On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:43:04 +0000, james wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:56:48 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:39:42 -0400, I AmnotGeorgeBush wrote:

And, the radical muslims will point blank tell

you that you have three choices--join them, be
enslaved by them or die.


Muslims don't run this country, and the oppression you speak of is not
limited to just the Muslim world or Iraq .

This sounds just like the crusades all over again. If you haven't seen the
new movie "Kingdom of Heaven" I suggest that you do. It will remind you of
what is happening in the middle east now, even if it wasn't the intent of
the movie.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

*******

Fantastic movie. The best that I have seen in several years.

The messages were subtile but there. If one recognizes, then the movie
has great meaning.

Glad you enjoyed it too. If you read between the lines you'll see how the
events back then, and the movie, are a reflection of what is happening now
in the middle east. They say those who don't know history are doomed to
repeat it. I though the on-screen comment at the end of the movie was like
the explanation point at the end of a sentence.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:13:54 GMT, james wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:23:42 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I
thought the American People were the government. You may find it
acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in
Hitler Germany!

Woah! Back up and drop the Hitler metaphors. This is not about
dictatorship, but about the ineptitude, indifference, and general lack
of understanding of "big picture" politics by the average American. We
elect representatives to carry out America's business in our best
interests so that "we the people" do not have to. If the government
had to disclose each and every piece of intelligence with the
population at large, they would, at the very least, create a national
security issue, and at the worst create confusion and panic as the
average citizen tries to come to grips with what they've just been
told.
******

no I elect representatives to do what I want.

Along with everyone else. The reality is that no one gets exactly what
THEY want. We settle for elected officials who share our basic
ideology, values, and character.


I don't elect them to go
off and do as they see fit.

But that's exactly what they do, within reason. When was the last time
someone you helped to elect did exactly what you wanted them to do?
When was the last time they asked you what you wanted?


This may not be what th eaverage American
does but if they wish to jump off a cliff then so be it. Even a
representative democracy can desolve into facism and dictatorship.
Remember Hitler was elected and he did not gain his dictatorship
untill after he was in office.

Actually Hitler gained his power after Paul Von Hindenburg died in
1934. Before that Hitler was just a chancellor and had been unable to
beat Hindenburg in the last election. So in many ways, fate was
responsible for Hilter's chance at power.


Then he convinced the Congress and the
poeple of Gernamy that it was in the best interest that he and the
leadership rebuild Germany.

Yes, and like Clinton, Hitler took the credit for many of the economic
improvements that had been occurring, and he was somewhat successful
in convincing the less educated into believing that the root of their
problems rested squarely on the shoulders of the Jews. Hitler used
this as a rallying cry to unify the people into following his
distorted views of how things should be.


He asked for their trust in the
leaderships work and not to worry that they had their best interest
at heart.

No, he basically told them that Germans were superior, gave them
someone else to blame (deflection) for their problems, and promised to
"fix" it. When you tell people what they want to hear, it's not hard
to gain their support.


The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US.

Surely you have to realize just how exaggeratedly absurd that is.
Besides, we already have "papers". It's called a driver's license.

Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even
call the law the "Patriot Act".

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom and civil liberties,
it becomes next to impossible to effectively protect us against
outside infiltrators. So you have to make a choice. Either certain
freedoms need to be modified or curtailed in order to make our borders
more secure, make living and travel throughout our country more
difficult for non-citizens, and obtaining forged documents by hostiles
much tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the price of our open
freedom might likely be a large scale terrorist attack.

You cannot realistically expect to have both total freedom and total
protection. If you do not want the government taking steps to protect
us from terrorists, then you have no right to complain when they
attack. As long as they use our own laws against us, we remain
vulnerable.

Most people are willing to give up some freedoms in order to gain
better security. But that does not mean that we are "becoming a
fascist state". As long as we can continue to elect our
representatives, that will not happen. GW Bush will not be the
president 4 years from now, and there will be a new leader for us to
blame for all the trouble we're having.

IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties.

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry that my family could
be wiped from the planet in one fell swoop. Besides, some people take
advantage of certain civil liberties in order to engage in activities
that are either illegal or immoral. A greater individual
accountability for those activities would not be a bad thing IMHO.


I bet Jefferson is rolling in his grave at the blind sheep
the Americans have become.

Yet, you would entrust these same blind sheep as worthy of knowing all
intelligence information on our foreign affairs?.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:15:04 GMT, james wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:23:42 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a
President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the
American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no
pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion.

There is a reason why we have a representative democracy and not a
direct democracy. We elect people who are supposedly trained in the
skills necessary to carry out our business.
*****

Go ahead and just believe that those elected have y our best
interests in mind. I hear the shears are being prepared for y ou
sheep.


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.

