f



Scary Article

More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from 
time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to 
read it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either. 
How strange...
-- 
Kincade
0
BK4775 (20)
11/26/2003 8:03:32 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

1566 Replies
1943 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 2

In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
 Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:

> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from 
> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to 
> read it.
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> 
> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either. 
> How strange...

Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I 
think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to 
civilian government.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/26/2003 8:48:15 PM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:

> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> 
>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> read it.
>> 
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> 
>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>> How strange...
> 
> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I think
> that after the crises were over, things would be returned to civilian
> government.

That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once rights
are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by the people.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/26/2003 9:18:34 PM
Unfortunately the last line of the article is probably true:

"I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at
peace"


0
martik (373)
11/26/2003 9:45:49 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.26.21.18.33.303132@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> > 
> >> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >> read it.
> >> 
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> 
> >> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
> >> How strange...
> > 
> > Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I think
> > that after the crises were over, things would be returned to civilian
> > government.
> 
> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once rights
> are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by the people.

Remember the Boston Tea Party...

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget
0
jpolaski2 (4002)
11/26/2003 9:58:11 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.26.21.18.33.303132@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> > 
> >> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >> read it.
> >> 
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> 
> >> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
> >> How strange...
> > 
> > Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I think
> > that after the crises were over, things would be returned to civilian
> > government.
> 
> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once rights
> are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by the people.

Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws 
that allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however, 
those laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis passes 
- of course the liberals in Congress might have changed that during 
their watch without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it past the 
bastards, but last time I checked, that was how it works. IOW, I think 
this general is an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in the Republic 
than he does.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/26/2003 10:17:07 PM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:17:07 +0000, George Graves wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.26.21.18.33.303132@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> >> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> >> read it.
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >> 
>> >> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>> >> either. How strange...
>> > 
>> > Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> > think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> > civilian government.
>> 
>> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once rights
>> are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by the people.
> 
> Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws that
> allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however, those
> laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis passes - of
> course the liberals in Congress might have changed that during their watch
> without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it past the bastards, but
> last time I checked, that was how it works. IOW, I think this general is
> an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in the Republic than he does.

He may know the government better than you do.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/26/2003 10:43:08 PM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> 
>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> read it.
>> 
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> 
>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>> How strange...
> 
> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> civilian government.

History doesn't support that assertion.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/26/2003 10:56:04 PM
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> - of course the liberals in Congress

You misspelt politicians.


If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...

-JB


0
JamesBoswell (241)
11/26/2003 10:57:16 PM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>George Graves wrote:
>
>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> 
>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>> read it.
>>> 
>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>> 
>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>>> How strange...
>> 
>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> civilian government.
>
>History doesn't support that assertion.

Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/26/2003 11:30:28 PM
In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
 "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > - of course the liberals in Congress
> 
> You misspelt politicians.

Sigh. OK, have it your way.
> 
> 
> If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...

Unfortunately, the alternatives to our system of government are worse.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/26/2003 11:47:27 PM
In article <pan.2003.11.26.22.43.07.507910@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:17:07 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.26.21.18.33.303132@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >> >> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >> >> read it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >> 
> >> >> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >> >> either. How strange...
> >> > 
> >> > Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> > think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> > civilian government.
> >> 
> >> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once rights
> >> are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by the people.
> > 
> > Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws that
> > allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however, those
> > laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis passes - of
> > course the liberals in Congress might have changed that during their watch
> > without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it past the bastards, but
> > last time I checked, that was how it works. IOW, I think this general is
> > an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in the Republic than he does.
> 
> He may know the government better than you do.

I think, like most career military officers, he knows the military. 
Period. That's why they rarely make good civilian leaders.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/26/2003 11:49:16 PM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>> read it.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>> 
>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>> either. How strange...
>>> 
>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> civilian government.
>>
>>History doesn't support that assertion.
> 
> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.

Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/27/2003 1:03:44 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
us with the following wisdom:

>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>> 
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>> 
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>>
>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>> 
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?

They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
governmental backing and haven. 
The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
terrorism in the first place.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/27/2003 1:21:37 AM
"Martik" <martik@telus.net> wrote on 11/26/03 2:45 PM:

> Unfortunately the last line of the article is probably true:
> 
> "I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at
> peace"
> 
> 
Sure we will.  After Bush wins the "War on Terror" he will start the "War on
War".

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 1:30:52 AM
"Rick" <rick@none.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:03 PM:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>> 
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>> 
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>> 
>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>> 
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> 
> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?

It is not possible to win a war on a philosophy of fighting.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 1:32:38 AM
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> us with the following wisdom:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>> civilian government.
>>>> 
>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>> 
>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>> 
>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> 
> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> governmental backing and haven.

Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
election is run fairly.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 1:34:01 AM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>> us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>> 
>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>> 
>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>> 
>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>> 
>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> governmental backing and haven.
>
>Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>office to get rid of one terrorist.

Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
Hitler? That's always entertaining too.

>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.

We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.



-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/27/2003 1:53:53 AM
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>> 
>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>> 
>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>> governmental backing and haven.
>> 
>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
> 
> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.

Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with countries
of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when you
are done.
> 
>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
> 
> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> 
What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
Ironic, eh?

In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 2:04:06 AM
In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"

will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can attack they 
are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if he wants to win the 
war on terrorism

-- 
-------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams http://zap.to/webcams
-------------------------------------------
0
atz02 (117)
11/27/2003 3:12:47 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:53:53 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>> 
>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>> 
>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>
>>Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>office to get rid of one terrorist.
> 
> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get tired
> of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him Hitler? That's
> always entertaining too.
> 
>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
> 
> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to be
> told to do so by the Supreme Court again.

Florida followed its laws, jerk. People in Palm Beach are too stupid to
vote.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
11/27/2003 3:26:51 AM
"Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:

> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
> 
> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can attack they
> are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if he wants to win the
> war on terrorism

Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy of
fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 3:38:52 AM
"Rick" <rick@none.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:26 PM:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:53:53 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>> 
>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>> 
>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>> 
>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get tired
>> of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him Hitler? That's
>> always entertaining too.
>> 
>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>> 
>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to be
>> told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> 
> Florida followed its laws, jerk. People in Palm Beach are too stupid to
> vote.

Can you quote the law that allows many people to be disallowed to vote
because they were erroneously placed on a felon list? 

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 3:40:00 AM
In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>
>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>
>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if
>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>
> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy of
> fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.

good god, where do you get this stuff?  terrorism is not a "method" or
"philosophy" of fighting.  you're probably thinking of guerilla warfare.


0
news121 (2473)
11/27/2003 3:54:45 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:54 PM:

> In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>> 
>>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if
>>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>> 
>> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy of
>> fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.
> 
> good god, where do you get this stuff?  terrorism is not a "method" or
> "philosophy" of fighting.  you're probably thinking of guerilla warfare.
> 
See http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Some of the definitions that come up:

> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property
> to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This
> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and
> involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or
> coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social
> objectives. 

By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.  Certainly seems
to be talking about a type of fighting

> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or
> threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on
> behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s)
> committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any
> section of the public in fear.

Again, supports my idea...

> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or
> military in non-military situations.

Still...

> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in
> order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in
> nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Seems in most definitions, terrorism is a method of fighting that used
intimidation and fear against a group.  

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 4:02:02 AM
In news:BBEAC54A.327D4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:54 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>>>
>>>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>>>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if
>>>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>>>
>>> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy
>>> of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.
>>
>> good god, where do you get this stuff?  terrorism is not a "method"
>> or "philosophy" of fighting.  you're probably thinking of guerilla
>> warfare.
>>
> See http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

i read the first 5 definition, and none of them support the definition you
gave.

> Some of the definitions that come up:
>
>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
>> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
>> population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political
>> or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1)
>> Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2)
>> The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions
>> are committed in support of political or social objectives.

again, doesn't match your definition.

> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
> Certainly seems
> to be talking about a type of fighting

no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.  it's
talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the really important
one) the *intent* of the actions.

>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence
>> and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether
>> acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any
>> organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions,
>> ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to
>> influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of
>> the public in fear.
>
> Again, supports my idea...

no, it doesn't.  again, it's talking about the goals.  not the methods.

>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>
> Still...

you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense on what?

>> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against
>> civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious
>> or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or
>> coercion or instilling fear
>
> Seems in most definitions, terrorism is a method of fighting that used
> intimidation and fear against a group.

no, it's not.  it's actions used for intimidation or fear alright, but
there's no mention of the methods.  could be dropping an a-bomb, a gaggle
samurais with swords, suicide bombers, kidnappings, etc.  *those* are
examples of *methods* that could be used to carry out terrorism.


0
news121 (2473)
11/27/2003 4:09:49 AM
In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >George Graves wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >>> read it.
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>> 
> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
> >>> How strange...
> >> 
> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> civilian government.
> >
> >History doesn't support that assertion.
> 
> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.

The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
on terror.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 4:14:26 AM
In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
 "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > - of course the liberals in Congress
> 
> You misspelt politicians.

George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his 
standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very 
least.

> If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 4:25:11 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:09 PM:

> In news:BBEAC54A.327D4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:54 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> "Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>>>> 
>>>>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>>>>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world if
>>>>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>>>> 
>>>> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a method/philosophy
>>>> of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.
>>> 
>>> good god, where do you get this stuff?  terrorism is not a "method"
>>> or "philosophy" of fighting.  you're probably thinking of guerilla
>>> warfare.
>>> 
>> See http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> 
> i read the first 5 definition, and none of them support the definition you
> gave.
> 
>> Some of the definitions that come up:
>> 
>>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
>>> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or
>>> any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".
>>> This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
>>> illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to
>>> intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political
>>> or social objectives.
>>> 
> again, doesn't match your definition.

"Use of force" (method - though vague).  "to intimidate or coerce"
(philosophy, or perhaps reason)
> 
>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism. Certainly seems
>> to be talking about a type of fighting
>> 
> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.  it's talking
> about the legality of the actions, and (here's the really important one) the
> *intent* of the actions.

Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
> 
>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or
>>> threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or
>>> on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s)
>>> committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes,
>>> including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public
>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>> 
>> Again, supports my idea...
>> 
> no, it doesn't.  again, it's talking about the goals.  not the methods.

"use of force or violence" (method)  "committed for political, religions,
ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
> 
>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or
>>> military in non-military situations.
>>> 
>> Still...
>> 
> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense on what?

Where did I claim that?  I just was quoting a definition of terrorism.
> 
>>> the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in
>>> order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in
>>> nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
>>> 
>> Seems in most definitions, terrorism is a method of fighting that used
>> intimidation and fear against a group.
>> 
> no, it's not.  it's actions used for intimidation or fear alright, but there's
> no mention of the methods.

The methods are violence.  Not very specific, but I doubt most people would
think that terrorism is based on some specific act of violence anyway.

> could be dropping an a-bomb, a gaggle samurais with swords, suicide bombers,
> kidnappings, etc.  *those* are examples of *methods* that could be used to
> carry out terrorism.

All of those are specific examples of acts of bringing violence (or the
threat of violence) to another.  If you mistook my meaning to be a specific
act of violence, I hope that clears up what I meant.  I can see where I was
not very specific.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 5:19:07 AM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:14 PM:

> In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>> 
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>>>>> How strange...
>>>> 
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>> 
>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>> 
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> 
> The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
> on terror.

Sure there will be; if it ever becomes politically advantageous for Bush to
declare that.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 5:19:41 AM
In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> 
> > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > 
> > You misspelt politicians.
> 
> George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his 
> standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very 
> least.

I was also joking, but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 5:37:20 AM
In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
 Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
> > bless us with the following wisdom:
> > 
> >>George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >>>> read it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>> 
> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>> either. How strange...
> >>> 
> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>> civilian government.
> >>
> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
> > 
> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
> > They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> 
> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?

Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each 
terrorist act too high. Right now, that's not an option. Most people 
wouldn't go for such a policy. But after a few more 9/11's -r worse ... 
who can say?

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 5:39:57 AM
In article <BBEAA299.32770%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> 
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> > us with the following wisdom:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
> >>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>> 
> >>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>>>> civilian government.
> >>>> 
> >>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>> 
> >>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
> >>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >> 
> >> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> > 
> > They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> > governmental backing and haven.
> 
> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
> election is run fairly.

Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 5:40:54 AM
In news:BBEAD75B.327F3%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:09 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEAC54A.327D4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:54 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> "Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>>>>>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
>>>>> method/philosophy
>>>>> of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.
>>>>
>>>> good god, where do you get this stuff?  terrorism is not a "method"
>>>> or "philosophy" of fighting.  you're probably thinking of guerilla
>>>> warfare.
>>>>
>>> See
>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>>
>> i read the first 5 definition, and none of them support the
>> definition you gave.
>>
>>> Some of the definitions that come up:
>>>
>>>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons
>>>> or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
>>>> population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political
>>>> or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:
>>>> (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force.
>>>> (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The
>>>> actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.
>>>>
>> again, doesn't match your definition.
>
> "Use of force" (method - though vague).

no, "use of force" is not a "method" of fighting in normal-people world.

> "to intimidate or coerce"
> (philosophy, or perhaps reason)

"to intimidate" is not a philosophy, nor is "coerce".

>>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
>>> Certainly seems to be talking about a type of fighting
>>>
>> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.
>> it's talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the
>> really important one) the
>> *intent* of the actions.
>
> Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.

but they are not the same as you seem to be trying to claim.

>>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or
>>>> violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of
>>>> persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection
>>>> with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for
>>>> political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
>>>> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public
>>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>>
>>> Again, supports my idea...
>>>
>> no, it doesn't.  again, it's talking about the goals.  not the
>> methods.
>
> "use of force or violence" (method)  "committed for political,
> religions, ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)

sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own definitions
to words that are already well defined.  but i thought we were going to use
the real definitions.  *shrug*.

>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>
>>> Still...
>>>
>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>> on what?
>
> Where did I claim that?  I just was quoting a definition of terrorism.

you used a definition that  stated terrorism was "the unlawful use of force
against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
civilian population...", then followed up with "by that definition, Bush is
having the US commit terrorism."  i suppose you could have been referring to
property, but the common usage these days doesn't typically refer to that;
if that's what you were referring to, i misintereted your statement.

<snip tediousness>


0
news121 (2473)
11/27/2003 5:41:30 AM
In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
> 
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> > 
> >> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> >> 
> >>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> >>> us with the following wisdom:
> >>> 
> >>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose 
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in 
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought 
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>>>>>> civilian government.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
> >>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >>> 
> >>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >>> governmental backing and haven.
> >> 
> >> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> >> office to get rid of one terrorist.
> > 
> > Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
> > tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
> > Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
> 
> Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with countries
> of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when you
> are done.
> > 
> >>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
> > 
> > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> > be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > 
> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
> Ironic, eh?
> 
> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.

OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 5:42:29 AM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:40 PM:

> In article <BBEAA299.32770%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>> 
>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>> 
>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>> governmental backing and haven.
>> 
>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
>> election is run fairly.
> 
> Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.

Great.  Now I will have nightmares.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:01:31 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 10:41 PM:

> In news:BBEAD75B.327F3%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:09 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBEAC54A.327D4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:54 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In news:BBEABFDC.327C4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>>> "Harri Mellin" <atz02@netscape.net> wrote on 11/26/03 8:12 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <BBEAA1DC.32769%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> After Bush wins the "War on Terror"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> will never happen terrorists doesn't have a country that usa can
>>>>>>> attack they are over the whole world bush got to nuke the world
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> he wants to win the war on terrorism
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
>>>>>> method/philosophy
>>>>>> of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage.
>>>>> 
>>>>> good god, where do you get this stuff?  terrorism is not a "method"
>>>>> or "philosophy" of fighting.  you're probably thinking of guerilla
>>>>> warfare.
>>>>> 
>>>> See
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>>> 
>>> i read the first 5 definition, and none of them support the
>>> definition you gave.
>>> 
>>>> Some of the definitions that come up:
>>>> 
>>>>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons
>>>>> or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
>>>>> population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political
>>>>> or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:
>>>>> (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force.
>>>>> (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The
>>>>> actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.
>>>>> 
>>> again, doesn't match your definition.
>> 
>> "Use of force" (method - though vague).
> 
> no, "use of force" is not a "method" of fighting in normal-people world.

Talk to Gandhi about that.  :)  Or look below...
> 
>> "to intimidate or coerce"
>> (philosophy, or perhaps reason)
> 
> "to intimidate" is not a philosophy, nor is "coerce".

Ask Gandhi or MLK.  I *think* they would take my side.
> 
>>>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
>>>> Certainly seems to be talking about a type of fighting
>>>> 
>>> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.
>>> it's talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the
>>> really important one) the
>>> *intent* of the actions.
>> 
>> Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
> 
> but they are not the same as you seem to be trying to claim.

I may have been essentially correct without being technically correct... OK.
> 
>>>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or
>>>>> violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of
>>>>> persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection
>>>>> with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for
>>>>> political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
>>>>> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public
>>>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>>> 
>>>> Again, supports my idea...
>>>> 
>>> no, it doesn't.  again, it's talking about the goals.  not the
>>> methods.
>> 
>> "use of force or violence" (method)  "committed for political,
>> religions, ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
> 
> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own definitions
> to words that are already well defined.  but i thought we were going to use
> the real definitions.  *shrug*.

What word do you disagree with?  If you want to get something done, you can
do many things: publicize it, use force, etc.  Of course, there are many
specific actions that can fit each method.  Now if you have already assumed
violence, then by "method" you would want something more specific.
> 
>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>> 
>>>> Still...
>>>> 
>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>> on what?
>> 
>> Where did I claim that?  I just was quoting a definition of terrorism.
> 
> you used a definition that  stated terrorism was "the unlawful use of force
> against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the
> civilian population...", then followed up with "by that definition, Bush is
> having the US commit terrorism."  i suppose you could have been referring to
> property, but the common usage these days doesn't typically refer to that;
> if that's what you were referring to, i misintereted your statement.

Sorry, did not connect your reply with my comment pretty far up.  Also, the
definition you quote does not differentiate between civilians and
militaries, as your question does.

The US has used unlawful force against people and property.  The war with
Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the UN, and, based
Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our "Supreme Law".  I do not
have the exact treaty it goes against, but clearly we did go against the UN
(Using the excuse that Iraq was going against the UN.  Ironic.).

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:11:27 AM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:42 PM:

> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>> 
>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>> 
>>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>>> 
>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
>>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
>>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
>> 
>> Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with countries
>> of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when you
>> are done.
>>> 
>>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>> 
>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>> 
>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>> Ironic, eh?
>> 
>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> 
> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->

OK.  How about leaving out the whole South.  Let them have their own
country.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:12:21 AM
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...
>
> Unfortunately, the alternatives to our system of government are worse.

How about actually having a system of government that operates within it's
constitutionally mandated limits?

-JB


0
JamesBoswell (241)
11/27/2003 6:29:35 AM
In news:BBEAE39F.32810%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 10:41 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEAD75B.327F3%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:09 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBEAC54A.327D4%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
<snip more crap>
>>>>> By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.
>>>>> Certainly seems to be talking about a type of fighting
>>>>>
>>>> no, it is not talking about a *type*, *method*, or *philosophy*.
>>>> it's talking about the legality of the actions, and (here's the
>>>> really important one) the
>>>> *intent* of the actions.
>>>
>>> Your intentions are tied closely to your philosophy.
>>
>> but they are not the same as you seem to be trying to claim.
>
> I may have been essentially correct without being technically
> correct... OK.

*rolls eyes*.

>>>>>> Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or
>>>>>> violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of
>>>>>> persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection
>>>>>> with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for
>>>>>> political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including
>>>>>> the intention to influence any government and/or to put the
>>>>>> public
>>>>>> or any section of the public in fear.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Again, supports my idea...
>>>>>
>>>> no, it doesn't.  again, it's talking about the goals.  not the
>>>> methods.
>>>
>>> "use of force or violence" (method)  "committed for political,
>>> religions, ideological or similar purposes" (philosophy)
>>
>> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own
>> definitions to words that are already well defined.  but i thought
>> we were going to use the real definitions.  *shrug*.
>
> What word do you disagree with?  If you want to get something done,
> you can do many things: publicize it, use force, etc.  Of course,
> there are many specific actions that can fit each method.  Now if you
> have already assumed violence, then by "method" you would want
> something more specific.

of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
*FORCE*

>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Still...
>>>>>
>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>> on what?
>>>
>>> Where did I claim that?  I just was quoting a definition of
>>> terrorism.
>>
>> you used a definition that  stated terrorism was "the unlawful use
>> of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
>> government, the civilian population...", then followed up with "by
>> that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism."  i suppose
>> you could have been referring to property, but the common usage
>> these days doesn't typically refer to that; if that's what you were
>> referring to, i misintereted your statement.
>
> Sorry, did not connect your reply with my comment pretty far up.
> Also, the definition you quote does not differentiate between
> civilians and
> militaries, as your question does.

ay caramba; you also defined it as "Acts of murder and destruction
deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military
situations".  i didn't realize i had to quote everything you said 2 minutes
ago!

> The US has used unlawful force against people and property.  The war
> with Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the
> UN, and, based Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our
> "Supreme Law".  I do not have the exact treaty it goes against, but
> clearly we did go against the UN (Using the excuse that Iraq was
> going against the UN.  Ironic.).

not if you believe that the attack on iraq was a war of self defense because
iraq was supporting terrorism; i'm not privy to any classified info on any
intellegience the administration may have had, but i would *like* to think
they had / have better information than has been publicly disclosed.  the
united nations charter explicitly allows action in this case w/o security
council resolution.


0
news121 (2473)
11/27/2003 6:32:57 AM
"James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote on 11/26/03 11:29 PM:

> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> If you place your trust in any of them then.. ugh...
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the alternatives to our system of government are worse.
> 
> How about actually having a system of government that operates within it's
> constitutionally mandated limits?
> 
People would argue over what that means.  Look at the never ending argument
over the second amendment, for example.  

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:34:40 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 11:32 PM:

> In news:BBEAE39F.32810%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:

>>> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own
>>> definitions to words that are already well defined.  but i thought
>>> we were going to use the real definitions.  *shrug*.
>> 
>> What word do you disagree with?  If you want to get something done,
>> you can do many things: publicize it, use force, etc.  Of course,
>> there are many specific actions that can fit each method.  Now if you
>> have already assumed violence, then by "method" you would want
>> something more specific.
> 
> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
> *FORCE*

Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on espionage."

There are non-violent methods to fight things.
 
>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>> 
>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>>> on what?
>>>> 
>>>> Where did I claim that?  I just was quoting a definition of
>>>> terrorism.
>>> 
>>> you used a definition that  stated terrorism was "the unlawful use
>>> of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
>>> government, the civilian population...", then followed up with "by
>>> that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism."  i suppose
>>> you could have been referring to property, but the common usage
>>> these days doesn't typically refer to that; if that's what you were
>>> referring to, i misintereted your statement.
>> 
>> Sorry, did not connect your reply with my comment pretty far up.
>> Also, the definition you quote does not differentiate between
>> civilians and
>> militaries, as your question does.
> 
> ay caramba; you also defined it as "Acts of murder and destruction
> deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military
> situations".  i didn't realize i had to quote everything you said 2 minutes
> ago!

Full original quote:
-----
> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property
> to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This
> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and
> involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or
> coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social
> objectives. 

By that definition, Bush is having the US commit terrorism.  Certainly seems
to be talking about a type of fighting
-----
Notice the use of force can be against persons *or* property to intimidate
.... a government *or* a civilian population... In the furtherance of ...
objectives.

Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
- the activities are illegal
- actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
- the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas

>> The US has used unlawful force against people and property.  The war
>> with Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the
>> UN, and, based Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our
>> "Supreme Law".  I do not have the exact treaty it goes against, but
>> clearly we did go against the UN (Using the excuse that Iraq was
>> going against the UN.  Ironic.).
> 
> not if you believe that the attack on iraq was a war of self defense because
> iraq was supporting terrorism; i'm not privy to any classified info on any
> intellegience the administration may have had, but i would *like* to think
> they had / have better information than has been publicly disclosed.

As would I.  *IF* they can show that they had reliable information that Iraq
was in the midst of planning, or even heavily supporting, a direct attack
against the US, then *maybe* what our military has done may be justifiable.
So far, despite the huge political gains that would offer Bush, he has not
shown this. Perhaps he is waiting for a time closer to the election?

> the united nations charter explicitly allows action in this case w/o security
> council resolution.

Even if there is classified info, you would think we would have shared it
with the UN as we looked for support of the war.  Not only did the UN not
see a good enough reason, few countries have shown us much support.  *If*
this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must be
highly classified and/or of questionable value.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:55:01 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > 
> > > You misspelt politicians.
> > 
> > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his 
> > standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very 
> > least.
> 
> I was also joking,

Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, seemingly in 
total seriousness.

Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone who 
thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become demagnetized.

> but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!

Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that Clinton 
advocated?

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 7:04:52 AM
In article <BBEAD77D.327F4%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/26/03 9:14 PM:
> 
> > In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>, Mayor of 
> > R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> 
> >> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >>> George Graves wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop 
> >>>>> in from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, 
> >>>>> you all ought to read it.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major 
> >>>>> media either. How strange...
> >>>> 
> >>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. 
> >>>> But I think that after the crises were over, things would be 
> >>>> returned to civilian government.
> >>> 
> >>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> 
> >> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil 
> >> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> > 
> > The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the 
> > war on terror.
> 
> Sure there will be; if it ever becomes politically advantageous for 
> Bush to declare that.

It will never be in the long-term interests of the neocons to declare 
that this nation is no longer under threat.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 7:06:28 AM
In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/26/03 11:32 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEAE39F.32810%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>
>>>> sure, your argument makes sense if you want to make up your own
>>>> definitions to words that are already well defined.  but i thought
>>>> we were going to use the real definitions.  *shrug*.
>>>
>>> What word do you disagree with?  If you want to get something done,
>>> you can do many things: publicize it, use force, etc.  Of course,
>>> there are many specific actions that can fit each method.  Now if
>>> you
>>> have already assumed violence, then by "method" you would want
>>> something more specific.
>>
>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method"
>> of
>> *FORCE*
>
> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
> method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
> espionage."
>
> There are non-violent methods to fight things.

in the context of terrorism?

<snip>
> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
> - the activities are illegal

what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?

> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
> - the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas

these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.

>>> The US has used unlawful force against people and property.  The war
>>> with Iraq goes against treaties we have signed with nations of the
>>> UN, and, based Article VI of the Constitution, it goes against our
>>> "Supreme Law".  I do not have the exact treaty it goes against, but
>>> clearly we did go against the UN (Using the excuse that Iraq was
>>> going against the UN.  Ironic.).
>>
>> not if you believe that the attack on iraq was a war of self defense
>> because iraq was supporting terrorism; i'm not privy to any
>> classified info on any intellegience the administration may have
>> had, but i would *like* to think they had / have better information
>> than has been publicly disclosed.
>
> As would I.  *IF* they can show that they had reliable information
> that Iraq was in the midst of planning, or even heavily supporting, a
> direct attack against the US, then *maybe* what our military has done
> may be justifiable.

again, as i said, there may be plenty of intellegience that shows all that,
but the public isn't privy to it.  i have a hard time believing the
administration *doesn't* have good info, given the ramnifications of that.

> So far, despite the huge political gains that would offer Bush, he
> has not shown this. Perhaps he is waiting for a time closer to the
> election?

no, if it's classified and sensitive, it's a felony to disclose the
information, with no statute of limitation, even if you're the president and
would gain politically from it.

>> the united nations charter explicitly allows action in this case w/o
>> security council resolution.
>
> Even if there is classified info, you would think we would have
> shared it
> with the UN as we looked for support of the war.

why would you think that?  there are many countries in the UN that are not
allies of the US, even on the security council.  you know, countries like
syria.  you seem to think the UN is an alliance like NATO rather than a
large world-gov't with many countries w/ varying and conflicting political
agendas.

> Not only did the UN
> not
> see a good enough reason, few countries have shown us much support.

the UN is a political organization; it's a world congress.  and like our
congress, there's much squablling and bad decision making, and you should
not make judgements of whether something is good and right based on the
actions of the organization.

> *If*
> this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must
> be
> highly classified and/or of questionable value.

highly classified, versus just a little classified?  either way, disclosing
it before it's declassified is a felony.


0
news121 (2473)
11/27/2003 7:18:49 AM
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>> How about actually having a system of government that operates within
>> it's constitutionally mandated limits?
>>
> People would argue over what that means.  Look at the never ending
> argument over the second amendment, for example.

True that,

you can file me in the 'minimal government plz thx' pile however.



-JB (for the record, I'm English.. but the petty partisanship that goes on
the states gets pretty frickin' ludicrus.... and no, I didn't vote for Blair
over here either.)


0
JamesBoswell (241)
11/27/2003 7:23:03 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7AD.21422826112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> > > be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > 
> > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
> > thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
> > have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
> > Ironic, eh?
> > 
> > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
> > were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> 
> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->

I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore 
in next week.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 7:55:16 AM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>> read it.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>> 
>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>> either. How strange...
>>> 
>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> civilian government.
>>
>>History doesn't support that assertion.
> 
> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.

These wars had well defined starts and ends. The "War on Terror" could be
said to have begun on 9/11. The end will not be clearly defined, which is
an excellent reason for governments to retain powers that otherwise would
be relinquished. The Patriot Act, for example.

Another example - UK Income Tax was introduced to pay for the 100 years
war. It's still with us (the tax, that is - wars have come and gone).

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/27/2003 9:33:20 AM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>> > to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> > 
>> >>George Graves wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>> >>>> ought to read it.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>> >>>> either. How strange...
>> >>> 
>> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >>> civilian government.
>> >>
>> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
>> > 
>> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>> 
>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> 
> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> terrorist act too high.

Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred, fuelling 
further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/27/2003 9:45:36 AM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.11.26.22.43.07.507910@none.com>,
>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:17:07 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.26.21.18.33.303132@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >> >  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>> >> >> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>> >> >> ought to read it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>> >> >> either. How strange...
>> >> > 
>> >> > Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >> > think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >> > civilian government.
>> >> 
>> >> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once
>> >> rights are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by
>> >> the people.
>> > 
>> > Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws
>> > that allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however,
>> > those laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis
>> > passes - of course the liberals in Congress might have changed that
>> > during their watch without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it
>> > past the bastards, but last time I checked, that was how it works.
>> > IOW, I think this general is an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in
>> > the Republic than he does.
>> 
>> He may know the government better than you do.
> 
> I think, like most career military officers, he knows the military.
> Period. That's why they rarely make good civilian leaders.

Eisenhower?

Colin Powell seems to be the only member of the current administration with
any sense.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/27/2003 9:53:48 AM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>
>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>> 
>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>
>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> 
> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> governmental backing and haven.
> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
> terrorism in the first place.

that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/27/2003 10:00:28 AM
In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> > Still...
> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense on what?

The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why 
wouldn't they do so again?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/27/2003 10:01:01 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-AAC77E.21395726112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> 
> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each 
> terrorist act too high.

Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at all.

> Right now, that's not an option. Most people 
> wouldn't go for such a policy. But after a few more 9/11's -r worse ... 
> who can say?

Indeed.

> -- 
> George Graves

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/27/2003 10:06:16 AM
In article <iakasvkf8ec2m95gv4m1qme2s7k44p3eop@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> governmental backing and haven. 
> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
> terrorism in the first place.

In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against 
terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/27/2003 10:08:59 AM
In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
> > >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against 
> > >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> > > 
> > > Still...
> > 
> > you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense 
> > on what?
> 
> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why 
> wouldn't they do so again?

Because it's not useful?

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 5:56:29 PM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:18 AM:

> In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:

>>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
>>> *FORCE*
>> 
>> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
>> method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
>> espionage."
>> 
>> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
> 
> in the context of terrorism?

In the context of fighting for something.  Terrorism is one method of
fighting for a position.  It uses violence (or uses the threat of violence).
When people want something badly, their are many methods or working toward
it.  I do not think you can win a "war" against one of these methods.

>> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
>> - the activities are illegal
> 
> what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?

