On 2002-03-21 16:58, Brian Rush wrote:
Libertarianism is a subset of liberalism which holds to the liberal core value, but claims (in disagreement with other liberals) that a laissez-faire capitalist economic model serves those values.

I thought Libertarianism was another form of Captialism, the core of the ideology is essential captialist with a strong Liberal element.

On 2002-03-24 18:31, Marc Lamb wrote:


I find in your expressed attitudes in much of those same attitudes which actually caused 9/11 in the first place.

Funny, Marc, I though a group of 19 (or so) religious maniacs 'caused' 9/11. Perhaps you could enumerate the ways in which I and they are (I guess that would be 'were') encamped together?



And, for the record, I declined to support anyone in the last presidential election. My hands are clean. Are yours?

It's beginning to look like Bush & Co. are trying to have their cake and eat it too - conduct foreign policy as if we have entered 4T, but to govern in a decidedly 3T manner when it comes to domestic concerns - particularly the economy.

On 2002-03-25 05:43, Anthony '58 wrote:
It's beginning to look like Bush & Co. are trying to have their cake and eat it too - conduct foreign policy as if we have entered 4T, but to govern in a decidedly 3T manner when it comes to domestic concerns - particularly the economy.

So far, though, there doesn't seem to be any contradiction.

On 2002-03-24 20:25, Tristan Jones wrote:

On 2002-03-21 16:58, Brian Rush wrote:
Libertarianism is a subset of liberalism which holds to the liberal core value, but claims (in disagreement with other liberals) that a laissez-faire capitalist economic model serves those values.

I thought Libertarianism was another form of Captialism, the core of the ideology is essential captialist with a strong Liberal element.

If you are talking about the Libertarian Party, then yes, capitalism is a strong element. But there are many socialist libertarians too.

On 2002-03-25 09:36, madscientist wrote:
But there are many socialist libertarians too.

(*snicker*)

I read there used to be a strange phenomenon known as "liberal republicans."

"And, for the record, I declined to support anyone in the last presidential election. My hands are clean. Are yours?" --Justin Maroncelli


Interesting concept, Mr. Maroncelli; Abstention from participatory Democracy as a means of displaying civic responsibility.

Bravo, Mr. Maroncelli!

This article by Victor David Hanson, compaires the current era we live in with the 1930's, a sign of a 4T prehaps

The 1930s, Again
A hard rain is going to fall.

In some ways in our war against the terrorists we are like the democracies of the late 1930s. They knew that there was more to Hitler than his avowed quest for the return of the Sudetenland or the Alsace-Lorraine. They sort of suspected that an entire, venerable culture in Germany and Japan had gone off the deep end. And while there was a certain logic to Hitler's diatribes that a moralistic England had no more right to distant India than did Germany to nearby Danzig, most deep-down knew that such parlor-game banter simply masked a much larger dilemma ? how to corral a very powerful dictatorship and its axis that wished dominance not coexistence, and whose fuel was brutal force and autocracy, not democracy and freedom.

For England, most of Western Europe, and the United States, reeling under recent economic depression and hardly recovered from the sheer horror of the First World War ? carnage unlike any in the long history of warfare ? the idea of forceful resistance was little short of insanity. Filmstrips of German Panzers, thousands of Japanese shouting "Banzai!," and even Mussolini's comically delivered, but hateful rants overwhelmed the senses.

How could one stop such madness? And might it just go away with proper diplomacy? And why did "militarists" in the West insist on rearming and thereby "provoking" war? And was not there some truth to German grievances and Japanese hurts? And did anyone really wish to risk millions of innocent Americans and British to kill equally innocent, although perhaps mesmerized, Germans? Who was stirring up such animosity?

We are in a similar dilemma ? in our hesitation about Iraq, our pressure on Israel, and our worries about mission creep in pursuing the killers. Can't the Jews and Arabs just get along? If Israel would just give back all of the West Bank, wouldn't there be peace? Didn't we just fight in the Gulf a mere decade ago? How do we know that Saddam Hussein really has such dreadful weapons? Shouldn't our allies get involved too? Do these undemocratic Muslim countries really dislike us all that much? Who can trust polls anyway? Why are these saber-rattlers trying to get us into a war?

And so we Americans, like those 70 years ago who so wanted a perpetual peace, pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East. We chose to ignore horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia ? the embryo of 9/11. We are more amused than shocked that madrassas have taught a generation to hate us. When mullahs in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince, but also shrug. We want to see no real connection between madmen blowing themselves up to kill us in New York and the like-minded doing the same in Tel-Aviv. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. Arafat, who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. All the while, no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership that statism, tribalism, fundamentalism, gender apartheid, and autocracy ? not America, not Israel ? make their people poor, angry, and dangerous.

