Is Kinsey a Republican?
Bobby
he likes to cut spending on important things.
Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack did
refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
Bob Smith
"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
It's never been said which party they were in.
Bob
Jonathan
and
> he likes to cut spending on important things.
>
The same could be said for a lot of Democrats too..
> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack did
> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
>
And Jack would know?
The President is turning out to be a lot more on the ball than he appears...
This may go along with the idea of having intelligent characters play dumb
so that their opponents underestimate them.
If you haven't seen Lost City II, you won't have seen the details yet... but
the Prez is pretty cool...
Jonathan
Mark Jones
2004 20:22:15 GMT, did you or did you not state:
Nor should it matter, really. Our heroes, as members of the military
are expected to do what they're told regardless of their political
feelings about the current POTUS and Vice POTUS.
That leaves the issue unaddressed, which allow Republican viewers to
assume the bad politicians are Democrats, and vice versa.
--
[AGB] Bullet Sponge
"So what happened then, grandpa?"
"Well, I got KILLED, of course!"
Bob Smith
"Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:53bc50ta875isj8u2...@4ax.com...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net>, on or about Mon, 15 Mar
> 2004 20:22:15 GMT, did you or did you not state:
>
> >
> >"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
> >news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
> >> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
thumper
> >and
> >> he likes to cut spending on important things.
> >>
> >> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack
did
> >> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> >
> >It's never been said which party they were in.
>
> Nor should it matter, really. Our heroes, as members of the military
> are expected to do what they're told regardless of their political
> feelings about the current POTUS and Vice POTUS.
>
> That leaves the issue unaddressed, which allow Republican viewers to
> assume the bad politicians are Democrats, and vice versa.
Doesn't matter ... All politicians are Goa'uld ... For that matter, all
lawyers are too ...
Bob
Stephan Pejic
> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack did
> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
In a 6th season episode (I think it was "Paradise Lost") it was
mentioned that they were late in the second term of the presidency.
Thus, it does not seem likely that George W Bush is the president
in the Stargate universe.
BlakGard
>>> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible thumper
>>> and he likes to cut spending on important things.
>>>
>>> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack did
>>> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
>>
>> It's never been said which party they were in.
>
> Nor should it matter, really. Our heroes, as members of the military
> are expected to do what they're told regardless of their political
> feelings about the current POTUS and Vice POTUS.
>
> That leaves the issue unaddressed, which allow Republican viewers to
> assume the bad politicians are Democrats, and vice versa.
It doesn't matter anyway, because Republicans really aren't much different
than Democrats.
When was Kinsey seen thumping a Bible? Generally, he just seems to be
an average, non-descript politician, and I could see an argument for his
belonging to either major party.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
LVernet
"BlakGard" <blak...@aol.comix.net> wrote in message
news:20040315191709...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> It doesn't matter anyway, because Republicans really aren't much different
> than Democrats.
One party's rightwing and the other party's more rightwing.
> When was Kinsey seen thumping a Bible? Generally, he just seems to be
> an average, non-descript politician, and I could see an argument for his
> belonging to either major party.
>
In Politics he was drivelling on about the US being 'one nation under God'
and said he didn't believe that God would allow Earth to be attacked. Guess
he was wrong about that.
Laurelin
Passerby
"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
Mark Jones
GMT, did you or did you not state:
>When was Kinsey seen thumping a Bible? Generally, he just seems to be
>an average, non-descript politician, and I could see an argument for his
>belonging to either major party.
In his first appearance, I think. O'Neill was trying to explain to
him that the Goa'uld could be on their way to earth to destroy the
planet (as Daniel saw in the alternate universe) unless the SGC found
a way to stop them. Kinsey expressed disbelief that god would allow
that to happen.
Not bible thumping per se, but pretty clear evidence of his belief in
god, and in the USA's (if not the world's) protection by same.
BlakGard
>> When was Kinsey seen thumping a Bible? Generally, he just seems to be
>> an average, non-descript politician, and I could see an argument for his
>> belonging to either major party.
>
> In his first appearance, I think. O'Neill was trying to explain to
> him that the Goa'uld could be on their way to earth to destroy the
> planet (as Daniel saw in the alternate universe) unless the SGC found
> a way to stop them. Kinsey expressed disbelief that god would allow
> that to happen.
>
> Not bible thumping per se, but pretty clear evidence of his belief in
> god, and in the USA's (if not the world's) protection by same.
I agree, that's not really Bible thumping. Though his statement that there
was only one god comes close, it's not like either party has a monopoly
on being religious.
Outrider
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xfo5c.41897$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Which in Hollywood means he's a Republican. If the character is a
compassionate caring person with progressive politics and all the political
positions most in the entertainment industry approve of then they are
clearly identified as a Democrat (i.e.. 'The West Wing's' President Josiah
Bartlet).
However those characters who fit Hollywood's stereotypical image of
Republicans, (politicians portrayed as unscrupulous, racist, war mongering,
robber baron, brain-dead, fascist, far-right religious fanatics, who want to
tax the poor, subsidies the rich, oppress minorities, throw the elderly into
the street, starve babies, and wage war on small unarmed third world
countries) never have their party mentioned so as to not show a political
bias. (President William Harrison Mitchell and White House Chief of Staff
Bob Alexander in 'Dave', Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfus) in 'The
American President').
Those who's political positions genuinely care about people, are deeply
concerned about improving life but feel that a centralized government
solution is not always the best and honestly believe that liberty without
equality is preferable to equality without liberty are never portrayed at
all. Such complex positions are beyond the limited mental ability of the
average Hollywood insider. They are however commonly held by most actual
conservatives. But finding a character like that on television or in the
movies is about a likely as finding a straight male character who has good
fashion sense.
Outrider
x...@y.zzz
I don't recall ever seeing William Devane play a bad guy, but I have
seen him in a lot of movies and series, and he plays the most upright,
moral good guys you'll ever see. Until proven otherwise, root for
William Devane.
x...@y.zzz
"Everybody should be free to do as much good as he wants to -- with HIS OWN money."
--Milton Friedman, economist
Stargem419
>he likes to cut spending on important things.
*That* Kinsey is, evil I mean, and he once tried to shut down the SGC, and have
them all re-assigned.>Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the
shed and Jack did
>refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
DeVane's President also happens to be a lot better than the real *schrub*
that's currently in Office.
Thought I'd just through my 2 cents into the pot.
Star
LVernet
"Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Xfo5c.41897$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
> > news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
> > > Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
thumper
> > and
> > > he likes to cut spending on important things.
> > >
> > > Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack
> did
> > > refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> >
> > It's never been said which party they were in.
> >
>
> Which in Hollywood means he's a Republican. If the character is a
> compassionate caring person with progressive politics and all the
political
> positions most in the entertainment industry approve of then they are
> clearly identified as a Democrat (i.e.. 'The West Wing's' President Josiah
> Bartlet).
Disagree with you on Bartlet, Outrider. Bartlet is an appalling. He's
egotistical, selfish and barely compassionate. Wouldn't vote for him at all.
Like I said in my other post, the US has two parties, one is just more
rightwing than the other.
> However those characters who fit Hollywood's stereotypical image of
> Republicans, (politicians portrayed as unscrupulous, racist, war
mongering,
> robber baron, brain-dead, fascist, far-right religious fanatics, who want
to
> tax the poor, subsidies the rich, oppress minorities, throw the elderly
into
> the street, starve babies, and wage war on small unarmed third world
> countries) never have their party mentioned so as to not show a political
> bias. (President William Harrison Mitchell and White House Chief of Staff
> Bob Alexander in 'Dave', Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfus) in 'The
> American President').
Isn't this both sides of politics? Wasn't it the Democrats who originally
got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example? Isn't it
the Democrats who want to raise taxes (generalisation) or not give back the
surplus. That was in a TWW episode. Never met a politician who didn't want
to line the pockets of his/her own party.
> Those who's political positions genuinely care about people, are deeply
> concerned about improving life but feel that a centralized government
> solution is not always the best and honestly believe that liberty without
> equality is preferable to equality without liberty are never portrayed at
> all. Such complex positions are beyond the limited mental ability of the
> average Hollywood insider. They are however commonly held by most actual
> conservatives. But finding a character like that on television or in the
> movies is about a likely as finding a straight male character who has good
> fashion sense.
>
Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives, nor
is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
Laurelin
Ranger Bob
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:19:13 GMT, "Jonathan"
><jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
>>news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
>>> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible thumper
>>and
>>> he likes to cut spending on important things.
>>>
>>
>>The same could be said for a lot of Democrats too..
>>
>>> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack did
>>> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
>>>
>>
>>And Jack would know?
>>
>>The President is turning out to be a lot more on the ball than he appears...
>>This may go along with the idea of having intelligent characters play dumb
>>so that their opponents underestimate them.
>>
>>If you haven't seen Lost City II, you won't have seen the details yet... but
>>the Prez is pretty cool...
>>
>
>I don't recall ever seeing William Devane play a bad guy, but I have
>seen him in a lot of movies and series, and he plays the most upright,
>moral good guys you'll ever see. Until proven otherwise, root for
>William Devane.
"Payback" :-)
Ranger Bob
"Jaffa, TREE!"
If you aren't living on the edge, you are taking up too much space.
Outrider
"LVernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote in message
news:c36gib$23ugdd$1...@ID-177521.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Snip
Actualy it was the French :-)
Isn't it
> the Democrats who want to raise taxes (generalisation) or not give back
the
> surplus. That was in a TWW episode. Never met a politician who didn't want
> to line the pockets of his/her own party.
Your commenting on reality not Hollywood's portrayal of same. As for TWW
episode, I didn't see it but I will be willing to bet that not returning a
surplus was justified by the many noble and careing things that could be
done with it (new medical benifits, increased social spending, etc.) rather
than anything that could be considered wasteful or evil (business subsidies,
increased military spending, etc.).
> > Those who's political positions genuinely care about people, are deeply
> > concerned about improving life but feel that a centralized government
> > solution is not always the best and honestly believe that liberty
without
> > equality is preferable to equality without liberty are never portrayed
at
> > all. Such complex positions are beyond the limited mental ability of
the
> > average Hollywood insider. They are however commonly held by most
actual
> > conservatives. But finding a character like that on television or in
the
> > movies is about a likely as finding a straight male character who has
good
> > fashion sense.
> >
>
> Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives, nor
> is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
B.S. Read the post more carefully. My comments are directed at how
Hollywood portrays political characters not how people are in real life. I
don't think I stated that caring is limited to one side or the other, just
that you never see a person that Hollywood portrays as caring identified as
a Republican or "conservative". In the same way if the character portrays
all that is negative about politicians you will never see that character
identified as a Democrat or "liberal". Only politicians who are honest,
compassionate and caring have their party affiliation identified in TV or
films, and then they are identified as Democrats or "liberal".
To keep it on topic, my point is that in the case of Kinsey you have a
clearly evil self serving character, so Hollywood will not identify a party
affiliation. William Devan's character seems to be a decent person, but
since he ran with Kinsey as VP his party will not be identified either.
Outrider
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
bible thumper and he likes to cut spending on important things.]]]]]]]]]
Well, I just rewatched Season 1 *Politics* where, I was told, Kinsey
came across as something of a zealot. Here is what was said....but I'll
paraphrase slightly because I didn't write it down:
Kinsey: God is not going to let this world be overtaken by the Goa'uld.
Jack: Oh....you expect *God* to save us??
That's it. No thumping....no rolling on the floor. Now I'm also told
that Season 4 *Chain Reaction* has something that indicates Kinsey is a
Bible thumper....I'll try to check that out very soon and let you all
know what was said. :) Suzan
Ranger Bob
<stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>LVernet wrote:
>>
>> "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>> >
>> > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:Xfo5c.41897$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
>> > > > Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
>> thumper
>> > > and
>> > > > he likes to cut spending on important things.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack
>> > did
>> > > > refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
>> > >
>> > > It's never been said which party they were in.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Which in Hollywood means he's a Republican. If the character is a
>> > compassionate caring person with progressive politics and all the
>> political
>> > positions most in the entertainment industry approve of then they are
>> > clearly identified as a Democrat (i.e.. 'The West Wing's' President Josiah
>> > Bartlet).
