This post by Robert Reed is Fabulous!!

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.

On 2002-07-17 06:58, Marc Lamb wrote:


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:

Okay, I'll bite. I like Stonewall's posts that are analytical (about generational boundaries, especially, but also political quadrants and MBTI) and I tune out those that are screeds against Bush. Also, they tend to be long and I'm too lazy usually to wade through them.

Anyway, I don't suppose that Stoney supports full funding of the WIC Program or other social service programs that are near and dear to my liberal heart. So no, just because he bashes the Bushes, he's not on my ideological page.

By the way, you might be surprised that I was able to attend a White House event several weeks ago and see President Bush in person! Even though Bush is not my favorite President, it was exciting to attend a White House event and see a sitting President in person.

The event was the kickoff for National Fitness Week. USDA and other people set up booths with information about physical fitness, health screening, anti-tobacco messages, and of course, healthy eating. There were food pyramids, the Power Panther (the FNS school meals mascot -- Eat smart! Play hard!), lots of middle-school kids, some famous pro and Olympic athletics -- it was quite a scene. They were rounding up warm bodies from my agency to round out the crowd and since I was slow that week, I volunteered my presence! :smile:

Anyway, the President came out and gave a standard speech about staying healthy, and being a bit of a jock, he focused mostly on the physical fitness part. Anyway, it was a fun way to spend half a morning at work.

justmom--

As any mother in So. Cal., or elsewhere, you must feel sick as hell over the tragedy of Sammantha Runnion in Orange Co. I am likewise sickened. And there are others too numerous to mention, too troubling to store as bad memories in my brain. These are the meanest times I've ever known, and I lived as a child through WWII.

--Croak

You might be surprised, Mrs. M., that Mr. Reed is a liberal. But he's a young, post-Awakening liberal: A member of the "next great generation" according to Strauss and Howe.

Hope? Yeah, hope.

And with respect to an earlier message you posted, you might wish to read this.

See any connect, Mrs. M.?

On 2002-07-17 18:07, Croaker'39 wrote:

justmom--

As any mother in So. Cal., or elsewhere, you must feel sick as hell over the tragedy of Sammantha Runnion in Orange Co. I am likewise sickened. And there are others too numerous to mention, too troubling to store as bad memories in my brain. These are the meanest times I've ever known, and I lived as a child through WWII.

--Croak

hey Croak,
Thanks for the thoughts. Stanton is a stone's throw away. My 5 year old son plays outside in front all the time and will continue to do so. I have a hard time with that, and I don't know if I could forgive myself if something happened. OTOH I don't want him growing up feeling smothered and confined. How do you balance it??? It's HARD!
Max ( which is the name I most often go by.)

On 2002-07-17 14:03, justmom wrote:
Oh, geez Justin, get over to my house, rub my shoulder and vaccum my floors, and I'll answer.
The best I have is anecdotal evidence, but, I think it still needs to be considered.

As a Christian I have for years sat in Church and heard from, time to time, about the evils of Islam.
I won't try to refute why Allah, is not Y'Weh.(Y'weh being the LORD God of the Jews and Christians.) It's doesn't matter.
Not to you this is not a theology page.

My only refrence for Islam was what I was told from the pulpit.

Later, I worked for a girl , Tracy, who ran a home daycare. Tracy hired on Nezah a Suni Muslim from Morocco. Nezah and I worked together for about 9 months. She is kind, considerate, caring, etc... She and I, of course ,would talk about 'religion' and the differnces and similarities. We together studied the Koran, and the Bible interactively. We went through Ramadan working together. It is the custom to read the entire Koran during Ramadan.She earmarked every place in the Koran that refrenced Jesus. ( which is quite extensive)
Through her gentleness and lifestyle my attitude of Islam was changed from one of antagonistic to one of a circumspect respect.

That was before 911.

Once 911 happened can we say more of the 'real beliefs' began to surface.
She watched the Arabic news for all of her information. And now this is what she believes:

Bin Laden is a hero who was blamed by the
U.S. government without cause.

The U.S. is angry at Afganistan for importing
cocaine into the U.S.

The attacks were far to "sofisticated" to
be pulled off by some silly little "outcasts" as Al Quaida.

