OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:41:26 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:53:46 +0000 (UTC), the renowned toor@iquest.net
(John S. Dyson) wrote:


Yassar Araft also prefers Kerry. It is interesting that ROGUE regimes
and TERRORISTS prefer Kerry... This is a 'brothers in arms' situation.

John

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041019.wiran1019/BNStory/specialUSelection/

So, the Ayatollahs don't like the Democrats because they pester them

about human rights, huh?

Imagine my surprise.
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:52:08 +0000, John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <cl1f3d$gaa$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <417321C3.309FF8BB@nospam.com>, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:

[....]
The declining economy starting in early yr2000, associated mismanagement
of the big economic bubble.
Wake up.

Go back and read what I wrote. You will notice that I was suggesting my
theory that it is related to grit eating begin a more likely theory than
the one suggested by the other poster.

Remember: my own comment was in relation to the mismanagement of the

Remember: John S. Dyson Sucks Big Green Donkey Dicks!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <clistn$2796$1@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]

Remember: my own comment was in relation to the mismanagement of the
'Bubble' and not fully controlling the economy.

Since you started that with "Remember" everyone will accept it without
checking.

You suggested that somehow Clinton was at fault for the huge drop in the
economy and I suggested that when business people dicovered that a person
who though grits was food they bailed out. I think my theory is more
likely. The Bush folks were talking about a huge drop in the economy and
when they took power, a combination of this and the new policies turned a
mild decrease into a major drop.

[...]

In general, the government doesn't really control the jobs or the economy,
but the explicit mismanagement did occur during Clinton. Blaming Bush
for the economy is rather ludicrous -- the damage was already done.

He claims that his tax cut helped. I say it hurt a great deal.
Businesses do not like governments that run up huge depts. The government
ends up sucking up all the financing and driving up the interest rates.
When the budget balanced due to grid lock, the economy took off like a
rocket.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <clit0p$2796$2@news.iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <toor@iquest.net> wrote:
[...]

Yassar Araft also prefers Kerry. It is interesting that ROGUE regimes
and TERRORISTS prefer Kerry... This is a 'brothers in arms' situation.

You forgot to mension Iran .... No wait they prefer Bush!

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tr/2004/tr041025.gif

Need I say more?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

Hint:
those people making $200K or more on their taxes (often small businesses)
are giving alot of people jobs.

Minimum wage shit- you keep them.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <417DB25C.4020008@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

John S. Dyson wrote:
Hint:
those people making $200K or more on their taxes (often small businesses)
are giving alot of people jobs.


Minimum wage shit- you keep them.

Don't assume they exist. See my posted reply.

Running up a budget deficit doesn't mean that peoples hair grows faster.
People who start a new business or expand an existing one usually try to
figure out what will happen in a years time before they make the leap.
Businesses seldom make much of a profit in the first year. If a business
man sees a huge increase in federal debt, they know they can expect
inflation, higher interest rates and a huge tax increase in the future.
They are likely to keep their money in their pocket when things look that
bad.

Stable and sensible government policies will eventually restore confidence
and businesses will start to invest.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Vrifd.6792$HA.1351@attbi_s01>,
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]

The internet bubble was caused by lots of different factors. It was a
confluence of events, like easy access to the internet, etrade et al, a
weakening of the of the SEC, a "ponzi" mentality, hedge funds,
compensating CEOs with stock options, and 'irrational exuberance'. Which
of these were Clinton's (or Bush's) fault?

Can I blame some on Bush #1?

I think we can also blame: Dumb luck, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems for
producing a technology that the investing public did not understand.

We can, perhaps, also blame the end of the cold war. When the budget for
the military was reduced money that would have been used on large
firecrackers had to find a different home. The sudden change caused an
overshoot in the syetm.

On the other hand, during the Clinton years, we had economic growth, job
growth, a growth of real wages for the middle class, an actual growth of
the middle class, health insurance protection in the form of HIPPA, and
any number of things that made the middle class far better off. I guess
you could blame this on Clinton too.