>>
>> Disagree with you on Bartlet, Outrider. Bartlet is an appalling. He's
>> egotistical, selfish and barely compassionate. Wouldn't vote for him at all.
>
>
>I kinda like him, because it's nice to see an intelligent erudite man
>played as Prez. One of the reasons I liked Clinton so much (and Bartlet
>is basically Clinton for TV)
More like what Hollywood WISHED Clinton was like...
>was that he was a Rhodes Scholar and you
>could tell that he was a geniunely educated guy who really knew
>something that wasn't spoon-fed to him by people named "Condoleeza."
>
>
>> Like I said in my other post, the US has two parties, one is just more
>> rightwing than the other.
>
>
>Question: do they cover Ralph Nader at all down there in Oz?
I was thinking the same thing, but Nader isn't a real
contender anyway. All he has really accomplished in the last decade is
get George W Bush elected (Just like H Ross Perot helped Clinton get
elected in 1992).
Sadly, he didn't learn from Perot's experience. Do we really
want Nader pulling votes from Kerry like he did from Gore? I'm sorry,
but I don't want this one to be even close.
>
>> > However those characters who fit Hollywood's stereotypical image of
>> > Republicans, (politicians portrayed as unscrupulous, racist, war
>> mongering,
>> > robber baron, brain-dead, fascist, far-right religious fanatics, who want
>> to
>> > tax the poor, subsidies the rich, oppress minorities, throw the elderly
>> into
>> > the street, starve babies, and wage war on small unarmed third world
>> > countries) never have their party mentioned so as to not show a political
>> > bias. (President William Harrison Mitchell and White House Chief of Staff
>> > Bob Alexander in 'Dave', Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfus) in 'The
>> > American President').
>>
>> Isn't this both sides of politics? Wasn't it the Democrats who originally
>> got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
>
>
>No, actually that was the French who got us in Vietnam. If you're
>referring to the actual moment we "officially" entered the Vietnam war,
>however, then yes: that was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution under
>Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. All the other major "hot" wars of
>the 20th century were also entered into by Dems too: World War I under
>Wilson, World War II under Roosevelt, Korea under Truman.
>
>(Although it was really the Brits who got us into World War I, just so
>it doesn't look like I'm picking on the French again)
Come to think of it, it was the Japanese that got us into WWII
and the North Koreans who got us in Korea! Apparently it's only the
Bush family that sends hundreds of thousands of troops into foreign
countries without some foreigners 'forcing' us to do it. ;-)
>
>> Isn't it
>> the Democrats who want to raise taxes (generalisation) or not give back the
>> surplus. That was in a TWW episode. Never met a politician who didn't want
>> to line the pockets of his/her own party.
>
>
>Actually, the largest tax increase in history was under a Republican:
>Bush's daddy a/k/a Mr. "read my lips, no new taxes." As to giving back
>the surplus that was a Republican strawman, while there were indeed
>several years of budget surpluses in the late 90s they were insufficient
>to pay off the national debt and so there was nothing really to "give
>back." It's a bit like saying hey, you're finally making a dent in your
>credit card bill so it's time to have a big party: well, no, wait until
>the bill is paid off.
Amen. Preach it Brother Steve...
>
>
>> > Those who's political positions genuinely care about people, are deeply
>> > concerned about improving life but feel that a centralized government
>> > solution is not always the best and honestly believe that liberty without
>> > equality is preferable to equality without liberty are never portrayed at
>> > all. Such complex positions are beyond the limited mental ability of the
>> > average Hollywood insider. They are however commonly held by most actual
>> > conservatives. But finding a character like that on television or in the
>> > movies is about a likely as finding a straight male character who has good
>> > fashion sense.
>> >
>>
>> Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives, nor
>> is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
>
>
>Outrider's heart is in the right place, but there aren't many
>conservatives like him in my experience. For every one such
>old-fashioned conservative, which is really what he's talking about
>(like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five fruitcakes who
>think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights, want to hand out
>guns like candy and think Ann Coulter is really cool. These are the
>people who go into a masturbatory frenzy over Ronald Reagan and want to
>name every national park after him, it's getting weird in this country
>let me tell you.
I think that is true where you come from, but around here
there are plenty of conservatives like Outrider describes. Of course,
our liberals don't resemble the ones on the left coast either.
While our area may have gotten its name because we are in the
middle of the country, I think MIDwest could also describe our
politics as well. While people on the coasts seem to be more extreme
(on both sides of the aisle), the rest of the country is usually
shaking our heads and wondering what all the fuss is about. :-)
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
For every one such old-fashioned conservative, which is really what
he's talking about (like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five
fruitcakes who think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights, want
to hand out guns like candy and think Ann Coulter is really cool.
Hey now!! Watch it there Buddy, I AM Ann Coulter!! ;) SuzanCoulterFuzz
MadiHolmes
>> Isn't this both sides of politics? Wasn't it the Democrats who originally
>> got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
>
>Actualy it was the French :-)
What happened was that France was a having a spot of trouble with the
Vietnamese <who mostly just wanted independence at the time, they could have
cared less about communism>, so France extorted the US/UN by stipulating that
if the US didn't help out there, they <the French> would drop out of the UN,
which would effectively make it go the way of the League of Nations <whether
that would have happened, I don't know>. This happened oh.... mid 50s. As we
were already screwing around with other nations' governments <check out our
fuck up with Guatemala, and what was it for? bananas>, we were
pressured/duped/went willy nilly into Vietnam. The French pulled out, we
stayed, and it was just a huge, honkin' farce. Whether or not it was a war or a
police action, does it really matter? I say tomato, and you say tomahto, and a
bunch of people still ended up dying <the Vietnamese population statistically
still have an average of about 1.5 legs per person, although it is getting
better>.
As to the claim that all Democrats have started the wars in the past 100 years,
it should also be noted that while Wilson was a Democrat, the party was still
considered the "conservative" party. Somewhere along the way, we had a complete
180 shift in the political spheres. But it doesn't really matter.
Madi"you provide those prose poems, and I"ll provide the war"Holmes
Outrider
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040316151318...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >
> >> Isn't this both sides of politics? Wasn't it the Democrats who
originally
> >> got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
> >
> >Actualy it was the French :-)
>
> What happened was that France was a having a spot of trouble with the
> Vietnamese <who mostly just wanted independence at the time, they could
have
> cared less about communism>, so France extorted the US/UN by stipulating
that
> if the US didn't help out there, they <the French> would drop out of the
UN,
> which would effectively make it go the way of the League of Nations
<whether
> that would have happened, I don't know>. This happened oh.... mid 50s. As
we
> were already screwing around with other nations' governments <check out
our
> fuck up with Guatemala, and what was it for? bananas>,
Snip
And what's wrong with using the military might of the United States to
uphold our national interests and guarantee the free flow of bananas at
market prices? :)
Just really doesn't have the impact when your not talking about oil does
it?
Outrider
Outrider
"Steve Christianson" <stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:405711...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> LVernet wrote:
> >
> > "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > >
>
> > > Those who's political positions genuinely care about people, are
deeply
> > > concerned about improving life but feel that a centralized government
> > > solution is not always the best and honestly believe that liberty
without
> > > equality is preferable to equality without liberty are never portrayed
at
> > > all. Such complex positions are beyond the limited mental ability of
the
> > > average Hollywood insider. They are however commonly held by most
actual
> > > conservatives. But finding a character like that on television or in
the
> > > movies is about a likely as finding a straight male character who has
good
> > > fashion sense.
> > >
> >
> > Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives,
nor
> > is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
>
>
> old-fashioned conservative, which is really what he's talking about
> (like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five fruitcakes who
> think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights, want to hand out
> people who go into a masturbatory frenzy over Ronald Reagan and want to
> name every national park after him, it's getting weird in this country
> let me tell you.
You need to get outside of the beltway more Steve (and direct flights to
Vegas don't count, Vegas is not the real world). There are lots of us out
here, we just can't get any press. I guess rational thought doesn't make
for good entertaining news stories.
Outrider
Loyd
politics somewhere else this is about Stargate.
As for weather he's a republican or not it doesn't matter.
Kinsey is a Goa'uld. Not actually a Goa'uld but he represents that humans
could be a lot like them.
He's self righteous
He's vain and power hungry.
He never seems to die, always seems to come back.
He's foolish and lacks wisdom, but thinks he's smarter than everyone.
I've seen so many posts asking if he is a Goa'uld, because he acts just like
one. He's merely a politician because that's the quickest way to get power
without money.
I think the shrubs comment was honestly a jab at the current administration.
2 shrubs=2 bush's
"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
Ranger Bob
<stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>Ranger Bob wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:45:55 GMT, Steve Christianson
>> <stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >X-No-Archive: yes
>> >
>> >
>> >LVernet wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:Xfo5c.41897$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
>> >> > > news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
snipped Bartlett...
snipped Nader...
>
>
>> All he has really accomplished in the last decade is
>> get George W Bush elected (Just like H Ross Perot helped Clinton get
>> elected in 1992).
>>
>> Sadly, he didn't learn from Perot's experience. Do we really
>> want Nader pulling votes from Kerry like he did from Gore? I'm sorry,
>> but I don't want this one to be even close.
>
>
>Actually, in 1992 Perot drew evenly from people who would have otherwise
>voted for Bush or Clinton. Statistically there is no real evidence that
>Perot threw the election to Clinton. As to Gore, he lost that election
>on his own: if he had won his home state of Tennessee or the
>traditional Democratic stronghold of West Virginia, he'd be president. A
>bit hard IMO to blame Nader for a man losing the state where his family
>have been in politics for 40 years. Remember too that in 2000 the GOP
>had their own independent running on their heels: Pat Buchanan, who
>spoke to the alienated conservatives in much the same way that Nader
>spoke to alienated liberals, and yet the GOP were able to largely
>neutralize him. Much as I did NOT want Bush to win, the Dems have only
>themselves to blame for losing in 2000 regardless of Nader just as the
>GOP have only themselves to blame for losing in 1992 regardless of
>Perot.
What Perot did was force Bush Sr to go more conservative (just
as Nader forced Gore to go more liberal). As they left the center, it
was easier for the other side to get the undecideds. Buchanan is a
nutcase, and even my Republican friends say so. Bush wasn't affected
by him nearly as much as Gore was affected by Nader.
However, we are in complete agreement that the Dems, and Gore
specifically, can only blame themselves for losing to George W.. I
was stunned.
snippage...
>Heh. Well, I was thinking more in terms of foreign manipulation. The
>Brits pretty cleverly manipulated us into WW I (Zimmerman Note and so
>forth), whereas with WW II the Roosevelt administration wanted us in
>that fight. Contrary to popular mythology, Pearl Harbor wasn't a sneak
>attack: it was a battle with an enemy we should have known was coming.
Actually, the Army and Navy were told exactly how it would
happen 20 years before by General Billy Mitchell. He told everyone who
would listen that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor from carriers
(which weren't invented yet) with two waves of fighter bombers (just
like they did). He even predicted they would use mini-submarines to do
a recon ahead of time (just like they did). The Army court martialed
him and threw him out on his butt for his trouble.
>
>> >Outrider's heart is in the right place, but there aren't many
>> >conservatives like him in my experience. For every one such
>> >old-fashioned conservative, which is really what he's talking about
>> >(like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five fruitcakes who
>> >think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights, want to hand out
>> >guns like candy and think Ann Coulter is really cool. These are the
>> >people who go into a masturbatory frenzy over Ronald Reagan and want to
>> >name every national park after him, it's getting weird in this country
>> >let me tell you.
>>
>> I think that is true where you come from, but around here
>> there are plenty of conservatives like Outrider describes. Of course,
>> our liberals don't resemble the ones on the left coast either.
>>
>> While our area may have gotten its name because we are in the
>> middle of the country, I think MIDwest could also describe our
>> politics as well. While people on the coasts seem to be more extreme
>> (on both sides of the aisle), the rest of the country is usually
>> shaking our heads and wondering what all the fuss is about. :-)
>
>
>I'm not so sure about all that, most of the nutso militia groups seem to
>be out in the Midwest for example.
The difference is that those nutso milita groups never
bothered anyone until they felt attacked by an aggressive Anti-gun
Clinton administration (I'm ignoring the fact that there are militia
groups all over the Northeast). Before that, they were mostly harmelss
idiots playing army in the woods. And we really haven't heard a peep
out of them since the White House stopped going after the second
ammendment.