Bin Laden is a role model Arab, who is widely admired, and has celebrity status.

The attacks were planned, orchestrated, and carried out by Jews. For the purpose of
blaming the Arabs. Their proof is "No Jews were killed in the attacks".

This is the average thinking of the average Muslim. How are we NOT fighting against Islam. ( you cant separate the Mulim from the Islamist, for they themselves can not.)

If we said it was a war against Islam. We would call 100 million angry Muslims down on our heads. And they already live among us. That would be a little fool hearty wouldn't it? Therefore a "War on Terror".

On second thought, ...THIS, says it better....
David is apparently unaware of the now quite old term state-supported terrorism.

Some terrorist groups, including most significant ones, are supported by nation-states as a means to achieve goals through war-like means while simultaneously distancing themselves from the activities.

As should be obvious to all by now, Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan had become indistinguishable, for example.

A myriad of Middle Eastern terrorist organizations are openly supported my Middle East nation states.

There are also examples outside the Middle East. The IRA, for example.

David is repeating the old "terrorist organizations are like ghosts" myth, but in reality, to be effective, terrorist organizations need bases, money, material, and all of these are frequently supplied by states.

When this is the case, terrorist acts become indistinguishable from inter-state warfare.

On 2002-07-17 18:14, Marc Lamb wrote:

You might be surprised, Mrs. M., that Mr. Reed is a liberal. But he's a young, post-Awakening liberal: A member of the "next great generation" according to Strauss and Howe.

Hope? Yeah, hope.

And with respect to an earlier message you posted, you might wish to read this.

See any connect, Mrs. M.?

Uh, No. But, I am feeling quite dense right now as I was up till 1 am last night reading old forums. Right after 911. Barbara is way cool. Where is she?
Maybe you can answer on a private message so as not to really embarass me? This is in reference to the vote fraud right?

"Uh, No. But, I am feeling quite dense right now as I was up till 1 am last night reading old forums. Right after 911. Barbara is way cool. Where is she?"

:smile: And yeah, I miss Barb too.


p.s. Actually, I'm to blame... Ms. Barb got awfully mad at me one day. :cry:





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-17 19:28 ]</font>

On 2002-07-15 10:33, DOC 62 wrote:
House Minority Leader Gephart had some interesting comments on the loss of faith in American institutions this morning on NPR. Did anyone catch them? He was talking about the need to start the process to fix them. Fourth Turning talk?

Acknowledging the lack of faith in government seems pretty 3T. That's one big institution, the "institution" to end them all, and when people aren't trusting it, that's definitely 3T and not 4T. So when people state that distrust in government is a part of the zeitgeist, like Gephardt or like that speaker at Justin's graduation who acknowledged that despite the events of September 11 we're living in a time when people don't trust government, that's a big hint pointing to 3T.

The polls show lower percentages of people saying they trust government to do the right thing all or most of the time, and it keeps going down. William Strauss said that this was a big indicator of whether we were really 4T back when the polls got a majority saying they trust the government. Then even that turned out to be related only to the terrorism issue. Since it didn't stay I guess he'll mark it up to the 3T side.

Croaker writes,
"As any mother in So. Cal., or elsewhere, you must feel sick as hell over the tragedy of Sammantha Runnion in Orange Co. I am likewise sickened."


I dunno why, but this post strikes me as more phony than that cracked tear William Clinton shed at Ron Brown's funeral--just as he noticed the camera was rolling.

Give it up, Croak, "little girls" and "little boys" suffered the same, if not worse, fate under your watch.

One man's "meanest" is another man's "progress". Right, Croak?

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/071...nw_gtrial.html

Is that 3T or what? Arguably, the existence of the bizarre section is ITSELF 3T but this is ridiculous!!!

Jenny, I had a thought when it was reported that the president ran 3 miles in 20 minutes. That's a VERY good time, much better than my PR of 24. And I've trained for 3 marathons.

I begin to suspect where the president's priorities really lie, and what he's doing with his time. Perhaps he should resign and join up and lead your fitness and health club.

Larry Klayman, whose Judicial Watch is scoring the legal victories against the Bush administration to get at the truth of these business scandals, opens up on both Clinton and Bush:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=28327

(For education and discussion only)


Bush league


Posted: July 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: This article reflects the personal views of Larry Klayman, chairman and general council of Judicial Watch, Inc.

