Attack Cartoons 18 June 2008
Dann
Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Jym Dyer
=v= Can't read it.
> Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
=v= Plenty of those make plenty of sense.
<_Jym_>
Mike Beede
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
> http://www.attackcartoons.com/trackback.php?id=2008061807174142
>
> =v= Can't read it.
Turns out that the URL doesn't work, but for today the one
he's talking about is on the front page at http://www.attackcartoons.com
> > Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
>
> http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
>
> =v= Plenty of those make plenty of sense.
I only looked at the first one, and it was drawn about
eight and a half times better and seemed to make sense to
me.
And as far as "makes sense" goes, if further seems to me
if we want to claim the United States stands
for liberty, justice, and all that jazz, we have to be a
little more careful about things like holding people without
charges or the right to confront their accusers for a
decade. Especially if they're people that we currently
don't like. Because at some point, people might not like
*me* so much, if for no more noble reason.
Mike Beede
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <Jym.22Jun2008.485e6...@econet.org>,
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> >http://www.attackcartoons.com/trackback.php?id=2008061807174142
>
> > =v= Can't read it.
>
> Turns out that the URL doesn't work, but for today the one
>
> > > Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
>
> >http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
>
The cartoonist makes a ridiculous, over-the-top statement and then
agrees with himself.
I don't mind a disagreement, but it ought to be based on some
semblance of a point. This isn't even a straw dog. It's utter
nonsense.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Freedom works each and every time, and we'll lock your ass up and beat
you until you feel that way, too.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>> In article <Jym.22Jun2008.485e6...@econet.org>,
>> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.attackcartoons.com/trackback.php?id=2008061807174142
>>
>> > =v= Can't read it.
>>
>> Turns out that the URL doesn't work, but for today the one
>> he's talking about is on the front page athttp://www.attackcartoons.com
>>
>> > > Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
>>
>> >http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
>>
>In what possible sense?
>
>The cartoonist makes a ridiculous, over-the-top statement and then
>agrees with himself.
>
>I don't mind a disagreement, but it ought to be based on some
>semblance of a point. This isn't even a straw dog. It's utter
>nonsense.
>
>Mike Peterson
>http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
I think SC's Ariail had a better take, though you won't like that one
either:
http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=4
he was pretty good on energy this week too
http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <2f3ae236-9a42-436b-bce0-41ec418b0...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 22, 1:43 pm, Mike Beede <be...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> In article <Jym.22Jun2008.485e6...@econet.org>,
> >> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.attackcartoons.com/trackback.php?id=2008061807174142
>
> >> > =v= Can't read it.
>
> >> Turns out that the URL doesn't work, but for today the one
> >> he's talking about is on the front page athttp://www.attackcartoons.com
>
> >> > > Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
>
> >> >http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
>
> >In what possible sense?
>
> >The cartoonist makes a ridiculous, over-the-top statement and then
> >agrees with himself.
>
> >I don't mind a disagreement, but it ought to be based on some
> >semblance of a point. This isn't even a straw dog. It's utter
> >nonsense.
>
> either:
>
> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=4
>
> he was pretty good on energy this week too
>
> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
>
I disagree with both of them, but they're good cartoons in terms of
creating dialogue. I used to do a weekly feature on editorial cartoons
and used Ariail frequently -- he's quite good, even though we don't
always see issues eye-to-eye.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
George W Harris
<tednolan>) wrote:
>I think SC's Ariail had a better take, though you won't like that one
>either:
>
> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=4
Doesn't really make sense.
>
>he was pretty good on energy this week too
>
> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
So how does a snail darter t-shirt make the reasons
that the "drill the arctic" plan is stupid funny?
>
>
> Ted
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Dann
news:beede-3FDF3E....@news.visi.com.
> In article <Jym.22Jun20...@econet.org>,
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.attackcartoons.com/trackback.php?id=2008061807174142
>>
>> =v= Can't read it.
>
> Turns out that the URL doesn't work, but for today the one
> he's talking about is on the front page at
> http://www.attackcartoons.com
>
Link corrected below
http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=2008061807174142
>> > Makes more sense than all of the ones over on Cagle's site....
>>
>> http://www.cagle.com/news/Gitmo08/main.asp
>>
>> =v= Plenty of those make plenty of sense.
>
> I only looked at the first one, and it was drawn about
> eight and a half times better and seemed to make sense to
> me.
>
> And as far as "makes sense" goes, if further seems to me
> if we want to claim the United States stands
> for liberty, justice, and all that jazz, we have to be a
> little more careful about things like holding people without
> charges or the right to confront their accusers for a
> decade. Especially if they're people that we currently
> don't like. Because at some point, people might not like
> *me* so much, if for no more noble reason.
That reasoning contains a couple of flaws.
First and foremost, the people in question were generally of the mindset to
deny you the rights in question long before they ever arrived at Gitmo.
Heck, they were of that mindset before we invaded any part of Asia in the
last few years. Exceptions duly noted for what they are....namely
exceptions.
Secondly, the recent ruling formally gives those detainees MORE rights than
have ever been given to opposing forces of the US in the last 100 years.
In fact, it gives them MORE rights than our own military enjoys under our
the UCMJ as it affords them access to the civilian court system.
Given that we were able to satisfactorily try and convict the Nazis under
less than fully Constitutional rules, I would think that we should be able
to try and convict the current bunch of thugs with the previously
established military tribunal system.
Thirdly...and this is the whole point of the cartoon in question...the
people in question are quite ready to use our own sense of justice to their
advantage. Whether it be the criminal court system of the US or other
bodies, such as the Human Rights Commissions of Canada, their objective is
to use the values that you and I hold dear to weaken our defense until they
have the strength to replace our values with the imposition of their
values.
Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that does
value those attributes.
IMO
Brian Huntley
> That reasoning contains a couple of flaws.
>
> First and foremost, the people in question were generally of the mindset to
> deny you the rights in question long before they ever arrived at Gitmo.
> Heck, they were of that mindset before we invaded any part of Asia in the
> last few years. Exceptions duly noted for what they are....namely
> exceptions.
>
> Secondly, the recent ruling formally gives those detainees MORE rights than
> have ever been given to opposing forces of the US in the last 100 years.
> In fact, it gives them MORE rights than our own military enjoys under our
> the UCMJ as it affords them access to the civilian court system.
>
> Given that we were able to satisfactorily try and convict the Nazis under
> less than fully Constitutional rules, I would think that we should be able
> to try and convict the current bunch of thugs with the previously
> established military tribunal system.
[snip]
Wait - are they prisoners of war? You seem to be saying they are, but
your government says they're not (so things like the Geneva Convention
don't hold.) And there are no 'child soldiers' being held, regardless
of their ages (and regardless of the Rome Statute.)
Sherwood Harrington
> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
> jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that does
> value those attributes.
You want a mulligan on that, Dann? I'll be happy to give you one, because
you must have been distracted when you took that swing.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
> jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that does
> value those attributes.
I'd say it isn't about them--it's about me and you. I am very
uncomfortable with a category that the government can move
American citizens into that strips them of their rights. Perhaps
I'm simple-minded about this, but it seems to me that the
power of the government should be carefully restrained or, like
any useful draft animal, it may decide to take a chomp out of
us.
Mike Beede
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
IIRC, "Hamdi" decided that the government couldn't move American citizens
into that category, a decision I agree with.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I think I saw his first "editorial" cartoon. He was on the staff
of "The Gamecock" student paper when I was at USC, and did a "Read
'The Gamecock' Or We'll Shoot This Dog" panel..
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:51:35 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>I think SC's Ariail had a better take, though you won't like that one
>>either:
>>
>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=4
>
> Doesn't really make sense.
>>
>>he was pretty good on energy this week too
>>
>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
>
> So how does a snail darter t-shirt make the reasons
>that the "drill the arctic" plan is stupid funny?
It establishes the character as a strong "environmentalist". "Save the
Caribou" or some such would have worked as well, but the "snail darter", of
course, is a callback to another controversy.
Dann
I think we are in complete agreement on that point with modest
differences on some of the details.
