Giftzweig chimes in with:

"Bush's Iraq Liberation! Almost as sob! deadly as falling outta bed!"

That's a lame and disingenuous and meaningless analogy. You're too
intelligent not to know that.

What - exactly - is "lame" or "disingenuous" about it?

Come now. Far from "meaningless," the analogy is decisively on-point;
several hundred casualties per year is entirely to be expected when the
enterprise in question is liberating 26 million people from the worst
sort of tyranny. If anything is "disingenuous," it's the effort on the
part of the pro-Saddam lobby to suggest that a piffling few hundred
casualties represents something terrible that America should be
concerned about.

You're asserting that 261 deaths in six months is a crushing,
significant figure that justifies radical changes in foreign policy and
government. I'm asserting that we must consider 261 deaths in the
appropriate context, and I'm proposing contexts for consideration.

For example, in a single year (2000), "accidental drowning and
submersion" claimed 3,482 American lives. 341 of these were accounted
for by "drowning and submersion while in or falling into bath-tub."

First, you're writing of a full year. Second, you're writing of a population of
300,000,000 where the 341 deaths occured, not a population of 140,000 or fewer,
which is where the 261 deaths occured.

As he said, disingenuous. It is not at all on-point.

What you're doing is something along the order of saying the 55,000 American
deaths during the Vietnam war wasn't much more than a single year's total from
auto accidents in the U.S., so, because the deaths in 'Nam occured over about
11 years, that's not so bad. Which is utter nonsense, just as your argument is.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

AndroGel babbles:


Retards like Ann Coulter and (so called) "Reverend" Al Sharpton are what
makes the USA the laughing stock of the planet.

You guys really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Laugh on. I can agree with your opinion of Sharpton, who is a master scammer,
but I'd never heard of Coulton until a week or 2 ago...she does sound retarded,
but so do many of the politically committed on any side...and in any country.

The USA may well be the laughing stock of the planet: that speaks poorly for
the judgment of a great many people, though, and really isn't a judgment that
is yours to make.

At least we've not come up with any Genghis Khans, Chamberlains, Mussolinis,
Hitlers or their ilk, yet. Plenty of damfools, but that's not an America-only
trait. It's a part of human make-up.



Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

"Tom Zielinski" wrote in message
k.net...
"Interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'
about a month ago, Tim Russert echoed the [Democratic] theme,
asking: 'What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000
American soldiers be there? How many international troops will
join them? And how much is this going to cost?" When will we
be there, Daddy? Can I go to the bathroom? Are we there yet?"
- Ann Coulter


So help me understand this other thing Ann, 'cuz maybe it's me, maybe I'm
a
little ****ed up, maybe.

George W. Bush initiated three-year trade tariffs on imported steel in
March
2002, in an attempt to "help" ailing U.S. steelmakers. Bush signed off on
these inarguably anti-conservative, laissez-faire tariffs, to aid steel
producers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan - all swing
states in the 2004 election.

So, to analyze the strategy: Put in place tariffs that increase the cost
of
steel (and thousands of durable goods) for all Americans in an attempt to
"give struggling domestic steel producers breathing room from
international
competition while they restructured." What is wrong with this picture? A
tariff that flies in the face of conservative economic theory, initiated
in
an attempt to get more conservatives elected in "swing states", so that
(presumably) the conservative agenda can be furthered? How does that
work?

Already, the EU is contemplating their own tariffs on billions of dollars
of
U.S. exports, including food and textiles. Japan, South Korea, China, New
Zealand, Brazil, Norway and Switzerland have also complained to the WTO,
which is likely to uphold their demands of entitlement to levy sanctions
against U.S. goods. So, to protect one U.S. industry, many others are
threatened.

The policy is misguided, backward, shortsighted, and ultimately,
dangerous.
Some strategy. It is no wonder we are enduring a sickly economy.

Further, it is no wonder that we are in a precarious and dangerous
position
in Iraq, where another U.S. casualty today (November 14, 2003) brings the
total to 261 deaths since that arrogant "Mission Accomplished" banner was
waving behind a smirking George on the flight deck of that aircraft
carrier
in May. And 195 U.S. deaths since the ignorant and dangerous "Bring 'em
on!" statement in July.