More to the point, while EVERY area has it's nutso morons and
extremists, they don't reach prominent positions or have their agendas
succeed in the Midwest. People come here to be left alone, and they
tend to vote that way too. People on the coasts are more likely to be
involved in things that require social interaction (which explains why
they don't live in the Midwest in the first place). They are also
more likely to question the status quo and risk change.
Anyway, while an unphappy midwesterner will usually retreat
into the wilderness, their home, their church, or whatever, an unhappy
person on the coast is more likely to get involved in a political
party or movement. The typical Midwesterner will vote middle of the
road to prevent radical changes because change always has the
potential of increased involvement of the government in their lives.
People on the coasts are more likely to push a more radical
agenda (I don't mean that in a bad way) based on ideology. Whether it
is gay marriage, 14 year olds voting, denying immigrants rights, or
gun control, people on the coasts are more likely to push a 'radical'
agenda than the middle of the road Midwest.
Of course these are only generalities. We have people pushing
liberal or conservative agendas too, but they are largely ignored
unless they cause enough trouble to earn a smackdown. And there are
plenty of middle of the road people on the coasts.
LVernet
"Mrs. James Q. Stallion" <SuzanPe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3787-405...@storefull-3136.bay.webtv.net...
I don't know that zealot is the right word. Idiot, perhaps, is better.
Laurelin
LVernet
>
> "LVernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote in message
> news:c36gib$23ugdd$1...@ID-177521.news.uni-berlin.de...
originally
> > got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
>
> Actualy it was the French :-)
Hmm... I don't believe the French can order the US to get involved in
another country's battles. Doesn't someone in the US (e.g. a Democrat or a
Republican) have to do that?
> Isn't it
> > the Democrats who want to raise taxes (generalisation) or not give back
> the
> > surplus. That was in a TWW episode. Never met a politician who didn't
want
> > to line the pockets of his/her own party.
>
> Your commenting on reality not Hollywood's portrayal of same. As for TWW
> episode, I didn't see it but I will be willing to bet that not returning a
> surplus was justified by the many noble and careing things that could be
> done with it (new medical benifits, increased social spending, etc.)
rather
> than anything that could be considered wasteful or evil (business
subsidies,
> increased military spending, etc.).
No, the reason given was something along the lines of (paraphrasing) 'We're
Democrats, we don't give money back.' One of the staffers wanted her money
back so she could buy a DVD player. Not noble, not caring, not nothing.
There are plenty of non-Hollywood portrayal Republicans in TWW, just as all
the Democrats aren't wishy washy liberal peaceniks.
> > Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives,
nor
> > is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
>
> B.S. Read the post more carefully. My comments are directed at how
> Hollywood portrays political characters not how people are in real life.
I
> don't think I stated that caring is limited to one side or the other, just
> that you never see a person that Hollywood portrays as caring identified
as
> a Republican or "conservative". In the same way if the character portrays
> all that is negative about politicians you will never see that character
> identified as a Democrat or "liberal". Only politicians who are honest,
> compassionate and caring have their party affiliation identified in TV or
> films, and then they are identified as Democrats or "liberal".
In TWW, which is written by the same person who wrote The American
President, a Republican (Ainsley Hayes) is asked to work in the Bartlet
White House because she wants to serve her country. She's conservative,
compassionate, caring, all the things that you've said Hollywood Republicans
are not. Also not your stereotypical Hollywood Republican is the Speaker of
the House who becomes Acting President when Bartlet stands down. These are
just two characters. If anything, the Democrats are shown to be just as
nasty, bitter and not-liberal as your Hollywood Republican.
> To keep it on topic, my point is that in the case of Kinsey you have a
> clearly evil self serving character, so Hollywood will not identify a
party
> affiliation. William Devan's character seems to be a decent person, but
> since he ran with Kinsey as VP his party will not be identified either.
>
It doesn't really matter what party Kinsey belongs to. He's a politician and
therefore a breed not worth it.
Laurelin
BlakGard
>> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil,
>> bible thumper and he likes to cut spending on important things.
>
> Well, I just rewatched Season 1 *Politics* where, I was told, Kinsey
> came across as something of a zealot. Here is what was said....but I'll
> paraphrase slightly because I didn't write it down:
>
> Kinsey: God is not going to let this world be overtaken by the Goa'uld.
>
> Jack: Oh....you expect *God* to save us??
>
> That's it. No thumping....no rolling on the floor. Now I'm also told
> that Season 4 *Chain Reaction* has something that indicates Kinsey is a
> Bible thumper....I'll try to check that out very soon and let you all
> know what was said. :) Suzan
Well, you left off the part where he says, "...there is only one god." That
comes close.
As for "Chain Reaction":
Kinsey: Oh I still think the gate is a Pandora's box and I still think it
should be buried forever but as long it's open, and as long as its a threat
to this planet then I'm damn well gonna make sure its used the way it should
be used. To defend God's creation.
O'Neill: Oh blow the rhetoric up somebody else's nose. You're nothing but a
power hungry hypocrite.
Kinsey: The only currency in this town is power. So if I have to shake hands
with the devil to do the Lord's work then so be it.
O'Neill: You self righteous son of a bitch. Where do you get off
Kinsey: Judge not lest ye be judged. I read the mission reports that come
out of that mountain, you play with the fate of this planet on a daily
basis.
This certainly makes a stronger case for him being Republican.
"God's creation," "Lord's work," and " 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' "
LVernet
Well, it makes a case for him being a Christian. Are there no Democrat
Christians?
Laurelin
jwardl
> Well, you left off the part where he says, "...there is only one
> god." That comes close.
>
> As for "Chain Reaction":
>
> Kinsey: Oh I still think the gate is a Pandora's box and I still
> think it should be buried forever but as long it's open, and as long
> as its a threat to this planet then I'm damn well gonna make sure its
> used the way it should be used. To defend God's creation.
>
> O'Neill: Oh blow the rhetoric up somebody else's nose. You're nothing
> but a power hungry hypocrite.
>
> Kinsey: The only currency in this town is power. So if I have to
> shake hands with the devil to do the Lord's work then so be it.
>
> O'Neill: You self righteous son of a bitch. Where do you get off
>
> Kinsey: Judge not lest ye be judged. I read the mission reports that
> come out of that mountain, you play with the fate of this planet on a
> daily basis.
>
> This certainly makes a stronger case for him being Republican.
> "God's creation," "Lord's work," and " 'Judge not lest ye be judged.'
> "
Personally, I consider his party affiliation irrelevent, given that he's a
fictional character. I don't know that he's intended to represent a party in
particular. I think the point is that Kinsey HIMSELF has some major issues,
regardless of his affiliation. However...
It is true (IMHO) that most Republicans derive their beliefs from their
Christian faith. This DOESN'T mean that *all* Republicans do (I'm a
Republican and am not religious), nor does it mean that *all* Christians are
Republicans. I'm simply saying that Christianity is the foundation upon
which a majority of Republicans base their political beliefs.
One could assume that from Kinsey's religious references, he's probably a
Republican -- but he could also be a "Red Dog" Democrat, or a Dem from the
southern U.S. Regardless of his fictional political affiliation, he'd
definitely qualify as a pompous, self-righteous, arrogant ASS. Kinsey's
agenda is driven by his personal weaknesses, not by his fictional party.
He's too far off the deep end to represent a typical member of either side.
-jwardl
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
I don't know that zealot is the right word. Idiot, perhaps, is better.
Laurelin
Oh I agree...Kinsey is a complete idiot. I think he's gone insane now
maybe. Suzan
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
Well, you left off the part where he says, "...there is only one god."
That
comes close.
{{{{Yes I remember him saying that now. Thank you for adding it.}}}}}
As for "Chain Reaction":
Kinsey: Oh I still think the gate is a Pandora's box and I still think
it
should be buried forever but as long it's open, and as long as its a
threat to this planet then I'm damn well gonna make sure its used the
way it should be used. To defend God's creation.
O'Neill: Oh blow the rhetoric up somebody else's nose. You're nothing
but a power hungry hypocrite.
Kinsey: The only currency in this town is power. So if I have to shake
hands
with the devil to do the Lord's work then so be it.
O'Neill: You self righteous son of a bitch. Where do you get off
Kinsey: Judge not lest ye be judged. I read the mission reports that
come
out of that mountain, you play with the fate of this planet on a daily
basis.
This certainly makes a stronger case for him being Republican. "God's
creation," "Lord's work," and " 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' "
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes that all sounds quite a lot more religious. I can see where someone
might think his basic motivation is his belief in God rather than just a
desire for power....but most Christians would agree that his actions and
demeanor are far from pleasing to God. I agree that he is most likely a
Republican....and I think Jack must be a Democrat. :) Suzan
Becky
wrote:
>
>It is true (IMHO) that most Republicans derive their beliefs from their
>Christian faith. This DOESN'T mean that *all* Republicans do (I'm a
>Republican and am not religious), nor does it mean that *all* Christians are
>Republicans. I'm simply saying that Christianity is the foundation upon
>which a majority of Republicans base their political beliefs.
>
Okay, this always confuses me. My impression is that nearly all of the
members of the House and Senate, both Republican and Democrat, are
self-professed Christians of one sort or another. The only exception
would be a few Jews -- I've never heard of any of them admit to being
either an atheist or even agnostic, and most will refer to God during
at least one point in their campaign.
--
To reach me, write to Rebecca_Sharp at yahoo dot com.
Please do not send email to iwan...@sff.net.
Mail sent to that address will have the sender's IP blocked automatically.
Jonathan
"Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:53bc50ta875isj8u2...@4ax.com...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net>, on or about Mon, 15 Mar
> 2004 20:22:15 GMT, did you or did you not state:
thumper
> >and
> >> he likes to cut spending on important things.
> >>
did
> >> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> >
>
> are expected to do what they're told regardless of their political
> feelings about the current POTUS and Vice POTUS.
>
> That leaves the issue unaddressed, which allow Republican viewers to
> assume the bad politicians are Democrats, and vice versa.
> --
Well, that is a recurring theme...
I don't personally think either party has a monopoly on either evil or
stupidity... IMHO, they are both generally equally worthless.
That being said, I cannot say I dislike Bush BECAUSE he is a Republican
(there are a lot of Republicans I both admire and would readily vote for
(John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, and a bunch of others... however, the ones I
am inclined to vote for share something... They are all moderates... I
cannot stomach either end of extremism...).
In the final analysis, I vote in my own best interests... (as each of us
do), and I think Bush is contrary to my best interests (he is reckless when
it comes to the budget (the only thing worse than 'tax and spend' is 'tax
cut and spend')...
One thing the Europeans have an advantage over the US is that they actually
get something for their tax dollars... Our roads are a mess, healthcare is a
privilege, and our schools are horrid... But we pay less taxes, so we should
expect to get less.
Jonathan
Jonathan
>
> "Mark Jones" <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:53bc50ta875isj8u2...@4ax.com...
> > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net>, on or about Mon, 15 Mar
> > 2004 20:22:15 GMT, did you or did you not state:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
> > >news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
> > >> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
> thumper
> > >and
> > >> he likes to cut spending on important things.
> > >>
> > >> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and
Jack
> did
> > >> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> > >
> > >It's never been said which party they were in.
> >
> > Nor should it matter, really. Our heroes, as members of the military
> > are expected to do what they're told regardless of their political
> > feelings about the current POTUS and Vice POTUS.
> >
> > That leaves the issue unaddressed, which allow Republican viewers to
> > assume the bad politicians are Democrats, and vice versa.
>
> lawyers are too ...
>
I never understood the general opposition to lawyers... Sure, there are a
few out there that need to be shot, but how did this get generalized to the
entire legal profession?
Jonathan
Jonathan
> Mark Jones wrote:
> >>> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
thumper
> >>> and he likes to cut spending on important things.
> >>>
> >>> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack
did
> >>> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> >>
> >> It's never been said which party they were in.
> >
> > Nor should it matter, really. Our heroes, as members of the military
> > are expected to do what they're told regardless of their political
> > feelings about the current POTUS and Vice POTUS.
> >
> > That leaves the issue unaddressed, which allow Republican viewers to
> > assume the bad politicians are Democrats, and vice versa.
