On 2002-07-16 18:34, Marc Lamb wrote:
What I'd really like to hear is how would you, born in the "decade of greed" and all that is evil about America (ie., Ronald Reagan), would "define" a "Real American", Mr. Reed?

First, every era is equally as evil as the rest. They are only evil in different ways. Each era is a correction of the evils of the prior era and halfway backwards through the saeculum.

The definition of a real American does not lie within political boundaries. The definition includes segments of ALL American ideologies. This means that Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Whigs, socialists, capitalists, corporatists, feminists, etc. But not all ideologies are American. Given the diversity of Americans, we only need to look for a common core throughout our nation's history.

Americans believe in equal opportunity. Americans believe in the freedom of expression, whether or not it means speech, assembly, press, etc. Americans believe in the freedom of assembly. Americans have the option to worship freely, and that includes the option not to worship at all. Americans believe that the state is inferior to and serves the individual and the community. Americans believe that everyone should be able to freely work to better themselves and their community. Americans reject the notion of tradition for the sake of tradition. Americans believe in progress. Americans believe in the freedom to cultivate and to spread ideas. Americans believe in balancing social and personal freedom and social and freedom responsibility. Americans take literally that government should be "for the people, by the people, and of the people." Americans believe in upholding justice for all. Americans believe in overthrowing any government that becomes destructive of the ends as stated in the Declaration of Independence, and implementing a new one. Americans believe in the rule of law. This is where the core seems to lie. Red blooded Americans of all ideologies hold these principles. I might add some later.

Gosh, Mr. Reed, for as much as we've clashed lately, I'm kinda speechless at this point... I'm not sure I could've said it better... especially when I was at your age. I'm looking forward to "more later...", I think. :smile:

You're right, Tristan, anit-U.N. tendencies do spawn in an Awakening. None Dare Call It A Conspiracy (1971) still sells well in the USA.

p.s. I really like your signature, Mr. Jones. :smile: Amen.

Earlier today Chris Loyd '82 wrote:


The difference is that when you leave the house, and you can see other people and other people can see you, there is no privacy of what you are doing. It's like people who argue against cameras in shopping malls and on streets. Um, did they honestly think no one was looking at them with their own eyes? ...

... to which justmom replied:


OK Chris, I went back and read the whole article (wow what a concept!)

Granted, You make a substantial point.
But, all this begs the question, "are rules different in war time?"

Well, I have a comment for each of you:

• Chris, I appreciate your concern about active snooping, and its a concern of mine as well. But you seem to have given both casual observations and "mall cameras" a pass. Here I only agree in part. Unlike the casual obvserver, the "mall camera" is probably being recorded on a more permanent medium than cerebral cortex. That makes the camera the most pernicious of spies - a sleeper! This, I'm sad to say, is a concept with which I'm personally familiar.
  
  
  ... and not to focus solely on the 'what', I'll take a stab at the 'why'.
• Justmom, you used the old saw 'time of war' as if it were an established fact. Sorry, but there is no 'war', only a conflict that's being tolerated by the American people because they're monumentally pissed-off. But being angry does not a war make. The most that can be said of the WOT is, "It has the support of the American people". Now ask yourself, would that support be there if the death toll on our side was 5,000 instead of <50. I doubt it. In a REAL war, those considerations, sad as they are, never surface.

GWB is playing a dangerous game here. While I doubt anyone disagrees with an active campaign against al Qaida, talking it up and calling it a 'war' just raises the temperature and risks a REAL war, possibly on turf of someone else's choosing.

Then there are a lot of "fake" Americans living in our country. More than 50% of the population by the last election results. Will you have us all deported?

XoE

No, they just need to realize that their choices hurt America

um, yeah XoE there are a lot of "fake" voting Americans.

dead people, undocumented Aliens, ballot stuffing, 100% voter turn out in certain districts ( 100%? wow impressive!), your neighbors dog....

takascar2 ripped the veins from her teeth to rant:

A "Real American" is one who recognizes that the only correct direction for the nation is the conservative direction.