Funny how? I mean what's funny about that?

"When will we be there, Daddy"? **** you, Ann Coulter. If/when (and I
pray
it is "when") the Democrats can put forth a viable candidate, this country
will usher in a new Administration next year. George II will suffer the
same one-term legacy embarrassment that his father is assuredly still
bitter
about. And the country will be better for it.

Yeah, and then we can go back to (tax the hell out of the rich and give it
to the poor) wishy-washy socialism.....I can hardly wait............

Robin Hood was, after all, just a thief........

TmFoLCB0aGVyZSBhcmVuJ3QgZW5vdWdoIGNpZ2FycyBsZWZ0Li 4uLi4NCg0KIldpbGxpYW0gR3Jh
aGFtIiA8d2VnOUBjb21jYXN0Lm5ldD4gd3JvdGUgaW4gbWVzc2 FnZSBuZXdzOkJvQXRiLjE1OTI4
MyRtWjUuMTA5ODk2NUBhdHRiaV9zNTQuLi4NCj4gDQo+IFllYW gsIGFuZCB0aGVuIHdlIGNhbiBn
byBiYWNrIHRvICh0YXggdGhlIGhlbGwgb3V0IG9mIHRoZSByaW NoIGFuZCBnaXZlIGl0DQo+IHRv
IHRoZSBwb29yKSB3aXNoeS13YXNoeSBzb2NpYWxpc20uLi4uLk kgY2FuIGhhcmRseSB3YWl0Li4u
Li4uLi4uLi4uDQo+IA0KPiBSb2JpbiBIb29kIHdhcywgYWZ0ZX IgYWxsLCBqdXN0IGEgdGhpZWYu
Li4uLi4uLg0KPiANCj4g

In BoAtb.159283$mZ5.1098965@attbi_s54, on 11/16/2003
at 01:28 AM, "William Graham" said:


"Tom Zielinski" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Interviewing Vice President Dick Cheney on 'Meet the Press'
about a month ago, Tim Russert echoed the [Democratic] theme,
asking: 'What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000
American soldiers be there? How many international troops will
join them? And how much is this going to cost?" When will we
be there, Daddy? Can I go to the bathroom? Are we there yet?"
- Ann Coulter


So help me understand this other thing Ann, 'cuz maybe it's me, maybe I'm
a
little ****ed up, maybe.

George W. Bush initiated three-year trade tariffs on imported steel in
March
2002, in an attempt to "help" ailing U.S. steelmakers. Bush signed off on
these inarguably anti-conservative, laissez-faire tariffs, to aid steel
producers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan - all swing
states in the 2004 election.

So, to analyze the strategy: Put in place tariffs that increase the cost
of
steel (and thousands of durable goods) for all Americans in an attempt to
"give struggling domestic steel producers breathing room from
international
competition while they restructured." What is wrong with this picture? A
tariff that flies in the face of conservative economic theory, initiated
in
an attempt to get more conservatives elected in "swing states", so that
(presumably) the conservative agenda can be furthered? How does that
work?

Already, the EU is contemplating their own tariffs on billions of dollars
of
U.S. exports, including food and textiles. Japan, South Korea, China, New
Zealand, Brazil, Norway and Switzerland have also complained to the WTO,
which is likely to uphold their demands of entitlement to levy sanctions
against U.S. goods. So, to protect one U.S. industry, many others are
threatened.

The policy is misguided, backward, shortsighted, and ultimately,
dangerous.
Some strategy. It is no wonder we are enduring a sickly economy.

Further, it is no wonder that we are in a precarious and dangerous
position
in Iraq, where another U.S. casualty today (November 14, 2003) brings the
total to 261 deaths since that arrogant "Mission Accomplished" banner was
waving behind a smirking George on the flight deck of that aircraft
carrier
in May. And 195 U.S. deaths since the ignorant and dangerous "Bring 'em
on!" statement in July.

Funny how? I mean what's funny about that?

"When will we be there, Daddy"? **** you, Ann Coulter. If/when (and I
pray
it is "when") the Democrats can put forth a viable candidate, this country
will usher in a new Administration next year. George II will suffer the
same one-term legacy embarrassment that his father is assuredly still
bitter
about. And the country will be better for it.