>
> than Democrats.
>
I agree... to an extent.
Realistically, there are few substantive differences between the two
parties... and on most of the issues the differences are remarkably minor
(gun control is the best example, where Republicans want .00001% less gun
control than the Dems)...
In fact, the only issue where Dems and Reps have a real ideological
disagreement is abortion.
> When was Kinsey seen thumping a Bible? Generally, he just seems to be
> an average, non-descript politician, and I could see an argument for his
> belonging to either major party.
>
He did once say that G-d would protect the Earth from the Goua'ld... Which
is pretty frightening.
Jonathan
Jonathan
>
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Xfo5c.41897$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
> > news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
> > > Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
thumper
> > and
> > > he likes to cut spending on important things.
> > >
> > > Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack
> did
> > > refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> >
> > It's never been said which party they were in.
> >
>
> Which in Hollywood means he's a Republican. If the character is a
> compassionate caring person with progressive politics and all the
political
> positions most in the entertainment industry approve of then they are
> clearly identified as a Democrat (i.e.. 'The West Wing's' President Josiah
> Bartlet).
>
But then the portrayal of the President here doesn't follow this formula...
Jonathan
Jonathan
> 180 shift in the political spheres. But it doesn't really matter.
>
1947... When Truman integrated the Armed Forces, Southern Democrats fled the
party (becoming Dixiecrats under Strom Thurmond...) after the Civil Right
Act of 1964, the split was complete and the party that had freed the slaves
(Republican), had become the party of Segregation.
Jonathan
Jonathan
> And what's wrong with using the military might of the United States to
> uphold our national interests and guarantee the free flow of bananas at
> market prices? :)
> Just really doesn't have the impact when your not talking about oil does
> it?
Because bananas aren't the most vital component of our economy.
The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the flow of
resources that are vital to its national security.
Jonathan
Jonathan
>
> "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HaE5c.2099$Mm2...@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > "LVernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote in message
> > news:c36gib$23ugdd$1...@ID-177521.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Isn't this both sides of politics? Wasn't it the Democrats who
> originally
> > > got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
> >
> > Actualy it was the French :-)
>
> Hmm... I don't believe the French can order the US to get involved in
> another country's battles. Doesn't someone in the US (e.g. a Democrat or a
> Republican) have to do that?
>
Sure... but if you don't want the French to withdraw from NATO or the UN,
you make a deal with them.
In the end the French pulled out of NATO anyway.
The frightening thing is that Ho Chi Minh tried to ally with the US in 1945,
and he was refused... so he went to the Soviets...
This is one of those things where the minutia of history kicks in... FDR did
not want to fight World War II to restore colonies to Europe... FDR died and
Truman wasn't willing to administer these former colonies (and formerly
occupied by the Japanese), so they turned them back over to their colonial
masters.
Who ends up being remarkably noble... considering...
Jonathan
Jonathan
originally
> > got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
>
>
> referring to the actual moment we "officially" entered the Vietnam war,
> however, then yes: that was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution under
> Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. All the other major "hot" wars of
> the 20th century were also entered into by Dems too: World War I under
> Wilson, World War II under Roosevelt, Korea under Truman.
>
> (Although it was really the Brits who got us into World War I, just so
> it doesn't look like I'm picking on the French again)
>
Actually it was the Germans who got us into WWI, when they resumed
unrestricted submarine warfare...
It was the Japanese who got us into WW2, the North Koreans who got us into
Korea, Iraq who got us into the first Gulf War... and Bush who got us into
the second.
>
> > Isn't it
> > the Democrats who want to raise taxes (generalisation) or not give back
the
> > surplus. That was in a TWW episode. Never met a politician who didn't
want
> > to line the pockets of his/her own party.
>
>
> Actually, the largest tax increase in history was under a Republican:
> Bush's daddy a/k/a Mr. "read my lips, no new taxes."
Actually, the biggest tax increase in history was FDR during WW2 to pay for
the war... The highest marginal rate in 1945 was 95%... It wasn't until
1962, when JFK dropped these rates (that were paying for the Cold War),
being the biggest tax cut in history.
> > Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives,
nor
> > is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
>
>
> Outrider's heart is in the right place, but there aren't many
> conservatives like him in my experience. For every one such
> old-fashioned conservative, which is really what he's talking about
> (like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five fruitcakes who
> think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights,
On this one you are wrong... Opposing gay rights is an equal opportunity
issue... one in which both Dems and Reps are ready and willing to throw
their support behind.
In fact, hating gay people is the new cool in politics.... It is an issue
where both Dems and Reps can rally together on and find true
bipartisanship... But they will never call it 'hating gay people'...
> want to hand out
> guns like candy and think Ann Coulter is really cool. These are the
> people who go into a masturbatory frenzy over Ronald Reagan and want to
> name every national park after him, it's getting weird in this country
> let me tell you.
I still don't understand the fetish with Reagan... he was a mediocre
president on his good days... Then again the US hasn't had a great president
since FDR... so, I guess we have to settle...
Then again, maybe the love for Reagan has less to do with Reagan, and more
to do with the shame attached to Nixon... that Reagan returned some pride to
the RNC...
Jonathan
Derek
initiative and posted the following:
>> In TWW, which is written by the same person who wrote The
>> American President, a Republican (Ainsley Hayes) is asked to
>> work in the Bartlet White House because she wants to serve her
>> country. She's conservative, compassionate, caring, all the
>> things that you've said Hollywood
> Republicans
>> are not. Also not your stereotypical Hollywood Republican is
>> the Speaker
> of
>> the House who becomes Acting President when Bartlet stands
>> down.
>
> Who ends up being remarkably noble... considering...
... that the liberals writing the scripts for The West Wing have
openly admitted that they don't know how to write "Republican"
characters?
The above comment is not just a generalization. There was a
quotation in the St. Paul Pioneer Press last year by a Hollywood
writer who was explaining that because the bulk of the SAG is
almost socialist in their political ideology, we'll never see a
"West Wing" type show with a likeable Republican president.
I copied the quote, but I can't find it at the moment. It was on
the Entertainment section of a Sunday paper.
--
Derek
While good fortune often eludes you, misfortune never misses.
Jonathan
"Ranger Bob" <rang...@att.net> wrote in message
news:o5re50tnbl8rvt94a...@4ax.com...
> >Heh. Well, I was thinking more in terms of foreign manipulation. The
> >Brits pretty cleverly manipulated us into WW I (Zimmerman Note and so
> >forth), whereas with WW II the Roosevelt administration wanted us in
> >that fight. Contrary to popular mythology, Pearl Harbor wasn't a sneak
> >attack: it was a battle with an enemy we should have known was coming.
>
> Actually, the Army and Navy were told exactly how it would
> happen 20 years before by General Billy Mitchell. He told everyone who
> would listen that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor from carriers
> (which weren't invented yet) with two waves of fighter bombers (just
> like they did). He even predicted they would use mini-submarines to do
> a recon ahead of time (just like they did). The Army court martialed
> him and threw him out on his butt for his trouble.
> >
The Army Court-martialed him because he did the dumbest thing on the
planet... You don't run to the press and call your seniors guilty of
'criminally negligent homicide'... Espcially when you have a history of
disobeying orders...
Sometimes the idiocy of the messenger can make valid info seem
preposterous...
However, they did name the B-25 after him...
Jonathan
Jonathan
> > > Like I said in my other post, the US has two parties, one is just more
> > > rightwing than the other.
> >
> >
> > Question: do they cover Ralph Nader at all down there in Oz?
>
>
LOL!
Gore lost that election all on his own... Nader has become some kind of
scapegoat... I have heard some say he shouldn't be allowed to run...
Look, Nader may be a wacko, and he may swipe a substantial amount of votes
from Kerry and keep Bush in the WH for another four years... but he has
every right to run...
The goal should be to convince people not to vote for him... not convince
Nader not to run...
> > Outrider's heart is in the right place, but there aren't many
> > conservatives like him in my experience. For every one such
> > old-fashioned conservative, which is really what he's talking about
> > (like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five fruitcakes who
> > think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights, want to hand out
> > guns like candy and think Ann Coulter is really cool. These are the
> > people who go into a masturbatory frenzy over Ronald Reagan and want to
> > name every national park after him, it's getting weird in this country
> > let me tell you.
>
> Do the Democrats not have fruitcakes? Is this the actual difference
between
> the two parties?
>
No, the Dems have their appropriate share of fruitcakes... Dennis Kucinich
is the best example...
There are a few wacko dems who want to confiscate all income over $40K, ban
all guns, eliminate the DoD, CIA, NSA, and FBI... Pay reparations to blacks,
tax corporations out of existence and basically destroy the US (and the
world's economy).
Jonathan
Jonathan
<x...@y.zzz> wrote in message news:40568d80...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:19:13 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
> >news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
> >> Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil, bible
thumper
> >and
> >> he likes to cut spending on important things.
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed and Jack
did
> >> refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> >>
> >
> >
> >The President is turning out to be a lot more on the ball than he
appears...
> >This may go along with the idea of having intelligent characters play
dumb
> >so that their opponents underestimate them.
> >
> >If you haven't seen Lost City II, you won't have seen the details yet...
but
> >the Prez is pretty cool...
> >
>
> I don't recall ever seeing William Devane play a bad guy, but I have
> seen him in a lot of movies and series, and he plays the most upright,
> moral good guys you'll ever see. Until proven otherwise, root for
> William Devane.
>
He was actually supposed to be the new VP on The West Wing... (he was Sec'y
of State), but Reps and Dems in Congress wouldn't confirm him...
I love the character he is playing in SG-1.... A guy who is brilliant, but
acts kind of aloof so people underestimate him... He is a political Jack
O'Neill...
Jonathan
Jonathan
I don't think idiot really covers Kinsey.... I think he is pretty bright,
and politically astute... the problem is that he is so selfish, so
power-hungry, that he is willing to compromise the security of the planet to
attain that power.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Sure there are.... but Dems have a tendency to not evoke G-d when making a
political argument...
Jonathan
I say 'tendency'.... when it comes to bashing gays, they do invoke G-d...
Jonathan
"Becky" <iwan...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:405842e6...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:11:24 GMT, "jwardl" <jwa...@spamthis.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >It is true (IMHO) that most Republicans derive their beliefs from their
> >Christian faith. This DOESN'T mean that *all* Republicans do (I'm a
> >Republican and am not religious), nor does it mean that *all* Christians
are
> >Republicans. I'm simply saying that Christianity is the foundation upon
> >which a majority of Republicans base their political beliefs.
> >
>
> Okay, this always confuses me. My impression is that nearly all of the
> members of the House and Senate, both Republican and Democrat, are
> self-professed Christians of one sort or another. The only exception
> would be a few Jews -- I've never heard of any of them admit to being
> either an atheist or even agnostic, and most will refer to God during
> at least one point in their campaign.
> --
>
That is primarily because that the US has a visceral reaction to atheists...
Bush Sr. said he didn't believe Atheists should be considered citizens of
the US...
You also are not going to get elected without showing that your intelligence
is subservient to the original Goua'ld... God himself.
Jonathan
Ranger Bob
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ranger Bob" <rang...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:o5re50tnbl8rvt94a...@4ax.com...
>> >Heh. Well, I was thinking more in terms of foreign manipulation. The
>> >Brits pretty cleverly manipulated us into WW I (Zimmerman Note and so
>> >forth), whereas with WW II the Roosevelt administration wanted us in
>> >that fight. Contrary to popular mythology, Pearl Harbor wasn't a sneak
>> >attack: it was a battle with an enemy we should have known was coming.
>>
>> Actually, the Army and Navy were told exactly how it would
>> happen 20 years before by General Billy Mitchell. He told everyone who
>> would listen that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor from carriers
>> (which weren't invented yet) with two waves of fighter bombers (just
>> like they did). He even predicted they would use mini-submarines to do
>> a recon ahead of time (just like they did). The Army court martialed
>> him and threw him out on his butt for his trouble.
>> >
>
>The Army Court-martialed him because he did the dumbest thing on the
>planet... You don't run to the press and call your seniors guilty of
>'criminally negligent homicide'... Espcially when you have a history of
>disobeying orders...