Don't you just long for the headlines to be about Monica again.

Just not enough, I guess. Bush is the first president since Herbert
Hoover (remember, the great depression...) to end his first term with a
net defict of jobs. Those huge tax breaks haven't helped. See:

With oil hitting $55, if he gets re-elected he may go down in history as
the one who lost the most jobs ever. Oil from Iraq and the gulf will
start flowing again soon. Unfortunately, it will be flowing to China to
fuel all those cars they bought this year.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rolavine]

From: Jim Yanik jyanik@abuse.gov.

How could anyone vote for someone who opposes a basic part of the
Constitution?(the 2nd Amendment)

Because your Blessed Saint Bush of the Perpetual Incompetents is against the
rest of the document!

Assault Weapons are not all guns! I'm standing with the cops on this one, ban
them! the 2nd amendment has not expanded to allow citizens to have their own
WMD either. However, I hear the NRA says they can get that for a few million
more in contributions because Bush needs to start having the slaves build his
sun pyramid.

You know this is boiling down to some really stupid shit on both sides.

Cheney's daughter became fair game when they came out of the closet with her.
She was mentioned in the VP debate with no bad feedback. I bet Mary Cheney
agrees with what Kerry said, too.

I'd like to hear Mary Cheney's take on it, where is that? I mean if this is
important let us hear from the injured party! Oh yeah I forgot they got her
locked up until November 3rd, HA!

On the other side we got Kerry and Bush attacking each other with empty flu
needles. This is another stupid issue, it is not Bush's fault, lets get over
it!

Bush and Cheney pushing liability limits as a solution to our health care
problems is like someone saying that the Titanic could remain afloat if they
tossed the deck chairs overboard! Utter nonsense dispensed by a tag team of
opportunistic liars (now don't get me wrong here I am a real fan of Cheney's
skill in this area - 'the first time I met you was when you walked in here' ).
The cost of health care is about to bankrupt the country and Bush has found the
solution in a box of Band-Aids! Talk about having an ability to look at a
problem and find the major cause, HA! Total legal costs of our entire health
care system are 2% people, 2%!

Then I got to listen to them attack lawyers, this is funny because they are
both surrounded by an army of them cause govt work is, strangely enough, about
the LAW!

You know Bush has lost this thing fair and square, send him packing!
And in case my arguments are not strong enough I'm going to unleash the
whopper, Jin Yanik want's Bush so Bush must be corruption incarnate (OK, I
agree, that was over the top).

Rocky

 

[Fred]

"Robert Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2Bjfd.6950$HA.3460@attbi_s01...

<snip>

And Kerry has a much longer chin, and far better hair.

--

Are you sure his hair's his own?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41752CB4.5010102@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4171F6BF.7070107@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:


Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417194AF.5040604@nospam.com>...



John S. Dyson wrote:



In article <41715BF6.4070907@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:




Abd-er-Rahman III wrote:




http://www.mypetgoat.com/goatquotes.htm

I do not care much for Bush, but nonetheless must disagree with the
popular analysis of his demeanor in that classroom. His mind was
anything but vacant and he was not looking for guidance. He was clearly
stunned and his mind was racing. The 9/11 attacks were against him as
well as the US.


Note that the timescale for Al Queda attacks shows that the plans were
formulated during the Clinton administration. The attacks weren't really
against any one president, but indeed against the US.

One thing that Bush didn't do is to panic. When the Secret Service
and intelligence agencies got involved, then his flight "all over the nation"
took place. What happened on that day seems to make sense from the
standpoint of cold war strategy, and apparently the plans hadn't
changed during Clinton's regime.

John


I think it runs deeper than that. You might recall that several
terrorist organizations attempted to donate to Bush's 2000 campaign
through front men. It was imperative that the WTC attack occur at the
earliest possible time into the Bush administration to maximize the
ensuing chaos. Terrorism wants Bush to win this election, he is doing
more for them to stir up a hornets nest of American hatred and has
accelerated their schedule for a major fundamentalist state. The last
thing terrorism wants is an intelligent and carefully programmed US
counter-attack that sets the whole world against them.


