Rob offers his apologies.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The US is alone among Western powers with an almost perfect birth
>> replacement rate. That's because we encourage immigration and, more
>> importantly, people still really want to come here to live, work, and
>> raise their families.
>
> You are correct that the birth rate, at least among the native born, is very
> close to replacement rate. But immigration and the higher birth rate among
> 1st generation immigrants (and maybe 2nd and 3rd) are what have caused the
> population to double in sixty-some years. Do you consider this a good thing?

For the moment, yes. A nation's wealth (and thus power/influence) is
driven primarily by its per capita productivity. Immigration is part
(but not remotely all) of the equation to maintaining and growing
productivity. Given that the US will end up being the only significant
Western democracy on the planet in less than a half century (assuming
nothing changes in the Western/Anglo birth rates around the world in the
mean time), we need as many American citizens as possible. But "American
citizen" presumes these new emigre's will follow the path of their
predecessors - they must *assimilate* American ideals, values, and, yes,
language. Thanks to the usual Drooling Idiots, we now see a profoundly
dangerous movement to encourage immigration and *discourage*
assimilation. That could well be a death sentence for American ideals
wherein the US becomes just as balkanized and unable to speak with one
voice (literally) as is the case in Western Europe today.


>
> Of course it doesn't matter what either of us thinks about it. The population
> will continue to grow either by birth or immigration because the Ponzi
> economy depends on it. Think how few houses, autos, appliances, etc. we'd
> need with a stable population.
>

Your understanding of "economy" is fundamentally broken. It is not a
"Ponzi" scheme of any sort. The "economy" is one measure of national
wealth. And "wealth" grows in proportion to national *productivity* not
on based on the number of toasters and Big Macs that get sold. If this
were not so, nations will little or no natural resources and/or goods
to sell would all be poor. Take even a casual look at Hong Kong,
Singapore, or Japan for some fairly compelling counterexamples. For
a more academic treatise on the matter, you might want to read the
source: Adam Smith's "Wealth Of Nations" and, in particular, his
"Pin Factory" example. He wrote with tremendous insight in the 18th
century. Too bad the modern so-called educated Westerner can't be
bothered to take the time to understand what he wrote.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
> I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
> fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
> of the planet....but I digress.

After reading this... well... I don't think you are sorry at all. I am
detecting a whiff of insincererity, I do believe. *snort*

The subject matter aside, I must say that I am not accustomed to that
level of inarticulate profanity from you. You usually express yourself
so well.

But for those that want to take a look at someone that isn't afraid to
talk about some real balls:

http://tinyurl.com/q7bmd

Robert

Doug Miller wrote:

> AFAIK, he has never claimed to be without fault.
>


Ya farkin' kiddin me???????

Jeebus, Doug... where-the-fark have you been?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
> >fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
> >of the planet....but I digress.
>
> Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad,
> Mahmoud Achmedinajad, Osama bin Laden, or Fidel Castro?
>

How DARE you bundle Castro, Ahmedinajad in the same breath as the
fictitious Bin Laden?
Where is Chavez in you bullshit arguement?

Just because a few leaders stand up to fuckwit Bush, don't make them
the equal of Hussein.

Apples and oranges, Doug!!!

[email protected] wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
> > fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
> > of the planet....but I digress.
>
> After reading this... well... I don't think you are sorry at all. I am
> detecting a whiff of insincererity, I do believe. *snort*
>
> The subject matter aside, I must say that I am not accustomed to that
> level of inarticulate profanity from you. You usually express yourself
> so well.
>
> But for those that want to take a look at someone that isn't afraid to
> talk about some real balls:

You are right, Robert. I'm not myself these days. Maybe because I lost
my composure during the Emmies. I am so peeved at the 'so-what' stance
of my fellow warriors, that I may be expressing my disgust a little too
forcefully. This, actually IS an apology.
Your sense of whiffness was acute. Meanwhile

I remain,
sincerely yours,

r

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> >
> >> OK, if he *has* ever claimed to be without fault, cite it.
> >
> >I remember TV interviews where Bush said that he didn't make any mistakes
> >in Iraq.
>
> That's not the same as a generic claim to be without fault, which is the
> context I was responding to.

The context was "I hate Bush". Since all political discussions are
emotional arguments masquerading as logical ones, there's little hope
of convincing the other party. He won't convince you, you won't
convince him, so what's the point of the back and forth?

This would have been a good thread to have OT in the subject line, no?

R

What is all this crap even doing here?

Robatoy wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
> > > fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
> > > of the planet....but I digress.
> >
> > After reading this... well... I don't think you are sorry at all. I am
> > detecting a whiff of insincererity, I do believe. *snort*
> >
> > The subject matter aside, I must say that I am not accustomed to that
> > level of inarticulate profanity from you. You usually express yourself
> > so well.
> >
> > But for those that want to take a look at someone that isn't afraid to
> > talk about some real balls:
>
> You are right, Robert. I'm not myself these days. Maybe because I lost
> my composure during the Emmies. I am so peeved at the 'so-what' stance
> of my fellow warriors, that I may be expressing my disgust a little too
> forcefully. This, actually IS an apology.
> Your sense of whiffness was acute. Meanwhile
>
> I remain,
> sincerely yours,

Rob, it did come across as a regular wigging out. I'm not sure if
venting made you feel better, but the net effect (pun intended) is
detrimental to the group and serves no purpose. Strong opinions on
important matters require a different forum for your voice to be heard
and count for something. Otherwise it's no different than an XboX vs.
PS3 flame war.

R

RicodJour wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

> Strong opinions on
> important matters require a different forum for your voice to be heard
> and count for something. Otherwise it's no different than an XboX vs.
> PS3 flame war.
>
> R

The political forums (fora?) are nothing BUT a flame war. At least
here, there are some intelligent participants.
You'll have noticed, by now, that there will always be the
'head-up-the-ass' card-carrying voters who's minds are closed. They
come in Republican (conservative) and Democtratic (liberal) flavours.
Nobody seems to think anymore.

Eisenhouwer warned us about the military complex waging war for
business reasons. Guess he was smarter than many.

Other than that. I just installed a new Ridgid drill press. I put in a
centre bit and could not detect run-out. That means less than .0002.
Unbelievable. And silky smooth too. That is a REAL 1/2 HP motor.
Lots of balls.

<G>

r

Robatoy wrote:
error:
> 'head-up-the-ass' card-carrying voters <b>who's</b> minds are closed.


whose?

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snipped for brevity and cleanliness]

> Please note that this drill press is the product of an Eeeeeeeevvvvilllll
> Corporation that (gasp!) uses offshore manufacturing wherein there is no
> Union labor, defined benefits pensions, universal healthcare, or long
> paid vacations. You are quite happy to be part of the industrial
> "complex", you just want to pick and choose which parts of it you supports.
> For shame.
>
Just because I loathe WonTon soup, doesn't mean I have to stop buying
Chinese tools.
I am also not going stop breathing air because Ted Kennedy farts in it.

And you, Tim, better stop eating. There is no way you can be sure that
the food you buy wasn't handled/processed/harvested by an illegal
immigrant who slaves under the yoke of an opportunist business owner.

r

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[proganda/drivel snipped]
> We don't care what other nations think because we don't have to. When we
> have to care, we will. But beware. The general goodwill and kindness
> that are the instinct of the American people is stretched pretty thin
> right now. After generations of picking up the military and humanitarian
> tab for a good part of the rest of the world, we're tired of listening
> to foolish, ill-mannered, and ignorant whining like yours. The last
> thing most of the rest of the world can afford is for the US to back
> away from the world stage and become entirely defensive in its military
> and economic posture. But that sentiment is running stronger and
> stronger in American culture as people watch their tax dollars evaporate
> and the blood of their children spilled only to hear some haughty
> European, Canadian, Aussie, or Kiwi lecture us about our bad behaviour.
> Be careful what you ask, for you shall surely get it ....
>
Nicely said. The benevolent nature of KBR/Haliburton, Bechtel and such,
really tugs at my heartstrings. The world is a better place since
Cheney left Haliburton and became VP.
The Carlisle Group and their defense portfolio, clearly shows their
effort in promoting peace.
Business has NO influence on politics, war decisions, and polution. Big
business simply does not exist.
For a guy (I am assuming) who has such a wonderful command of the
English language, you sure talk a lot of shit. Eloquent shit, but shit
nevertheless. (I am using a bit of your tactic here, attacking the
person rather than the issues.)

r

GeeDubb wrote:
> "boorite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What is all this crap even doing here?
> >
>
> welcome to the wreck......
>
> now if everybody would just ignore everybody else I think we can get some
> wood working done.

Looks like they ignored us. That's a start, at least.

The Locustus, Bugg and Daneliuk mutual admiration society has
deteriorated into a circle-jerk.

Listen up, O'Reilley fans, try to do some research beyond your
emotional desire to be 'right'.

Go get your daily infusion of fair and balanced news from Fox, keeping
your heads firmly planted up your asses.
For those American friends who wonder what went wrong with your
country.. here's an example.

You just can't teach arrogant people anything.

...btw, did you guys see the tag below the image of FagBoy Foley on
FoxTV?
This is what it read:
Foley (D-FL)....lol..I guess they figured if he was gay, he'd have to
be a democrat.

See what I mean about the mindset of blind faith?

r

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

>
> I suppose it takes a true believer to read "something" into a simple
> typo......