Yeah, and then we can go back to (tax the hell out of the rich and give
it to the poor) wishy-washy socialism.....I can hardly wait............

Robin Hood was, after all, just a thief........

Robin Hood stole form those who stol first. Learn the lesson if you have
the brain power. Oh, and enjoy this life. The promise is the next one
will warm as hell for you.

puzzla reckons:

But what if the 'people', who they miscalculated into
thinking would welcome us, what if they elect every Hussein cronies on
the planet?

Oh, and is Bush saying that Husseins cronies are worse than Chalabis?
They seem to be getting all the contracts to rebuild Iraq. And the
people shrug.


Yeah, well...I'm willing to bet that within 6 months to 2 years (way outside)
of the time we get out of Iraq, regardless of what happens between now and
then, some scumbag similar to Hussein is in power and will be just as bad as
ol' Saddas Insane the day we take our eyes off the place.

Why Bush, or anyone else, believes we're going to change a 20 century old
"culture" is baffling. Democracy is not something many in the Middle East
understand, at least on terms similar to those we understand it in.

Overall, our best bet all round is to make sure no one there has weapons that
can threaten us, then leave 'em the hell alone to do as they wish, which is
what's going to happen anyway.


Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:44:50 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Yeah, well...I'm willing to bet that within 6 months to 2 years (way outside)
of the time we get out of Iraq, regardless of what happens between now and
then, some scumbag similar to Hussein is in power and will be just as bad as
ol' Saddas Insane the day we take our eyes off the place.

Why Bush, or anyone else, believes we're going to change a 20 century old
"culture" is baffling. Democracy is not something many in the Middle East
understand, at least on terms similar to those we understand it in.

Overall, our best bet all round is to make sure no one there has weapons that
can threaten us, then leave 'em the hell alone to do as they wish, which is
what's going to happen anyway.

That may all be true, but the same arguments could have been made about
Japan after WWII. And our "exit strategy" there and Germany and Korea and
Kosovo and ... was? The only place we totally exited in recent history
was Viet Nam, and that wasn't after a victory. I think the reason you
stated is precisely why the US can't "take our eyes off the place", along with
the lesson the world learned about our involvement with Germany after WWI as
opposed to WWII (evacuate and let bad guys take power because of a chaotic
state of affairs vs. the Marshall Plan and all).

-Doug

Doug Winterburn notes:

That may all be true, but the same arguments could have been made about
Japan after WWII.

Different situation. A society with a cohesive structure based on religious awe
aimed at the emperor, who immediately abdicated after his side lost. Brutally
violent culture, yes, but cohesive. I don't think you can say Iraq has a
cohesive structure, even. Again, brutally violent, but in many factions, though
all lay claim to the same basic religion.

And our "exit strategy" there and Germany and Korea and
Kosovo and ... was?

We had no exit strategy in Germany--we still have something like 70,000 troops
there. Same with Korea, but a smaller number and more likely to be needed in
the immediate future. Kosovo? Another place we shouldn't be, but still are.

Point being, though, that we do occasionally need to learn a lesson. I'm not
sure when that will happen, but in soggy little ********s, we do not need to
leave people hanging, often fighting and nearly forgotten (give Iraq another
3-4 years and see what happens), expending our resources to no good purpose
(arguably, Germany and Japan were good purposes).

And hell, we didn't have an exit strategy in Nam. The Democrats couldn't figure
out how to get out, so Nixon just bailed after he got in, though it took him
several years to do the job while he went Asiatic (trying to save face).

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:32:24 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Point being, though, that we do occasionally need to learn a lesson. I'm not
sure when that will happen, but in soggy little ********s, we do not need to
leave people hanging, often fighting and nearly forgotten (give Iraq another
3-4 years and see what happens), expending our resources to no good purpose
(arguably, Germany and Japan were good purposes).

The problem is that the disease which culminated in 9/11 breeds in these soggy
little ********s. The lesson I see is what happened after the Soviets
retreated from Afghanistan, leaving a fertile ground for the extremists to
build training camps and a homeland from which to launch their jihad. If
we pack up and leave now, I see 9/11 as only a warm up, and the mid east
situation going even further out of control (if that is possible). The
argument that mid east Muslim nations are incapable of some form of
democratic government displays no confidence in democracy itself, let
alone the sterotypeing of all the people of those nations.

