Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I had gotten about 3 sentences done with Stonewall's post. Then I noticed that the post was written by Stonewall, upon which I refused to read further as a matter of principle.

Here, you ought to appreciate these, Alex. Just magnetize them and stick 'em on your fridge :wink: :

Wow. I'm impressed. You're able to insult presidents you don't like and can't refute. But only, of course, if you copy the insults from a Democrat website.

Interesting, isn't it, how Tom Daschle accuses Rush Limbaugh of inciting violence--when the subtext of this cartoon is so clearly one of advocacy of violence against the governor of Florida (who is also the future president of the US). Then again, maybe the Democrats figure that their constituents are so cowardly that none of their threats--Alex Baldwin urging the slaughter of Henry Hyde's children, Mary Landrieu threatening Suzanne Terrell's life, a Democrat at the 1996 convention urging the murder of Phil Gramm, Carville's declaration of war on the Republicans followed shortly by the incineration of the Waco babies, DNC Internet trolls cheering "Koresh Southern Fried Baby"--will ever be acted upon. The problem is that, even in such an effeminate organization as the Democratic Party, 40 million people are going to produce someone with the guts to do something truly horrible. The next terrorist attack probably won't come from al Qaeda or Iraq--we're prepared for them. It will come from some lefty with an ax to grind.

Something to think about, though, Stonewall: if you think things are bad for Democrats now, how much worse do you think they'll be when one of your own sets off an A-bomb killing Bush and Cheney (and a million less known people)? I wouldn't put it past the American people to take EXTREMELY strong retaliation. You might want to think about curbing your rhetoric, lest you inspire one of your own to foolhardiness.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

So wait, I don't get it. The Democrats are going to NUKE Bush and Cheney? This would certainly be a novel way to put some spice into their campaigning strategies.

Dominic, whatchya smokin?

XoE

All right, maybe that isn't the most likely means of assassination. Nevertheless, I believe that the nutcase who does this will feel compelled to outdo the Kennedy murder; therefore, it will be something far more dramatic than a simple bullet in the brain. I'm not kidding about this, either; these people are DEMENTED, as can be seen on their more vile websites, none of which will I advertise here.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Oh good you didn't get pissed about that.

I actually agree with you that assassination is a possibility, and that it would be done in such a way that other lives would surely be lost. There's no other way to do it with the security and all the "undisclosed locations."

We have a lot of weirdos in our country, and any of them could be
recruited by terrorists to help pull this off. I don't think you'd have to be a Democrat or Republican to do this, just crazy.

XoE

It seems to me, though, that someone who was "just crazy" would be less inclined to include massive "collateral damage," whereas a political fanatic would be more likely to accept huge death tolls. Compare John Hinckley, an honest-to-God lunatic who shot Reagan in order to impress Jody Foster, with Timothy McVeigh, who acted out of political convictions. McVeigh was far more vicious.

Having mentioned the numerous threats made by Democrats against Republicans, I ought also to mention one observation I've made regarding said threats: the fact that Democrats always have deniability. Thus Alec Baldwin didn't actually say, "Go kill Hyde's kids"; rather, he said that in any other country, they'd be doing that. Since the leftists to whom he spoke believe virtually every other country to be morally superior to the USA, the message was clear: "Go kill his kids, but don't tell them I sent you." Similarly, Mary Landrieu (previously a seemingly decent person, and highly attractive to boot) didn't unambiguously threaten her opponent Terrell; rather, she told her that this would be her last campaign. And of course, Carville saying "this is war" can be interpreted either in the Bugs Bunny sense or in the Stalingrad sense--although his general demeanor indicates that the latter is more likely.

All of which doesn't make the Democrats' statements better; it makes them worse, since it indicates that they were planned out ahead of time, in order to prevent legal action. Had Landrieu told Terrell, "I'm gonna kill you, bitch," it would have been out of line, but understandable in a nasty election. However, this way she can hedge her way out.

Why do the Democrats do such things? Not because they actually want to get Republican candidates killed; that would create a backlash against their own party. Rather, they have (correctly, I believe) concluded that their base is so degenerate and demented that they will be MORE likely to vote if they think their candidate will deliver Republican corpses. Which ought to scare the rest of us, when you consider that that base makes up at least 40% of the population.

Originally Posted by justmom

I've recently decided we are cusping. Not a 3T not quite 4T.

Interesting thought. This weekend I read an article ("Privacy for me but not for thee") from the New York Times (the Sunday National Edition) that discussed how people are responding to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Dept. act as well as the DARPA project to gather many pieces of information about private citizens in one place. According to the article, people are very touchy about privacy when commercial intersts gather information about them but seem less concerned about the government amassing the information, EVEN THOUGH the possession of information by the government creates a greater potential to harm the individual. The writer of the article suggested that this is so because people believe that these powers of the government are going to snoop into other people's private affairs and not into their own.