Simple typo? My ass. Three times they ran that 'typo'. But, Rod, if you
want to buy into Fox's shit, go for it!

>Do you perchance listen to Air America?

Nope, can't stand their pinko bullshit. I have a problem with
bullshit...from the right or from the left.
That pudge, Gore, looks like he's been eating too much of Bugg's BBQ
Lardburgers... and that Kerry would have REALLY screwed things up in
Eyerack.

>Your empty tirades, rants
> and factless drivel indeed sound like their bankrupt programming.

Okay... I'll bite...what factless drivel?

I get it...you feel left out.. you want to be in Circle Jerk
too....okay..I'll ask.

Ya got a gunrack in that Chevette?

r

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

>..and in fact any perceived
> albeit remote benefit would be far less than the credibility harm to their
> reputation for a rather known fact that he was not a Dem......thus with no
> benefit and some harm.... why would it be anything more than a typo?
>
That is so naive. Fox's reputation is already such that it is clear it
wasn't a typo.
>
> Cool.... at least your a equal opportunity America basher....although it
> does beg the question as to the why?

I'm not an America basher at all. The fact that I think Mike Tyson is a
scumbag makes me racist?
That I think the current administartion in Israel are 'less than kind'
to the Palestinians make me anti-semetic? Where do you get that I am
anti-American? My sister and her husband (airforce .ret.) and my nieces
and nephew are all Americans. The minister who married my wife & I was
'imported' from Illinois.(A marine too, btw.) The best man is an
American from Florida. I live 5 minutes from Port Huron MI and have a
lot of American clients...and yes, *gasp* American friends. Most think
the neocons are assholes. Most think, as I do, that there should have
been 300,000 soldiers instead of Rummy's 150,000 (purely designed for
the war to drag on..oops Mission accomplished...sorry forgot.)

I can't help that the motive for invading Afghanistan and Iraq is that
transparent. I was born with my eyes open. You?


> Your recent posts here......I didn't notice any reasoned rational
> discourse...Did I miss something?

I'll say you did.
>

>
> Its a Dodge van without a gun rack although it does have a ladder rack.....I
> do have a Cannuck for a sister though but she doesn't have a gun rack
> either.....Rod

I have a Dodge van. With an A-frame inside to transport the solid
surface countertops I fabricate.
My sister lives in Olatha KS... no gun racks... Rob

Leon wrote:
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Torture is torture. Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have
> > lost any moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're
> > combating. If you cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
>
>
> So shooting them is OK?
> We should do to others as others have done to us. We can crawl into the
> cutter with them if that is what it takes to win the war. If the enemy does
> not follow the rules and we do, we cannot win.
> War is war.

War is war, I agree.
A few years back, a few Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon and held
as hostages. The Americans went into 'negotiations-mode'. A few days
later, a couple of Russians were kidnapped with the result that the
brothers of the kidnappers were shot and dropped off in front of the
house where they lived. The Russian hostages were set free immediatly.
It showed resolve and good intelligence.
Put another way: "You can't bring a knife to a gun fight." (Daneliuk
will likely misconstrue this as my liking the Russians more than the
Americans, so be it.)

When they found Hussein, there should have been a picture, similar to
the execution of the Saigon police chief.

What is up for debate is the reason for this war.
One does fight fire by removing fuel, heat or oxygen.

Dave Bugg wrote:

>
> > The Canadian reputation stands.
>
> So do crusty, brown-stained shorts.
>


You're the expert!

Try using a toilet.

r

Richard Clements wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
> >> fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
> >> of the planet....but I digress.
> >
> > Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad,
> > Mahmoud Achmedinajad, Osama bin Laden, or Fidel Castro?
> >> He truly is a Christian man without fault?
> >
> > AFAIK, he has never claimed to be without fault.
> >
> > [remaining garbage snipped]
> >
> > Some apology.
> >
> > http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
> >
> Doug why do you even justify responding? if you read the history of his
> posts he is and has always been a crack pot, and more than likely
> smoking a crack pipe.
>
> "A great man inspires others to greatness,
> a little man complains about it."
> --unknown
>
> politics aside
>
> there seems to be several types of people on the wreck there are those
> that help and give real advice, those that are here to learn that they
> might help some day, and leaches, they take with out any real useful
> contribution and are border line trolls
>
> looking at past posts Doug Miller has done more then his fair share help
> good, I've yet to see anything real useful from robatoy
>
> now quit your bitching and get back to work, that sawdust isn't going to
> make it's self

lemme see..... communications major, right?

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Try using a toilet.
>
> Spoken by someone so full of unintelligible crap that it just oozes from
> every brain cell.

Is that really the best you can do, Farktard?
You have clearly lost this battle of wits, bro'.
.
.
Pityful.

r

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > Is that really the best you can do, Farktard?
>
> No, but you've not demonstrated the any worth worthy of wasting too much
> time.
>
> > You have clearly lost this battle of wits, bro'.
>
> Sure I have.

Yup, sure have.

r

.wellllll..would you look at the time. No more talkies with Mr.
Bugg...I'm starting feel all greasy.
Oh, and Mr. Bugg...don't blow any valves, okay?

Michael Daly wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein
>
> Given his attitude towards torture, I'd say they're about the same.
>

No, keep in mind that under Bush the definition of torture was
restricted
to those which left physical evidence on the bodies of the victims.

Saddam Hussein was much more 'liberal' in his outlook, I daresay.

Seriously, there is no question that GWB is a better man than Castro,
Hussein, bin Laden, Hitler etc. Our government is better than the
fascists, nazis, etc. Out military does a better job of prosecuting
crimes against humanity than did the SS, or the Soviet Red Army.

For some of us, being better than the worse that humanity has had
to offer is not good enough. Some of us want the best for our
country.

--

FF

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Doug Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein
> >
> > Given his attitude towards torture, I'd say they're about the same.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Is there some code or rule someplace that requires anti-Bush tirades to be
> ignorant and stupid? To compare any approved Bush "torture" of which
> includes sleep deprivation, cold rooms , loud music, maybe water boarding
> (harmless but scary)....

Dilawar's hands were cuffed behind his back and chained to the ceiling.
his feet were shackeled to the floor. He was struck in the legs until
the
muscles were pulverized, damaged beyond recovery. His shoulders were
dislocated. He was denied food and water. After four days he died,
still hanging from the ceiling.

At his trial, Willie Brand described DIlawar's treatment as
"sleep deprivation."

Yes, OP's tirade was ignorant and stupid. So was your reply.

--

FF

Leon wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
> > fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
> > of the planet....but I digress.
> >
> > He truly is a Christian man without fault?
> >
> > I would wash his feet.
> >
> > After that, I would look him in the eye.
> >
> > Then I would rebuke him.
> >
> > He would crumble upon the weight.
> >
> > I would dust off my shoes and go looking for Cheney.
> >
> > r
> >
>
> At least Bush has balls, and conviction. In this day in age that kind of
> person is hard to find. Unfortunately many find this type personality kind
> of harsh as they have been brought up in a society that has learned to
> accept no back bone spineless politicians as the norm.

Quite the opposite.

Faced with a tough task and the tools to do it, he cut and ran
from the time honored principles and procedures of the US
Military and US Justice system, the Constitution and our
treaty obligations.

Less than two months after September 11, he proposed courts
that were without competent juristidiction and rules of evidence
thet condoned and encouraged torture. He never even tried to
use the tried and true existing system of courts-marital and
the established regulations for handling captives.

Any politician can stand up for priciple and respect for the rule
of law when danger is passed. It takes courage and conviction
to stand up for those priciples in time of crisis. Bush never even
tried.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Get a grip. Do you have *any* idea at all what went on in Iraq under Saddam
> >> Hussein?
> >
> >Torture is torture.
>
> Oh, really? So you're equating sleep deprivation with rape and murder?
>
> > Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
> >moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating. If you
> >cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
>
> Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth specific
> conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured on the
> field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia don't meet
> those conditions.

That's a damn lie. Someone who has been captured by persons
other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
does not change the fact that the person is protected.

It doesn't make any difference if the captive is a spy, sabotuer,
'terrorist', your grandmother or the worst war criminal since
Joseph Mengele. Once captured, he is a protected person.
The Geneva Conventions are not a license to commit attrocities.

>From the Fourth Protocol, 1949:

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who,
at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves,
in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to
the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.


Note, "The Convention" refers to the 1949 convention, collectively,
not to any one specific protocol of the convention. The only exception
is for one's own nationals.

Further, under the 1949 GCs and under the US Constitution the
President and Commander in Chief has no authority to decide
which of the protocols is applicable to any particular person.

Now, as to the question that was posed, there is no doubt that
we are much better off in America with Geroge W Bush as our
President than Iraqis were in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as their
president.

But that's the wrong question to ask, isn't it?

--

FF

Leon wrote:
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Torture is torture. Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have
> > lost any moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're
> > combating. If you cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
>
>
> So shooting them is OK?

Depending on whom you mean by "them", in battle, sure. Shooting
them is OK, same as shooting uniformed soldiers. If they surrender
or are captured alive, they become protected persons. It's still OK
to shoot them, or to execute them in any other 'humane' way, so
long as they have been duly convicted of capital offenses.

> We should do to others as others have done to us. We can crawl into the
> cutter with them if that is what it takes to win the war. If the enemy does
> not follow the rules and we do, we cannot win.

False. Not only can we win without abandoning our principles, we
cannot win if we do.