Rather than preparing for what our enemies are preparing for us, we look to gestures of appeasement. Does not the Islamic world appreciate the presence of General Zinni? Do we not give billions to Arab countries? Did we not save Kuwait and Muslims throughout the globe? Who in the Arab world could really think that the murderous Taliban were preferable to the present more enlightened government in Afghanistan? And although Middle Eastern males blew up our planes, people, and monuments, have we not had a national discussion about the evils of profiling those from the Middle East in our airports and stations? Don't Muslims tell their kindred back home how much freer they are in America than in Iraq or Syria?

Like the dashed hopes of the 1930s such faith is not only misplaced, but also dangerous. The efforts of countries like Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons might under the present pressures grow dormant, but they will not cease. A nuclear Pakistan is a tottering military dictatorship away from Armageddon. Bribed autocracies in Jordan and Egypt are allies only in the sense that their unelected leaders promise to jail their nuts and fundamentalists who otherwise might turn on them as well as on us. Polls everywhere in the Middle East reveal not mere anguish, but real enmity toward Americans. Public pronouncements in Iran are not any less hateful than what emanated from Berlin in 1936. Thousands of al Qaeda killers have escaped ? and thousands more are angry over the death of the comrades and kin and planning carnage for us as we sleep.

Only a few of us Americans really take the Islamic world at its word ? that one in three is reported to think (representing, say, a small number of around 200 million?) that the murder of 3,000 Americans was justified; that two of three believed no Arabs were involved; and that even higher poll numbers reflected real antipathy for the West.

After 30 years of listening to nauseating chanting from Teheran to Islamabad to Nablus, hearing the childish rants about "The Mother of All Battles" and "The Great Satan," and witnessing presidents from Carter to Bush burned in effigy, the ritual torching of the American flag, the misspelled banners of hatred, the thousands of paint-by-the-numbers posters of psychopaths from Khomeini to bin Laden, televised threats that sound as hideous as they are empty, Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism, embassy takeovers, oil-boycotts, hijacked planes, cars, and ships, lectures from unelected obese sheiks with long names and gold chains, peacekeepers incinerated in their sleep, murders at the Olympics, bodies dumped on the tarmac of airports, shredded diplomats, madmen in sunglasses in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, demented mullahs and whip-bearing imams in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, continual televised murders of Americans abroad, our towers toppled, our citizens butchered, our planes blown up, hooded Klansmen in Hamas and Hezbollah, killers of al-this and Islamic-that, suicide bombers, shrill turbaned nuts spouting hatred on C-SPAN broadcasts, one day the salvation of Kuwait, the next sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait, the third day fury against the sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait, the fourth day some grievance from 1953, the fifth another from A.D. 752; and all the time sanctimonious fingerpointing from Middle Eastern academics and journalists who are as bold abroad in insulting us as they are timid and obsequious under dictators at home in keeping silent, I've about had it. No mas. The problem is you, not us ? you, you, you?.

I don't listen any more to the apologies and prevarications of our whiney university Arabists, our equivocators in the state department, and the really tawdry assortment of oil men, D.C. insiders, bought and paid for PR suits, and weapons hucksters. The truth is that a large minority of the Middle Eastern world wishes a war with America that it cannot win ? and much of the rest is apparently either indifferent or amused.

So we should stop apologizing, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and accept this animosity ? just as our forefathers once did when faced by similar autocrats and their captive peoples who threatened us in 1941. I don't know about the rest of America, but I am proud that thugs like Khaddafi, murderers like Saddam Hussein, inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran, criminals in Syria, medieval sheiks in the Gulf, and millions of others who do not vote, do not speak freely, oppress women, and are not tolerant of religious, gender, or ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American. I would find it repugnant if they did.

No, their hatred is a badge of honor, and I would have it no other way. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade, and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know, or do not like, what America really is. I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment more of attention to Mr. Arafat and his bombers.

The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will pass ? or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq, and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists ? or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. History teaches us that certain nations, certain peoples, and certain religions at peculiar periods in their history take a momentary, but deadly leave of their senses ? Napoleon's France for most of a decade, the southern states in 1861, Japan in 1931, Germany in 1939, and Russia after World War II. And when they do, they cannot be bribed, apologized to, or sweet-talked ? only defeated.