The writer also discussed a trend toward privacy as a constitutional right that occured post-Vietnam and Watergate and continued into the '90's. This trend is reflected in actions by Congress and decisions by the courts. This trend abruptly ended after 9/11 and court decisions as well as Congressional action have been toward fewer protections on privacy and more emphasis on knowledge in order to protect the homeland from further attack.

From the perspective of the turnings, this makes some sense. The Silent could be expected to lead the drive for privacy from both business and the government. That would fit their generational profile as an Artist generation acting in an unraveling to value individual choices above group cohesion. It would also make sense that if we are in the beginning of a 4T, we would see this trend turn around, as the survival of the nation becomes more important. That people feel that their own privacy is at risk but rather that of others seems to indicate that we are still quite early in the 4T and that would certainly be the case if 9/11 was the catalyst.

Anyway, I find that reading the papers becomes a lot more interesting when I consider the news through the lens of S&H!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by justmom

Well, that was fun.
BTW Kevin, the pepper thing, borrowed from my dear dad. It is choice.

OK, on to "Evidence"...

I have noticed a mood change in the tv shows lately.
Since 9/11? Not sure.

Last night there was a sniper episode on CSI Miami.
Anyone see it?
At the very end, the sniper is caught. He sneers at the cop and says, "Don't you want to know why?"
The cop says, "Your evil, you enjoy death,I hope you enjoy yours."

It seems as if the public (if you can call screen writers the public)are
transitioning from "WHY?" to black and white, right and wrong, good and bad. If it were a few years ago, I would think that we would be treated to
all kinds of reasons, and an ending with loose ends.

Has anybody else noticed anything like this?

Not so much on TV as in real life. Case in point: the real-life sniper John Allen Williams Mohammed and his youthful sidekick John Lee Malvo. There has been much discussion in the respectable media over whether Gulf War Syndrome might have played a role in Mohammed's actions; meanwhile, in the tabloids, it has been suggested that Malvo was being sexually abused by Mohammed, and that Malvo's resultant 'Helsinki Syndrome' was to blame for his part in the murders.

What is most telling is that although such speculation may make interesting water-cooler discussion, at the end of the day no one really cares one way or the other. In the DC area as well as across the nation, it simply does not matter why these two did what they did. The public wants them tried, convicted, and punished to the fullest extent of the law (i.e. put to death) as swiftly as possible, and the "why" is only relevant to that effect. This outlook also explains why the people of Maryland-- the state most impacted by the snipers, whose law-enforcement officials were most influential in the investigation, and where the snipers were finally apprehended-- are not outraged at the Feds for sending them first to Virginia for trial.

It would seem that the S&H's prediction that in a 4T "justice will be swift--and harsh", is indeed coming to pass.

\

Of course, it could be that it's harder to be sympathetic when you're the target. The real question is: if the Sniping had been occurring in, say, Alabama, or Kansas, would the reaction in Maryland still have been so at ease with the death penalty, or indifference to motivation?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Of course, it could be that it's harder to be sympathetic when you're the target. The real question is: if the Sniping had been occurring in, say, Alabama, or Kansas, would the reaction in Maryland still have been so at ease with the death penalty, or indifference to motivation?

Well, as we all know, the sniper did some sniping in Alabama ---- and Washington State, and Louisiana, and Arizona! :o

However, your point is well taken. I guess one way to guage whether it is a 4T or a local victim phenomenon is to question folks in Massachusetts, Vermont, and other Blue Zone areas which Muhammad and Malvo skipped and see whether the good citizens of these States and Commonwealths want to see both men fry. I don't have an answer for you, but all you readers are so well versed that maybe some of you can provide a link to some evidence one way or the other. :wink:

Evidence for 4T:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...eland_security

Can someone tell me again why they think we're supposed to be 3T?

If you thought that 2002 was a bad year for state budgets, just wait until 2003.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/26/na...partner=GOOGLE


ASHINGTON, Nov. 25 ? Plunging tax collections and soaring medical costs have created the worst fiscal problems for states since World War II, the National Governors Association said today.

"Nearly every state is in fiscal crisis," the governors said in a new report surveying the states.

The states' fiscal woes will force governors, many of them newly elected, to propose politically sensitive tax increases or drastic cuts in services.

Raymond C. Scheppach, executive director of the governors association, said states were increasing tuition at public colleges and universities, cutting Medicaid eligibility and benefits, increasing taxes on individuals and corporations and laying off state employees.