Actually, he forced the Court Martial because he thought it
would help him plead his case. They would have let it all go if he
would have let the safety of his men go. That wasn't going to happen.
He was falling on his sword. He knew that unless he went
public, nothing would change. He took his chances and sacrificed his
career for the good of the country. Unfortunately, it would take
another 2 decades for the Army leadership to get the message, but
Mitchell's arguments were heard by junior officers who would later
become the backbone of the new Air Force.
Although the Navy didn't take his comments about Pearl Harbor
completely to heart, his sinking of the German battleship certainly
caught their attention. :-) Of course, few in the navy want to give
credit to an Army officer for the emphasis subsequently placed on
aircraft carriers. :-)
>Sometimes the idiocy of the messenger can make valid info seem
>preposterous...
It wasn't idocy. It was conviction and an unwavering sense of
right and wrong. It wasn't like that statement was the first thing he
tried. He had watched his men die in unnecessarily dangerous
conditions while the Army didn't take military aviation seriously. At
the time they had over a thousand aircraft 'on paper', but only had 9
that could be reasonably considered combat ready. 9...in the whole
Army Air Corps. There were less than 40 that were airworthy enough to
fly. Many of them were Wright Flyers, almost identical to the one
flown at Kittyhawk!
The only idiocy was on the generals' part. They are the ones
who were insisting that the next war would be fought like the last
one. Even as they insisted this, they didn't even support air power to
the extent that it was necessary in that last war.
>
>However, they did name the B-25 after him...
Yup, and a sweet plane it was. It flies like a dream. I got a
chance to fly one a few years ago. You would never think it was a
bomber. It flies almost like a fighter. Bomb load was too small
though...
Jonathan
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:02:14 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ranger Bob" <rang...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:o5re50tnbl8rvt94a...@4ax.com...
> >> >Heh. Well, I was thinking more in terms of foreign manipulation. The
> >> >Brits pretty cleverly manipulated us into WW I (Zimmerman Note and so
> >> >forth), whereas with WW II the Roosevelt administration wanted us in
> >> >that fight. Contrary to popular mythology, Pearl Harbor wasn't a sneak
> >> >attack: it was a battle with an enemy we should have known was coming.
> >>
> >> Actually, the Army and Navy were told exactly how it would
> >> happen 20 years before by General Billy Mitchell. He told everyone who
> >> would listen that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor from carriers
> >> (which weren't invented yet) with two waves of fighter bombers (just
> >> like they did). He even predicted they would use mini-submarines to do
> >> a recon ahead of time (just like they did). The Army court martialed
> >> him and threw him out on his butt for his trouble.
> >> >
> >
> >The Army Court-martialed him because he did the dumbest thing on the
> >planet... You don't run to the press and call your seniors guilty of
> >'criminally negligent homicide'... Espcially when you have a history of
> >disobeying orders...
>
> Actually, he forced the Court Martial because he thought it
> would help him plead his case. They would have let it all go if he
> would have let the safety of his men go. That wasn't going to happen.
>
It was more than just the safety of his men he was concerned about... he
wanted to build American air power and was being blocked by Infantrymen and
Battleship guys...
> He was falling on his sword. He knew that unless he went
> public, nothing would change. He took his chances and sacrificed his
> career for the good of the country. Unfortunately, it would take
> another 2 decades for the Army leadership to get the message, but
> Mitchell's arguments were heard by junior officers who would later
> become the backbone of the new Air Force.
>
> Although the Navy didn't take his comments about Pearl Harbor
> completely to heart, his sinking of the German battleship certainly
> caught their attention. :-) Of course, few in the navy want to give
> credit to an Army officer for the emphasis subsequently placed on
> aircraft carriers. :-)
>
I think that if the carriers had been destroyed at Pearl, the Navy still
would have been reluctant to utilize them...
> >Sometimes the idiocy of the messenger can make valid info seem
> >preposterous...
>
> It wasn't idocy.
Sure it was... To an old-guard Army, his actions were those of a lunatic...
> It was conviction and an unwavering sense of
> right and wrong. It wasn't like that statement was the first thing he
> tried.
No, the first thing he tried was defying orders and getting busted to
Colonel.
> >However, they did name the B-25 after him...
>
> Yup, and a sweet plane it was. It flies like a dream. I got a
> chance to fly one a few years ago. You would never think it was a
> bomber. It flies almost like a fighter. Bomb load was too small
> though...
>
I have spoken to a few B-24 pilots, and they have nothing good to say about
it... (though they did say they got beefy arms out of flying it...)
The B-25 was impressive (though nothing from those days shine a small light
against a B-52 as far as payload goes...)
Jonathan
Sunioc
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sV_5c.10935254$Of.18...@news.easynews.com...
Because the ambulance chasers are the only ones you ever really see. They're
the ones who advertise. The decent, reputable lawyers work by word of mouth.
It's especially bad in Vegas. Every other commercial on a friday night is
for a work related injury, bankruptcy, or insurance lawyer.
--
Sunioc (AKA Zachariah, AKA Daniel Strawn)
AIM: ResneThesrin
Sunioc-at-Earthlink-dot-net
FFO Flunkie
Sociopath At Large
Current Tetris Score : 1,702,655 points, 4,240 lines
Al Bhed/Fremen/Aiel/Jaffa
Sunioc is an esteemed quantum physicist, living and working out of his state
of the art laboratory in the Carribean. He is currently working on a theory
that will finally prove his assertion that none of us really exist, but are
all figments of our own imaginations. His hobbies include chess, polo, and
playing god with the lives of the poverty sticken people living in the
small, eastern european country he owns. He's also a pathological liar.
Sunioc
>
> "Steve Christianson" <stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:405711...@yahoo.com...
> > > >
> Big Snip
> >
> > > > Those who's political positions genuinely care about people, are
> deeply
> > > > concerned about improving life but feel that a centralized
government
> > > > solution is not always the best and honestly believe that liberty
> without
> > > > equality is preferable to equality without liberty are never
portrayed
> at
> > > > all. Such complex positions are beyond the limited mental ability
of
> the
> > > > average Hollywood insider. They are however commonly held by most
> actual
> > > > conservatives. But finding a character like that on television or
in
> the
> > > > movies is about a likely as finding a straight male character who
has
> good
> > > > fashion sense.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, both sides of politics. Caring is not limited to conservatives,
> nor
> > > is not caring. You've just been as stereotypical as Hollywood.
> >
> >
> > conservatives like him in my experience. For every one such
> > old-fashioned conservative, which is really what he's talking about
> > (like the Republicans under Eisenhower), there's five fruitcakes who
> > think teaching evolution is evil, oppose gay rights, want to hand out
> > guns like candy and think Ann Coulter is really cool. These are the
> > people who go into a masturbatory frenzy over Ronald Reagan and want to
> > name every national park after him, it's getting weird in this country
> > let me tell you.
>
> Vegas don't count, Vegas is not the real world). There are lots of us out
> here, we just can't get any press. I guess rational thought doesn't make
> for good entertaining news stories.
>
Hey there now. I happen to live in Vegas. I'll have you know that Vegas is
one of the last bastions of reality left on this planet. The rest of the
world likes to bury it's head in the sand and suppress their carnal urges,
whereas we express them as loudly as we possibly can.
Sunioc
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> Ranger Bob wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:45:55 GMT, Steve Christianson
> > <stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >X-No-Archive: yes
> > >
> > >
> > >LVernet wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "Bobby" <b...@bobbylad.com> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:I8OdncUL4cy...@karoo.co.uk...
> > >> > > > Just a thought, he is quite a nasty charector, quite evil,
bible
> > >> thumper
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > he likes to cut spending on important things.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Also the President doesnt seem the brightest bulb in the shed
and Jack
> > >> > did
> > >> > > > refer to them as "a pair of schrubs".
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It's never been said which party they were in.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > compassionate caring person with progressive politics and all the
> > >> political
> > >> > positions most in the entertainment industry approve of then they
are
> > >> > clearly identified as a Democrat (i.e.. 'The West Wing's' President
Josiah
> > >> > Bartlet).
> > >>
> > >> egotistical, selfish and barely compassionate. Wouldn't vote for him
at all.
> > >
> > >
> > >I kinda like him, because it's nice to see an intelligent erudite man
> > >played as Prez. One of the reasons I liked Clinton so much (and Bartlet
> > >is basically Clinton for TV)
> > More like what Hollywood WISHED Clinton was like...
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
> > >was that he was a Rhodes Scholar and you
> > >could tell that he was a geniunely educated guy who really knew
> > >something that wasn't spoon-fed to him by people named "Condoleeza."
> > >
> > >
> > >> Like I said in my other post, the US has two parties, one is just
more
> > >> rightwing than the other.
> > >
> > >
> > >Question: do they cover Ralph Nader at all down there in Oz?
> >
> > contender anyway.
>
>
> Hey, six percent in the polls and going strong! LOL
>
>
> > All he has really accomplished in the last decade is
> > get George W Bush elected (Just like H Ross Perot helped Clinton get
> > elected in 1992).
> >
> > Sadly, he didn't learn from Perot's experience. Do we really
> > want Nader pulling votes from Kerry like he did from Gore? I'm sorry,
> > but I don't want this one to be even close.
>
>
> Actually, in 1992 Perot drew evenly from people who would have otherwise
> voted for Bush or Clinton. Statistically there is no real evidence that
> Perot threw the election to Clinton. As to Gore, he lost that election
> on his own: if he had won his home state of Tennessee or the
> traditional Democratic stronghold of West Virginia, he'd be president. A
> bit hard IMO to blame Nader for a man losing the state where his family
> have been in politics for 40 years. Remember too that in 2000 the GOP
> had their own independent running on their heels: Pat Buchanan, who
> spoke to the alienated conservatives in much the same way that Nader
> spoke to alienated liberals, and yet the GOP were able to largely
> neutralize him. Much as I did NOT want Bush to win, the Dems have only
> themselves to blame for losing in 2000 regardless of Nader just as the
> GOP have only themselves to blame for losing in 1992 regardless of
> Perot.
>
>
> > >> > However those characters who fit Hollywood's stereotypical image of
> > >> > Republicans, (politicians portrayed as unscrupulous, racist, war
> > >> mongering,
> > >> > robber baron, brain-dead, fascist, far-right religious fanatics,
who want
> > >> to
> > >> > tax the poor, subsidies the rich, oppress minorities, throw the
elderly
> > >> into
> > >> > the street, starve babies, and wage war on small unarmed third
world
> > >> > countries) never have their party mentioned so as to not show a
political
> > >> > bias. (President William Harrison Mitchell and White House Chief of
Staff
> > >> > Bob Alexander in 'Dave', Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfus) in
'The
> > >> > American President').
> > >>
> > >> Isn't this both sides of politics? Wasn't it the Democrats who
originally
> > >> got the US and other countries involved in Vietnam, for example?
> > >
> > >
> > >No, actually that was the French who got us in Vietnam. If you're
> > >referring to the actual moment we "officially" entered the Vietnam war,
> > >however, then yes: that was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution under
> > >Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. All the other major "hot" wars of
> > >the 20th century were also entered into by Dems too: World War I under
> > >Wilson, World War II under Roosevelt, Korea under Truman.
> > >
> > >(Although it was really the Brits who got us into World War I, just so
> > >it doesn't look like I'm picking on the French again)
> >
> > and the North Koreans who got us in Korea! Apparently it's only the
> > Bush family that sends hundreds of thousands of troops into foreign
> > countries without some foreigners 'forcing' us to do it. ;-)
>
>
> Heh. Well, I was thinking more in terms of foreign manipulation. The
> Brits pretty cleverly manipulated us into WW I (Zimmerman Note and so
> forth), whereas with WW II the Roosevelt administration wanted us in
> that fight. Contrary to popular mythology, Pearl Harbor wasn't a sneak
> attack: it was a battle with an enemy we should have known was coming.
>
The reason Pearl Harbor was such a success for the Japanese was because they
had incompetent staff manning their radar stations, and they were arrogant
enough to believe that even though they were the closest US military base to
Japan, they could get away with running the base on a skeleton crew on
weekends. The person manning the radar station that had recently been
installed actually did see the japanese planes coming, but, because he was
completely incompetent, believed they were a shipment of planes being flown
in from the states. It never occurred to him that if that were the case,
they would be approaching from the northeast, not from the west.