It's a well known fact that Kim Jon Ill MUCH prefers Kerry over Bush.

That could be- because he does not want to actually *use* his weapons


They problem with Kim is you don't know what he is thinking. Anybody
who would permit his people to resort to eating bark off of trees
(REALLY!) has lost total disconnect with reality.

You don't know the first thing about the situation. Whatever happens, it
will not depend upon your participation- so don't worry about it- fatarse.


Funny, you replied to an earlier post as if I ACTUALLY DID know something.

Certainly nothing to do with foreign policy. I was holding out hope that
you might have some expertise in tax policy. But even there you
disappointed me with some superficial and prosaic crap one finds in pop
culture business magazines. Do you even know about gliders?

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:15:46 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Or just passionate about defending your home and family.

No. Passion gets in the way of rationality.

Ah, there's the rub. The power is in using both,
simultaneously,
in alignment with each other. The passion provides the
fuel, and
the reason directs that power intelligently. Don't
forget, passion is the root of compassion. (I just made that

up. )

Do you know how to cast a spell? Three essentials; raw
emotion for fuel, disciplined will to set the pattern...

(If that doesn't get me flamed, nothing will)

But I'm realizing that it would probably be extremely
difficult
for me to "explain" this "new paradigm", when I consider
what I
had to go through to get the understandings that I have.

People have been operating based on rules, judgememnts,
and imprints
for so long that everybody's forgotten what free will is,
let alone
how fundamentally integral it is to everything there is.

I guess I'm not going to save the world overnight. Sigh.

Or, I could say, "I release the judgement that says I
can't heal the
world immediately."

That's the third; once it's cast, forget it. Otherwise,
it won't work.

Those vociferously politicking here would do well to
absorb this lesson. ;&gt

Mark L. FErgerson

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:15:05 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


And, governement wastefulness is a myth. Take schools. Everybody says
they are totally wasteful. However, private businesses that have tried
to take over have failed. Its *very hard* to do as good a job as 'the
gummit' in this field.



The one organization that does consistantly better at education is the
Catholic Church. Oakland, California is notorious for miserable
educational outcomes, but the Catholic schools do far better than the
public ones, with about the same student mix, and spend about half as
much per student. The entire Catholic school system is administered by
- last time I heard - three nuns.

John

That's because the Catholic system has the option of ejecting the bad
students whereas the public system cannot.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:19:26 +0100, Fred wrote:

"Robert Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2Bjfd.6950$HA.3460@attbi_s01...

snip

And Kerry has a much longer chin, and far better hair.

--

Are you sure his hair's his own?

He probably paid cash, so, sure!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:06:03 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

The one organization that does consistantly better at education is the
Catholic Church. Oakland, California is notorious for miserable
educational outcomes, but the Catholic schools do far better than the
public ones, with about the same student mix, and spend about half as
much per student. The entire Catholic school system is administered by
- last time I heard - three nuns.

John

That's because the Catholic system has the option of ejecting the bad
students whereas the public system cannot.

These things are both true. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school
and Saturday catechism and Sunday church as a kid. When I was transferred to
public school, they skipped me two grades right away. I graduated from high
school rather early, as a result and was always several years younger than my
peers in public school. The public school was quite a good one in the David
Douglas district of Portland, Oregon, so it wasn't because the public education
was inferior here.

However, and I know this also from quite recent dealings with those involved in
disabled children (I've two such children of my own) in school, that the
Catholic Church in my diocese in Portland (yes, one that has recently filed for
Chapter 13 protection) does NOT have programs for such children. And as a kid,
I recall the ease with which really disruptive children could be expelled (and I
remember being given corporal punishment myself, back then, with Mother
Superior's infamous "hair brush." -- No idea if *that* still goes on, anymore!)

My last year of high school, though, we had quite a good science class with only
7 students in it (of which I was one.) We built "crystals" from Styrofoam balls
and connected them up and measured diffraction using a klystron emitter to
generate the beam and hand-held watt-meters we walked around with and recorded
readings. Among many other interesting projects.