Dann
news:oett545c7vd41497g...@4ax.com.
>>
>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
>
> So how does a snail darter t-shirt make the reasons
> that the "drill the arctic" plan is stupid funny?
The snail darter episode is an excellent example of environmentalists
making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Which shouldn't be taken to mean that mountians don't exist or that all
mountains are actually mole hills. Although I'd respectfully suggest
that ANWAR is an example of confusion where mountains and mole hills are
concerned.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Dann
news:g3mvqf$jhp$1...@blue.rahul.net.
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
>> jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that
>> does value those attributes.
>
> You want a mulligan on that, Dann? I'll be happy to give you one,
> because you must have been distracted when you took that swing.
>
I'm not sure where the problem is.
The people in question.....terrorists, jihadists, and others that act
with malice towards the west and liberal democracies.
Full benefits.....all of the bells and whistles that exist in western
courts.
That isn't the same as saying that the system of justice that we use to
try them shouldn't have some of those bells and whistles.
aemeijers
goes anyway-
If we shitcan the constitution to defeat the bad guys, they have already
won. We have sunk to their level.
I've worked for the DoD for a quarter of a century. They are very good
at blowing stuff up. Other things, like nation-building and conducting
judicial processes, not so much. Saying there is any presumption of
innocence in a military tribunal of foreign nationals scooped up in a
war zone is nonsense. Not a slam against the ethics of any of the
officers involved in the process- that is just the way it is. That is
why cops don't run courtrooms. Nuremberg was flawed, yes, but probably
the best they could do under the circumstances, and a stark improvement
over previous wars. They didn't get nearly so fussy in the Pacific
theater, IIRC.
Geneva convention is badly in need of an update. A traditional war
between uniformed armies is likely to prove the exception in the future.
When you are the 800 pound gorilla, like the US is, the smaller gorillas
will steer clear. It is the fleas and ticks that will be a constant
irritant. There needs to be a legal and recognized way to deal with
non-traditional captives taken in battle. I dunno, maybe hire the Swiss
or somebody to run a holding area where they can be kept out of the fray
until whatever conflict is resolved.
--
aem sends...
Sherwood Harrington
> On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
> news:g3mvqf$jhp$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
>>> jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that
>>> does value those attributes.
>>
>> You want a mulligan on that, Dann? I'll be happy to give you one,
>> because you must have been distracted when you took that swing.
>>
> I'm not sure where the problem is.
> The people in question.....terrorists, jihadists, and others that act
> with malice towards the west and liberal democracies.
> Full benefits.....all of the bells and whistles that exist in western
> courts.
> That isn't the same as saying that the system of justice that we use to
> try them shouldn't have some of those bells and whistles.
My problem is that I think that liberty, justice, and all that jazz are
pretty much inalienable rights of all men [*], whether or not they belong
to a particular club or think or behave like we do. As long as they
comport themselves according to law, I have no problem with any group of
people being afforded those rights. If they are accused of violating duly
instituted laws, then I have no problem with them being subject to the
same judicial system I would be if so accused. At least that's the theory
I was indoctrinated with in 8th grade by a social studies teacher who
thought that Communists were two or three steps below scorpions and shower
fungus because *they* didn't think that way.
[*] Women, slaves, and poor white trash weren't covered in the Declaration
of Independence, so they're probably out of play here.
Dann
news:4608d3a2-f4ff-4b51...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com.
The phrase "prisoner of war" has legal implications under the Geneva
Convention. Given that the combattants in question have not fulfilled
their obligations under that Convention [i.e. wearing some sort of
uniform, obeying a centralized command structure, not targeting
civilians, not using hospitals and religious buildings as bases, etc.],
those same combattants should not be given the legal benefits of that
Convention.
People that do not fight IAW with the Convention can be legally shot on
the battlefield. We do fight IAW with the Convention. They don't. They
behead our military when they can capture them. We put their fighters in
Gitmo where they receive three culturally/religiously appropriate meals
every day, time to worship as they please, the best medical and dental
care on the planet, and [formerly] a military justice system that is
[was] in keeping with our history and sense of justice.
Sherwood Harrington
> If we shitcan the constitution to defeat the bad guys, they have already
> won. We have sunk to their level.
Amen, sir. Amen.
George W Harris
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <oett545c7vd41497g...@4ax.com>,
>George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:51:35 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>I think SC's Ariail had a better take, though you won't like that one
>>>either:
>>>
>>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=4
>>
>> Doesn't really make sense.
>>>
>>>he was pretty good on energy this week too
>>>
>>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
>>
>> So how does a snail darter t-shirt make the reasons
>>that the "drill the arctic" plan is stupid funny?
>
>It establishes the character as a strong "environmentalist". "Save the
>Caribou" or some such would have worked as well, but the "snail darter", of
>course, is a callback to another controversy.
Yeah, fine. So how does that invalidate the
fact that it would take ten years for off-shore or arctic
oil fields to be developed, or that their production
would have a negligible effect on supply?
Dann
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
>> news:g3mvqf$jhp$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>
>>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all
>>>> that jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system
>>>> that does value those attributes.
>>>
>>> You want a mulligan on that, Dann? I'll be happy to give you one,
>>> because you must have been distracted when you took that swing.
>>>
>
>> I'm not sure where the problem is.
>
>> The people in question.....terrorists, jihadists, and others that act
>> with malice towards the west and liberal democracies.
>
>> Full benefits.....all of the bells and whistles that exist in western
>> courts.
>
>> That isn't the same as saying that the system of justice that we use
>> to try them shouldn't have some of those bells and whistles.
>
> My problem is that I think that liberty, justice, and all that jazz
> are pretty much inalienable rights of all men [*], whether or not they
> belong to a particular club or think or behave like we do.
I'm generally of the same persuasion. For example, South American drug
lords that are legally extradited to the US ought to enjoy all of the
legal rights that a US citizen enjoys when they are tried in our courts
of law.
> As long as
> they comport themselves according to law, I have no problem with any
> group of people being afforded those rights.
The problem, IMO, is that they do not comport themselves according to the
law and in fact seek to undermine the system of government that we have
established and maintained to ensure that liberty, justice and all that
jazz are inalienable rights of all mankind.
It's a paradox of sorts. If we afford them all of the rights we have
come to expect, they will win and those rights will be extinguished for
everyone. If we don't afford them full civilian rights, then we are
accused of not living up to our stated ideals.
> If they are accused of
> violating duly instituted laws, then I have no problem with them being
> subject to the same judicial system I would be if so accused.
But Sherwood, they are waging war, not committing crimes. Isn't it more
appropriate to treat them that way then to treat them as civilian
criminals?
Sherwood Harrington
> But Sherwood, they are waging war, not committing crimes.
And that's the real hard problem here, isn't it? What, now, is the
difference between a crime and an act of war? If an act of war requires
an official declaration by a governmentally-sanctioned process, then no
war has occurred on Earth since 1945.
I don't have an answer to the second sentence's question, by the way. As
I asserted in the first, it's a hard one. I, personally, think that the
horrors of September 11, 2001, were the result of the worst mass murder in
history. But I can certainly understand those who think it was warfare,
and those folks include not only you, but both of my sons. And Osama bin
Laden.
But that's my opinion, and I have, as you know, great respect for yours.
Wrong as it may be. ;)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 03:27:37 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <oett545c7vd41497g...@4ax.com>,
>>George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:51:35 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think SC's Ariail had a better take, though you won't like that one
>>>>either:
>>>>
>>>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=4
>>>
>>> Doesn't really make sense.
>>>>
>>>>he was pretty good on energy this week too
>>>>
>>>> http://ariail.niethestate.com/index.php?paged=2
>>>
>>> So how does a snail darter t-shirt make the reasons
>>>that the "drill the arctic" plan is stupid funny?
>>
>>It establishes the character as a strong "environmentalist". "Save the
>>Caribou" or some such would have worked as well, but the "snail darter", of
>>course, is a callback to another controversy.
