Now that's funny.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> As to concrete results, I'm a bit baffled by the suggestion that
> hasn't been. Obama hasn't even been on the job a week and he's done
> more than many Presidents have done in a year.
>
> Judah wrote:
> I have no problems with debate on the issues.
As to concrete results, I'm a bit baffled by the suggestion that
hasn't been. Obama hasn't even been on the job a week and he's done
more than many Presidents have done in a year.
As to debate, it should be over the priorities and th
> Judah wrote:
> You are too rich Robert. That's some funny shit right there.
>
He just made a typo.
He meant to say, "that what we were *supposed to be* doing with the
military commissions ..."
I'm not opposed to military commissions if it's not for a US citizen
and they're on the record about
I have no problems with debate on the issues. But thus far the debate
has not been characterized by the issues. Closing Guantanamo is, I
hope, not an issue. It is something that should have been done some
time ago. The tricky part is what to do with the remaining people at
Guantanamo. We've already
Ha! I'm happy to wait for concrete action, but I'm not going to stop
debating the issues while I wait.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Judah M> wrote:
> I don't have a messiah. But yeah, if people like you would (to quote
> Mssrs Limbaugh and O'Reilley) STFU and wait to see what he comes up
> wi
I don't have a messiah. But yeah, if people like you would (to quote
Mssrs Limbaugh and O'Reilley) STFU and wait to see what he comes up
with, I'd be quite pleased. I'm curious to see what comes out of the
situation myself. I've been mostly happy, somewhat disappointed so
far. Overall I'd love to
Let's see what the Messiah comes up with, shall we? :-P
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Judah Mc wrote:
> Hahahaha
>
> /me wipes a tear from his eye
>
> The same military commissions that have been redone several times
> because even the hand picked circuit judges and supreme court justices
> a
26, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Won Lee wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Won Lee [mailto:w...@mediacommerce.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:30 PM
> > To: cf-community
> > Subject: RE: A final note of praise for Bush
> >
> > > --
> -Original Message-
> From: Won Lee [mailto:w...@mediacommerce.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:30 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: RE: A final note of praise for Bush
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 4:29 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: A final note of praise for Bush
>
> I was putting in all those who are freed on a technicality. Not found
> 'not
&g
unday, January 25, 2009 5:38 PM
> > To: cf-community
> > Subject: Re: A final note of praise for Bush
> >
> > Counterpoint... OJ Simpson.
> >
> > I would argue that for every 'innocent' person who has been sent to
> > jail,
> > there is at le
> -Original Message-
> From: Won Lee [mailto:w...@mediacommerce.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: RE: A final note of praise for Bush
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdino.
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 5:38 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: A final note of praise for Bush
>
> Counterpoint... OJ Simpson.
>
> I would argue that for every 'innocent
Hahahaha
/me wipes a tear from his eye
The same military commissions that have been redone several times
because even the hand picked circuit judges and supreme court justices
agree don't provide even the most basic of legal protections?
You are too rich Robert. That's some funny shit right ther
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:mdino...@houseoffusion.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: A final note of praise for Bush
>
> The the border between North and South Korea is not preventing a war?
&
That's what we were doing with the military commissions until Obama stopped
them.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:47 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> I just don't see why this is such an issue. We're only talking about 200 or
> so peopleif we know they are terrorists, take a few days and prove it.
> Problem
> One thing. I never started on the vitriol this time. I gave a rather
> positive view of this country, you began attacking me.
'This time'...I love that. Now that you didn't start it, you try to play
the innocent victim.
>
> >
> >You believe that anyone who does not share your opinoin is wrong
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> Herein lies Obama's problem. If he lets these folks go and one or more of
> them ends up perpetrating a 9/11-style attack against the US, he becomes
> the
> biggest goat in the history of the country.
>
He's only a goat if he let someone go f
Of course, silly. JFK was a democrat. Democrats never do anythign wrong.
>
>
> So you're happy with the way JFK handled that?
>
>
>
Scott Stroz
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson
~
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> As for the wiretapping, that was done by the FBI director without
> presidential approval.
RFK approved it.
> The Bay of Pigs was authorized by Eisenhower and was well under way before
> Kennedy was president.
So you're happy with the way
I take offense to the fact that you continue to claim that I revile or
dislike this country. There is nothing I have ever done nor said that would
lead you to that conclusion other than the fact that from time to time I
disagree with your liberal drivel.