When volunteering as aides in public school, which my wife and I would do for
300-500 hours per year, we found that class sizes of 24 worked pretty well.
We'd have say 5 kids needing extra attention at that size. As this rose to some
28-30 kids, we'd find typically 7 of these kids. 5 could be managed by one
teacher, 7 couldn't be managed at all well. That seemed to be about the
breaking point, size-wise, from my experience. Without an aide in the class,
I'd expect 22-24 to be about the maximum that is a reasonable balance. Of
course, 7 would be fantastic -- but probably unreasonable for the taxpayers.

Another factor is the quality of the teachers, of course.

By the way, I learned to do VERY WELL at script writing from my Catholic grade
school education. They literally GRILLED ME with writing letter after letter
after letter in my salt-and-pepper notebook (which went with my salt-and-pepper
pants and white shirt, of course.) And the work was carefully checked and I was
definitely corrected. One thing I can say is that the nuns who were teaching
must have been putting in lots of after-hour time looking over these things.
Probably way more time than public teachers are mostly willing to do, these
days.

Jon

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <41767ED9.7040500@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:15:05 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


And, governement wastefulness is a myth. Take schools. Everybody says
they are totally wasteful. However, private businesses that have tried
to take over have failed. Its *very hard* to do as good a job as 'the
gummit' in this field.



The one organization that does consistantly better at education is the
Catholic Church. Oakland, California is notorious for miserable
educational outcomes, but the Catholic schools do far better than the
public ones, with about the same student mix, and spend about half as
much per student. The entire Catholic school system is administered by
- last time I heard - three nuns.

John



That's because the Catholic system has the option of ejecting the bad
students whereas the public system cannot.

No, that's because the Catholic system has the option of ejecting the

bad teachers, whereas the public system cannot. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mpBdd.286272$D%.197662@attbi_s51:


Jim Yanik wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.20.04.03.20.606728@example.net:



On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:21:40 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:



Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.19.03.32.19.759702@example.net:



On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:44:29 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:



Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2004.10.18.18.48.44.647170@example.net:



On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:02:54 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:



Try

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/

select "Answer this question,Mr.Kerry"

"If John Kerry wins, whose instructions will guide him?"

I dunno - maybe the voters? Whoever it is, it's gotta be better
than whoever's sitting at the Bush control panel.

Cheers!
Rich



WRT *US* National security,having the UN "guide" Kerry would be
extremely bad,for the entire world,whether they realize it or
not.And that's exactly what would happen with Kerry as Prez.He
even said so;"global test".

I would like to know the source for your information here, as to
what you predict Mr. Kerry will do. Thank you.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait,Kerry voted against removing him,public
record.Saddam threatened US and global security,yet Kerry would have
allowed Saddam to have Kuwait,and probably Saudi Arabia next.That
would be a substantial part of the world's oil supply in SADDAM's
hands. Kerry's past behavior shows what he would do as Prez.


You mean, he'd vote against invading Iraq again?


Are you dense? Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America.
He tends towards inaction.He's anti-military.He thinks he can be a
great statesman and pursuade allies that said they will not do what
Kerry wants. He's more a Chamberlain than any statesman. One of the
Communist's "useful idiots".




You have no evidence except the rantings of right-wing radio to back
any of this up.



Nonsense.It's all public record.Kerry worked with the enemy to end the
Vietnam War,to the detriment of the US,our POWs,and the South Vietnamese
people.

You are welcome to your opinions, even though they are obviously wrong.
The swift boat veterans ads have been discredited time and again. If you
want to be duped by a bunch of rich republicans with a political agenda
and a chip on their shoulder, that's your choice. If you want to use
their lies in an attempt to influence people, well, that seems to be
republican strategy these days.

Try to maintain some balance. Kerry was the only one of these two who
saw combat in the military.