So - Real Americans vote for conservatives.

to which Xer of Evil felt the urge to reply:

Then there are a lot of "fake" Americans living in our country. More than 50% of the population by the last election results. Will you have us all deported?

XoE

Bravo. Take a few bows - center right, center, center left and one for the left wing :grin:

On 2002-07-16 21:08, David '47 wrote:

Earlier today Chris Loyd '82 wrote:


The difference is that when you leave the house, and you can see other people and other people can see you, there is no privacy of what you are doing. It's like people who argue against cameras in shopping malls and on streets. Um, did they honestly think no one was looking at them with their own eyes? ...

... to which justmom replied:


OK Chris, I went back and read the whole article (wow what a concept!)

Granted, You make a substantial point.
But, all this begs the question, "are rules different in war time?"

Well, I have a comment for each of you:

• Chris, I appreciate your concern about active snooping, and its a concern of mine as well. But you seem to have given both casual observations and "mall cameras" a pass. Here I only agree in part. Unlike the casual obvserver, the "mall camera" is probably being recorded on a more permanent medium than cerebral cortex. That makes the camera the most pernicious of spies - a sleeper! This, I'm sad to say, is a concept with which I'm personally familiar.
  
  
  ... and not to focus solely on the 'what', I'll take a stab at the 'why'.
• Justmom, you used the old saw 'time of war' as if it were an established fact. Sorry, but there is no 'war', only a conflict that's being tolerated by the American people because they're monumentally pissed-off. But being angry does not a war make. The most that can be said of the WOT is, "It has the support of the American people". Now ask yourself, would that support be there if the death toll on our side was 5,000 instead of <50. I doubt it. In a REAL war, those considerations, sad as they are, never surface.

GWB is playing a dangerous game here. While I doubt anyone disagrees with an active campaign against al Qaida, talking it up and calling it a 'war' just raises the temperature and risks a REAL war, possibly on turf of someone else's choosing.

Not that old saw about, "not that old saw about"
hehe

So, we have to wait for the terrorist to attack and kill lots more Americans before we "get good and pissed off" and call it a
REAL war?

I would imagine that Strauss and Howe are delighted that the number of Millies and Millie postings are growing at T4T.

mom,



I'll go over again something probably buried so far back in the pile o' posts as to be completely irretrievable (Uber-archivist Mr. Lamb can take that as a personal challenge, if he is so inclined, but it was not intended as such). The state of "War" presumes two things:
- an entity to be defeated
- some means of determining that said defeat has taken place



Please note that using the rhetorical device "War on..." does not automatically supply either of these two things. In the case of one previous 'wars', that 'waged' against Drugs, at least the villain was a concrete entity whose eradication from the earth for all time would signal victory. In the case of 'wars' on Poverty and Terrorism, however, the 'enemies' are concepts (or their adherents). Merely by changing the definition of what it means to be poor or a terrorist would affect exactly who was in which camp. There is no concrete enemy; therefore there can be no concrete victory.



Put in other terms, terrorism is a tactic available to whomever determines (correctly or otherwise) that it would be an efficient means for achieving their ends. You can't declare war on a tactic, and you can't identify a terrorist before he acts. Additionally, you cannot defeat terrorists since they have no centralized power which can surrender on their behalf. Future terrorists are born all the time. You can't stop that (short of killing everyone).


Every country on earth has some individuals in its history, now regarded as heroes, who achieved their ends through terrorism. Bluntly, terrorism is used because it <u>works</u>. An IRA member, caught trying to assassinate the Queen once remarked, "She has to get lucky every time; we only have to get lucky once."