In that context, we see much of a whipped-up Arab world entering this similar period of dangerous unreality. The problem is them and their unelected and unfree regimes, not us ? just as it was Hitler, not us; Tojo, not us; Mussolini, not us; and Stalin, not us ? just as it always is when unelected maniacs take control and hijack an entire country and culture. We can either step up and stop Islamic fundamentalism, Arab terrorists, and Middle Eastern dictators or we can step back and watch it all continue to grow. If 9/11 was the beginning of a war, then we should remember that wars usually end when one, not both sides, win

Mark,
Lay off the guy. How do you know everyone's last name around here?

On 2002-03-25 13:50, Tristan Jones wrote:
This article by Victor David Hanson, compaires the current era we live in with the 1930's, a sign of a 4T prehaps

The 1930s, Again
A hard rain is going to fall.

In some ways in our war against the terrorists we are like the democracies of the late 1930s. They knew that there was more to Hitler than his avowed quest for the return of the Sudetenland or the Alsace-Lorraine. They sort of suspected that an entire, venerable culture in Germany and Japan had gone off the deep end. And while there was a certain logic to Hitler's diatribes that a moralistic England had no more right to distant India than did Germany to nearby Danzig, most deep-down knew that such parlor-game banter simply masked a much larger dilemma ? how to corral a very powerful dictatorship and its axis that wished dominance not coexistence, and whose fuel was brutal force and autocracy, not democracy and freedom.

For England, most of Western Europe, and the United States, reeling under recent economic depression and hardly recovered from the sheer horror of the First World War ? carnage unlike any in the long history of warfare ? the idea of forceful resistance was little short of insanity. Filmstrips of German Panzers, thousands of Japanese shouting "Banzai!," and even Mussolini's comically delivered, but hateful rants overwhelmed the senses.

How could one stop such madness? And might it just go away with proper diplomacy? And why did "militarists" in the West insist on rearming and thereby "provoking" war? And was not there some truth to German grievances and Japanese hurts? And did anyone really wish to risk millions of innocent Americans and British to kill equally innocent, although perhaps mesmerized, Germans? Who was stirring up such animosity?

We are in a similar dilemma ? in our hesitation about Iraq, our pressure on Israel, and our worries about mission creep in pursuing the killers. Can't the Jews and Arabs just get along? If Israel would just give back all of the West Bank, wouldn't there be peace? Didn't we just fight in the Gulf a mere decade ago? How do we know that Saddam Hussein really has such dreadful weapons? Shouldn't our allies get involved too? Do these undemocratic Muslim countries really dislike us all that much? Who can trust polls anyway? Why are these saber-rattlers trying to get us into a war?

And so we Americans, like those 70 years ago who so wanted a perpetual peace, pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East. We chose to ignore horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia ? the embryo of 9/11. We are more amused than shocked that madrassas have taught a generation to hate us. When mullahs in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince, but also shrug. We want to see no real connection between madmen blowing themselves up to kill us in New York and the like-minded doing the same in Tel-Aviv. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. Arafat, who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. All the while, no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership that statism, tribalism, fundamentalism, gender apartheid, and autocracy ? not America, not Israel ? make their people poor, angry, and dangerous.

Rather than preparing for what our enemies are preparing for us, we look to gestures of appeasement. Does not the Islamic world appreciate the presence of General Zinni? Do we not give billions to Arab countries? Did we not save Kuwait and Muslims throughout the globe? Who in the Arab world could really think that the murderous Taliban were preferable to the present more enlightened government in Afghanistan? And although Middle Eastern males blew up our planes, people, and monuments, have we not had a national discussion about the evils of profiling those from the Middle East in our airports and stations? Don't Muslims tell their kindred back home how much freer they are in America than in Iraq or Syria?

Like the dashed hopes of the 1930s such faith is not only misplaced, but also dangerous. The efforts of countries like Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons might under the present pressures grow dormant, but they will not cease. A nuclear Pakistan is a tottering military dictatorship away from Armageddon. Bribed autocracies in Jordan and Egypt are allies only in the sense that their unelected leaders promise to jail their nuts and fundamentalists who otherwise might turn on them as well as on us. Polls everywhere in the Middle East reveal not mere anguish, but real enmity toward Americans. Public pronouncements in Iran are not any less hateful than what emanated from Berlin in 1936. Thousands of al Qaeda killers have escaped ? and thousands more are angry over the death of the comrades and kin and planning carnage for us as we sleep.