You are one of the most hypocritical peop
Herein lies Obama's problem. If he lets these folks go and one or more of
them ends up perpetrating a 9/11-style attack against the US, he becomes the
biggest goat in the history of the country.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Scott Stro wrote:
> I cannot help but think that the same people wh
>Umm...where have I done any of this? Please point out to me where I have
>advocated any of what you say.
>
>>
>>
>> And on top of that you do not think worse yet your actions suggest that
>> you're actively hostile to any thinking at all. You prefer to march in
>> goosestep to your glorious leade
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Larry Lyons
> wrote:
> > Twit.
>
> Typical Larry.
>
> > I was asked to come here. I chose in the end to make my life here.
> It was not because of a mere accident of birth.
>
> I guess that makes you better than every born in American. Nice way
> to
> assim
Nope, if a detainee goes on a killing spree it's because Gitmo made
him a killer.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> I cannot help but think that the same people who are cheering for the
> closing of Gitmo will be the same people screaming bloddy murder if one of
> the detain
I am too busy today to read all of this thread, but this one answers
me directly and ... what nonsense. What the hell is "a legitimate
social movement"? There is no application form to become a social
movement, nor is there usually a "leadership." It is that merely by
virtue of large numbers of pe
I cannot help but think that the same people who are cheering for the
closing of Gitmo will be the same people screaming bloddy murder if one of
the detainees does indeed kill others.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Dana wrote:
> that's the Jack Bauer fallacy. The problem with it is that as we
that's the Jack Bauer fallacy. The problem with it is that as we have
seen with Bush, those in power can "know" things that simply aren't so
at all.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> No, I am suggesting a specific moral dilemma. Can you free a guilty man
> knowing that he will
> JJ wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> The values, laws and system of justice need to still work INTERNALLY during
> time of war, but the WAR itself falls outside of those rules.
>
But that's the whole discussion!
The Bush administration has argued that it can essentially do anything
it like
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> Twit.
Typical Larry.
> I was asked to come here. I chose in the end to make my life here. It was not
> because of a mere accident of birth.
I guess that makes you better than every born in American. Nice way to
assimilate.
> I want her to
Aren't wars, by there nature, aggressive?
You justify a war of aggression that was based on lies and deception.
--
Scott Stroz
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson
~~~
BUt that is exactly what you have with the so called War On Drugs.
A totally Open Ended "war" that just sucks in billions of dollars a year,
and no one knows if its working or what the end game is.
Don't you realise that these Open Ended wars are almost perfect money making
ventures?
You have unli
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> >Unlike you, I do not try to pretend to be morally superior to others.
> >
> >You are nothing more than a steaming pile of hypocracy. You continually
> >slam others for behavior that you seem perfectly OK with when it comes to
> >you or any o
How is Obama's position any different than mine? What is his end game? He'll
say bring the troops home. Maybe he'll say repeal the Patriot Act. And if we
are attacked again? Right back to a war footing, guaranteed.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Judah M wrote:
>
> >
> > What's what? My end game
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Gruss wrote:
> And, uh, one was a civil war.
>
> Oh and the other is widely viewed a huge mistake.
>
> If I'm understanding Robert's point it's that American values are not
> compatible with national security. In other words, the American
> experiment doesn't work
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
> That was Dana's line of evasion, but I'll play along.
>
You brought it up in response to my questions. You could have just
answered the question you know.
>
> What's what? My end game? They de-arm and become a legitimate social
> movement, or
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> You are totally evading my questions. But lets follow your line of
> evasion and say it is a social movement because it does share many
> attributes with social movements. In particular, the largely Muslim
> anti-Western movement is highly d
You are totally evading my questions. But lets follow your line of
evasion and say it is a social movement because it does share many
attributes with social movements. In particular, the largely Muslim
anti-Western movement is highly decentralized. It spans many groups
(Al Qeda being the most well
I couldn't disagree more.
The values, laws and system of justice need to still work INTERNALLY during
time of war, but the WAR itself falls outside of those rules.
(For example, did you ever notice that OUR military personnel are not
covered by the bill of rights nor the protections under the con
> Judah wrote:
> Yes, I do. Twice isn't bad for almost 240 years. Especially as those
> were both in actual wars with a defined enemy and the realistic
> prospect of a win or loss or treaty.
>
And, uh, one was a civil war.
Oh and the other is widely viewed a huge mistake.
If I'm understanding Ro
You win a visit to Prehistoric Forest. Congratulations.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:46 AM, G Money wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
>
>> >You are a smug, unhappy little man.
>>
>
> Tommy Boy!
>
> (what do i win...?)
>
> --
> I'm callin' all friends
> And people i've me
Isn't it also very,very profitable?
at least to some?