-Doug

Doug Winterburn writes:

we pack up and leave now, I see 9/11 as only a warm up, and the mid east
situation going even further out of control (if that is possible). The
argument that mid east Muslim nations are incapable of some form of
democratic government displays no confidence in democracy itself, let
alone the sterotypeing of all the people of those nations.

Democracy needs no confidence. It does need a fertile breeding ground,
something that has not ever existed in most areas of the Middle East. Possibly
Israel, but elsewhere, forget it. If that's stereotyping, then let's
stereotype. These people are essentially living in the Middle Ages still,
except for a few mod cons. Their concepts of freedom differ from ours--for the
most part, they want to be free to impose their beliefs on everyone else. All
the rest of our freedoms don't take a backseat, really: the don't even get in
the vehicle.

Democracy needs a background of some sort. That background has never existed in
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and similar spots. I won't say it never will, but I
sure don't expect to live to see it, and I am inclined to doubt my grandkids
will.

Saddass did a job of keeping most terrorists out of his area, for no reason
other than that they seemed to pose a threat to him. Saudi Arabia supplied by
far the greatest majority of the 9/11 terrorist types.

Somehow, I don't see any logic. Go into a ****ant country where the biggest
threat was the mouth wind created by the dictator, and leave more dangerous
areas alone. Or, maybe, I do see the logic. It looked fast and easy.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
otforme says...
Doug Winterburn writes:

we pack up and leave now, I see 9/11 as only a warm up, and the mid east
situation going even further out of control (if that is possible). The
argument that mid east Muslim nations are incapable of some form of
democratic government displays no confidence in democracy itself, let
alone the sterotypeing of all the people of those nations.

Democracy needs no confidence. It does need a fertile breeding ground,
something that has not ever existed in most areas of the Middle East. Possibly
Israel, but elsewhere, forget it. If that's stereotyping, then let's
stereotype. These people are essentially living in the Middle Ages still,
except for a few mod cons. Their concepts of freedom differ from ours--for the
most part, they want to be free to impose their beliefs on everyone else. All
the rest of our freedoms don't take a backseat, really: the don't even get in
the vehicle.

.... snip
Somehow, I don't see any logic. Go into a ****ant country where the biggest
threat was the mouth wind created by the dictator, and leave more dangerous
areas alone. Or, maybe, I do see the logic. It looked fast and easy.


But Charles, we were already there since the dictator of that country
invaded a neighboring country. We had been enforcing the no-fly zones
ever since the first gulf action; that situation had to be resolved at
some point -- simply abandoning the policy was a sure way of further
destabilizing that region. The fact the dictator of Iraq wasn't
invading neigboring countries was because his freedom to do so had been
blocked by the continued enforcement of the no-fly zones. Remember also
that while there have yet been no findings of WMD's, there is
significant evidence that he intended to pursue development once the
sanctions were lifted. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is of
significant concern as well -- I'm pretty sure that situation is not
being ignored -- a radical muslim funamentalist nation with the bomb is
not something to be taken lightly.


Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

Mark & Juanita posits:

But Charles, we were already there since the dictator of that country
invaded a neighboring country. We had been enforcing the no-fly zones
ever since the first gulf action; that situation had to be resolved at
some point -- simply abandoning the policy was a sure way of further
destabilizing that region.

Where's the "either/or" here? No one said a word about abandoning a procedure
that was working well.

The fact the dictator of Iraq wasn't
invading neigboring countries was because his freedom to do so had been
blocked by the continued enforcement of the no-fly zones. Remember also
that while there have yet been no findings of WMD's, there is
significant evidence that he intended to pursue development once the
sanctions were lifted.

If they ever were lifted. The fact is, Bush's buddies jumped on him and he
jumped on Iraq for reasons that are not yet established. Imminent danger to the
U.S. was not one of those reasons, AFAICT.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is of
significant concern as well -- I'm pretty sure that situation is not
being ignored -- a radical muslim funamentalist nation with the bomb is
not something to be taken lightly.