No, I am simply answering your question.  You had questioned my statement
that Bush fit the definition of terrorist as defined by the FBI.  That
definition is: 

----
the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or
coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the
furtherance of political or social objectives. This definition includes
three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of
force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions
are committed in support of political or social objectives.
----

I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your response.

>> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
>> - the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas
> 
> these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.

Those were the "assumptions" in the definition that showed that Bush could
be seen as a terrorist.  You have refuted the first point, by saying you do
not think our attack against Iraq was illegal (or hope it was not anyway).
I conceded that *if* that can be shown, then he may not fit this definition.
That evidence, however, despite huge political gains (both internal to the
US and around the world) has not been made by Bush or his administration.  I
have offered the possibility that he is withholding this information (if it
does exist) to release it closer to the election, to better his chances of
getting elected to a second term.
 
>> *If* this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must be
>> highly classified and/or of questionable value.
> 
> highly classified, versus just a little classified?  either way, disclosing
> it before it's declassified is a felony.

Who has the ability to determine what is classified?  Oh, and yes, there are
different levels of classification.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:41:12 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 11/27/03 3:08 AM:

> In article <iakasvkf8ec2m95gv4m1qme2s7k44p3eop@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> governmental backing and haven.
>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>> terrorism in the first place.
> 
> In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against
> terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.

Right - you can not win a war against a method or philosophy of achieving a
goal.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:42:04 PM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:

> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> 
>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>> 
>>>> Still...
>>> 
>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>> on what?
>> 
>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>> wouldn't they do so again?
> 
> Because it's not useful?

Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
terrorizes a population.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 6:42:43 PM
In article <znu-CD08EB.02551627112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7AD.21422826112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> > > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> > > > be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > > 
> > > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
> > > thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore 
> > > would
> > > have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would 
> > > have.
> > > Ironic, eh?
> > > 
> > > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people 
> > > who
> > > were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> > 
> > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> 
> I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore 
> in next week.

Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 6:43:24 PM
In article <BBEAE3D5.32811%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:42 PM:
> 
> > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
> >> 
> >>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
> >>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>> 
> >>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> >>>>> us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> 
> >>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>>>>>>>> civilian government.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil 
> >>>>>>> War.
> >>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >>>>> governmental backing and haven.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> >>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
> >>> 
> >>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
> >>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
> >>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
> >> 
> >> Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with 
> >> countries
> >> of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when 
> >> you
> >> are done.
> >>> 
> >>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
> >>> 
> >>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> >>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> >>> 
> >> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
> >> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore 
> >> would
> >> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would 
> >> have.
> >> Ironic, eh?
> >> 
> >> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
> >> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> > 
> > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> 
> OK.  How about leaving out the whole South.  Let them have their own
> country.

They tried that about a 140 years ago, but the rest of the country 
wouldn't let them. Make up your mind people. I'm sure that there are 
plenty of Southerners who would just love to resurect the good ol' CSA!

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 6:46:14 PM
In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:40 PM:
> 
> > In article <BBEAA299.32770%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> >> 
> >>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> >>> us with the following wisdom:
> >>> 
> >>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose 
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in 
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought 
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>>>>>> civilian government.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
> >>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >>> 
> >>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >>> governmental backing and haven.
> >> 
> >> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> >> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
> >> election is run fairly.
> > 
> > Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
> 
> Great.  Now I will have nightmares.

Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo 
choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run 
on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring 
the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social 
Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/27/2003 6:50:14 PM
"James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:23 AM:

> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> How about actually having a system of government that operates within
>>> it's constitutionally mandated limits?
>>> 
>> People would argue over what that means.  Look at the never ending
>> argument over the second amendment, for example.
> 
> True that,
> 
> you can file me in the 'minimal government plz thx' pile however.
> 
I am in the "let's have government and business get a divorce" camp.  Seems
the Liberals and Conservatives want the marriage - they just fight over who
gets to wear the pants.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 7:00:01 PM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:55 AM:

> In article <gmgravesnos-B0A7AD.21422826112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>>> 
>>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
>>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>>> Ironic, eh?
>>> 
>>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
>> 
>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> 
> I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear Gore
> in next week.

Sounds good to me.  An overgrown debate team member is better than an
overgrown frat boy in my book.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 7:00:54 PM
"Peter Hayes" <me@privacy.net> wrote on 11/27/03 2:53 AM:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
>> In article <pan.2003.11.26.22.43.07.507910@none.com>,
>>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:17:07 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <pan.2003.11.26.21.18.33.303132@none.com>,
>>>>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:48:15 +0000, George Graves wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That has not been the way of history. History has shown that once
>>>>> rights are taken by the government, they have to be -taken- back by
>>>>> the people.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, but this is the USA we're talking about. There are specific laws
>>>> that allow for martial law under extraordinary circumstances, however,
>>>> those laws also guarantee a return to civil rule after the crisis
>>>> passes - of course the liberals in Congress might have changed that
>>>> during their watch without us knowing about it - I wouldn't put it
>>>> past the bastards, but last time I checked, that was how it works.
>>>> IOW, I think this general is an alarmist. I guess I have more faith in
>>>> the Republic than he does.
>>> 
>>> He may know the government better than you do.
>> 
>> I think, like most career military officers, he knows the military.
>> Period. That's why they rarely make good civilian leaders.
> 
> Eisenhower?
> 
> Colin Powell seems to be the only member of the current administration with
> any sense.

And strangely enough he decided the war on Iraq made sense the same time
Bush decided to fund health issues in Africa, Powell's pet cause.  Funny how
politics work, isn't it.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 7:02:34 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/27/03 11:46 AM:

> In article <BBEAE3D5.32811%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:42 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>>>>>> War.
>>>>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
>>>>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
>>>>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
>>>> 
>>>> Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with
>>>> countries
>>>> of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when
>>>> you
>>>> are done.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>>>> 
>>>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  Funny
>>>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore
>>>> would
>>>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would
>>>> have.
>>>> Ironic, eh?
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>>>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
>>> 
>>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
>> 
>> OK.  How about leaving out the whole South.  Let them have their own
>> country.
> 
> They tried that about a 140 years ago, but the rest of the country
> wouldn't let them. Make up your mind people. I'm sure that there are
> plenty of Southerners who would just love to resurect the good ol' CSA!

I say let'm.  And I was born there...

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 7:03:26 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/27/03 11:50 AM:

> In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:40 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBEAA299.32770%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>> 
>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>> 
>>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
>>>> election is run fairly.
>>> 
>>> Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
>> 
>> Great.  Now I will have nightmares.
> 
> Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo
> choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run
> on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring
> the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social
> Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.

Granted, I would vote for Donald Duck to get Bush out of office, but I hope
you are not right...

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/27/2003 7:04:14 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-4F3BCA.10432327112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-CD08EB.02551627112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gmgravesnos-B0A7AD.21422826112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > >  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not 
> > > > > need to be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > > 
> > > > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being 
> > > > counted?  Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way 
> > > > Bush had wanted, Gore would have won, but had they been 
> > > > recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have. Ironic, eh?
> > > > 
> > > > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of 
> > > > people who were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being 
> > > > identified as felons.
> > > 
> > > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> > 
> > I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear 
> > Gore in next week.
> 
> Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?

I want to replace a dangerous fool with a mostly-harmless fool.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 7:45:09 PM
In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
> 
> > In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Still...
> >>> 
> >>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
> >>> on what?
> >> 
> >> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
> >> wouldn't they do so again?
> > 
> > Because it's not useful?
> 
> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
> terrorizes a population.

A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself, 
and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in 
rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of 
'decadent' western culture, for instance.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 7:51:23 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-92A926.10501027112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> > >> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> > >> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
> > >> election is run fairly.
> > > 
> > > Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
> > 
> > Great.  Now I will have nightmares.
> 
> Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo 
> choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run 
> on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring 
> the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social 
> Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.

There's very little chance of Hillary running in 2004. That's just a 
scary story Republicans tell their base in order to drumb up 
contributions.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/27/2003 8:06:04 PM
In article <clund-157A3B.11061627112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-AAC77E.21395726112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> > 
> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each 
> > terrorist act too high.
> 
> Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at all.

They haven't done it with ENOUGH commitment, they just give the policy 
lip service. You can't do that. You've got to do what the Nazis did in 
occupied territories. If people misbehaved, you lined the entire town up 
against the wall and shot them all. You have to be ruthless. You have to 
convince terrorists of two things: (1) They won't go to Paradise if 
they're caught because we're gonna shoot them with pork-fat coverd 
bullets and sew their bodies in pig-skins, and (2), we will kill eveyone 
in the village from which they came including their wives, sweethearts, 
children and parents and that they will similarily be sewn into pigskin 
body bags so that they don't go to Paradise either. This will put quite 
a dent in the terrorist's martyr recruitment. 

I.E. find each terrorist group's weaknesses and fears and exploit them 
to the hilt (terrorists won't always be Muslims, you know, so this above 
'example' will only work on Muslims). We aren't ready to that ....yet.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 1:37:14 AM
In article <04h4qb.0ar.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> 
wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> >> > to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> > 
> >> >>George Graves wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> >>> 
> >> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
> >> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
> >> >>>> ought to read it.
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >> >>>> either. How strange...
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> >>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> >>> civilian government.
> >> >>
> >> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> > 
> >> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >> 
> >> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> > 
> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> > terrorist act too high.
> 
> Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
> outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred, fuelling 
> further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.

Really? I haven't seen where the isreallis have lined entire Palestinian 
villages up against a wall, and shot all of them with pork-fat covered 
bullets and then sewn the ex-inhabitants into pigskin sacks. I must've 
missed that on the news. When I say make 'em pay, I mean BE RUTHLESS. 
It's the only way to win against this sort of thing. Find what makes 
them vulnerable, and then exploit the hell out of it until they figure 
it out. The world situation hasn't gotten to the point where the 
bleeding-hearts would accept such actions, but after a few more 9/11s or 
worse, even the bleeding-hearts might change their tune.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 1:42:47 AM
In article <znu-94BC96.02045227112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > > 
> > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > > 
> > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his 
> > > standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very 
> > > least.
> > 
> > I was also joking,
> 
> Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, seemingly in 
> total seriousness.

Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of 
Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the 
gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they 
came! As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you 
know how it goes. :->

> Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone who 
> thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become demagnetized.
> 
> > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
> 
> Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that Clinton 
> advocated?

He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and selling military secrets 
to the Chinese Communists for a start.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 1:47:53 AM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:47:53 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <znu-94BC96.02045227112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
>> > >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
>> > > > 
>> > > > You misspelt politicians.
>> > > 
>> > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that by his 
>> > > standards, everyone in office in this country is a liberal at the very 
>> > > least.
>> > 
>> > I was also joking,
>> 
>> Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, seemingly in 
>> total seriousness.
>
>Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of 
>Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the 
>gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they 
>came! As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you 
>know how it goes. :->

You seem to be confusing conservatives and xenophobes, George. While
I'd like to see immigration regulated tighter I also think its high
time we caught our laws up to reality and instituted some kind of
guest worker program.

>
>> Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone who 
>> thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become demagnetized.
>> 
>> > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
>> 
>> Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that Clinton 
>> advocated?
>
>He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and selling military secrets 
>to the Chinese Communists for a start.

I don't think anyone is in favor of unbrideled immigration and
Clinton's selling secrets to the Chinese was for his personal gain.
IOW it was a symptom of his personal ammorality not his politics.
I truly believe that Clinton has zero political beliefs.
 I think he got his start and established himself in an age when
liberaslism reigned supreme so that's what he went with. After that he
had to stick with it because a sudden jump to conservative would have
harmed his career more than helped it.
 I don't think Bill Clinton gives a damn about anything except Bill
Clinton.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:24:56 AM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:04:06 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose to
>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>> 
>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>> 
>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>> 
>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
>
>Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with countries
>of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when you
>are done.

Why don't you point out the relevant passages. I'm certainly not going
to read every treaty we've entered into.

>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>> 
>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>> 
>What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted? 

Florida's laws state the time frame that a recount has to occur in.
The Democrats insisted on taking longer even though it was illegal.

> Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore would
>have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have.
>Ironic, eh?

I don';t recall seeing that anywhere. Several liberal newspapers did a
recount after the fact and everyone of them found that Bush was the
winner.

>In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.

Talk to the independent contractor who made the mistake.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:35:58 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:08:59 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <iakasvkf8ec2m95gv4m1qme2s7k44p3eop@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> governmental backing and haven. 
>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>> terrorism in the first place.
>
>In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against 
>terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.

You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.
There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:39:53 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:45:36 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>George Graves wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
>>  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>> > to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> > 
>>> >>George Graves wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>> >>> 
>>> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>> >>>> ought to read it.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>> >>>> either. How strange...
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> >>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> >>> civilian government.
>>> >>
>>> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>> > 
>>> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>> 
>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>> 
>> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
>> terrorist act too high.
>
>Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
>outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred, fuelling 
>further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.

Israel is nowhere employing that tactic. Now the one group that is
employing that tactic is having quite a bit of success with it. That
group is, of course, Muslim governments. 
Syria had a radical movement brewing. Assad found out where it was,
sealed off the town and had his army shell it into dust. 
Both  Turkey and Algeria unleashed paramilitary death squads againt
the families of known terrorists within their borders to  control
their problems. 
These guys may be willing to die for Allah but it seems that knowing
that Mommy and Daddy will beaten to death and little sister will spend
her last moments on earth being passed around like a party favor kinda
puts a damper on their enthusiasm.
Where exactly has Israel done anything even close to that?


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:47:09 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-6FFDEC.17475227112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-94BC96.02045227112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > > >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > > > 
> > > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > > > 
> > > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that 
> > > > by his standards, everyone in office in this country is a 
> > > > liberal at the very least.
> > > 
> > > I was also joking,
> > 
> > Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, 
> > seemingly in total seriousness.
> 
> Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of 
> Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the 
> gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they 
> came

I think the word you're looking for it "reactionary", not "conservative".

> As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you 
> know how it goes. :->
> 
> > Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone 
> > who thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become 
> > demagnetized.
> > 
> > > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
> > 
> > Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that 
> > Clinton advocated?
> 
> He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and

Immigration has served this country very well. Is that all you've got?

> selling military secrets to the Chinese Communists for a start.

Last time I checked, that wasn't part of liberal policy. And anyway, 
I'd expect more action than we've seen if the claim actually had any 
merit.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 2:49:03 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:01:01 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>> >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>> > Still...
>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense on what?
>
>The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).

Viet Cong guerrillas weren't exactly civilians.

> Why wouldn't they do so again?

I would hope that they would target and eliminate the leadership of
any group that was opposing us with arms. 


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:49:55 AM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:40:00 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>"Rick" <rick@none.com> wrote on 11/26/03 8:26 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:53:53 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>> 
>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>> 
>>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>>> 
>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get tired
>>> of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him Hitler? That's
>>> always entertaining too.
>>> 
>>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>> 
>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to be
>>> told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>> 
>> Florida followed its laws, jerk.

Only because the Supreme Court of the United States made them. The
Florida courts let the Democrats illegally extend the time for
recounts with no sign that they were ever going to put and end to it.

> People in Palm Beach are too stupid to vote.

Actually Florida's amount of miscast ballots in 2000 was right in line
with the national average. All of that crap was a cover story for
getting the recounts going that the Democrats started laying the
groundwork for before Florida's polls even closed.

>Can you quote the law that allows many people to be disallowed to vote
>because they were erroneously placed on a felon list? 

-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 3:00:34 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:00:28 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>> us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>
>>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>> 
>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>
>>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>> 
>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> governmental backing and haven.
>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>> terrorism in the first place.
>
>that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
>isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.

No it isn't but its the lack of dignity and opportunity under
dictatorship that drives many to join his cause. With a democracy in
place the people would have both and his recruiting drives would be
but a trickle.



-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 3:01:15 AM
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>> >George Graves wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> >>> read it.
>> >>> 
>> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >>> 
>> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media either.
>> >>> How strange...
>> >> 
>> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >> civilian government.
>> >
>> >History doesn't support that assertion.
>> 
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
>The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
>on terror.

Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
killing Muslims.
Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
nothing. 
If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
won't occur.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 3:06:32 AM
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:33:20 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>> read it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>> 
>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>> 
>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>> civilian government.
>>>
>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>> 
>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>
>These wars had well defined starts and ends. The "War on Terror" could be
>said to have begun on 9/11. The end will not be clearly defined, which is
>an excellent reason for governments to retain powers that otherwise would
>be relinquished. The Patriot Act, for example.

The Patriot Act isn't quite the horrid intrusion that many make it out
to be. To find actual horrorific violations of basic rights you need
to look to the War On Drugs. 
To fight it police were given the power to seize every single thing
you own without due process or legal recourse so long as they
'suspected' that you were involved with drugs. They didn't even have
to charge you with a crime. And to top it off the police were given a
share of the proceeds so they have an incentive to steal. And they do.
We have people doing what amounts to life in prison on drug charges
solely on the word of jailhouse snitches.
To me looking at library records or getting a wiretap on a cellphone
with a warrant doesn't compare to things like that.

>
>Another example - UK Income Tax was introduced to pay for the 100 years
>war. It's still with us (the tax, that is - wars have come and gone).

Yeah and our death taxes and luxury taxes were invoked to pay for WWI.
The war and its debts are long gone but the taxes remain.
But a tax isn't a suspension of civil rights.



-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 3:15:01 AM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:

> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
>> 
>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Still...
>>>>> 
>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>>> on what?
>>>> 
>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>> 
>>> Because it's not useful?
>> 
>> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
>> terrorizes a population.
> 
> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.

Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 4:46:11 AM
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/27/03 7:35 PM:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:04:06 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>>>>>>>>>> read it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil War.
>>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>> 
>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>> 
>>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
>>> 
>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
>>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
>>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
>> 
>> Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with countries
>> of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when you
>> are done.
> 
> Why don't you point out the relevant passages. I'm certainly not going
> to read every treaty we've entered into.

I do not have the research at my fingertips... Perhaps I will dig it up for
you later to be more specific.  But we clearly did not get UN support for
our war on Iraq; can we at least agree to that?
> 
>>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
>>> 
>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
>>> 
>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?
> 
> Florida's laws state the time frame that a recount has to occur in.
> The Democrats insisted on taking longer even though it was illegal.

OK.  Can you answer my question?
> 
>> Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore
>> would have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would
>> have. Ironic, eh?
> 
> I don';t recall seeing that anywhere. Several liberal newspapers did a
> recount after the fact and everyone of them found that Bush was the
> winner.

Based on the recounts, each would have had the other elected.  The headlines
rarely said that, just that Bush would have won had Gore's recount been
done.  And people refer to it as the "Liberal Media".
> 
>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people who
>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> 
> Talk to the independent contractor who made the mistake.

And find the law that allows the state to follow any independent contractor
in denying votes.  

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 4:51:36 AM
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/27/03 7:39 PM:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:08:59 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>> In article <iakasvkf8ec2m95gv4m1qme2s7k44p3eop@4ax.com>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>>> terrorism in the first place.
>> 
>> In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against
>> terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.
> 
> You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.
> There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
> pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
> al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.
> 
I have never heard Bush or anyone in his administration claim that they were
going after only big terrorist organizations, only that they had a "war on
terror".  Idiotic rhetoric...

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 4:53:25 AM
In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:
> 
> > In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Still...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
> >>>>> on what?
> >>>> 
> >>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
> >>>> wouldn't they do so again?
> >>> 
> >>> Because it's not useful?
> >> 
> >> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
> >> terrorizes a population.
> > 
> > A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
> > and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
> > rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
> > 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
> 
> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?

I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do 
this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general 
goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further 
those goals in any direct way.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 6:29:23 AM
In article <znu-879859.21490327112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-6FFDEC.17475227112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-94BC96.02045227112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article 
> > > <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > > > >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > > > > 
> > > > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that 
> > > > > by his standards, everyone in office in this country is a 
> > > > > liberal at the very least.
> > > > 
> > > > I was also joking,
> > > 
> > > Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, 
> > > seemingly in total seriousness.
> > 
> > Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of 
> > Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the 
> > gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they 
> > came
> 
> I think the word you're looking for it "reactionary", not "conservative".

How about "not brainwashed into believing that multiculturalism actually 
works." 

> > As for the rest, add a little hyperbole here, a bit there.... you 
> > know how it goes. :->
> > 
> > > Bush is most definitely not a traditional conservative, but anyone 
> > > who thinks he's leftist has a political compass that's become 
> > > demagnetized.
> > > 
> > > > but Clinton WAS a Left-wing Pinko traitor - for real!
> > > 
> > > Can you give some examples of extreme left-wing policies that 
> > > Clinton advocated?
> > 
> > He was in favor of unbrideled immigration and
> 
> Immigration has served this country very well. Is that all you've got?

Sure it did, when the immigrants came mostly from Europe. Unfortunately, 
the current wave are told that they do not have to assimilate, in fact, 
we'll change our laws to accommodate them (like the new law in Florida 
which says that Muslim female driver's license applicants can keep their 
veils on when being photographed!). We'll print ballots in YOUR 
language, and if you don't want to become Americans, that's OK too. You 
can stay here. Besides, our country has enough people in it, we don't 
need more. I don't want more. Most conservatives I know feel the same 
way.

> > selling military secrets to the Chinese Communists for a start.

> Last time I checked, that wasn't part of liberal policy.

It's part of Commie policy and to me there's little to choose between 
them.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 9:02:49 AM
In article <znu-07DA14.15060427112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-92A926.10501027112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> > > >> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> > > >> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
> > > >> election is run fairly.
> > > > 
> > > > Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
> > > 
> > > Great.  Now I will have nightmares.
> > 
> > Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo 
> > choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run 
> > on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring 
> > the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social 
> > Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.
> 
> There's very little chance of Hillary running in 2004. That's just a 
> scary story Republicans tell their base in order to drumb up 
> contributions.

Remember this conversation. I'm betting that Hilary gets drafted on the 
third Commie Party - er- Democratic party convention ballot next summer.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 9:07:24 AM
In article <BBEB98BE.329DA%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/27/03 11:50 AM:
> 
> > In article <BBEAE14B.3280C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:40 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <BBEAA299.32770%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> >>>>> us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> 
> >>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >>>>>>>>> civilian government.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil 
> >>>>>>> War.
> >>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >>>>> governmental backing and haven.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> >>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.  That is if the next presidential
> >>>> election is run fairly.
> >>> 
> >>> Depends upon whether or not you're ready for Hillary. I'm not.
> >> 
> >> Great.  Now I will have nightmares.
> > 
> > Get ready to live one, because chances are high that she's the Demo
> > choice for 2004, and given Bush's popularity, all she's got to do is run
> > on a campaign of bringing our boys home from the Middle East, restoring
> > the Economy to pre-2000 levels, and empowering Medi-Care, Social
> > Security, and resurrection of a health-care plan and she's in like Flynn.
> 
> Granted, I would vote for Donald Duck to get Bush out of office, but I hope
> you are not right...

Yeah, I think Donald would make a better president than Bush.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 9:08:06 AM
In article <BBEB988E.329D9%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/27/03 11:46 AM:
> 
> > In article <BBEAE3D5.32811%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/26/03 10:42 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:53 PM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:34:01 -0700, Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net>
> >>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote on 11/26/03 6:21 PM:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
> >>>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> >>>>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ought
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> read it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >>>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned 
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> civilian government.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >>>>>>>>> War.
> >>>>>>>>> They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be 
> >>>>>>>> over?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >>>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Partly true.  We can even use our electoral process to get Bush out of
> >>>>>> office to get rid of one terrorist.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Ah, the old Bush is a terrorist line. I guess some people never get
> >>>>> tired of sounding like fools. When can we expect you to call him
> >>>>> Hitler? That's always entertaining too.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Read Article VI of the constitution.  Then read our treaties with
> >>>> countries
> >>>> of the UN.  Then read the UN definition of war criminal.  Come back when
> >>>> you
> >>>> are done.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>>  That is if the next presidential election is run fairly.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not need to
> >>>>> be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being counted?  
> >>>> Funny
> >>>> thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way Bush had wanted, Gore
> >>>> would
> >>>> have won, but had they been recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would
> >>>> have.
> >>>> Ironic, eh?
> >>>> 
> >>>> In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of people 
> >>>> who
> >>>> were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being identified as felons.
> >>> 
> >>> OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> >> 
> >> OK.  How about leaving out the whole South.  Let them have their own
> >> country.
> > 
> > They tried that about a 140 years ago, but the rest of the country
> > wouldn't let them. Make up your mind people. I'm sure that there are
> > plenty of Southerners who would just love to resurect the good ol' CSA!
> 
> I say let'm.  And I was born there...

Me too.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 9:08:48 AM
In article <znu-30C5BA.14450927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-4F3BCA.10432327112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-CD08EB.02551627112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article 
> > > <gmgravesnos-B0A7AD.21422826112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <BBEAA9A6.32795%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > > >  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > We can always hope that Florida will follow its laws and not 
> > > > > > need to be told to do so by the Supreme Court again.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What law prevents voters from voting and votes from being 
> > > > > counted?  Funny thing is, had the votes been re-counted the way 
> > > > > Bush had wanted, Gore would have won, but had they been 
> > > > > recounted the way Gore wanted, Bush would have. Ironic, eh?
> > > > > 
> > > > > In any case, neither of them accounted for the large numbers of 
> > > > > people who were denied the right to vote by incorrectly being 
> > > > > identified as felons.
> > > > 
> > > > OK. Then in the next election, let's leave Florida OUT. ;->
> > > 
> > > I vote we retroactively leave them out of the last one, and swear 
> > > Gore in next week.
> > 
> > Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?
> 
> I want to replace a dangerous fool with a mostly-harmless fool.

Unfortunately, you don't know how Algore's "harmlessness" would manifest 
itself. He might be worse than Bush because he's weak.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 9:10:05 AM
In article <orddsv00sb646ud241c4mimnd81gu345av@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:01:01 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >> >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >> >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> >> > Still...
> >> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense on what?
> >The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
> Viet Cong guerrillas weren't exactly civilians.

They weren't targeting Viet Cong guerrilas. They were targeting 
teachers, lawyers, businessmen, and anybody else unfortunate to have 
their names on the Phoenix blacklist. If bush & Co were serious about 
their "War on Terror", they should start by bombing the CIA 
headquarters in Langly.

> > Why wouldn't they do so again?
> I would hope that they would target and eliminate the leadership of
> any group that was opposing us with arms. 

Except these people weren't doing that. They were just names provided 
by the corrupt regime of South Viet Nam (one more dirtbag regime 
propped up byt the US, btw) and the CIA obligingly abducted, tortured, 
and murdered them.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 9:36:00 AM
In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against 
> > > >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> > > > Still...
> > > you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense 
> > > on what?
> > The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why 
> > wouldn't they do so again?
> Because it's not useful?

That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well repeat 
itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any further.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 9:37:55 AM
In article <znu-78CC20.14512327112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> > Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
> > terrorizes a population.
> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself, 
> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in 
> rare cases.

A terrorized population gives an unstable society - and that seems to 
be the goal of most terrorists.

> The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of 
> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.

No, but it's had a huge impact on the US itself.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 9:45:03 AM
In article <1vedsv485da8hup24m54ul5hg78jtdp6vi@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Patriot Act isn't quite the horrid intrusion that many make it out
> to be.

It's bad enough to make librarians destroy lending records to prevent 
them from being abused to make false "terrorist" profiles. Either way 
I think the Patriot Acts are just the thin end of the wedge.

But as long as it doesn't affect you, it's ok, eh?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 9:50:28 AM
In article <gledsvk2ql64k5vk100cm47pse07dklv08@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
> >on terror.
> Sure there will be.

Meanwhile, on Planet Earth...

> At some point these guy's support is going to dry
> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
> we're doing in Iraq

Are you serious???

What you've done to Iraq has only *increased* the threat of terrorism. 
The US now faces the prospect of having two failed nations instead of 
just one.

> or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> killing Muslims.
> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> nothing. 
> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> won't occur.

Yeah, as long as it's "only" Muslims who get killed, it's ok. Bp

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 9:55:14 AM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:33:20 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>
>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>> 
>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>
>>These wars had well defined starts and ends. The "War on Terror" could be
>>said to have begun on 9/11. The end will not be clearly defined, which is
>>an excellent reason for governments to retain powers that otherwise would
>>be relinquished. The Patriot Act, for example.
> 
> The Patriot Act isn't quite the horrid intrusion that many make it out
> to be. To find actual horrorific violations of basic rights you need
> to look to the War On Drugs.
> To fight it police were given the power to seize every single thing
> you own without due process or legal recourse so long as they
> 'suspected' that you were involved with drugs. They didn't even have
> to charge you with a crime. And to top it off the police were given a
> share of the proceeds so they have an incentive to steal. And they do.
> We have people doing what amounts to life in prison on drug charges
> solely on the word of jailhouse snitches.

All these powers and violations of basic rights in the war on drugs, yet
the only growth industry in post Taliban Afghanistan is poppy cultivation.
The US had an opportunity to prevent that, but swept the problem under the
carpet in their eagerness to get at Saddam Hussein.

> To me looking at library records or getting a wiretap on a cellphone
> with a warrant doesn't compare to things like that.

For any individual wrongly imprisoned as a result of the war on drugs, yes,
it's devastating, but there's no blanket loss of civil rights.

Look at what the UK government wants to do as a result of the "War on
Terror".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3245236.stm

"In the wrong hands, it could be used to undermine or even remove
legislation underpinning the British constitution and infringe human
rights."

The "War on Terror" is a wonderful vehicle for governments to extend state
control into areas they have no business going,

"As currently framed, the new powers could be used against political
protests, computer hacking or a campaign against banking practices."

And the "War on Terror" has no defineable end. There's no Treaty of
Versailles to say it's over.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 10:00:22 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-59F92B.17371327112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <clund-157A3B.11061627112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > > > Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> > > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each 
> > > terrorist act too high.
> > Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at all.
> They haven't done it with ENOUGH commitment, they just give the policy 
> lip service. You can't do that. You've got to do what the Nazis did in 
> occupied territories. If people misbehaved, you lined the entire town up 
> against the wall and shot them all. You have to be ruthless.

I take your point but I hope you're not actually advocating this...

> You have to 
> convince terrorists of two things: (1) They won't go to Paradise if 
> they're caught because we're gonna shoot them with pork-fat coverd 
> bullets and sew their bodies in pig-skins, and (2), we will kill eveyone 
> in the village from which they came including their wives, sweethearts, 
> children and parents and that they will similarily be sewn into pigskin 
> body bags so that they don't go to Paradise either. This will put quite 
> a dent in the terrorist's martyr recruitment. 

1) won't work because it'll just piss them off even more.
2) might have worked if it wouldn't have pissed off the entire world 
(maybe except for the US).

> I.E. find each terrorist group's weaknesses and fears and exploit them 
> to the hilt (terrorists won't always be Muslims, you know, so this above 
> 'example' will only work on Muslims). We aren't ready to that ....yet.

The problem with suicide bombers is that they aren't afraid of 
anything. And the pig stuff could easily be neutralized if the clergy 
tell the bombers that that insult would only make their martyrdom that 
much more glorious.

> -- 
> George Graves

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 10:01:06 AM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>> >George Graves wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>> >>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>> >>> ought to read it.
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>> >>> either. How strange...
>>> >> 
>>> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>> >> civilian government.
>>> >
>>> >History doesn't support that assertion.
>>> 
>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>
>>The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
>>on terror.
> 
> Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
> we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> killing Muslims.
> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> nothing.
> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> won't occur.

You're going to have to keep these guys bottled up for evermore - that's
why there's no defineable end to the war on terror.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 10:02:58 AM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:00:28 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>
>>>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>> 
>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>>> terrorism in the first place.
>>
>>that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
>>isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.
> 
> No it isn't but its the lack of dignity and opportunity under
> dictatorship that drives many to join his cause. With a democracy in
> place the people would have both and his recruiting drives would be
> but a trickle.

Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples. Their allegance is
to a religous faith, and it's an allegance that makes the
Catholic/Protestant divide look like a tea party.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 10:12:05 AM
In article <1addsvgps5i7bd7esl63jbrt0fcerkmfqg@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:08:59 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
> >> governmental backing and haven. 
> >> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
> >> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
> >> terrorism in the first place.
> >In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against 
> >terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.
> You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.