>
> > >> Isn't it
> > >> the Democrats who want to raise taxes (generalisation) or not give
back the
> > >> surplus. That was in a TWW episode. Never met a politician who didn't
want
> > >> to line the pockets of his/her own party.
> > >
> > >
> > >Actually, the largest tax increase in history was under a Republican:
> > >Bush's daddy a/k/a Mr. "read my lips, no new taxes." As to giving back
> > >the surplus that was a Republican strawman, while there were indeed
> > >several years of budget surpluses in the late 90s they were
insufficient
> > >to pay off the national debt and so there was nothing really to "give
> > >back." It's a bit like saying hey, you're finally making a dent in your
> > >credit card bill so it's time to have a big party: well, no, wait until
> > >the bill is paid off.
> >
> > Amen. Preach it Brother Steve...
> > I think that is true where you come from, but around here
> > there are plenty of conservatives like Outrider describes. Of course,
> > our liberals don't resemble the ones on the left coast either.
> >
> > While our area may have gotten its name because we are in the
> > middle of the country, I think MIDwest could also describe our
> > politics as well. While people on the coasts seem to be more extreme
> > (on both sides of the aisle), the rest of the country is usually
> > shaking our heads and wondering what all the fuss is about. :-)
>
>
> I'm not so sure about all that, most of the nutso militia groups seem to
> be out in the Midwest for example.
Sunioc
At least Kucinich would got rid of that damned Patriot Act, and supports
drug rehabilitation over incarceration.
>
> There are a few wacko dems who want to confiscate all income over $40K,
ban
> all guns, eliminate the DoD, CIA, NSA, and FBI... Pay reparations to
blacks,
> tax corporations out of existence and basically destroy the US (and the
> world's economy).
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
--
Ranger Bob
<Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
massive snippage...
>
>The reason Pearl Harbor was such a success for the Japanese was because they
>had incompetent staff manning their radar stations,
Only incompetent in that they had no training and the
equipment was put up almost on the eve of the attack. The operators
were given a manual and told to figure it out. This was untested
technology at that point. It had never been used by the American
military before, and event the Brits and Germans (who had been using
it with varying sucess for years) were still figuring it out. That
said, the operators did exactly what they were supposed to do. They
detected a large formation of aircraft and reported it.
>and they were arrogant
>enough to believe that even though they were the closest US military base to
>Japan, they could get away with running the base on a skeleton crew on
>weekends.
Arrogance had nothing to do with it. We weren't at war with
the Japanese. We don't routinely arm ourselves to the teeth in case
the Canandians finally come over the border either (even at Stanely
Cup time). :-)
>The person manning the radar station that had recently been
>installed actually did see the japanese planes coming, but, because he was
>completely incompetent, believed they were a shipment of planes being flown
>in from the states.
Which was a completely reasonable assumption. He had some
blips on a green screen, not the digital information of a modern radar
system.The Japanese attack came at EXACTLY the same time as the B-17's
were scheduled to arrive. In fact, those bombers (which we unarmed)
had to land in the middle of the attack since they were out of fuel.
And for the record, the operator reported the blips (there was
no way for him to know what the blips were). It was unit CO that
decided that it was the B-17 formation.
>It never occurred to him that if that were the case,
>they would be approaching from the northeast, not from the west.
I take it you have never tried to navigate over the ocean
using nothing but a compass and a stop watch. I have (for training).
It is not an exact science, and it is extremely difficult to hit
something as small as Hawaii when you are traveling thousands of miles
over a featureless seascape. Most modern pilots couldn't do it at all.
Now we have GPS and other electronic navigational systems that enable
us to hit Hawaii every time from the Northwest.
In 1941, however, planes coming to Hawaii from the states
would approach from all points of the compass, including from the
southwest. Planes would go the required amount of time, and (if the
Islands weren't visible) would start a search pattern. If they could
contact a ship that was in sight, they would ask for an azimuth.
Otherwise, they just had to hope they had enough fuel to find the
islands on their own.
Becky
Actually, the folks who do West Wing have had Republican advisors all
along, and this year they hired several more -- which has been
reflected in the scripts.
And I thought the Republican who took over from the president was
pretty likeable.
Derek
Which was the point. They don't need advisors to write a Democrat.
> And I thought the Republican who took over from the president
> was pretty likeable.
Yep.
--
Derek
It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.
Jonathan
"Sunioc" <Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4058a...@news1.prserv.net...
The problem here is that I know a decent number of lawyers... and none of
them are in the 'shyster business... they are mostly corporate lawyers
(ensuring contracts and gov't paperwork is in order... and that laws are
complied with...), or criminal defense attorneys (mostly trying to get their
guy less screwed than he probably should be)...
Jonathan
Jonathan
Especially when he said "so, when do we get to the fun part..." after
calling the families of military members killed in action... The fact that
he recognized and took responsibility for the consequences of his actions
impressed me.
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Derek" <ne...@gwinn.us> wrote in message
news:Xns94AF9C84...@130.133.1.4...
> >>I copied the quote, but I can't find it at the moment. It was on
> >>the Entertainment section of a Sunday paper.
> >>
> > Actually, the folks who do West Wing have had Republican
> > advisors all along, and this year they hired several more --
> > which has been reflected in the scripts.
>
> Which was the point. They don't need advisors to write a Democrat.
>
Which is surprising considering how many Democrats they have as advisors
(Dee Dee Myers, etc...)
Jonathan
Eva
<snip>
> The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the flow
of
> resources that are vital to its national security.
Wow. That's some statement. :-)
Eva
--
Join the Stargate SG-1 SETI@home Team
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_46150.html
Jonathan
"Sunioc" <Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4058a...@news1.prserv.net...
they
> had incompetent staff manning their radar stations,
That is innaccurate.
The radar station was only manned for two hours a night, and just before
getting off in the morning they noticed a huge flight of aircraft coming
from the north... They called it in... and was told it was a flight of B-17s
coming from California (which was expected to arrive a few hours later...
and given the quality of navigation, it is not inconceivable that such a
flight would be coming from the north).
> and they were arrogant
> enough to believe that even though they were the closest US military base
to
> Japan, they could get away with running the base on a skeleton crew on
> weekends.
????
The closest US military base to Japan was Clark and Subic in the
Phillipines.
> The person manning the radar station that had recently been
> installed actually did see the japanese planes coming, but, because he was
> completely incompetent, believed they were a shipment of planes being
flown
> in from the states.
Bull Shit.
He believed they were a flight of enemy aircraft and was overruled by the
night duty officer.
> It never occurred to him that if that were the case,
> they would be approaching from the northeast, not from the west.
>
The Japanese approach was from the North.
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Sunioc" <Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4058a...@news1.prserv.net...
>
> news:YC%5c.10939222$Of.18...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "LVernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote in message
> > news:c38rjk$25ltg2$1...@ID-177521.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
Kucinich
> > is the best example...
>
> At least Kucinich would got rid of that damned Patriot Act, and supports
> drug rehabilitation over incarceration.
>
Wow... he supports repealing something that almost everyone else does...
Look, there are good parts of the PATRIOT act, and bad parts... the solution
is to revise the act, not toss it.
For example, the act allows law enforcement to get a wiretap on a person,
not just their phone... so they can be tapped, no matter what physical phone
they use... this is a good thing, and since it is backed up by a warrant, is
completely legitimate.
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3ambt$265gnc$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the flow
> of
> > resources that are vital to its national security.
>
> Wow. That's some statement. :-)
>
Too honest for you?
Look, I was in favor of the war in Iraq solely for humanitarian reasons
(based on the best information Amnesty International had at the time), I
couldn't have given the slightest crap about WMD.
But there was no need to go to war for oil... the supply is pretty good
(however, I would like to see it drop just a notch or two to punish those
dorks who bought SUVs).
There has been a goal floated about that the real intent here was to secure
a democratic source of oil, and that if Iraq went democratic, it would start
some kind of freedom domino thingy...
Personally, I think the goal is a noble one, but completely unlikely to
work....
Jonathan
Derek
initiative and posted the following:
>
But advisors on how the White House acutally works are different
from "advisors to help you write believable characters you don't
believe in."
All in all, TWW has done a great job at portraying the opposition
as something other than a jackboot.
I loved the seen where Josh tracks down the aid to John Goodman's
character in the bathroom and the guy basically bashes Josh for
being politically paranoid.
--
Derek
Marriage is a great institution if you get it right. - Donald
Trump
Bill Harris
<< The reason Pearl Harbor was such a success for the Japanese was because they
had incompetent staff manning their radar stations, and they were arrogant
enough to believe that even though they were the closest US military base to
Japan, they could get away with running the base on a skeleton crew on
weekends. >>
Um... I think our bases in the Philippines were a little closer. Along with
Wake and Guam.
Bill Harris
Sci-Fi Quote of the month:
"We will never forgive and we will never forget." - Stilgar, "Dune"
Jonathan
That was hilarious... cuz it was obvious that Bartlett did the completely
selfless thing there... surrendering power to his opponent for the good of
the country.
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Bill Harris" <so...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040317204458...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote:
> << The reason Pearl Harbor was such a success for the Japanese was because
they
> had incompetent staff manning their radar stations, and they were arrogant
> enough to believe that even though they were the closest US military base
to
> Japan, they could get away with running the base on a skeleton crew on
> weekends. >>
>
> Um... I think our bases in the Philippines were a little closer. Along
with
> Wake and Guam.
>
Hell our bases in Burma were closer to Japan...
Jonathan
LVernet
>
> "Outrider" <curtm...@donotspamsatx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:JKv5c.1855$Mm2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > Which in Hollywood means he's a Republican. If the character is a
> > compassionate caring person with progressive politics and all the
> political
> > positions most in the entertainment industry approve of then they are
> > clearly identified as a Democrat (i.e.. 'The West Wing's' President
Josiah
> > Bartlet).
> >
>
> But then the portrayal of the President here doesn't follow this
formula...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
Yes, because Bartlet's an arse and not especially compassionate, caring or
progressive.
Laurelin
LVernet
>
> "Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c3ambt$265gnc$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the
flow
> > of
> > > resources that are vital to its national security.
> >
> > Wow. That's some statement. :-)
> >
>
> Too honest for you?
>
> Look, I was in favor of the war in Iraq solely for humanitarian reasons
> (based on the best information Amnesty International had at the time), I
> couldn't have given the slightest crap about WMD.
Curious. Are you also in favour of going to war on humanitarian grounds in
every other country where people are tortured and dictatorships rule?
> But there was no need to go to war for oil... the supply is pretty good
> (however, I would like to see it drop just a notch or two to punish those
> dorks who bought SUVs).
>
> There has been a goal floated about that the real intent here was to
secure
> a democratic source of oil, and that if Iraq went democratic, it would
start
> some kind of freedom domino thingy...
Yeah, that one worked really well.
> Personally, I think the goal is a noble one, but completely unlikely to
> work....
>
Because democractic change can't be forced on people from the outside. Any
political change has to come from within. You also can't defeat terrorism by
bombing the crap out of people no matter how much they bomb you. The Brits,
for example, learnt that one a long time ago. Perhaps they should run a
polytechnic course on it.
Laurelin
Eva
>
> "Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c3ambt$265gnc$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the
flow
> > of
> > > resources that are vital to its national security.
> >
> > Wow. That's some statement. :-)
> >
>
> Too honest for you?
No, I like honest, I guess it was just unexpected and, dare I say, arrogant?
(I realise that's a strong word but I can't find a better one.) I'm sorry,
Jonathan, but how exactly is Iraqi oil (I assume that's what you meant by
'flow of resources' here) vital to the US or another country's security?
Economy, perhaps, but security? It's their oil, on their soil, and they can
do what they want with it, sell it to whom they want to or burn it, if they
want to.
<snipped the rest, no offence meant but I don't want to discuss the Iraqi
war>
Becky
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Sunioc" <Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4058a...@news1.prserv.net...
>>
<stuff snipped>
>>
>> Because the ambulance chasers are the only ones you ever really see.
>They're
>> the ones who advertise. The decent, reputable lawyers work by word of
>mouth.
>> It's especially bad in Vegas. Every other commercial on a friday night is
>> for a work related injury, bankruptcy, or insurance lawyer.