>
> Yeah, fine. So how does that invalidate the
>fact that it would take ten years for off-shore or arctic
>oil fields to be developed, or that their production
>would have a negligible effect on supply?
>>
>> Ted
>--
a) This has been an issue for more than ten years; Clinton vetoed drilling in
ANWAR in 1995. Even Jay Leno has
pointed that out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfssrKGsBU
b) In a tight market, a "negligible" effect on supply can have a
very salutory effect on price. And it's just conjecture in the
first place that the effect on supply would be negligible.
George W Harris
<tednolan>) wrote:
>> Yeah, fine. So how does that invalidate the
>>fact that it would take ten years for off-shore or arctic
>>oil fields to be developed, or that their production
>>would have a negligible effect on supply?
>>>
>>> Ted
>>--
>
>a) This has been an issue for more than ten years; Clinton vetoed drilling in
>ANWAR in 1995. Even Jay Leno has
>pointed that out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfssrKGsBU
Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
the 2016 elections.
>
>b) In a tight market, a "negligible" effect on supply can have a
>very salutory effect on price. And it's just conjecture in the
>first place that the effect on supply would be negligible.
Yes, conjecture by 'so-called economists'.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, fine. So how does that invalidate the
>>>fact that it would take ten years for off-shore or arctic
>>>oil fields to be developed, or that their production
>>>would have a negligible effect on supply?
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>--
>>
>>a) This has been an issue for more than ten years; Clinton vetoed drilling in
>>ANWAR in 1995. Even Jay Leno has
>>pointed that out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfssrKGsBU
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
>27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
>the 2016 elections.
I plan to be around in 2016.
>>
>>b) In a tight market, a "negligible" effect on supply can have a
>>very salutory effect on price. And it's just conjecture in the
>>first place that the effect on supply would be negligible.
>
> Yes, conjecture by 'so-called economists'.
>>
Geologists, I would hope.
Ted Goldblatt
> On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
> news:g3mvqf$jhp$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>
>> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
>>> jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that
>>> does value those attributes.
>> You want a mulligan on that, Dann? I'll be happy to give you one,
>> because you must have been distracted when you took that swing.
>>
>
> I'm not sure where the problem is.
>
> The people in question.....terrorists, jihadists, and others that act
> with malice towards the west and liberal democracies.
>
> Full benefits.....all of the bells and whistles that exist in western
> courts.
>
> That isn't the same as saying that the system of justice that we use to
> try them shouldn't have some of those bells and whistles.
The problem is that they are _claimed_ to be terrorists, etc., but
haven't been proved to be, at least not to my satisfaction. Part of the
problem with the lack of candor (OK, lying) from the current
administration is that I no longer believe anything they say, and that
doubt extends to pretty much all of the executive branches, and (to a
somewhat lesser extent) to the military leadership. Therefore, I have
trouble accepting a system with no oversight or (independent) review as
reasonable.
Further, I haven't heard anything that indicated that the detainees have
been offered anything close to "full bells and whistles" - as far as I
know, they have been offered the chance to plead for a habeas corpus
review, and not even necessarily have the plea for review granted. That
seems about as low on the pole as you can go and still be said to have
any rights at all...
ted
Ted Goldblatt
Of course, you brought up the phrase "opposing forces". My
understanding is that in a war zone, the GC has provisions for
non-regular forces also - you have to be in _some_ category, or you
aren't a combatant, you are just a criminal, and we have mechanisms to
deal with those, also.
> People that do not fight IAW with the Convention can be legally shot on
> the battlefield. We do fight IAW with the Convention. They don't. They
> behead our military when they can capture them. We put their fighters in
> Gitmo where they receive three culturally/religiously appropriate meals
> every day, time to worship as they please, the best medical and dental
> care on the planet, and [formerly] a military justice system that is
> [was] in keeping with our history and sense of justice.
AFAIK, people who _do_ fight IAW the Convention can also be legally shot
on the battlefield, during combat. However, if you mean by that a
drumhead (summary) execution not during battle but after capture - well,
even if it were to be legal under the GC, I don't think the American
people would accept it, any more than they would accept the police
killing a prisoner, even if 2 minutes earlier (during a gun battle) such
a killing would have been fine. The difference being that someone who
is _currently_ harmless to you has to be treated differently than
someone who is currently dangerous/harmful to you - their past or
potential actions certainly influence your treatment of them (you might
not want to just let them go), but in the context of a prisoner as
opposed to a currently active agent.
WRT their treatment: their being well fed, etc. doesn't matter if they
are being tortured, and up to this point they haven't been given any
justice, military or otherwise - they have just been held, one assumes
pending the end of an undeclared "war" that arguably will never end.
You've said they aren't POWs - under any other classification they could
be under, they are still owed _some_ level of due process. That level
can well be less than a citizen could expect - it can't be zero...
ted
Ted Goldblatt
> On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
>>> That isn't the same as saying that the system of justice that we use
>>> to try them shouldn't have some of those bells and whistles.
>> My problem is that I think that liberty, justice, and all that jazz
>> are pretty much inalienable rights of all men [*], whether or not they
>> belong to a particular club or think or behave like we do.
>
> I'm generally of the same persuasion. For example, South American drug
> lords that are legally extradited to the US ought to enjoy all of the
> legal rights that a US citizen enjoys when they are tried in our courts
> of law.
>
>> As long as
>> they comport themselves according to law, I have no problem with any
>> group of people being afforded those rights.
>
> The problem, IMO, is that they do not comport themselves according to the
> law and in fact seek to undermine the system of government that we have
> established and maintained to ensure that liberty, justice and all that
> jazz are inalienable rights of all mankind.
Well, most criminals do not comport themselves according to the law. I
think that is the point of them being criminals... We still manage to
(at least try to) deal with them in the legal system.
> It's a paradox of sorts. If we afford them all of the rights we have
> come to expect, they will win and those rights will be extinguished for
> everyone. If we don't afford them full civilian rights, then we are
> accused of not living up to our stated ideals.
I don't see how they "win" if they are afforded legal rights. If they
can be proved to have violated laws (including international laws and/or
the laws of war) they can be punished appropriately - they don't just
walk away. If it can't be proved that they did something, then...?
>> If they are accused of
>> violating duly instituted laws, then I have no problem with them being
>> subject to the same judicial system I would be if so accused.
>
> But Sherwood, they are waging war, not committing crimes. Isn't it more
> appropriate to treat them that way then to treat them as civilian
> criminals?
First off, I'm not sure what waging war means in this context, since war
is generally a conflict between sovereign powers, and there is no
sovereign power on the other side. In Iraq, the sovereign power is our
ally - we are involved in all kinds of fighting there, but none of it is
"war" (except perhaps something that could be considered civil war, but
if so, we aren't (or shouldn't be) a party to it). In Afghanistan, the
same sort of situation exists, though the Taliban is a more organized
group and we have some dog in that fight. WRT Al Qaeda (who aren't
operating in Iraq - there's just a fairly rag-tag group that uses the
name), we're definitely in that fight, but it isn't clear that you can
classify it as a war (at least legally) since there is no sovereign
power, it isn't obvious that there is a specific defined leadership (Bin
Laden, but is he actually running things?), there is no specific
geography, and there is no defined military objective (ending terrorism
is at best a political objective, not a military one, and it isn't clear
to me that "defeat Al Qaeda" is either sufficient or even achievable
militarily. That said, treating the individual participants as
criminals may be the best that can be done - that is what was done in
the 70's, with some level of success.
Secondly, if they _are_ waging war, then we should deal with them by the
accepted rules, which we are not.
Finally, regardless of how we classify them, we can't torture them,
summarily execute them, or even hold them forever (indefinite detention
with no specific definition of what constitutes conditions for release
is "forever"). Even if the rules said these were legal, our standing in
the world doesn't allow it.
ted
George W Harris
<tednolan>) wrote:
>> Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
>>27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
>>the 2016 elections.
>
>I plan to be around in 2016.
And no one knows what conditions will be like then,
or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
existing off-shore drilling ships are booked solid for years,
and the oil companies already have hundreds of leases on
public land that they aren't bothering to develop yet.