You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:41:38 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

James:

There is much truth in your words. The forefathers intended the least gov't
is the best gov't--gov't should only serve the people and provide for their
best interests and well being--down to the very last, one, single,
citizen...

It is quite obvious this gov't has much bigger plans...


Well considering our history and standing as the world's richest and
most successful country, I'd say that our government has had our best
interests at heart in most cases.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:26:51 GMT, james wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:12:20 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Outsourcing is inevitable until the standard of living in the rest of
the world equalizes with our own.

It's not good news for us, but it's an unfortunate reality.
******

You will sing a different tune when your $60K per yr job goes to China
and your planned retirement of $120K+ dwindles down to $36K per yr.

Why would I sing a different tune? The reality is the same whether I'm
directly affected by it or not. I never said it was a good thing for
American workers, but it is an understandable trend considering the
economic dynamics of the world market.


Think who benifits from outsourcing?

Long term or short?


Corporations. Why?

Consumers demand lower prices and Corparations are doing their best to
give the consumers what they want. Sorry but cheap prices can't go on
for ever. Once the world's cheap labor is exploited, consumer prices
will rise like a Proton Rocket.

So, here we have a double edged sword. We live in a world economy,
with companies from all over the world competing for market share. So,
what's a U.S. based corporation to do? Should it:

A. Keep its U.S. work force in order to altruistically keep the
American work force employed?

B. Outsource to a foreign country where labor and overhead is much
cheaper?

Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.

Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.

And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?

What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear. But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


Yes as the world's standard of living increases, so will inflation. I
forsee 10 to 20% annual inflation rates somewhere in the 2030 to 2040
time frame. By then the world will dream of 4% inflation rates.


Out sourcing is eventually going to drag the US' standard of living
down to the rest of the world's as their's rises towards.

That's what I meant when I said equalize the world's standard of
living. Not only will the 3rd world catch up, but we will fall
somewhat. That is the price we pay for living in a world market. 50
years ago, when most of our goods were made here, we controlled the
market. Now we're just one of many players.


You can't get something for nothing.

You don't know just how much truth there is in that statement.

In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?

From: (John=A0Smith)
James:
If you haven't noticed, we ARE right in the

middle of the right place to find enemies...



We can find "enemies" all over the globe. Iraq was no threat to the US
and they were not connected to 911.


if you don't think there are tightly knit groups

of radicals right in Iraq and most of the other

surrounding countries, think again...


And if you think Iraq had anything to do with 911, think again.

better to

fight them there than here...


When do we invade N Korea? Iran? Singapore? Malaysia? China?


at least the gauntlet has been thrown down

on foreign soil and the battles and war can

take place there...


Bush tossed the gauntlet in the wrong country..meanwhile, the real
culprits responsile for 911, like BL, are laughing their collective
asses off at American's like you who believe the chicanery of Bush and
think 911 had anything to do with Iraq.

life goes on as usual here, children attend

school, retired people vacation and there are

NO suicide bombings or terrorist

attacks--there is enough there to busy their

hands... let the war stay there...


Right....warmongerers like you are all for it as long as it doesn't
affect you or your family.

Warmest regards,

John

People like you like to employ the ostrich syndrome and hope others
follow suit. You can deny deny deny, but just because you weren't aware
of any attacks on US soil after 911 doesn't mean they did not occur.
Bush not failed to prevent these attacks with the raping of our civil
liberties, he can't even find the culprits. Hell, he swore up and down
on national telivision that BL was his number one priority and he would
not rest until he was captured...well, somewhere along the line Bush
decided (all by himself) that BL was no longer the priority. In fact, we
know BL was responsible for 911, but for some really odd reason, he is
no longer THE priority, Bush lied...again, and only to get what he
really wanted..Hussein,,,and that was for trying to kill his daddy. Now
that Powell's words are coming true to Bush (you will OWN Iraq and their
people, and all their problems for years to come), Bush is like a fish
out of water....and its people like you that are gasping for air.

From: (John=A0Smith)
George:

So then, Bush is our enemy--it is our fault

radical muslims wish to destroy American

property--and kill Americans.

Why take the blame for something Bush did? Muslims hate us worldwide
because of Bush.

You want to tie our militaries hands over the

fact that they didn't have these

weapons--



You are hallucinating. Our military is for protection from hostile
countries who invade or attack our country or interests. Listen
closely,,,,,Iraq did neither and it was already proven by the 911 report
that Bush was wrong concerning Hussein's intentions and developmental
program...the weapons Bush called WMDS were conventional, not wmds.


which we got there first and stopped them

from getting them.


You are the first person to ever claim such bull****. It was claimed by
your president that he -had- them. Now you are claiming he was
developing them when it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he
wasn't. Read the 911 report.