Only a few of us Americans really take the Islamic world at its word ? that one in three is reported to think (representing, say, a small number of around 200 million?) that the murder of 3,000 Americans was justified; that two of three believed no Arabs were involved; and that even higher poll numbers reflected real antipathy for the West.

After 30 years of listening to nauseating chanting from Teheran to Islamabad to Nablus, hearing the childish rants about "The Mother of All Battles" and "The Great Satan," and witnessing presidents from Carter to Bush burned in effigy, the ritual torching of the American flag, the misspelled banners of hatred, the thousands of paint-by-the-numbers posters of psychopaths from Khomeini to bin Laden, televised threats that sound as hideous as they are empty, Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism, embassy takeovers, oil-boycotts, hijacked planes, cars, and ships, lectures from unelected obese sheiks with long names and gold chains, peacekeepers incinerated in their sleep, murders at the Olympics, bodies dumped on the tarmac of airports, shredded diplomats, madmen in sunglasses in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, demented mullahs and whip-bearing imams in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, continual televised murders of Americans abroad, our towers toppled, our citizens butchered, our planes blown up, hooded Klansmen in Hamas and Hezbollah, killers of al-this and Islamic-that, suicide bombers, shrill turbaned nuts spouting hatred on C-SPAN broadcasts, one day the salvation of Kuwait, the next sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait, the third day fury against the sanctions against the swallower of Kuwait, the fourth day some grievance from 1953, the fifth another from A.D. 752; and all the time sanctimonious fingerpointing from Middle Eastern academics and journalists who are as bold abroad in insulting us as they are timid and obsequious under dictators at home in keeping silent, I've about had it. No mas. The problem is you, not us ? you, you, you?.

I don't listen any more to the apologies and prevarications of our whiney university Arabists, our equivocators in the state department, and the really tawdry assortment of oil men, D.C. insiders, bought and paid for PR suits, and weapons hucksters. The truth is that a large minority of the Middle Eastern world wishes a war with America that it cannot win ? and much of the rest is apparently either indifferent or amused.

So we should stop apologizing, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and accept this animosity ? just as our forefathers once did when faced by similar autocrats and their captive peoples who threatened us in 1941. I don't know about the rest of America, but I am proud that thugs like Khaddafi, murderers like Saddam Hussein, inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran, criminals in Syria, medieval sheiks in the Gulf, and millions of others who do not vote, do not speak freely, oppress women, and are not tolerant of religious, gender, or ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American. I would find it repugnant if they did.

No, their hatred is a badge of honor, and I would have it no other way. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade, and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know, or do not like, what America really is. I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment more of attention to Mr. Arafat and his bombers.

The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will pass ? or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq, and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists ? or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. History teaches us that certain nations, certain peoples, and certain religions at peculiar periods in their history take a momentary, but deadly leave of their senses ? Napoleon's France for most of a decade, the southern states in 1861, Japan in 1931, Germany in 1939, and Russia after World War II. And when they do, they cannot be bribed, apologized to, or sweet-talked ? only defeated.

In that context, we see much of a whipped-up Arab world entering this similar period of dangerous unreality. The problem is them and their unelected and unfree regimes, not us ? just as it was Hitler, not us; Tojo, not us; Mussolini, not us; and Stalin, not us ? just as it always is when unelected maniacs take control and hijack an entire country and culture. We can either step up and stop Islamic fundamentalism, Arab terrorists, and Middle Eastern dictators or we can step back and watch it all continue to grow. If 9/11 was the beginning of a war, then we should remember that wars usually end when one, not both sides, win

I find that I agree with Mr. Hanson on this. Appeasement didn't work in 1938, and it won't work now.

Victor David Hanson wrote:
No, their hatred is a badge of honor, and I would have it no other way. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade, and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know, or do not like, what America really is...

Maybe it's time we stopped fixating on the New Deal when thinking about the nature of Gray Champions.

On 2002-03-25 10:52, Marc Lamb wrote:


Interesting concept, Mr. Maroncelli; Abstention from participatory Democracy as a means of displaying civic responsibility.

I never said anything about civic responsibility. I've yet to be convinced that such a beast exists. I speak of a much more fundamental virtue, personal responsibility. That is, I expect that I, as an individual, will be held responsible for the things I do, and by extension, for the things done by those I select to act as my advocates. I then behave accordingly.
If I am unwilling to be 'represented' by any member of a group of advocates allowed me, I will refrain from sanctioning any of them.