No, this issue is just about pandering to the oil
companies.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>> Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
>>>27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
>>>the 2016 elections.
>>
>>I plan to be around in 2016.
>
> And no one knows what conditions will be like then,
Right. We shouldn't undertake anything that requires planning further
in advance than tommorrow.
>or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
We don't know what conditions will be like, but you're sure it will be
a small increase.
>oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
>oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
I'm OK with that.
>existing off-shore drilling ships are booked solid for years,
I suspect that we could build more ships by 2016.
>and the oil companies already have hundreds of leases on
>public land that they aren't bothering to develop yet.
>
> No, this issue is just about pandering to the oil
>companies.
And you know, *voters*. Like me.
cryptoguy
> On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following innews:g3mvqf$jhp$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>
>
> >> Until the people in question embrace liberty, justice...and all that
> >> jazz...then they are unworthy of the full benefits of a system that
> >> does value those attributes.
>
> > You want a mulligan on that, Dann? I'll be happy to give you one,
> > because you must have been distracted when you took that swing.
>
> I'm not sure where the problem is.
>
> The people in question.....terrorists, jihadists, and others that act
> with malice towards the west and liberal democracies.
>
> Full benefits.....all of the bells and whistles that exist in western
> courts.
>
> That isn't the same as saying that the system of justice that we use to
> try them shouldn't have some of those bells and whistles.
We need to treat them to justice, even if they would not
reciprocate, because we are better then they are. Treating
them as they would treat us would bring us down to their
level - which is exactly what they want.
Just behaviour isn't neccesarily the safest, nor
the most expedient, nor the most efficient, nor
even the most satifying. But its the Right Thing
to do.
The Bush League are abusing the definition of war try
to create a situation in which anyone they don't like
can be imprisoned at the Maximum Leader's whim,
for as long as they like, without any recourse.
The Supremes have been slapping them down,
thank heavens. This isn't Zimbabwe - yet.
It was only after the SC insisted that the BL has
made any move towards fulfilling their duty
protect and defend the Constitution, or faithfully
execute the laws.
pt
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's a paradox of sorts. If we afford them all of the rights we have
> come to expect, they will win and those rights will be extinguished for
> everyone. If we don't afford them full civilian rights, then we are
> accused of not living up to our stated ideals.
Oh, I see--false dichotomy trouble! I don't accept that if we
afford people the rights of our legal system that that system
will be extinguished. I can't offhand imagine how letting
a bunch of people challenge the propriety of their imprisonment
is going to lead to the fall of our country. I think we're a
lot tougher than that.
Mike Beede
Dann
news:beede-2CAE55....@news.visi.com.
Perhaps the problem is that the basis for their confinement will not
stand up to the rigors of a fully civilian court system. For all its
flaws, our system does a pretty decent job of challenging prosecutors to
ensure that we only put guilty people in jail.
It ain't perfect, but it is pretty good.
In order for that system to work, the courts must be able to compel
witnesses to testify, and grant warrants so that investigators can obtain
evidence from a crime scene.
Such a system has no authority to grant warrants so that investigators
can work a crime scene in Pakistan. The people that nab these characters
aren't trained in crime scene preservation nor are they trained in things
like the chain of possession of evidence.
A civilian court system will chew up those cases and spit them out.
None...or very few...of the accused will be punished [a secondary
interest, IMO] and few will be kept out of circulation while the battle
rages on.
Essentially, the net result will be that few of the opposing forces will
be kept from returning the battlefield.
The military tribunal system afforded the detainees a proceeding that is
generally on par with what our own military has under the UCMJ. The UCMJ
affords far fewer rights than does our civilian court system.
I see no reason to grant them more rights than we grant our own military.
> I think we're a lot tougher than that.
I wish you were right about that.
racs...@gmail.com
> On 23 Jun 2008, Mike Beede said the following innews:beede-2CAE55....@news.visi.com.
>
> > I think we're a lot tougher than that.
>
> I wish you were right about that.
Well, see, there's the fundamental disconnect: When you praise the
Constitution, you do it the way an agnostic bows his head at a public
prayer -- because it's part of a tradition, not out of actual belief.
No good American would say that the Constitution is nothing more than
a pretty fiction. They even take pledges to defend it when they assume
office or join the military. But it is all theoretical.
Ask them and they'll tell you they believe in the Constitution. But to
"believe in it" as Peter stepping out of that boat to join Jesus in
walking on the water? Well, that divides the sheep from the goats,
doesn't it, now?
Those who feel the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't really apply
in times of crisis are like those who would say the same thing about
the Bible and the Word of God.
Pretty fictions, meant to make people feel better, but nothing you
should really rely on when it matters.
The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who truly
believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:df82f022-6deb-404f...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com.
> The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
> believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who truly
> believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my doubts
about whether the American people are tough anymore.
racs...@gmail.com
> On 24 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following innews:df82f022-6deb-404f...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com.
>
> > The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
> > believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who truly
> > believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
>
> Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
>
> It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my doubts
> about whether the American people are tough anymore.
Well, yes, it was a good document back when Americans were tough. But
now we're not, so it's really not applicable anymore. A good thing to
go visit at the national archives, but nothing you can rely on in
these hard times of soft people. (The Supreme Court doesn't
understand, but we do.)
It's like the Bible. Good if you lived in the desert 2,000 years ago,
but nothing that really applies to the problems we face today.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>In article <Jym.22Jun20...@econet.org>,
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.attackcartoons.com/trackback.php?id=2008061807174142
>>
>> =v= Can't read it.
>
>Turns out that the URL doesn't work, but for today the one
>he's talking about is on the front page at http://www.attackcartoons.com
>
On impeachment, this is a great counter . . .:
<http://www.gocomics.com/paulconrad/2008/06/13/>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <bo00645m73immd5ho...@4ax.com>,
>George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:26:04 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>> Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
>>>>27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
>>>>the 2016 elections.
>>>
>>>I plan to be around in 2016.
>>
>> And no one knows what conditions will be like then,
>
>Right. We shouldn't undertake anything that requires planning further
>in advance than tommorrow.
>
Undertakings, like say . . . looking for alternatives to oil-based
fuel? Maybe like Brazil's sugar cane-based ethanol that supplies most
of its auto fleet? Maybe finding a way to make electric cars more
feasible and practical, say linking them light-rail-style to main
power grids? Maybe a Manhattan Project/Apollo Program to get us off
foreign oil sources, or move us beyond oil altogether? Maybe cleaner
algae-based "Oil 2.0"?
>>or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
>
>We don't know what conditions will be like, but you're sure it will be
>a small increase.
>
>>oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
>>oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
>
>I'm OK with that.
>
Well, if you enjoyed Katrina, you probably also enjoyed watching
planes fly into the WTC; to each their own, I guess . . .
>>existing off-shore drilling ships are booked solid for years,
>
>I suspect that we could build more ships by 2016.
>
>>and the oil companies already have hundreds of leases on
>>public land that they aren't bothering to develop yet.
>>
>> No, this issue is just about pandering to the oil
>>companies.
>
>And you know, *voters*. Like me.
>
Sure, the minority; or, as is much more blunt in elections, the
losers . . .
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:29:14 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <bo00645m73immd5ho...@4ax.com>,
>>George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:26:04 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
>>>>>27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
>>>>>the 2016 elections.
>>>>
>>>>I plan to be around in 2016.
>>>
>>> And no one knows what conditions will be like then,
>>
>>Right. We shouldn't undertake anything that requires planning further
>>in advance than tommorrow.
>>
>
> Undertakings, like say . . . looking for alternatives to oil-based
>fuel? Maybe like Brazil's sugar cane-based ethanol that supplies most
>of its auto fleet? Maybe finding a way to make electric cars more
>feasible and practical, say linking them light-rail-style to main
>power grids? Maybe a Manhattan Project/Apollo Program to get us off
>foreign oil sources, or move us beyond oil altogether? Maybe cleaner
>algae-based "Oil 2.0"?
And drilling for oil keeps us from doing this, how?