No one has said a thing about Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a
pursuit that recently seems to be turning aside, at least a bit. Nuclear
weapons that exist and nuclear weapons that are intended to exist if a set of
circumstances changes are two very different things.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

You know Charlkie, in the 1800's Israel was not even poulated to any
great extent. That happened in this century. And you are right; to my
knowledge, there never has been a democracy in the Middle East and I
doubt there will ever be one either. Ever get the feeling that Bush
would like to be thought of as MacArthur was after he rebuilt Japan?
He is in for a big surprise; we should appoint a gov't, arm them and
get the heck out before we see Viet Nam all over again. Those folks
will turn on you in a minute; it is part of their culture. There ARE
some good people but most have to worry about surviving. I enjoyed
much Arab hospitality but I was always aware that their mood/feelings
could and would change in a split second. We should not cram our gov't
down their throats; it won't work. Look at all the problems Russia is
having as they attempt to change; wonder if they will make it?



On 16 Nov 2003 19:26:37 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Doug Winterburn writes:

we pack up and leave now, I see 9/11 as only a warm up, and the mid east
situation going even further out of control (if that is possible). The
argument that mid east Muslim nations are incapable of some form of
democratic government displays no confidence in democracy itself, let
alone the sterotypeing of all the people of those nations.

Democracy needs no confidence. It does need a fertile breeding ground,
something that has not ever existed in most areas of the Middle East. Possibly
Israel, but elsewhere, forget it. If that's stereotyping, then let's
stereotype. These people are essentially living in the Middle Ages still,
except for a few mod cons. Their concepts of freedom differ from ours--for the
most part, they want to be free to impose their beliefs on everyone else. All
the rest of our freedoms don't take a backseat, really: the don't even get in
the vehicle.

Democracy needs a background of some sort. That background has never existed in
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and similar spots. I won't say it never will, but I
sure don't expect to live to see it, and I am inclined to doubt my grandkids
will.

Saddass did a job of keeping most terrorists out of his area, for no reason
other than that they seemed to pose a threat to him. Saudi Arabia supplied by
far the greatest majority of the 9/11 terrorist types.

Somehow, I don't see any logic. Go into a ****ant country where the biggest
threat was the mouth wind created by the dictator, and leave more dangerous
areas alone. Or, maybe, I do see the logic. It looked fast and easy.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
otforme says...
Their concepts of freedom differ from ours--for the
most part, they want to be free to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

And what's even more disturbing, some elements in this country would like
to do the same.

And since you like to quote Thomas Jefferson (as do I):

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all
mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been
quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions
unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the
comprehension of the human mind. Were I to enter on that arena, I should
only add an unit to the number of Bedlamites."

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Lawrence Ramsey notes:

Ever get the feeling that Bush
would like to be thought of as MacArthur was after he rebuilt Japan?
He is in for a big surprise; we should appoint a gov't, arm them and
get the heck out

I sseem to recall Bush stating something along those lines this past week.
Speed things up, get the Iraqis set up, maybe, but get out, surely.

We should not cram our gov't
down their throats; it won't work. Look at all the problems Russia is
having as they attempt to change; wonder if they will make it?

Peter Ustinov used to make some pretty cogent remarks on Russia and Russians,
and their incapacity for dealing with a decent government...but that was long
before the fall of the USSR.


Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

Larry Blanchard notes:

And since you like to quote Thomas Jefferson (as do I):

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all
mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been
quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions
unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the
comprehension of the human mind. Were I to enter on that arena, I should
only add an unit to the number of Bedlamites."

But let us not forget Jefferson at another time: "All the world would be
Christian if they were taught the pure Gospel of Christ!"

Hard to tell if we wasn't allowing contradiction to get in the way of original
thought, or had his tongue firmly planted, at least at this late date. I vote
for his not being bothered by a tongue in his cheek, but who knows.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:05:39 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

But let us not forget Jefferson at another time: "All the world would be
Christian if they were taught the pure Gospel of Christ!"

Hard to tell if we wasn't allowing contradiction to get in the way of original
thought, or had his tongue firmly planted, at least at this late date. I vote
for his not being bothered by a tongue in his cheek, but who knows.

He also talked about avoiding foreign entanglements, but later built our
first navy ships and sent them to take care of the Barbary Pirates after
much kidnapping, murder and extortion by said pirates. Reality got in the
way of idealism for Jefferson as it does for many who must uphold the
oath.