Abandonment of our principles is suicide.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
> RogerD wrote:
>
> > So did Hitler.
>
> Really!?? How much cajones does it really take to round up the helpless and
> gas 'em? Or attack the French?

He also invaded the Soviet Union while still at war with the Allies,
and declared war on the US.

Maybe not his best decisions, but bold ones.

--

FF

Michael Daly wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
> > Locutus wrote:
> >
> >> ahh... another Canadian. Not suprised.
> >>
> >> Do you realize what YOUR reputation is in the world?
> >
> > Possibly that they managed to free some American prisoners while Jimmy
> > Carter hemmed and hawed for more than a year?
>
> Or that the took over command under NATO in Afghanistan when the US wanted to
> free troops for Iraq?
>
> Or that their navy patrolled the Persian Gulf protecting US ships in the lead-in
> to the Iraq invasion?
>
> Or that they are the only country on the planet to have contributed troops to
> _every_ UN peacekeeping mission since the UN came into being?
>
> Or that they fought in _all_ years of both WWI and WWII? And were the first to
> win a major victory against the Germans in WWI while the yanks were still hiding
> at home?

The Canadians also took in men, women and children fleeing slavery
in the US, draft resisters and deserters during the Vietnam war, and
helped keep us supplied with booze during Prohibition.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > wrote:
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Get a grip. Do you have *any* idea at all what went on in Iraq under
> > Saddam
> >> >> Hussein?
> >> >
> >> >Torture is torture.
> >>
> >> Oh, really? So you're equating sleep deprivation with rape and murder?
> >>
> >> > Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
> >> >moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating. If
> > you
> >> >cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
> >>
> >> Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth specific
> >> conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured on the
> >> field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia don't
> > meet
> >> those conditions.
> >
> >That's a damn lie.
>
> No, Fred, it's the truth.
>
> >Someone who has been captured by persons
> >other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
> >That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
> >comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
> >does not change the fact that the person is protected.
>
> Wrong. Fighting in civilian disguise changes everything.

Citation?

> >
> >It doesn't make any difference if the captive is a spy, sabotuer,
> >'terrorist', your grandmother or the worst war criminal since
> >Joseph Mengele. Once captured, he is a protected person.
>
> That simply is not true.

Citation?

Please forgive me if I do not accept dialog from a B-movie
as authoritative.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Leon wrote:
> >> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>> Torture is torture. Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have
> >>> lost any moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're
> >>> combating. If you cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
> >>
> >> So shooting them is OK?
> >
> > Depending on whom you mean by "them", in battle, sure. Shooting
> > them is OK, same as shooting uniformed soldiers. If they surrender
> > or are captured alive, they become protected persons. It's still OK
> > to shoot them, or to execute them in any other 'humane' way, so
> > long as they have been duly convicted of capital offenses.
> >
> >> We should do to others as others have done to us. We can crawl into the
> >> cutter with them if that is what it takes to win the war. If the enemy does
> >> not follow the rules and we do, we cannot win.
> >
> > False. Not only can we win without abandoning our principles, we
> > cannot win if we do.
> >
> > Abandonment of our principles is suicide.
> >
>
> So is clinging to them to the point where we are annihilated.

We have never even come close to being annihilated.

Fewer Americnas have killed and injured by all or our enemies
combined in the last 30 years than are inadvertently killed
by our medical establishment in a single year.

To even raise the issue of 'annihilation' is asinine.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>> Abandonment of our principles is suicide.
> >>>
> >> So is clinging to them to the point where we are annihilated. Survival
> >> comes before legal nuance notwithstanding the fantasyland inhabited
> >> by a good many of the war critics.
> >
> > Hyperbole. The US won't be annihilated by allowing habeus corpus, nor
> > would presenting the actual evidence, classified or otherwise, lead to
> > the annihilation of the united states.
> >
> > So, you may trust GWB and Rumsfeld to not abuse their power, but when the
> > next president declares _you_ an enemy combatent, and you have no
> > recourse to the court system, habeus corpus or even to see the evidence
> > against you, don't complain to the rest of us.
> >
> > scott
>
> I don't trust any politician. But you are playing a not-too clever
> game of misdirection. The right of habeus corpus is extended only
> to participants in our socio-legal contract. It is *not* extended
> to foreign invaders.

A particulary pathetic misdirection. No one has suggested habeas
relief
for foreign invaders. But I will later in this article.

You are not, by any chance, characterizing persons arrested in
Pakistan or Afghanistan, or captured in combat in Afghanistan
and taken to Guantanamo Bay, and who have never seven attemtped
to enter the United Statesas foreign invaders, are you?

That the Constitution allows the Congress (nor the courts nor
the President) to suspend habeas corpus in the event of invasion,
makes it clear that habeas corpus applies absent an explicit, and
permissible, suspension.

See:

EX PARTE QUIRIN
317 U.S. 1 (1942)

The motion for habeas corpus relief was heard and denied by
the USSC. If the foreign invaders in question could not be, under
any circumstances, entitled to the writ the Court would not
have heard their petition, rather than hearing and then denying
their application.

> No matter how much you try to dance around this
> issue both history and legal precedent are on my side of this debate:

Please provide cittations.

> Combating enemy invaders - in or out of uniform - is NOT a domestic
> law enforcement problem and thus our domestic criminal/civil law
> does NOT apply.
>

Just who are these invaders to whom you keep refering?
What country did they invade?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk (in [email protected]) said:
> >
> > | [email protected] wrote:
> > ||
> > || False. Not only can we win without abandoning our principles, we
> > || cannot win if we do.
> > ||
> > || Abandonment of our principles is suicide.
> > |
> > | So is clinging to them to the point where we are annihilated.
> > | Survival comes before legal nuance notwithstanding the fantasyland
> > | inhabited by a good many of the war critics.
> >
> > It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of men
> > and women who valued our principles more highly than their personal
> > survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large) number who did
> > not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I might live in what you
> > so casually refer to as "fantasyland".
> >
> > If you choose to discard our fundamental principles in favor of some
> > hoped-for longevity; most will understand - and I would guess that
> > most will also be ashamed for you.
>
>
> It is not a "fundamental principle" that we roll over and play dead
> for combatants hiding behind civilian garb. It is not a "fundamental
> principle" that such individuals be extended the benefits of our
> social contract. It is not a "fundamental principle" that such
> individuals should be entirely free of duress, discomfort, and even
> intimidation.

And only the straw men in your fantasyland have suggested
any such things.

Care to join us in the real world?

--

FF

Locutus wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> >> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Doug Miller wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein
> >> >
> >> > Given his attitude towards torture, I'd say they're about the same.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >>
> >> Is there some code or rule someplace that requires anti-Bush tirades to
> >> be
> >> ignorant and stupid? To compare any approved Bush "torture" of which
> >> includes sleep deprivation, cold rooms , loud music, maybe water boarding
> >> (harmless but scary)....
> >
> > Dilawar's hands were cuffed behind his back and chained to the ceiling.
> > his feet were shackeled to the floor. He was struck in the legs until
> > the
> > muscles were pulverized, damaged beyond recovery. His shoulders were
> > dislocated. He was denied food and water. After four days he died,
> > still hanging from the ceiling.
> >
> > At his trial, Willie Brand described DIlawar's treatment as
> > "sleep deprivation."
> >
> > Yes, OP's tirade was ignorant and stupid. So was your reply.
> >
> >
>
> Source?

Brand described Diliwar's (also spelt Dilawar) treatment as
"sleep deprivation" in an incredibly sympathetic interview on
60 Minures that aired March 5, 2006. A brief summary is here:

http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tv.com%2F60-minutes%2Fmarch-05-2006--is-the-price-right-the-court-martial-of-willie-brand-the-prince-of-pot%2Fepisode%2F672514%2Frecap.html
A transcript can be purchased from CBS.

That his treatment was charaterized as sleep deprivation by the defense
at
Brand's trial was reported in the press at the time of his
court-martial.

But Brand's statments cannot be reconciled with the autopsy:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=homicide+autopsy+bagram+diliwar&kgs=1&kls=0

A description of Dilawar's "interrogation" and death:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=passion+of+dilawar&kgs=1&kls=0

Brand's court-martial:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=willie+brand+convicted&kgs=1&kls=0

An article about the murders of DIlawar and Habibulah, which repeats
the "sleep deprivation" defense:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18176

--

FF

Robatoy wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> > Strong opinions on
> > important matters require a different forum for your voice to be heard
> > and count for something. Otherwise it's no different than an XboX vs.
> > PS3 flame war.
> >
> > R
>
> The political forums (fora?) are nothing BUT a flame war.

Do you suppose that is:

1) Because they don't discuss woodworking there?

or

2) Because they do discuss politics there?

--

FF

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
>
> >
> > ...btw, did you guys see the tag below the image of FagBoy Foley on
> > FoxTV?
> > This is what it read:
> > Foley (D-FL)....lol..I guess they figured if he was gay, he'd have to
> > be a democrat.
> >
> > See what I mean about the mindset of blind faith?
> >
> > r
>
> I suppose it takes a true believer to read "something" into a simple
> typo.....

