Re: OT (yeah, right!): Politics

Page 8 of 14  
Swingman wrote:

Done ... I feel all gooey now ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

    Thanks for the ad hominem response. It adds great weight to your argument.     Your own paragraph only equates our bad behavior with that of others, which does not make it right. The fact that there are criminals in others' military, as well as ours, does not make it right. The fact that we prosecute (although not to the extent that our host countries would always like) and others do not does not make it right to commit the crimes.     In short, when I say people hate us because our overseas military bases have criminal soldiers that *regularly* go out and abuse the local women, it's true. If the Saudis or the Sudanese had military bases in Okinawa, *they* would be hated in Okinawa. But they don't, and we do.
    I'm taking the pledge too. EOD.
====Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ===={remove curly brackets for email}
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Their grudge against Christians goes back further than the existance, let alone the US support of, Israel. By centuries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

no - that is their _stated_ reason. But as I pointed out, the intra-Arab tribal rivalries go far deeper in explaining why there is a high level of hatred within the region. The "leaders" (aka thugs) who run the area use US support of Israel as a diversionary tactic to keep their people busy, nothing more.

The situtation is not even remotely analogous. Jews occupied the land on- and off over the past 6000 years of history. They have a legitimate claim to the land just as much as the Arabs do - and that's what makes the debate hard. Jewery in the region was not some invention of the UN out of whole cloth in the 1940s ...

Until last year, the region featured on of the most sophisticated, trained, and well equipped armies in the world ... and it was ARAB. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria all have plenty of military hardware. The exact reason the US sends military hardware to Israel is to maintain some degree of parity against all the _military_ threats it faces.

No - Israel, left to it own, would do more than just be an aggressor. They would end the discussion once and for all the first time they were attacked again. It is the US that is constantly interceding and pulling them back by their collars.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com says...

Last I heard it was around 10,000-12,000 years. OK, maybe it's not analogous, it's worse.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's part of it, to be sure. But IMO the overwhelming majority of their antipathy toward us is the direct result of our relentless export, through the media of television and motion pictures, of a popular culture that glorifies nudity, promiscuity, alcohol and other drugs, irreverence, and impiety -- all of which the Islamic world finds deeply offensive and threatening.
From their perspective, this may well pose as grave a threat to their way of life, as they do to ours.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hide wrote:
<snip>

A sometimes seductive notion; but not true.

The Patriot Act provides no such protection. It allows the investigators/enforcers to stumble about at a higher speed and without regard for constitutional safeguards.
It does *not* ensure that the next hit isn't 300,000 or even 3,000,000.
Our security grows out of and depends on our freedom and on our cherishing that freedom more than life itself. I would like to point out that a group of "ordinary" Americans on an airliner over Pennsylvania did more to ensure the security of our country than thousands of governmental security types.
Passage of the Patriot Act was a victory for the terrorists - not for the Americans who cherish freedom and recognize that there's a little less to cherish while that act stands.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey responds:

Yes. And the open-jawed acceptance of it by too many people who have not even read it--for which I can't much blame them--is another victory for the terrorists. We're turning the world over to creeps and thugs at an unimaginable pace.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who was it, Ben Franklin, that said something along the line of: "He who gives up essential liberties for security, deserves neither"?
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:25:18 +0000, Tom Veatch wrote:

Any time that you give up liberties, freedom or anything else to government control, you are saying that the government has the right to control anything in your life. How long will it be until you will need a government permit to travel from city to city? All in the name of ensuring the security of the country. Of course, the favorite saying is, "its for your safety". That is a statement that the public will always fall prey to. A completely false sense of security.
Paul T.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A little google time yielded the quote as:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Methinks old Ben would have the attitude that the USA public of 2004 is seriously non-deserving. If so, I'm not at all sure I would disagree with him.
Why do you think it is that "the public will always fall prey" to the "its for your safety" line of BS?
Maybe because somewhere during the last century or so we (John Q. Public) developed an attitude that "the government is responsible for doing (..)", and you can pick a value, any value, for "(..)"? The politicians don't seem to be doing much to refute that attitude.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