Ah - a ray of wisdom.

But if there will always be a nutjob running around, then the War on 
Terror can never be won.

> There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
> pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
> al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.

Democratic Europe has seen domestic terrorist groups in Germany, 
Greece, Italy, Sweden, and Spain, and all in the past thirty years. 
And don't forget that Japanese cult that gased the subways of Tokyo. 
Now we have the internet, which would make it easier for them to 
organize and recruit members. Not quite of the scale of Al Qaeda or 
Hezbollah, true, but they were more than solitary nutjobs. And 
concidering what McVeigh and his buddies did, you don't really need to 
be on the scale of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. One solitary man (or woman) 
can rent an apartment or office, pack it with explosives, and blow a 
big hole in the middle of any city of the world. How is bush's silly 
"War on Terror" going to prevent that?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 10:12:25 AM
In article <znu-30C5BA.14450927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> > Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?
> 
> I want to replace a dangerous fool with a mostly-harmless fool.

Actually, I think bush is a mostly-harmless fool. It's the people who 
are telling him what to do who are the dangerous ones (Cheney, Rummy, 
Ashcroft, etc). And they aren't fools either; they're psychos.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 10:18:02 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-6B4FA9.10461327112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> They tried that about a 140 years ago, but the rest of the country 
> wouldn't let them. Make up your mind people. I'm sure that there are 
> plenty of Southerners who would just love to resurect the good ol' CSA!

I wonder what the world would have been like if Lincoln had just let 
the south leave the Union...

> George Graves

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/28/2003 10:25:08 AM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <clund-157A3B.11061627112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> 
>> In article <gmgravesnos-AAC77E.21395726112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > > Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be
>> > > over?
>> > 
>> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
>> > terrorist act too high.
>> 
>> Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at all.
> 
> They haven't done it with ENOUGH commitment, they just give the policy
> lip service. You can't do that. You've got to do what the Nazis did in
> occupied territories. If people misbehaved, you lined the entire town up
> against the wall and shot them all.

So the wheel runs full circle.

> You have to be ruthless. You have to
> convince terrorists of two things: (1) They won't go to Paradise if
> they're caught because we're gonna shoot them with pork-fat coverd
> bullets and sew their bodies in pig-skins, and (2), we will kill eveyone
> in the village from which they came including their wives, sweethearts,
> children and parents and that they will similarily be sewn into pigskin
> body bags so that they don't go to Paradise either. This will put quite
> a dent in the terrorist's martyr recruitment.

All it need is for one group to commit terrorist acts in the name of a
hated rival group - and there's many of these around.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 1:09:12 PM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:50:28 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <1vedsv485da8hup24m54ul5hg78jtdp6vi@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Patriot Act isn't quite the horrid intrusion that many make it out
>> to be.
>
>It's bad enough to make librarians destroy lending records to prevent 
>them from being abused to make false "terrorist" profiles.

The fact is that library records were always subpenable. All the
Patriot Act does with regard to them is standardize the procedure.

> Either way I think the Patriot Acts are just the thin end of the wedge.

But then again you've repeatedly shown that you get your knowledge of
how America works from old Soviet propeganda and comic books.

>But as long as it doesn't affect you, it's ok, eh?

As long as you've actually taken the time to see what it really says
and not swallowed the hysteria its ok.



-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 1:52:34 PM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:55:14 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <gledsvk2ql64k5vk100cm47pse07dklv08@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
>> >on terror.
>> Sure there will be.
>
>Meanwhile, on Planet Earth...
>
>> At some point these guy's support is going to dry
>> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
>> we're doing in Iraq
>
>Are you serious???
>
>What you've done to Iraq has only *increased* the threat of terrorism. 
>The US now faces the prospect of having two failed nations instead of 
>just one.

Frequently said but the evidence is sorely lacking. 

>> or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
>> killing Muslims.
>> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
>> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
>> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
>> nothing. 
>> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
>> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
>> won't occur.
>
>Yeah, as long as it's "only" Muslims who get killed, it's ok. Bp

Its not ok for anyone to get killed but that's not up to me now is it?

-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 1:54:00 PM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:12:25 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <1addsvgps5i7bd7esl63jbrt0fcerkmfqg@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:08:59 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> >> governmental backing and haven. 
>> >> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>> >> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>> >> terrorism in the first place.
>> >In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against 
>> >terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.
>> You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.
>
>Ah - a ray of wisdom.
>
>But if there will always be a nutjob running around, then the War on 
>Terror can never be won.

You seem to greatly overestimating the goals of this war.
>
>> There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
>> pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
>> al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.
>
>Democratic Europe has seen domestic terrorist groups in Germany, 
>Greece, Italy, Sweden, and Spain, and all in the past thirty years. 
>And don't forget that Japanese cult that gased the subways of Tokyo. 
>Now we have the internet, which would make it easier for them to 
>organize and recruit members.

We've got some as well. Greenpeace, ELF, ALF. Still they don't compare
to Hezbollah in either scope or violence.

> Not quite of the scale of Al Qaeda or 
>Hezbollah, true, but they were more than solitary nutjobs. And 
>concidering what McVeigh and his buddies did, you don't really need to 
>be on the scale of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. One solitary man (or woman) 
>can rent an apartment or office, pack it with explosives, and blow a 
>big hole in the middle of any city of the world.

And yet it hasn't happened. That it hasn't has very little to do with
the goodwill of madmen. You simply can't acquire either that much
explosives or the raw materials to make that much explosives without
drawing attention. You might have been able to get away with it before
September 11, 2001 but now you're going to get a dime dropped on you.

> How is bush's silly 

What a giveaway! What is silly is thinking that nothing of substance
should be done.

>"War on Terror" going to prevent that?

Where are the holes in all the major cities? Do you have a map to
them? Or has something prevented them from occurring?

-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:02:42 PM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:12:05 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:00:28 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>> 
>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>>>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>>>> terrorism in the first place.
>>>
>>>that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
>>>isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.
>> 
>> No it isn't but its the lack of dignity and opportunity under
>> dictatorship that drives many to join his cause. With a democracy in
>> place the people would have both and his recruiting drives would be
>> but a trickle.
>
>Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.

I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
wade through this cesspool you've made.

> Their allegance is
>to a religous faith, and it's an allegance that makes the
>Catholic/Protestant divide look like a tea party.

You would have said the same thing about Christendom before Runnymede
Meadow. Everybody has to start somewhere.




-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 2:06:06 PM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <04h4qb.0ar.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> George Graves wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
>> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>> >> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> > 
>> >> >>George Graves wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>> >> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you
>> >> >>>> all ought to read it.
>> >> >>>> 
>> >> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >> >>>> 
>> >> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>> >> >>>> either. How strange...
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But
>> >> >>> I think that after the crises were over, things would be returned
>> >> >>> to civilian government.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> >> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>> >> 
>> >> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>> > 
>> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
>> > terrorist act too high.
>> 
>> Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
>> outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred,
>> fuelling further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.
> 
> Really? I haven't seen where the isreallis have lined entire Palestinian
> villages up against a wall, and shot all of them with pork-fat covered
> bullets and then sewn the ex-inhabitants into pigskin sacks. I must've
> missed that on the news. When I say make 'em pay, I mean BE RUTHLESS.
> It's the only way to win against this sort of thing. Find what makes
> them vulnerable, and then exploit the hell out of it until they figure
> it out. The world situation hasn't gotten to the point where the
> bleeding-hearts would accept such actions, but after a few more 9/11s or
> worse, even the bleeding-hearts might change their tune.

And what happens when one group commits a terror outrage in the name of a
hated rival group. Will you do their dirty work for them?

Eradicate one terrorist group and another will pop up to take its place.

Terrorism isn't something you can eliminate like smallpox.

The only realistic way to stop all terrorist activities is to lock the
population down. Movement permits. Monitor phone, e-mail and snail mail.
No Internet. Complete control from the centre. Encourage relatives,
friends and neighbours to spy on each other. Create a society as in the
DDR. Is that what you want?

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 2:23:01 PM
C Lund wrote:

> In article <1addsvgps5i7bd7esl63jbrt0fcerkmfqg@4ax.com>,
>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:08:59 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>> >> governmental backing and haven.
>> >> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>> >> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>> >> terrorism in the first place.
>> >In theory, yes. But unfortunately, democracy is no guarantee against
>> >terrorism - as your very own Unabomber and McVeigh have demonstrated.
>> You're always going to have the occasional nutjob running around.
> 
> Ah - a ray of wisdom.
> 
> But if there will always be a nutjob running around, then the War on
> Terror can never be won.
> 
>> There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
>> pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
>> al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.
> 
> Democratic Europe has seen domestic terrorist groups in Germany,
> Greece, Italy, Sweden, and Spain, and all in the past thirty years.
> And don't forget that Japanese cult that gased the subways of Tokyo.
> Now we have the internet, which would make it easier for them to
> organize and recruit members. Not quite of the scale of Al Qaeda or
> Hezbollah, true, but they were more than solitary nutjobs. And
> concidering what McVeigh and his buddies did, you don't really need to
> be on the scale of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. One solitary man (or woman)
> can rent an apartment or office, pack it with explosives, and blow a
> big hole in the middle of any city of the world. How is bush's silly
> "War on Terror" going to prevent that?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some members of the UK and US
administrations are quite happy to see this silly "War on Terror" continue
ad infinitum.

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 2:29:58 PM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 11:29 PM:

> In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>>>>> on what?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>> 
>>>> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
>>>> terrorizes a population.
>>> 
>>> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
>>> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
>>> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
>>> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
>> 
>> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
> 
> I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do
> this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general
> goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further
> those goals in any direct way.

So, the 9-11 attacks were still a way to reach goals (as you said, "we do
know the general goals").  How effective they were is irrelevant.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 6:05:42 PM
"Peter Hayes" <me@privacy.net> wrote on 11/28/03 3:02 AM:

> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>>> In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
>>> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>> 
>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all
>>>>>>> ought to read it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>>>>>> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>>>>>> civilian government.
>>>>> 
>>>>> History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>> 
>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>> 
>>> The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war
>>> on terror.
>> 
>> Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
>> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
>> we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
>> killing Muslims.
>> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
>> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
>> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
>> nothing.
>> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
>> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
>> won't occur.
> 
> You're going to have to keep these guys bottled up for evermore - that's
> why there's no defineable end to the war on terror.

Worse than that - even if you nuked the whole Middle East, as long as there
are large groups of people, some will choose to terrorize others.  It is not
a group we are after, it is a method of working toward a goal.  It makes
*no* sense, but many Americans blindly stand behind Bush without thinking
about the fact that his stated goals make zero sense.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 6:10:19 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 11/28/03 3:18 AM:

> In article <znu-30C5BA.14450927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Why would you want to replace one fool with a bigger fool?
>> 
>> I want to replace a dangerous fool with a mostly-harmless fool.
> 
> Actually, I think bush is a mostly-harmless fool. It's the people who
> are telling him what to do who are the dangerous ones (Cheney, Rummy,
> Ashcroft, etc). And they aren't fools either; they're psychos.

I don't know - Bush seems to take true joy out of putting people to death;
that is much more than accepting that the death penalty has a purpose.
Anyone who is gleeful about killing someone else is, almost by definition, a
psycho.  He is just a not very bright psycho.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 6:12:17 PM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:12:05 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:00:28 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>> 
>>>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:03:44 GMT, Rick <rick@none.com> chose to bless
>>>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>>>>>>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
>>>>>>>>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you
>>>>>>>>>> all ought to read it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
>>>>>>>>>> either. How strange...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But
>>>>>>>>> I think that after the crises were over, things would be returned
>>>>>>>>> to civilian government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>History doesn't support that assertion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>>>>>>> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
>>>>> 
>>>>> They can be eradicated as far as being an organized force with
>>>>> governmental backing and haven.
>>>>> The absolute best scenario would have the Middle East being
>>>>> democratized which would end the things that driving most of the
>>>>> terrorism in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>that would be very nice I'm sure but the urge for democratic government
>>>>isn't what's driving OBL and his friends.
>>> 
>>> No it isn't but its the lack of dignity and opportunity under
>>> dictatorship that drives many to join his cause. With a democracy in
>>> place the people would have both and his recruiting drives would be
>>> but a trickle.
>>
>>Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.
> 
> I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
> wade through this cesspool you've made.

Not racism at all. Defending their religous beliefs is far more important
to many people than democracy.

And there's been plenty of terrorist activity in democratic countries.
Germany, the UK, Italy, even the USA, so the premise that democracy
destroys terrorism is false.
 
>> Their allegance is to a religous faith, and it's an allegance that makes
>> the Catholic/Protestant divide look like a tea party.
> 
> You would have said the same thing about Christendom before Runnymede
> Meadow. 

Runnymede predates the Reformation. And Runnymede had nothing to do with
religion. 

> Everybody has to start somewhere.

How many states that were democracies when given independence are still
democracies, and how many are now dictatorships?

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/28/2003 6:35:00 PM
George Graves wrote:
> In article <clund-157A3B.11061627112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <gmgravesnos-AAC77E.21395726112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be
>>>> over?
>>>
>>> Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
>>> terrorist act too high.
>>
>> Israel has tried that tactic. Doesn't seem to have helped them at
>> all.
>
> They haven't done it with ENOUGH commitment, they just give the policy
> lip service. You can't do that. You've got to do what the Nazis did in
> occupied territories. If people misbehaved, you lined the entire town
> up against the wall and shot them all. You have to be ruthless. You
> have to convince terrorists of two things: (1) They won't go to
> Paradise if they're caught because we're gonna shoot them with
> pork-fat coverd
> bullets and sew their bodies in pig-skins, and (2), we will kill
> eveyone in the village from which they came including their wives,
> sweethearts, children and parents and that they will similarily be
> sewn into pigskin body bags so that they don't go to Paradise either.
> This will put quite
> a dent in the terrorist's martyr recruitment.
>


This post proves once and for all that you are a crazed Mac advocating foolish moron.  What an idiot.


0
nospam21 (19047)
11/28/2003 6:35:39 PM
In article <BBECDE11.32B0F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> I don't know - Bush seems to take true joy out of putting people to death;

Cite? Or are you just bloviating to release internal gases?
0
sehix (4160)
11/28/2003 6:45:51 PM
In article <BBECDC86.32B09%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 11:29 PM:
> 
> > In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Still...
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
> >>>>>>> on what?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
> >>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Because it's not useful?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
> >>>> terrorizes a population.
> >>> 
> >>> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
> >>> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
> >>> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
> >>> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
> >> 
> >> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
> > 
> > I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do
> > this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general
> > goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further
> > those goals in any direct way.
> 
> So, the 9-11 attacks were still a way to reach goals (as you said, "we do
> know the general goals").  How effective they were is irrelevant.

Uh, no it's not. The argument I've been making here is that attacks on 
civilian targets are not generally useful. "Not effective" means 
something quite like "not useful" as far as I can see.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 6:51:49 PM
"Steve Hix" <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote on 11/28/03 11:45 AM:

> In article <BBECDE11.32B0F%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I don't know - Bush seems to take true joy out of putting people to death;
> 
> Cite? Or are you just bloviating to release internal gases?

Best example I can think of is a clip on him mocking a woman who had begged
for her life.  He took clear glee out of mocking her and then went on to say
how she was scheduled to die that night.  She was put to death.  I saw this
clip *once*, and never again.  Seems the myth of the Liberal Media was
pretty apparent here.  Had they just run that clip over and over again
before the presidential election, I doubt he would have anywhere near the
votes he did.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 6:53:42 PM
In article <clund-144EDF.10450328112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <znu-78CC20.14512327112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
> > > terrorizes a population.
> > A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself, 
> > and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in 
> > rare cases.
> 
> A terrorized population gives an unstable society - and that seems to 
> be the goal of most terrorists.
> 
> > The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of 
> > 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
> 
> No, but it's had a huge impact on the US itself.

I don't really think Al Qaeda cares particularly much about US internal 
policy. The group probably cares quite a bit about US foreign policy, 
but the reaction on that front has not been to Al Qaeda's benefit. Their 
friends no longer control Afghanistan, and while the war in Iraq has 
probably led to a temporary boost for them in terms of recruitment, a 
democratic, pro-Western Iraq will ultimately not be a good thing for 
them in the long run.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 7:02:52 PM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 11:51 AM:

> In article <BBECDC86.32B09%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 11:29 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>>>>>>> on what?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - it
>>>>>> terrorizes a population.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
>>>>> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
>>>>> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
>>>>> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
>>> 
>>> I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do
>>> this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general
>>> goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further
>>> those goals in any direct way.
>> 
>> So, the 9-11 attacks were still a way to reach goals (as you said, "we do
>> know the general goals").  How effective they were is irrelevant.
> 
> Uh, no it's not. The argument I've been making here is that attacks on
> civilian targets are not generally useful. "Not effective" means
> something quite like "not useful" as far as I can see.

So - again - what are the terrorists goals?  You state that
We do know the general goals".  What are they?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 7:02:59 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-F40091.01024828112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-879859.21490327112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <gmgravesnos-6FFDEC.17475227112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <znu-94BC96.02045227112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article 
> > > > <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > > > > >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that 
> > > > > > by his standards, everyone in office in this country is a 
> > > > > > liberal at the very least.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was also joking,
> > > > 
> > > > Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, 
> > > > seemingly in total seriousness.
> > > 
> > > Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of 
> > > Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the 
> > > gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they 
> > > came
> > 
> > I think the word you're looking for it "reactionary", not "conservative".
> 
> How about "not brainwashed into believing that multiculturalism actually 
> works." 

I think your stance on this issue is silly. Basically, your reasoning 
seems to run something like "All those immigrants who came over a long 
time ago assimilated, but the ones who just came over last year haven't! 
It must be the fault of those evil liberals trying to destroy American 
culture!"

I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than they 
were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now to 
get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's possible 
to break into the middle class.

[snip]

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 7:11:41 PM
In article <gledsvk2ql64k5vk100cm47pse07dklv08@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> >> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
> >> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
> >> >>> read it.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media 
> >> >>> either.
> >> >>> How strange...
> >> >> 
> >> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> >> civilian government.
> >> >
> >> >History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> 
> >> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >
> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
> >on terror.
> 
> Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
> we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> killing Muslims.
> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> nothing. 
> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> won't occur.

There will always be at least a few Islamic extremists running around, 
and the Neocons will be able to use them to scare the population into 
supporting a continuation of the 'war' in whatever form they choose.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 7:14:34 PM
In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> > > In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against 
> > > > >> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> > > > > Still...
> > > > you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense 
> > > > on what?
> > > The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why 
> > > wouldn't they do so again?
> > Because it's not useful?
> 
> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well repeat 
> itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any further.

The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are now 
mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a hell of a 
lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as well, now 
would it?

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 7:17:31 PM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:

> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> 
>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>> Still...
>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>>> on what?
>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>> Because it's not useful?
>> 
>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well repeat
>> itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any further.
> 
> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are now
> mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a hell of a
> lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as well, now
> would it?

What terrorist attacks make sense?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 7:18:58 PM
In article <BBECE9F3.32B36%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 11:51 AM:
> 
> > In article <BBECDC86.32B09%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 11:29 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
> >>>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Still...
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
> >>>>>>>>> on what?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
> >>>>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose - 
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>> terrorizes a population.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
> >>>>> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
> >>>>> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
> >>>>> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
> >>> 
> >>> I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do
> >>> this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general
> >>> goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further
> >>> those goals in any direct way.
> >> 
> >> So, the 9-11 attacks were still a way to reach goals (as you said, "we do
> >> know the general goals").  How effective they were is irrelevant.
> > 
> > Uh, no it's not. The argument I've been making here is that attacks on
> > civilian targets are not generally useful. "Not effective" means
> > something quite like "not useful" as far as I can see.
> 
> So - again - what are the terrorists goals?  You state that
> We do know the general goals".  What are they?

Their stated end goal is a world-wide revolution which leaves a 
pan-Islamic Caliphate in control of civilization (such as it would be).

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 7:40:36 PM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:40 PM:

> In article <BBECE9F3.32B36%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 11:51 AM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBECDC86.32B09%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 11:29 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:51 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <BBEB93B3.329C5%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/27/03 10:56 AM:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>> on what?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Then why do the terrorists do it?  Because it *does* serve a purpose -
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> terrorizes a population.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A terrorized population is not generally considered an end in itself,
>>>>>>> and is not particularly useful in accomplishing other goals except in
>>>>>>> rare cases. The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of
>>>>>>> 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I rather doubt that they had specific goals along the lines of "If we do
>>>>> this, it will cause these things to happen". But we do know the general
>>>>> goals of the group, and it doesn't appear that 9/11 helped to further
>>>>> those goals in any direct way.
>>>> 
>>>> So, the 9-11 attacks were still a way to reach goals (as you said, "we do
>>>> know the general goals").  How effective they were is irrelevant.
>>> 
>>> Uh, no it's not. The argument I've been making here is that attacks on
>>> civilian targets are not generally useful. "Not effective" means
>>> something quite like "not useful" as far as I can see.
>> 
>> So - again - what are the terrorists goals?  You state that
>> We do know the general goals".  What are they?
> 
> Their stated end goal is a world-wide revolution which leaves a
> pan-Islamic Caliphate in control of civilization (such as it would be).

And you believe they have chosen terrorism as the method to achieve those
goals?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/28/2003 7:42:56 PM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:14:34 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <gledsvk2ql64k5vk100cm47pse07dklv08@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>> 
>> >In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
>> >> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> 
>> >> >George Graves wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in from
>> >> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought to
>> >> >>> read it.
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media 
>> >> >>> either.
>> >> >>> How strange...
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
>> >> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
>> >> >> civilian government.
>> >> >
>> >> >History doesn't support that assertion.
>> >> 
>> >> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
>> >> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
>> >
>> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
>> >on terror.
>> 
>> Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
>> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
>> we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
>> killing Muslims.
>> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
>> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
>> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
>> nothing. 
>> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
>> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
>> won't occur.
>
>There will always be at least a few Islamic extremists running around, 
>and the Neocons will be able to use them to scare the population into 
>supporting a continuation of the 'war' in whatever form they choose.

What is a 'neocon'? It seems to be the liberal buzzword of the moment.
Of course the National Review did a bit of research and found that
most of the people who leftist called 'neocon' were Jewish so it
appears to be the new 'kike' in leftwing circles. I'm a bit
disappoinjted that you would engage in that sort of thing, ZnU. You've
always appeared to be misguided but not really vicious.
In any case do you actually think that the US would mobilize half its
army to catch a handful of nuts hiding out in caves?
This seems to be the new tactic of the left. You've lost every
argument about this war so now you're trying to make everyone think
that its purpose is to round up every single bad who is or will ever
be so that it will never end. That's dumb even on the scale of the
left.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/28/2003 7:50:35 PM
In article <ue9fsvo0bl8ub58804p9c049pr46nrruad@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:14:34 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <gledsvk2ql64k5vk100cm47pse07dklv08@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> >> >> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in 
> >> >> >>> from
> >> >> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought 
> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >>> read it.
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media 
> >> >> >>> either.
> >> >> >>> How strange...
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> >> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> >> >> civilian government.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >> >> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >> >
> >> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
> >> >on terror.
> >> 
> >> Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
> >> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
> >> we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> >> killing Muslims.
> >> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> >> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> >> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> >> nothing. 
> >> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> >> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> >> won't occur.
> >
> >There will always be at least a few Islamic extremists running around, 
> >and the Neocons will be able to use them to scare the population into 
> >supporting a continuation of the 'war' in whatever form they choose.
> 
> What is a 'neocon'? It seems to be the liberal buzzword of the moment.

It's a convenient label for the sort of people who seem to be dictating 
administration policy at the moment. These guys are definitely not 
traditional conservatives.

> Of course the National Review did a bit of research and found that
> most of the people who leftist called 'neocon' were Jewish so it
> appears to be the new 'kike' in leftwing circles. I'm a bit
> disappoinjted that you would engage in that sort of thing, ZnU. You've
> always appeared to be misguided but not really vicious.

There are a couple of prominent Jewish Neocons, such as Wolfowitz, but I 
don't see any particular trend in that direction. If you're trying to 
accuse me of being anti-semitic, you're rather far off base.

> In any case do you actually think that the US would mobilize half its
> army to catch a handful of nuts hiding out in caves?

The Neocons will play the same game they did with Iraq; they'll dupe the 
public into thinking whatever it is they want to do is part of the war 
on terror, even if it's only very tangentially related.

> This seems to be the new tactic of the left. You've lost every
> argument about this war so now you're trying to make everyone think
> that its purpose is to round up every single bad who is or will ever
> be so that it will never end. That's dumb even on the scale of the
> left.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 8:41:37 PM
In article <6ol7qb.m04.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> 
wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <04h4qb.0ar.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> >> >> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >>George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in
> >> >> >>>> from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you
> >> >> >>>> all ought to read it.
> >> >> >>>> 
> >> >> >>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >> >>>> 
> >> >> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media
> >> >> >>>> either. How strange...
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But
> >> >> >>> I think that after the crises were over, things would be returned
> >> >> >>> to civilian government.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >> >> > War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be over?
> >> > 
> >> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> >> > terrorist act too high.
> >> 
> >> Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
> >> outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred,
> >> fuelling further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.
> > 
> > Really? I haven't seen where the isreallis have lined entire Palestinian
> > villages up against a wall, and shot all of them with pork-fat covered
> > bullets and then sewn the ex-inhabitants into pigskin sacks. I must've
> > missed that on the news. When I say make 'em pay, I mean BE RUTHLESS.
> > It's the only way to win against this sort of thing. Find what makes
> > them vulnerable, and then exploit the hell out of it until they figure
> > it out. The world situation hasn't gotten to the point where the
> > bleeding-hearts would accept such actions, but after a few more 9/11s or
> > worse, even the bleeding-hearts might change their tune.
> 
> And what happens when one group commits a terror outrage in the name of a
> hated rival group. Will you do their dirty work for them?
> 
> Eradicate one terrorist group and another will pop up to take its place.
> 
> Terrorism isn't something you can eliminate like smallpox.
> 
> The only realistic way to stop all terrorist activities is to lock the
> population down. Movement permits. Monitor phone, e-mail and snail mail.
> No Internet. Complete control from the centre. Encourage relatives,
> friends and neighbours to spy on each other. Create a society as in the
> DDR. Is that what you want?

Did I say that's what I want? BTW, if your above scenario comes to pass, 
the terrorists will have TRULY won.  You treat terrorists the way you 
treat a mad dog, you destroy them. But you have to be ruthless about it 
or you'll just make it worse. Like I said before, you find out what gets 
to them and you exploit that to the hilt. You make them think twice 
about martyring themselves by making it plain (in the case of Muslims, 
for instance) that if they are caught before they are able to carry out 
their plans, they will be denied Paradise and so will everyone in their 
families.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/28/2003 9:06:54 PM
In article <BBECF350.32C86%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:40 PM:
> 
> > In article <BBECE9F3.32B36%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> >>> Uh, no it's not. The argument I've been making here is that attacks on
> >>> civilian targets are not generally useful. "Not effective" means
> >>> something quite like "not useful" as far as I can see.
> >> 
> >> So - again - what are the terrorists goals?  You state that
> >> We do know the general goals".  What are they?
> > 
> > Their stated end goal is a world-wide revolution which leaves a
> > pan-Islamic Caliphate in control of civilization (such as it would be).
> 
> And you believe they have chosen terrorism as the method to achieve those
> goals?

I believe that they will use any means at their disposal to achieve 
their goals.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/28/2003 10:11:37 PM
In article <znu-92ED73.15413728112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
ZnU  <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>In article <ue9fsvo0bl8ub58804p9c049pr46nrruad@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What is a 'neocon'? It seems to be the liberal buzzword of the moment.
>
>It's a convenient label for the sort of people who seem to be dictating 
>administration policy at the moment. These guys are definitely not 
>traditional conservatives.
>
>> Of course the National Review did a bit of research and found that
>> most of the people who leftist called 'neocon' were Jewish so it
>> appears to be the new 'kike' in leftwing circles. I'm a bit
>> disappoinjted that you would engage in that sort of thing, ZnU. You've
>> always appeared to be misguided but not really vicious.
>
>There are a couple of prominent Jewish Neocons, such as Wolfowitz, but I 
>don't see any particular trend in that direction. If you're trying to 
>accuse me of being anti-semitic, you're rather far off base.

Waitasec. This is awfully convenient. ZnU may not know, but the Mayor
probably does know, that one of the judges that Bush and Co. are trying
to promote to a Federal bench is a guy named Bill Pryor. 

And why, pray, are the Democrats fighting Bill Pryor? Why, because he's
Catholic! That's what our friends the Republicans are saying! This is
rather amusing when you consider that four of the (seven?)  Democrats 
on the Judiciary Committee are, surprise surprise, practicing Catholics: 
Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Durbin. Durbin (D, Illinois) gave a speech last
Sunday at KAM Isaiah Israel on the (non) separation of church and state,
and told the audience that he personally found it more than a little
disingenuous that Orrin Hatch, that well known Catholic (actually, he
is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or 
the Mormons) was accusing the likes of Durbin and Kennedy of being
anti-Catholic! (KAM is in the same neighborhood of Chicago as the
University of Chicago.)

This is the same shit that was pulled with respect to Clarence Thomas.
No one could attack his troglodytic political beliefs, and his hideous
record of sexual harassment, without being labelled a racist. The
Repubs (that's RE-pub, as in RE-po, as in repossess) tried the same
shit with Michael Estrada. Can't attack him, no, not without being
anti-Hispanic. Bullshit. I reserve the right to attack a man's politics
no matter what his color, his faith, his ancestry. That is immaterial.
Just as it is wrong to attack someone solely on the basis of one of 
those traits, so too it is wrong to give that person a pass solely on
the basis of those traits. An idiot who is a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant
is still an idiot; likewise a fool who is gay/female/Jewish/Latina/Catholic
is nonetheless a fool.

Now, the Mayor would have it be that if someone describes another as 
a "neoconservative" that person is, a priori, an anti-semite. While 
there are prominent neoconservatives who are Jewish, there are also 
prominent neoconservatives (David Brooks, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice) 
who are not. [I don't know about David Brooks; maybe he's Jewish, maybe 
not.] More than that, a lot of these folk describe _themselves_ as
neoconservatives. William Safire is (a) Jewish, and (b) archaeo-conservative
(i.e., he isn't "newly" conservative), and I don't think anyone can
conceivably call him an anti-semite (well, you can, but you'd be nuts),
and I am fairly confident that he has used the term "neocon" in a non-
negative fashion.

Now, to give the Mayor his due, there certainly ARE people who are 
anti-semitic (and anti- lots of other traits) who disguise their bigotry
with all sorts of code phrases. It may be that some so-called liberals
or left-wingers are indeed anti-semitic, and would like to use some sort
of code word to attack Jews who do not share their opinions. And, maybe
some of these bigots have actually used the term "neocon" as described
by the National Review. 

However, it is really too much to say that "neocon" has become a slur,
and a code word for "kike". I can't stand Richard Perle, but it's got
nothing to do with his faith. I can't stand George Bush, and I don't 
care what his faith is. Paul Wolfowitz I actually sort of like, but
I think his ideas are terrible.

I apologize for the rant, but this sort of branding is terribly dangerous.
It's the easiest thing in the world for powerful people to find a monster to 
do their work who happens to be a member of some group you're not supposed 
to attack. Everyone leaves him or her alone to do evil things. This is very 
bad.