2009/1/26 Judah McAuley
> He moved us into a state of permanent war
> with no boundaries and used it as an excuse to undermine our most
> basic rights. That is unconscionable and unprecedented.
>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> >You are a smug, unhappy little man.
>
Tommy Boy!
(what do i win...?)
--
I'm callin' all friends
And people i've met on the way down
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 i
>Unlike you, I do not try to pretend to be morally superior to others.
>
>You are nothing more than a steaming pile of hypocracy. You continually
>slam others for behavior that you seem perfectly OK with when it comes to
>you or any of the other bleeding heart liberals on this list. 'Bush is a
>d
>Does that mean you will go back because now you fit in?
Why are you afraid of too much competition.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick
Dana called Al Qaeda a social movement. If it is truly to become that, its
leadership must renounce violence, disarm, and become a legitimate social
movement. How does that happen? They sign a surrender document and surrender
for judgment at the hands of a war crimes court. The Hague would be fine
Yes, I do. Twice isn't bad for almost 240 years. Especially as those
were both in actual wars with a defined enemy and the realistic
prospect of a win or loss or treaty.
This is a "War on Terror". How the hell do you win that? You keep
harping about how Al Queda is a non-nationstate and therefore
No, what I am saying is that there is a big difference between 'innocent'
and 'not guilty'.
Do you think OJ is 'innocent' becasue he was found 'not guilty'?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Maureen wrote:
> So an innocent person who is found not guilty is no longer innocent in
> "your book"?
Unlike you, I do not try to pretend to be morally superior to others.
You are nothing more than a steaming pile of hypocracy. You continually
slam others for behavior that you seem perfectly OK with when it comes to
you or any of the other bleeding heart liberals on this list. 'Bush is a
douche
1. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.
2. Roosevelt interned thousands of Japanese-Americans in camps for years
without due process.
Is that what you call "doing pretty well"?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Judah Mc wrote:
> Your whole premise is faulty anyway because we have a legal system
> whe
Your whole premise is faulty anyway because we have a legal system
where evidence can be presented in a way which protects national
security. This isn't an either/or situation. The Bush administration
behaved like national security had never been an issue that the courts
had had to worry about befo
It is a hypothetical question designed to test one of the most basic ideas
of moral judgment - should you perpetrate a small crime against an
individual in order to prevent them from perpetrating a much larger crime?
You absolutely can not know whether they would kill anyone in the future,
but the
There is a vast difference in legal and moral.
Legally, in order to hold him, you have to prove his guilt. You
cannot prove guilt for a crime that has not yet been committed.
Morally, you could assume that killing the one would be preferable to
allowing the death of thousands and thereby arrang
So an innocent person who is found not guilty is no longer innocent in
"your book"? Mighty glad you're a computer programmer and not a
judge.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Actually, you are not found innocent, you are found not-guiltybig
> difference in my book.
Twit.
I was asked to come here. I chose in the end to make my life here. It was not
because of a mere accident of birth.
That said what's it to you, cannot stand being on the moral low ground, so
you're begging me to leave? That alone would make me want to stay.
That said, unlike you I hold th
>It's a view based on true anarchy. Each person takes full and total
>responsibility for themselves without impinging on others. No central
>control as there is no need for it. Great idea but you know humans...
You mean like Somalia or Sudan? When anarchy takes hold it is not people taking
full a
No, I am suggesting a specific moral dilemma. Can you free a guilty man
knowing that he will commit an act of terror that will kill a thousand
people? I am making two assumptions in this question - you know the man is
guilty but national security prevents you from presenting evidence to that
effect
Actually, you are not found innocent, you are found not-guiltybig
difference in my book.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Maureen wrote:
> A jury of peers is how guilt or innocent is determined in this land.
> You have a problem with that? You have a better suggestion?
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2
What about it?
Suppose I call the Department of Homeland Security and say "Robert
Munn posted an email where he talked about killing thousands of
people" and they come and lock you up. I haven't lied, simply spun
what you said to make you sound guilty. Remove the presumption of
innocence, and t
What about freeing a guilt man who then goes on to kill a thousand people?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He was not proven guilty therefore he
> is non-guilty.
>
> Whether he did it or not is moot as a legal issue.
>
> Sending innocents to jail i
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. He was not proven guilty therefore he
is non-guilty.
Whether he did it or not is moot as a legal issue.
Sending innocents to jail is a much worse crime against humanity than
failing to jail a guilty person. If you want the guilty in jail.
then you need to be targe
A jury of peers is how guilt or innocent is determined in this land.