LMAO. 4 MONTHS,and he fragged himself.
He can't even get his story straight there,either."Cambodia in
December",and sent by Nixon,who was not even President at that time.
You folks have BLINDERS on!
And his DD214 on his own website shows discrepancies.Nobody gets a review
board for a ordinary honorable discharge.There's something being hidden
there,that's why Kerry will not sign a Form 180.

Well, neither you nor I were there. The people who were there, and who
served with him (unlike the "Swift Boat" liars like O'Neill) back up his
story. Military records back up his story. The leader of the "Swift
Boat" group, John O'Neill, has been biting at Kerry's heels since Kerry
kicked his ass during a debate on the Dick Cavett show 30 years ago.
John O'Neill was a Nixon lackey, according to the white house tapes.
Nixon didn't like Kerry either.

I'll go with the available evidence on whether Kerry was a hero.

Here are his records:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/militaryrecords_1.pdf

(Where are Bush's records, anyway?

Kerry was against pork-barrel defense
spending before 9/11, like everybody else (including Cheney, the
secretary of defense under GHW Bush). At the time, the important
problem to solve was bringing down the horrible, crippling deficit
that Reagan/Bush's 'voodoo economic' policies had built up (and which
they are again building up).

The republicans want it both ways. They want to compare Kerry's
pre-9/11 voting record


What ELSE is there to compare? Kerry's previous behavior and actions speak
volumes about him.Kerry can SAY anything,but it means nothing.
Empty promises.

Since you mention it...

Kerry's actions during the Vietnam war are, by any standard, heroic. He
has a silver star and a bronze star, in addition to those three purple
hearts.

His actions after the war were also heroic, in a different way. He got
up in front of the Senate foreign relations committe when he was, what,
25? The group he was spokesperson for was given some small credit in
forcing an end to the vietnam conflict by raising public awareness.

Don't confuse his opposition to the Vietnam war with his love for his
fellow soldiers. His shipmates always help him out, even after 35 years.
They wouldn't do that if he were the person you or John O'Neill claims
he is.

He was a district attorney, and lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

His efforts in the Senate for 20 years have been meaningful and
honorable. He didn't author much legislation, but instead used his
senate oversite powers to address problems with money laundering and
terrorism (BCCI), MIAs (Vietnam), and budget deficit. He also voted with
the fiscally responsible when trying to bring down the deficit, rather
than just voting with his party, at some political risk. That's where
the republicans get their cannon fodder on him being 'soft on defense'.
He was heroically trying to help save social security. It was working
until Bush was 'elected'.

The guy will make a great president. At the very least, he'll put in an
honest days work, and he'll show up more often than Bush.

<http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html>

to Bush's post-9/11 stance. They also point
out, correctly, that 9/11 changed everything. Well, they can't have it
both ways and still maintain the appearance of intellectual honesty.


IMO,you lack that honesty.

You've shown yourself to be either disingenuous or callow. Why should I
possibly care what your opinion is? Why should anyone?

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Robert Monsen]

anita wrote:

OK, I came here looking for info about capacitance calculations and I
found this thread on full force. Since it appears that people in this
groups are not shy of expressing their opinions I ask you two
questions.

No flames please. I ask this in all sincerity from the perspective of
a non-American (although I live here for now- so I am as scared about
terrorism as anyone else...) I dare not ask people I know because its
hard for people to not assume that it is an attack and I dont want to
be lynched!

I find the doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" a very curious way to
approach the problem of self-defense. Dont Americans think that
someone could apply the same doctrine to THEM ? Afterall USA is
preceived by some countries, even non-"rogue" nations as a threat to
their security... The problem is when you push people into a corner
they are at their most dangerous... With technology getting smaller
and faster and cheaper and sneakier, maybe a terrorist can do
substantive damage with next to nothing. What good are bombs when you
cannot differentiate a terrorist from a regular person ? I feel its
kind of like chemo for cancer, you kill some good cells along with a
lot of bad cells, but how to we know the body be able to withstand it
?