_________________


"Perhaps the forces that menace freedom are too strong to be resisted for very long. It is still our duty to do whatever we can to resist them" -- Aldous Huxley

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-16 22:39 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-16 22:41 ]</font>

I visit this site from time to time but rarely post because the conversations seem to have an arcane quality and the posts are so numerous that I have a hard time catching up with the thread of the discussion. But it seems that lately I have noticed more invective. More radical diatribes. Is this because there are new posters around since 911? Or is it that there is more divisiveness since 911? Curious. I keep hoping to see the communitarianism of 4T, but all I see is the extremism, nastiness, and namecalling. Have you seen a change? Or am I just over-reacting?

On 2002-07-16 23:00, posy wrote:
I visit this site from time to time but rarely post because the conversations seem to have an arcane quality and the posts are so numerous that I have a hard time catching up with the thread of the discussion. But it seems that lately I have noticed more invective. More radical diatribes. Is this because there are new posters around since 911? Or is it that there is more divisiveness since 911? Curious. I keep hoping to see the communitarianism of 4T, but all I see is the extremism, nastiness, and namecalling. Have you seen a change? Or am I just over-reacting?

Hehe Posey, Oh dear, you don't know how timely your post is! I am new to the forums too. Instead of trying to answer your question look at my profile and check out my 'rant' that said, I'm leaving!!

Everyone here assures me, that everyone else is 'very agreeable with one another' 'with the exception of a few'. I don't much believe that to the extent that they do, but, I have decided to let them call each other what they want to. It's either that or freak out and leave. And I have decided to ignore a poster named Eric Meece all together. He says nasty things. It's better in his case to let a dog be a dog, and give him his space.
This guy Justin right up there he's cool, he thinks he can shock me cause I'm a goodie two shoe mommy type. ( but,he only just met me. ) He's got a good head on his shoulders, but, he's somewhat of an idealist or Anarchist, take your pick. Yeah, there is a lot of name calling (but, they'll tell you there isn't). But, every now and then someone will post something Brilliant :smile:
Like the conversation I had with Justin about drugs. Right Justin?

I had hoped to see the 4T communitarianism too. But, the posters here prove we are still in the 3T. I have a theory I am working on and will post it, if it bears true. A little research is needed first.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-16 23:25 ]</font>

On 2002-07-16 23:00, posy wrote:

But it seems that lately I have noticed more invective. More radical diatribes. Is this because there are new posters around since 911? Or is it that there is more divisiveness since 911? Curious. I keep hoping to see the communitarianism of 4T, but all I see is the extremism, nastiness, and namecalling. Have you seen a change? Or am I just over-reacting?

The "communitarianism" you seek only manifests after the regeneracy and we are not there yet. You will have to wait until 2004 or possibly even 2008. However you are watching a microcosm of saecular change right here on this site which points to that approaching regeneracy, so appreciate it for its prophetic value. While vitually every poster at T4T attacks politicians to some extent, it seems to be only defenders of the Bush administration (and status quo) who actually spend significant amounts of time attacking fellow posters. You are correct that the personal attacks have become much more frequent (virtually continuous) of late. That reflects desperation as the old order collapses. And that means that your regeneracy draws ever closer.

Here is comment upon TIPS which I believe was discussed on this thread:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28308

(For education and discussion purposes only)


U.S. government doesn't trust Americans

Posted: July 17, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

We're supposed to have a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

In fact, Americans are largely supposed to govern themselves in the system devised by our brilliant founders.

That is no longer the case because the U.S. government in Washington doesn't trust its citizens.

This sad truth has become crystal clear in the wake of the terror attacks of Sept. 11. Instead of enlisting Americans to fight this evil as past governments have in times of war, this administration, with at least the tacit approval of Congress, has used the attacks as an excuse to clamp down on the civil liberties of Americans and to keep closer tabs on law-abiding citizens. At the same time, the government has demonstrated, time and time again, its own startling inability to use its vast resources to prevent massive attacks on the people and even to recognize and identify from where the threats emanate.