Your suggestion it that we should have waited

until they had them--


???You are hallucinating again. There was no such "suggestion", but go
ahead and destroy yourself with such self-created claims of others. One
more and you go to the dust bin where Mopar already tossed you. Control
yourself or be vanquished.

then instead of smashing our own planes into

.those buildings they could have been much

more successful with those weapons

(chemical, biological, nuclear.) And then, we

would have a right to stop them...

You argument that Iraq and Sadam were not

Bin Laden is shallow--

And a fact.

they have the oil money which financed him,


Iraq was not connected in any manner to 911.
In fact, Hussein is Sunni, a different faith than BL and they can't
stand each other. Suggesting they colluded is tantamount to more
hallucinations, as you nowhere does anything exist connecting the two.
In fact, the 911 report claims the opposite, the opposite of all the
bull**** you try to ply. Why is it so difficult for people like you to
believe your leaders when they admit their mistakes?

they hold the same radical ideas--


LMAO,,,,you have no clue what the difference between their religious
positions entail.
Again, Hussein is Sunni.

this is enough for them to die... I am not

pleased with Saudi Arabia...


The country Bush coddles,,,

I am one would support our LARGEST nuclear
bomb dropped square in the middle of Iran--if

they even threaten to be a threat to us...



Why not? Iraq was certainly no threat, but you claim based only on the
Bush word concerning their intentions (which, was proven by the 911
report that Bush was wrong in trying to guess what they were) was good
enough for war.


and if it would only save one innocent

American life...



Like you care about any lives in the war. YOu alrady said you are all
for the war, but you curiously added a disclaimer akin to as long as the
war is over there, you are for it. Here's a radical thought,,,save all
the American lives in Iraq instead of just one, and bring the boys in
Iraq home.

Warmest regards,

John


Backatacha,,,,but denying attacks post 911 on American soil is the
beginning of your disappearance in this group. You've just never managed
to stay in the loop,,,on anything.

ass.wizard wrote:

So then, Bush is our enemy-
=A0
=A0
When a president is sworn in, he swears to uphold and protect the
Constitution. As soon as he was sworn in, he launched an attack on parts
of it. Nowhere in the oath does it say "And swear to uphold the
Constitution EXCEPT in matters of.....(insert republican lunacy here)".
Yes, Bush is the enemy of the people of the United States. Yesterday's
poll showed 61% of the American people now believe Bush does NOT have
the best interests of the country at heart..but I find solace in those
stats. People need a wakeup a call in addition to the government they
deserve.

David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American
Christians) were

superior, gave them someone else to

blame (terrorists)

(deflection) for their problems, and promised

to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want
to hear, it's not hard to gain their support.


You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it
faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale.
-
(The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. )

Surely you have to realize just how

exaggeratedly absurd that is.


Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on
your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID
card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of
protection.

Besides, we already have "papers". It's called

a driver's license.


He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but
issued by the feds.

(Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call
the law the "Patriot Act". )

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom

and civil liberties, it becomes next to

impossible to effectively protect us against

outside infiltrators.



Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not
come without its price.

So you have to make a choice.


The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it.

Either certain freedoms need to be modified or

.curtailed in order to make our borders more

secure,

make living and travel throughout our

country more difficult for non-citizens, and

obtaining forged documents by hostiles much

tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the
.price of our open freedom might likely be a

large scale terrorist attack.




In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection
between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly
laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****.

You cannot realistically expect to have both

total freedom and total protection.



Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away
with it.

If you do not want the government taking

steps to protect us from terrorists,


The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still
not prevented,



have no right to complain when they attack.


Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the
war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to
complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous.


As long as they use our own laws against us,

we remain vulnerable.



Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us
vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a
tradeoff risk we take.

Most people are willing to give up some

freedoms in order to gain better security.


Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers
statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would
sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve
neither"

But that does not mean that we are "becoming

.a fascist state". As long as we can continue to

elect our representatives, that will not happen.

GW Bush will not be the president 4 years

from now, and there will be a new leader for

us to blame for all the trouble we're having.



And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking
of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the
Bush failures are illustrated.



(IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. )

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry

that my family could be wiped from the planet

.in one fell swoop.


As Franklin said, you deserve neither.


Besides, some people take advantage of

certain civil liberties in order to engage in

activities that are either illegal or immoral.



(snip)

Have at it, David. You're certified.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
Well considering our history and standing as

the world's richest and most successful

country, I'd say that our government has had

our best interests at heart in most cases.

David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

61% of the country disagrees with you and believes Bush does not have
the best interests of the country at heart, as of yesterday. Need a link
to see the poll, Dave, or can you find it yourself? Ah,I'll tell ya'
what, you tell me you can't find the link or info, I'll laugh at you,
you can say it doesn't exist, then everyone will laugh at you.