David Derbes
b


>
>> In any case do you actually think that the US would mobilize half its
>> army to catch a handful of nuts hiding out in caves?
>
>The Neocons will play the same game they did with Iraq; they'll dupe the 
>public into thinking whatever it is they want to do is part of the war 
>on terror, even if it's only very tangentially related.
>
>> This seems to be the new tactic of the left. You've lost every
>> argument about this war so now you're trying to make everyone think
>> that its purpose is to round up every single bad who is or will ever
>> be so that it will never end. That's dumb even on the scale of the
>> left.
>
>-- 
	>"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
>the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
>report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
>you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
>We're very generous."
>                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003


0
loki6 (507)
11/28/2003 11:51:50 PM
In article <znu-F25FB0.14114128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-F40091.01024828112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-879859.21490327112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <gmgravesnos-6FFDEC.17475227112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <znu-94BC96.02045227112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article 
> > > > > <gmgravesnos-49E7A0.21371926112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In article <znu-7A7EB3.23251126112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > > > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In article <bq3b4c$pd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> > > > > > >  "James Boswell" <JamesBoswell@Btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > - of course the liberals in Congress
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You misspelt politicians.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > George once called Bush a "left-wing pinko", so I suspect that 
> > > > > > > by his standards, everyone in office in this country is a 
> > > > > > > liberal at the very least.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I was also joking,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, you called him a "radical liberal" in the same post, 
> > > > > seemingly in total seriousness.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, he is a liberal from my point of view. He's in favor of 
> > > > Immigration for one thing, and REAL Conservatives not only want the 
> > > > gates closed, we want those already here sent back from whence they 
> > > > came
> > > 
> > > I think the word you're looking for it "reactionary", not "conservative".
> > 
> > How about "not brainwashed into believing that multiculturalism actually 
> > works." 
> 
> I think your stance on this issue is silly.

Be my guest.


>  Basically, your reasoning 
> seems to run something like "All those immigrants who came over a long 
> time ago assimilated, but the ones who just came over last year haven't! 
> It must be the fault of those evil liberals trying to destroy American 
> culture!"

 Whatever you like, Znu.

> I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than they 
> were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now to 
> get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's possible 
> to break into the middle class.

I don't know about that, but I do know that we don't really need any 
more people in this country.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 12:21:35 AM
In article <qcRxb.39$_4.16235@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

<s>

> This is the same shit that was pulled with respect to Clarence Thomas.
> No one could attack his troglodytic political beliefs, and his hideous
> record of sexual harassment, without being labelled a racist. The
> Repubs (that's RE-pub, as in RE-po, as in repossess) tried the same
> shit with Michael Estrada. Can't attack him, no, not without being
> anti-Hispanic. Bullshit. 

I'm sure you realize, David, that the left pulls this kind of crap all 
the time -- and that's what it is, crap, no matter where it comes from.  
Ultimately, it is the root of so-called "political correctness".  You 
really have to watch what you say, lest someone starts screeching 
"racist", "sexist", or "whateverist" at you -- and they'll do it LOUDLY, 
to compensate for the fact they really have nothing of import to say.  
In fact, from where I sit, I associate these antics far, far more with 
the left than with the right, but it remains they're both wrong.

> I reserve the right to attack a man's politics
> no matter what his color, his faith, his ancestry. 

Good for you and I wish you well but you won't succeed.  It's too easy 
for someone to start screeching at you -- and it's easier for them to 
fall back on stock accusations that provide substantive responses.  It's 
the politics of intimidation.

A short tangent: I see less of this now, but in its early days there 
used to be an atmosphere of intolerance towards Linux criticism on 
Slashdot.  So many posts would start with, "I really like Linux, 
but...", and "Don't get me wrong, I think OSS is a great idea, but...".  
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I sensed the posters were fearful of being 
moderated to oblivion for the mortal sin of daring to criticise Linux.  
The Linux zealots on Slashdot are fewer in number now, perhaps because 
the readership has grown and perhaps because zealots grew up.  It's not 
so bad now, as I said.  In our society as a whole, intimidation politics 
is getting worse, IMHO.

<s>

> I apologize for the rant, but this sort of branding is terribly dangerous.
> It's the easiest thing in the world for powerful people to find a monster to 
> do their work who happens to be a member of some group you're not supposed 
> to attack. Everyone leaves him or her alone to do evil things. This is very 
> bad.

That is well said, but we need a few billion more people who feel thay 
way.  You know Jermaine Jackson's immediate response to his brother 
Michael's arrest?  It's all racism, of course!  Did he stop to think 
first, or has it become an atavism?  Another example: who has the guts 
to take on Jesse Jackson?  He's remarkably good at this kind of dirty 
debating.  Now, someone has to call me a racist for daring to criticise 
Jesse.  The new rules demand it, don't you know?

-- 
"Fascists divide in two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists." 
-- Ennio Flaiano
0
rfovell (207)
11/29/2003 1:04:00 AM
In article <ue9fsvo0bl8ub58804p9c049pr46nrruad@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:14:34 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <gledsvk2ql64k5vk100cm47pse07dklv08@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:14:26 -0500, ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> 
> >> >In article <iqdasvcqi5bjtvde3060kkseb9a91qscsi@4ax.com>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> chose
> >> >> to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >> >>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop in 
> >> >> >>> from
> >> >> >>> time to time, and considering how scary this sounds, you all ought 
> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >>> read it.
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major media 
> >> >> >>> either.
> >> >> >>> How strange...
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary. But I
> >> >> >> think that after the crises were over, things would be returned to
> >> >> >> civilian government.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the Civil
> >> >> War. They came back after the war was over. The same for WWII.
> >> >
> >> >The difference is, there will never be a clearly defined end to the war 
> >> >on terror.
> >> 
> >> Sure there will be. At some point these guy's support is going to dry
> >> up. It will be either because we do to the entire Middle East what
> >> we're doing in Iraq or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> >> killing Muslims.
> >> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> >> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> >> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> >> nothing. 
> >> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> >> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> >> won't occur.
> >
> >There will always be at least a few Islamic extremists running around, 
> >and the Neocons will be able to use them to scare the population into 
> >supporting a continuation of the 'war' in whatever form they choose.
> 
> What is a 'neocon'? It seems to be the liberal buzzword of the moment.
> Of course the National Review did a bit of research and found that
> most of the people who leftist called 'neocon' were Jewish so it
> appears to be the new 'kike' in leftwing circles. 

Is Cheney Jewish? Rumsfeld? I've certainly seen them called neocons, but 
I don't think either is Jewish. So, it would appear you are wrong again, 
Mayor. 

>I'm a bit
> disappoinjted that you would engage in that sort of thing, ZnU. You've
> always appeared to be misguided but not really vicious.
> In any case do you actually think that the US would mobilize half its
> army to catch a handful of nuts hiding out in caves?
> This seems to be the new tactic of the left. You've lost every
> argument about this war so now you're trying to make everyone think
> that its purpose is to round up every single bad who is or will ever
> be so that it will never end. That's dumb even on the scale of the
> left.

We've lost every argument about the war? So, when are we going to see 
those piles of WMD we were promised. Or, the evidence that Saddam was 
involved in 9/11 (Oh, I forgot, Bush said that he wasn't, even though 
Cheney won't admit such). And, like many of the liberals predicted, the 
war went swimmingly, but the aftermath seems to be a whole other kettle 
of fish. No, Mayor, despite your spinning, it appears you are quite full 
of it here.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin3 (567)
11/29/2003 1:24:02 AM
"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 3:11 PM:

> In article <BBECF350.32C86%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:40 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBECE9F3.32B36%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Uh, no it's not. The argument I've been making here is that attacks on
>>>>> civilian targets are not generally useful. "Not effective" means
>>>>> something quite like "not useful" as far as I can see.
>>>> 
>>>> So - again - what are the terrorists goals?  You state that
>>>> We do know the general goals".  What are they?
>>> 
>>> Their stated end goal is a world-wide revolution which leaves a
>>> pan-Islamic Caliphate in control of civilization (such as it would be).
>> 
>> And you believe they have chosen terrorism as the method to achieve those
>> goals?
> 
> I believe that they will use any means at their disposal to achieve
> their goals.

Fair enough: and *one* of the methods they have chosen to use is terrorism.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/29/2003 1:41:06 AM
In article <gmgravesnos-E6FDC9.16213428112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-F25FB0.14114128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than they 
> > were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now to 
> > get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's possible 
> > to break into the middle class.
> 
> I don't know about that, but I do know that we don't really need any 
> more people in this country.

What factors have lead you to this conclusion?

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/29/2003 4:20:32 AM
In article <rfovell-404F14.17040028112003@news.supernews.com>,
Robert Fovell  <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <qcRxb.39$_4.16235@news.uchicago.edu>,
> loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
><s>
>
>> This is the same shit that was pulled with respect to Clarence Thomas.
>> No one could attack his troglodytic political beliefs, and his hideous
>> record of sexual harassment, without being labelled a racist. The
>> Repubs (that's RE-pub, as in RE-po, as in repossess) tried the same
>> shit with Michael Estrada. Can't attack him, no, not without being
>> anti-Hispanic. Bullshit. 
>
>I'm sure you realize, David, that the left pulls this kind of crap all 
>the time -- and that's what it is, crap, no matter where it comes from.  

Robert, I'm a left-winger, but I hope I'm an _honest_ left-winger.
It is wrong no matter who does it, and you are completely correct,
some left-wingers do it all the time, as a matter of course. 

>Ultimately, it is the root of so-called "political correctness".  You 
>really have to watch what you say, lest someone starts screeching 
>"racist", "sexist", or "whateverist" at you -- and they'll do it LOUDLY, 

Let 'em. People who know me know I am not actively a bigot. (I am sure
that I have at least as many prejudices as most people, but I try very
hard to ignore 'em and not let them influence my actions or my thoughts.)

>to compensate for the fact they really have nothing of import to say.  
>In fact, from where I sit, I associate these antics far, far more with 
>the left than with the right, but it remains they're both wrong.

In the past, I agree, this was standard operating procedure for some on
the left. However, I think that many on the right have co-opted this 
terrible behavior brilliantly. Karl Rove is even more brilliant than
James Carville, and it gives me no pleasure to say that.

>
>> I reserve the right to attack a man's politics
>> no matter what his color, his faith, his ancestry. 
>
>Good for you and I wish you well but you won't succeed.  It's too easy 
>for someone to start screeching at you -- and it's easier for them to 
>fall back on stock accusations that provide substantive responses.  It's 
>the politics of intimidation.

It works only if you can be intimidated. 

>A short tangent: I see less of this now, but in its early days there 
>used to be an atmosphere of intolerance towards Linux criticism on 
>Slashdot.  So many posts would start with, "I really like Linux, 
>but...", and "Don't get me wrong, I think OSS is a great idea, but...".  
>Perhaps I'm wrong, but I sensed the posters were fearful of being 
>moderated to oblivion for the mortal sin of daring to criticise Linux.  
>The Linux zealots on Slashdot are fewer in number now, perhaps because 
>the readership has grown and perhaps because zealots grew up.  It's not 
>so bad now, as I said.  In our society as a whole, intimidation politics 
>is getting worse, IMHO.

Well, I don't know. I do not like Marshall Mathers, if I have his real
name right, aka Eminem, but the stuff that comes out from this guy and
others has at least the dubious benefit that these mopes can say 
_anything_ and be left alone, even if it is misogynistic, racist, and
all the rest. I think people are moving away from a simple thing like
a coach saying something dumb and racist and immediately people call for
his head. I remember watching a baseball coach, other readers will know
who I'm talking about, on Ted Koppel's show basically saying that black
people were too dumb to be managers. Koppel was thunderstruck and asked
him to clarify his statement, but no, the idiot coach dug himself in
deeper. There was a storm of public outrage, the pressure built inexorably
on the team, and he was fired within a few days. Nowadays, I don't think there
would be the same sort of firestorm. He might well be fired (as being
too stupid to be a good coach, or for so alienating his team--all of his
team, regardless of race--that he could no longer be an effective coach),
but it probably would not be as a result of public outrage. Today, I 
think most of the public would simply say to themselves: that guy is
an idiot. 

As mild proof, I offer the recent Howard Dean miniflap over the Confederate
flag imbroglio. A number of Dean's rivals wanted to make political hay
over his remarks (which he did indeed apologize for), but it does not
seem to have scarred him much. For the record I think what he was trying
to say (and did in fact say repeatedly, much earlier in the year) was that
underemployed and unemployed white men in the South, some of whom might
be driving pickup trucks with shotguns in racks in the rear window, ought
to be voting Democratic, because they're not getting much support from
the people they probably did vote for, namely Bush and Co. At some
point the shotguns in the racks got changed to Confederate flag decals
in the window. A few people wanted to turn Dean into a crypto racist
for this. I don't think he's a crypto or overt racist. I think the mention
of a Confederate flag has been used for years in the South as code for
"I'm opposed to integration" (and, by the way, I grew up in New Orleans.)
Dean either did not appreciate that or else just screwed up.

In the same way, for what it's worth, my family refuses to let me fly
an _American_ flag, even on the 4th of July, even on Veteran's Day,
because, in their minds, only a right wing Republican would do so.
Now, that's sad. That's really sad. One of my family flew 26 combat
missions over Germany from 1943 to 1945. And _he_ is opposed to flying
the flag. Go figure.

As regards Michael Jackson, his brother's remarks are just silly;
and as regards Jesse Jackson, well, he's a politician, and I don't
think much of most of them. I like McCain. I like Bill Bradley. 
I admire Bill Frist, but I don't care for his politics. (Frist was
probably the best cardiac surgeon in Tennessee, for one thing, and
his family has given a ton of money to charity.) I even like my
senator, Dick Durbin, and Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, was very
much his own man, honorable and principled. They weren't _my_
principles, but I would have likely voted for him had he chosen
to run again. Better a principled Republican than a dishonest
Democrat for me (though if both were equally corrupt, I'd probably
vote for the Democrat.)

Best wishes, Robert, and I hope you and the rest of the Gentle Readers
had a happy Thanksgiving, even those who don't celebrate it! :-)

David Derbes

>
><s>
>
>> I apologize for the rant, but this sort of branding is terribly dangerous.
>> It's the easiest thing in the world for powerful people to find a monster to 
>> do their work who happens to be a member of some group you're not supposed 
>> to attack. Everyone leaves him or her alone to do evil things. This is very 
>> bad.
>
>That is well said, but we need a few billion more people who feel thay 
>way.  You know Jermaine Jackson's immediate response to his brother 
>Michael's arrest?  It's all racism, of course!  Did he stop to think 
>first, or has it become an atavism?  Another example: who has the guts 
>to take on Jesse Jackson?  He's remarkably good at this kind of dirty 
>debating.  Now, someone has to call me a racist for daring to criticise 
>Jesse.  The new rules demand it, don't you know?
>
>-- 
>"Fascists divide in two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists." 
>-- Ennio Flaiano


0
loki6 (507)
11/29/2003 5:30:19 AM
In article <L9Wxb.41$_4.17525@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> In article <rfovell-404F14.17040028112003@news.supernews.com>,
> Robert Fovell  <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <qcRxb.39$_4.16235@news.uchicago.edu>,
> > loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> >
> ><s>
> >
> >> This is the same shit that was pulled with respect to Clarence Thomas.
> >> No one could attack his troglodytic political beliefs, and his hideous
> >> record of sexual harassment, without being labelled a racist. The
> >> Repubs (that's RE-pub, as in RE-po, as in repossess) tried the same
> >> shit with Michael Estrada. Can't attack him, no, not without being
> >> anti-Hispanic. Bullshit. 
> >
> >I'm sure you realize, David, that the left pulls this kind of crap all 
> >the time -- and that's what it is, crap, no matter where it comes from.  
> 
> Robert, I'm a left-winger, but I hope I'm an _honest_ left-winger.
> It is wrong no matter who does it, and you are completely correct,
> some left-wingers do it all the time, as a matter of course. 
> 
> >Ultimately, it is the root of so-called "political correctness".  You 
> >really have to watch what you say, lest someone starts screeching 
> >"racist", "sexist", or "whateverist" at you -- and they'll do it LOUDLY, 
> 
> Let 'em. People who know me know I am not actively a bigot. (I am sure
> that I have at least as many prejudices as most people, but I try very
> hard to ignore 'em and not let them influence my actions or my thoughts.)

I don't think you can just "let 'em".  Sometimes, too often, the person 
who yells the loudest "wins".  

> 
> >to compensate for the fact they really have nothing of import to say.  
> >In fact, from where I sit, I associate these antics far, far more with 
> >the left than with the right, but it remains they're both wrong.
> 
> In the past, I agree, this was standard operating procedure for some on
> the left. However, I think that many on the right have co-opted this 
> terrible behavior brilliantly. Karl Rove is even more brilliant than
> James Carville, and it gives me no pleasure to say that.

Speaking as a relatively moderate, and I believe relatively impartial 
observer, the right has a long way to go to catch up with the left's use 
of PC as a billy club to channel and stanch debate.  Can't blame them 
for copying what works.  Maybe we need to ask why it works.

> 
> >
> >> I reserve the right to attack a man's politics
> >> no matter what his color, his faith, his ancestry. 
> >
> >Good for you and I wish you well but you won't succeed.  It's too easy 
> >for someone to start screeching at you -- and it's easier for them to 
> >fall back on stock accusations that provide substantive responses.  It's 
> >the politics of intimidation.
> 
> It works only if you can be intimidated. 
> 
> >A short tangent: I see less of this now, but in its early days there 
> >used to be an atmosphere of intolerance towards Linux criticism on 
> >Slashdot.  So many posts would start with, "I really like Linux, 
> >but...", and "Don't get me wrong, I think OSS is a great idea, but...".  
> >Perhaps I'm wrong, but I sensed the posters were fearful of being 
> >moderated to oblivion for the mortal sin of daring to criticise Linux.  
> >The Linux zealots on Slashdot are fewer in number now, perhaps because 
> >the readership has grown and perhaps because zealots grew up.  It's not 
> >so bad now, as I said.  In our society as a whole, intimidation politics 
> >is getting worse, IMHO.
> 
> Well, I don't know. I do not like Marshall Mathers, if I have his real
> name right, aka Eminem, but the stuff that comes out from this guy and
> others has at least the dubious benefit that these mopes can say 
> _anything_ and be left alone, even if it is misogynistic, racist, and
> all the rest. I think people are moving away from a simple thing like
> a coach saying something dumb and racist and immediately people call for
> his head. I remember watching a baseball coach, other readers will know
> who I'm talking about, on Ted Koppel's show basically saying that black
> people were too dumb to be managers. Koppel was thunderstruck and asked
> him to clarify his statement, but no, the idiot coach dug himself in
> deeper. There was a storm of public outrage, the pressure built inexorably
> on the team, and he was fired within a few days. Nowadays, I don't think 
> there
> would be the same sort of firestorm. He might well be fired (as being
> too stupid to be a good coach, or for so alienating his team--all of his
> team, regardless of race--that he could no longer be an effective coach),
> but it probably would not be as a result of public outrage. Today, I 
> think most of the public would simply say to themselves: that guy is
> an idiot. 

I can't remember the sad fool's name either, but I question whether 
there really was a "public" outcry against him.  I don't question that 
he was foolish, deserved to be fired, etc.., but I don't think John Q. 
Public was aghast.  Certain elements in society, our PCers, screamed 
loudly, as they do at the drop of a hat.  Just because they make a lot 
of noise and mugged for the cameras doesn't mean there's a lot of them.

There are other cards in the PC deck than the race card, but I just 
heard another use of that one, so here goes.  A radio report just 
mentioned certain prominent black persons upset over the "signals" Tiger 
Woods has been sending lately.  Seems Tiger's got a buxom blonde on his 
arm, and gave her a ring.  This is bad, say the PCers.  Sends the wrong 
message.  Tiger's only 1/4 black, and is 1/2 Asian, but certain persons 
have decided what he is and further decided they can tell him what to 
do.  I expect Tiger will tell them where to go, but I am annoyed their 
whining gets any attention (or respect) at all.

> 
> As mild proof, I offer the recent Howard Dean miniflap over the Confederate
> flag imbroglio. A number of Dean's rivals wanted to make political hay
> over his remarks (which he did indeed apologize for), but it does not
> seem to have scarred him much. For the record I think what he was trying
> to say (and did in fact say repeatedly, much earlier in the year) was that
> underemployed and unemployed white men in the South, some of whom might
> be driving pickup trucks with shotguns in racks in the rear window, ought
> to be voting Democratic, because they're not getting much support from
> the people they probably did vote for, namely Bush and Co. At some
> point the shotguns in the racks got changed to Confederate flag decals
> in the window. A few people wanted to turn Dean into a crypto racist
> for this. I don't think he's a crypto or overt racist. I think the mention
> of a Confederate flag has been used for years in the South as code for
> "I'm opposed to integration" (and, by the way, I grew up in New Orleans.)
> Dean either did not appreciate that or else just screwed up.

I don't know why Dean's adversaries in the Democratic party failed to 
gain traction on the Confederate flap.  I was surprised that blew over 
so quickly, especially given how poorly Dean handled the affair.  If 
Bush, as president or candidate, had done something that could be 
manipulated into a similar flap, there would be very loud protests, 
marches, affected outrage.  Perhaps the left PCers are reticent to hit 
one of their own, just as right-wingers tend to pull their punches with 
fellow righties.  I think that's spelled "hypocrisy".


> 
> In the same way, for what it's worth, my family refuses to let me fly
> an _American_ flag, even on the 4th of July, even on Veteran's Day,
> because, in their minds, only a right wing Republican would do so.
> Now, that's sad. That's really sad. One of my family flew 26 combat
> missions over Germany from 1943 to 1945. And _he_ is opposed to flying
> the flag. Go figure.

Do _you_ want to fly the flag?  If you do, and you don't do it, then it 
seems to me you've been intimidated.  It's easy for you or I to say 
we're not swayed or cowed, but when it comes to brass tacks, it's not so 
easy.  (For my part I never owned an American flag until Sept. 12, 2001.  
I don't like flag wavers or flag burners, but the both have the right to 
do their things.)


> 
> As regards Michael Jackson, his brother's remarks are just silly;
> and as regards Jesse Jackson, well, he's a politician, and I don't
> think much of most of them. I like McCain. I like Bill Bradley. 
> I admire Bill Frist, but I don't care for his politics. (Frist was
> probably the best cardiac surgeon in Tennessee, for one thing, and
> his family has given a ton of money to charity.) I even like my
> senator, Dick Durbin, and Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, was very
> much his own man, honorable and principled. They weren't _my_
> principles, but I would have likely voted for him had he chosen
> to run again. Better a principled Republican than a dishonest
> Democrat for me (though if both were equally corrupt, I'd probably
> vote for the Democrat.)

In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote Libertarian or 
for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in "Crook" County.  Is 
there such a thing as an honest Democrat there? ;-)

> 
> Best wishes, Robert, and I hope you and the rest of the Gentle Readers
> had a happy Thanksgiving, even those who don't celebrate it! :-)

Same to you, David!

-- 
"Fascists divide in two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists." 
-- Ennio Flaiano
0
rfovell (207)
11/29/2003 7:01:19 AM
In article <znu-DB2FEF.14173128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> > That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well repeat 
> > itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any further.
> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are now 
> mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a hell of a 
> lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as well, now 
> would it?

Time will tell. Hopefully thngs will turn out to the best of the 
Iraqis.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:08:51 AM
In article <znu-6EDCE5.14025228112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > A terrorized population gives an unstable society - and that seems to 
> > be the goal of most terrorists.
> > > The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of 
> > > 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
> > No, but it's had a huge impact on the US itself.
> I don't really think Al Qaeda cares particularly much about US internal 
> policy. The group probably cares quite a bit about US foreign policy, 
> but the reaction on that front has not been to Al Qaeda's benefit. Their 
> friends no longer control Afghanistan,

Nobody controls Afghanistan. There's a mayor in Kabul but the rest is 
controlled by the local warlords - just as it was before the Taliban 
regime. And the Talibs are on the way back. B(

> and while the war in Iraq has 
> probably led to a temporary boost for them in terms of recruitment, a 
> democratic, pro-Western Iraq will ultimately not be a good thing for 
> them in the long run.

No, that it would not. Hopefully that'll be the result. But I suspect 
Iraq will have to go through a decade of chaos first.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:11:18 AM
In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?

Personally, I think it was to demonstrate to the world that it is 
possible to attack Americans on their own ground, to show the 
Americans that they aren't safe anywhere, and to destroy what was 
pecieved to be a symbol of western wealth and power (the WTC).

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:13:01 AM
In article <tjkesvoh0urf68mgl7gb114r1eubhc27s3@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Either way I think the Patriot Acts are just the thin end of the wedge.
> But then again you've repeatedly shown that you get your knowledge of
> how America works from old Soviet propeganda and comic books.

This from somebody who's world view is formed by the likes of McCarthy 
and Ann Coultier...

But you keep on believing that if it lets you sleep well at night.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:20:27 AM
In article <npkesvkgrcu8f02v78bln1ahjml4a269un@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >What you've done to Iraq has only *increased* the threat of terrorism. 
> >The US now faces the prospect of having two failed nations instead of 
> >just one.
> Frequently said but the evidence is sorely lacking. 

Before I reply to that, I'd like to hear how you percieve the current 
situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

> >> or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> >> killing Muslims.
> >> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> >> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> >> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> >> nothing. 
> >> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> >> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> >> won't occur.
> >Yeah, as long as it's "only" Muslims who get killed, it's ok. Bp
> Its not ok for anyone to get killed but that's not up to me now is it?

This jars with your frequent endorsements of ethnic cleansing.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:23:28 AM
In article <ue9fsvo0bl8ub58804p9c049pr46nrruad@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What is a 'neocon'? It seems to be the liberal buzzword of the moment.
> Of course the National Review

Isn't that one of your right-wing rags?

> did a bit of research and found that
> most of the people who leftist called 'neocon' were Jewish so it
> appears to be the new 'kike' in leftwing circles.

*rolls eyes*

So now anybody who criticizes the far right is an anti-semite? This 
only further indicates how far gone you nutters are.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:26:41 AM
In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
 Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote Libertarian or 
> for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in "Crook" County.  Is 
> there such a thing as an honest Democrat there? ;-)

I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't 
pass up, so please forgive my weakness:

Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never seen 
one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 9:27:25 AM
In article <znu-92ED73.15413728112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> There are a couple of prominent Jewish Neocons, such as Wolfowitz, but I 
> don't see any particular trend in that direction. If you're trying to 
> accuse me of being anti-semitic, you're rather far off base.

These days faux seems to be accusing anybody he doesn't like of being 
anti-semites.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:27:31 AM
In article <qcRxb.39$_4.16235@news.uchicago.edu>,
 loki@midway.uchicago.edu (david raoul derbes) wrote:

> Waitasec. This is awfully convenient. ZnU may not know, but the Mayor
> probably does know, that one of the judges that Bush and Co. are trying
> to promote to a Federal bench is a guy named Bill Pryor. 
> 
> And why, pray, are the Democrats fighting Bill Pryor? Why, because he's
> Catholic! That's what our friends the Republicans are saying! This is
> rather amusing when you consider that four of the (seven?)  Democrats 
> on the Judiciary Committee are, surprise surprise, practicing Catholics: 
> Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Durbin. Durbin (D, Illinois) gave a speech last
> Sunday at KAM Isaiah Israel on the (non) separation of church and state,
> and told the audience that he personally found it more than a little
> disingenuous that Orrin Hatch, that well known Catholic (actually, he
> is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or 
> the Mormons) was accusing the likes of Durbin and Kennedy of being
> anti-Catholic! (KAM is in the same neighborhood of Chicago as the
> University of Chicago.)
> 
> This is the same shit that was pulled with respect to Clarence Thomas.
> No one could attack his troglodytic political beliefs, and his hideous
> record of sexual harassment, without being labelled a racist. The
> Repubs (that's RE-pub, as in RE-po, as in repossess) tried the same
> shit with Michael Estrada. Can't attack him, no, not without being
> anti-Hispanic. Bullshit. I reserve the right to attack a man's politics
> no matter what his color, his faith, his ancestry. That is immaterial.
> Just as it is wrong to attack someone solely on the basis of one of 
> those traits, so too it is wrong to give that person a pass solely on
> the basis of those traits. An idiot who is a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant
> is still an idiot; likewise a fool who is gay/female/Jewish/Latina/Catholic
> is nonetheless a fool.
> 
> Now, the Mayor would have it be that if someone describes another as 
> a "neoconservative" that person is, a priori, an anti-semite. While 
> there are prominent neoconservatives who are Jewish, there are also 
> prominent neoconservatives (David Brooks, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice) 
> who are not. [I don't know about David Brooks; maybe he's Jewish, maybe 
> not.] More than that, a lot of these folk describe _themselves_ as
> neoconservatives. William Safire is (a) Jewish, and (b) archaeo-conservative
> (i.e., he isn't "newly" conservative), and I don't think anyone can
> conceivably call him an anti-semite (well, you can, but you'd be nuts),
> and I am fairly confident that he has used the term "neocon" in a non-
> negative fashion.
> 
> Now, to give the Mayor his due, there certainly ARE people who are 
> anti-semitic (and anti- lots of other traits) who disguise their bigotry
> with all sorts of code phrases. It may be that some so-called liberals
> or left-wingers are indeed anti-semitic, and would like to use some sort
> of code word to attack Jews who do not share their opinions. And, maybe
> some of these bigots have actually used the term "neocon" as described
> by the National Review. 
> 
> However, it is really too much to say that "neocon" has become a slur,
> and a code word for "kike". I can't stand Richard Perle, but it's got
> nothing to do with his faith. I can't stand George Bush, and I don't 
> care what his faith is. Paul Wolfowitz I actually sort of like, but
> I think his ideas are terrible.
> 
> I apologize for the rant, but this sort of branding is terribly dangerous.
> It's the easiest thing in the world for powerful people to find a monster to 
> do their work who happens to be a member of some group you're not supposed 
> to attack. Everyone leaves him or her alone to do evil things. This is very 
> bad.
> 
> David Derbes

Words of wisdom. I only hope faux understood what you were saying.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:31:38 AM
In article <znu-39B9FF.23203228112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-E6FDC9.16213428112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-F25FB0.14114128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than they 
> > > were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now to 
> > > get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's possible 
> > > to break into the middle class.
> > 
> > I don't know about that, but I do know that we don't really need any 
> > more people in this country.
> 
> What factors have lead you to this conclusion?

Overloaded infrastructure will do for a start. But honestly, does 
somebody actually HAVE to tell you that?

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 9:32:02 AM
In article <eskesvkn3pulrfd4gkkurcam8up1ck1rqu@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >But if there will always be a nutjob running around, then the War on 
> >Terror can never be won.
> You seem to greatly overestimating the goals of this war.

So what are the goals of the "war on terror"?

> >> There's not much you can do about that except take them out when they
> >> pop up. But they don't compare to the organized terrorist groups like
> >> al-Qaeda or Hezbollah.
> >Democratic Europe has seen domestic terrorist groups in Germany, 
> >Greece, Italy, Sweden, and Spain, and all in the past thirty years. 
> >And don't forget that Japanese cult that gased the subways of Tokyo. 
> >Now we have the internet, which would make it easier for them to 
> >organize and recruit members.
> We've got some as well. Greenpeace, ELF, ALF. Still they don't compare
> to Hezbollah in either scope or violence.

Do you really think those enviro groups compare with the likes of ETA 
and Baader-Meinhof?

> > Not quite of the scale of Al Qaeda or 
> >Hezbollah, true, but they were more than solitary nutjobs. And 
> >concidering what McVeigh and his buddies did, you don't really need to 
> >be on the scale of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. One solitary man (or woman) 
> >can rent an apartment or office, pack it with explosives, and blow a 
> >big hole in the middle of any city of the world.
> And yet it hasn't happened.

Remember this guy named Timothy McVeigh? What he did wasn't far from 
it.

> That it hasn't has very little to do with
> the goodwill of madmen. You simply can't acquire either that much
> explosives or the raw materials to make that much explosives without
> drawing attention.

Yes you can. You just need to be careful to not buy it all in the same 
place. Fertilizer and weedkiller is usually sold in bulk volume you 
know.

> You might have been able to get away with it before
> September 11, 2001 but now you're going to get a dime dropped on you.

Time will tell.

> > How is bush's silly 
> What a giveaway! What is silly is thinking that nothing of substance
> should be done.

The silly thing is thinking a war will stop terror.

> >"War on Terror" going to prevent that?
> Where are the holes in all the major cities?

There's one in Oklahoma City.

> Do you have a map to
> them? Or has something prevented them from occurring?