The latest example of the government's alarming plans to target the entire population for more scrutiny is the Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS. Interestingly, the program came to light not through the reporting of any U.S. press outlets, but through a report in the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia and linked by WorldNetDaily.

Under plans outlined on the government's Citizen Corps website, a pilot program launching next month will enlist some 1 million domestic informants in 10 cities to spy on the people. That could mean, if the plan is carried out nationwide, there will be a government snoop for every 24 Americans.

What that means, the Sydney Morning Herald points out, is that the U.S. would have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East Germany through the dreaded Stasi secret police. At least 4 percent of Americans would participate in TIPS, under the government's plan.

The TIPS snoops will be recruited by the Department of Justice from among citizens whose work provides access to homes, businesses and transport systems ? such as letter carriers, utility employees, truck drivers and train conductors.

The informants' reports will enter databases for future reference and possible action within the Justice Department, related agencies and local police forces. Of course, the targets of such spying will have no knowledge of the dossiers being maintained on them.

All this, of course, also comes in the context of other ominous legislation such as the Patriot Act, which permits a person's home to be searched without his or her knowledge. Bugs can be planted, papers can be seized ? all prima facie violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Is this America?

What's going on here?

The government hardly has a sterling track record with its paid employees. What makes it think it will get good information from a network of voluntary informants? What's to prevent these people from acting out on grudges with neighbors? How can the information, to be widely shared within government circles and agencies, be verified and ascertained to be legitimate?

These are just some of the questions raised by this dangerous trend toward government non-accountability.

Government plans demonstrate we are clearly moving to an us-against-them mentality. These plans are not designed to protect the citizens of the United States, they are designed to protect government from the people.

Besides making all of us more fearful of our own government, this plan will have the added effect of making us all suspicious of those around us ? our mailman, our meter reader, even the friendly train conductor. That's what happened in East Germany and in other totalitarian countries that instituted such draconian plans.

No matter how friendly a face the government attempts to put on this program, it is not going to fly in the USA. Let the word go out now to one and all who might be tempted to participate in such a program ? we don't like domestic spies in the United States. We don't like rats. We don't like snitches. We don't like snoops. We don't like them and we don't need them ? not here. Not in America. Not now. Not ever.

On 2002-07-16 22:39, Justin '77 wrote:
mom,

The state of "War" presumes two things:
- an entity to be defeated
- some means of determining that said defeat has taken place



Please note that using the rhetorical device "War on..." does not automatically supply either of these two things. In the case of one previous 'wars', that 'waged' against Drugs, at least the villain was a concrete entity whose eradication from the earth for all time would signal victory. In the case of 'wars' on Poverty and Terrorism, however, the 'enemies' are concepts (or their adherents). Merely by changing the definition of what it means to be poor or a terrorist would affect exactly who was in which camp. There is no concrete enemy; therefore there can be no concrete victory.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-16 22:41 ]</font>

Justin IMO the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs.....stooopid....
War on poverty? what is that? Get a job looser!

I was a widowed mother at 24 with a 2 yr. old. I took in less than 10,000 a year. ( 8 something to be exact.) I had no cable :-{
I had no tv :sad: I had no car :sad: Boo hoo are you crying yet?? Did I go get food stamps? NO. Did I use lifeline for my utilities? NO.

What was important to me was my baby. I had lots of friends, lots of support. But not monetary. I didn't need it. I was doing o.k. food on the table everynight. Clothes on my back. Shelter, a bachlor apt.
That War on Poverty B.S. was just a heart sting to get people to be willing to give more of their paycheck away to the government. You paid into the war on poverty, I never saw any of it, and I was poverty's poster child. Why? Oh, it's because I had self respect and bathed. Don't you know the war on poverty was a load of kaka.
Just like the war on drugs, another heart sting attempt to give away more of my money.
Did the 'war on drugs' really produce more cops ( for the purpose *only* of dealing with drugs)
More counter intelligence (for the purpose *only* of dealing with drugs)
I am not contraditicting our drug conversation.