"You will see huge cuts in Medicaid" next year, beyond the cutbacks already enacted, Mr. Scheppach said.

Medicaid and other health costs like employee health benefits account for 30 percent of state spending and grew last year by 13 percent, the largest increase in a decade, the report said. At a time when revenues are declining, Mr. Scheppach said, such growth is unaffordable and unsustainable.

Governors and state budget officers said the fiscal condition of the states was more dire than the condition of the national economy. The recession has reduced state revenues, especially personal income and capital gains taxes, Mr. Scheppach said, but the states' fiscal problems are also linked to long-term trends, like the increase in health costs and the growing importance of services in the economy.

Relatively few of the newly elected governors have said precisely how they will deal with these fiscal problems. "Most of them don't understand how bad it is," Mr. Scheppach said.

In its "Fiscal Survey of States," the governors association found that the amount of money states had on hand at the end of the most recent fiscal year had fallen to $14.5 billion, from a peak of $48.8 billion in 2000. The current balance equaled 2.9 percent of state spending, the smallest cushion since 1992.

Total state tax collections fell by 6 percent last year and declined in every quarter, even as spending grew by 1.3 percent, Mr. Scheppach said.

These figures are consistent with data reported recently by the Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York, which found tax revenues down 6.3 percent in the fiscal year that ended June 30. Among states reporting the largest reductions were Alaska, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York.

In New York, the budget director for Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, told state agencies last week to cut spending by 5 percent in the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends on March 31. The budget director, Carole E. Stone, also said that cuts next year would be deeper than expected. The state is facing a deficit that legislators have estimated at $5 billion to $10 billion.

Oklahoma is experiencing the worst budget crisis in decades. Oklahoma State University, in Stillwater, was told to return money to the state, and its library has reduced its hours. The state finance director has instructed all state agencies to reduce spending by 6.5 percent.

Gov. Gray Davis of California, a Democrat, said last week that he would call a special session of the State Legislature to consider $5 billion of spending cuts and other emergency measures to "stanch the bleeding" in state finances. The governor told legislative leaders that the deficit in the coming year could exceed $21 billion.

Herb J. Wesson Jr., the Democratic speaker of the California Assembly, said, "This is a terrible crisis, and every Californian will be affected."

In Illinois, a Democrat will become governor for the first time in 26 years, and he will inherit a huge problem: a deficit that could grow to $2.5 billion, in a budget totaling $50 billion.

In his campaign, the governor-elect, Rod R. Blagojevich, said that Illinois could resolve its budget problems without an increase in sales or income taxes. But aides to Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, said that spending cuts made last spring were overwhelmingly unpopular, and that further cuts would be extraordinarily difficult.

To deal with a fiscal crisis in Arizona, the governor-elect, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, wants agencies to cut spending by 10 percent across the board, making exceptions only for education, corrections and some children's services.

The University of Iowa increased tuition and fees this year by 18.5 percent, the biggest increase in more than two decades, after an increase of 9.9 percent in the prior year. The state Board of Regents is considering further increases for the next academic year.

Most of the tax changes made by states in the last year affected tobacco levies. Nineteen states increased cigarette taxes, many by more than 50 cents a pack, the governors' survey said.

Services account for a growing share of state economic activity, but states have found it difficult, for political reasons, to increase taxes on services. Likewise, Mr. Scheppach said, "it's very hard to raise taxes on middle-income Americans, when they don't have secure health insurance, to pay for health care for low-income Americans."

State tax collections came in far below the states' original estimates in the most recent fiscal year, which ended on June 30 for most states. Sales tax revenues, $147.6 billion, were 3.2 percent lower than expected, while personal income tax revenues ($187.7 billion) were down 12.8 percent and corporate income tax receipts ($21.6 billion) were down 21.5 percent.

In July, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved a proposal to provide fiscal relief to states through a temporary increase in federal grants for Medicaid and social services, but it never became law. The Bush administration and Senator Don Nickles, the Oklahoma Republican in line to become chairman of the Budget Committee in the new Congress, opposed the increase.

Federal officials say they have no money to spare at a time when the federal government faces growing deficits, after four years of surpluses.

Mr. Scheppach cataloged some of the states' needs. After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush sought $3.5 billion to train and equip local police officers, firefighters and rescue workers, but Congress adjourned last week without providing the money.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, president of the United States Conference of Mayors, said cities were spending $2.6 billion on new security measures without receiving any direct federal assistance.

With great fanfare, Congress passed legislation last month to clean up the nation's election procedures. But it provided none of the money promised to states to help them buy new election machinery and to train poll workers to comply with the law.