By Larry Klayman


? 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush's newly acquired interest in ridding the nation of business corruption was not only designed to deflect attention away from his and his vice president's
own past involvement with corporate securities and related accounting capers at Harken Energy, Halliburton, and other assorted companies, but also nicely fits into the overall White House strategy of continuing to "spin" the American people about the professed commitment of the administration to address wrongdoing among the political elite.

For those who closely followed the myriad of scandals of the Clinton era, it may have seemed surprising that, during the 2000 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bush was quick to dismiss their importance when challenging his opponent Al Gore for control of the White House. Interestingly, when the "Tennessee titan" was "exonerated" by then-Attorney General Janet Reno (despite his obvious role in the Chinagate fiasco), Bush conspicuously failed to pounce on the opportunity to blast the obvious Justice Department cover-up of perhaps the most significant Clinton-Gore scam. He told a malleable electorate:

While it's clear that Al Gore engaged in a number of questionable fundraising activities and gave the FBI statements that continue to raise the issue of credibility, the American people are sick and tired of all these scandals and investigations. The best way to put all these scandals and investigations behind us is to elect someone new. I'm running to uphold the honor and dignity of the White House.

Later, at the Republican National Convention, he again passed up the chance to make a point of the corruption of the Clinton-Gore administration, causing conservative New York Times columnist William Safire to observe:

The Yale graduate and child of privilege assumed, Jimmy Carter style, a hardscrabble pose to assert that his "background may lack the polish of Washington." And then, following a focus group distaste for controversy, he dissociated himself from all investigations into Clinton-Gore scandals, including illegal fundraising: "I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years." Republicans on the unpopular ramparts of the rule of law were coolly informed he preferred "civility and respect."

In the days leading up to the election, Bush would later issue other statements signaling then-Independent Counsel Robert Ray to pardon Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals, emphasizing that it was time to "move on." And, when it became apparent that the Arkansas hustler and his erstwhile wife had sold pardons, taken public property and allowed their staffs to vandalize the White House on their way out the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Texan had little problem with this behavior, adding, at least with regard to the purloined White House property, that he thought the Clintons would do the "right thing."

The diffidence of the "president to be" seemed to some like good politics at the time: "Take the high road," many would advise. Allow others, particularly public- interest lawyers and conservative media critics, "to dirty their hands" by prosecuting and publicizing the corrupt morass that Al Gore found himself trapped in. Indeed, Bush and Cheney were elected with a mandate to clean up the cesspool of Washington politics. Polls immediately following the election showed that a whopping 44 percent of the voters pulled the lever for the Republican duo as a reaction to the scandals of the past eight years, not because of Bush's intellectual acumen, policies or requisite experience to be president. They simply would not have been elected in such a close election without these voters.

But now that Bush's and Cheney's own past ethical peccadilloes are finally coming into public consciousness, many Americans are beginning to understand the primary reason for G.W.'s magnanimity toward Clinton and Gore. Exploit the criminality of his Democrat opponents, and order a new Bush Justice Department to enforce the rule of law, and be prepared for "mutual assured political destruction." This was the calculation of Karl Rove and company, Bush's equivalent of Clinton adviser Dick Morris. The two major political interests obviously agreed on a truce. Early photographs of the Bushes and Clintons getting along famously over tea at the White House, as the new first couple prepared to ascend to the throne, were not as pro forma as they may have appeared at the time.

But life, particularly in the nation's capital, with its teeming masses of scandal-mongering investigative reporters and public-interest groups bent on promoting government ethics, is not so simple. It was only a matter of time that the true story about Bush and Cheney would emerge ? with or without Democrat help. And, like any good "price fixing arrangement," eventually the co-conspirators ? in this case the back-scratching Democratic and Republican parties ? will cheat.

This helps explain why top Democrats ? seizing the opportunity to bring down the huge popularity ratings of the administration that flow naturally from the revival of national pride in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedy ? are now hypocritically ripping into the poor business ethics of Bush and Cheney as they prepare to take back total control of Congress this year, and ready themselves for the presidential elections in 2004.