You have a problem with that? You have a better suggestion?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Following the rule of law does not help us determine who is innocent and who
> is guilty. All it does is tell us
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Dana wrote:
> wow. It's ok to beat people up but if you cut their heads off you are
> evil?
>
Please re-read my post. It is not OK to beat people up, but in the case of
very bad people, it arouses little sympathy for the victims.
And yes, if you cut people's he
ok. your point being?
You sound like you feel this balances things out
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Counterpoint... OJ Simpson.
>
> I would argue that for every 'innocent' person who has been sent to jail,
> there is at least 1 'guilty' person who was not.
>
> On Sun
Counterpoint... OJ Simpson.
I would argue that for every 'innocent' person who has been sent to jail,
there is at least 1 'guilty' person who was not.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Dana wrote:
> but see... what it looks like is that this guy cannot be prosecuted
> because he was tortured. Br
Following the rule of law does not help us determine who is innocent and who
is guilty. All it does is tell us who 12 people think are innocent or
guilty.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Maureen wrote:
> The problem is how do you determine who is guilty and who is innocent
> if you don't foll
wow. It's ok to beat people up but if you cut their heads off you are evil?
I think the list below represents the worst sort of medievalism
but you don't think any civilians have died in Iraq? Whoops,
they're collateral damage though aren't they?
This society may not kill women for attending
Does that mean you will go back because now you fit in?
Everything I've heard from my colleagues, friends and relations back in
> Canada is that the majority of people, even from the most hard line pro-US
> Tories, is a very strong anti-American sentiment that has developed over the
> last 5 year
Why is it so necessary for you to pretend that they are not evil?
- mass murder against civilians
- cutting heads off innocent people
- killing women for attending school
- suicide bombings
and that's just the highlight reel.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Dana wrote:
> I can get my kicks rig
I can get my kicks right here on route 66 :) Why is it so necessary to
you that they be depersonalized and completely evil?
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
> If you think they are such nice guys, go live in the northwest territory of
> Pakistan and see how the treat you.
>
>
If you think they are such nice guys, go live in the northwest territory of
Pakistan and see how the treat you.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Dana wrote:
> I think you should just sic gandalf on them, hehe
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFu
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Dana wrote:
> but see... what it looks like is that this guy cannot be prosecuted
> because he was tortured. Bravo to all the Jack Bauer wannabes.
>
He is being prosecuted. He has already stated to the judge, without
prompting, that he wants to plead guilty. He d
I think you should just sic gandalf on them, hehe
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> So you think Al Qaeda represents what, the forces of ice cream and cupcakes?
> How about the mullahs in Iran, they represent gum drops and candy canes?
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Dana
but see... what it looks like is that this guy cannot be prosecuted
because he was tortured. Bravo to all the Jack Bauer wannabes.
Beyond the practicalities, you don't have to have sympathy for the
guy. I suspect few people do. But if it's ok to knock his teeth out
when is it not ok? We haven't ha
Interesting analogy, but it does not really answer the question. Obama
has been a senator for what, a couple years now? So I am sure that he
had heard of the Iraq war long before he ran for president. So why the
contradicting statements? That is backpedaling if you ask me.
Bruce
On 1/24/09, Micha
I know a lot of elderly people, and almost all of them are for drug
decriminalization, especially marijuana for medical use. The problem
to date is in how the legalization has been presented. I'm hoping
that changes. I know that Biden is a huge fan of treatment instead of
incarceration, so perha
And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human capital, and the cost in
trust in the government. We jailed half of a generation of young black men
for largely non-violent drug offenses. Selective enforcement has made the
war on drugs look like a war on people who are young, poor, male, and
non
I don't know. I think we are rapidly approaching a time when we can
no longer afford to enforce prohibition with so little return on the
investment. 250 million dollars a year to incarcerate people whose
only crime is possession of pot might fly in a robust economy, but I
doubt it will find many
The problem is how do you determine who is guilty and who is innocent
if you don't follow the rule of law. Is KSM guilty, or is he only
accused? Where's the proof? Who decided? How can we ever know if
his interrogation is tainted by torture?
There are reason the burden of proof is on the accu
So you think Al Qaeda represents what, the forces of ice cream and cupcakes?
How about the mullahs in Iran, they represent gum drops and candy canes?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Dana wrote:
> "the forces of tyranny"
>
> hehe
>
> run by the Dark Lord in his tower no doubt.