On Oct. 1, states lost $1.2 billion that had been appropriated by Congress to provide health coverage for low-income children. The money, unclaimed after four years, reverted to the Treasury, and Congress did nothing to restore it, despite pleas from states.

Al and Tipper Gore have released a new book focusing on revulating the idea of what a family is, very 3T to me in it's content and reviews. The reviewers either think it is the best thing since sliced bread or is the worst book in living memory.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...504269-4741701

"A total waste of time...I am glad I got it from the library and did not also waste my money..." - Bill from Chapaqua, NY

ROTFLMAO!

Oh OUCH! Went to Amazon.com to find out more about Al's book.

I second Chris's ROTFLMAO

His rank is not even in the top 5,000 books sold. :lol:

Oh OUCH! Went to Amazon.com to find out more about Al's book.

I second Chris's ROTFLMAO

His rank is not even in the top 5,000 books sold. :lol:

Oh OUCH! Went to Amazon.com to find out more about Al's book.

I second Chris's ROTFLMAO

His rank is not even in the top 5,000 books sold. :lol:

I didn't really have a place to put this, but, thought the 2 comments side
by side were interesting.

The New York Observer

Gore?s TV War: He Lobs Salvo At Fox News
by Josh Benson

Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh?there?s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media ?. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks?that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what?s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Perhaps it's because the Jews control everything? [sarcasm]
In Bin Laden's "Letter to America" he laments the same as Al. Sort of.

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Ah, well, I guess it's just all about perception.

I didn't really have a place to put this, but, thought the 2 comments side
by side were interesting.

The New York Observer

Gore?s TV War: He Lobs Salvo At Fox News
by Josh Benson

Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh?there?s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media ?. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks?that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what?s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Perhaps it's because the Jews control everything? [sarcasm]
In Bin Laden's "Letter to America" he laments the same as Al. Sort of.

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Ah, well, I guess it's just all about perception.

I didn't really have a place to put this, but, thought the 2 comments side
by side were interesting.

The New York Observer

Gore?s TV War: He Lobs Salvo At Fox News
by Josh Benson

Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh?there?s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media ?. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks?that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what?s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Perhaps it's because the Jews control everything? [sarcasm]
In Bin Laden's "Letter to America" he laments the same as Al. Sort of.

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Ah, well, I guess it's just all about perception.

Great point justmom!

Originally Posted by justmom

The New York Observer

Gore?s TV War: He Lobs Salvo At Fox News
by Josh Benson

Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh?there?s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media ?. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks?that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what?s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Perhaps it's because the Jews control everything? [sarcasm]
In Bin Laden's "Letter to America" he laments the same as Al. Sort of.

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Ah, well, I guess it's just all about perception.

As a matter of fact, this is evidence in support of Chris68 position as espoused on the Political Realignment forum...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Chris '68

Yes, but dissenters can bear an awful resemblance to traitors - the latter being a term many have either forgotten or wish not to remember because it's PC be a "Citizen of the World". Tell me how to reliably tell the difference and I'll enthusiastically stop accusing one of being the other.

From Merriam-Webster:

Dissenter -- 1 : one that dissents

Traitor -- 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

of course:

Dissent -- 1 : to withhold assent 2 : to differ in opinion

Treason -- 1 : the betrayal of a trust 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

and finally:

Allegiance -- 1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

I hope this clears thing up for you. . .

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

Great point justmom!

Originally Posted by justmom

The New York Observer

Gore?s TV War: He Lobs Salvo At Fox News
by Josh Benson

Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh?there?s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media ?. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks?that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what?s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Perhaps it's because the Jews control everything? [sarcasm]
In Bin Laden's "Letter to America" he laments the same as Al. Sort of.

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Ah, well, I guess it's just all about perception.

As a matter of fact, this is evidence in support of Chris68 position as espoused on the Political Realignment forum...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Chris '68

Yes, but dissenters can bear an awful resemblance to traitors - the latter being a term many have either forgotten or wish not to remember because it's PC be a "Citizen of the World". Tell me how to reliably tell the difference and I'll enthusiastically stop accusing one of being the other.

From Merriam-Webster:

Dissenter -- 1 : one that dissents

Traitor -- 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

of course:

Dissent -- 1 : to withhold assent 2 : to differ in opinion

Treason -- 1 : the betrayal of a trust 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

and finally:

Allegiance -- 1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

I hope this clears thing up for you. . .

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

Great point justmom!