Of course, one of them may (often does) claim to represent me, and I cannot stop that. I (and I would hope he/she) know better, though. The wrongs commited by such a person may be done in my name, but if so, are done without my consent. Thus, I can honestly say that my hands are clean.

"The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will pass ? or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq, and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists ? or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. " --Victor David Hanson


This is precisely the question, isn't it? Only because I really think that the Arabs are really chest-beaters, historically (why havn't they just joined Arafat by now and be done it), I tend to think once Saddam is gone... a new chorus of Peace in the Valley will resume quickly thereafter. Followed, of course, by an ouster of Bush, and entrance by a Clinton-like gal/guy...

And then the end shall come. :smile:


"I never said anything about civic responsibility. I've yet to be convinced that such a beast exists."

It does, Mr. Maroncelli, in most of our parents and grandparents. And like you and me soon will, they learned it the old fashion way.

On 2002-03-25 16:40, Marc Lamb wrote:



"The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will pass ? or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq, and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists ? or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. " --Victor David Hanson


This is precisely the question, isn't it? Only because I really think that the Arabs are really chest-beaters, historically (why havn't they just joined Arafat by now and be done it), I tend to think once Saddam is gone... a new chorus of Peace in the Valley will resume quickly thereafter. Followed, of course, by an ouster of Bush, and entrance by a Clinton-like gal/guy...

And then the end shall come. :smile:


"I never said anything about civic responsibility. I've yet to be convinced that such a beast exists."

But were we not dealing with Iraq as they killed a million Iranians with our help, when we sold them stuffs on credit {thanks greatly to some solon that lately sold us Pepsi and Viagra}, when we were indiffernet to their murder of the Kurds, when we refused to stop the slaughter of the Marsh Shia after we stirred up their revolt [ditto the Kurds] {informing the Socialist Progressive leader of the Iraq governments that no-fly did NOT apply to helicopter gunships as they were "tanks with wings".

I agree with Mr. Hanson's no more but would apply it elsewhere and elsewhen. HTH

On 2002-03-25 16:59, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

But were we not dealing with Iraq as they killed a million Iranians with our help, when we sold them stuffs on credit {thanks greatly to some solon that lately sold us Pepsi and Viagra}, when we were indiffernet to their murder of the Kurds, when we refused to stop the slaughter of the Marsh Shia after we stirred up their revolt [ditto the Kurds] {informing the Socialist Progressive leader of the Iraq governments that no-fly did NOT apply to helicopter gunships as they were "tanks with wings".

I agree with Mr. Hanson's no more but would apply it elsewhere and elsewhen. HTH

Check the daily talking points. Is Saddam a "Hitler" again today or is he back to harmless tinhorn dictator? It is rather difficult to stay current with the propaganda. There ought to be a continually displayed inset window on all news networks reading alternately "Hitler" and "Tinhorn" as our rulers' mood changes. That way we could all stay on the same card and communicate effectively.

On 2002-03-25 16:40, Marc Lamb wrote:

"I never said anything about civic responsibility. I've yet to be convinced that such a beast exists."

It does, Mr. Maroncelli, in most of our parents and grandparents. And like you and me soon will, they learned it the old fashion way.

What, then, (in 500 words or less :wink: ) is civic responsibility? What makes it different from personal responsibility? When the two come into conflict, how does a person decide which to go by?


What is a "civic" (other than an imaginary beast like a 'majority')? From whence derive it's rights? Its responsibilities? How do you know that you are a part of one?

"I agree with Mr. Hanson's no more but would apply it elsewhere and elsewhen."

Obviously, you are refering to the "horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia ? the embryo of 9/11," of which Hanson wrote.

In a currently popular acronymic phrase, let's state it plainly: Environmental NIMBYism. Bush, like his father, is caught between a rock and a hard place. Bush, like his father, is failing the test. Happy, Mr. Saari?

Good, I thought you would be.


"What, then, (in 500 words or less :smile: ) is civic responsibility? What makes it different from personal responsibility? When the two come into conflict, how does a person decide which to go by?"

I didn't know at your age, Justin. Ask Mr. Saari, maybe he did.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-25 20:30 ]</font>

On 2002-03-25 20:25, Marc Lamb wrote:

"What, then, (in 500 words or less :smile: ) is civic responsibility? What makes it different from personal responsibility? When the two come into conflict, how does a person decide which to go by?"

I didn't know at your age, Justin. Ask Mr. Saari, maybe he did.

Marc,



I hate to be rude, but you were the one who brought it up. I assume you had a point to make. Believe it or not, I value the input of those who disagree with me.