>
>
>>>or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
>>
>>We don't know what conditions will be like, but you're sure it will be
>>a small increase.
>>
>>>oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
>>>oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
>>
>>I'm OK with that.
>>
>
> Well, if you enjoyed Katrina, you probably also enjoyed watching
>planes fly into the WTC; to each their own, I guess . . .
>
>
Right. That's obviously what I meant.
>>>existing off-shore drilling ships are booked solid for years,
>>
>>I suspect that we could build more ships by 2016.
>>
>>>and the oil companies already have hundreds of leases on
>>>public land that they aren't bothering to develop yet.
>>>
>>> No, this issue is just about pandering to the oil
>>>companies.
>>
>>And you know, *voters*. Like me.
>>
>
> Sure, the minority; or, as is much more blunt in elections, the
>losers . . .
>
Time will tell.
Dann
news:qrj3645rsvp9lhc24...@4ax.com.
> On impeachment, this is a great counter . . .:
>
> <http://www.gocomics.com/paulconrad/2008/06/13/>
Someone's going to be disappointed....
Dann
> On Jun 24, 6:44 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following
>> innews:df82
> f022-6deb-404f-8...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com.
>>
>> > The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
>> > believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who
>> > truly believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
>>
>> Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
>>
>> It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my
>> doubts about whether the American people are tough anymore.
>
> Well, yes, it was a good document back when Americans were tough. But
> now we're not, so it's really not applicable anymore. A good thing to
> go visit at the national archives, but nothing you can rely on in
> these hard times of soft people. (The Supreme Court doesn't
> understand, but we do.)
Strike two!
You are linking things that were never linked in anything I've posted.
They were linked in Mr. Beede's post. Not necessarily so in my
rejoinder.
Dann
> But that's my opinion, and I have, as you know, great respect for
> yours. Wrong as it may be. ;)
For some reason, my original response has shown up. So....
"Right back atcha, brother. <grin>"
To that I'll add...
"I appreciate your understanding of the basis for my point of view
regardless of our disagreement over how to proceed."
Dann
news:Xns9AC845EA12A59d...@64.209.0.81.
> On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
> news:g3nagb$v9q$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>
>> But that's my opinion, and I have, as you know, great respect for
>> yours. Wrong as it may be. ;)
>
> For some reason, my original response has shown up. So....
Erg....even that one had trouble making it completely through the wires. I
swear there was an "n't" at the end of "has" when I clicked the send
button.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On 25 Jun 2008, Dann said the following innews:Xns9AC845EA12A59d...@64.209.0.81.
>
> > On 22 Jun 2008, Sherwood Harrington said the following in
> >news:g3nagb$v9q$1...@blue.rahul.net.
>
> >> But that's my opinion, and I have, as you know, great respect for
> >> yours. Wrong as it may be. ;)
>
> > For some reason, my original response has shown up. So....
>
> Erg....even that one had trouble making it completely through the wires. I
> swear there was an "n't" at the end of "has" when I clicked the send
> button.
>
Don't worry, the missing characters will eventually show up later.
Attention RACS: If anybody finds a misplaced "n't" in any of their
posts, please send it to Dann.
nickelshrink
> On 24 Jun 2008, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
> news:55c16dc8-6b13-43c1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
>
>> On Jun 24, 6:44 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 24 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following
>>> innews:df82
>> f022-6deb-404f-8...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com.
>>>> The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
>>>> believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who
>>>> truly believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
>>> Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
>>>
>>> It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my
>>> doubts about whether the American people are tough anymore.
>>
>> Well, yes, it was a good document back when Americans were tough. But
>> now we're not, so it's really not applicable anymore. A good thing to
>> go visit at the national archives, but nothing you can rely on in
>> these hard times of soft people. (The Supreme Court doesn't
>> understand, but we do.)
>
> Strike two!
>
Hey, i'll be the first to admit i don't know much about sports.
What game is this where the pitcher calls his own pitches?
Dannball?
8~)
<ducking>
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Mike Beede
<5e11cc32-4783-450c...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
I haven't found it.
Wait--is that it in the previous sentence?
Mike
racs...@gmail.com
> On 24 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following innews:55c16dc8-6b13-43c1...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 6:44 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 24 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following
> >> innews:df82
>
> >> > The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
> >> > believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who
> >> > truly believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
>
> >> Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
>
> >> It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my
> >> doubts about whether the American people are tough anymore.
>
> > Well, yes, it was a good document back when Americans were tough. But
> > now we're not, so it's really not applicable anymore. A good thing to
> > go visit at the national archives, but nothing you can rely on in
> > these hard times of soft people. (The Supreme Court doesn't
> > understand, but we do.)
>
> Strike two!
>
> You are linking things that were never linked in anything I've posted.
> They were linked in Mr. Beede's post. Not necessarily so in my
> rejoinder.
Bullshit. You said " It isn't that I don't believe in the
Constitution. I've got my
doubts about whether the American people are tough anymore."
To which I responded, sarcastically, to suggest that you are a
sunshine patriot who only believes in the Constitution when times are
easy and it doesn't matter, but who feels that, in hard times, when
the chips are down, it just doesn't work.
That, to me, is gutless posturing. Either you believe in it, or you
don't. And if you feel it relies on the "toughness" of its people,
then you don't believe in it.
That's okay. Most of the world lives under other systems. The majority
of people don't believe in the Constitution. You're not hangin' out
there alone.
But, for my part, I think it was designed for hard times. The problem
is, it won't work if cowards continue to find "exceptions" and to
undermine its protections because they don't have the guts to see it
through.
Do you really think that the people who wrote this hadn't seen hard
times? Goddam, do you read history at all?
You don't believe. Bottom line. You wave the flag, but you don't
believe.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:a3966db6-9b93-4569...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
> On Jun 25, 6:45 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are linking things that were never linked in anything I've
>> posted.
>
>> They were linked in Mr. Beede's post. Not necessarily so in my
>> rejoinder.
>
> Bullshit. You said " It isn't that I don't believe in the
> Constitution. I've got my
> doubts about whether the American people are tough anymore."
The two sentences were separated by a quote. They were not tied as you
posted it above. Nice selective snipping. I thought that was my
territory.
> To which I responded, sarcastically, to suggest that you are a
> sunshine patriot who only believes in the Constitution when times are
> easy and it doesn't matter, but who feels that, in hard times, when
> the chips are down, it just doesn't work.
And again, when I wrote what I wrote, I was not linking the two issues.
I wasn't even thinking of the Gitmo detainees at the time. Unless you've
got a magic wire into my brain....and I'm betting that you don't....you
haven't a single clue as to what I was thinking when I wrote that.
> That, to me, is gutless posturing. Either you believe in it, or you
> don't. And if you feel it relies on the "toughness" of its people,
> then you don't believe in it.
I not only believe in it, I gave up close to 9 years of my life defending
it. For those 9 years, I did not enjoy all of those rights that everyone
else gets to enjoy. I surrendered a chunk of them voluntarily so that
everyone else could have them a bit longer.
That's how much I believe.
[insert snippy, vitriolic remark that I'll later regret here]
> But, for my part, I think it was designed for hard times. The problem
> is, it won't work if cowards continue to find "exceptions" and to
> undermine its protections because they don't have the guts to see it
> through.
>
> Do you really think that the people who wrote this hadn't seen hard
> times? Goddam, do you read history at all?
Indeed I have read history. I know enough American history to know that
the denying foreign combatants civilian Constitutional rights [and
instead giving them rights that reasonably parallel the rights our own
military has when going before a military court] falls pretty low on the
"shredding the Constitution" scale.
Well below John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Act.
Well below Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus....for everyone,
not just a few hundred foreign combatants.
Well below the Sedition Act of Woodrow Wilson, along with his
administration's sanctioning of the American Protective League.
Well below Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese immigrants and
their descendents. [Far, far below his NRA and stacking of the Supreme
Court, while we're at it.]
Well below the legal perversions caused by the War on Drugs, to take one
out of left field.
Far, far below the creation of the IRS.
