Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 14:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiv90t$8qk_001(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <rA14h.8307$B31.443(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <snip> > If everything the Republicans said was to make me fearful, why am > I not afraid? <snip> You are. You are afraid of the world losing knowledge. Of a big mess which will take ten years to prevent. Of a minimum wage coming and causing a mess in three years. Etc. The funny thing is, none are realistic fears. You aren't afraid of the really scary things.
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 14:27 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:eivrob$vor$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <2mx4h.10999$r12.3746(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45527247.A114D14(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >>>> >> >> unlistening, "my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >>>> >> > pushed ? >>>> >> >>>> >> Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. >>>> > >>>> > I'd like to think so ! >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >>>> >> think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have >>>> >> to >>>> >> let >>>> >> Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has >>>> >> a >>>> >> remote >>>> >> chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new >>>> >> guy's >>>> >> confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new >>>> >> guy >>>> >> is >>>> >> probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability >>>> >> to >>>> >> work >>>> >> with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. >>>> > >>>> > You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? >>>> > >>>> > I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. >>>> >>>> You should follow some of the unfolding events at cnn.com--these are >>>> the >>>> events you will likely not hear anything about in the fullness of time. >>>> Within hours of news of his victory in 2004, Bush was doing a >>>> spike-the-ball-in-the-endzone victory dance, and waving it in >>>> everybody's >>>> face. By stark contrast, within hours of news of the Democratic >>>> victories, >>>> Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to become probably the most powerful >>>> Democrat >>>> in Washington, has said almost nothing publicly, but rather has quietly >>>> approached Bush and extended her wish to work together with him and to >>>> compromise. >>>> >>>> Tell me....which of those two approaches do you think will end up being >>>> more >>>> effective in actually getting things done in Washington? Would that it >>>> had >>>> happened 2 years ago (or, while we're dreaming, 6 years ago).... >>> >>> That's a no-brainer. >>> >>> I'm not sure the Democrats should have removed the idea of impeachment >>> quite >>> frankly. >> >>While at a gut level I feel the same distress at Bush's job performance, I >>don't really think it would really be legally justified. Remember, in >>order >>to be impeached and have any chance of being convicted and removed from >>office (in other words, for it not to be simply a waste of Congress's >>time), >>the President needs to have committed a crime, and it has to be a felony >>that had a material, negative effect on his ability to lead the country. >>Clinton, after all, was accused of having lied to Congress (a crime) and >>obstruction of justice (a crime). The rub was that I don't personally >>believe that those crimes rose to the level of significantly disrupting >>his >>ability to conduct his job. The biggest disruption was not those crimes, >>but rather, Congress's reaction to them. >> >>Keep in mind, in Bush's case, violating/dismantling the Constitution >>doesn't >>constitute a crime in the US. The Constitution is a guiding set >>principles >>that tell us how our government should run, it is not a list of laws with >>punishments for violations. There may very well be laws that codify many >>of >>the Constitution's principles (and I believe there are), but the >>Constitution itself is not a list of laws and punishments for violating >>them. >> > One could argue ordering wiretaps in violation of the FISA law is > impeachable, Well, I don't know if there is a distinction between an enabling law (like FISA) and a limiting law (like, say, murder statutes), but I see the latter as the usual impeachable offenses. Still, Bush claims (plausibly) that the Patriot act and other pieces of legislation supersede FISA. Again, it's a matter of interpretation if it's even a crime, let alone an impeachable offense. > but since it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict, why beat your head > against a > wall? The Republicans should have done the same thing with Clinton -- > looked > at the math. In a way, I disagree. The idealist in me says the law should not be a popularity contest. However, I am above all a pragmatist, and you're right--to do anything else is a waste of valuable time. Still, there are other things that Congressional oversight committees will no doubt begin to investigate.... Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 14:33 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45537AAA.731C3948(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> The Patriot Act was not a "Good Thing(tm)." > > It's also a fabulous example of Orwellian style doublespeak. Something I've always wondered.... Orwell was English, right? Was "1984" a cautionary tale against what he saw happening in England after WWII ("Ingsoc")? If so, it's interesting that US society has in some ways come a lot closer to Big Brother than I am given to understand UK society has. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 14:35 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:XaCdnf8LCdpa587YRVnyrA(a)pipex.net... > >> I also am aware that it seems every >> leader of every Muslim country in Africa and the Middle >> East have delusions of running the Islam Empire. > > Where do you draw that conclusion from? How is this different from Western > leaders who want to spread satellite democracies in their own image across > the globe? We don't know anybody like *that*...do we?? Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 14:44
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivbm2$8qk_013(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4551EA1F.E3590169(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >You cant have it both ways. >>> >>> Tying up the military in babysitting jobs is doing nothing useful. >> >>On the contrary. Sometimes it's very useful / effective indeed. >> >> >>> That seemed to be Clinton's style. I never understood it because >>> this approach did not work with Germany. >> >>Explain what you mean about Germany. > > Germany was put into a cage when they surrendered WWI. Keeping > a country permanently caged never works long term. No they weren't. |