When Fox re-aired the segment later in the day the incorrect
graphic was removed. NOT corrected, there was no graphic
correctly identifying Foley as a Republican.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> >> I don't trust any politician. But you are playing a not-too clever
> >> game of misdirection. The right of habeus corpus is extended only
> >> to participants in our socio-legal contract. It is *not* extended
> >> to foreign invaders.
> >
> > A particulary pathetic misdirection. No one has suggested habeas
> > relief for foreign invaders. But I will later in this article.
>
> There's a shocker.
>
> >
> > You are not, by any chance, characterizing persons arrested in
> > Pakistan or Afghanistan, or captured in combat in Afghanistan
> > and taken to Guantanamo Bay, and who have never seven attemtped
> > to enter the United Statesas foreign invaders, are you?
>
> I stand corrected. What I should have said was:

> The right of habeus corpus .... It is *not* extended to
> foreign invaders OR people with whom we are at war.

Are persons with whom we are not at war _potentially_ entitled
to habeas relief?

> >
> > That the Constitution allows the Congress (nor the courts nor
> > the President) to suspend habeas corpus in the event of invasion,
> > makes it clear that habeas corpus applies absent an explicit, and
> > permissible, suspension.
> >
> > See:
> >
> > EX PARTE QUIRIN
> > 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
> >
> > The motion for habeas corpus relief was heard and denied by
> > the USSC. If the foreign invaders in question could not be, under
> > any circumstances, entitled to the writ the Court would not
> > have heard their petition, rather than hearing and then denying
> > their application.
> >
> >> No matter how much you try to dance around this
> >> issue both history and legal precedent are on my side of this debate:
> >
> > Please provide citations.
>
> Your citations are utterly irrelevant because they are about people
> who are _part of our socio-legal contract_.

Please explain how those foreign invaders, German-born Nazi sabotuers,
became part of _part of our socio-legal contract_.

Please explain how to identify those person who are and are not
_part of our socio-legal contract_.

And then please cite some support for the notion that being a
_part of our socio-legal contract_ is a prerequsite to habeas
relief.

Finally, please explain the legal meaning of _our socio-legal
contract_.

Please cite something, other than yourself, to support your
explanations.

> They simply do not
> apply to the enemy when engaged in war. This is US criminal, and
> even indirectly, civil law you and yours keep trying to drag onto
> the battlefield. The burden lies with you to show why the protections
> of the Constitution, given and interpreted, should accrue to people
> with whom we are at war. It is mind boggling you cannot grasp the
> difference.

It is disgusting that you refuse to acknowledge that persons in our
custody and under our protection may or may not also be persons
with whom we are at war.

> ...
> >
> > Just who are these invaders to whom you keep refering?
> > What country did they invade?
>
> Again, it should have said "foreign invaders OR those with whom
> we are at war".
>
> Example of "foreign invaders": The 9-11 attackers.

Since habeas relief is mooted by death, that example is asinine
even for a straw man.

> Example of "those with whom we are at war": "Insurgents in Iraq"

No one has suggested habeas relief should be available for
Iraqis in custody in Iraq. Another asine straw man.


>
> Shall we now devolve into a Clintoneque debate about what words and
> letters mean? It is absurd that any thinking person, regardless of
> politics, insist that our legal protections be extend to a hostile
> enemy during time of war. But absurdity is the special province of
> the Modern "Intellectual" Left and the buzzing flies that surround
> them. The Right is ridiculous, the Left is dangerous.
>

More sophisitcated that typical name calling,
but no more substantive.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
[snipped for brevity, NOT for contextual distortion]

> Let's remember how we got here, shall we. [snipped again, for the same reason]
>
> Then Robatoy decided to slip in a political announcement complete with a
> vulgar profanity *in the middle* of an on topic thread - in fact, he
> inserted it in the middle of a *post* without bothering not note that he
> was threadjacking (he has some aversion to marking his threads OT for
> some reason). This was both cheap and inappropriate, and I responded.

*Gasping for air*..such vulgarity! Hey, bro', if Cheney can say fuck,
*I* can say fuck.

If you thought it was cheap and inappropriate, a simple statement to
that effect would have been sufficient.
Instead, you used the opportunity to get out your soapbox and to
propagrandize [sic] your delusions.
You took a page out of the neo-con book by overreacting well beyond the
required need.
But I won't feed you anymore bait, bro'...'cept one thing:

(your words, Tim)
>you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
>and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.

That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
You know the answer.
What little credibility you had left, just blew out of your shorts.

....here it comes again------->... you better duck.....FUCK!

r

/I'll be here all week.
//move along, there's nothing to see here.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> >
> > (your words, Tim)
> >> you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
> >> and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.
> >
> > That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
>
> It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
> is crickets.

Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected]
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
> >> >> >moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating. If
> >> > you
> >> >> >cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
> >> >>
> >> >> Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth
> > specific
> >> >> conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured on
> > the
> >> >> field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia don't
> >> > meet
> >> >> those conditions.
> >> >
> >> >That's a damn lie.
> >>
> >> No, Fred, it's the truth.
> >>
> >> >Someone who has been captured by persons
> >> >other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
> >> >That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
> >> >comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
> >> >does not change the fact that the person is protected.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Fighting in civilian disguise changes everything.
> >
> >Citation?
>
> The Geneva Conventions. You don't seem to have read them very carefully.

You do not cite anything in the GCs themselves to support your
assertion.

"Changes everything", and "changes nothing" are both incorrect.
What does not change, and the GCs address this directly is that
a captive is a protected person regardless of the accusation against
him.

>
> I refer you to Tim Daneliuk's posts in this thread, in which he has already
> pointed out your errors in detail, with greater eloquence than I am capable
> of.
>

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.moderated/browse_thread/thread/ac690012dddce9da/ef9fd31cb197fd79?lnk=st&q=fredfighter&rnum=2&hl=en#ef9fd31cb197fd79
or
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.moderated/msg/ef9fd31cb197fd79?dmode=source&hl=en

I do not consider name-calling and using made-up words to be
eloquence.

I repeat the statement by the ICRC, from near the end of their
discussion
of the definition of "protected persons."

"There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands
can be outside the law. "

I agree with them.

--

FF

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > When Fox re-aired the segment later in the day the incorrect
> > graphic was removed. NOT corrected, there was no graphic
> > correctly identifying Foley as a Republican.
> > FF
>
>
> As one whom does not watch FOX 24 hours a day I'd not assume to know when or
> if a correction was ever made but I suppose you can make any such assumption
> ....nonetheless I'd suggest by now (if ever) "nobody" thinks Folly was or is
> a Dem. Nor would I consider FOX so stupid that they would think a small
> insignificant "typo" could turn the tide of public opinion one way or the
> other.

Misdirection.

It is not the effectiveness of the act that is in question, but the
motivation.

Within a few days after the statement was made, (almost) no one
believed that Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Monica
Lewinsky.
Does that mean it was OK for him to deny it?

--

FF

Leon wrote:
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > "Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither."
>
>
> I never could quite figutre that one out.
>
> So, those who sacrifice Security for Liberty, Die.

No, neither precludes the other. Simultaneously
preserving both requires a modicum of intellignce and
wisdom, however.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>> (your words, Tim)
> >>>> you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
> >>>> and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.
> >>> That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
> >> It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
> >> is crickets.
> >
> > Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?
> >
>
> Because there is no/insufficient evidence to bring charges of
> impeachment against him.

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
> > is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
> > impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
> > an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
> > after the impeachment hearing had begun.
>
> Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to consider the
> merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no impeachment hearing.

To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
hearing' per se would have been held.

> Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration *prior*
> to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must be evidence in
> existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be in-place.

Could you cite somethign to support this? I am unaware of
any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative. Indeed,
historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
Justice Department.

>
> If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered by
> members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or Other
> Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an impeachment
> are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of congressfolk can do
> this. Democrats can do so right now, if they have the facts to support the
> Articles.

They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment
must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member
of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that
the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.

>
> The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
> acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a Republican
> controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush, regardless of how
> compelling the facts in evidence are.

That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is
precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any
investigation
by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by
first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such evidence
and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such
evidence at any hearings that are held.

Finally, and this is something I had never heard of prior to the
present
administration, the Republicans can (and have) voted to allow witnesses
to 'testify' while NOT under oath or affirmation.

>
> So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
> Articles to the House.
>

I modify my point slightly:

If there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction
of articles of impeachment it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives
to conduct the hearings that could discover that
evidence.

However, I do not claim that there is insufficient evidence to
support articles of impeachment, quite the contrary.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
> >>> is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
> >>> impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
> >>> an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
> >>> after the impeachment hearing had begun.
> >>
> >> Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to
> >> consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no
> >> impeachment hearing.
> >
> > To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
> > Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
> > evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
> > 'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
> > had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
> > surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
> > hearing' per se would have been held.
>
> But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
> impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing began. You
> were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees WERE NOT an
> impeachment hearing.

Yes, and I remind you that I corrected that error myself above.

> My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
> contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented to the
> House for passage.

I agree that they should. 'Must' is too strong a term as the House
_may_ pass whatever they wish, no matter how absurd it may be.

>
> >> Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for consideration
> >> *prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means that there must
> >> be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be
> >> in-place.
>
> > Could you cite somethign to support this?
>
> Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.
>
> > I am unaware of
> > any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
> > prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
> > evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative.
>
> That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
> Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery, which
> of course, they cannot be.

No, I did not. Nor can I parse your statement in such a way as
to produce anything intelligible. I think that we both have been
hasty and written sentences with such bad syntax as to obscure
whatever it was we wished to communicate.