By not coming clean and owning up to their past business and other failings, and by not holding Clinton and Gore accountable for their scandalous behavior, Bush's surrender to actually enforcing ethics has created the political conditions which will likely sow the seeds for a Democrat congressional victory in the fall. And, then, Bush will have only his league of what King Louis XIV would have called his (conservative) "minions" ? who have flattered the president into actually believing that he is a great political tactician and leader ? to blame.

If Bush does not finally move beyond rhetoric and make a real and concerted effort to clean up corruption in his own casa blanca, as well as the homes of others in the political and business establishments, and prosecute these violators of the public's trust, his days as the prima dona of the privileged elite of Washington, D.C., are likely numbered. Couple this with virtual certainty that Bush will ultimately be blamed if there are a series of additional terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and he faces a real challenge to remain in office beyond 2004.

On 2002-07-17 16:45, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-07-16 21:12, takascar2 wrote:

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

Hurt America? Or just hurt YOU?

XoE

Hurt America

Marc:You might be surprised, Mrs. M., that Mr. Reed is a liberal...Liberals, ya gotta love em'...

Marc, do you know what the term "splitting" refers to in psychopathology. Check it out.

We continually see corporate media polls showing that the business scandals have not hurt Bush's popularity one bit and certain elements on the Right have been going all out to drive this point home. However there is really only one tried and true pollster who made his reputation in the 1990s by nailing one political election after another when the corporate media was always way off the mark, and that proven pollster is Zogby. Here is Zogby's latest press release:


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=601

(For educ. and discussion purposes only)


Released: July 15, 2002

Zogby Newswire
Bush job performance
drops 7 points to 62%;
One in three are worse off
today than one year ago;
Nearly one in three worse off
than two years ago;
Majority less likely to
invest because of scandals





President George W. Bush?s overall job performance rating
has taken a seven percentage point drop in July to 62%, latest Zogby America results reveal.

The poll, conducted July 12-15 of 1,109 likely voters
nationwide shows voters now giving Bush a 62% positive, 38% negative job performance rating, a new low mark since the September 11th terrorist attacks. In June, Bush received a 69% positive, 28% negative job performance rating, and a 70% positive, 30% negative, rating in May.

In February, voters gave Bush a 74% positive, 25%
negative rating. The week before the attacks, voters gave Bush a 50% positive, 49% negative job performance rating.

The poll has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.1%.

Results also show that nearly one in three Americans (32%)

say they are worse off financially today than they were one year ago, compared to 45% who say they are financially better off now than one year ago. Another 22% say their finances are the same as a year ago. Respondents worse off today than one year ago include Democrats (38%), Independents (30%) and Republicans (27%).

Nearly just as many Americans (31%) say they are
financially worse off today than two years ago, compared to 51% who are better off and 17% who are the same financially. Respondents worse off today than two years ago include Democrats (35%), Independents (33%) and Republicans (26%).

Investor insecurity

Results show the recent stock market scandals involving

several major corporations make a majority of Americans (51%) less likely now to invest in the stock market. In comparison, 43% say the scandals make no difference in their likelihood now to invest in the stock market. Majorities not likely now to invest in the stock market include Americans earning $35,000-50,000 a year (58%), 55-69 year-olds (65%) and Moderates (53%).

Results also show half of Americans who own 401k plans
(50%) and half (50%) who do not own 401k plans but invest in the stock market are now less likely to invest because of the scandals.

Pollster John Zogby: ?Two out of three likely voters tell us
that they have an IRA or a 401k. One look at their quarterly report and there goes confidence in the economy and the government. We are looking at a very close election with the Congressional Generic still tied at 34%, but this issue is THE issue.?


[end]


Zogby shows Bush's current popularity 8-12 points lower than what most corporate media polls do. Critics charge that Zogby uses a different methodology which captures something different and this is conceivably true. However Zogby clearly shows Bush with a 7 point decline in his own polls and this is in no way reflected in the corporate media polls which insist that everything is hunky-dory for Bush. It is conceivable that Zogby's current and previous polls were off by the full margin of error such that Bush's popularity has really only dropped by 1 point. But going by the historic inconsistency between Zogby's results and those of the corporate media, it would indeed be no suprise if Bush has in fact dropped 7 points.