I know enough American history to know that this is the first time such
civilian rights have been conferred upon forces opposing us militarily.
The....very....first....time.
[When I wrote of Americans being weak, I was thinking....as an example...
about how the average American lacks the familiarity with our history to
understand how lightly Mr. Bush has trod on our liberties when compared
with past wartime Presidents. I was also thinking about the apparent
decline in critical reasoning skills that makes the American public
susceptible to being persuaded by overblown rhetoric to the contrary.
That isn't to say "I'm right and you're wrong". I mean that we have lost
our ability to maintain a historical sense of scope and perspective as
well as a common agreement on the facts in play.]
I infer that you believe that terrorism is a criminal matter and not a
military matter. I infer that one way or the other, you believe that the
accused ought to have access to civilian courts regardless of whether
they have ever set foot inside the US before being taken into custody.
Fine. Perhaps you could care to make an argument for that position
rather than another fit bloviating?
IMO and as suggested by the cartoon that started this thread, the people
we are fighting will use the much higher standards for establishing guilt
used by civilian courts as a means of being able to continue to fight us
without being punished. Just as they will use our other institutions and
traditions to eventually undermine the values that I like to believe we
both support.
For examples, take a look at the abuse of Canada's Human Rights
Commissions to silence critics of extremist strains of Islam. Or how
about the "no-go" zones that have cropped up around Muslim populations in
England where it isn't healthy to be non-Muslim. Or perhaps you might
take a good look at the murder of Theo van Gogh for having the temerity
to make a movie critical of the Islamic faith.
The plan of the extremists in question is to use our tolerance against
us; to get us to tolerate their intolerance.
IMO, we are engaged in a war that is not of our choosing. A war that
does not fit into all the neat, antisceptic, pre-conceived pigeon holes
that we all thought defined "war".
I liked the old pigeon holes better, too.
Perhaps you can make a case that we are not at war? Without the
pandering of questioning people's patriotism?
> You don't believe. Bottom line. You wave the flag, but you don't
> believe.
Don't give up your day job. You'd starve as a mind reader.
racs...@gmail.com
> On 25 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following innews:a3966db6-9b93-4569...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
>
> > On Jun 25, 6:45 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> You are linking things that were never linked in anything I've
> >> posted.
> >
> >> They were linked in Mr. Beede's post. Not necessarily so in my
> >> rejoinder.
>
> > Bullshit. You said " It isn't that I don't believe in the
> > Constitution. I've got my
> > doubts about whether the American people are tough anymore."
>
> The two sentences were separated by a quote. They were not tied as you
> posted it above. Nice selective snipping. I thought that was my
> territory.
>
Here is the post in question in its entirety. No "selective
stripping." Just your words in their original form as posted. The two
sentences, you will note, come one after the other exactly as I
quoted.
***************
On 24 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
news:df82f022-6deb-404f...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com.
> The funny thing is, this country seems divided between those who
> believe in A but not in B, and vice versa. Rare the person who truly
> believes in both, wretched the one who believes in neither.
Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my
doubts
about whether the American people are tough anymore.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
***********************
Conversation over. If you can't even be bothered to read your own
postings, why should anyone else?
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:180c5c35-ccf4-40a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
> Conversation over. If you can't even be bothered to read your own
> postings, why should anyone else?
Erg.
Dann
news:180c5c35-ccf4-40a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
> Conversation over. If you can't even be bothered to read your own
> postings, why should anyone else?
Hang on a sec.
My response to Mr. Beede:
------------------
I see no reason to grant them more rights than we grant our own military.
> I think we're a lot tougher than that.
I wish you were right about that.
------------------
Note the separation.
To which you responded:
------------------
>
> > I think we're a lot tougher than that.
>
> I wish you were right about that.
Well, see, there's the fundamental disconnect: When you praise the
Constitution, you do it the way an agnostic bows his head at a public
prayer -- because it's part of a tradition, not out of actual belief.
-------------------
Note the conflation.
At that point you were connecting two things that were unrelated in my
original post. In fact, I specifically separated my quotation of Mr.
Beede to differentiate between the two thoughts.
I attempted to correct your misinterpretation with:
-------------------
Swing and a miss. Strike one to the Deacon.
It isn't that I don't believe in the Constitution. I've got my doubts
about whether the American people are tough anymore.
-------------------
And you have continued to insist that my concerns about the relative
"toughness" of the American people are irrevocably tied to my belief in
the Constitution. My protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
So I guess we're still left with waiting for you to read my posts...and
accept them at face value...in the first place.
Let me know when you stop seeing the target you want and start seeing the
target you have.
You are right about one thing, the Constitution _IS_ like the Bible.
Apparently if one doesn't express belief in a particular, selective
manner, one gets burned at the stake as being a heritic.*
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
*that particular door swings both ways....for the record.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <evj3649edjalnngl3...@4ax.com>,
>Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:29:14 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bo00645m73immd5ho...@4ax.com>,
>>>George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:26:04 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Which doesn't change the fact that repealing a
>>>>>>27-year-old policy would do nothing for oil prices before
>>>>>>the 2016 elections.
>>>>>
>>>>>I plan to be around in 2016.
>>>>
>>>> And no one knows what conditions will be like then,
>>>
>>>Right. We shouldn't undertake anything that requires planning further
>>>in advance than tommorrow.
>>>
>>
>> Undertakings, like say . . . looking for alternatives to oil-based
>>fuel? Maybe like Brazil's sugar cane-based ethanol that supplies most
>>of its auto fleet? Maybe finding a way to make electric cars more
>>feasible and practical, say linking them light-rail-style to main
>>power grids? Maybe a Manhattan Project/Apollo Program to get us off
>>foreign oil sources, or move us beyond oil altogether? Maybe cleaner
>>algae-based "Oil 2.0"?
>
>And drilling for oil keeps us from doing this, how?
>
Wasted resources, obviously . . .
>>
>>
>>>>or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
>>>
>>>We don't know what conditions will be like, but you're sure it will be
>>>a small increase.
>>>
>>>>oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
>>>>oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
>>>
>>>I'm OK with that.
>>>
>>
>> Well, if you enjoyed Katrina, you probably also enjoyed watching
>>planes fly into the WTC; to each their own, I guess . . .
>>
>>
>
>Right. That's obviously what I meant.
>
Thanks for the confirmation! Though, if this is sarcasm, it should
be obvious mentioning massive tragedy should involve a lot of
clarification . . .
>>>>existing off-shore drilling ships are booked solid for years,
>>>
>>>I suspect that we could build more ships by 2016.
>>>
>>>>and the oil companies already have hundreds of leases on
>>>>public land that they aren't bothering to develop yet.
>>>>
>>>> No, this issue is just about pandering to the oil
>>>>companies.
>>>
>>>And you know, *voters*. Like me.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, the minority; or, as is much more blunt in elections, the
>>losers . . .
>>
>
>Time will tell.
>
Sure will . . .
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
You appear to be proposing a bunch of government programs. I don't
set how letting private firms drill for oil interferes with that.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
>>>>
>>>>We don't know what conditions will be like, but you're sure it will be
>>>>a small increase.
>>>>
>>>>>oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
>>>>>oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
>>>>
>>>>I'm OK with that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if you enjoyed Katrina, you probably also enjoyed watching
>>>planes fly into the WTC; to each their own, I guess . . .
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Right. That's obviously what I meant.
>>
>
> Thanks for the confirmation! Though, if this is sarcasm, it should
>be obvious mentioning massive tragedy should involve a lot of
>clarification . . .
I don't see how anybody with any reading comprehenshion could
interpret the fact that I am willing to tolerate some risk of oil
spills to mean that I want lots of deadly hurricanes to hit. I
took your comment, especially with its invocation of 9/11 as
deliberately offensive and after burning several replies, posted
the most noncommittal thing I could come up with.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Nope, about on par with these . .
>Well below Franklin Roosevelt's internment of Japanese immigrants and
>their descendents.
Almost *exactly* like this one; 'cept we didn't torture those
interned . . .
[Far, far below his NRA and stacking of the Supreme
>Court, while we're at it.]