-Doug

In article ,
otforme says...
Mark & Juanita posits:

But Charles, we were already there since the dictator of that country
invaded a neighboring country. We had been enforcing the no-fly zones
ever since the first gulf action; that situation had to be resolved at
some point -- simply abandoning the policy was a sure way of further
destabilizing that region.

Where's the "either/or" here? No one said a word about abandoning a procedure
that was working well.


I didn't intend to imply an either/or at that point. My intention was
to point out that we already had a presence and involvement. We were
pretty much dropping bombs daily, and the other side was getting more
and more clever is shifting its assets and gauging means of attacking
those aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. It was only a matter of time
before we started losing aircraft -- with absolutely no tactical or
strategic gains.

The fact the dictator of Iraq wasn't
invading neigboring countries was because his freedom to do so had been
blocked by the continued enforcement of the no-fly zones. Remember also
that while there have yet been no findings of WMD's, there is
significant evidence that he intended to pursue development once the
sanctions were lifted.

If they ever were lifted. The fact is, Bush's buddies jumped on him and he
jumped on Iraq for reasons that are not yet established. Imminent danger to the
U.S. was not one of those reasons, AFAICT.


Prior to the start Bush's pushing to resolve the issues with Saddam's
failure to comply with UN sanctions, there were numerous countries
pushing to repeal the sanctions -- many "human rights" groups were also
becoming more vocal claiming that the sanctions were "killing children"
in Iraq.

Bush's speeches indicated that he was unwilling to wait for "imminent
danger" to take action because by the time the danger was imminent, it
would be too late.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is of
significant concern as well -- I'm pretty sure that situation is not
being ignored -- a radical muslim funamentalist nation with the bomb is
not something to be taken lightly.

No one has said a thing about Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a
pursuit that recently seems to be turning aside, at least a bit. Nuclear
weapons that exist and nuclear weapons that are intended to exist if a set of
circumstances changes are two very different things.


The above was in reference to your comment regarding the rest of the
region and ignoring concerns from those other countries, I merely was
pointing out an example where there is concern.

Charlie Self
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use
our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

Rafe B. wrote on 16 Nov 2003:

IOW, Elizabeth Dole is far more moderate and sensible on
the subject than a good number of her male counterparts
on the right.

"Moderate and sensible" meaning that she is willing to allow pro-
abortionists kill tiny human beings. This is only "moderate and
sensible" if you buy into the abortionist claptrap that the woman should
have the right to decide whether her unborn child should live or die.

As for Dole's "counterparts on the right," -- what makes you think
Elizabeth Dole is on the "right?" Do you come to this conclusion because
she is a Republican? She has quite often weighed in with those who favor
more government control.

Elizabeth Dole, like her husband, is merely a Republican hack. What she
says or believes is immaterial in the abortion debate. Her position
amounts to sitting on the fence, holding her nose, and hoping the
problem will go away.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

"NJH" wrote

[snips]

"The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but
that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as
liberators the United States when we come to do that."

-- DIck Cheney, March 16, 2003

I believe most Iraqis did exactly that

Who ya gonna believe? The neo-con spin or your own lyin' eyes?

"Jerry McGeorge" wrote

Well, of course not, she's a REPUBLICAN, after all and everyone knows, all
real women are Democrats.

A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

George M. responds, witlessly:

Gay Greg speaks knowingly of the "enemy".

Rumor has it the Ann Coulter has frequent sex and enjoys it immensely,
indeed, she's tested many liberals and writes they all have tiny penises.

Compared to her dildo collection that's probably true.

You would suck any penis you could find, of course.

Amazing. This thread was OT, but amusing, until the idiots moved in.

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

"NJH" wrote in message
. com...

"Rafe B." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:51:51 -0500, Julian D.
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:45:13 -0700, "Philip T. Lewis"
wrote:

"New-q-lur"
G.W. Bush....


"Re-Elected"
Me


How could he be "re" elected when he
wasn't the first time around. He was appointed.

Bush won the most electoral votes. In the U.S. we call that "elected."

In the hotly contested state of Florida, I believe he won it at least five
or six times, recount after recount. So I suppose the fair thing would be
to
just give Florida automatically to the Republican candidate until the 2016
elections or so.