> The Articles of Impeachment must contain the
> rationale -- through facts in evidence -- to provide support for bring a
> motion of impeachment before the House. To arrive at the facts in evidence
> to develop the Articles, fact finding hearings and other methods of
> discovery are usually undertaken. But, unlike what you had stated, discovery
> of facts are not undertaken *after* the Articles are presented to the House.
> After the Articles are presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the
> House members to either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything that
reasonably could be interpretted as such. Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's Watergate
hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

>
> > Indeed,
> > historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
> > creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
> > exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
> > independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
> > Justice Department.
>
> You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and the
> purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts are in
> evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being drafted, because the
> Articles are all about facts in evidence to support the alleged reasons for
> impeachment.

You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
Comittee did just that, in that order.

>
> >> If there is evidence that "Bush Lied", and if the lie is considered
> >> by members of Congress to rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, or
> >> Other Crimes or Misdemeanors, then the basis and facts supporting an
> >> impeachment are drawn up into Articles of Impeachment. Any group of
> >> congressfolk can do this. Democrats can do so right now, if they
> >> have the facts to support the Articles.
>
> > They don't even have to be Congress folk nor do they need a factual
> > basis. But to be acted upon by the Congress an article of impeachment
> > must first be introduced into the House or Representatives by a member
> > of the House. That is probably what yo meant, but keep in mind that
> > the Senate has no authority to impeach, only the House.
>
> No, facts in evidence do not have to come from congressfolk. That's not what
> I was talking about. But it would take a member of the House to form the
> evidence into Articles of Impeachment, which is what I *was* talking about.

That's wrong. Anyone can author an Article of Impeachment. Only
a member of the House of representatives can introduce that Article
of Impeachment. Senators and Congressmen seldom ar the actual
authors of the legislation they introduce.

> And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to responding,
> you would have seen that I properly covered who has responsibility to
> determine impeachment vs which house is responsible for the trial.
>
> >> The Articles are then presented to the House of Representatives for
> >> acceptance and passage by a simple majority. This is where a
> >> Republican controlled house can quash an impeachment of Bush,
> >> regardless of how compelling the facts in evidence are.
>
> > That is but one such opportunity. The House Republicans, and this is
> > precisely the point I was making, have the power to quash any
> > investigation
> > by the House that might produce evidence of an impeachable offense by
> > first voting against holding a hearing that might produce such
> > evidence
> > and then by voting against calling witnesses who might reveal such
> > evidence at any hearings that are held.
>
> Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this. Quite the
> contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct whatever hearings
> and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to subpeaona a witness to testify before that committee when the
majority of committee members vote against doing so.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to require that a witness testify under oath before that committee
when the majority of committee members vote against doing so.

> ...
>

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Misdirection.
> >
> > It is not the effectiveness of the act that is in question, but the
> > motivation.
>
> Exactly. So, is there any credible evidence that FOX did this on purpose as
> opposed to it being mistake?

Like what, a confession?

When the episode was rebroadcast, the incorrect graphic had
been removed, which is indicative that someone had caught the
error. But no graphic correctly identifying Foley as a Republican
had been substituted.

Ergo, on its face it would appear that the persons responsible for
removing the graphic misidentifying Foley as a Democrat chose
to NOT identify him as a Repblican in the 'corrected' broadcast.

> When this happened during the news coverage,
> was there also an attempt to state that the Foley-creep was a Democrat?
> During the coverage of William Jefferson's (D-Louisiana) investigation by
> the FBI, what was the motivation when NBC and CBS always failed to note the
> "D" in the title graphic?

Was there a "D" in the title graphic?

If so, then he was never misidentified as a Republican right?

So what's your point and why are you frothing at the mouth
about it?

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
> >> is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
> >> impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
> >> an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
> >> after the impeachment hearing had begun.
> >
> <SNIP>
> >
> > So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
> > Articles to the House.
> >
>
> All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
> largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
> approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
> (not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
> arguably with a more clear basis).
>
> The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
> about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
> support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
> because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
> sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
> of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
> was some shred of credible evidence to support it).

Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception
as 'error', an argument I rebutted here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/3f2c786cbc1c21a7?dmode=source&hl=en

To elaborate further:

The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile
tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way
the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was
not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In
both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that
flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.

The Bush administration did manage to find some people who
said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those
people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration
an answer they didn't like.

By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration
would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the
USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that
the Earth is flat.

>
> Similarly, they argue that what he wants to do is "illegal". But when
> confronted with the murky language of the Geneva Conventions, they try
> and transform the debate into why what we're doing to foreign combatants
> does not meet the (far stricter) rules of our *domestic* laws.

Neither the USSC, which has the final authority to interpret treaties
for the US, nor the ICRC which is the international body tasked with
monitoring compliance with the GCs, found the language to be 'murky'.

No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva
Conventions
to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.

The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the
debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American
People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the
Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and
proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Dave Bugg wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
> >>>>> is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
> >>>>> impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
> >>>>> an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
> >>>>> after the impeachment hearing had begun.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, Nixon resigned PRIOR to the House even beginning to
> >>>> consider the merits of the articles of impeachment. So there was no
> >>>> impeachment hearing.
> >>>
> >>> To be precise, the House Judiciary comittee held hearings on the
> >>> Watergate break in and cover up and thereby discovered the
> >>> evidence needed to support articles of impeachment. While no
> >>> 'impeachment hearings' oper se were held, articles of impechment
> >>> had been introduced and had Nixon not resigned, one or more would
> >>> surely have been pased by the comittee. E.g. no 'impeachment
> >>> hearing' per se would have been held.
> >>
> >> But that wasn't your point. You stated that evidence to support an
> >> impeachment did not appear until *after* the impeachment hearing
> >> began. You were incorrect. The hearings of the judiciary committees
> >> WERE NOT an impeachment hearing.
> >
> > Yes, and I remind you that I corrected that error myself above.
> >
> >> My point still stands that Articles of Impeachment must
> >> contain relevant facts and evidence to support itself when presented
> >> to the House for passage.
> >
> > I agree that they should. 'Must' is too strong a term as the House
> > _may_ pass whatever they wish, no matter how absurd it may be.
> >
> >>
> >>>> Articles of Impeachment have to have a valid basis for
> >>>> consideration *prior* to presenting them to Congress. This means
> >>>> that there must
> >>>> be evidence in existence. The basis for Impeachment must already be
> >>>> in-place.
> >>
> >>> Could you cite somethign to support this?
> >>
> >> Look at the Constituitonal description of Impeachement.
> >>
> >>> I am unaware of
> >>> any requirement stated in or implied by the Constitution that
> >>> prohibits the House from investigating allegations and discovering
> >>> evidence of an impeachable offense on its own intitiative.
> >>
> >> That was not what I said, nor is it what you stated. You stated that
> >> Articles of Impeachment could be a period of evidenturary discovery,
> >> which of course, they cannot be.
> >
> > No, I did not.
>
> You did when you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
> Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun".
> To me this indicated that you thought that discovery could be conducted
> during the actual impeachment hearing.

It doesn't matter what "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of

Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing
had begun". meant to you. I did NOT state that "Articles of
Impeachment
could be a period of evidenturary discovery,"

>
> > Nor can I parse your statement in such a way as
> > to produce anything intelligible. I think that we both have been
> > hasty and written sentences with such bad syntax as to obscure
> > whatever it was we wished to communicate.
>
> Sorry, too much time spent empaneled on Grand Juries. Evidenturary discovery
> is the investigative period needed to gather evidence of wrong doing.

I don't see how that addresses the bad syntax of the statement I did
not
make.

Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more Articles of
Impeachment must be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.

That is just plain wrong.

The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before
any Articles of Impeachment are introduced. Indeed, that is just
what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.

>
> >> ... But, unlike what
> >> you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after* the
> >> Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are
> >> presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members to
> >> either support or not support impeachment.
>
> > I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after* the
> > Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state anything that
> > reasonably could be interpretted as such.
>
> When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of Richard
> Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing had begun", I
> reasonably interpreted such.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that Articles
of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold hearings
to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.

My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted
'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings, Impeachment hearings.
I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next article
after
that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3)
articles
later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that error.

Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee
undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of
Impeachment
to the House for debate.

Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no
reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been
held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the evidence
needed for Articles of Impeachment.

>
> > Moreover the historical
> > example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's Watergate
> > hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment being introduced
> > after evidence was discovered, not befor
>
> But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House. Nixon
> resigned prior to that event

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without 'impeachment
hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to suppose that the
committee would have adjourned the Watergate investigation and then
held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House
for debate.

The sequence of events was:

Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.

Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary Committee

Nixon resigned.

Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:

Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to
the floor of the House for debate.

One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.

No 'impeachment hearings' per se.

Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are written
(or not) based on evidence developed during the investigation.

>
> >>> Indeed,
> >>> historically, that seems to have been the norm. Prior to the
> >>> creation of the Office of the Independent Counsel, which no longer
> >>> exists, impeachment investigations were conducted by the House
> >>> independently of any criminal investigations on the part of the
> >>> Justice Department.
> >>
> >> You seem to lack knowledge of what Articles of Impeachment are and
> >> the purpose that they serve. Any investigation to determine if facts
> >> are in evidence is put into play PRIOR to the Articles being
> >> drafted, because the Articles are all about facts in evidence to
> >> support the alleged reasons for impeachment.
>
> > You seem to have not read my example of how the House Judiciary
> > Comittee did just that, in that order.
>
> I did, but I think you need to re-read the thread.