Very good point. Tim McVeigh killed hundreds of people with a truckload
of manure and chemicals because he thought the UN was taking over the
government (that is, he was insane). He looked just like my brother. The
terrorism threat won't be solved by blundering around the world with a
few special forces units and spooks with suitcases filled with cash, as
we did in Afghanistan, or by illegally taking control of other soverign
nations and changing their governments, as we did in Iraq, thus
alienating the entire populace. It's going to take a smarter strategy.

My other question: About nuclear weapons- this is probably common
knowledge but I dont really know. The US has a very strong stand about
certain countries not making nuclear weapons. I want to know if this
has an actual justification for this - other than just "because". Eg:
did these countries say they wont develop nuclear weapons by signing
some treaty or something ? Because if they did not what legal grounds
does any outside country have to dictate what another nation does ?
Might does not make right because if used it woudl blow everyone up
anyway, or is there a real reason other than "because we say so" ?

The US policy on nuclear weapons appears to be that we've broken with
the international community, and have started developing new "Bunker
Buster" WMDs. We have also continued with the idiotic "Star Wars" missle
defense shield, in direct violation of treaty. Any moral or political
stance we took before this is now bankrupt.

Bush has decided to deny any 'reality-based' policy (his was the bush
administration's own term, as quoted by Ron Susskind in a recent NYT
article), and instead move towards a policy that endangers the world,
and makes it morally, if not legally, permissible for smaller nations to
attempt to develop their own WMD.

If we don't play by the rules, why should Russia? Why should China? Why
should Iran?

Clearly, these policymakers think the US nuclear arsenal and
overwhelming military will protect us. Thus, it really comes down to
"Might makes Right". The neocons who have hijacked the government have
decided they need to 'fix the world'.

Is this common knowledge in the us ? So what defines "rogue" nations
other than the fact that the state department says so ?

Noam Chomsky calls the US a rogue nation. It obeys no international law,
and pretty much does what it pleases, using it's military might and dark
ops to force others into line. Of course, Professor Chomsky is a world
class genius, the father of linguistics, and a Jew, so the right wing
nut cases (some of whom frequent this newsgroup, and actually this
thread) won't stop attacking him with vile ad-hominem blatherskite.

I am neither republican nor democrat (although you can tell I am more
of a liberal- universal health care good etc., ) and could not care
who wins either way because all frankly there is no way Kerry or
anyone can get us out of this mess, so it has to work itself out-
whatever that means.

The real problem is not Iraq. That is now, sadly, a given for both
candidates. The real problem is whether the next administration decides
that Syria or Iran are 'evildoers', and must be taken out.

The other issue you might care about is the regressive tax policy that
has been eroding public services in the US. I suspect that Kerry will
try to fix that, once the Iraq situation is resolved.

Thanks
Anita

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Rolavine]

From: soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim)

I definitely don't think we haven't been attacked because we're lucky.
Does that mean the Spanish are unlucky? No, it means we are a much
more hardened target than Spain or the Phillipines.

That is like saying we are more hardened than Richard Simmons?
Maybe we are just a little farther away, with out much domestic support, yet?.

You don't think
the terrorists would have attacked the U.S. if they felt they had a
reasonable chance of success?

I don't know, I don't get their newsletter, do you? The stated goal of Al Qaida

is eliminating the influence of the US from the middle east. Of course, now we
have so many anti American groups over there you can't even count them let
alone their members.

When Bush invaded Iraq it polarized the entire arab world (OK you can keep
Kuwait) against us. Estimates of Al Qaida membership are now well over 20,000.
According the the Bush Admin we got over 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, and they
have surprisingly deep pockets, with money from Saudi's.

These forces filled with hate for us are growing, and it would be foolish to
rely on our 'marginal' line (pun intended) when it has yet to be tested at
all. It is a billion times harder to defend a country against terrorism than it
is to do the terrorism. In short, we can't afford to defend ourselves because
there is not enough money in the universe for that. So, reducing pissing off
terrorists is a really good idea, vs. telling them to 'bring it on'!