I would assume that many on the Left are less familiar with Zogby because he was originally promoted by media personalities on the Right. You may recall all those elections over the past few decades where, on the eve of the election, the corporate media would invariably show the race neck and neck or with the Democrat leading, and then we would wake up to a Republican blowout in the morning. This unmistakable pattern was not missed by observers on the Right and so, when they discovered Zogby, they promoted him with glee because, unlike the corporate media, Zogby always nailed the election results and, therefore, gave an accurate account of Republican strength which the corporate media would always understate.

When we came to the 2000 Election. New polls like Battleground and Portrait of America joined the fray, ostensibly to counter the historic "liberal" bias in the coporate media polling. However in 2000, these new polls were invariably more in agreement with the corporate media in pumping Bush's numbers up as compared to Zogby's results (because, in general, the corporate media went more positive for the Republican for a change in 2000). But Zogby kept polling away and his results consistently departed from all the rest in generally showing Gore ahead and Bush's strength notably weaker. Because of this, the forces on the Right, who had initially promoted Zogby as a gift from God, now turned on him with a vengeance to assassinate his character. Truth and reason never entered into the equation; it was pure politics. But of course on election day, Zogby alone once again nailed it.

For the benefit of those on the Left, I am providing a link to a discussion on a "conservative," pro-Bush website where the old "conservative" tactics from E2K come out with a vengeance in response to Zogby's current press release. You will note the accusation that he uses a "special sauce." Remember, Zogby was a hero of the Right and promoted by them! You will also note the confusion of pollster John Zogby with his brother James Zogby who runs an Arab-American organization. Even if some people were genuinely confused about this during the 2000 campaign, the necessary clarification has been made on this very "conservative" site so many times since the 2000 campaign that no one there can honestly still be confused at this point (i.e. surely it is willful misrepresentation). Then you will also see the recurring accusation that Zogby had some sort of insider's knowledge of the Democrats' plans for cheating and that is why he was so accurate. They are saying that even though they on the Right promoted him for properly representing Republican strength in opposition to the corporate media, that now Zogby somehow works hand in hand with the Democrats simply because they do not happen to like the results he currently posts. The depths to which these folks stoop must be seen to be believed and they can be viewed here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/717143/posts

Draw your own conclusions about what will happen in November but rely upon Zogby's polling exclusively because he is the only tried and true pollster and has demonstrated this time and time again.

On 2002-07-17 17:30, justmom wrote:
This post by Robert Reed is Fabulous!!

...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...

I concur that it is fabulous. It also underlines a point I often raise.

There ARE core American values that are held nigh-universally by Americans. It is quite appropriate for us to debate the fine points, but we should never forget the core values that we share.

Sometimes we forget how much we DO agree, until we are confronted with societies that do not share these core values. Then, we feel very "American".

On 2002-07-18 00:13, Eric A Meece wrote:
Jenny, I had a thought when it was reported that the president ran 3 miles in 20 minutes. That's a VERY good time, much better than my PR of 24. And I've trained for 3 marathons.

I begin to suspect where the president's priorities really lie, and what he's doing with his time. Perhaps he should resign and join up and lead your fitness and health club.

This is an objective fact that we can probably all agree on. Bush II is one of our youngest presidents. As presidents go, he is among our most physically fit and healthy. He appears to keep himself in good shape. He, er, doesn't seem to be inclined to overwork himself.

Back in early 2001, when more trivial matters were on our minds, Saturday Night Live had a funny sketch where Bush was portrayed as saying something like:

"I will be working for the American people 24/7!

That's 24 days a month, 7 months a year!"

I think it quite unlikely that this guy will die of natural causes while in office.

Of course, Eric thinks Americans work too hard, so he should be happy with the fine example set by our current president! :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-18 04:43 ]</font>

On 2002-07-18 01:17, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Larry Klayman, whose Judicial Watch is scoring the legal victories against the Bush administration to get at the truth of these business scandals, opens up on both Clinton and Bush...

During the 2000 election campaign, Cheney's investment in Halliburton was portrayed as unacceptable for a sitting vice president. Cheney was hounded on the issue until he complied and sold all his Halliburton stock.