Perhaps you need to do so, noted where I admitted having
incorrectly referred to the Watergate Hearings as impeachmetn
hearings.

> ...
> >> And if you would have taken the time to read my post prior to
> >> responding, you would have seen that I properly covered who has
> >> responsibility to determine impeachment vs which house is
> >> responsible for the trial.

I thought "congressfolk" was ambiguous.

>
> >> Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this.
> >> Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to conduct
> >> whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases of misdeeds
> >> by the Executive branch.
> >
> > Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
> > to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
> > of committee members vote against doing so.
>
> ...snip of requests for citations
>
> Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.
>

Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.

Yours is consitent with, what?

A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own
and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings
are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.

--

FF

Dave Bugg wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > When the episode was rebroadcast, the incorrect graphic had
> > been removed, which is indicative that someone had caught the
> > error.
> .....snip of stuff
>

Amusingly enough, the "stuff' that was snipped was:

Ergo, on its face it would appear that the persons responsible for
removing the graphic misidentifying Foley as a Democrat chose
to NOT identify him as a Republican in the 'corrected' broadcast.

Not unlike the "snipping" Fox did...

> As I said, some folks have too much time on their hands. This whole thing is
> petty and ridiculous and so not important in the entire scheme of things.

It's only petty if you consider accusing a man of being
an internet pervert is somehow worse than accusing him
of being a Democrat....

--

FF

Tom Watson wrote:
> THAT'S IT - I INVOKE GODWIN.

Tom... Godwin doesn't count here.
"Why not?" he asks.
Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.
I cite: History.
There is nothing a Bush won't do for power. The biggest nasty in the
Bush family/administration is the 'Hag-With-The-Pearls' Barbera Bush.
No matter where you turn, a Bush has his finger in the pie. That
includes the security company in charge of the 911 airports and the
miscount at the 2000 Florida elections. Then there is Neil.
But, shit, I forgot. The facts make me a conspiracy nut.

Dream on losers!

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were
possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

todd wrote:

> According to Wikipedia, the Anti-Defamation League has stated that "Rumors
> about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of
> President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in
> recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated."

Not that the ADL is biased or anything.....*roars with laughter*

r

For the benefit of those who have not (and God only knows why not) kill
filed us, I've removed rec.woodworking from the distribution and
continued
this, er, discussion here:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.moderated/browse_thread/thread/ac690012dddce9da/0ca91674217fe93a?lnk=st&q=fredfighter&rnum=1&hl=en#0ca91674217fe93a

--

FF

Dave 'Last Word' Bugg wrote:


>
> Pot-Kettle-Black.....
>

WOW! That was funny.


*singing*... "..sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're...."

r

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> Dave Bugg wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
> >>>> is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
> >>>> impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
> >>>> an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
> >>>> after the impeachment hearing had begun.
> >> <SNIP>
> >>> So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
> >>> Articles to the House.
> >>>
> >> All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
> >> largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
> >> approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
> >> (not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
> >> arguably with a more clear basis).
> >>
> >> The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
> >> about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
> >> support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
> >> because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
> >> sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
> >> of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
> >> was some shred of credible evidence to support it).
> >
> > Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception
> > as 'error', an argument I rebutted here:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/3f2c786cbc1c21a7?dmode=source&hl=en
> >
> > To elaborate further:
> >
> > The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile
> > tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way
> > the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was
> > not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In
> > both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that
> > flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.
> >
> > The Bush administration did manage to find some people who
> > said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those
> > people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration
> > an answer they didn't like.
> >
> > By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration
> > would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the
> > USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that
> > the Earth is flat.
>
> OK, for argument's sake, let's say everything happened just the
> way you describe. Do you seriously consider this an impeachable
> level of lying? That is, does it meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors"
> level of prevarication? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Of course.

Deceiving the Congress in order to indfluence their vote on what
has thus far been the most important piece of legislation of the
21st Century should shurely qualify.

>
...
> >
> > No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva
> > Conventions
> > to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.
>
> But are conveniently conflated when it suits your rhetorical purposes.

False. You conflate the two when you claim someone else is
trying to 'transform' the debate.

> You wandered on and on about just *who* was entitled to the
> privileges of our system and just *what* actually constituted
> our social/legal contract (and idea embedded in the very fabric
> of our founding philosophers). You did so in the middle of this
> very debate: What shall we do with non-uniformed combatants?
> Context is everything, and the context of your commentary on
> the matter of our domestic law very reasonably can be inferred to
> mean that you think it has at least some applicability. It doesn't
> and never will.

Here we disagree.

Out government was founded on the concept that all Men are Created
Equal. NOT all parties to out legal/social contact are created equal.

Due Process and Habeas Corpus, and the protection against
cruel and unusual punishment, have always been applied to
aliens on our soil..

>
> >
> > The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the
> > debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American
> > People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the
> > Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and
> > proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.
>
> So, again, if this is so indisputably obvious, and the issues are so cut
> and dried (and here I thought Lefties specialized in "nuanced" thinking)
> why not embarrass the President by getting the Demo whiner contingent to
> get the impeachment ball rolling? After all, it's *obvious* you're
> right, and even if you can't win impeachment, the weight of your
> considerable "proof" for these claims will certainly undermine the power
> and prestige of this President.

Do you think that the Nation benefitted from the Clinton Impeachment?
Do you think that the Republican party benefitted from the same?

Is it often the case taht those who respect only power often make
the msitake of assuming that the same is true for those who oppose
them.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > ...
> > To even raise the issue of 'annihilation' is asinine.
> >
>
> It is not. In the early days of what would become WWII, the Left argued
> as you have - "There's no serious threat to us. It's just asinine to
> worry about it.

If, by "The Left" you mean the Republican Isolationists
who opposed any American involvment in the struggles
of Europe what does that make FDR who struggled to
get American involved, a reactionary?

> " Fast forward 15 years. Hitler and Stalin are
> responsible for something on the order of 100 *million* deaths in total.
> History is full of other such examples of what happens when you
> ignore evil.


By 1930 Stalin was the absolute dictator of the largest nation on
Earth, second largest by population, and the largest in Europe.
The Soviet Union had vast natural resources, a large industrial base
and an enormous Army.

Hitler was, or soon became the absolute dicatator of the second
largest nation in Europe, also a technologically sophisiticated one.

To compare either man to Saddam Hussein, or either nation to
Iraq in 2003 is asinine.

Iraq had failed to adequately prosecute its boreder war with the
technologically inferior, demoralized, and disorganzed Iranians,
and then had it's Air Force totally destroyed and its armed forces
in general grippled more than a decade befor and never rebuilt
either.

Iraq never reached the point where it was a threat outside of the
region and had waned to where it was no longer a threat in its
region.

If instead you make analogy between the totalitarian political
philosophies of the early 20th century with violent jihadis today,
the comparison is similarly asinine.

Islam has been around for a millenium and a half. The violent
jihadis today are the last vestiges of the ultra-conservatives
who reject secular government and civil authority. They are
pariahs in every Muslim nation, but Iran and even there only
one variety is tolerated. Perhaps Lebanon too, but steps
are being taken that, if carried to its logical conclusion, will
disarm the paramilitray wing of Hezbollah there.

Iran is a more logical choice should you want to draw an
analogy to pre-WWII Europe. Iran and Hezbollah have
been growing in power. But Iran is a stronghold of a
minority branch of Islam that is barely tolerated in
most of the rest of the Muslim world. Hezbollah and
the Iranians will not be able to build an empire in the
Middle East, let alone anywhere else.

As far as diffusion of Islam outside of the Middle East,
that is inevitable but the notion that Muslims will not
adapt to the secularism that is responsible for creating
the very societies they seek to join is reminiscent, of
the fears that Chinese Immigrants on the West Coast
or Catholics on the East would coopt American Society,
rather than vice versa.

--

FF

Note follow-ups

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> And that really worries me, because "failing" in this context (and down
> the line a few decades) could bring on a poisoning of the planet and
> a level of human tragedy that has never heretofore been seen. Hopefully,
> we'll all be smart enough to avoid that...
> ...

I find the null results from the SETI project to be profoundly
disturbing.
particularly when one considers Fermi's paradox.

Fermi realized that atomic power made insterstellar travel possible.
How to do it was simple a matter of engineering. So Fermi stated
the paradox as a question: "Where are they?" (or perhaps it was
"Where is everybody?") The point being that since atomic power
made interstellar travel possible, we should have received visitors
from other civilisations.

The SETI results to date tell us that civilizations like our own are
not
very common, or do not long survive after developing 20th century
technology. Supposing the first to be the case, is a lonely thought.
The alternative is ominous.

--

FF

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >>Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
> >>Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
> >>continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.
> >
> > This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
> > JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
> > supporter.
>
> And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
> terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.
>

More to the point it's a non-issue because the elite from back then
are dead. Their children and grandchildren might exibit some of
their influence in some ways but ethnic bigotry or a fondness for
Nazis isn't likely to have carried over to the present generation.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> For the record, somebody screwed up the attributions.

I left unattributed text ("Cuz W's"...) at the top of the
article.The attributions were correct, from the botom
up, until reaching that unattributed text which
was written by Mr Robatoy. Attributions need to be
read from right to left, when parsing the ">>>" stuff,
and bottom up when parsing the foo wrote, bar wrote
stuff.

Confusing perhaps, but that's the way UseNet works.

The text attributed to yourself was indeed that you
claim below.

E.g. we agree that OP was full of crap, albeit for
different reasons.