Neil


Liberal Democrats have always had a hard time understanding the US
Constitution...........

William Graham writes:


Liberal Democrats have always had a hard time understanding the US
Constitution...........


Especially as interpreted by conservative republicans.

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
William Graham writes:


Liberal Democrats have always had a hard time understanding the US
Constitution...........


Especially as interpreted by conservative republicans.

I was going to say that's because the Republicans
have their own version of it.

Dennis Vogel

Rafe B. writes:

Sure, but having your brother as Governor doesn't hurt.

Or having that Supreme Court stuffed with conservative
justices doesn't hurt.

Nor does it hurt to have the Secretary of State (of
Florida) be the co-chair of your election campaign.

Nor does it hurt to have bogus ballots, misinformation
designed to reduce minority votes, or phony demonstrations
to halt recounts.

And all that from one who would be a "uniter, not a divider."


Good genes. Remember his daddy's 1000 points of light?

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

In article ,
otforme says...
William Graham writes:


Liberal Democrats have always had a hard time understanding the US
Constitution...........


Especially as interpreted by conservative republicans.

Charlie Self

Yeah, let's see, "Congress shall make no law regarding the
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
" It's amazing that conservative anythings (republicans or otherwise)
just can't seem to find anything in this clause that should prohibit the
ability of people to celebrate Christmas or wish one another "Merry
Christmas in public places" Those rascally conservatives just seem to
get all bent out of shape that a few judges have seemed to ignore the
"shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof" clause and interpreted
this to mean that any expression of faith in a government office or by a
government officer is somehow forbidden. (Unless of course the religion
is Islam, then that is to be encouraged, taught, and disseminated)

Same thing with the second amendment -- somehow, the "people" are no
longer the "people" when the constitution is talking about guns.

"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

Julian D. writes:


That's an odd thing to say: do you *want* a higher body count of
American soldiers coming out of Iraq?


Liberals want and need more of our troops dead. They need and want
our economy to get worse.

That's sick. If you believe that, so are you.

Goodbye.

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Julian D. writes:


That's an odd thing to say: do you *want* a higher body count of
American soldiers coming out of Iraq?


Liberals want and need more of our troops dead. They need and want
our economy to get worse.

That's sick. If you believe that, so are you.

Goodbye.

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the
advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say they want to see dead soldiers, but are
you gonna tell me that the libs are out there hoping for the economy to take
off before the election? Every time there is positive economic news, they
find something else negative to point out. The topic du jour is the job
situation, which anybody who knows anything at all about economics knows is
a lagging indicator.

todd

If the Gore contingent had their way, they'd still be recounting those
****ing ballots (or whatever torn, twisted, worn-out shreds remained
of
them) today.

...until, of course, the precise second when any count at all - however
ridiculous - of the torn, twisted, worn-out shreds revealed Gore leading
by a single vote ...

... whereupon the lefties would have brayed in unison for a halt to the
proceedings, a certification for the results, and an award of electoral
votes to the "victor."

"Gore ahead by one vote!?!?! THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!"


you watched the first American coup d'etat and this is the best you can
do?

GUFFAW!

You just plain hate the idea of elections following the rules and obeying
the laws, don't you?!

The "first American coup d'etat"! I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of
coffee when I read that, or my monitor would be a mess now.

Neil

There have been several elections as suspect if not more so (I don't happen to
feel that was such a suspect election to begin with). The last really blatant
one was Kennedy in 1960. Chicago alone more than stole that election.

Charlie Self wrote:

Good genes. Remember his daddy's 1000 points of light?

Daddy didn't spend much time raising the boy it seems. At least the
original shrub could pronounce the word "nuclear."

I personally find it appalling.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Silvan writes:


Charlie Self wrote:

Good genes. Remember his daddy's 1000 points of light?

Daddy didn't spend much time raising the boy it seems. At least the
original shrub could pronounce the word "nuclear."

I personally find it appalling.

Good word.

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

"Jerry McGeorge" wrote in message
...
Actually, living in total denial is the only way they can stand living
at
all.

The left keeps spewing this "Gore Won" bull****, yet in fact he got far
less
than 50% of the vote when factorinmg in ALL votes cast, including those
for
Nader.