I think your expansion on the concept of 'civic' responsibility would be enlightening. Who knows, you may help me correct my conceptual errors. It's happened before, when others have disagreed with me.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, Justin, it's only that you've managed to step into something I'm really upset about right now.

Here, we have a president, a man (I believe) of some real conviction and principle, a man unwilling to make apologies for America's shortcomings in the face of these terrorists, a man America believes in, a man I'm proud to have voted for and supported, and a man I've trumpeted here at T4T.com.

Yet, he has let me (and our country) down, in my humble opinion, badly.

Forget, for a moment, why... he just has is all. And, quite frankly, I'm very angry that he has. :evil:

Civic responsibility? That I voted for this "man", or had I voted in opposition to him, I would, and do, live with it. Had I not voted at all, I would be dumb, and silent today. And without a leg to stand upon in the debate.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-25 21:14 ]</font>

On 2002-03-25 20:53, Marc Lamb wrote:

Here, we have a president, a man (I believe)....

wait a minute! you think the president is a man? :wink:


TK

On 2002-03-25 20:53, Marc Lamb wrote:


Civic responsibility? Had I not voted, or had I voted in opposition, I would, and do, live with it. Had I not voted at all, I would be dumb, and silent today. And without a leg to stand upon in the debate.

I'm only being somewhat flippant here, but is your real problem with people who don't vote? Would it have been better if I had written in Mickey Mouse?



As far as my legs to stand on, if, in fact, I lived in a free society (not just one which is relatively free), I would have no place in criticizing what all you loonies do with your time. Live and let live, I say.
But...



With regards to the ruling elite in this country, I am not allowed to adopt that stance. I will therefore simultaneusly agitate for my freedom and refrain from giving sanction to those who would impinge upon it.



As an aside, I tend to believe that you are correct in your understanding that by participation in the electoral process, you consent to be bound by the outcome of that process, whether to your liking or not. You throw the dice, and you're in the game.



I still sense from your posts that you consider the entity "civic" and responsibilities of/to it to be important. Rather than continuing to dance, I would really appreciate getting to the bottom of that.

On 2002-03-25 18:26, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Check the daily talking points. Is Saddam a "Hitler" again today or is he back to harmless tinhorn dictator? It is rather difficult to stay current with the propaganda. There ought to be a continually displayed inset window on all news networks reading alternately "Hitler" and "Tinhorn" as our rulers' mood changes. That way we could all stay on the same card and communicate effectively.

Saddam Hussein is one badass guy, he is bent on domainting the Arab world, destorying Israel and getting weapons of mass destruction. Also he is a brutal tyrant on a scale of Hitler and Stalin (minus the mass murders). Saddam is a threat to the whole region, if not the whole world. We should have invaded Iraq back in 1991 and overthrown his regime.

On 2002-03-25 22:19, Tristan Jones wrote:

Saddam Hussein is one badass guy, he is bent on domainting the Arab world, destorying Israel and getting weapons of mass destruction. Also he is a brutal tyrant on a scale of Hitler and Stalin (minus the mass murders). Saddam is a threat to the whole region, if not the whole world. We should have invaded Iraq back in 1991 and overthrown his regime.

Wow. You know that guy really well. Is he destroying the ozone layer and shooting puppies, too?

On 2002-03-25 22:19, Tristan Jones wrote:

On 2002-03-25 18:26, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Check the daily talking points. Is Saddam a "Hitler" again today or is he back to harmless tinhorn dictator? It is rather difficult to stay current with the propaganda. There ought to be a continually displayed inset window on all news networks reading alternately "Hitler" and "Tinhorn" as our rulers' mood changes. That way we could all stay on the same card and communicate effectively.

Saddam Hussein is one badass guy, he is bent on domainting the Arab world, destorying Israel and getting weapons of mass destruction. Also he is a brutal tyrant on a scale of Hitler and Stalin (minus the mass murders). Saddam is a threat to the whole region, if not the whole world. We should have invaded Iraq back in 1991 and overthrown his regime.

Tristan, if he were all those things, then surely we would have invaded Iraq in 1991 and overthrown his regime. I think our "rulers" are a lot of things, but I do not think they are crazy. And they would certainly have to be crazy to leave such a "Hitler" standing after amassing half a million troops over there at taxpayer expense. Obviously, he is not the "Hitler" they claimed him to be in order to drum up support for the Gulf War and they have not even been calling him that in the years since. Now, when Caspian oil is in the question, he is "Hitler" all over again. My, how transparent.