Do you honestly think going to war in the middle east will prevent 
terrorism on US soil? McVeigh wasn't an Arab, you know.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:46:45 AM
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:02:42 GMT, Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:12:25 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
>chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>>But if there will always be a nutjob running around, then the War on 
>>Terror can never be won.
>
>You seem to greatly overestimating the goals of this war.
>>

War? A couple of months back you were claiming it was a done deed and
you were just "mopping up".

Still full of the same old "trotting out the old party line" I see,
Mayor.

How many more body bags, before you acknowledge the "error of your
ways"? The more compassionate of us here wish to know.

As always, Your pal Dee.
0
emteedee (1110)
11/29/2003 9:48:10 AM
In article <adlesv00df5pe91q1jojjr2db5s9ckr70m@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.
> 
> I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
> wade through this cesspool you've made.

And once again you display your inablility to tell the difference 
between ethnicity, religion, politics, philosophy, and culture.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/29/2003 9:48:47 AM
George Graves wrote:
> In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
>  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
>> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
>> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
>> ;-)
>
> I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
> pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
>
> Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
> seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts


You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
liberal!.


0
nospam21 (19047)
11/29/2003 12:33:26 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-59658A.01315829112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-39B9FF.23203228112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <gmgravesnos-E6FDC9.16213428112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <znu-F25FB0.14114128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > > I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than they 
> > > > were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now to 
> > > > get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's 
> > > > possible 
> > > > to break into the middle class.
> > > 
> > > I don't know about that, but I do know that we don't really need any 
> > > more people in this country.
> > 
> > What factors have lead you to this conclusion?
> 
> Overloaded infrastructure will do for a start. But honestly, does 
> somebody actually HAVE to tell you that?

You don't get rid of people when you have overloaded infrastructure. You 
invest in more and better infrastructure.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/29/2003 12:34:14 PM
In article <clund-264276.10111829112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <znu-6EDCE5.14025228112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > A terrorized population gives an unstable society - and that 
> > > seems to be the goal of most terrorists.
> > > > The 9/11 attacks have done nothing to halt the spread of 
> > > > 'decadent' western culture, for instance.
> > > No, but it's had a huge impact on the US itself.
> > I don't really think Al Qaeda cares particularly much about US 
> > internal policy. The group probably cares quite a bit about US 
> > foreign policy, but the reaction on that front has not been to Al 
> > Qaeda's benefit. Their friends no longer control Afghanistan,
> 
> Nobody controls Afghanistan. There's a mayor in Kabul but the rest is 
> controlled by the local warlords - just as it was before the Taliban 
> regime. And the Talibs are on the way back. B(

For the purposes of fighting terrorism, the Taliban and Afghanistan- 
based segments of Al Qaeda have essentially been neutralized. Lots of 
them are dead, none are being trained, and those few who remain are 
mostly busy attacking US troops there, not planning attacks here.

Of course, the failure of the Bush administration to help the central 
government firmly establish control means that US troops won't be able 
to leave any time soon.

> > and while the war in Iraq has probably led to a temporary boost for 
> > them in terms of recruitment, a democratic, pro-Western Iraq will 
> > ultimately not be a good thing for them in the long run.
> 
> No, that it would not. Hopefully that'll be the result. But I suspect 
> Iraq will have to go through a decade of chaos first.

I think we've seen the worst, and things will slowly get better from 
here on out.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/29/2003 12:59:57 PM
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:47 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <adlesv00df5pe91q1jojjr2db5s9ckr70m@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.
>> 
>> I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
>> wade through this cesspool you've made.
>
>And once again you display your inablility to tell the difference 
>between ethnicity, religion, politics, philosophy, and culture.

So you too subcribe to the racist notion that the Arabs don't have the
democracy gene. That's not that surprising coming from you.


-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/29/2003 1:27:46 PM
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:47 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
>>In article <adlesv00df5pe91q1jojjr2db5s9ckr70m@4ax.com>,
>> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.
>>> 
>>> I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
>>> wade through this cesspool you've made.
>>
>>And once again you display your inablility to tell the difference
>>between ethnicity, religion, politics, philosophy, and culture.
> 
> So you too subcribe to the racist notion that the Arabs don't have the
> democracy gene. That's not that surprising coming from you.

If one or two of the posters here are representative of the US population
as a whole, then it's safe to say the democracy gene is in short supply
there also...

HTH/HAND

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/29/2003 3:44:20 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-DF4B4A.01272229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
>  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote Libertarian or 
> > for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in "Crook" County.  Is 
> > there such a thing as an honest Democrat there? ;-)
> 
> I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't 
> pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
> 
> Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never seen 
> one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts.

Perhaps it depends on how _you_ define "honest".  It also helps if you 
look beyond Crook County :-)

I recall a JFK campaign speech -- used in a wonderful TV production 
about the Cuban Missile Crisis entitled "The Missiles of October" -- in 
which JFK gives his view of the difference between Democrats and 
Republicans circa 1962.  He stipulates that both parties are patriotic 
and sincere in their beliefs and both want progress but differ on how 
that progress should be accomplished.  

In that spirit, it is very unhelpful to characterize a legitimate and 
sincere opposition as traitors and criminals.  They may be different, 
they may be wrong, but we haven't reached a state of affairs where being 
either is a criminal offense.  Yet.

-- 
"I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to
be flexible at all times." -- the late Sen. Everett Dirksen
0
rfovell (207)
11/29/2003 4:21:18 PM
In article <vsh4gn9qugovaa@news.supernews.com>,
 "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
> >  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
> >> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
> >> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
> >> ;-)
> >
> > I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
> > pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
> >
> > Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
> > seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts
> 
> 
> You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
> liberal!.

You are the ultimate Windows advocate, John.  It's almost as if you have 
become one with Windows, except you're clearly a few service packs short 
of a full install.

-- 
"I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to
be flexible at all times." -- the late Sen. Everett Dirksen
0
rfovell (207)
11/29/2003 4:30:11 PM
George Graves wrote:

> In article <6ol7qb.m04.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> George Graves wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <04h4qb.0ar.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> >> George Graves wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
>> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
>> >> >> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >>George Graves wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
>> >> >> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> 
>> >> >> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop
>> >> >> >>>> in from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds,
>> >> >> >>>> you all ought to read it.
>> >> >> >>>> 
>> >> >> >>>>
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
>> >> >> >>>> 
>> >> >> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major
>> >> >> >>>> media either. How strange...
>> >> >> >>> 
>> >> >> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary.
>> >> >> >>> But I think that after the crises were over, things would be
>> >> >> >>> returned to civilian government.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the
>> >> >> > Civil War. They came back after the war was over. The same for
>> >> >> > WWII.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be
>> >> >> over?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
>> >> > terrorist act too high.
>> >> 
>> >> Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
>> >> outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred,
>> >> fuelling further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.
>> > 
>> > Really? I haven't seen where the isreallis have lined entire
>> > Palestinian villages up against a wall, and shot all of them with
>> > pork-fat covered bullets and then sewn the ex-inhabitants into pigskin
>> > sacks. I must've missed that on the news. When I say make 'em pay, I
>> > mean BE RUTHLESS. It's the only way to win against this sort of thing.
>> > Find what makes them vulnerable, and then exploit the hell out of it
>> > until they figure it out. The world situation hasn't gotten to the
>> > point where the bleeding-hearts would accept such actions, but after a
>> > few more 9/11s or worse, even the bleeding-hearts might change their
>> > tune.
>> 
>> And what happens when one group commits a terror outrage in the name of
>> a hated rival group. Will you do their dirty work for them?
>> 
>> Eradicate one terrorist group and another will pop up to take its place.
>> 
>> Terrorism isn't something you can eliminate like smallpox.
>> 
>> The only realistic way to stop all terrorist activities is to lock the
>> population down. Movement permits. Monitor phone, e-mail and snail mail.
>> No Internet. Complete control from the centre. Encourage relatives,
>> friends and neighbours to spy on each other. Create a society as in the
>> DDR. Is that what you want?
> 
> Did I say that's what I want? BTW, if your above scenario comes to pass,
> the terrorists will have TRULY won. 

Yeup, that's my point.

> You treat terrorists the way you
> treat a mad dog, you destroy them. But you have to be ruthless about it
> or you'll just make it worse. Like I said before, you find out what gets
> to them and you exploit that to the hilt. You make them think twice
> about martyring themselves by making it plain (in the case of Muslims,
> for instance) that if they are caught before they are able to carry out
> their plans, they will be denied Paradise and so will everyone in their
> families.

It didn't work too well in Germany during WW2 and it won't work well now.

You might be able to bluff out the suicide bombers but there'll always be
others with different methodologies. The Iraq war has shown many dissident
groups that terrorism can be used to further their aims. 

-- 

Peter

Palladium is Microsoft's suicide note.
0
me4 (19624)
11/29/2003 4:45:56 PM
In article <4giaqb.ut6.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net> 
wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <6ol7qb.m04.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <04h4qb.0ar.ln@vlad.seahaze>, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> George Graves wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <pan.2003.11.27.01.03.43.97438@none.com>,
> >> >> >  Rick <rick@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:28 +0000, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:56:04 +0000, Peter Hayes <me@privacy.net>
> >> >> >> > chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >>George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> In article <BK-CE9484.14033226112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
> >> >> >> >>>  Bob Kincade <BK@sonsort.biz> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >> >>>> More than off the path of computers in here, but since i drop
> >> >> >> >>>> in from time to time, and considering how scary this sounds,
> >> >> >> >>>> you all ought to read it.
> >> >> >> >>>> 
> >> >> >> >>>>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml
> >> >> >> >>>> 
> >> >> >> >>>> And it does not appear to have been picked up by any major
> >> >> >> >>>> media either. How strange...
> >> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >> >>> Well, that could happen, and indeed, might even be necessary.
> >> >> >> >>> But I think that after the crises were over, things would be
> >> >> >> >>> returned to civilian government.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>History doesn't support that assertion.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Bull. Lincoln suspended a great many civil rights during the
> >> >> >> > Civil War. They came back after the war was over. The same for
> >> >> >> > WWII.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Since all terrorists cannot be eradicated, how can the 'war' be
> >> >> >> over?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Make the price that terrorists and their families must pay for each
> >> >> > terrorist act too high.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Israel appears to be employing that tactic - hasn't exactly been an
> >> >> outstanding success now has it. On the contrary, it feeds hatred,
> >> >> fuelling further terrorist acts in a never ending cycle.
> >> > 
> >> > Really? I haven't seen where the isreallis have lined entire
> >> > Palestinian villages up against a wall, and shot all of them with
> >> > pork-fat covered bullets and then sewn the ex-inhabitants into pigskin
> >> > sacks. I must've missed that on the news. When I say make 'em pay, I
> >> > mean BE RUTHLESS. It's the only way to win against this sort of thing.
> >> > Find what makes them vulnerable, and then exploit the hell out of it
> >> > until they figure it out. The world situation hasn't gotten to the
> >> > point where the bleeding-hearts would accept such actions, but after a
> >> > few more 9/11s or worse, even the bleeding-hearts might change their
> >> > tune.
> >> 
> >> And what happens when one group commits a terror outrage in the name of
> >> a hated rival group. Will you do their dirty work for them?
> >> 
> >> Eradicate one terrorist group and another will pop up to take its place.
> >> 
> >> Terrorism isn't something you can eliminate like smallpox.
> >> 
> >> The only realistic way to stop all terrorist activities is to lock the
> >> population down. Movement permits. Monitor phone, e-mail and snail mail.
> >> No Internet. Complete control from the centre. Encourage relatives,
> >> friends and neighbours to spy on each other. Create a society as in the
> >> DDR. Is that what you want?
> > 
> > Did I say that's what I want? BTW, if your above scenario comes to pass,
> > the terrorists will have TRULY won. 
> 
> Yeup, that's my point.
> 
> > You treat terrorists the way you
> > treat a mad dog, you destroy them. But you have to be ruthless about it
> > or you'll just make it worse. Like I said before, you find out what gets
> > to them and you exploit that to the hilt. You make them think twice
> > about martyring themselves by making it plain (in the case of Muslims,
> > for instance) that if they are caught before they are able to carry out
> > their plans, they will be denied Paradise and so will everyone in their
> > families.
> 
> It didn't work too well in Germany during WW2 and it won't work well now.

The problem there was that the Nazis were a country the size of Michigan 
fighting the largest coalition of forces in history on three fronts. I'm 
sure that if Germany hadn't been fighting a World War, their tactic or 
brooking NO opposition would have worked and they would have kept 
resistance movements pared down to manageable levels. Remember, the 
Allies encouraged, co-ordinated with and supplied (as much as possible) 
the resistance and partisan groups in most  German occupied countries. 
So, at best, this is a poor comparison.

> You might be able to bluff out the suicide bombers but there'll always be
> others with different methodologies. The Iraq war has shown many dissident
> groups that terrorism can be used to further their aims.

I'll guarantee one thing. The velvet glove methodology that we are using 
since 9/11 certainly isn't going to work forever and when the other shoe 
does drop (and it will) and many more innocent Americans are killed, you 
are going to see a change in attitude in this country that will astound 
you, and many so-called "comapssionate Americans" (a euphemism for 
cowards and namby-pambies if you ask me) will be changing their tunes.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 9:21:40 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 11/29/03 2:13 AM:

> In article <BBEC2123.32A69%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
> 
> Personally, I think it was to demonstrate to the world that it is
> possible to attack Americans on their own ground, to show the
> Americans that they aren't safe anywhere, and to destroy what was
> pecieved to be a symbol of western wealth and power (the WTC).

In that case, if you are right, the terrorists goals were reached.  While I
certainly do not support terrorism, I understand that it is a method of
working toward a goal.  The idea of a War on Terrorism makes no sense; you
can not win a war against a method of getting something done.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/29/2003 10:09:10 PM
In article <vsh4gn9qugovaa@news.supernews.com>,
 "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
> >  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
> >> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
> >> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
> >> ;-)
> >
> > I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
> > pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
> >
> > Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
> > seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts
> 
> 
> You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
> liberal!.
> 
> 

Well, if anyone was going to make an absolutely asnine comment, I just 
_knew_ it had to be Johnny, aka Tweedle-dumb.

-- 
Dave Fritzinger
0
dfritzin3 (567)
11/29/2003 10:09:40 PM
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote on 11/29/03 5:33 AM:

> George Graves wrote:
>> In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
>>  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
>>> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
>>> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
>>> ;-)
>> 
>> I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
>> pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
>> 
>> Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
>> seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts
> 
> 
> You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
> liberal!.
> 
> 
And Mac users tend to like foreign foods more: Thai, Indian, etc...

At least in my experience.  Makes some sense to me, people who are more open
minded and more aware of what is going on around then tend to eat a more
varied diet, be more Liberal, and use Macs.  Of course, that is a very vague
tendency, but it seems that way to me.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/29/2003 10:11:44 PM
In article <3m7hsvsbssuccf2l3ogpctsue5lm6iopi7@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:47 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> 
> >In article <adlesv00df5pe91q1jojjr2db5s9ckr70m@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.
> >> 
> >> I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
> >> wade through this cesspool you've made.
> >
> >And once again you display your inablility to tell the difference 
> >between ethnicity, religion, politics, philosophy, and culture.
> 
> So you too subcribe to the racist notion that the Arabs don't have the
> democracy gene. That's not that surprising coming from you.

Mr. Lund is correct here. We are not talking about a democracy "gene". 
We are talking about cultural values, some of which simply aren't 
condusive to democracy. "Civilization" is a process. One becomes a 21st 
century human being by going through that process. You can't take people 
out of a totally alien culture and mindset and set them down in suburban 
USA and have them grasp the implications of democracy. The fact is that 
many cultures have missed out on the Age of Enlightenment altogether and 
the Muslim world is certainly one that seems mired in the 12th century. 
A good case in point is South Africa. The liberals of the Western World 
screamed and screeched until the Aparthied government in SA collapsed to 
be replaced by majority black rule. You never hear about it any more (at 
least not in the US) because the media, after whipping up this global 
indignation over Aparthied, realized that the result of their little 
'nation-engineering' experiment is, in reality, an unmittigated 
disaster. Black rule doesn't work there. Not because the people are 
black, but because they haven't culturally gone through the processes 
that constitutes a willingness and understanding of the 
responisibilities associated with democratic self rule. Countless 
generations of tribal rule where one does what the chief says - PERIOD, 
has made the larger concepts of freedom, personal rights and civic 
responsibility largely abstract concepts to these peoples. This is 
largely true throughout Africa where basic concepts of things like 
infrastructure are completely alien. Many Africans will steal the 
multicolored wiring from their country's telephone system to weave the 
wire into baskets because the concept of a communications infrastructure 
has no meaning for them. It's dificult in engender a love and respect 
for the precepts of democracy and even basic human rights into people 
for which these precepts have no meaning. Again, it's not racial, it's 
cultural as Mr. Lund has said.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 10:13:06 PM
In article <znu-EC8F6C.07341429112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-59658A.01315829112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <znu-39B9FF.23203228112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <gmgravesnos-E6FDC9.16213428112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <znu-F25FB0.14114128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > > I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than 
> > > > > they 
> > > > > were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now to 
> > > > > get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's 
> > > > > possible 
> > > > > to break into the middle class.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know about that, but I do know that we don't really need any 
> > > > more people in this country.
> > > 
> > > What factors have lead you to this conclusion?
> > 
> > Overloaded infrastructure will do for a start. But honestly, does 
> > somebody actually HAVE to tell you that?
> 
> You don't get rid of people when you have overloaded infrastructure. You 
> invest in more and better infrastructure.

In other words, you treat the symptoms not the disease. That's the hard, 
expensive way. The easy, cheap way is to close the door and put up a no 
vacancy sign. Why is it that if there are two ways to address any 
problem, humans will always choose the more difficult, less effective 
way? Can somebody answer that please?

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 10:17:35 PM
In article <vsh4gn9qugovaa@news.supernews.com>,
 "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
> >  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
> >> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
> >> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
> >> ;-)
> >
> > I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
> > pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
> >
> > Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
> > seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts
> 
> 
> You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
> liberal!.

Unfortunately, you are right there. Most of them seem to be. At least 
the ones in this group are. My Mac-using friends aren't, but that was 
because they were conservative when I met them and I brow-beat all of 
them into buying Macs - which all are grateful to me for, I might add.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 10:27:28 PM
In article <clund-2E40AB.10264129112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <ue9fsvo0bl8ub58804p9c049pr46nrruad@4ax.com>,
>  Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > What is a 'neocon'? It seems to be the liberal buzzword of the moment.
> > Of course the National Review
> 
> Isn't that one of your right-wing rags?

That's funny. In reality, The National Review is just to the left of 
Pravda.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 10:29:04 PM
In article <BBEE67B0.32F1A%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote on 11/29/03 5:33 AM:
> 
> > George Graves wrote:
> >> In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
> >>  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> <snip>
> >> 
> >>> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
> >>> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
> >>> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
> >>> ;-)
> >> 
> >> I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
> >> pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
> >> 
> >> Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
> >> seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts
> > 
> > 
> > You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
> > liberal!.
> > 
> > 
> And Mac users tend to like foreign foods more: Thai, Indian, etc...
> 
> At least in my experience.  Makes some sense to me, people who are more open
> minded and more aware of what is going on around then tend to eat a more
> varied diet, be more Liberal, and use Macs.  Of course, that is a very vague
> tendency, but it seems that way to me.
> 

What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are motivated 
mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything engendered in 
those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
11/29/2003 11:14:52 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/29/03 4:14 PM:

> In article <BBEE67B0.32F1A%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote on 11/29/03 5:33 AM:
>> 
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>> In article <rfovell-210ED6.23011928112003@news.supernews.com>,
>>>>  Robert Fovell <rfovell@yahooooooooo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>>> In the latter situation, I do the opposite (unless I vote
>>>>> Libertarian or for an independent.)  Probably because I was born in
>>>>> "Crook" County.  Is there such a thing as an honest Democrat there?
>>>>> ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> I wasn't going to say anything here, but this last line, I just can't
>>>> pass up, so please forgive my weakness:
>>>> 
>>>> Is there any such thing as an honest Democrat anywhere? I've never
>>>> seen one. Just a bunch of criminals, traitors, and bleeding-hearts
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You're the anomaly that proves the rule that Mac users are predominately
>>> liberal!.
>>> 
>>> 
>> And Mac users tend to like foreign foods more: Thai, Indian, etc...
>> 
>> At least in my experience.  Makes some sense to me, people who are more open
>> minded and more aware of what is going on around then tend to eat a more
>> varied diet, be more Liberal, and use Macs.  Of course, that is a very vague
>> tendency, but it seems that way to me.
>> 
> 
> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are motivated
> mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything engendered in
> those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.

Ok... I added that part just to see how people would react. :)  Of course,
it is no more true that liberals are motivated by fear and guilt than to say
that conservatives are motivated by fear and greed. 

0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/29/2003 11:22:19 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-725704.14173529112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-EC8F6C.07341429112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <gmgravesnos-59658A.01315829112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <znu-39B9FF.23203228112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <gmgravesnos-E6FDC9.16213428112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In article <znu-F25FB0.14114128112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > > > >  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [snip]
> > > > 
> > > > > > I rather doubt that assimilation rates are particularly lower than 
> > > > > > they 
> > > > > > were in the past. It's true that it's probably slightly easier now 
> > > > > > to 
> > > > > > get by at a low level without knowing English, but I doubt it's 
> > > > > > possible 
> > > > > > to break into the middle class.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know about that, but I do know that we don't really need any 
> > > > > more people in this country.
> > > > 
> > > > What factors have lead you to this conclusion?
> > > 
> > > Overloaded infrastructure will do for a start. But honestly, does 
> > > somebody actually HAVE to tell you that?
> > 
> > You don't get rid of people when you have overloaded infrastructure. You 
> > invest in more and better infrastructure.
> 
> In other words, you treat the symptoms not the disease. That's the hard, 
> expensive way. The easy, cheap way is to close the door and put up a no 
> vacancy sign. Why is it that if there are two ways to address any 
> problem, humans will always choose the more difficult, less effective 
> way? Can somebody answer that please?

People, assuming you can afford to support them at a decent standard of 
living (which we can), are a resource, not a liability.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/30/2003 2:28:47 AM
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:23:28 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <npkesvkgrcu8f02v78bln1ahjml4a269un@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >What you've done to Iraq has only *increased* the threat of terrorism. 
>> >The US now faces the prospect of having two failed nations instead of 
>> >just one.
>> Frequently said but the evidence is sorely lacking. 
>
>Before I reply to that, I'd like to hear how you percieve the current 
>situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As well as can be expected given what we started with.
>
>> >> or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
>> >> killing Muslims.
>> >> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
>> >> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
>> >> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
>> >> nothing. 
>> >> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
>> >> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
>> >> won't occur.
>> >Yeah, as long as it's "only" Muslims who get killed, it's ok. Bp
>> Its not ok for anyone to get killed but that's not up to me now is it?
>
>This jars with your frequent endorsements of ethnic cleansing.

The only reason you're so stiffly against the only solution that has a
chance of working is that the Palestinian savages wouldn't be able to
kill Jews anymore and you wouldn't get to have any more celebrations.




-- 
"the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints 
[about Apple's claims to make the world's fastest
computer] and the response to the BACC's expert. He
found that the claim was not supported by independent
reviews"
0
ev515o (4926)
11/30/2003 2:12:32 PM
In article <znu-E6BAA6.07595729112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> > Nobody controls Afghanistan. There's a mayor in Kabul but the rest is 
> > controlled by the local warlords - just as it was before the Taliban 
> > regime. And the Talibs are on the way back. B(
> For the purposes of fighting terrorism, the Taliban and Afghanistan- 
> based segments of Al Qaeda have essentially been neutralized. Lots of 
> them are dead, none are being trained, and those few who remain are 
> mostly busy attacking US troops there, not planning attacks here.

The Talibs are not *currently* capable of causing much harm. But 
they're still there and afaik now on the return. I wouldn't mind being 
wrong here, btw.

> Of course, the failure of the Bush administration to help the central 
> government firmly establish control means that US troops won't be able 
> to leave any time soon.
> 
> > > and while the war in Iraq has probably led to a temporary boost for 
> > > them in terms of recruitment, a democratic, pro-Western Iraq will 
> > > ultimately not be a good thing for them in the long run.
> > No, that it would not. Hopefully that'll be the result. But I suspect 
> > Iraq will have to go through a decade of chaos first.
> I think we've seen the worst, and things will slowly get better from 
> here on out.

I hope you're right. Time will tell.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/30/2003 3:58:25 PM
In article <BBEE6716.32F18%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> "C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 11/29/03 2:13 AM:
> >> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
> > Personally, I think it was to demonstrate to the world that it is
> > possible to attack Americans on their own ground, to show the
> > Americans that they aren't safe anywhere, and to destroy what was
> > pecieved to be a symbol of western wealth and power (the WTC).
> In that case, if you are right, the terrorists goals were reached. 

That is how I see it. And as an additional bonus, Al Qaeda now gets to 
enjoy the spectacle of the US regressing to a McCarthyist mentality.

> While I
> certainly do not support terrorism, I understand that it is a method of
> working toward a goal.  The idea of a War on Terrorism makes no sense; you
> can not win a war against a method of getting something done.

I agree. That's why I think bush's "war on terror" is silly.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/30/2003 4:00:21 PM
In article <dkujsvgor0v7gfmu5hgeolu4cg2tot1267@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:23:28 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >What you've done to Iraq has only *increased* the threat of terrorism. 
> >> >The US now faces the prospect of having two failed nations instead of 
> >> >just one.
> >> Frequently said but the evidence is sorely lacking. 
> >Before I reply to that, I'd like to hear how you percieve the current 
> >situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> As well as can be expected given what we started with.

Not much of an answer now is it.

> >> >> or the terrorists continue their latest trend of
> >> >> killing Muslims.
> >> >> Look at Ireland. It didn't calm down because the two sides suddenly
> >> >> got some great love for one another. It calmed down because they
> >> >> realized that the war was costing both sides dearly and gaining them
> >> >> nothing. 
> >> >> If we can keep these guys bottled up so the best they can do is
> >> >> slaughter fellow Muslims there's no reason to believe the same thing
> >> >> won't occur.
> >> >Yeah, as long as it's "only" Muslims who get killed, it's ok. Bp
> >> Its not ok for anyone to get killed but that's not up to me now is it?
> >This jars with your frequent endorsements of ethnic cleansing.
> The only reason you're so stiffly against the only solution that has a
> chance of working is that the Palestinian savages wouldn't be able to
> kill Jews anymore and you wouldn't get to have any more celebrations.

And once again you flaunt your racist attitudes (with your usual 
sprinkling of strawmen/lies).

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/30/2003 4:01:57 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are motivated 
> mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything engendered in 
> those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.

Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am 
motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a 
"live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with 
something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality). The only 
negative feelings I have wrt the topic is contempt and disgust - which 
is how I feel about racist trash like faux (and Ariel Sharon, for that 
matter).

> -- 
> George Graves

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/30/2003 4:08:09 PM
In article <3m7hsvsbssuccf2l3ogpctsue5lm6iopi7@4ax.com>,
 Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:48:47 +0100, C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >Democracy isn't in the psyche of many of these peoples.
> >> I'll pull up my pants so none of this blatant racism gets on them as I
> >> wade through this cesspool you've made.
> >And once again you display your inablility to tell the difference 
> >between ethnicity, religion, politics, philosophy, and culture.
> So you too subcribe to the racist notion that the Arabs don't have the
> democracy gene. That's not that surprising coming from you.

First of all; there is no such thing as a "democracy gene", so 
*nobody* has it. Not the Arabs, not the English, not me, and certainly 
not you.
Secondly, there is this thing called "cultural baggage". I know 
anything involving "culture" sounds alien and strangely feely-touchy 
to you, but it's something most people carry around whether they know 
it or not. Democracy isn't inborn. It has to be learned, just like 
anything else. And if one's cultural baggage involves blind obedience 
to priests of a given religion or people of a specific family then 
that has to be unlearned before one can hope to talk about democracy.

And i just *know* what you're going to say wrt to cultural baggage.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
11/30/2003 4:29:03 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 11/30/03 9:00 AM:

> In article <BBEE6716.32F18%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>> "C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 11/29/03 2:13 AM:
>>>> Why do you think the people who planned and executed 9-11 did it?
>>> Personally, I think it was to demonstrate to the world that it is
>>> possible to attack Americans on their own ground, to show the
>>> Americans that they aren't safe anywhere, and to destroy what was
>>> pecieved to be a symbol of western wealth and power (the WTC).
>> In that case, if you are right, the terrorists goals were reached.
> 
> That is how I see it. And as an additional bonus, Al Qaeda now gets to
> enjoy the spectacle of the US regressing to a McCarthyist mentality.
> 
>> While I
>> certainly do not support terrorism, I understand that it is a method of
>> working toward a goal.  The idea of a War on Terrorism makes no sense; you
>> can not win a war against a method of getting something done.
> 
> I agree. That's why I think bush's "war on terror" is silly.

Now the question comes: why do you think he perpetuates this silly idea? (it
has more to do with politics and money than safety) And why do so many
Americans blindly accept it (not just partisan trust, as many democrats
accept it, too).  


0
snit-nospam (5415)
11/30/2003 4:31:09 PM
In article <clund-64B4F7.16582530112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <znu-E6BAA6.07595729112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Nobody controls Afghanistan. There's a mayor in Kabul but the 
> > > rest is controlled by the local warlords - just as it was before 
> > > the Taliban regime. And the Talibs are on the way back. B(
> > For the purposes of fighting terrorism, the Taliban and 
> > Afghanistan- based segments of Al Qaeda have essentially been 
> > neutralized. Lots of them are dead, none are being trained, and 
> > those few who remain are mostly busy attacking US troops there, not 
> > planning attacks here.
> 
> The Talibs are not *currently* capable of causing much harm. But 
> they're still there and afaik now on the return. I wouldn't mind 
> being wrong here, btw.

They won't be able to do anything as long as troops are there wacking 
them down whenever they poke their heads up. If troops were to leave 
now, they'd make a comeback very fast, but that won't happen.

> > Of course, the failure of the Bush administration to help the 
> > central government firmly establish control means that US troops 
> > won't be able to leave any time soon.
> > 
> > > > and while the war in Iraq has probably led to a temporary boost 
> > > > for them in terms of recruitment, a democratic, pro-Western 
> > > > Iraq will ultimately not be a good thing for them in the long 
> > > > run.
> > > No, that it would not. Hopefully that'll be the result. But I 
> > > suspect Iraq will have to go through a decade of chaos first.
> > I think we've seen the worst, and things will slowly get better 
> > from here on out.
> 
> I hope you're right. Time will tell.

It usually does.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
11/30/2003 9:24:41 PM
In news:clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>> Still...
>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this nonsense
>> on what?
>
> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
> wouldn't they do so again?

the operations carried out under Operation Phoenix are pretty much outlawed
now; of course i'm not naive enough to believe that's absolute assurance,
but since there are no absolute assurances, unless you can point out
evidence of something a little more current, it's a decent assumption.


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 12:15:13 AM
In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>
>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>
>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>> further.
>>
>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are
>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a
>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as
>> well, now would it?
>
> What terrorist attacks make sense?

in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in that it
accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 12:19:58 AM
In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything
>> engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.
>
> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).

except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)

> The only
> negative feelings I have wrt the topic is contempt and disgust - which
> is how I feel about racist trash like faux (and Ariel Sharon, for that
> matter).



0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 12:29:44 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:19 PM:

> In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>>>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>> 
>>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>>> further.
>>> 
>>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are
>>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a
>>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as
>>> well, now would it?
>> 
>> What terrorist attacks make sense?
> 
> in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in that it
> accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...
> 
You very well could be right - which means that not only is Bush fighting a
"war" against a method of getting something accomplished, but that it is a
sensible method that can accomplish its goals.  Again, I do not support
terrorism, just see through the Bush administrations (and the medias) use of
the phrase "war" against "terror" or "terrorism" makes no sense.  Now, if we
had a truly liberal media, as so many claim, would they not be making a big
deal of this obvious lie (or is it just a stupidity?  Does Bush *really*
believe his words?)