Yes....As a "right winger", I thank God for Nader.....He's the one who
really won the election for us........

William Graham writes:

than 50% of the vote when factorinmg in ALL votes cast, including those
for
Nader.


Yes....As a "right winger", I thank God for Nader.....He's the one who
really won the election for us........

50% of the votes is not necessary, AFAIK. Depends on the number of candidates,
but...

You're right about Nader. So I guess we can put that right up there with the
consequences of his actions that include the death of the Corvair.

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

"William Graham" wrote in message news:YS8vb.197515$275.735103@attbi_s53...
"Jerry McGeorge" wrote in message
...
Actually, living in total denial is the only way they can stand living
at
all.

The left keeps spewing this "Gore Won" bull****, yet in fact he got far
less
than 50% of the vote when factorinmg in ALL votes cast, including those
for
Nader.


Yes....As a "right winger", I thank God for Nader.....He's the one who
really won the election for us........

Yeah, but Perot gave "them" Clinton, so Nader was just a little payback.

Dave Hall

Charlie Self wrote:

I personally find it appalling.

Good word.

Which one? "Personally" or "appalling?"

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Silvan asks:

Charlie Self wrote:

I personally find it appalling.

Good word.

Which one? "Personally" or "appalling?"


Personally, I'd bet on "appalling".

Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=republic

Note that contemporary definitions of "democracy" do not exclude
electoral representation. One would have to qualify the term as a
"direct" or "pure" democracy if referring to a government without
elected officials.

Because nation/state examples of true "democracy" have not existed for
thousands of years (if at all), the modern English use of "democracy"
assumes its contemporary republic nature.

I already discussed in some depth that I agree that a representative form of
gov't can still be called a Democracy without it needing to be a "direct"
democracy. That is clearly how most of the States are governed. However, the
key factor is that the representatives need to be representing somewhat
equivalent numbers of citizens. The Senate of the US clearly does NOT have
equal representation of the citizens. It has equal representation of the States
- big or small. The election of the president is NOT based upon equal
representation of the citizenry, but is weighted toward equal representation of
the states. Thus you cannot even begin to define the US as a Democracy.

Dave Hall

"Giftzwerg" wrote

Perhaps such significant majorities of Americans agree with
conservatives because conservative ideas are so far Out Of The
Mainstream?

Okay, now you're hallucinating.

"*Significant* majority," my ass.

Even if the SCOTUS-aborted Florida recount had gone the way right-wing
sycophants allege, Bush's margin of victory was under 1,000 votes, with more
than five-thousand butterfly ballot-voting Jewish Senior Citizens
inexplicably voting for Pat Buchanan. Nationwide, Bush lost the popular
election by half a million votes and after squeaking out the slimmest
possible majority from the GOP-packed Supreme Court, took office with a
margin of 5 Electoral College votes.

In 2002, the conservative-dominated mainstream media blared out a Republican
"landslide" in Congressional elections, it conveniently omitted the fact
that fewer than 5,000 votes, distributed differently in selected races,
would have resulted in Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

After 9/11, the President enjoyed support from 86% of Americans and
universal approval from all but the most radical Islamic states of the
world. Since then, arrogance, lies, and incompetence have turned that
support into alienation of traditional allies in the UN, NATO, and Asia. By
the thinnest of margins, the Republican Congress has turned a $3 trillion
surplus into a $4 trillion deficit while lining the pockets of the super
rich and war profiteers such as Halliburton.

The party that touts "traditional family values" has levied a huge deficit
burden on their children and grandchildren and committed 100,000 sons and
daughters to bear arms in Iraq for as long as there is terrorism in the
world.

No wonder public opinion polls show Bush can garner only a razor-thin margin
over any generic Democrat.

*Significant* majority? You're fooling yourself.

What do you expect from a "democrat"?

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:23:38 GMT, trotsky wrote:



Al Reid wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message ...


Al Reid wrote:

When unable to respond to the message, attack the messenger. So typical.


Agreed, you and your ilk have been unable to respond to any of my posts
on this thread. Like all Republicans, you're just a weasel.



Actually there have been many sound and reasoned responses to your posts.


Could you show me some of the Google references, please?