I kept hearing all those predictions by you libs that we would be
attacked if we invaded Iraq. What happened?

The Bush Adim has said it is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when! Does

that make them liberals? And just wait a while Tom, you'll get your attacks,
and then you neocons will flop again and say it is because we didn't go all out
in attacking them.

The bottom line is you don't want to give Bush any credit for
anything. It just doesn't wash (except, maybe, with fredfraud).

Oh, I see, this is about Bush getting credit for us not getting attacked! Heck,
lets give him credit for us not getting hit by astroids too. Tell me, what
attack has homeland security actually stopped from happening right here on our
soil? Show me that and I will give them credit, but don't tell me that we have
not been attacked because we are so well protected that they wouldn't dream of
attacking us. I can see how well protected we are, we aren't. They are growing
and we are not!

This is like a bad magic trick, your trying to make a invisible dove appear out
of a real hat. All we can do is give you the bird!

There are some good people working on homeland security trying to keep us safe.
If Kerry is elected they will all still have a job, only the figureheads will
be changed.

Rocky

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:08:50 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:55:06 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Unilateral disarmament doesn't make you "peaceful", it
makes you a "corpse".
By whose hand, today?
By anybody with an axe to grind, or delusions of world
conquest. You asked "how long would they get away with it?".
As long as they wanted to, since your first three points
leave no _defensive_ capabilities at all.

And exactly what are the mechanics of this invasion? Do they come
in LA? San Francisco? Miami? New York? Do they just walk ashore in
South Carolina and Georgia?

All the above, and across the Mexican and Canadian
borders as well.

And exactly which country, with that many people, wants to invade
the US?

And, more importantly, Why?

And how many troops are there? When
they come marching into your neighborhood, don't you think anybody
at all will be shooting at them? Or are you an antigun nut who wants
everybody in America unarmed and defenseless?

If I want a CIWS on my front porch, I'm hardly anti-gun.
If I planned to live in a coastal site under your original
set of rules, I'd want some medium artillery so I could do
my part in defending the coast. You didn't allow for a Coast
Guard, you see.

Sure I do! It's just that everybody who likes having a Coast
Guard will be free to pay the cost of fielding a Coast Guard
with their own private money, which everybody will have a lot
of, because there won't be any taxes. Hell, you could have
all the DOD stuff as well, just let everybody that likes
having a standing military pay the cost, voluntarily, out
of their paycheck, like everybody does for everything else
that they buy.

The problem with defense isn't so much firepower, but
threat identification and defense technique selection.

This one's real simple. If somebody's coming at you shooting,
shoot back. Otherwise, live and let live.

You
_are_ aware of the "experiment" done by two college students
demonstrating how easy it was to carry a pair of fifty-pound
backpacks across the Mexican border without detection by our
current pathetically limited Border Patrol? Got any idea
what those backpacks could hold?

So What? Hopefully they were full of very expensive drugs.
The insand war on drugs is another problem that has to be got
rid of. It's really just a war on dissent. But it's entrenched:
it gets the nigga gangstas to kill each other, so the rich white
guys don't have to bloody their hands.

I do, and it scares the hell out of me.

Why? What could possibly be in two 50-lb backpacks that could
inspire such terror?

Please. Really. For real. What?
Name something, anything, scary that could be smuggled in a 50-lb
backpack, and why it scares you.

It also scares
the hell out of ranchers who live in the "walk-through" zone
and get illegals coming through their properties every day.

What's scary about that? They might stop and take a leak? Or
is it the risk of being pounced upon by storm troopers?

It's bad enough that the ranchers occasionally perform
"citizens' arrest" and hold them for the INS, but they've
been known to shoot at the poor bastards trying to escape
Mexico. If they get the idea that there are non-Mexicans
carrying WMDs hiding among the real economic refugees, they
might shoot them all just in case.

Well, that takes care of the border problem for you.

Next! ;-)

Without a Border Patrol (which you also didn't allow for)
it'll only get worse;

What? What exactly will "get worse"? We'll have more cheap
seasonal laborers?

the violence would simply escalate as
the innocent refugees started carrying weapons which they
currently don't.