> >Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> No I didn't. Robatoy wrote it.
> >>
> >> >>Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
> >> >>Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
> >> >>continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.
>
> I wrote this:
> >> >
> >> > This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
> >> > JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
> >> > supporter.
> >>
> Larry wrote this:
>
> >> And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
> >> terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.
> >>
>
> And Fred wrote this:
> >
> >More to the point it's a non-issue because the elite from back then
> >are dead. Their children and grandchildren might exibit some of
> >their influence in some ways but ethnic bigotry or a fondness for
> >Nazis isn't likely to have carried over to the present generation.
> >
>

--

FF

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Moreover, I know how to observe Reality as it is. Let's examine just a
> > few of great moments of the Islamic hit parade from the general area of
> > Araby (though not all the people involved were Arab, all were Muslim)
> > from the past few decades:
> >
> >
> > - Pushing an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise ship to his death.
> >
> > - Murdering a bunch of Israeli athletes in the 1970s.
> >
> > - Weaponizing children and other civilians to deliver terrorist
> > attacks by suicide.
> >
> > - Intentionally (as opposed to accidentally during time of war)
> > targeting civilians for slaughter.
> >
> > - Bombing diplomats and embassies.
> >
> > - Buying slaves from African Mauretania (and possibly Somalia).
> >
> > - Running what is believed to be the largest white slavery
> > ring of young Western women anywhere in the world, pretty
> > much all of whom were kidnapped and are raped more-or-less
> > daily.
> >
> > - In all the Arab/Israeli conflicts to date, something less than
> > 100,000 people have died - military and civilian. In the same
> > period of time, approximately 3 *million* Muslims (you know,
> > The Religion Of "Peace") have killed *each other* ...
> > and then tried to pin the blame on the West, Israel,
> > or any other boogeyman they thought would stick.
> >
> > - Precipitating wholesale slaughter of the Kurds.
> >
> > - Persecution and even murder of Christians living in their lands.
> >
> > - Brutal beheading of non-combatant Western civilians.
> >
> > - Blowing up buildings and airplanes full of non-combatant civilians.
> >
> > - Targeting the Pentagon (a legitimate target of war by our enemies)
> > using innocent civilians in the delivery of the weapons.
> >
> > - Running rape rooms with government sanction to keep the populace
> > cowering.
> >
> > - Severely restricting the rights of women up to, and including
> > giving men the legal right to beat and otherwise brutalize them.
> >
> > ... I could go on (and on, and on, and on ...) but why bother?
> > If we expand our view to global Islamic tribalism it
> > gets even more gruesome. Have a brief look at the
> > Muslims in the former Yugoslavia prior to it becoming
> > one nation - i.e. During WWII. "Horrific" doesn't
> > do justice in describing their actions (though, in fairness,
> > the Catholic Croats were as bad or worse).
> >
>
>
Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
time:

- Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.

- Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed civilian
men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
Christian sects in the British Islands.

- Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.

- 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
Christian elitists.

- Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
Eastern and Southern Europe.

- Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
Azherbeijan.

- Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.

- Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.

- Mass murder of Muslim men and mass rape of Muslim women
in Bosnia.

- Assorted other crimes against humanity throughout the Yugoslav
civil wars.

Most of those actions above were ostensibly motived by
intollerance of Christians for other Christians (e.g. authoritians
vs liberation theologists), or non-Christians, or other sorts of
bigotry common to, though not by any means exclusive to, \
Christians

If you want to consider purely politically motivated wars by
Christians then:

- I'll not try to estimate how many Christians have killled people
in wars since the early 1970s, but if we go back to the start
of the 20th century it is a fair bet that Christians killed tens
times as many as have the Muslims since then.

- Don't you agree that the predominantly Lutheran and Catholic
Germans, who supported the Roman Catholic Austrian, Hitler,
and the Catholic Italians are primarily responsible for WWII in
Europe? If you 'credit' half the toll to the atheist Soviets,
that still leaves 20 million or so to blame on the Christians.

- Then there is WWI to consider.

OTOH, consider the actions of _some_ Christians, like the Amish
in Eastern PA who recently etablished a charitable fund to provide
assistance for the widow and daughters of the man who murdered
several of their own daughters.

Or the Sufis in general.

I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
easily as good men do.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Let us consider some Christian actions, during the same period of
> > time:
> >
> > - Chaining a man behind a truck and dragging him to his death.
>
> Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
> the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
> world when their adherents behave badly.
>

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Planting an detonating bombs that indiscriminately killed civilian
> > men, women and children during sectarian warfare between
> > Christian sects in the British Islands.
>
>
> Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
> the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
> world when their adherents behave badly.
>

So what did the world do?

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Raping and murdering Christian Nuns in el Salvador.
>
>
> Condemned widely and loudly by both Christian laity AND clergy unlike
> the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
> world when their adherents behave badly.
>

And yet, what did we DO? As I recall, our Secretary of State
told us that the nuns were caught in a crossfire and accidently
killed (and accidently raped too, I suppose).

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - 'Disapearing' 30,000 people in Argentina, sometimes murdering
> > parents so that their children could be adopted by childless
> > Christian elitists.
>
>
> Condemned widely and loudly by pretty much everyone unlike
> the deafening silence heard through the overwhelming part of the Islamic
> world when their adherents behave badly.
>

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Running a major white slavery ring in Eastern Europe primarily
> > preying on Ukraining women to supply brothels in other parts of
> > Eastern and Southern Europe.
>
> Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
> shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
> of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.
>

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Murder and violence especially against Muslim Women in
> > Azherbeijan.
>
> Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
> shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
> of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.
>

The sectarian violence in Azherbeijan was largely along religous lines.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Murder torture rape of both sexes and arbitrary imprisonment
> > of thousands of fellow Christians and Native Americans in Chile.
>
>
> Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
> shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
> of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.
>

Perhaps you are not familiar with liberation theology.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Murder torture and arbitrary imprisonment
> > of thousands and seizure and destruction of land in an effort
> > to eradicate entire Native American ethnic groups in Guatamala.
>
>
> Horrible, and hardly noticed by the West generally (to our everlasting
> shame). BUT ... not motivated by any obvious religiosity nor in the name
> of any religion unlike ... well, You Know Who.
>

Perhaps you are not familiar with liberation theology. I'm not clear
on
what 'religiosity' means, but the Native Americans in queston were not
Christian, at least not of the same sort as their oppressors.

Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not.

> >
> > - Mass murder of Muslim men and mass rape of Muslim women
> > in Bosnia.
>
> And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
> and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.

After several years, yes. Then the Republican Party (dominated by
pseudo-Christians) attacked Clinton for intervening.

>
> >
> > - Assorted other crimes against humanity throughout the Yugoslav
> > civil wars.
>
>
> And just *who* sent the bulk of the troops in to stop this
> and remediate the situation? Hint: The nominally Christian West.
>

After several years, yes. Then the Republican Party (dominated by
pseudo-Christians) attacked Clinton for intervening.

> >
> > Most of those actions above were ostensibly motived by
> > intollerance of Christians for other Christians (e.g. authoritians
> > vs liberation theologists), or non-Christians, or other sorts of
> > bigotry common to, though not by any means exclusive to, \
> > Christians
>
> Baloney. There were cases of this, but the horrors you described
> were mostly irreligious in their motivation.

We disagree.

>
> >
> > If you want to consider purely politically motivated wars by
> > Christians then:
> >
> > - I'll not try to estimate how many Christians have killled people
> > in wars since the early 1970s, but if we go back to the start
> > of the 20th century it is a fair bet that Christians killed tens
> > times as many as have the Muslims since then.
>
> But mostly *not* primarily in the name of a religious cause.

Yes, like the wars fought between Muslim nations that you
previously mentioned.

>
> >
> > - Don't you agree that the predominantly Lutheran and Catholic
> > Germans, who supported the Roman Catholic Austrian, Hitler,
> > and the Catholic Italians are primarily responsible for WWII in
> > Europe? If you 'credit' half the toll to the atheist Soviets,
> > that still leaves 20 million or so to blame on the Christians.
>
> Oh, it's likely higher than 20 million. But saying "Hitler was
> Catholic" is not logically equivalent to "Hitler acted *because*
> he was Catholic".

Indeed. The same is true with respect to the Iarq-Iran war for
instance, though not with respect to some of the Iranian tactics.

>
> >
> > - Then there is WWI to consider.
>
> Which, again, was not religiously motivated.

See above.

> >
> > OTOH, consider the actions of _some_ Christians, like the Amish
> > in Eastern PA who recently etablished a charitable fund to provide
> > assistance for the widow and daughters of the man who murdered
> > several of their own daughters.
> >
> > Or the Sufis in general.
> >
> > I would not make the mistake of assuming that religion is
> > inherently evil. But evil men may turn it to their desires as
> > easily as good men do.
>
> I do not assume any such thing. Humans have the capacity to inflict
> unspeakable horror upon each other. And, yes, most all the religions
> have acted badly at some point in history. But we are concerned here
> with current events. In the current situation, the horrid acts of
> the Muslim radical minority is met with deafening silence from the majority
> and Islamic clergy.


Do you read any newpapers or watch any television stations or listen
to any radio from predominantly Muslim nations? I do not, therefor
I do not know if what you say is true or not. If you do not, then
neither do you.

You _may_ be right. But it looks to me like you are assuming from
a lack of reportage in the English (and whatever other languages you
read) media, and have not actually investigated the issue.