>>
>
>The problem here is that I know a decent number of lawyers... and none of
>them are in the 'shyster business... they are mostly corporate lawyers
>(ensuring contracts and gov't paperwork is in order... and that laws are
>complied with...), or criminal defense attorneys (mostly trying to get their
>guy less screwed than he probably should be)...
>
Just for the record -- my best friend is a Legal Aid lawyer who has
spent her life handling domestic legal issues for low-income folks
(child custody, divorce, abuse, bankruptcy, landlord issues, stuff
like that) at a salary less than half of that earned by most private
attorneys. There are still a few around like her...
Ranger Bob
What bases would those be? IIRC, in December of 1941, there
were only British, Burmese and Chinese Troops in Burma.
Jonathan
>
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eV56c.10970734$Of.18...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c3ambt$265gnc$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the
> flow
> > > of
> > > > resources that are vital to its national security.
> > >
> > > Wow. That's some statement. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Too honest for you?
> >
> > Look, I was in favor of the war in Iraq solely for humanitarian reasons
> > (based on the best information Amnesty International had at the time), I
> > couldn't have given the slightest crap about WMD.
>
> Curious. Are you also in favour of going to war on humanitarian grounds in
> every other country where people are tortured and dictatorships rule?
>
Only after a careful cost-benefit calculus... I wouldn't favor going into
North Korea (the resulting loss of life would eclipse anything Kim Jong Il
could do to his people)...
But I was waiting on a flight line 10 years ago to go to Rwanda...
War is not the only option, but ignoring failed-states that continue to
slaughter their own people doesn't seem to be working either.
But, yeah, I would be in favor of toppling any regime that routinely
tortures and murders its populace.
> > But there was no need to go to war for oil... the supply is pretty good
> > (however, I would like to see it drop just a notch or two to punish
those
> > dorks who bought SUVs).
> >
> > There has been a goal floated about that the real intent here was to
> secure
> > a democratic source of oil, and that if Iraq went democratic, it would
> start
> > some kind of freedom domino thingy...
>
> Yeah, that one worked really well.
>
Still in process.
Japan and Germany weren't stable democracies overnight either... that seems
to have worked out ok...
> > Personally, I think the goal is a noble one, but completely unlikely to
> > work....
> >
>
> Because democractic change can't be forced on people from the outside.
Sure it can... look at Japan, Germany, South Korea...
> Any
> political change has to come from within. You also can't defeat terrorism
by
> bombing the crap out of people no matter how much they bomb you.
Sure you can...
However, you are suggesting appeasement...
The goal should be to eliminate the cause that makes people willing to strap
explosives to themselves... and that is totalitarian systems.
> The Brits,
> for example, learnt that one a long time ago. Perhaps they should run a
> polytechnic course on it.
>
Yeah, the Brits ran away from everywhere...
You would have thought they would have learned from 1938 that you can't
appease madmen.
Jonathan
Jonathan
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> Jonathan wrote:
> >
> > "Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c3ambt$265gnc$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the
flow
> > > of
> > > > resources that are vital to its national security.
> > >
> > > Wow. That's some statement. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Too honest for you?
> >
> > Look, I was in favor of the war in Iraq solely for humanitarian reasons
> > (based on the best information Amnesty International had at the time), I
> > couldn't have given the slightest crap about WMD.
>
>
> better cases out there in the world than Iraq, and half of them involve
> getting American soldiers killed like in Somalia.
Somalia was a good mission, with an administration without a backbone.
You will never convince me that feeding hungry people is a bad idea.
Jonathan
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eV56c.10970734$Of.18...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c3ambt$265gnc$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The US has the right (as does every other country) to guarantee the
> flow
> > > of
> > > > resources that are vital to its national security.
> > >
> > > Wow. That's some statement. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Too honest for you?
>
> No, I like honest, I guess it was just unexpected and, dare I say,
arrogant?
> (I realise that's a strong word but I can't find a better one.) I'm
sorry,
> Jonathan, but how exactly is Iraqi oil (I assume that's what you meant by
> 'flow of resources' here) vital to the US or another country's security?
> Economy, perhaps, but security? It's their oil, on their soil, and they
can
> do what they want with it, sell it to whom they want to or burn it, if
they
> want to.
>
The US Economy and its National Security are inseperable... as is the same
in every other industrialized nation.
The reality here is that nations have a right to defend themselves (Article
51 of the UN Charter), they also have a right to secure resources vital to
their national interests (this is not a thing that is exclusive to the US).
What is important here is methodology... The fact is that we simply did not
need to go into Iraq to secure a new source of oil (I am a big fan of
Russia).
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Ranger Bob" <rang...@att.net> wrote in message
news:elcj50dpo9ecbpcdn...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:29:14 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Harris" <so...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040317204458...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >> Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net wrote:
> >> << The reason Pearl Harbor was such a success for the Japanese was
because
> >they
> >> had incompetent staff manning their radar stations, and they were
arrogant
> >> enough to believe that even though they were the closest US military
base
> >to
> >> Japan, they could get away with running the base on a skeleton crew on
> >> weekends. >>
> >>
> >> Um... I think our bases in the Philippines were a little closer. Along
> >with
> >> Wake and Guam.
> >>
> >
> >Hell our bases in Burma were closer to Japan...
>
> What bases would those be? IIRC, in December of 1941, there
> were only British, Burmese and Chinese Troops in Burma.
>
American Volunteer Group flew P-40s with Burmese markings...
Jonathan
Ranger Bob
First off, the AVG was not a part of the American military.
They were civilian contractors working for CAMCO (even though most
were released from military duty to participate).
Secondly, Burma was a British colony. The AVG flew out of
British airbases in Burma, not American bases. The United States had
no bases in Burma in 1941.
Bob Smith
They weren't representing the US Army Air Corp. They were paid by the
Chinese Government ...
Bob
Bill Harris
<< First off, the AVG was not a part of the American military.
They were civilian contractors working for CAMCO (even though most
were released from military duty to participate).
Secondly, Burma was a British colony. The AVG flew out of
British airbases in Burma, not American bases. The United States had
no bases in Burma in 1941. >>
I had thought that the AVG operated from bases in China. Or was that only true
after the fall of Burma?
Ranger Bob
>Ranger Bob rang...@att.net wrote:
><< First off, the AVG was not a part of the American military.
>They were civilian contractors working for CAMCO (even though most
>were released from military duty to participate).
>
> Secondly, Burma was a British colony. The AVG flew out of
>British airbases in Burma, not American bases. The United States had
>no bases in Burma in 1941. >>
>
>I had thought that the AVG operated from bases in China. Or was that only true
>after the fall of Burma?
On 12 December 1941, a third of the AVG moved to Rangoon to
defend it side by side with a hand full of Brit pilots. The rest of
them moved to China. They all started out in Burma because it was the
safest place to enter the continent at the time.
gizmo-goddard
> X-No-Archive: yes
<SNIPPED>
> I agree. While I fervently disagree with GOP policy in most domestic
> matters, there is no question that they have had some wonderful
> successes in foreign policy. First and foremost to my mind is Ronald
> Reagan's victory in the Cold War. All my life I'd lived in a world under
> the shadow of that conflict, then thanks to some good old fashioned
> strength and moral resolve, Reagan saw to America's triumph. Really an
> amazing thing.
That's one of the greatest misconceptions of the last century. Reagan didn't
win the Cold War, Gorbachev did. Reagan spent this country into it's own
grave in order to one-up the Soviets and had Andropov not died of sheer
fright, we would still be locked into the Cold War.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Sunioc
Problem with that is, they'd have to tap every phone the person uses on a
regular basis, and/or every phone within a 50 mile radius of him. They'd
have to listen in on hundreds, or even thousands of phone calls that weren't
made by the person who's been warranted. That intrudes on the right to
privacy of a lot of innocent people, especially if one of those phones
happens to be a pay phone.
--
Sunioc (AKA Zachariah, AKA Daniel Strawn)
AIM: ResneThesrin
Sunioc-at-Earthlink-dot-net
FFO Flunkie
Sociopath At Large
Current Tetris Score : 1,702,655 points, 4,240 lines
Al Bhed/Fremen/Aiel/Jaffa
Sunioc is an esteemed quantum physicist, living and working out of his state
of the art laboratory in the Carribean. He is currently working on a theory
that will finally prove his assertion that none of us really exist, but are
all figments of our own imaginations. His hobbies include chess, polo, and
playing god with the lives of the poverty sticken people living in the
small, eastern european country he owns. He's also a pathological liar.
jwardl
believers -- even if they're NOT.
-jwardl
Becky wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:11:24 GMT, "jwardl" <jwa...@spamthis.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It is true (IMHO) that most Republicans derive their beliefs from
>> their Christian faith. This DOESN'T mean that *all* Republicans do
>> (I'm a Republican and am not religious), nor does it mean that *all*
>> Christians are Republicans. I'm simply saying that Christianity is
>> the foundation upon which a majority of Republicans base their
>> political beliefs.
>>
>
> Okay, this always confuses me. My impression is that nearly all of the
> members of the House and Senate, both Republican and Democrat, are
> self-professed Christians of one sort or another. The only exception
> would be a few Jews -- I've never heard of any of them admit to being
> either an atheist or even agnostic, and most will refer to God during
> at least one point in their campaign.
jwardl
> I never understood the general opposition to lawyers... Sure, there
> are a few out there that need to be shot, but how did this get
> generalized to the entire legal profession?
>
>
> Jonathan
The bad ones generate alot of talk.
It's somewhat like how some people are afraid to fly because of the stories
they've heard about plane crashes, hundreds of people being killed, etc --
even though there are THOUSANDS of flights worldwide daily that are
uneventful, and perfectly safe. The crashes make the news, and the
water-cooler talk. Same with the bad lawyers.
Jonathan
"Sunioc" <Sun...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
Easier to do than you would want to believe.
Check out Echelon.
> They'd
> have to listen in on hundreds, or even thousands of phone calls that
weren't
> made by the person who's been warranted.
No, what they actually do is track the individual and use the warrant to get
wire taps as needed.
Jonathan
Jonathan
"jwardl" <jwa...@spamthis.com> wrote in message
news:aGu6c.8526$CJ5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> > I never understood the general opposition to lawyers... Sure, there
> > are a few out there that need to be shot, but how did this get
> > generalized to the entire legal profession?
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> The bad ones generate alot of talk.
>
I know of a few bad cops, but I don't generalize about all of them...
> It's somewhat like how some people are afraid to fly because of the
stories
> they've heard about plane crashes, hundreds of people being killed, etc --
> even though there are THOUSANDS of flights worldwide daily that are
> uneventful, and perfectly safe. The crashes make the news, and the
> water-cooler talk. Same with the bad lawyers.
>
I think the turning point was the hot coffee at MacDonald's...
Jonathan
jwardl
>
> He did once say that G-d would protect the Earth from the Goua'ld...
> Which is pretty frightening.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
I'm no authroity on theology, as I follow no religion. However, isn't the
idea that we were kicked out of paradise, and effectively, out of the Lord's
protection, to find our own way as individuals? If I understand it correctly
from my friends who ARE Christians, Kinsey would have been totally WRONG
with that statement, and a Christian would have known better. Only those who
ask for forgiveness and accept Christ into their lives will be saved, and
even there, only in a spiritual form. God would not necessarily protect us
all from doom at the hands of alien invaders.
Of course, it's only TV ;)
-jwardl
Jonathan
"gizmo-goddard" <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:78p6c.31181$Pa7.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Steve Christianson" <stevechristians*n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4059C2...@yahoo.com...
> > X-No-Archive: yes
>
> <SNIPPED>
>
> > I agree. While I fervently disagree with GOP policy in most domestic
> > matters, there is no question that they have had some wonderful
> > successes in foreign policy. First and foremost to my mind is Ronald
> > Reagan's victory in the Cold War. All my life I'd lived in a world under
> > the shadow of that conflict, then thanks to some good old fashioned
> > strength and moral resolve, Reagan saw to America's triumph. Really an
> > amazing thing.
>
> That's one of the greatest misconceptions of the last century. Reagan
didn't
> win the Cold War, Gorbachev did.
I agree, but Reagan/Bush get credit because it happened on their watch...
>Reagan spent this country into it's own
> grave in order to one-up the Soviets and had Andropov not died of sheer
> fright, we would still be locked into the Cold War.