For example, let us recall this from the Common Cause website, August 31, 2000:

link

<font color=blue>
<font size=+1>Common Cause Calls On Dick Cheney To Pledge To Divest Completely In Halliburton If Elected Vice President</font>

Divestiture Only Way To Avoid Conflict Of Interest Says Common Cause

In a letter today to Vice Presidential nominee Richard Cheney, Common Cause called on the candidate to pledge to divest himself of his stock and stock options in Halliburton Company prior to taking office, should he be elected. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, Cheney should also renounce any future interest in Halliburton he could not so divest, and place the proceeds from any sale of his interests in a blind trust, according to Common Cause.
</font>

Now, he is being attacked for doing the very thing his critics said he should do back in 2000.

This seems pretty strange...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-18 04:57 ]</font>

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?

Communitarianism is the product of the 4T. 4Ts start are divided, get much more so, and then end up communitarian. So if this truly is a 4T it would be characterized by more conflict, not less.

A fine post about core values, Mr. Reed.

Trolling for a good solid response I wrote:


"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."

Taking the bait, Marc Lamb responded:


Obviously, the destruction of September 11, 2001 is of little consequence to you (and you have much company to keep you warm and cozy, too).

No doubt you, and yours, would have responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor by merely suggesting it's probably time to give the Japanese the oil they want. Or, more recently, the Palestinians the land they want.

Standard liberal stuff and fluff: Terrorism works!

Marc, maybe you missed the last sentence of my original comment (which is surprising since you chose to quote it). Would I have responded to the Japanese attach on Pearl Harbor - of course! They did not act as an amorphous cabal. They were then and are now a sovereign nation that was and still can be held responsible the actions of its leaders.


The correct response at that time was to declare war, which we did, and prosecute it to a final conclusion, which we also did. Compare that to the WOT, which is 10% military response and 90% jingoism. Notice that no declaration of war was made, nor did the POTUS ask for one. Instead, we have a Homeland Security entity created out of thin air, with the full intent of the POTUS to grant it as much authority as the POTUS pals can get the public and Congress to stomach - all this without any clear cut goal to achieve.


Which brings us to a whole series of questions that need to be asked, answered and absorbed before we go much further:

• Do you honestly believe that it's wise to create a more or less unrestricted super-agency with full police powers, including the elimination of posse comitatis restrictions on the military?
• Where is the justification for this action? Is it only the enormity of the 9/11 attack that justifies this, or would have ANY attach on the "homeland" been enough?
• Since secrecy is implied as 'necessary', at what point do you become uncomfortable with the management of such an agency? Is it OK under Republican control, but dangerous under Democrats, or vice versa?
• When is the cure worse than the illness? Is safety so paramount that any sacrifce of personal freedom is acceptable? Is this the social equivalent of the soccer mom's SUV?

Of course, I can go on ...

On 2002-07-17 20:54, Marc Lamb wrote:


Croaker writes,
"As any mother in So. Cal., or elsewhere, you must feel sick as hell over the tragedy of Sammantha Runnion in Orange Co. I am likewise sickened."


I dunno why, but this post strikes me as more phony than that cracked tear William Clinton shed at Ron Brown's funeral--just as he noticed the camera was rolling.

Give it up, Croak, "little girls" and "little boys" suffered the same, if not worse, fate under your watch.

One man's "meanest" is another man's "progress". Right, Croak?

You?re awfully hateful for a Christian, Lambster. You?re the Trafficant of T4T. No wonder Barbara won?t have anything to do with you (or us) anymore. But I don?t mind a bug or two now and then. Sheep ticks are fine. Tasty with a cob of corn.

On 2002-07-18 07:49, David '47 wrote:
Compare that to the WOT, which is 10% military response and 90% jingoism. Notice that no declaration of war was made

Again, this is wrong. As I have said before, war was declared after 9/11. Ask the Democratic leadership; they agree.

Those who repeat this falsehood only reveal a weakness in their argument.

On 2002-07-17 18:07, Croaker'39 wrote:

justmom--

As any mother in So. Cal., or elsewhere, you must feel sick as hell over the tragedy of Sammantha Runnion in Orange Co. I am likewise sickened. And there are others too numerous to mention, too troubling to store as bad memories in my brain. These are the meanest times I've ever known, and I lived as a child through WWII.

--Croak

To what are you referring? I couldn't find a link and a web search didn't help.