The war on Terror is the "War on Islam", just nobody will call it that. We have to be sensitive or we have to be sly like a fox. Can't yet figure out what their doing.

Accounts of some of the 700+ eyewitnesses to TWA 800 which the FBI curiously chose to ignore provided at the link. I'll post the introductory statement:


THE DOWNING OF TWA FLIGHT 800
'Hey, look at the fireworks'
Excerpt from 'First Strike' quotes witnesses of speeding 'silver bullet'


Posted: July 17, 2002

1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: With the sixth anniversary of the downing of TWA Flight 800 upon us, Jack Cashill and James Sanders finally have unraveled the mystery of what really happened on the night of July 17, 1996 ? thanks to new information that has come to light only after Sept. 11. Their book, "First Strike ? TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," also answers the crucial question of why America still doesn't know what really happened. This excerpt from Chapter 1 of the book gives readers a glimpse of what Cashill and Sanders have discovered. Published by WND Books, "First Strike" will be available in January.

(Article at link below)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28302

Stonewall, I hate to say this, I really really hate to say this. But there are some of us who have believed this from the very beginning. We we tell people we are laughed at as Kooks, kool aid drinkes, etc...
My husband, has only superficially heard the 'rumors' and he always says, " A secret is impossible to keep" Well, it looks like he's right. Only not in the way he thought.
I believed it all along, as do I believe there is WAY more to Oklahoma City than we will ever know. ie: we send the remains of the WTC to be inspected for months looking for clues on Long Island. contrast. The federal building is bulldozed down and disposed of. WHAT???
Anyhow, Clinton is gone, the story is old, who cares? ( I do.) But, it's another one of the millions of "Clinton got away with it again and nobody cares" (I do.)
How much do I care, I care enough to be deeply depressed. And depression doesn't take action. Depression sits in self pity.

America has been being attacked by terrorist Islam extremeists FOR YEARS!!!!!
And some people don't think we are in a REAL war, just a little conflict thingy.
"ONLY" 3,000 lives were lost. More people die on the freeways every month.....

OK whatever...

SO, David, Justin, how many more American Lives? Or, what? You don't believe this article.



_________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - J.F.K.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-17 01:37 ]</font>

On 2002-07-17 00:03, justmom wrote:


The war on Terror is the "War on Islam", just nobody will call it that. We have to be sensitive or we have to be sly like a fox. Can't yet figure out what their doing.

What if they come about in a few years and say they are sorry as the IRA terrorists did yesterday; would that make them acceptable to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as it seems to have at #10 Downing Street; would we allow them in the House of Representatives (to sit with the likes of Ms. Cynthia McKinney)?

Stonewall: "While vitually every poster at T4T attacks politicians to some extent, it seems to be only defenders of the Bush administration (and status quo) who actually spend significant amounts of time attacking fellow posters. You are correct that the personal attacks have become much more frequent (virtually continuous) of late. That reflects desperation as the old order collapses. And that means that your regeneracy draws ever closer"

This gives me a different way of looking at what has been very alarming to me. The right wing continues to obsess about the culture wars (endless Clinton mania but one example), they discount economic scandals where trillions have evaporated, and complain instead about the War on Poverty which was like in 1968???!!! At the same time, from my perspective, the left wing pretty much sits on its hands and "cooperates". At first I was fine with the cooperation, just because it's a nice contrast. But the continuing rants from the right just wear me out. I don't think I can wait till 2008.
Regarding your concerns about the potential loss of liberties in US, I am still not as worried about that. I am more concerned about terrorist cells operating here. So I am willing to cede some of my rights for the time being. Unfortunately I do not trust the Republicans because they continue dominated by a right wing that I find unstable and frightening. And the Democrats do not have enough power or emotional energy to act as much of a drag on them.

