   >These things MUST be investigated. You first.   Don't worry, these things WILL be investigated.  Now go back to your beer, you dimwit....