>
Hmmm, last I remember, replacing Justices as they retire is the
President's job, not "stacking" . . .
>Well below the legal perversions caused by the War on Drugs, to take one
>out of left field.
>
Irony alert!
>Far, far below the creation of the IRS.
>
Considering the IRS is there to enforce the 16th Amendment, this
would actually be *strengthening* the Constitution . . .
>I know enough American history to know that this is the first time such
>civilian rights have been conferred upon forces opposing us militarily.
>
You know, except for those that didn't do anything, and are
encarcerated unjustly; I mean, not only do you turn in that pesky
neighbor you've been feuding with, you get a bounty to boot! Stalin
would be so proud . . .
>The....very....first....time.
>
Innocent . . . until . . . proven . . . guilty.
>[When I wrote of Americans being weak, I was thinking....as an example...
>about how the average American lacks the familiarity with our history to
>understand how lightly Mr. Bush has trod on our liberties when compared
>with past wartime Presidents. I was also thinking about the apparent
>decline in critical reasoning skills that makes the American public
>susceptible to being persuaded by overblown rhetoric to the contrary.
>
>That isn't to say "I'm right and you're wrong". I mean that we have lost
>our ability to maintain a historical sense of scope and perspective as
>well as a common agreement on the facts in play.]
>
>I infer that you believe that terrorism is a criminal matter and not a
>military matter. I infer that one way or the other, you believe that the
>accused ought to have access to civilian courts regardless of whether
>they have ever set foot inside the US before being taken into custody.
>
>Fine. Perhaps you could care to make an argument for that position
>rather than another fit bloviating?
>
>IMO and as suggested by the cartoon that started this thread, the people
>we are fighting will use the much higher standards for establishing guilt
>used by civilian courts as a means of being able to continue to fight us
>without being punished. Just as they will use our other institutions and
>traditions to eventually undermine the values that I like to believe we
>both support.
>
Ah, Islamophobia and rationalizing, with a dose of lack of faith in
teh system, what a combination!
>For examples, take a look at the abuse of Canada's Human Rights
>Commissions to silence critics of extremist strains of Islam. Or how
>about the "no-go" zones that have cropped up around Muslim populations in
>England where it isn't healthy to be non-Muslim.
Interesting cites, since they have nothing to do with wrongful
imprisonment, and failure to follow the rule of law . . .
Or perhaps you might
>take a good look at the murder of Theo van Gogh for having the temerity
>to make a movie critical of the Islamic faith.
>
Now this is just a d-bag getting his just deserts; even if his
killers were in the wrong, it's hard to say he didn't have it coming;
a guy jumps into a pool full of sharks, you don't blame the sharks
when he becomes fish food . . .
>The plan of the extremists in question is to use our tolerance against
>us; to get us to tolerate their intolerance.
>
Oooh, mind-reading!
>IMO, we are engaged in a war that is not of our choosing. A war that
>does not fit into all the neat, antisceptic, pre-conceived pigeon holes
>that we all thought defined "war".
>
Hence the Irony Alert for the "War on Drugs"!
>I liked the old pigeon holes better, too.
>
>Perhaps you can make a case that we are not at war? Without the
>pandering of questioning people's patriotism?
>
>> You don't believe. Bottom line. You wave the flag, but you don't
>> believe.
>
>Don't give up your day job. You'd starve as a mind reader.
More irony, as clearly mind-reading would be a requirement to
think that every one imprisoned at Gitmo is actually guilty! Anwyay,
until this gets cleared up, cock-meat sandwiches for everybody!
(needless to say, link NSFW):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqvPDRuIlDw>
Mike Beede
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2008, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
> news:180c5c35-ccf4-40a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
>
> > Conversation over. If you can't even be bothered to read your own
> > postings, why should anyone else?
>
> Erg.
Watt.
Mike Beede
Mike Beede
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> [Far, far below his NRA and stacking of the Supreme
> >Court, while we're at it.]
> >
>
> Hmmm, last I remember, replacing Justices as they retire is the
> President's job, not "stacking" . . .
Roosevelt tried to increase the number of justices on the
court so he could appoint a majority. This is usually referred
to as "stacking the court." He didn't get away with it.
Mike Beede
David Armour
George W Harris
To say he didn't get away with it is to imply
that he attempted something improper. Had the
Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 passed, it would
have been the sixth time that the size of the court
was adjusted by Congress, as would have been
entirely proper. There's nothing magical about nine
justices; the Supreme Court has had as few as six
and as many as ten justices.
>
> Mike Beede
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
<tednolan>) wrote:
>>>And drilling for oil keeps us from doing this, how?
>>>
>>
>> Wasted resources, obviously . . .
>>
>
>You appear to be proposing a bunch of government programs. I don't
>set how letting private firms drill for oil interferes with that.
Letting private firms drill for oil on private land
isn't what's being proposed. Letting them drill for oil in
a wildlife reserve, and offshore in territorial waters,
however, certainly count as government programs. So,
then, do you oppose these government programs? Or
do you only support government programs that foul the
water and air while profiting large oil companies?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Mike Beede wrote:
> > Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 26 Jun 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
> >>news:180c5c35-ccf4-40a5...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.
>
> >>> Conversation over. If you can't even be bothered to read your own
> >>> postings, why should anyone else?
> >> Erg.
>
> > Watt.
>
> > Mike Beede
>
> Ohm i god. Am peering 2 see what comes up next!
Volt are you talking about?
Detox
>
I'm dyne to find out.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>>And drilling for oil keeps us from doing this, how?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wasted resources, obviously . . .
>>>
>>
>>You appear to be proposing a bunch of government programs. I don't
>>set how letting private firms drill for oil interferes with that.
>
> Letting private firms drill for oil on private land
>isn't what's being proposed. Letting them drill for oil in
>a wildlife reserve, and offshore in territorial waters,
>however, certainly count as government programs. So,
>then, do you oppose these government programs? Or
>do you only support government programs that foul the
>water and air while profiting large oil companies?
>--
Where did I say I oppose government programs? I didn't
even say I opposed the ones Antonio was proposing. I said
that letting private firms drill for oil doesn't
interfere with that.
Ted
unMichael
Joule be sorry.
Detox
So often it hertz.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
The main point being, other than the required appointments, the
Supreme Court remained untouched . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<tednolan>) wrote:
With the exception of the Manhattan Project/Apollo Program thing,
what government programs?
The main ethanol producer in the US is Archer Daniels Midland. . .
One of the best developers and enhancers of pure-electric cars is
Tesla Motors . . .
The "Oil 2.0" thing is being done by scientists in the Silicon
Valley; oh, and my bad, it's made from sewage, not algae. . .
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece>
All private firms or innovators . . .
This isn't the time to further feed the addiction, it's time to
look for safer and healthier alternatives . . .
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>or if the small increase in supply will be worth putting lots of
>>>>>
>>>>>We don't know what conditions will be like, but you're sure it will be
>>>>>a small increase.
>>>>>
>>>>>>oil rigs off the coast in hurricane alley (Katrina spilled more
>>>>>>oil than the Exxon Valdez). Not to mention that all the
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm OK with that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if you enjoyed Katrina, you probably also enjoyed watching
>>>>planes fly into the WTC; to each their own, I guess . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Right. That's obviously what I meant.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the confirmation! Though, if this is sarcasm, it should
>>be obvious mentioning massive tragedy should involve a lot of
>>clarification . . .
>
>I don't see how anybody with any reading comprehenshion could
>interpret the fact that I am willing to tolerate some risk of oil
>spills to mean that I want lots of deadly hurricanes to hit. I
>took your comment, especially with its invocation of 9/11 as
>deliberately offensive and after burning several replies, posted
>the most noncommittal thing I could come up with.
>
Well, callousness has no place in tragedy (at least with civilized
folk); it might be best to end this parcticular bit of thread drift
before things get *really* bad . . .
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, ADM is a corrupt organization for turning taxes into ethanol,
but that doesn't change the fact that letting an oil company drill
for oil will have no effect on that.