....and yet the whole idea of a society and/or a government is the compromise between freedom and security. "Society" represents a group of people coming together and, in one way or another, agreeing to limits on each others freedom in order to gain some security. Outside of "society" or "government" you and I are quite free to kill each other, steal each others stuff, rape each others wives and daughters, etc. We have, however, banded together as a society and developed a government and mutually agreed to give up all of those freedoms to DO these things in order to minimize the possiblity that these things would be done TO us. The Bill of Rights is a document that attempts to set certain boundries as to the extent to which a majority group in this society (represented by the supposedly majority elected government) can take away certain rights from a minority in order to increase the majority's percieved security. At any time a super majority can decide to take away any freedoms it deems appropriate (via a Constitutional amendment), in the meantime there is and will always be a constant tug-of-war as to what degree the Constitutional protections represent a valid compromise between freedom and security. I am sure that old Ben might find some things we do for security (i.e. locking up huge portions of our citizens just because they want to get high, allowing law enforcement to steal our property without even so much as an arrest to protect us from our own desire for drugs, etc.) to be a little more temporary and non-deserving than anything coming out of the Patriot Act attempting to protect us from terrorists.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Mike...
My apologies for my abrupt and too short response. I should have pointed out that once any measure of liberty is lost, it has historically been extremely difficult to recover. My sense is that most often surrendered liberty is /never/ recovered except at very high cost.
I understand that you, like every good husband and parent, want security for your family. The seduction here is that the increase in today's security comes at the cost of moving your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, (...) another step closer to serfdom in an increasingly feudal system.
At this point in history, it's much more likely to be a corporate feudal system than one based on agriculture - but the distinction is minor because feudalism is all only about power and wealth for a very few regardless of the underlying economic basis.
As food for thought I'd like to recall that one of the serf's duties was to defend the lord's castle - and the serfs are easy to identify in the old paintings: They were the people who weren't wearing the armor and who were doing nearly all of the dying.
Not a lot of security in that - and it makes a whole lot more sense to prevent it from happening (again) than to make future generations suffer through it all and then bear all the costs of re-acquiring the liberties that the earlier generations traded away.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    What freedoms have you lost from the Patriot act? Where you have really lost real freedom is from legislation like Campaign Finance reform which is an absolute abridgement of the first amendment. If you, or a group of like-minded people have a beef with a particular candidate for office, not only can you not band together and take out ads 60 days before an election, you face criminal sanctions for doing so. Seems like there's something in the first amendment about "Congress shall make NO law ... or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press".
    
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

That's not really true. Check out any history book that deals with legal changes in the time of the Civil War or WWII or the Cold War.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

not recovered at very high cost? I would differ with that assessment. Some of the liberties lost in each of those conflicts have never been regained, and others completely altered our way of life. It's much better to fight to keep our freedom, than to have to try and win it back. Let's not diminish the efforts of those who struggled before us, or give the impression that it won't be very difficult to regain our freedom, were we to trade a "little liberty for a little security".
We do stand to regain some lost liberty, this month. The end of the assault weapons ban is just around the corner. Rejoice! :>)
--
Kevin
-=#=-



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Slaves, Enslaving Free Men". The thinking behind that was the great increase in federal power as a result of that war. In some ways, it was mainly responsible for the change from "these united States" to "the United States".
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Very astute. I wish more people recognized that obvious difference. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves, and the Fourteenth Amendment created a whole new class of slaves.
--
Kevin
-=#=-

"Larry Blanchard" < snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
WD wrote:

The Patriot Act merely applies to "terrorists" laws already on the books long ago that were applied to "drug dealers" and RICO conspirators. The freedoms were lost long ago in the War On Drugs, War On Crime, War On Poverty, War On _Fill_In_The_Blank. Don't blame this administration for what was screwed up long ago ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.