>
>
~~~
Not OK. I have little sympathy for KSM and other mass-murderers of
civilians. If they got their teeth knocked out by some Marines, that's not
something I am going to worry about. If innocent people got the same
treatment, that's a different story.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Dana wrote:
>
It's such a simply solution, and yet somehow I think we are years away from
dealing with the issue honestly.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Maureen wrote:
> There is a difference between the tyranny of Saddam and tyranny of the
> drug dealers. The US could eliminate the latter with the stroke
Even your fearless leader Bush admitted that the Mission Accomplished
banner was a mistake. Even if, and that's a big if, the major combat
missions were over, the stated mission was remove Hussein, find the
WMDs, and bring Democracy to Iraq. That mission was definitely not
accomplished by May 1,
"the forces of tyranny"
hehe
run by the Dark Lord in his tower no doubt.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> The Iraqis have their own ancient culture, they are doing just fine
> culturally. They were not doing fine politically. A small group of people
> was kicking the shit
Who knows?
I know anytime I've had to take on a project of another developer that was
riddled with spaghetti code that had little planning and poor implementation
I've always found it hard to quote a timeline to a client.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
> I guess that depends
I guess that depends on your definition of mission accomplished. And I
guess you just showed what little faith you have in your new messiah,
I mean president. He wants us out of here in 16 months. Oh wait, that
depends on what quote you read. I recall a later interview where he
will consult with th
>
> > I laugh every time this line comes up. You do know the difference
> between major combat operations, and stability operation are right?
So the banner should have read: "Major Combat Operations: Mission
Accomplished. Stability Operations: 10 More Years."
B to the ackpedal y'all.
~
I laugh every time this line comes up. You do know the difference
between major combat operations, and stability operation are right?
No, I guess not or you people would not be rehashing this same line to
mean that the war is completely over.
Bruce
On 1/24/09, Michael Grant wrote:
> Good thing
no.
> It makes more sense to bring Canada into the fold. Maybe Quebec stays
> independent if they like and the western provinces become US states. Taking
> Maureen's "no borders" approach, that would actually work rather well in a
> lot of respects, but would Americans and Canadians buy into it? N
bottom line = "some beatings" are ok if it's our guys doing them, is
that what you are saying?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> The history of the Middle East is five thousand years of kings, dictators,
> and warlords.
>
> As for torture by the US government, specific cases l
> Last time I checked, there were no Iraqis involved in the planning or
execution of 9/11.
Isn't that why the US invaded though? Irrefutable proof of WMD's posing an
imminent threat to the US? Or was it to spread democracy? Or was it because
Sadaam's mustache looked suspicious? Or was it because
> Mo wrote:
> There is a difference between the tyranny of Saddam and tyranny of the
> drug dealers.
Maybe to eggheads in a cozy college lounge, but not effectively to the
terrorized.
Has the physical act of voting and having a democracy stopped their
terrorism? Nope.
And they're not even Musli
There is a difference between the tyranny of Saddam and tyranny of the
drug dealers. The US could eliminate the latter with the stroke of
pen. Legalize and tax drugs, and the dealers either go away, or
follow Joseph Kennedy into politics like the last round of profiteers
from prohibition.
On Sat
> RoMunn wrote:
> government? They rejected monarchy in favor of republicanism. They chose
> democracy.
>
That was a good post. Here are my thoughts:
I think you might be confusing "democracy" with western forms of government.
At the end of the day don't forget that we're culturally European.
T
Funny, this made me think about high school history. When I took the AP
test, I argued that the US declared independence from Britain not over the
issue of economics but over the issue of democracy. I was derided, of
course, by my history teacher, who believed I was naive to think that the
Founding
The government let us down in a several areas. I don't agree that
waterboardings, beatings etc. of KSM and other high value targets is morally
equivalent to Saddam's crimes against humanity, but I agree that things went
too far, especially early on.
Does it make a difference that only a few people
>Mexico has a very socialist political culture and a strong anti-military
>bent. I count that as two strikes against them joining the US. And yes, I
>think about it seriously.
>
>It makes more sense to bring Canada into the fold. Maybe Quebec stays
>independent if they like and the western province
And so how does that make it better? Let me put it this way, we use torture.
Does that make us any better than the ba'athist scum of Saddam? Since when does
descending to the level of the moral equivalent of human slime make us any
better than him. Pardon me but as far as I can see if you wallow
>It would be an appropriate comparison if the Iraqi people were in the
>middle of a civil war in an effort to become democratic and the US lent
>support to the side that supported democracy. Alas, that wasn't the case.
the point I was making was that the even the US did not experience the
democra
In the spirit of the new administration:
Democracy
Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.
I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my two feet
And own the land.
I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is ano
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