TEd
Jym Dyer
> The snail darter episode is an excellent example of
> environmentalists making a mountain out of a mole hill.
=v= I don't quite understand this mangling of history. I should
think that a conservative would *oppose* public-sector projects
such as the TVA's most ill-conceived, money-losing dam ever, but
I guess that's trumped by trying to find any pretext whatsoever
to bash environmentalists for. (The TVA is generally pretty
successful, though, so you might want to look into exemplarizing
this unusually bad project in the name of ideological bashing.)
=v= The project did in fact wipe out the snail darter population
in the Little Tennessee River, and the entire food chain that it
was part of. (You see, the anti-environmentalist position was
to focus only on the snail darter, emphasizing its smallness, so
as to detract from the entire food chain.) It is a stroke of
luck that the species was discovered in other habitats, and that
some were transferred out of that habitat.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> Given that the combattants [sic] in question have not
> fulfilled their obligations under that Convention [i.e.
> wearing some sort of uniform, obeying a centralized
> command structure, not targeting civilians, not using
> hospitals and religious buildings as bases, etc.],
> those same combattants [sic] should not be given the
> legal benefits of that Convention.
=v= That kool-ade sure is tasty, I guess.
=v= I demand that America stand for human rights, above
and beyond the capabilities of its worst lawyers to work
out ways to thwart a document's true intent, or of its
right-wing noise machine to spew rationalizations.
<_Jym_>
Dann
news:Jym.28Jun20...@econet.org.
> Dann writes:
>
>> Given that the combattants [sic] in question have not
>> fulfilled their obligations under that Convention [i.e.
>> wearing some sort of uniform, obeying a centralized
>> command structure, not targeting civilians, not using
>> hospitals and religious buildings as bases, etc.],
>> those same combattants [sic] should not be given the
>> legal benefits of that Convention.
>
> =v= That kool-ade sure is tasty, I guess.
Person of hay
> =v= I demand that America stand for human rights, above
> and beyond the capabilities of its worst lawyers to work
> out ways to thwart a document's true intent, or of its
> right-wing noise machine to spew rationalizations.
Care to suggest how that works when the detainees are being "arrested" by
non-law enforcement officers deep in some foreign land?
Specifically?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<tednolan>) wrote:
Keep in mind "oil" companies are techinically energy companies
(certainly how they're selling themselves now). We're trying to get
*off* of oil; if a meth addict is running out of crystal, you don't
give permission to build a lab; time for the comanies to put the money
where their mouth is, start helping fund or cooperate with the
aforementioned innovators, and quit whining about more wells for what
they're suppossed to be getting rid of. If they really are sitting on
12,000 unused wells, then this becomes more unforgiveable . . .
Mike Marshall
production is going to lower prices... I don't know how much oil
we have in the US to tap into, but I'm willing to claim that the
growing demand world-wide can keep up with whatever we've got. So, back
to the free market thing, if we produce more oil here in the US, it
is going to be sucked up by the demand. There's not going to be
corner stores selling "Amercian gas" for $1.25...
That said, we still need to expand our production capabilities though.
When someone blocks the strait of Hormuz (or derails current sources
along with the free market some other way) we'll be screwed if we can't make
enough of our own oil.
-Mike
Dann
news:g4g73d$eq6$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu.
> As long as we have a free market, there's no way that more oil
> production is going to lower prices... I don't know how much oil
> we have in the US to tap into, but I'm willing to claim that the
> growing demand world-wide can keep up with whatever we've got. So,
> back to the free market thing, if we produce more oil here in the US,
> it is going to be sucked up by the demand. There's not going to be
> corner stores selling "Amercian gas" for $1.25...
Just nitpicking, but you've got two variables in there. If demand
remained constant, then new supply sources in a free market would result
in lower prices.
In times of increasing demand, new sources would probably just keep
prices even, as you suggested.
I'll add that domestic drilling has the advantage of creating American
jobs, American profits, cash for land owners, and income for various
levels of government. Domestic drilling is a good idea.
> That said, we still need to expand our production capabilities though.
> When someone blocks the strait of Hormuz (or derails current sources
> along with the free market some other way) we'll be screwed if we
> can't make enough of our own oil.
But we would be far better off if, as Reflex suggests, we developed
various non-petroleum based fuels. We will never have enough domestic
oil to provide the fuel our nation requires. Whether it be growing our
gas from algae, or refining it from oil produced by yeast and saw grass,
or refining non-food sugar into fuel, growing it at home is a much better
option than putting petro-dollars into the pockets of people that do not
have our better interests in mind.
All of those options are very profitable with oil at $143 a barrel. Toss
in the factor of getting Al Gore to shut his cake hole and I'd call it a
bargain!
Mike Marshall
>But we would be far better off if, as Reflex suggests, we developed
>various non-petroleum based fuels.
Not only do I agree, but ultimately that's what we have to do. But we
shouldn't have to count on that until we have it.
There's a production electric car, http://www.teslamotors.com , that
you can buy for $100,000.00. And it's not a golf cart either, it's
a screaming (actually, really quiet <g>) banshee.
If everyone had an electric car, and all the electricity came from
the nook-you-ler plant, we'd be styling...
But... just like you can't grow enough corn to make enough ethanol, I'm
not sure the world wouldn't come to an end if we made that many batteries...
-Mike
Antonio E. Gonzalez
I'm thinking if cars could be recharged mid-drive, like light rail,
or even more rudamertary like bumber cars, the battery problem would
become moot; on the other hand, I've heard there might not be enough
uranium in the world to supply a full-nuclear electric grid for long.
. .
--
- ReFlex 76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 02 Jul 2008, Mike Marshall said the following in
>news:g4g73d$eq6$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu.
>
>> As long as we have a free market, there's no way that more oil
>> production is going to lower prices... I don't know how much oil
>> we have in the US to tap into, but I'm willing to claim that the
>> growing demand world-wide can keep up with whatever we've got. So,
>> back to the free market thing, if we produce more oil here in the US,
>> it is going to be sucked up by the demand. There's not going to be
>> corner stores selling "Amercian gas" for $1.25...
>
>Just nitpicking, but you've got two variables in there. If demand
>remained constant, then new supply sources in a free market would result
>in lower prices.
>
>In times of increasing demand, new sources would probably just keep
>prices even, as you suggested.
>
>I'll add that domestic drilling has the advantage of creating American
>jobs, American profits, cash for land owners, and income for various
>levels of government. Domestic drilling is a good idea.
>
There are plenty of ways to do the previous without resorting to
the stupidity of domestic drilling . . .
>> That said, we still need to expand our production capabilities though.
>> When someone blocks the strait of Hormuz (or derails current sources
>> along with the free market some other way) we'll be screwed if we
>> can't make enough of our own oil.
>
>But we would be far better off if, as Reflex suggests, we developed
>various non-petroleum based fuels. We will never have enough domestic
>oil to provide the fuel our nation requires. Whether it be growing our
>gas from algae, or refining it from oil produced by yeast and saw grass,
>or refining non-food sugar into fuel, growing it at home is a much better
>option than putting petro-dollars into the pockets of people that do not
>have our better interests in mind.
>
$150 a barrel oil should be more than a clue that it's time to get
serious about getting a replacement . . .
>All of those options are very profitable with oil at $143 a barrel. Toss
>in the factor of getting Al Gore to shut his cake hole and I'd call it a
>bargain!
Being proven right is hardly something that would shut a guy up;
anyway, some of us find Al Gore's voice music to the ears!
--
- ReFlex 76
Jym Dyer
http://www.gocomics.com/paulconrad/2008/06/13/
=v= Pelosi with her mouth gagged on the topic of impeachment?
I don't get it. In fact she has remarked, memorably, about
impeachment. She said that it would not be on the table.
=v= What made her remarks so memorable is that they were a
direct rebuttal of the will of the people in her district, the
city of San Francisco, where a solid majority of citizens voted
in support of impeaching Bush and Cheney.
<_Jym_>
Harold Burton
<j...@econet.org> wrote:
That's because a majority of voters in her district are idiots.
Snicker.