As I mentioned before, the condemnation of violent jihad by
the largest Iman in North American has been ignored in the
English -language media.and newspapers.


> There are a few brave and noble voices there speaking,
> but they are so few that they are mostly unheard. Moreover the 20th
> century butchers like Tojo, Stalin, & Hitler were roundly and loudly
> condemned from the pulpit and the street, and the West put their
> blood and treasure on the line to stop these monsters. Where is the
> Islamic equivalent of a WWII, Nuremberg Trials, Cold War or they
> many related activities levied against their own monsters?

Well the Iranians did want to try the Shah, and the Iraqis are
trying Sadddam Hussein. We won't let Afghanistan try the
Taliban (yet). The rest of the monsters, like Musharrif,
Niyazov, the Sauds, even Kaddafi are our allies, we support
them so maybe we shouldn't be pointitng fingers elsewhere.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >>>> I don't trust any politician. But you are playing a not-too clever
> >>>> game of misdirection. The right of habeus corpus is extended only
> >>>> to participants in our socio-legal contract. It is *not* extended
> >>>> to foreign invaders.
> >>> A particulary pathetic misdirection. No one has suggested habeas
> >>> relief for foreign invaders. But I will later in this article.
> >> There's a shocker.
> >>
> >>> You are not, by any chance, characterizing persons arrested in
> >>> Pakistan or Afghanistan, or captured in combat in Afghanistan
> >>> and taken to Guantanamo Bay, and who have never seven attemtped
> >>> to enter the United Statesas foreign invaders, are you?
> >> I stand corrected. What I should have said was:
> >
> >> The right of habeus corpus .... It is *not* extended to
> >> foreign invaders OR people with whom we are at war.
> >
> > Are persons with whom we are not at war _potentially_ entitled
> > to habeas relief?
>
> Only if they are otherwise participants in our legal-social
> contract. For example, an Italian visiting the US legally
> is entitled to such legal relief. An Italian doing crime
> at the US Embassy in Rome is not except as provided by any
> governing Italian law. It's worth mentioning that I certainly
> agree that any international treaties to which we are party in
> such a situation should be honored.

Is it worth mentioning Thomas Jefferson's opinion?

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against
everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."

>
> >
> >>> That the Constitution allows the Congress (nor the courts nor
> >>> the President) to suspend habeas corpus in the event of invasion,
> >>> makes it clear that habeas corpus applies absent an explicit, and
> >>> permissible, suspension.
> >>>
> >>> See:
> >>>
> >>> EX PARTE QUIRIN
> >>> 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
> >>>
> >>> The motion for habeas corpus relief was heard and denied by
> >>> the USSC. If the foreign invaders in question could not be, under
> >>> any circumstances, entitled to the writ the Court would not
> >>> have heard their petition, rather than hearing and then denying
> >>> their application.
> >>>
> >>>> No matter how much you try to dance around this
> >>>> issue both history and legal precedent are on my side of this debate:
> >>> Please provide citations.
> >> Your citations are utterly irrelevant because they are about people
> >> who are _part of our socio-legal contract_.
> >
> > Please explain how those foreign invaders, German-born Nazi sabotuers,
> > became part of _part of our socio-legal contract_.
> >
> > Please explain how to identify those person who are and are not
> > _part of our socio-legal contract_.
>
> By means of good intelligence, interrogation, corroborating
> evidence, and the testimony of reliable witnesses. When
> you catch someone calling 1-800-Al-Queda with C4 in their
> apartment, it's a pretty big clue.
>

That does not address either question. That it does not address
the first, is obvious.

As you know, the question is not how to gather evidence, the
question is how is it decided that the evidence is sufficient.

Here in the United States, that issue is adjudicated by a court,
part of a branch of the government that is separate and
independent of the branch that claims to have such evidence.


> FWIW, (I said I wasn't
> going to do this), one of the strong arguments *against*,
> say, torture, is that it corrupts your intelligence gathering
> process. If we make it too easy to get "quick results" it's
> just too tempting to tempting to use that shortcut and not
> focus on sound intelligence gathering. Here again, the
> Left opposition is incoherent. You cannot demand, on the one
> hand, "no torture, no physical intimidation" and on the other
> "no monitoring of suspicious telephone calls".

When both violate the law, why not?

Why should we reject the rule of law?

--

FF

"Dave Bugg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Then we all feel terribly sorry for you.

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I am sorry. This may not have been the platform to point out that
>> fuckwit Bush is the dirtiest/nastiest piece of shit to wander the face
>> of the planet....but I digress.
>
> Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad,
> Mahmoud Achmedinajad, Osama bin Laden, or Fidel Castro?
>> He truly is a Christian man without fault?
>
> AFAIK, he has never claimed to be without fault.
>
> [remaining garbage snipped]
>
> Some apology.
>
> http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
>
Doug why do you even justify responding? if you read the history of his
posts he is and has always been a crack pot, and more than likely
smoking a crack pipe.

"A great man inspires others to greatness,
a little man complains about it."
--unknown

politics aside

there seems to be several types of people on the wreck there are those
that help and give real advice, those that are here to learn that they
might help some day, and leaches, they take with out any real useful
contribution and are border line trolls

looking at past posts Doug Miller has done more then his fair share help
good, I've yet to see anything real useful from robatoy

now quit your bitching and get back to work, that sawdust isn't going to
make it's self

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Oh, really? You honestly think he's worse than Saddam Hussein
>
> Given his attitude towards torture, I'd say they're about the same.
>
> Mike

Is there some code or rule someplace that requires anti-Bush tirades to be
ignorant and stupid? To compare any approved Bush "torture" of which
includes sleep deprivation, cold rooms , loud music, maybe water boarding
(harmless but scary).... even including any and all of the unapproved
nudity, ridicule and the big dogs at Abu Grraib...... to Saddams murderous
and very public atrocities, his mass graves, approved rape, the tens of
thousands of Kurds and Shiites murdered and imprisoned .....is just so over
the top one has to wonder......Even though Saddam is responsible for over a
million deaths including the Iranian and Kuwait war, one could still easily
say it is not worth any American life or coin to stop such atrocities....
although it does make one wonder how many million must die before we should
be concerned? Were we as equally wrong to use 50,000 troops and spend
billions containing him in the decade prior? Rod

Doug Miller wrote:

>>He truly is a Christian man without fault?
>
> AFAIK, he has never claimed to be without fault.

I think it was DeMille who once said "I thought I was mistaken once, but I was
wrong." Bush makes him look humble :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Get a grip. Do you have *any* idea at all what went on in Iraq under
>> Saddam Hussein?
>
> Torture is torture. Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have
> lost any moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're
> combating. If you cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
>

Who was more civilized in the revolutionary war? I guess the patriots were
all scumbags eh? Being civilized is overrated.

I consider sleep deprevation a more civilized form of turture than
dismemberment. Maybe you don't.

> Maybe you should get a grip and realize just how much damage has been done
> to America's reputation in the world.
>

Maybe you should get a grip and realize that most Americans don't give a
flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks.

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Get a grip. Do you have *any* idea at all what went on in Iraq under
>> Saddam Hussein?
>
> Torture is torture. Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have
> lost any moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're
> combating. If you cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
>
> Maybe you should get a grip and realize just how much damage has been done
> to America's reputation in the world.
>
> Mike

ahh... another Canadian. Not suprised.

Do you realize what YOUR reputation is in the world?

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> At least Bush has balls, and conviction.
>
> That would be good if he and his cronies had brains, too. Bush and his
> gang of vengeful fools has dragged America down to the lowest level it's
> been in world opinion since WWII. America no longer commands much respect
> because of its foreign adventures that are not based on anything rational.
> The support America had after 9/11 has been lost. America is more at risk
> from terrorists now than ever - even the quasi-secret Bush-held documents
> on the Iraq situation say that. The more revealed about Iraq, the worst
> things look. It's time to fix the problem, not support the fools.
>
> Mike

It's time for you to mind your own business. We don't tell you who should be
president of your parasitic country.

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:HRxUg.1903$If3.1018@trnddc07...
> Locutus wrote:
>
>> ahh... another Canadian. Not suprised.
>>
>> Do you realize what YOUR reputation is in the world?
>
> Possibly that they managed to free some American prisoners while Jimmy
> Carter hemmed and hawed for more than a year?
>

So you think their reputation is based on one incident that happened nearly
30 years ago? How fitting.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Torture is torture. Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have
>> lost any moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're
>> combating. If you cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.
>
>
> So shooting them is OK?
> We should do to others as others have done to us. We can crawl into the
> cutter with them if that is what it takes to win the war. If the enemy
> does not follow the rules and we do, we cannot win.
> War is war.
>

Well said. You know what they say, all is fair in love and ......

"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The Canadian reputation stands.

Yes it does. The reputation that Canada is a country that depends on the US
for it's economic existence and protection is standing quite strong.
Congrats.

Doug Miller wrote:

> Unfortunately, the farther his subject matter departs from woodworking,
> the farther it departs from reality as well.

Now THAT'a the pot calling the kettle black :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

Dave Bugg wrote:

>> Ask the Iraqis.=A0=A0A=A0clear=A0majority=A0hate=A0the=A0Americans=A0=
and=A0want=A0them=A0to
>> leave. They consider their life worse than before.
>=20
Not really, according to the latest survey. A large najority also beli=
eve
we'll never leave, that we want to establish permanent bases in Iraq.

--=20
It's turtles, all the way down