"Regarding your concerns about the potential loss of liberties in US, I am still not as worried about that. I am more concerned about terrorist cells operating here."

Does it matter whether or not Big Brother actually gets results? Or just that we feel better about it?


<FONT SIZE="+2">Crooks caught on camera</FONT>
Brits spend a bundle on video surveillance, but is it paying off?


Wednesday, July 17, 2002

Great Britain is experiencing a rise in crime, and the 40,000 public surveillance cameras that have been installed in cities and towns over the past decade don't seem to be making much of a dent.

Big Brother is watching, but do the crooks even care?

The answer to that question is important for Britain, which has invested much hope and money in public closed-circuit television, or CCTV, as a tool to fight crime. More than $600 million has been spent thus far; in a recent two-year period, the British Home Office devoted three-quarters of its crime-prevention budget to buying cameras and staffing the monitors with trained police observers.

Whether the cameras are effective is also of interest to the United States, where there's been experimentation -- mostly unsuccessful -- in combining CCTV with face-recognition technology to scan crowds for fugitive criminals.

Do cameras make a difference? The evidence seems to say "not much.''

In Britain, according to a national study by an independent crime-prevention group, the Home Office's own statistics cast doubt on the ability of CCTV to deter offenders. The study looked at 24 different camera networks, six in parking garages, four on public transport, and 14 in city centers or public-housing projects.

The results:

• Of the the 14 street-watching networks, six experienced a drop in crime. But crime actually rose in two of the 14 areas.
  
• Two of the four transport networks saw a decrease in crime, while one saw a rise.
  
• Cameras seemed to have more effect in parking garages. Five of the six garages saw a 45 percent drop in crime, mostly in thefts from cars.
  But overall, the drop in crime in the 24 areas was a statistically insignificant 3 percent, the study concluded.

Analysts say that cameras seem to have more of a deterrent effect on property crime than on violent crime. This may be because thieves tend to calculate their risks before acting, whereas violent people tend to act on impulse, often a drunken one.

Critics of CCTV contend that rather than deter crime, cameras push it to alleyways and side streets that aren't under surveillance. Much of the money invested in cameras might have been better spent to improve street lighting, which has been shown to reduce crime by 20 percent, the study observed.

CCTV has notched up some well-publicized successes. Surveillance tapes played a large part in the conviction of London pub bomber David Copeland, who was caught on camera as he walked the streets.

And the cameras do have many defenders -- although bear in mind that the tendency when one sinks a lot of money into a project is to justify the expense. In Birmingham, an industrial city in the English Midlands, backers of the Citywatch project, a partnership between police and store owners, said they have "damning evidence'' that proves the study wrong. But the best damning evidence the city came up with was that shoplifting in Birmingham is down 20 percent.

Combine the 40,000 public cameras with the estimated 2 million private closed-circuit cameras in use, and Britons may be the most-watched people on Earth. Estimates are that the average city dweller is captured on tape about 500 times a week.

Although polls show that many Britons feel safer with the cameras around, CCTV seems to offer at best a modest improvement in personal safety in return for being constantly spied on while going about one's lawful business.

This is a tradeoff that Americans should be more skeptical about making.

Have you noticed how well Stonewall Goebbels gets along with liberals? It's quite easy to do actually. Just call Dubya a Nazi, and bash his administration in at least 90% of your posts. Then they love ya, baby!

The big irony is that Mr. Patton bashes Bush for the very thing they, themselves, wish Al Gore were doing, were he in the Big House on the Hill (ie., passing a huge farm bill, taking over airport security, bashing corporate profits etc...). So, why aren't they praising Bush? Simple, coz they hate Republicans no matter what they do.

Right, Ms. Genser? :smile:

Where does the money go?

My daughter and son-in-law are into real-estate finance, and they are DELIGHTED with the stock market turndown. Truth is, they?re getting rich as hell off $$$ taken out of stocks and placed in real estate, particularly large-scale construction loans. The numbers they toss around are astronomical. They?re buying Mercedes out of their checkbooks, extra homes, property in BC, etc. It?s quite disgusting.