Who's instigating the violence? Whom are they defending themselves
from? If they're trespassing, then yes, you have a right to shoot
them, as long as it's posted.

Of course, the long-term solution isn't militarization of
our border, but economic growth in Mexico so the locals
don't want to leave.

Hey! He's seen the light!

That means either hoping that they
eventually become enlightened as per below while defending
ourselves in the meantime, or trying to export
enlightenment, generating complaints of "cultural warfare".

No, it means calling off the war on drugs, calling off the
war on "illegal immigrants," throw the border wide open, and
let them get crop-picking jobs.

As far as the country of Mexico, leave their internal affairs
to the Mexicans.

This is also an education issue: "Not Meddling" is not equal
to "Isolationism"

Let me clarify a few things here. I'm neither a warhawk
nor an extreme pacifist. I studied Martial Arts because I
got tired of being beat up (typical skinny kid) and settled
on Aikido. It's _designed_ to be the perfect unarmed
hand-to-hand defensive system; it has no attack forms
(though it involves staff and sword training so you know how
to defend against them), and those proficient can put down
anyone armed with any weapon that does not leave the hand
_only if_ they choose to attack. For those otherwise armed I
went to the trouble of becoming competent with firearms.

The only problem with part-time citizen soldiers is the
total lack of organization.

That is precisely the opposite of a problem. Do I really have
to explain this over again? Organization is anathema to Free
Will.

An organized invader would walk
all over them; a _minimum_ of organized professionals are
necessary in the face of organized invasion.

An organized invader in the USA wouldn't get as far as George
Bush got in Iraq. They wouldn't make it a mile deep inside
the country. And, if you put a couple bull dykes in charge
of the resistance, they'll have the women seduce all the
invaders and cut their throats while they sleep, wiping
out the invasion overnight. Then we could render the fat
out of the corpses, and use it for fuel.

I envision a National Defense following the philosophy of
Aikido; it will quickly become obvious that we aren't
interested in conquest, but at the same time are unconquerable.

I remember something, which may or may not have been described
in the context of the Tao - something like avoid conflict if
you can, but if it's unavoidable, win, quickly and decisively.
I'd add, "cleanly." I don't believe in torture either.

Sun Tzu showed that you don't need overwhelming
superiority to fend off invaders; you just need to be
smarter and faster.

Or just passionate about defending your home and family.
....

Has somebody come up with neighborhood guerilla-fighting tactics
that work better than what the US is doing to Iraq?

Sure, seige tactics; starve 'em out. But there're two
problems with that. First, the violent types will hoard all
the consumables, doing the most harm to the nonviolent ones
also trapped inside. Second, in today's "I want it now"
world, it takes too long.

I think this is a little inside-out. Are we besieging Iraq?
Who'd going to "cut off" America's supply lines?

Did I ever relate the parable of the Mexican hotel? A
salesman checks into a Mexican hotel that has no window
screens or air conditioning. He complains to the desk clerk
about the flies keeping him awake. Desk clerk says "Sorry,
that's why we're so inexpensive". Salesman comes down the
next morning looking chipper and clerk asks how he slept.
Salesman says "Great, after I bunched the flies". Clerk asks
what he means by "bunched". Salesman says "I took a dump in
the corner, and the flies left me alone".

ISTM that Iraq is being used as a "bunching ground" for
terrorists of other nationalities. It would have worked
better if we could have gotten the civvies to safety first,
but no plan is perfekt.

Yeah, but a very significant difference here is that the guy
in the hotel didn't _create_ the flies. Every single terrorist
act is a response to an atrocity, or perceived atrocity,
committed by the good ol' USA. They didn't just wake up one
morning and say, "Oh, think I'll attack America today." Now,
George Bush apparently woke up one day and decided to invade
Iraq, but that's a little different. He has bigger weapons
than suicide bombers.

[remainder of mutual admiration society news snipped]

Cheers!
Rich