Originally Posted by justmom

The New York Observer

Gore?s TV War: He Lobs Salvo At Fox News
by Josh Benson

Among the many problems facing the Democratic Party, according to former Vice President Al Gore, is the state of the American media.

"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," said Mr. Gore in an interview with The Observer. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh?there?s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media ?. Most of the media [has] been slow to recognize the pervasive impact of this fifth column in their ranks?that is, day after day, injecting the daily Republican talking points into the definition of what?s objective as stated by the news media as a whole."

Perhaps it's because the Jews control everything? [sarcasm]
In Bin Laden's "Letter to America" he laments the same as Al. Sort of.

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

Ah, well, I guess it's just all about perception.

As a matter of fact, this is evidence in support of Chris68 position as espoused on the Political Realignment forum...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Chris '68

Yes, but dissenters can bear an awful resemblance to traitors - the latter being a term many have either forgotten or wish not to remember because it's PC be a "Citizen of the World". Tell me how to reliably tell the difference and I'll enthusiastically stop accusing one of being the other.

From Merriam-Webster:

Dissenter -- 1 : one that dissents

Traitor -- 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

of course:

Dissent -- 1 : to withhold assent 2 : to differ in opinion

Treason -- 1 : the betrayal of a trust 2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

and finally:

Allegiance -- 1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides

I hope this clears thing up for you. . .

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

Originally Posted by Steve61

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

are you asserting that, in the real world, dissent = treason?

because if you are, pardon my french, but that sh*t's f***ed up.


TK

Originally Posted by Steve61

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

are you asserting that, in the real world, dissent = treason?

because if you are, pardon my french, but that sh*t's f***ed up.


TK

Originally Posted by Steve61

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

are you asserting that, in the real world, dissent = treason?

because if you are, pardon my french, but that sh*t's f***ed up.


TK

Originally Posted by Steve61

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

Steve,

Cheer up, man. Dissent still does not equal treason in the United States and in many other places in the world. There has been much dissent publically expressed about the Bush administration's approach to almost everything. There have been massive rallies all over the western world against the possible war in Iraq. These rallies have been publicized in the media so that even I, here in provincial New Mexico, know that they are happening.

I have been reading a lot of posts that indicate a certain despair about our situation in the United States on this list lately, I think it stems from a kind of perfectionism which reasons thus: If something is not perfect then it is completely bad and beyond repair. This is a false dichotomy that creates despair and causes people to sit back and do nothing about the problems we do have.

Yes, there are people who accuse dissenters of lack of patriotism. It is our job as citizens not to allow this kind of statement to go unchallenged!
No, we in the United States have not achieved a perfect and ideal society. We never will. It is, rather, our job to keep striving toward our ideals. We will encounter challenges on the road. So what! Nothing worth doing comes easy! As my Bubbe used to say: "Life is not meant to be easy-- life is meant to be life."

Or to put it in the words of someone who faced an even darker time than we do now: "The work is great and the hour is getting on toward evening. The taskmaster's hand is heavy. But it is not upon us to complete the task and neither are we free to desist from it."
Pirke Avot

Originally Posted by Steve61

I think this illustrates how a dictionary definition can differ from the real world application! It would be great if the dictionary definitions of these two concepts held true - just as it would be great if signing a treaty could outlaw and prevent war. (can you say Nevil Chamberlin or Kellogg-Briand) Maybe thinking good things would make good things happen in Xanadu, or Eldorado, or Oz... but, unfortunately, it doesn't work here on earth!

Steve,

Cheer up, man. Dissent still does not equal treason in the United States and in many other places in the world. There has been much dissent publically expressed about the Bush administration's approach to almost everything. There have been massive rallies all over the western world against the possible war in Iraq. These rallies have been publicized in the media so that even I, here in provincial New Mexico, know that they are happening.

I have been reading a lot of posts that indicate a certain despair about our situation in the United States on this list lately, I think it stems from a kind of perfectionism which reasons thus: If something is not perfect then it is completely bad and beyond repair. This is a false dichotomy that creates despair and causes people to sit back and do nothing about the problems we do have.

Yes, there are people who accuse dissenters of lack of patriotism. It is our job as citizens not to allow this kind of statement to go unchallenged!
No, we in the United States have not achieved a perfect and ideal society. We never will. It is, rather, our job to keep striving toward our ideals. We will encounter challenges on the road. So what! Nothing worth doing comes easy! As my Bubbe used to say: "Life is not meant to be easy-- life is meant to be life."

Or to put it in the words of someone who faced an even darker time than we do now: "The work is great and the hour is getting on toward evening. The taskmaster's hand is heavy. But it is not upon us to complete the task and neither are we free to desist from it."
Pirke Avot