My take on this is that ordinary people work their asses off in the form of indentured servitude to the banks. They have second-mortgaged their souls to the company store for THE DREAM: whatever you see on TV this side of Michael Jackson?s nose job (who?d want that!).

My advice on this is to do everything possible to avoid paying banks for anything. Make them pay you instead. Screw them anyway you can, ?cause they?re screwing us to the wall. If you tore away the fluff from our society, they banks would dry up like dandelions.

Greenspan and the rest have told America that credit is wise and thrift is stupid. And Ben Franklin can go to hell in a BMW!

This anticipated 4T will have a lot to do with banks, if think.

In response to my comment that we are not at war, justmom wrote:

So, we have to wait for the terrorist to attack and kill lots more Americans before we "get good and pissed off" and call it a REAL war?

Talk to GWB about that. He's the one that wants it both ways. War makes him somewhat immune to criticism (which he likes), but its bad for business (which his backers abhor). Like I said, he wants it both ways.


To be honest, though, we have been attacked by the equivalent of a group of anarchists. How do you declare war on something with no identifiable structure? This is a cabal of super criminals, but that's ALL they are. Our response has been in a like vein. If a national entity joins the fray, then Congress should declare war, and off we go.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-17 08:16 ]</font>

"My take on this is that ordinary people work their asses off in the form of indentured servitude to the banks."

I must've missed that one. When did Congress make it illegal to not put your money in the bank? What's the penalty for breaking this law? Jail? A large fine?

Avoid "paying banks for anything"? Why would anyone pay anyone for something they don't want or need? Like Mohair, for example. Did Congress pass a law requiring that folks buy things like this, Croaker? Are you aware of what the penality on violating this law is? Can you share this information with the rest of us?

I sure wouldn't want to go to jail for not paying the bank for something I didn't get.

mom,



First off, you commented above (perhaps I read too much into your phraseing) that I attempt to shock people. Far from it! I converse for the sake of, at a minimum, tossing my ideas into a tumbler to test them for flaws. As an example, a talk with Mr. Rush a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away about the nature of freedom resulted in a serious refinement of my model of the universe (note: I still disagree with him). If I shock, it is secondary to my purpose.



Now, into the fray...
Calling the current 'Troubles' (I like the British term) a "War on Islam" is not much more helpful than calling it a "War on terrorism". The enemy is somewhat better defined, but unless you are interested in religion-based genocide on a scale way surpassing Hitler, Stalin, and Mao together, I'd recommend you add more modifiers.


What do you have against Islam, anyway? Have you read the Qu'ran (or even parts of it)? As you appear to be a Christian, are you aware that Islam is the only other religion that recognizes the divinity of Christ, and that the muslim God is the same one you worship? The fundamental dogmatic breach between Islam and Christianity is, in fact, smaller than the one between Christianity and Judaism. Briefly, the first commandment states "You shall have no other Gods but me" (or something like that). Christ being the Son of God, a man (never explicitly identified as God himself) muslims believe that worshipping him goes against God's own commandments. That is the basic message Mohammed brought to Christians ("There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger"). Not terribly unreasonable, if you ask me.


So, again, what is is about Islam that makes its adherents such bad people in your eyes that their deaths at our hands would be justified? I think if you limit the target properly, you will come down to our enemies being "Islamic terrorists", which is a convenient way to avoid having to confront all the non-islamic terrorists out there. Still, it leaves us with the same problem as before, who is the enemy (what individuals? point to them), and how do we know when we have won (or lost)?

As always, a pleasure...

On 2002-07-16 22:26, cbailey wrote:
I would imagine that Strauss and Howe are delighted that the number of Millies and Millie postings are growing at T4T.

Really? Are we really getting a lot of posts from the pre-teen set?