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 1:32:28 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:

> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>> In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything
>>> engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.
>> 
>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
>> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> 
> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
> and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)

Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots would
attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have other faults
(and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be more sensible than
Conservatives.  I think where non-bigoted Conservatives disagree with that
Liberal view is where they see the Liberals as going to far - like the issue
of gun control.  Liberals believe you have a right to live with less fear of
some whacko shooting you (and believe that gun control can get you at least
partially to the goal - which is debatable).  Conservatives see it as a
freedom of choice issue - citing the second amendment (usually incorrectly).
> 
>> The only
>> negative feelings I have wrt the topic is contempt and disgust - which
>> is how I feel about racist trash like faux (and Ariel Sharon, for that
>> matter).
> 
> 
> 

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 1:38:52 AM
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<BBEB9358.329C2%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:18 AM:
> 
> > In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>  
> >>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
> >>> *FORCE*
> >> 
> >> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
> >> method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
> >> espionage."
> >> 
> >> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
> > 
> > in the context of terrorism?
> 
> In the context of fighting for something.  

yes, there are other ways to fight for something other than violence;
but we're talking about terrorism here.  so i'll ask again, do you
think there are non-violent ways to fight for things, in the context
of *terrorism*.

> Terrorism is one method of
> fighting for a position.  It uses violence (or uses the threat of violence).
> When people want something badly, their are many methods or working toward
> it.  I do not think you can win a "war" against one of these methods.
> 
> >> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
> >> - the activities are illegal
> > 
> > what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
> 
> No, I am simply answering your question.  

and making a big assumption to do it, with little evidence to back it
up.

> You had questioned my statement
> that Bush fit the definition of terrorist as defined by the FBI.  That
> definition is: 
> 
> ----
> the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or
> coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the
> furtherance of political or social objectives. This definition includes
> three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of
> force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions
> are committed in support of political or social objectives.
> ----
> 
> I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your response.

um, i was specifically addressing your 3 points, from your
interpretation of that definition; i wasn't directly addressing the
definition.

> >> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
> >> - the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas
> > 
> > these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.
> 
> Those were the "assumptions" in the definition that showed that Bush could
> be seen as a terrorist.  

you're interpretation isn't the definition, and you declaring it as
such doesn't make it so.  you're interpretation of it says bush's
acticivites are illegal (and since you have no background to make an
educated decision about whether it is or not, you're *assuming* it's
illegal); if this assumption of yours is incorrect, the other two
points of the definition you gave is irrelevant.

and there's no need to put "assumptions" in quotes- i only claimed one
of your bullet points were assumptions, not all 3.  but clearly not
all 3 are in the definition as you claim; you're first point was that
bush's activities are illegal- how's that in the definition?

> You have refuted the first point, by saying you do
> not think our attack against Iraq was illegal (or hope it was not anyway).

thos are two very different things, and you often make the big leap in
assuming someone is saying something they're not based on your own
faulty logic.  glad you at least partly caught it this time.  for the
record, i have made no statement either way as to whether i think the
attack on iraq was illegal- i simply don't feel that enough
information is available to make an educated decision; in the
meantime, i sincerely hope the admistration didn't do anything
boneheaded like invade a country without sufficient evidence.

> I conceded that *if* that can be shown, then he may not fit this definition.

and *if* it cannot be shown, it does not mean that he *does* fit this
definition.

> That evidence, however, despite huge political gains (both internal to the
> US and around the world) has not been made by Bush or his administration.  I
> have offered the possibility that he is withholding this information (if it
> does exist) to release it closer to the election, to better his chances of
> getting elected to a second term.

which leaves a big gaping hole in your argument- you're arguing that
they took part in an illegal war, and are withholding information for
political gain.  if they've gone this far, why not exploit it even
more, and *make up* information to support their claims that what they
did was perfectly ok?  politically and legally, that would pale in
comparision to an illegal war, and the consequences of such actions
would be practically nil compared to what they would have to face
anyways.

> >> *If* this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must be
> >> highly classified and/or of questionable value.
> > 
> > highly classified, versus just a little classified?  either way, disclosing
> > it before it's declassified is a felony.
> 
> Who has the ability to determine what is classified?  

those who collect / gather / create the information classify it.  in
general, any document is classified at the level of the most sensitive
information contained w/in it.

> Oh, and yes, there are
> different levels of classification.

yes, and it's a felony with no statute of limitation irregardless of
the classification.
0
news74 (3350)
12/1/2003 2:41:53 AM
"ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote on 11/30/03 7:41 PM:

> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:<BBEB9358.329C2%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:18 AM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>  
>>>>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a "method" of
>>>>> *FORCE*
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is a
>>>> method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
>>>> espionage."
>>>> 
>>>> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
>>> 
>>> in the context of terrorism?
>> 
>> In the context of fighting for something.
> 
> yes, there are other ways to fight for something other than violence;
> but we're talking about terrorism here.  so i'll ask again, do you
> think there are non-violent ways to fight for things, in the context
> of *terrorism*.

Um, sure - there are non-violent methods of terrorism.  But when did we
change the topic.  Please remember, this started when I commented that we
can not win a war on terror(ism) because terrorism is a method of fighting
for (working for) a goal.  My point still stands, whether you agree that
terrorism must involve direct violence (it does not).  Actually, this brings
up another good point - since there is no good definition of exactly what a
terrorist is, how can we eradicate "them".  The only thing clear is that the
war is a farce (or at least he stated reasons are).
> 
>> Terrorism is one method of fighting for a position.  It uses violence (or
>> uses the threat of violence). When people want something badly, their are
>> many methods or working toward it.  I do not think you can win a "war"
>> against one of these methods.
>> 
>>>> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
>>>> - the activities are illegal
>>> 
>>> what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
>> 
>> No, I am simply answering your question.
> 
> and making a big assumption to do it, with little evidence to back it
> up.

What assumption? I state the FBI definition and note how Bush fits it.  You
question that.  I support it.  Where did you get lost?

> 
>> You had questioned my statement
>> that Bush fit the definition of terrorist as defined by the FBI.  That
>> definition is: 
>> 
>> ----
>> the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or
>> coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the
>> furtherance of political or social objectives. This definition includes
>> three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of
>> force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions
>> are committed in support of political or social objectives.
>> ----
>> 
>> I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your response.
> 
> um, i was specifically addressing your 3 points, from your
> interpretation of that definition; i wasn't directly addressing the
> definition.

The three points are *from* the definition.  See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Did you not look at the link before now?
> 
>>>> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
>>>> - the actions are committed in support of political or social agendas
>>> 
>>> these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.
>> 
>> Those were the "assumptions" in the definition that showed that Bush could
>> be seen as a terrorist.
> 
> you're interpretation isn't the definition, and you declaring it as
> such doesn't make it so.  you're interpretation of it says bush's
> acticivites are illegal (and since you have no background to make an
> educated decision about whether it is or not, you're *assuming* it's
> illegal); if this assumption of yours is incorrect, the other two
> points of the definition you gave is irrelevant.

I supplied evidence that it was illegal.  Your refutation was based on
"trust" that there must be better evidence than Bush has let on to or we
would not have attacked.  While within the realm of possibility, it is seems
to be becoming a more remote chance by the day.  I guess we will know once
the election cycle gets in full swing.
> 
> and there's no need to put "assumptions" in quotes- i only claimed one
> of your bullet points were assumptions, not all 3.  but clearly not
> all 3 are in the definition as you claim; you're first point was that
> bush's activities are illegal- how's that in the definition?

You did not read the whole definition.  You assumed parts of the definition
were from me.
> 
>> You have refuted the first point, by saying you do
>> not think our attack against Iraq was illegal (or hope it was not anyway).
> 
> thos are two very different things, and you often make the big leap in
> assuming someone is saying something they're not based on your own
> faulty logic.  glad you at least partly caught it this time.  for the
> record, i have made no statement either way as to whether i think the
> attack on iraq was illegal- i simply don't feel that enough
> information is available to make an educated decision; in the
> meantime, i sincerely hope the admistration didn't do anything
> boneheaded like invade a country without sufficient evidence.

Though it does seem to be the case.
> 
>> I conceded that *if* that can be shown, then he may not fit this definition.
> 
> and *if* it cannot be shown, it does not mean that he *does* fit this
> definition.

The evidence currently points to it being illegal.
> 
>> That evidence, however, despite huge political gains (both internal to the
>> US and around the world) has not been made by Bush or his administration.  I
>> have offered the possibility that he is withholding this information (if it
>> does exist) to release it closer to the election, to better his chances of
>> getting elected to a second term.
> 
> which leaves a big gaping hole in your argument- you're arguing that
> they took part in an illegal war, and are withholding information for
> political gain.  if they've gone this far, why not exploit it even
> more, and *make up* information to support their claims that what they
> did was perfectly ok?

I do not doubt Bush and the administration would do so.  There did seem to
be some huge coincidences during the time they were looking for weapons of
mass destruction.  Kick the UN out.  Declare that you will find them real
soon - perhaps any day.  Then invite the UN to come in with you.  Wow - find
canisters.  Take them away for inspection.  I honestly expected them to
"find" them then.  I was surprised when they did not.  Plans went awry?

> politically and legally, that would pale in comparision to an illegal war, and
> the consequences of such actions would be practically nil compared to what
> they would have to face anyways.

If you are trying to say the Bush administration is not above this, I agree.
> 
>>>> *If* this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists, it must
>>>> be
>>>> highly classified and/or of questionable value.
>>> 
>>> highly classified, versus just a little classified?  either way, disclosing
>>> it before it's declassified is a felony.
>> 
>> Who has the ability to determine what is classified?
> 
> those who collect / gather / create the information classify it.  in
> general, any document is classified at the level of the most sensitive
> information contained w/in it.

And the president has access and can override.


0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 2:59:28 AM
In news:BBEFE83C.33044%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:19 PM:
>
>> In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>
>>>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>>>> further.
>>>>
>>>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are
>>>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a
>>>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as
>>>> well, now would it?
>>>
>>> What terrorist attacks make sense?
>>
>> in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in that
>> it accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...
>>
> You very well could be right - which means that not only is Bush
> fighting a "war" against a method of getting something accomplished,
> but that it is a sensible method that can accomplish its goals.

wow, you're so used to twisting words it looks like you even believe you're
own twisted version of things.  nobody's trying to fight a war against a
"method"; they're trying to crack down on organized groups that would
terrorize the populace.  word games don't change this.

> Again, I do not support terrorism, just see through the Bush
> administrations (and the medias) use of the phrase "war" against
> "terror" or "terrorism" makes no sense.

it's a convenient catchphrase that you're reading too much into; as per your
usual way of arguing, you've read too much into something that's largely
irrelevant, while missing entirely overlooking the big picture.

> Now, if we had a truly
> liberal media, as so many claim, would they not be making a big deal
> of this obvious lie (or is it just a stupidity?  Does Bush *really*
> believe his words?)

it's not a lie; only those with a bone to pick would attempt to take the
phrase literally.


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 4:18:38 AM
In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>
>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>> In article
>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
>>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
>>>> open minded.
>>>
>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from
>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>
>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>
> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be
> more sensible than Conservatives.

you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and other ultra
right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often whacky, and rarely
widely held.  whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
everyone pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
for.

> I think where non-bigoted
> Conservatives disagree with that Liberal view is where they see the
> Liberals as going to far - like the issue of gun control.  Liberals
> believe you have a right to live with less fear of some whacko
> shooting you (and believe that gun control can get you at least
> partially to the goal - which is debatable).  Conservatives see it as
> a freedom of choice issue - citing the second amendment (usually
> incorrectly).



0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 4:21:24 AM
In news:BBEFFCA0.33069%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote on 11/30/03 7:41 PM:
>
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
>> news:<BBEB9358.329C2%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:18 AM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>
>>>>>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a
>>>>>> "method" of
>>>>>> *FORCE*
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is
>>>>> a method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
>>>>> espionage."
>>>>>
>>>>> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
>>>>
>>>> in the context of terrorism?
>>>
>>> In the context of fighting for something.
>>
>> yes, there are other ways to fight for something other than violence;
>> but we're talking about terrorism here.  so i'll ask again, do you
>> think there are non-violent ways to fight for things, in the context
>> of *terrorism*.
>
> Um, sure - there are non-violent methods of terrorism.

oh yar?  like what?

>  But when did
> we
> change the topic.  Please remember, this started when I commented
> that we
> can not win a war on terror(ism) because terrorism is a method of
> fighting
> for (working for) a goal.

yeah, and unfortunately you have a convoluted view of the definition of
terrorism!

> My point still stands, whether you agree
> that terrorism must involve direct violence (it does not).

ah, moving the goalposts to "direct violence"; this is a new phrase your
using, and i'm sure it's in response to my inevitable question for you to
provide non-violent forms of terrorism.

> Actually,
> this brings
> up another good point - since there is no good definition of exactly
> what a terrorist is, how can we eradicate "them".  The only thing
> clear is that the war is a farce (or at least he stated reasons are).

there *are* good definitions- you're just trying to change them to win an
argument...

>>> Terrorism is one method of fighting for a position.  It uses
>>> violence (or uses the threat of violence). When people want
>>> something badly, their are many methods or working toward it.  I do
>>> not think you can win a "war" against one of these methods.
>>>
>>>>> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
>>>>> - the activities are illegal
>>>>
>>>> what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
>>>
>>> No, I am simply answering your question.
>>
>> and making a big assumption to do it, with little evidence to back it
>> up.
>
> What assumption? I state the FBI definition and note how Bush fits
> it.  You question that.  I support it.  Where did you get lost?

you made assumptions in noting how bush fit the definition; specifically,
you're assuming bush's activities are illegal.

>>> You had questioned my statement
>>> that Bush fit the definition of terrorist as defined by the FBI.
>>> That definition is:
>>>
>>> ----
>>> the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate
>>> or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
>>> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives. This
>>> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
>>> illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended
>>> to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support
>>> of political or social objectives.
>>> ----
>>>
>>> I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your
>>> response.
>>
>> um, i was specifically addressing your 3 points, from your
>> interpretation of that definition; i wasn't directly addressing the
>> definition.
>
> The three points are *from* the definition.  See:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> Did you not look at the link before now?

are you not reading my responses?

>>>>> - actions are intended to intimidate or coerce
>>>>> - the actions are committed in support of political or social
>>>>> agendas
>>>>
>>>> these two are irrelevant if your first assumption is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Those were the "assumptions" in the definition that showed that
>>> Bush could be seen as a terrorist.
>>
>> you're interpretation isn't the definition, and you declaring it as
>> such doesn't make it so.  you're interpretation of it says bush's
>> acticivites are illegal (and since you have no background to make an
>> educated decision about whether it is or not, you're *assuming* it's
>> illegal); if this assumption of yours is incorrect, the other two
>> points of the definition you gave is irrelevant.
>
> I supplied evidence that it was illegal.

uh, no, you didn't.

> Your refutation was based on
> "trust" that there must be better evidence than Bush has let on to or
> we
> would not have attacked.  While within the realm of possibility, it
> is seems
> to be becoming a more remote chance by the day.  I guess we will know
> once
> the election cycle gets in full swing.
>>
>> and there's no need to put "assumptions" in quotes- i only claimed
>> one
>> of your bullet points were assumptions, not all 3.  but clearly not
>> all 3 are in the definition as you claim; you're first point was that
>> bush's activities are illegal- how's that in the definition?
>
> You did not read the whole definition.  You assumed parts of the
> definition were from me.

no, i didn't.  the assumption you're making is that the activities are
illegal.

>>> You have refuted the first point, by saying you do
>>> not think our attack against Iraq was illegal (or hope it was not
>>> anyway).
>>
>> thos are two very different things, and you often make the big leap
>> in assuming someone is saying something they're not based on your own
>> faulty logic.  glad you at least partly caught it this time.  for the
>> record, i have made no statement either way as to whether i think the
>> attack on iraq was illegal- i simply don't feel that enough
>> information is available to make an educated decision; in the
>> meantime, i sincerely hope the admistration didn't do anything
>> boneheaded like invade a country without sufficient evidence.
>
> Though it does seem to be the case.

says snit and many dislike bush.

>>> I conceded that *if* that can be shown, then he may not fit this
>>> definition.
>>
>> and *if* it cannot be shown, it does not mean that he *does* fit this
>> definition.
>
> The evidence currently points to it being illegal.

according to you and some others.  there are plenty of others who say it's
not illegal.  why should i believe your interpretation of the law?

>>> That evidence, however, despite huge political gains (both internal
>>> to the US and around the world) has not been made by Bush or his
>>> administration.  I have offered the possibility that he is
>>> withholding this information (if it does exist) to release it
>>> closer to the election, to better his chances of getting elected to
>>> a second term.
>>
>> which leaves a big gaping hole in your argument- you're arguing that
>> they took part in an illegal war, and are withholding information for
>> political gain.  if they've gone this far, why not exploit it even
>> more, and *make up* information to support their claims that what
>> they
>> did was perfectly ok?
>
> I do not doubt Bush and the administration would do so.

well, wheres this info then?

> There did
> seem to
> be some huge coincidences during the time they were looking for
> weapons of
> mass destruction.  Kick the UN out.

pssshaw.  that is soooo irrelevant; i expected much better from you...

> Declare that you will find them
> real
> soon - perhaps any day.  Then invite the UN to come in with you.  Wow
> - find canisters.  Take them away for inspection.  I honestly
> expected them to "find" them then.  I was surprised when they did
> not.  Plans went awry?

hoooooo, this is classic!  you don't doubt the bush administration would
make up evidence, based on... them NOT making up evidence?  that's quite a
leap of logic, even for you!  i CAN'T WAIT to hear you back this stupidity
up!

>> politically and legally, that would pale in comparision to an
>> illegal war, and the consequences of such actions would be
>> practically nil compared to what they would have to face anyways.
>
> If you are trying to say the Bush administration is not above this, I
> agree.

uhhh, yeah...

>>>>> *If* this information that excuses our pre-emptive attack exists,
>>>>> it must be
>>>>> highly classified and/or of questionable value.
>>>>
>>>> highly classified, versus just a little classified?  either way,
>>>> disclosing it before it's declassified is a felony.
>>>
>>> Who has the ability to determine what is classified?
>>
>> those who collect / gather / create the information classify it.  in
>> general, any document is classified at the level of the most
>> sensitive information contained w/in it.
>
> And the president has access and can override.

the president can't just "override" any classification you want, even if you
are the president.  thanks for playing though.


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 4:34:58 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:18 PM:

> In news:BBEFE83C.33044%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:19 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against
>>>>>>>>>>> civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>>>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>>>>> further.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists are
>>>>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a
>>>>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians as
>>>>> well, now would it?
>>>> 
>>>> What terrorist attacks make sense?
>>> 
>>> in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in that
>>> it accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...
>>> 
>> You very well could be right - which means that not only is Bush
>> fighting a "war" against a method of getting something accomplished,
>> but that it is a sensible method that can accomplish its goals.
> 
> wow, you're so used to twisting words it looks like you even believe you're
> own twisted version of things.  nobody's trying to fight a war against a
> "method"; they're trying to crack down on organized groups that would
> terrorize the populace.  word games don't change this.

Are you denying that Bush is claiming this a war against terror and that he
is looking to eradicate it?  And if he is working to stop the organized
groups, then why not go after the Saudis - who had much stronger ties to
9-11 than Iraq.  If we are going after the organized groups that attacked
America, why did we not accept Afghanistan's offer to turn Osama bin Laden
over to authorities.  Bush's lies are obvious.  Are presidential lies OK as
long as they are not related to an affair?
> 
>> Again, I do not support terrorism, just see through the Bush
>> administrations (and the medias) use of the phrase "war" against
>> "terror" or "terrorism" makes no sense.
> 
> it's a convenient catchphrase that you're reading too much into; as per your
> usual way of arguing, you've read too much into something that's largely
> irrelevant, while missing entirely overlooking the big picture.

Do you blindly accept all President's claims, or just Bush's?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 4:35:43 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:

> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>> In article
>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
>>>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
>>>>> open minded.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from
>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>> 
>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>> 
>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be
>> more sensible than Conservatives.
> 
> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and other ultra
> right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often whacky, and rarely
> widely held.  

I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right wing.  I
would not say it is all right wingers...

> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making everyone pay for
> things that many believe the gov't has no business paying for.

Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something *I* want
to be paying for.  How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich?
You rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively small
sums that go toward welfare.

And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do with their
bodies.  Both parties have their faults.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 4:43:01 AM
In news:BBF0132F.33088%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:18 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEFE83C.33044%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:19 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed
>>>>>>>>>>>> against civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>>>>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a
>>>>>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians
>>>>>> as well, now would it?
>>>>>
>>>>> What terrorist attacks make sense?
>>>>
>>>> in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in
>>>> that
>>>> it accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...
>>>>
>>> You very well could be right - which means that not only is Bush
>>> fighting a "war" against a method of getting something accomplished,
>>> but that it is a sensible method that can accomplish its goals.
>>
>> wow, you're so used to twisting words it looks like you even believe
>> you're own twisted version of things.  nobody's trying to fight a
>> war against a "method"; they're trying to crack down on organized
>> groups that would terrorize the populace.  word games don't change
>> this.
>
> Are you denying that Bush is claiming this a war against terror and
> that he is looking to eradicate it?

yeah, and every superbowl i hear someone claim that the game is going to be
"war", and there's a war against HIV.  while the war on terror is a bit more
literal, it's not 100% literal.

> And if he is working to stop the
> organized groups, then why not go after the Saudis - who had much
> stronger ties to 9-11 than Iraq.

"the Saudis" are not an organized group that has a history of supporting
terror; there *ARE* a lot of saudis w/ a history of supporting terror.  see
the difference?  and you realize you're speaking as if your omniscient,
right?

> If we are going after the organized
> groups that attacked America, why did we not accept Afghanistan's
> offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to authorities.

uh huh.  and iraq really, really wanted to hold democratic elections.

>Bush's lies are
> obvious.  Are presidential lies OK as long as they are not related to
> an affair?

how do you think clinton is even vaguely relevant to this conversation?

>>> Again, I do not support terrorism, just see through the Bush
>>> administrations (and the medias) use of the phrase "war" against
>>> "terror" or "terrorism" makes no sense.
>>
>> it's a convenient catchphrase that you're reading too much into; as
>> per your usual way of arguing, you've read too much into something
>> that's largely irrelevant, while missing entirely overlooking the
>> big picture.
>
> Do you blindly accept all President's claims, or just Bush's?

no, i just have common sense; i don't take the bush administrations claims
literally, as i didn't take the clinton administaration literally when they
talked about the "war on hate".


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 4:49:37 AM
In article <BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> 
> > In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> > C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >> In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> >>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything
> >>> engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.
> >> 
> >> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> >> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
> >> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> >> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> > 
> > except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
> > and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> 
> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots would
> attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have other faults
> (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be more sensible than
> Conservatives.  I think where non-bigoted Conservatives disagree with that
> Liberal view is where they see the Liberals as going to far - like the issue
> of gun control.  Liberals believe you have a right to live with less fear of
> some whacko shooting you (and believe that gun control can get you at least
> partially to the goal - which is debatable).  Conservatives see it as a
> freedom of choice issue - citing the second amendment (usually incorrectly).

It's difficult to cite the second amendment incorrectly. "A well 
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the 
RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Even that left-wing Commie from the Harvard Law School (who's name I 
forget) who is considered the foremost authority on the Constitution 
says that as much as he regrets it, there is no other way to interpret 
the Second Amendment other than as a right of the individual to own guns.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 4:49:59 AM
In article <8lzyb.28417$KM7.20626@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> >
> >> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> >> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >>> In article
> >>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
> >>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> >>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
> >>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
> >>>> open minded.
> >>>
> >>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> >>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from
> >>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> >>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> >>
> >> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
> >> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> >
> > Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
> > would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
> > other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be
> > more sensible than Conservatives.
> 
> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and other ultra
> right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often whacky, and rarely
> widely held.  whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
> everyone pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
> for.

Or even being involved with in any way.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 4:50:48 AM
In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
>
>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>> In article
>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
>>>>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
>>>>>> open minded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come
>>>>> from
>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>
>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>>>
>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
>>> be
>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
>>
>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
>
> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
>
>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making everyone
>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
>> for.
>
> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something *I*
> want
> to be paying for.

except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY supposed
to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're doing is the right
course of action, but it's hard to argue that the gov't has no right being
involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay, social welfare.

> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for
> the rich? You rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the
> relatively small
> sums that go toward welfare.

yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize that, right?
i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous amount
of the taxes.  i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.

> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do with
> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.

again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures of the
right wing for actual conservatives.


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 4:55:04 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:34 PM:

> In news:BBEFFCA0.33069%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote on 11/30/03 7:41 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<BBEB9358.329C2%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...
>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:18 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a
>>>>>>> "method" of
>>>>>>> *FORCE*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is
>>>>>> a method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
>>>>>> espionage."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
>>>>> 
>>>>> in the context of terrorism?
>>>> 
>>>> In the context of fighting for something.
>>> 
>>> yes, there are other ways to fight for something other than violence;
>>> but we're talking about terrorism here.  so i'll ask again, do you
>>> think there are non-violent ways to fight for things, in the context
>>> of *terrorism*.
>> 
>> Um, sure - there are non-violent methods of terrorism.
> 
> oh yar?  like what?

Threats of violence.
> 
>> But when did we change the topic.  Please remember, this started when I
>> commented that we can not win a war on terror(ism) because terrorism is a
>> method of fighting for (working for) a goal.
> 
> yeah, and unfortunately you have a convoluted view of the definition of
> terrorism!

You mean the FBI's?  That is the one in question.
> 
>> My point still stands, whether you agree that terrorism must involve direct
>> violence (it does not).
> 
> ah, moving the goalposts to "direct violence"; this is a new phrase your
> using, and i'm sure it's in response to my inevitable question for you to
> provide non-violent forms of terrorism.

Yes.  I wanted things to be clear.  Without using "direct violence", almost
can be seen as violence.
> 
>> Actually, this brings up another good point - since there is no good
>> definition of exactly what a terrorist is, how can we eradicate "them".  The
>> only thing clear is that the war is a farce (or at least he stated reasons
>> are).
> 
> there *are* good definitions- you're just trying to change them to win an
> argument...

"My" definition is supplied by the FBI.  Is that not good enough for you?
Actually, I had a whole list of definitions - you focused on the FBI's.
> 
>>>> Terrorism is one method of fighting for a position.  It uses
>>>> violence (or uses the threat of violence). When people want
>>>> something badly, their are many methods or working toward it.  I do
>>>> not think you can win a "war" against one of these methods.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
>>>>>> - the activities are illegal
>>>>> 
>>>>> what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
>>>> 
>>>> No, I am simply answering your question.
>>> 
>>> and making a big assumption to do it, with little evidence to back it
>>> up.
>> 
>> What assumption? I state the FBI definition and note how Bush fits
>> it.  You question that.  I support it.  Where did you get lost?
> 
> you made assumptions in noting how bush fit the definition; specifically,
> you're assuming bush's activities are illegal.

Since it is clear that they appear they are, can you show any evidence that
they are not?  This is not a court of law.

> 
>>>> You had questioned my statement that Bush fit the definition of terrorist
>>>> as defined by the FBI.
>>>> That definition is:
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate
>>>> or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
>>>> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives. This
>>>> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
>>>> illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended
>>>> to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support
>>>> of political or social objectives.
>>>> ----
>>>> 
>>>> I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your
>>>> response.
>>> 
>>> um, i was specifically addressing your 3 points, from your
>>> interpretation of that definition; i wasn't directly addressing the
>>> definition.
>> 
>> The three points are *from* the definition.  See:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>> Did you not look at the link before now?
> 
> are you not reading my responses?

Sure.  You keep saying that the three points in the FBI definition are mine.
I do not run the FBI, if that helps to clarify things for you.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 5:02:32 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:49 PM:

> In news:BBF0132F.33088%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:18 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBEFE83C.33044%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:19 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>>>>  C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> against civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex).
>>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>>>>>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make a
>>>>>>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi civilians
>>>>>>> as well, now would it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What terrorist attacks make sense?
>>>>> 
>>>>> in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in
>>>>> that
>>>>> it accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...
>>>>> 
>>>> You very well could be right - which means that not only is Bush
>>>> fighting a "war" against a method of getting something accomplished,
>>>> but that it is a sensible method that can accomplish its goals.
>>> 
>>> wow, you're so used to twisting words it looks like you even believe
>>> you're own twisted version of things.  nobody's trying to fight a
>>> war against a "method"; they're trying to crack down on organized
>>> groups that would terrorize the populace.  word games don't change
>>> this.
>> 
>> Are you denying that Bush is claiming this a war against terror and
>> that he is looking to eradicate it?
> 
> yeah, and every superbowl i hear someone claim that the game is going to be
> "war", and there's a war against HIV.  while the war on terror is a bit more
> literal, it's not 100% literal.

Listen to some of Bush's speeches.
> 
>> And if he is working to stop the
>> organized groups, then why not go after the Saudis - who had much
>> stronger ties to 9-11 than Iraq.
> 
> "the Saudis" are not an organized group that has a history of supporting
> terror; there *ARE* a lot of saudis w/ a history of supporting terror.  see
> the difference?  and you realize you're speaking as if your omniscient,
> right?

How many 9-11 terrorists were from Iraq.  How about from Saudi Arabia.  Any
idea?
> 
>> If we are going after the organized groups that attacked America, why did we
>> not accept Afghanistan's offer to turn Osama bin Laden over to authorities.
> 
> uh huh.  and iraq really, really wanted to hold democratic elections.

Perhaps some of the people... But not the previous government.  It is still
up in the air with the current.
> 
>> Bush's lies are obvious.  Are presidential lies OK as long as they are not
>> related to an affair?
> 
> how do you think clinton is even vaguely relevant to this conversation?

Sorry - if you are not one of the whackos who supported Clinton's
impeachment because of his affair I apologize.
> 
>>>> Again, I do not support terrorism, just see through the Bush
>>>> administrations (and the medias) use of the phrase "war" against
>>>> "terror" or "terrorism" makes no sense.
>>> 
>>> it's a convenient catchphrase that you're reading too much into; as
>>> per your usual way of arguing, you've read too much into something
>>> that's largely irrelevant, while missing entirely overlooking the
>>> big picture.
>> 
>> Do you blindly accept all President's claims, or just Bush's?
> 
> no, i just have common sense;

Care to show it in this thread...

> i don't take the bush administrations claims literally, as i didn't take the
> clinton administaration literally when they talked about the "war on hate".

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 5:08:59 AM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/30/03 9:49 PM:

> In article <BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>> In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything
>>>>> engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
>>>> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>> 
>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
>>> and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>> 
>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots would
>> attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have other faults
>> (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be more sensible than
>> Conservatives.  I think where non-bigoted Conservatives disagree with that
>> Liberal view is where they see the Liberals as going to far - like the issue
>> of gun control.  Liberals believe you have a right to live with less fear of
>> some whacko shooting you (and believe that gun control can get you at least
>> partially to the goal - which is debatable).  Conservatives see it as a
>> freedom of choice issue - citing the second amendment (usually incorrectly).
> 
> It's difficult to cite the second amendment incorrectly. "A well
> regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
> RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Even that left-wing Commie from the Harvard Law School (who's name I
> forget) who is considered the foremost authority on the Constitution
> says that as much as he regrets it, there is no other way to interpret
> the Second Amendment other than as a right of the individual to own guns.

How about the right to own nuclear weapons?  Chemical?  Biological?  Those
are all arms, right?  Do you support my "right" to have those as well?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 5:10:01 AM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:

> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
>>>>>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
>>>>>>> open minded.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>> 
>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>>>> 
>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
>>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
>>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
>>>> be
>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
>>> 
>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
>>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
>> 
>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
>> 
>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making everyone
>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
>>> for.
>> 
>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something *I* want to
>> be paying for.
> 
> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY supposed
> to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're doing is the right
> course of action, but it's hard to argue that the gov't has no right being
> involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay, social welfare.

Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the pre-emptive
attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally declared war at that.
> 
>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You rarely hear
>> Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively small sums that go toward
>> welfare.
> 
> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize that, right?

And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?

> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous amount
> of the taxes.  

Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5% wealthiest
in the USA.

> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.

Even if it were people in Iraq.  Sorry, American corporations that donated
heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.  Are you going to be
consistent here?
> 
>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do with
>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
> 
> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures of the
> right wing for actual conservatives.

Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
Christian right view and not a Republican view?


0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 5:14:33 AM
In news:BBF01AFB.330A0%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:49 PM:
>
>> In news:BBF0132F.33088%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:18 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBEFE83C.33044%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:19 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:BBECEDB2.32B49%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote on 11/28/03 12:17 PM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <clund-9B3F20.10375528112003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <znu-94A1B9.12562927112003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>>>>>>>>>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>  <clund-5A6B97.11010127112003@amstwist00.chello.com>, C Lund
>>>>>>>>>> <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>  <hOexb.59874$sn3.49087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, "ed"
>>>>>>>>>>> <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against civilians or military in non-military situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still...
>>>>>>>>>>>> you think the US is *targeting* civilians?  you base this
>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense on what?
>>>>>>>>>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix
>>>>>>>>>>> fex).
>>>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't they do so again?
>>>>>>>>>> Because it's not useful?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That hasn't stopped the US from doing so before. This may well
>>>>>>>>> repeat itself in Iraq if the attacks on US troops escalate any
>>>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The attacks on US troops appear to be declining; the terrorists
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> now mostly targeting Iraqi civilians instead. It wouldn't make
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> hell of a lot of sense for us to start targeting Iraqi
>>>>>>>> civilians
>>>>>>>> as well, now would it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What terrorist attacks make sense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in what respect?  the hamas attacks in israel makes "sense", in
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it accomplishes their goal of thwarting the peace process...
>>>>>>
>>>>> You very well could be right - which means that not only is Bush
>>>>> fighting a "war" against a method of getting something
>>>>> accomplished,
>>>>> but that it is a sensible method that can accomplish its goals.
>>>>
>>>> wow, you're so used to twisting words it looks like you even
>>>> believe you're own twisted version of things.  nobody's trying to
>>>> fight a
>>>> war against a "method"; they're trying to crack down on organized
>>>> groups that would terrorize the populace.  word games don't change
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> Are you denying that Bush is claiming this a war against terror and
>>> that he is looking to eradicate it?
>>
>> yeah, and every superbowl i hear someone claim that the game is
>> going to be "war", and there's a war against HIV.  while the war on
>> terror is a bit more literal, it's not 100% literal.
>
> Listen to some of Bush's speeches.

care to point to any in particular?

>>> And if he is working to stop the
>>> organized groups, then why not go after the Saudis - who had much
>>> stronger ties to 9-11 than Iraq.
>>
>> "the Saudis" are not an organized group that has a history of
>> supporting terror; there *ARE* a lot of saudis w/ a history of
>> supporting terror.  see the difference?  and you realize you're
>> speaking as if your omniscient, right?
>
> How many 9-11 terrorists were from Iraq.  How about from Saudi
> Arabia.  Any idea?

it's not relevant, unless you think you can condemn all those of a
particular nationality based on the actions of a few.  in which case, you
should stop condemning bush lest you be accused of his supposed sins.  =)

>>> If we are going after the organized groups that attacked America,
>>> why did we not accept Afghanistan's offer to turn Osama bin Laden
>>> over to authorities.
>>
>> uh huh.  and iraq really, really wanted to hold democratic elections.
>
> Perhaps some of the people... But not the previous government.  It is
> still
> up in the air with the current.
>
>>> Bush's lies are obvious.  Are presidential lies OK as long as they
>>> are not related to an affair?
>>
>> how do you think clinton is even vaguely relevant to this
>> conversation?
>
> Sorry - if you are not one of the whackos who supported Clinton's
> impeachment because of his affair I apologize.

again, irrelevant, but nobody supported impeaching clinton because of his
affair- they supported it because he lied, under oath, to a grand jury.  not
to mention the many times he lied under oath in the civil litigations and
the lies to congress.  and no, i didn't support it in any case.

>>>>> Again, I do not support terrorism, just see through the Bush
>>>>> administrations (and the medias) use of the phrase "war" against
>>>>> "terror" or "terrorism" makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> it's a convenient catchphrase that you're reading too much into; as
>>>> per your usual way of arguing, you've read too much into something
>>>> that's largely irrelevant, while missing entirely overlooking the
>>>> big picture.
>>>
>>> Do you blindly accept all President's claims, or just Bush's?
>>
>> no, i just have common sense;
>
> Care to show it in this thread...

*shrug*  you're the one making claims w/out any evidence.

>> i don't take the bush administrations claims literally, as i didn't
>> take the clinton administaration literally when they talked about
>> the "war on hate".


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 6:42:12 AM
In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
>
>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> open minded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I
>>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
>>>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
>>>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
>>>>> be
>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
>>>>
>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
>>>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
>>>
>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
>>>
>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
>>>> everyone
>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
>>>> for.
>>>
>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
>>> *I* want to be paying for.
>>
>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that the
>> gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay,
>> social welfare.
>
> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
> declared war at that.

that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of understanding
regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more about laying out what
the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN do, because the framers of the
constitution were smart enough to realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out
such an all encompassing document.

>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
>>
>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>> that, right?
>
> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?

oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.

>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
>> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>
> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
> wealthiest
> in the USA.

i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
- the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
average tax rate of about 23.7%
- for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not, but play
along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33% bracket at
~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of that to have an
overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the top 5% anyways (you
enter that club at about $128k).

so, we can assume you either:
a) are full of crap
b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you have
to.

just as an f.y.i:
- the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
average tax rate of about 4.1%.
- the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.

>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
>
> Even if it were people in Iraq.

for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for the
campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part of a gov'ts
mandate (foreign policy and war).

> Sorry, American corporations that
> donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.

this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone into
iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since they're a leader
in their industry.

> Are you
> going to be consistent here?

you bet.

>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
>>> with
>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
>>
>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
>
> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
> Christian right view and not a Republican view?

what choices are replublicans not for?


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 6:58:52 AM
In article <BBF01B39.330A4%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/30/03 9:49 PM:
> 
> > In article <BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> >>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >>>> In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> >>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything
> >>>>> engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> >>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
> >>>> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> >>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> >>> 
> >>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let 
> >>> live",
> >>> and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> >> 
> >> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots would
> >> attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have other faults
> >> (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be more sensible 
> >> than
> >> Conservatives.  I think where non-bigoted Conservatives disagree with that
> >> Liberal view is where they see the Liberals as going to far - like the 
> >> issue
> >> of gun control.  Liberals believe you have a right to live with less fear 
> >> of
> >> some whacko shooting you (and believe that gun control can get you at 
> >> least
> >> partially to the goal - which is debatable).  Conservatives see it as a
> >> freedom of choice issue - citing the second amendment (usually 
> >> incorrectly).
> > 
> > It's difficult to cite the second amendment incorrectly. "A well
> > regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
> > RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> > 
> > Even that left-wing Commie from the Harvard Law School (who's name I
> > forget) who is considered the foremost authority on the Constitution
> > says that as much as he regrets it, there is no other way to interpret
> > the Second Amendment other than as a right of the individual to own guns.
> 
> How about the right to own nuclear weapons?  Chemical?  Biological?  Those
> are all arms, right?  Do you support my "right" to have those as well?
> 

That's a good question, and open to interpretation. A case could be made 
that since these devices didn't exist when the Constitution was penned, 
that the authors of the Bill of Rights certainly meant firearms and 
bladed weapons only. On the other hand, there are laws that prohibit 
individuals from owning fully automatic weapons, but not against owning 
large cannon. There may or may not be laws against owning a nuke, but 
there is one against owning fisionable-grade material, which isn't, 
technically, a weapon, but rather a controlled substance. So I suspect 
that there is no law against owning a nuke as long as you do not have 
the fisionable material to go in it. :->

As far as chemical weapons are concerned, a can of Draino can be used as 
a "chemical weapon" if you wanted to use it as such, and yes, you have a 
right to own Draino. You also have the right to own Liquid Plumber and 
bleach, which, if mixed together can kill the inhabitants of an entire 
building with the resultant chlorine gas. That's a Chemical weapon too.  

When you catch the flu on a business trip and travel home sick on an 
airplane, you will possibly infect half the plane due to the plane's 
recirculated ventilation system. I guesss that's a biological weapon, 
and you are both allowed to have the flu and to board an airplane with 
the flu, so the answer is that you can have biological weapons as well.

See, it's a matter of intent. You have Draino, but you're unlikley to 
pour it down somebody's throat like the pimp did in that Dirty Harry 
movie "Magnum Force." Nobody mixes a drain cleaner and chlorine bleach 
together on purpose, but it is possible. Most Americans do not own guns 
to kill ANYTHING with, but they can certainly be used for that. I have 
four shotguns, three rifles and several handguns but I don't even hunt, 
and the only thing I've ever killed with my shotguns are clay targets.  
And the Constitution says that it is MY RIGHT to own those weapons, just 
as it is yours to own "chemical and biological weapons"

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 7:39:16 AM
In article <BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
> 
> > In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> >>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
> >>>>>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> >>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
> >>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
> >>>>>>> open minded.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> >>>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> >>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
> >>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
> >>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
> >>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
> >>>> be
> >>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
> >>> 
> >>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
> >>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
> >>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
> >> 
> >> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
> >> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
> >> 
> >>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making everyone
> >>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
> >>> for.
> >> 
> >> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something *I* want 
> >> to
> >> be paying for.
> > 
> > except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY 
> > supposed
> > to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're doing is the right
> > course of action, but it's hard to argue that the gov't has no right being
> > involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay, social welfare.
> 
> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the pre-emptive
> attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally declared war at that.
> > 
> >> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You rarely hear
> >> Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively small sums that go 
> >> toward
> >> welfare.
> > 
> > yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize that, 
> > right?
> 
> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
> 
> > i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
> > problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous 
> > amount
> > of the taxes.  
> 
> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5% wealthiest
> in the USA.
> 
> > i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
> > taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
> 
> Even if it were people in Iraq.  Sorry, American corporations that donated
> heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.  Are you going to be
> consistent here?
> > 
> >> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do with
> >> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
> > 
> > again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures of the
> > right wing for actual conservatives.
> 
> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
> Christian right view and not a Republican view?

I'm as conservative as they come. I left the Republican party because it 
was too liberal for me, yet I think that the debate over abortion choice 
is the stupidest debate ever dredged-up in this country. There is simply 
no way that a woman SHOULDN'T be able to decide whether or not she wants 
to carry a fetus to term. The only cap I would put on such a thing, and 
the only time society (on any level) should get involved is in setting a 
time limit for that decision. Abortions shouldn't be allowed in any 
state (except in the case of a life-threatening situation) after the 
first trimester. If a woman can't make up her mind about wheather or not 
to carry a child by then, it should be up to state code to decide at 
that point. The fact that such a woman probably shouldn't be allowed to 
be a mother, is another issue entirely.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 7:48:01 AM
In article <MEByb.28476$8J2.2642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
> >
> >> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> >>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> >>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
> >>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
> >>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>> open minded.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I
> >>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
> >>>>>>> come
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> >>>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
> >>>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
> >>>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
> >>>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
> >>>>
> >>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
> >>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
> >>>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
> >>>
> >>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
> >>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
> >>>
> >>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
> >>>> everyone
> >>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
> >>>> for.
> >>>
> >>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
> >>> *I* want to be paying for.
> >>
> >> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
> >> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
> >> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that the
> >> gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay,
> >> social welfare.
> >
> > Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
> > pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
> > declared war at that.
> 
> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of understanding
> regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more about laying out what
> the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN do, because the framers of the
> constitution were smart enough to realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out
> such an all encompassing document.
> 
> >>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
> >>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
> >>> small sums that go toward welfare.
> >>
> >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
> >> that, right?
> >
> > And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
> 
> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.
> 
> >> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
> >> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
> >> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> >
> > Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
> > wealthiest
> > in the USA.
> 
> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
> average tax rate of about 23.7%
> - for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not, but play
> along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33% bracket at
> ~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of that to have an
> overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the top 5% anyways (you
> enter that club at about $128k).
> 
> so, we can assume you either:
> a) are full of crap
> b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you have
> to.
> 
> just as an f.y.i:
> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
> average tax rate of about 4.1%.
> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.
> 
> >> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
> >> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
> >
> > Even if it were people in Iraq.
> 
> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for the
> campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part of a gov'ts
> mandate (foreign policy and war).
> 
> > Sorry, American corporations that
> > donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.
> 
> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone into
> iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since they're a leader
> in their industry.
> 
> > Are you
> > going to be consistent here?
> 
> you bet.
> 
> >>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
> >>> with
> >>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
> >>
> >> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
> >> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
> >
> > Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
> > Christian right view and not a Republican view?
> 
> what choices are replublicans not for?

Abortion - The left's favorite non-issue to throw-up to conservatives.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 7:49:42 AM
In news:gmgravesnos-8F66EC.23493730112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> typed:
> In article <MEByb.28476$8J2.2642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
>>>
>>>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> open minded.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong
>>>>>>>>> with something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live
>>>>>>>> and let live", and "you need to help me pay for it"
>>>>>>>> philosophy.  =)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups
>>>>>>> bigots would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that
>>>>>>> they have other faults (and they do), but at least on equality,
>>>>>>> they tend to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
>>>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are
>>>>>> often whacky, and rarely widely held.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
>>>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
>>>>>
>>>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
>>>>>> for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
>>>>> *I* want to be paying for.
>>>>
>>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
>>>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
>>>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that
>>>> the gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus,
>>>> saaay, social welfare.
>>>
>>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
>>> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
>>> declared war at that.
>>
>> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of
>> understanding regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more
>> about laying out what the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN
>> do, because the framers of the constitution were smart enough to
>> realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out such an all encompassing
>> document.
>>
>>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
>>>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
>>>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
>>>>
>>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>>>> that, right?
>>>
>>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
>>
>> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.
>>
>>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have
>>>> no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
>>>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>>>
>>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
>>> wealthiest
>>> in the USA.
>>
>> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
>> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and
>> have an average tax rate of about 23.7%
>> - for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not,
>> but play along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33%
>> bracket at ~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of
>> that to have an overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the
>> top 5% anyways (you enter that club at about $128k).
>>
>> so, we can assume you either:
>> a) are full of crap
>> b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you
>> have to.
>>
>> just as an f.y.i:
>> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and
>> have an average tax rate of about 4.1%.
>> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.
>>
>>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
>>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
>>>
>>> Even if it were people in Iraq.
>>
>> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for
>> the campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part
>> of a gov'ts mandate (foreign policy and war).
>>
>>> Sorry, American corporations that
>>> donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.
>>
>> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone
>> into iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since
>> they're a leader in their industry.
>>
>>> Are you
>>> going to be consistent here?
>>
>> you bet.
>>
>>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
>>>>> with
>>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
>>>>
>>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
>>>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
>>>
>>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
>>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
>>
>> what choices are replublicans not for?
>
> Abortion - The left's favorite non-issue to throw-up to conservatives.

i'm not sure most replublicans are pro-life these days- moderates tend to
get drowned out in both parties; but even at the national level at the
replican national conventions, it's getting to be a contentious issue, and
we all know that those most likely to be at the conventions are more likely
to follow the party line to begin with.


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 8:10:50 AM
In article <lKvyb.28336$663.5787@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> > The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
> > wouldn't they do so again?
> 
> the operations carried out under Operation Phoenix are pretty much outlawed
> now;

You mean they were legal back then?

> of course i'm not naive enough to believe that's absolute assurance,
> but since there are no absolute assurances, unless you can point out
> evidence of something a little more current, it's a decent assumption.

How many people knew about Operation Phoenix when it was taking place? 
Or the CIA's involvement in the coups of Guatemala and Chile? It seems 
to me these things become known decades after they take place - in 
which case not knowing about any current unpleasant CIA activities 
means squat. I think it's safer to assume the CIA is carrying on 
business as usual - and we won't know what they're doing *now* until 
the twenties or thirties. We know the CIA is still in the business of 
killing people, even if the people they assassinate are "only" 
suspected Al Qaeda members. And then there's Guantanamo bay - which 
proves the US still hasn't cleaned up it's act.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
12/1/2003 10:44:27 AM
In article <BBEF695D.32FA3%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> >> While I
> >> certainly do not support terrorism, I understand that it is a method of
> >> working toward a goal.  The idea of a War on Terrorism makes no sense; you
> >> can not win a war against a method of getting something done.
> > 
> > I agree. That's why I think bush's "war on terror" is silly.
> 
> Now the question comes: why do you think he perpetuates this silly idea? (it
> has more to do with politics and money than safety) And why do so many
> Americans blindly accept it (not just partisan trust, as many democrats
> accept it, too).  

The "war on terror" is a useful tool, that's why. Keep a population 
scared/paranoid and you can make them go along with almost anything. 
We saw this in the Third Reich. We saw it in the McCarthy era, and 
we're seeing it now.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
12/1/2003 10:47:37 AM
In article <YXvyb.28344$Ft3.22963@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> > Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> > motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
> > "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> > something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).

> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
> and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)

And you reached this conclusion how...?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
12/1/2003 10:48:41 AM
In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize that, right?
> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous amount
> of the taxes.

They do? I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more 
tax shelters are available to you.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund2 (1818)
12/1/2003 10:51:22 AM
In news:clund-3FF87D.11442701122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> In article <lKvyb.28336$663.5787@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>>> The US has targeted civilians before (Operation Phoenix fex). Why
>>> wouldn't they do so again?
>>
>> the operations carried out under Operation Phoenix are pretty much
>> outlawed now;
>
> You mean they were legal back then?

i don't know about that, but they weren't explicityly illegal, which they
are not.

>> of course i'm not naive enough to believe that's absolute assurance,
>> but since there are no absolute assurances, unless you can point out
>> evidence of something a little more current, it's a decent
>> assumption.
>
> How many people knew about Operation Phoenix when it was taking place?
> Or the CIA's involvement in the coups of Guatemala and Chile? It seems
> to me these things become known decades after they take place - in
> which case not knowing about any current unpleasant CIA activities
> means squat. I think it's safer to assume the CIA is carrying on
> business as usual - and we won't know what they're doing *now* until
> the twenties or thirties. We know the CIA is still in the business of
> killing people, even if the people they assassinate are "only"
> suspected Al Qaeda members. And then there's Guantanamo bay - which
> proves the US still hasn't cleaned up it's act.

how's guantanamo prove that?


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 2:39:07 PM
In news:clund-6D2B50.11484101122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> In article <YXvyb.28344$Ft3.22963@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from
>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>
>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>
> And you reached this conclusion how...?

you think all the social programs that liberals want are free?


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 2:40:06 PM
In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ),
>> but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they
>> pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>
> They do?

yes, they do.  simple as that.

> I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more
> tax shelters are available to you.



0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 2:40:44 PM
In article <BBEFFCA0.33069%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> Um, sure - there are non-violent methods of terrorism.  But when did we
> change the topic.  Please remember, this started when I commented that we
> can not win a war on terror(ism) because terrorism is a method of fighting
> for (working for) a goal.  My point still stands, whether you agree that
> terrorism must involve direct violence (it does not).  Actually, this brings
> up another good point - since there is no good definition of exactly what a
> terrorist is, how can we eradicate "them".  The only thing clear is that the
> war is a farce (or at least he stated reasons are).


I agree. One thing, though... from my POV I see this slogan 'war on 
terrorism' as one that is targeted towards the larger, more organized 
terrorists groups, with eradication of their use of 'direct violence' as 
the primary goal. Think 'shock and awe' here. The administration 
believes such slogans sound good in a speech. Perhaps giving it more 
credence than that is what keeps this thread going.

Steve
0
fretwizz (2823)
12/1/2003 3:01:03 PM
In article <clund-6D2B50.11484101122003@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <YXvyb.28344$Ft3.22963@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
> > > motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
> > > "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
> > > something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> 
> > except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
> > and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> 
> And you reached this conclusion how...?

I reached that conclusion by knowing far too many of them in my lifetime.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 4:05:03 PM
In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> > In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
> >> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ),
> >> but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they
> >> pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> >
> > They do?
> 
> yes, they do.  simple as that.
> 
> > I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more
> > tax shelters are available to you.

That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share of 
the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot the bill, they 
deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are always 
screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to give tax 
breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population are 
responsible for more than 50% of the personal income tax revenue, they 
are entitled to a little tax relief. The liberals would never 
acknowledge that point, however.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 4:07:06 PM
In article <eICyb.28491$2P3.26996@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
 "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> In news:gmgravesnos-8F66EC.23493730112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net,
> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> typed:
> > In article <MEByb.28476$8J2.2642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >>>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> >>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>>>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> >>>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
> >>>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
> >>>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>>> open minded.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
> >>>>>>>>> come
> >>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong
> >>>>>>>>> with something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live
> >>>>>>>> and let live", and "you need to help me pay for it"
> >>>>>>>> philosophy.  =)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups
> >>>>>>> bigots would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that
> >>>>>>> they have other faults (and they do), but at least on equality,
> >>>>>>> they tend to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
> >>>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are
> >>>>>> often whacky, and rarely widely held.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
> >>>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
> >>>>>> everyone
> >>>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
> >>>>>> for.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
> >>>>> *I* want to be paying for.
> >>>>
> >>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
> >>>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
> >>>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that
> >>>> the gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus,
> >>>> saaay, social welfare.
> >>>
> >>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
> >>> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
> >>> declared war at that.
> >>
> >> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of
> >> understanding regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more
> >> about laying out what the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN
> >> do, because the framers of the constitution were smart enough to
> >> realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out such an all encompassing
> >> document.
> >>
> >>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
> >>>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
> >>>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
> >>>>
> >>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
> >>>> that, right?
> >>>
> >>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
> >>
> >> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.
> >>
> >>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have
> >>>> no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
> >>>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> >>>
> >>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
> >>> wealthiest
> >>> in the USA.
> >>
> >> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
> >> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and
> >> have an average tax rate of about 23.7%
> >> - for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not,
> >> but play along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33%
> >> bracket at ~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of
> >> that to have an overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the
> >> top 5% anyways (you enter that club at about $128k).
> >>
> >> so, we can assume you either:
> >> a) are full of crap
> >> b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you
> >> have to.
> >>
> >> just as an f.y.i:
> >> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and
> >> have an average tax rate of about 4.1%.
> >> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.
> >>
> >>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
> >>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
> >>>
> >>> Even if it were people in Iraq.
> >>
> >> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for
> >> the campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part
> >> of a gov'ts mandate (foreign policy and war).
> >>
> >>> Sorry, American corporations that
> >>> donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.
> >>
> >> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone
> >> into iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since
> >> they're a leader in their industry.
> >>
> >>> Are you
> >>> going to be consistent here?
> >>
> >> you bet.
> >>
> >>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
> >>>>
> >>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
> >>>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
> >>>
> >>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
> >>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
> >>
> >> what choices are replublicans not for?
> >
> > Abortion - The left's favorite non-issue to throw-up to conservatives.
> 
> i'm not sure most replublicans are pro-life these days- moderates tend to
> get drowned out in both parties; but even at the national level at the
> replican national conventions, it's getting to be a contentious issue, and
> we all know that those most likely to be at the conventions are more likely
> to follow the party line to begin with.

Most of my friends are hyper-conservatives and all of them are 
"pro-choice." Amongst all but the religious goofballs, its a non-issue  
with conservatives.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 4:10:06 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-C22BEF.08070601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves  <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>> > In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>> >> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ),
>> >> but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they
>> >> pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>> >
>> > They do?
>> 
>> yes, they do.  simple as that.
>> 
>> > I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more
>> > tax shelters are available to you.
>
>That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share of 
>the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot the bill, they 
>deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are always 
>screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to give tax 
>breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population are 
>responsible for more than 50% of the personal income tax revenue, they 
>are entitled to a little tax relief. The liberals would never 
>acknowledge that point, however.

Don't those 5% also control 90% of the nation's wealth?

Fancy tax schemes aside, if income tax were just a flat rate, it should be 
expected that someone making $2 million per year would contribute 100 
times as much as someone making $20,000 per year.  And that would be fair, 
although some people would want to work in cost of living and amount of 
disposable income in there somewhere.  So your stats don't really mean 
anything all except that rich people pay more income tax.

I know the U.S. has a progressive tax, but it would be interesting to see, 
after business expenses, tax sheltered investments, capital gains debates, 
and so on are factored out, some kind of average of taxes actually paid 
versus income.

-- 
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekul´┐Ż
0
glhansen (662)
12/1/2003 5:11:14 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-73D656.08100601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <eICyb.28491$2P3.26996@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
> > In news:gmgravesnos-8F66EC.23493730112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net,
> > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> typed:
> > > In article <MEByb.28476$8J2.2642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > >> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > >>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
> > >>>
> > >>>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > >>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > >>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > >>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > >>>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> > >>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> > >>>>>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > >>>>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> > >>>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
> > >>>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
> > >>>>>>>>>> being
> > >>>>>>>>>> open minded.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and
> > >>>>>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
> > >>>>>>>>> come
> > >>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong
> > >>>>>>>>> with something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live
> > >>>>>>>> and let live", and "you need to help me pay for it"
> > >>>>>>>> philosophy.  =)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups
> > >>>>>>> bigots would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that
> > >>>>>>> they have other faults (and they do), but at least on equality,
> > >>>>>>> they tend to
> > >>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
> > >>>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are
> > >>>>>> often whacky, and rarely widely held.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
> > >>>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
> > >>>>>> everyone
> > >>>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
> > >>>>>> for.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
> > >>>>> *I* want to be paying for.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
> > >>>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
> > >>>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that
> > >>>> the gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus,
> > >>>> saaay, social welfare.
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
> > >>> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
> > >>> declared war at that.
> > >>
> > >> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of
> > >> understanding regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more
> > >> about laying out what the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN
> > >> do, because the framers of the constitution were smart enough to
> > >> realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out such an all encompassing
> > >> document.
> > >>
> > >>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
> > >>>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
> > >>>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
> > >>>> that, right?
> > >>>
> > >>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
> > >>
> > >> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.
> > >>
> > >>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have
> > >>>> no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
> > >>>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> > >>>
> > >>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
> > >>> wealthiest
> > >>> in the USA.
> > >>
> > >> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
> > >> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and
> > >> have an average tax rate of about 23.7%
> > >> - for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not,
> > >> but play along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33%
> > >> bracket at ~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of
> > >> that to have an overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the
> > >> top 5% anyways (you enter that club at about $128k).
> > >>
> > >> so, we can assume you either:
> > >> a) are full of crap
> > >> b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you
> > >> have to.
> > >>
> > >> just as an f.y.i:
> > >> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and
> > >> have an average tax rate of about 4.1%.
> > >> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.
> > >>
> > >>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
> > >>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
> > >>>
> > >>> Even if it were people in Iraq.
> > >>
> > >> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for
> > >> the campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part
> > >> of a gov'ts mandate (foreign policy and war).
> > >>
> > >>> Sorry, American corporations that
> > >>> donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.
> > >>
> > >> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone
> > >> into iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since
> > >> they're a leader in their industry.
> > >>
> > >>> Are you
> > >>> going to be consistent here?
> > >>
> > >> you bet.
> > >>
> > >>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
> > >>>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
> > >>>
> > >>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
> > >>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
> > >>
> > >> what choices are replublicans not for?
> > >
> > > Abortion - The left's favorite non-issue to throw-up to conservatives.
> > 
> > i'm not sure most replublicans are pro-life these days- moderates tend to
> > get drowned out in both parties; but even at the national level at the
> > replican national conventions, it's getting to be a contentious issue, and
> > we all know that those most likely to be at the conventions are more likely
> > to follow the party line to begin with.
> 
> Most of my friends are hyper-conservatives and all of them are 
> "pro-choice." Amongst all but the religious goofballs, its a non-issue  
> with conservatives.

The problem is that the religious goofballs seem to have considerable 
power within the Republican party. If you vote Republican, you're 
helping the religious goofball agenda. It doesn't even matter if the 
Republican you're voting for is a moderate; they all vote together on 
organizational issues, so you still end up with Congress being 
controlled by a goofball-heavy party.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
12/1/2003 6:26:07 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-C22BEF.08070601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
> > In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com, C Lund 
> > <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> > > In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize 
> > >> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday 
> > >> =D ), but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, 
> > >> because they pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> > >
> > > They do?
> > 
> > yes, they do.  simple as that.
> > 
> > > I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more tax 
> > > shelters are available to you.
> 
> That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share 
> of the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot the bill, 
> they deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are 
> always screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to 
> give tax breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population 
> are responsible for more than 50% of the personal income tax revenue, 
> they are entitled to a little tax relief. The liberals would never 
> acknowledge that point, however.

The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing at a scary rate. I 
doubt the rich are really contributing more to society on the relative 
basis than they were 30 years ago. The inescapable conclusion is that by 
some mechanism, the rich are being overcompensated (by historical 
standards).

Vast disparities in income are unhealthy for democracies in the long 
run. Either the factors that are resulting in overcompensation should be 
corrected, or the government needs to raise income tax rates in the 
higher brackets and spend the money on programs that benefit the poor 
and middle class.

The Bush administration, naturally, is doing just the opposite on both 
counts.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
12/1/2003 6:38:13 PM
In news:znu-843647.13381301122003@news.fu-berlin.de,
ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> typed:
> In article <gmgravesnos-C22BEF.08070601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com, C Lund
>>> <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>> In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>>>>> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday
>>>>> =D ), but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut,
>>>>> because they pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>>>>
>>>> They do?
>>>
>>> yes, they do.  simple as that.
>>>
>>>> I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more tax
>>>> shelters are available to you.
>>
>> That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share
>> of the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot the bill,
>> they deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are
>> always screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to
>> give tax breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population
>> are responsible for more than 50% of the personal income tax revenue,
>> they are entitled to a little tax relief. The liberals would never
>> acknowledge that point, however.
>
> The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing at a scary
> rate. I doubt the rich are really contributing more to society on the
> relative basis than they were 30 years ago. The inescapable
> conclusion is that by some mechanism, the rich are being
> overcompensated (by historical standards).

only when you pick the point in history that suits you!  pick, say, 100
years ago, and the inescapable conclusion is that folks are getting screwed
up the yazoo.  =)

> Vast disparities in income are unhealthy for democracies in the long
> run.

mainly because the politicians play off it...

> Either the factors that are resulting in overcompensation should
> be corrected, or the government needs to raise income tax rates in the
> higher brackets and spend the money on programs that benefit the poor
> and middle class.
>
> The Bush administration, naturally, is doing just the opposite on both
> counts.


0
news121 (2473)
12/1/2003 8:00:40 PM
In article <bqfsni$gpd$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
 glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-C22BEF.08070601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves  <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> >> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> >> > In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
> >> >> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ),
> >> >> but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they
> >> >> pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> >> >
> >> > They do?
> >> 
> >> yes, they do.  simple as that.
> >> 
> >> > I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more
> >> > tax shelters are available to you.
> >
> >That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share of 
> >the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot the bill, they 
> >deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are always 
> >screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to give tax 
> >breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population are 
> >responsible for more than 50% of the personal income tax revenue, they 
> >are entitled to a little tax relief. The liberals would never 
> >acknowledge that point, however.
> 
> Don't those 5% also control 90% of the nation's wealth?
> 
> Fancy tax schemes aside, if income tax were just a flat rate, it should be 
> expected that someone making $2 million per year would contribute 100 
> times as much as someone making $20,000 per year.  And that would be fair, 
> although some people would want to work in cost of living and amount of 
> disposable income in there somewhere.  So your stats don't really mean 
> anything all except that rich people pay more income tax.
> 
> I know the U.S. has a progressive tax, but it would be interesting to see, 
> after business expenses, tax sheltered investments, capital gains debates, 
> and so on are factored out, some kind of average of taxes actually paid 
> versus income.