>
That doesn't make any sense... The US had the money to burn, the Soviets
didn't... What was the quote from The Pentagon Wars? "We were simply able to
shovel more cash into the furnace faster..."
Here it is 15 years later... and our economy is still vibrant and stable...
while the Russian economy is a fragment of a shambles... Why? Because of the
flaw in the notion of worker equality.
Jonathan
jwardl
>
> Problem with that is, they'd have to tap every phone the person uses
> on a regular basis, and/or every phone within a 50 mile radius of
> him. They'd have to listen in on hundreds, or even thousands of phone
> calls that weren't made by the person who's been warranted. That
> intrudes on the right to privacy of a lot of innocent people,
> especially if one of those phones happens to be a pay phone.
Take this as paranoid if you wish, but, the fact is...
they're ALREADY listening.
-jwardl
Ranger Bob
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Here it is 15 years later... and our economy is still vibrant and stable...
I take it you still have a job...
>while the Russian economy is a fragment of a shambles... Why? Because of the
>flaw in the notion of worker equality.
The Russian economy is in a shambles today because organized
crime and unscrupulous industry leaders (IOW organized crime wihtout
the guns) sucked the country dry in the transition to capitalism.
Eva
<snip>
> That doesn't make any sense... The US had the money to burn, the Soviets
> didn't... What was the quote from The Pentagon Wars? "We were simply able
to
> shovel more cash into the furnace faster..."
>
> Here it is 15 years later... and our economy is still vibrant and
stable...
> while the Russian economy is a fragment of a shambles... Why? Because of
the
> flaw in the notion of worker equality.
I think if the US had suddenly changed from a socialist country into a
capitalist one, it would also have a problem or two. ;-)
Eva
>
> "Eva" <eva1rem...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c3c4p2$26dlej$1...@ID-49577.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:eV56c.10970734$Of.18...@news.easynews.com...
<snip>
> > > Too honest for you?
> >
> > No, I like honest, I guess it was just unexpected and, dare I say,
> arrogant?
> > (I realise that's a strong word but I can't find a better one.) I'm
> sorry,
> > Jonathan, but how exactly is Iraqi oil (I assume that's what you meant
by
> > 'flow of resources' here) vital to the US or another country's security?
> > Economy, perhaps, but security? It's their oil, on their soil, and they
> can
> > do what they want with it, sell it to whom they want to or burn it, if
> they
> > want to.
> >
>
> The US Economy and its National Security are inseperable... as is the same
> in every other industrialized nation.
I knew you'd say that. ;-) Whether I agree with that or not, it still
doesn't give the right to one country (any country) to go and tell another
country what to do with their resources, be it bananas or oil.
In the good old days (ie before 1989), Czechoslovakia was one of the top
producers of uranium in the world (No 5, I think). The Czechs mined it,
paid for it with their health and lives, but where did all the uranium go?
To the Soviet Union, for 'processing'. I believe we were left enough to run
our own power stations but the Soviets kept the rest. They had a complete
control over the mines and the uranium that were in another country, which
also happened to be their ally. IOW, they stole the uranium by the means of
a forced treaty.
> The reality here is that nations have a right to defend themselves
(Article
> 51 of the UN Charter), they also have a right to secure resources vital to
> their national interests (this is not a thing that is exclusive to the
US).
In someone else's country?? I've never read the UN Charter so I wouldn't
know but that just seems wrong, if that's what it says.
> What is important here is methodology... The fact is that we simply did
not
> need to go into Iraq to secure a new source of oil... (I am a big fan of
Russia).
Is it the snow or the vodka? ;-) They make a mean ice-cream, too...
Jonathan
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:41:53 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Here it is 15 years later... and our economy is still vibrant and
stable...
>
> I take it you still have a job...
>
Off and on...
But I don't view the economy through my solitary eyes... Our unemployment
rate is VERY low compared to Europe or Russia.
> >while the Russian economy is a fragment of a shambles... Why? Because of
the
> >flaw in the notion of worker equality.
>
> The Russian economy is in a shambles today because organized
> crime and unscrupulous industry leaders (IOW organized crime wihtout
> the guns) sucked the country dry in the transition to capitalism.
>
Such is the nature of post-totalitarian systems... the people go a little
crazy...
Jonathan
Jonathan
If those resources belonged to the people, I would agree... but if the
country is a totalitarian dictatorship, where the people are routinely
raped, murdered, mutilated and gassed, I think the legitimacy of that gov't
is zero.
Also, in all likelihood, the future economy of Iraq will more directly
benefit the people of Iraq than it ever did under Saddam Hussein...
> In the good old days (ie before 1989), Czechoslovakia was one of the top
> producers of uranium in the world (No 5, I think). The Czechs mined it,
> paid for it with their health and lives, but where did all the uranium go?
> To the Soviet Union, for 'processing'. I believe we were left enough to
run
> our own power stations but the Soviets kept the rest. They had a complete
> control over the mines and the uranium that were in another country, which
> also happened to be their ally. IOW, they stole the uranium by the means
of
> a forced treaty.
>
You are comparing the US, to the USSR and its satellites? That's
offensive...
> > The reality here is that nations have a right to defend themselves
> (Article
> > 51 of the UN Charter), they also have a right to secure resources vital
to
> > their national interests (this is not a thing that is exclusive to the
> US).
>
> In someone else's country?? I've never read the UN Charter so I wouldn't
> know but that just seems wrong, if that's what it says.
>
Someone else's...
I question the legitimacy of ownership here.
> > What is important here is methodology... The fact is that we simply did
> not
> > need to go into Iraq to secure a new source of oil... (I am a big fan of
> Russia).
>
> Is it the snow or the vodka? ;-) They make a mean ice-cream, too...
>
They also have 10 times more oil than the Middle East... and they need the
hard currency... (they just need the fields developed...)
I spent a good portion of my early 20s, training to kill Russians in the US
Army... When the Cold War ended, I got this bizarre soft spot for
Russians... I want to see them prosper, and the best way to do that is to
buy their oil.
I also believe that buying oil from the Middle East is dangerous, and
finances the most evil elements on the planet... To be perfectly honest, I
would have supported going to war against Saudi Arabia more than Iraq.
Jonathan
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > That doesn't make any sense... The US had the money to burn, the Soviets
> > didn't... What was the quote from The Pentagon Wars? "We were simply
able
> to
> > shovel more cash into the furnace faster..."
> >
> > Here it is 15 years later... and our economy is still vibrant and
> stable...
> > while the Russian economy is a fragment of a shambles... Why? Because of
> the
> > flaw in the notion of worker equality.
>
> I think if the US had suddenly changed from a socialist country into a
> capitalist one, it would also have a problem or two. ;-)
>
You mean like Germany?
The USSR was never a socialist country... It was a totalitarian fascist
country with state ownership of all industry... there was nothing socialist
about it.
Jonathan
The Black Guardian
>> Well, you left off the part where he says, "...there is only one
>> god." That comes close.
>>
>> As for "Chain Reaction":
>>
>> Kinsey: Oh I still think the gate is a Pandora's box and I still
>> think it should be buried forever but as long it's open, and as long
>> as its a threat to this planet then I'm damn well gonna make sure its
>> used the way it should be used. To defend God's creation.
>>
>> O'Neill: Oh blow the rhetoric up somebody else's nose. You're nothing
>> but a power hungry hypocrite.
>>
>> Kinsey: The only currency in this town is power. So if I have to
>> shake hands with the devil to do the Lord's work then so be it.
>>
>> O'Neill: You self righteous son of a bitch. Where do you get off
>>
>> Kinsey: Judge not lest ye be judged. I read the mission reports that
>> come out of that mountain, you play with the fate of this planet on a
>> daily basis.
>>
>> This certainly makes a stronger case for him being Republican.
>> "God's creation," "Lord's work," and " 'Judge not lest ye be judged.' "
>
> Personally, I consider his party affiliation irrelevent, given that he's a
> fictional character. I don't know that he's intended to represent a party in
> particular. I think the point is that Kinsey HIMSELF has some major issues,
> regardless of his affiliation. However...
>
> It is true (IMHO) that most Republicans derive their beliefs from their
> Christian faith. This DOESN'T mean that *all* Republicans do (I'm a
> Republican and am not religious), nor does it mean that *all* Christians are
> Republicans. I'm simply saying that Christianity is the foundation upon
> which a majority of Republicans base their political beliefs.
>
> Republican -- but he could also be a "Red Dog" Democrat, or a Dem from the
> southern U.S. Regardless of his fictional political affiliation, he'd
> definitely qualify as a pompous, self-righteous, arrogant ASS. Kinsey's
> agenda is driven by his personal weaknesses, not by his fictional party.
> He's too far off the deep end to represent a typical member of either side.
I agree, completely. I just said, "makes a stronger case," not that it was
certain.
I still stand behind my earlier statement that he has no definite affiliation,
and
you're right, it doesn't matter.
__
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
LVernet
>
> "LVernet" <LVe...@vorlonempire.com> wrote in message
> news:c3bl8h$25imkd$1...@ID-177521.news.uni-berlin.de...
reasons
> > > (based on the best information Amnesty International had at the time),
I
> > > couldn't have given the slightest crap about WMD.
> >
> > Curious. Are you also in favour of going to war on humanitarian grounds
in
> > every other country where people are tortured and dictatorships rule?
> >
>
> Only after a careful cost-benefit calculus... I wouldn't favor going into
> North Korea (the resulting loss of life would eclipse anything Kim Jong Il
> could do to his people)...
> But I was waiting on a flight line 10 years ago to go to Rwanda...
> War is not the only option, but ignoring failed-states that continue to
> slaughter their own people doesn't seem to be working either.
>
> But, yeah, I would be in favor of toppling any regime that routinely
> tortures and murders its populace.
Except North Korea?
> > > There has been a goal floated about that the real intent here was to
> > secure
> > > a democratic source of oil, and that if Iraq went democratic, it would
> > start
> > > some kind of freedom domino thingy...
> >
> > Yeah, that one worked really well.
> >
>
> Still in process.
Hah, amusing. Not.
> Japan and Germany weren't stable democracies overnight either... that
seems
> to have worked out ok...
>
> > > Personally, I think the goal is a noble one, but completely unlikely
to
> > > work....
> > >
> >
> > Because democractic change can't be forced on people from the outside.
>
> Sure it can... look at Japan, Germany, South Korea...
Then you should have seen the documentary on Japanese prisons that I watched
the other night.
> > Any
> > political change has to come from within. You also can't defeat
terrorism
> by
> > bombing the crap out of people no matter how much they bomb you.
>
> Sure you can...
>
> However, you are suggesting appeasement...
Now where, pray, did you get that from the above statement? Did I say
terrorists should be given in to? Did I say the word appeasement or any
variation thereof? No. I. Didn't. I said you can't defeat terrorism by
bombing people. Don't put words in my mouth. Has, for example, bombing
Palestinians decreased suicide bombing? Did bombing Afganistan stop Islamic
extremists?
> The goal should be to eliminate the cause that makes people willing to
strap
> explosives to themselves... and that is totalitarian systems.
>
> > The Brits,
> > for example, learnt that one a long time ago. Perhaps they should run a
> > polytechnic course on it.
> >
>
> Yeah, the Brits ran away from everywhere...
I'm not British so I guess I don't care about that snark.
> You would have thought they would have learned from 1938 that you can't
> appease madmen.
Actually, I was thinking of an earlier period and not about appeasement.
Laurelin
LVernet
> I never understood the general opposition to lawyers... Sure, there are a
> few out there that need to be shot, but how did this get generalized to
the
> entire legal profession?
>
>
> Jonathan
>
Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II:
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'
However much that line has been quoted out of context, it's the line that's
remembered.
Laurelin
LVernet
> X-No-Archive: yes
> charged with a crime. Or you get ripped off by a big corporation,
> insurance company, you name it. It's easy for people to bag on lawyers,
> but like everything with human beings, the tune changes fast when the
> situation gets personal. The rule of law is essential to civilization,
> without it we are no better than savages.
Oh, for crying out loud. Steve, Jonathan asked why opposition to some
lawyers has been generalised to the whole legal profession and I was
responding to that question. Try reading what's actually written before
jumping in and assuming something that isn't meant.
Laurelin