I've been in favor of a flat tax for many years. Various studies have 
proven that not only is it more fair to everyone, but that the 
government will actually take in more money and the average taxpayer 
will pay less. Unfortunately, it will never happen because of vested 
interest. Legislators are lawyers and lawyers would suffer under a flat 
tax because it would make them a largely unnecessary part of the tax 
picture. It would also decimate the IRS (hooray!) and would make firms 
like H&R Block unncessary as well.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 8:43:42 PM
In article <znu-4A2AE4.13260701122003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-73D656.08100601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <eICyb.28491$2P3.26996@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In news:gmgravesnos-8F66EC.23493730112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net,
> > > George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> typed:
> > > > In article <MEByb.28476$8J2.2642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > > >> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > > >>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > > >>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > > >>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > > >>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> > > >>>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> > > >>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> > > >>>>>>>>> In article
> > > >>>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > >>>>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
> > > >>>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
> > > >>>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> being
> > > >>>>>>>>>> open minded.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and
> > > >>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
> > > >>>>>>>>> come
> > > >>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong
> > > >>>>>>>>> with something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live
> > > >>>>>>>> and let live", and "you need to help me pay for it"
> > > >>>>>>>> philosophy.  =)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups
> > > >>>>>>> bigots would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that
> > > >>>>>>> they have other faults (and they do), but at least on equality,
> > > >>>>>>> they tend to
> > > >>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
> > > >>>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are
> > > >>>>>> often whacky, and rarely widely held.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
> > > >>>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
> > > >>>>>> everyone
> > > >>>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
> > > >>>>>> for.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
> > > >>>>> *I* want to be paying for.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
> > > >>>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
> > > >>>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that
> > > >>>> the gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus,
> > > >>>> saaay, social welfare.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
> > > >>> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
> > > >>> declared war at that.
> > > >>
> > > >> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of
> > > >> understanding regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more
> > > >> about laying out what the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN
> > > >> do, because the framers of the constitution were smart enough to
> > > >> realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out such an all encompassing
> > > >> document.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
> > > >>>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
> > > >>>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
> > > >>>> that, right?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
> > > >>
> > > >> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.
> > > >>
> > > >>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have
> > > >>>> no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
> > > >>>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
> > > >>> wealthiest
> > > >>> in the USA.
> > > >>
> > > >> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
> > > >> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and
> > > >> have an average tax rate of about 23.7%
> > > >> - for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not,
> > > >> but play along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33%
> > > >> bracket at ~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of
> > > >> that to have an overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the
> > > >> top 5% anyways (you enter that club at about $128k).
> > > >>
> > > >> so, we can assume you either:
> > > >> a) are full of crap
> > > >> b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you
> > > >> have to.
> > > >>
> > > >> just as an f.y.i:
> > > >> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and
> > > >> have an average tax rate of about 4.1%.
> > > >> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.
> > > >>
> > > >>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
> > > >>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Even if it were people in Iraq.
> > > >>
> > > >> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for
> > > >> the campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part
> > > >> of a gov'ts mandate (foreign policy and war).
> > > >>
> > > >>> Sorry, American corporations that
> > > >>> donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.
> > > >>
> > > >> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone
> > > >> into iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since
> > > >> they're a leader in their industry.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Are you
> > > >>> going to be consistent here?
> > > >>
> > > >> you bet.
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
> > > >>>>> with
> > > >>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
> > > >>>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
> > > >>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
> > > >>
> > > >> what choices are replublicans not for?
> > > >
> > > > Abortion - The left's favorite non-issue to throw-up to conservatives.
> > > 
> > > i'm not sure most replublicans are pro-life these days- moderates tend to
> > > get drowned out in both parties; but even at the national level at the
> > > replican national conventions, it's getting to be a contentious issue, 
> > > and
> > > we all know that those most likely to be at the conventions are more 
> > > likely
> > > to follow the party line to begin with.
> > 
> > Most of my friends are hyper-conservatives and all of them are 
> > "pro-choice." Amongst all but the religious goofballs, its a non-issue  
> > with conservatives.
> 
> The problem is that the religious goofballs seem to have considerable 
> power within the Republican party. If you vote Republican, you're 
> helping the religious goofball agenda. It doesn't even matter if the 
> Republican you're voting for is a moderate; they all vote together on 
> organizational issues, so you still end up with Congress being 
> controlled by a goofball-heavy party.


True. But as a conservative I certainly cannot vote for any Democrat, so 
where does that leave true, non-religious conservatives? I'll tell you 
where it leaves us -without representation in the government, that's 
where it leaves us.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 8:46:43 PM
In article <znu-843647.13381301122003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> In article <gmgravesnos-C22BEF.08070601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com, C Lund 
> > > <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> > > > In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize 
> > > >> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday 
> > > >> =D ), but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, 
> > > >> because they pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
> > > >
> > > > They do?
> > > 
> > > yes, they do.  simple as that.
> > > 
> > > > I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more tax 
> > > > shelters are available to you.
> > 
> > That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share 
> > of the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot the bill, 
> > they deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are 
> > always screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to 
> > give tax breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population 
> > are responsible for more than 50% of the personal income tax revenue, 
> > they are entitled to a little tax relief. The liberals would never 
> > acknowledge that point, however.
> 
> The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing at a scary rate. I 
> doubt the rich are really contributing more to society on the relative 
> basis than they were 30 years ago. The inescapable conclusion is that by 
> some mechanism, the rich are being overcompensated (by historical 
> standards).

It's the greed that has permeated our entire society in the last few 
decades. 

> Vast disparities in income are unhealthy for democracies in the long 
> run. Either the factors that are resulting in overcompensation should be 
> corrected, or the government needs to raise income tax rates in the 
> higher brackets and spend the money on programs that benefit the poor 
> and middle class.

Re-distribute the wealth? Well, Komrade, that's an old story and it does 
not work. The money always seems to perculate to the top echelons even 
under your glorious Communist Worker's Utopias.

-- 
George Graves
------------------
"Knowledge is Good"
Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College
0
gmgravesnos (8642)
12/1/2003 8:51:31 PM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 11:42 PM:

>>> yeah, and every superbowl i hear someone claim that the game is
>>> going to be "war", and there's a war against HIV.  while the war on
>>> terror is a bit more literal, it's not 100% literal.
>> 
>> Listen to some of Bush's speeches.
> 
> care to point to any in particular?

Nope.  Listen to them yourself.  He speaks often.  I am confident he will
continue to lie to the American people in his future speeches as well.
> 
>>>> And if he is working to stop the
>>>> organized groups, then why not go after the Saudis - who had much
>>>> stronger ties to 9-11 than Iraq.
>>> 
>>> "the Saudis" are not an organized group that has a history of
>>> supporting terror; there *ARE* a lot of saudis w/ a history of
>>> supporting terror.  see the difference?  and you realize you're
>>> speaking as if your omniscient, right?
>> 
>> How many 9-11 terrorists were from Iraq.  How about from Saudi
>> Arabia.  Any idea?
> 
> it's not relevant, unless you think you can condemn all those of a
> particular nationality based on the actions of a few.  in which case, you
> should stop condemning bush lest you be accused of his supposed sins.  =)

America, as a whole, is supporting Bush.  Scary.
> 
>>>> If we are going after the organized groups that attacked America,
>>>> why did we not accept Afghanistan's offer to turn Osama bin Laden
>>>> over to authorities.
>>> 
>>> uh huh.  and iraq really, really wanted to hold democratic elections.
>> 
>> Perhaps some of the people... But not the previous government.  It is
>> still
>> up in the air with the current.
>> 
>>>> Bush's lies are obvious.  Are presidential lies OK as long as they
>>>> are not related to an affair?
>>> 
>>> how do you think clinton is even vaguely relevant to this
>>> conversation?
>> 
>> Sorry - if you are not one of the whackos who supported Clinton's
>> impeachment because of his affair I apologize.
> 
> again, irrelevant, but nobody supported impeaching clinton because of his
> affair- they supported it because he lied, under oath, to a grand jury.  not
> to mention the many times he lied under oath in the civil litigations and
> the lies to congress.  and no, i didn't support it in any case.

Please note: I used the term "affair", not "open marriage".  You can not
have an affair without deceit and lying.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 9:55:18 PM
In article <gmgravesnos-F8E8AB.12513001122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
 George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <znu-843647.13381301122003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gmgravesnos-C22BEF.08070601122003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com, C 
> > > > Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
> > > > > In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > >  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you 
> > > > >> realize that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be 
> > > > >> rich someday =D ), but i have no problems w/ the rich 
> > > > >> getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous amount of 
> > > > >> the taxes.
> > > > >
> > > > > They do?
> > > > 
> > > > yes, they do.  simple as that.
> > > > 
> > > > > I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more 
> > > > > tax shelters are available to you.
> > > 
> > > That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's 
> > > share of the taxes are paid by the richest Americans. They foot 
> > > the bill, they deserve the tax breaks. Something that the 
> > > liberals who are always screaming about how Republicans are 
> > > always seeming to want to give tax breaks to the rich never 
> > > mention. When 5% of the population are responsible for more than 
> > > 50% of the personal income tax revenue, they are entitled to a 
> > > little tax relief. The liberals would never acknowledge that 
> > > point, however.
> > 
> > The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing at a scary 
> > rate. I doubt the rich are really contributing more to society on 
> > the relative basis than they were 30 years ago. The inescapable 
> > conclusion is that by some mechanism, the rich are being 
> > overcompensated (by historical standards).
> 
> It's the greed that has permeated our entire society in the last few 
> decades. 
> 
> > Vast disparities in income are unhealthy for democracies in the 
> > long run. Either the factors that are resulting in overcompensation 
> > should be corrected, or the government needs to raise income tax 
> > rates in the higher brackets and spend the money on programs that 
> > benefit the poor and middle class.
> 
> Re-distribute the wealth? Well, Komrade, that's an old story and it 
> does not work. The money always seems to perculate to the top 
> echelons even under your glorious Communist Worker's Utopias.

If the government just raised taxes in the upper brackets enough to 
cover the cost of things that are considered basic rights in other 
first-world nations (like universal healthcare), that alone would 
probably go a long way toward narrowing the absurd income disparities in 
this country.

-- 
"Our country puts $1 billion a year up to help feed the hungry. And we're by far
the most generous nation in the world when it comes to that, and I'm proud to
report that. This isn't a contest of who's the most generous. I'm just telling
you as an aside. We're generous. We shouldn't be bragging about it. But we are.
We're very generous."
                            -- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., July 16, 2003
0
znu2 (2031)
12/1/2003 10:14:08 PM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 11:58 PM:

>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
>>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
>>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that the
>>> gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay,
>>> social welfare.
>> 
>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
>> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
>> declared war at that.
> 
> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of understanding
> regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more about laying out what
> the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN do, because the framers of the
> constitution were smart enough to realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out
> such an all encompassing document.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

Pre-emptive strikes on other countries for the sake of oil (and revenge)
does not constitute "defense", nor, in increasing the likelihood of domestic
terrorism, help the "general welfare" of the country.  Social programs, if
done right, do help with the "general welfare" - not that I think many of
the current programs are done right.
> 
>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
>>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
>>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
>>> 
>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>>> that, right?
>> 
>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
> 
> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.

Business lunches.  Corporate meetings.  Other "business" expenses.
> 
>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
>>> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
>>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>> 
>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5% wealthiest in
>> the USA.
> 
> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
> average tax rate of about 23.7%

Tax rate does not equal rate at which they pay.  For that matter, the income
tax is not all taxes on our income.  Do you know which taxes on our income
are capped and at what amount?  Do you know how what percent the top 1%
wealthiest actually pay (either individuals or corporations).  Somewhere
around 5% of their income.  Sure, they pay a sizable percentage of what the
country gets, but have over 90% of the wealth in the country.  Put into
perspective, they pay much less of their money, and probably of their
income.  For that matter, much of there income is in "unearned" income,
where you actually are taxed *less* - for money that you do not directly
earn!
 
Most people in the 15% bracket pay closer to 20% of their income in taxes on
their income.  Not income taxes.  I know - makes no sense, but that is the
way it is.
> 
> just as an f.y.i:
> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
> average tax rate of about 4.1%.

I wonder what the average rate of tax on their income is?

> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.

So the average rate of being taxed is probably closer to 19-20%

>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
>> 
>> Even if it were people in Iraq.
> 
> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for the
> campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part of a gov'ts
> mandate (foreign policy and war).

Defense.  Not just any war.  To make it worse, while Bush keeps calling this
a war, it really has never been declared - partly because that would limit
Bush as to who he can attack.  Let the enemy be the nebulous "them".

>> Sorry, American corporations that donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who
>> are now in Iraq.
> 
> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone into
> iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since they're a leader
> in their industry.

Not just Haliburton - but you do not find it fishy at all that many of the
corporations that helped Bush get elected are now getting a huge chunk of 80
*billion* dollars.  Not fishy at all?

>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
>>>> with
>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
>>> 
>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
>>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
>> 
>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
> 
> what choices are replublicans not for?

A woman's choice to control her own body.  A gay couple's choice to marry.
The choice for people to watch what they want in their own houses.  The
choice for people to do as they please in their own bedrooms.  The choice
for people to use drugs that do not harm others.  The choice to be an
atheist (to some extent).  The choice to breath clean air and drink clean
water.  

Of course, you can not paint all Republicans with one brush, but that is a
good overview.  Oh, and please do not assume that I think the other wing of
the Republicrats, the Democrats, are much better.



0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:17:19 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 12/1/03 12:39 AM:

> In article <BBF01B39.330A4%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 11/30/03 9:49 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>>> In article <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>  George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see anything
>>>>>>> engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being open minded.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
>>>>>> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>> 
>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let
>>>>> live",
>>>>> and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>>>> 
>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots would
>>>> attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have other faults
>>>> (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to be more sensible
>>>> than
>>>> Conservatives.  I think where non-bigoted Conservatives disagree with that
>>>> Liberal view is where they see the Liberals as going to far - like the
>>>> issue
>>>> of gun control.  Liberals believe you have a right to live with less fear
>>>> of
>>>> some whacko shooting you (and believe that gun control can get you at
>>>> least
>>>> partially to the goal - which is debatable).  Conservatives see it as a
>>>> freedom of choice issue - citing the second amendment (usually
>>>> incorrectly).
>>> 
>>> It's difficult to cite the second amendment incorrectly. "A well
>>> regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
>>> RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>> 
>>> Even that left-wing Commie from the Harvard Law School (who's name I
>>> forget) who is considered the foremost authority on the Constitution
>>> says that as much as he regrets it, there is no other way to interpret
>>> the Second Amendment other than as a right of the individual to own guns.
>> 
>> How about the right to own nuclear weapons?  Chemical?  Biological?  Those
>> are all arms, right?  Do you support my "right" to have those as well?
>> 
> 
> That's a good question, and open to interpretation. A case could be made
> that since these devices didn't exist when the Constitution was penned,
> that the authors of the Bill of Rights certainly meant firearms and
> bladed weapons only.

Did they mean huge cannons and other massive weapons at the time?  In any
case, it clearly says "arms", not "guns"

> On the other hand, there are laws that prohibit individuals from owning fully
> automatic weapons, but not against owning large cannon. There may or may not
> be laws against owning a nuke, but there is one against owning
> fisionable-grade material, which isn't, technically, a weapon, but rather a
> controlled substance. So I suspect that there is no law against owning a nuke
> as long as you do not have the fisionable material to go in it. :->

Actually, there is a law against it - though it took me forever to find it
when I went looking for it last time.  I suppose that the law is an
unconstitutional law.  Right?
 
> As far as chemical weapons are concerned, a can of Draino can be used as
> a "chemical weapon" if you wanted to use it as such, and yes, you have a
> right to own Draino. You also have the right to own Liquid Plumber and
> bleach, which, if mixed together can kill the inhabitants of an entire
> building with the resultant chlorine gas. That's a Chemical weapon too.

Though I doubt that is what Bush meant by saying Iraq was working on
chemical weapons.
 
> When you catch the flu on a business trip and travel home sick on an
> airplane, you will possibly infect half the plane due to the plane's
> recirculated ventilation system. I guesss that's a biological weapon,
> and you are both allowed to have the flu and to board an airplane with
> the flu, so the answer is that you can have biological weapons as well.

Again - not quite what Bush means...
 
> See, it's a matter of intent. You have Draino, but you're unlikley to
> pour it down somebody's throat like the pimp did in that Dirty Harry
> movie "Magnum Force." Nobody mixes a drain cleaner and chlorine bleach
> together on purpose, but it is possible. Most Americans do not own guns
> to kill ANYTHING with, but they can certainly be used for that. I have
> four shotguns, three rifles and several handguns but I don't even hunt,
> and the only thing I've ever killed with my shotguns are clay targets.
> And the Constitution says that it is MY RIGHT to own those weapons, just
> as it is yours to own "chemical and biological weapons"

So I should be able to stockpile anthrax and military grade chemical and
biological weapons?  It should be OK, I will keep them secure in Ziplocs.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:22:26 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 12/1/03 12:48 AM:

> In article <BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
>> 
>>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, George
>>>>>>>> Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to being
>>>>>>>>> open minded.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>>>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>>>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
>>>>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
>>>>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
>>>>> 
>>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
>>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
>>>>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
>>>> 
>>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
>>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
>>>> 
>>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making everyone
>>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
>>>>> for.
>>>> 
>>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something *I* want
>>>> to
>>>> be paying for.
>>> 
>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
>>> supposed
>>> to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're doing is the right
>>> course of action, but it's hard to argue that the gov't has no right being
>>> involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay, social welfare.
>> 
>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the pre-emptive
>> attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally declared war at that.
>>> 
>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You rarely hear
>>>> Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively small sums that go
>>>> toward
>>>> welfare.
>>> 
>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize that,
>>> right?
>> 
>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
>> 
>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
>>> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous
>>> amount
>>> of the taxes.  
>> 
>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5% wealthiest
>> in the USA.
>> 
>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
>> 
>> Even if it were people in Iraq.  Sorry, American corporations that donated
>> heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.  Are you going to be
>> consistent here?
>>> 
>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do with
>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
>>> 
>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures of the
>>> right wing for actual conservatives.
>> 
>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
> 
> I'm as conservative as they come. I left the Republican party because it
> was too liberal for me, yet I think that the debate over abortion choice
> is the stupidest debate ever dredged-up in this country. There is simply
> no way that a woman SHOULDN'T be able to decide whether or not she wants
> to carry a fetus to term. The only cap I would put on such a thing, and
> the only time society (on any level) should get involved is in setting a
> time limit for that decision. Abortions shouldn't be allowed in any
> state (except in the case of a life-threatening situation) after the
> first trimester. If a woman can't make up her mind about wheather or not
> to carry a child by then, it should be up to state code to decide at
> that point. The fact that such a woman probably shouldn't be allowed to
> be a mother, is another issue entirely.

Why the first trimester? 

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:23:16 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 12/1/03 12:49 AM:

> In article <MEByb.28476$8J2.2642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
>> In news:BBF01C49.330A7%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:55 PM:
>>> 
>>>> In news:BBF014E5.3308D%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:21 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In news:BBEFE9BC.33049%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
>>>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>>>>>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 5:29 PM:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In news:clund-34ED98.17080930112003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>>>>>>>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>  <gmgravesnos-4FC0B3.15145229112003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>>>> George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that open-minded = liberal? Liberals are
>>>>>>>>>> motivated mostly by two things: fear and guilt. I don't see
>>>>>>>>>> anything engendered in those two emotions that tie them to
>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> open minded.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I
>>>>>>>>> am motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes
>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>>>>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>>>>>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Liberals tend to believe that homosexuals and other groups bigots
>>>>>>> would attack should have equal rights.  You can say that they have
>>>>>>> other faults (and they do), but at least on equality, they tend to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> more sensible than Conservatives.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> you're wrongly equating conservatives w/ the religious right and
>>>>>> other ultra right wing "conservatives", whose viewpoints are often
>>>>>> whacky, and rarely widely held.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would say it is more than just the extreme whacko on the right
>>>>> wing.  I would not say it is all right wingers...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> whereas most main string liberals have no problem w/ making
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> pay for things that many believe the gov't has no business paying
>>>>>> for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Like this war on terror?  That is not cheap, and is not something
>>>>> *I* want to be paying for.
>>>> 
>>>> except foreign affairs is one of the places the gov't is EXPLICITLY
>>>> supposed to be involved in; you may not agree that what they're
>>>> doing is the right course of action, but it's hard to argue that the
>>>> gov't has no right being involved in foreign affairs, versus, saaay,
>>>> social welfare.
>>> 
>>> Can you quote any place in the Constitution that allows for the
>>> pre-emptive attack on another nation?  Oh, and without a formally
>>> declared war at that.
>> 
>> that statement in and of itself shows your woeful lack of understanding
>> regarding the constitution.  the constitution is more about laying out what
>> the gov't CAN'T do, rather than what it CAN do, because the framers of the
>> constitution were smart enough to realize it'd be foolish to try to lay out
>> such an all encompassing document.
>> 
>>>>> How about Wealthfare - money and tax breaks for the rich? You
>>>>> rarely hear Conservatives talk about that, just the relatively
>>>>> small sums that go toward welfare.
>>>> 
>>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>>>> that, right?
>>> 
>>> And *I* am paying, in part, for many rich people's lunches.  Why?
>> 
>> oh yar?  how so?  give me 3 good examples, if you can.
>> 
>>>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
>>>> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a
>>>> ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>>> 
>>> Percentage wise I pay more of my money each year than the to 5%
>>> wealthiest
>>> in the USA.
>> 
>> i highly doubt that you pay more than the top 5%, given that:
>> - the top 5% pay over 50% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
>> average tax rate of about 23.7%
>> - for a single taxpayer (which i know you've mentioned you're not, but play
>> along here), the 28% bracket kicks in at ~$70k, and the 33% bracket at
>> ~$144k; you'd obviously need to be at the high end of that to have an
>> overall rate of 23.7%, at which point you're in the top 5% anyways (you
>> enter that club at about $128k).
>> 
>> so, we can assume you either:
>> a) are full of crap
>> b) do a piss poor job on your taxes and likely pay way more than you have
>> to.
>> 
>> just as an f.y.i:
>> - the bottom 50% pay 3.9% of the income taxes in this country, and have an
>> average tax rate of about 4.1%.
>> - the average tax rate in this country is 14.2%.
>> 
>>>> i know *I* would be absolutely pissed off if someone was
>>>> taking that large a chunk of my money to give to someone else.
>>> 
>>> Even if it were people in Iraq.
>> 
>> for social programs in iraq, you bet i'm not happy about it, but for the
>> campaign in general, not as pissed, since that's explicitly part of a gov'ts
>> mandate (foreign policy and war).
>> 
>>> Sorry, American corporations that
>>> donated heavily to the Bush campaign - who are now in Iraq.
>> 
>> this crap about haliburton is silly; if it was clinton who had gone into
>> iraq, haliburton would likely still have the contract since they're a leader
>> in their industry.
>> 
>>> Are you
>>> going to be consistent here?
>> 
>> you bet.
>> 
>>>>> And most right wingers have no problem telling people what to do
>>>>> with
>>>>> their bodies.  Both parties have their faults.
>>>> 
>>>> again, you're confusing the chrstian right and other charactertures
>>>> of the right wing for actual conservatives.
>>> 
>>> Few Republicans are for choice.  Are you now claiming that this is a
>>> Christian right view and not a Republican view?
>> 
>> what choices are replublicans not for?
> 
> Abortion - The left's favorite non-issue to throw-up to conservatives.

Read my response to ed - I looked at many more choices...

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:23:45 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 12/1/03 3:47 AM:

> In article <BBEF695D.32FA3%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> While I
>>>> certainly do not support terrorism, I understand that it is a method of
>>>> working toward a goal.  The idea of a War on Terrorism makes no sense; you
>>>> can not win a war against a method of getting something done.
>>> 
>>> I agree. That's why I think bush's "war on terror" is silly.
>> 
>> Now the question comes: why do you think he perpetuates this silly idea? (it
>> has more to do with politics and money than safety) And why do so many
>> Americans blindly accept it (not just partisan trust, as many democrats
>> accept it, too).
> 
> The "war on terror" is a useful tool, that's why. Keep a population
> scared/paranoid and you can make them go along with almost anything.
> We saw this in the Third Reich. We saw it in the McCarthy era, and
> we're seeing it now.

It does keep Bush's poll numbers inflated... 

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:24:41 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 12/1/03 3:48 AM:

> In article <YXvyb.28344$Ft3.22963@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from a
>>> "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
> 
>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and let live",
>> and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
> 
> And you reached this conclusion how...?

Rush.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:32:10 PM
Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<BBF01978.3309B%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/30/03 9:34 PM:
> 
> > In news:BBEFFCA0.33069%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
> >> "ed" <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote on 11/30/03 7:41 PM:
> >> 
> >>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:<BBEB9358.329C2%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...
> >>>> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 11/27/03 12:18 AM:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In news:BBEAEDD5.32955%snit-nospam@cableone.net,
> >>>>> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> typed:
>  
> >>>>>>> of course you've assumed violence, since you said it was a
> >>>>>>> "method" of
> >>>>>>> *FORCE*
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Actually, I said "Not to mention, terrorism is not a group, it is
> >>>>>> a method/philosophy of fighting.  It is like fighting a war on
> >>>>>> espionage."
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> There are non-violent methods to fight things.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> in the context of terrorism?
> >>>> 
> >>>> In the context of fighting for something.
> >>> 
> >>> yes, there are other ways to fight for something other than violence;
> >>> but we're talking about terrorism here.  so i'll ask again, do you
> >>> think there are non-violent ways to fight for things, in the context
> >>> of *terrorism*.
> >> 
> >> Um, sure - there are non-violent methods of terrorism.
> > 
> > oh yar?  like what?
> 
> Threats of violence.

puh-lease.  a threat of violence is not a terrorist act.

> >> But when did we change the topic.  Please remember, this started when I
> >> commented that we can not win a war on terror(ism) because terrorism is a
> >> method of fighting for (working for) a goal.
> > 
> > yeah, and unfortunately you have a convoluted view of the definition of
> > terrorism!
> 
> You mean the FBI's?  That is the one in question.

uh, no.  i explicitly said i wasn't arguing with that definition, but
the 3 specific bullet points you used in trying to argue that bush is
a terrorist.

> >> My point still stands, whether you agree that terrorism must involve direct
> >> violence (it does not).
> > 
> > ah, moving the goalposts to "direct violence"; this is a new phrase your
> > using, and i'm sure it's in response to my inevitable question for you to
> > provide non-violent forms of terrorism.
> 
> Yes.  I wanted things to be clear.  Without using "direct violence", almost
> can be seen as violence.

good to see you're admitting to moving the goalposts- i was honestly
expecting a much better example than "threat of violence" as an
example of a non-violent terrorist act though.  poor showing.

> >> Actually, this brings up another good point - since there is no good
> >> definition of exactly what a terrorist is, how can we eradicate "them".  The
> >> only thing clear is that the war is a farce (or at least he stated reasons
> >> are).
> > 
> > there *are* good definitions- you're just trying to change them to win an
> > argument...
> 
> "My" definition is supplied by the FBI.  Is that not good enough for you?
> Actually, I had a whole list of definitions - you focused on the FBI's.

again, i'm not arguing with the provided definitions provided, but the
assumptions you made in "supporting" your argument that bush is a
terrorist- specifically your claim that the actions in iraq are
illegal; you've provided no evidence to back that up.

> >>>> Terrorism is one method of fighting for a position.  It uses
> >>>> violence (or uses the threat of violence). When people want
> >>>> something badly, their are many methods or working toward it.  I do
> >>>> not think you can win a "war" against one of these methods.
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> Bush seems to be fitting the 3 elements
> >>>>>> - the activities are illegal
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> what are ya, a constitutional lawyer now?
> >>>> 
> >>>> No, I am simply answering your question.
> >>> 
> >>> and making a big assumption to do it, with little evidence to back it
> >>> up.
> >> 
> >> What assumption? I state the FBI definition and note how Bush fits
> >> it.  You question that.  I support it.  Where did you get lost?
> > 
> > you made assumptions in noting how bush fit the definition; specifically,
> > you're assuming bush's activities are illegal.
> 
> Since it is clear that they appear they are, can you show any evidence that
> they are not?  This is not a court of law.

it is NOT clear that they appear to be illegal.  what makes it
"appear" illegal to you?  the rationale provided by the gov't for it
being legal is that it was in self defense, which is clearly legal. 
(there's a very easy counter argument here- let's see if you're well
versed enough on the topic to be aware of it).

> >>>> You had questioned my statement that Bush fit the definition of terrorist
> >>>> as defined by the FBI.
> >>>> That definition is:
> >>>> 
> >>>> ----
> >>>> the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate
> >>>> or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment
> >>>> thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives. This
> >>>> definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
> >>>> illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended
> >>>> to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support
> >>>> of political or social objectives.
> >>>> ----
> >>>> 
> >>>> I see you accidentally left the definition in question out of your
> >>>> response.
> >>> 
> >>> um, i was specifically addressing your 3 points, from your
> >>> interpretation of that definition; i wasn't directly addressing the
> >>> definition.
> >> 
> >> The three points are *from* the definition.  See:
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+terrorism&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> >> Did you not look at the link before now?
> > 
> > are you not reading my responses?
> 
> Sure.  You keep saying that the three points in the FBI definition are mine.
> I do not run the FBI, if that helps to clarify things for you.


the fbi defines bush's actions as illegal?  i don't think so.  unless
you just forgot what you said (again).
0
news74 (3350)
12/1/2003 10:34:13 PM
"C Lund" <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote on 12/1/03 3:51 AM:

> In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize that, right?
>> i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ), but i have no
>> problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they pay a ridiculous amount
>> of the taxes.
> 
> They do? I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more
> tax shelters are available to you.

Tax shelters, unearned income (which is taxed less!), questionable
"business" expenses, caps on some taxes to your income, etc.

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:35:39 PM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 12/1/03 7:40 AM:

> In news:clund-6D2B50.11484101122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>> In article <YXvyb.28344$Ft3.22963@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Speaking for myself only, I concider myself to be liberal and I am
>>>> motivated neither by fear nor guilt. My liberal attitudes come from
>>>> a "live and let live" philosophy (iow there's nothing wrong with
>>>> something that harms nobody - such as homosexuality).
>> 
>>> except that's not how most liberals feel- they have the "live and
>>> let live", and "you need to help me pay for it" philosophy.  =)
>> 
>> And you reached this conclusion how...?
> 
> you think all the social programs that liberals want are free?
> 
What is *that* a response to?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:36:21 PM
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote on 12/1/03 7:40 AM:

> In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>> In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>>> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ),
>>> but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they
>>> pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>> 
>> They do?
> 
> yes, they do.  simple as that.

Care to support this simple idea?

0
snit-nospam (5415)
12/1/2003 10:36:46 PM
"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote on 12/1/03 9:07 AM:

> In article <MpIyb.28548$hc6.2117@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> 
>> In news:clund-04611E.11512201122003@amstwist00.chello.com,
>> C Lund <clund@NOSPAMnotam02.no> typed:
>>> In article <IQzyb.28436$%l.18789@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> yeah, but the rich is the ones PAYING for welfare.  you realize
>>>> that, right? i'm far from rich (i only hope to be rich someday =D ),
>>>> but i have no problems w/ the rich getting a tax cut, because they
>>>> pay a ridiculous amount of the taxes.
>>> 
>>> They do?
>> 
>> yes, they do.  simple as that.
>> 
>>> I was under the impression that the richer you are, the more
>>> tax shelters are available to you.
> 
> That may well be, but it is, nonetheless true that the lion's share of
> the taxes are paid by the richest Americans.


By dollar amount - yes.  By percent of their net worth - not even close.

> They foot the bill, they
> deserve the tax breaks. Something that the liberals who are always
> screaming about how Republicans are always seeming to want to give tax
> breaks to the rich never mention. When 5% of the population are
> responsible for