golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 07 Jan 2007 09:07:26 From: Wayne Subject: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst By Michael Lind The Washington Post Sunday, December 24, 2006 It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. What makes a president horribly, immortally bad? Poor luck is not enough. Some of the greatest presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, have inherited crises and risen to the occasion. The damage must be largely self-inflicted. And there's another test: The damage to the nation must be substantial. Doing nothing can be even worse than doing something wrong. Take the worst president of all time, Buchanan. In office when Lincoln's election in 1860 triggered the secession of one Southern state after another, Buchanan sat by as the country crumbled. In his December 1860 message to Congress, three months before Lincoln was inaugurated, he declared that the states had no right to secede, but that the federal government had no right to stop them. By the time he left office, seven states had left the Union, and the Confederates had looted the arsenals in the South. If Buchanan had exercised his powers as commander in chief, the rebels might have been stopped at far less than the eventual cost of the Civil War. The Civil War era also gave us the second-worst president: Johnson, Lincoln's vice president and successor, a Tennessean who vetoed civil rights acts and blocked the 14th Amendment because he didn't like blacks. Johnson's policies led to his impeachment and forced the Republicans in Congress to create a quasi-parliamentary system ginalizing the president. The third-worst president is Mr. Nixon, a criminal in the White House who is still the only commander-in-chief ever to resign. Many presidents have abused their power, but he was the only president to run a criminal gang out of the Oval Office engaging in spying and burglary while he sought to corrupt the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA. Refusing to enforce the law while the country disintegrates, trying to re-enslave emancipated blacks, and doubling as chief magistrate and gangster - what could rival these presidential misdeeds? Unnecessary and catastrophic wars? To qualify a president for the Worst of All Time list, a war must be catastrophic as well as unnecessary. Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada, George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama and Bill Clinton's invasion of Haiti were unnecessary, but minor. And presidents can be forgiven costly wars that were necessary or hard to avoid, such as Harry S. Truman's stalemated war in Korea and Lyndon B. Johnson's failed war in Vietnam, each of which was a Cold War battle more than a separate conflict. The two big, unjustified wars on my list are the War of 1812 and the current conflict in Iraq, and the first was far worse than the second. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was a great patriot, a brilliant intellectual - and an absolutely abysmal president. In his defense, the United States then was a minor neutral nation frequently harassed by both of the warring empires, Britain and France. But cold geopolitics should have led Washington to prefer a British victory, which would have preserved a balance of power in Europe, to a French victory that would have left France an unchecked superpower. Instead, eager to conquer Spanish Florida and seize British Canada, Madison sided with the more dangerous power against the less dangerous. Gen. Andrew Jackson's victory in the Battle of New Orleans (waged two weeks after the United States and Britain, unknown to Jackson, had signed a peace treaty) helped Americans pretend that the War of 1812 was something other than a total wipe-out. By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are far less than those of Korea and Vietnam. Why did Mr. Bush do it? Did he really believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Was it about oil? Israel? Revenge for Hussein's alleged attempt on Mr. Bush's father's life? The war will join the sinking of the USS Maine and the grassy knoll among the topics to exercise conspiracy theorists for generations. Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will get his wish - as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history.   Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:06:17 From: yksmir Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst John B. wrote: > yksmir wrote: > > larry wrote: > > > Amazing to read that our own left-leaning liberals are at least > > > figuratively joining forces with radical Islam, et. al. to make > > > America lose in Iraq and around the world-- They would do whatever > > > it takes to bring down the religious right in America. Their hatred > > > of Bush and the Christian right is so intense they would sacrifice > > > their country to get him. > > > > I'm embarrassed to say it but many of the liberals I know here in > > California feel exactly as your last sentence reads. Blindly so. One > > can disagree with many things in this administration just as in many > > other administrations over the last 220 years. Vote the guy out... > > vote his party out. But the acidic hatred, even at the cost of our > > country's > > values, lives, culture and liberty is a sad thing to see. I wasn't > > around the first > > 180 years so maybe this has happened every so often... just a faze the > > country goes through like a house settling. But since Monica and > > the chads and Iraq, politics is just a polorized mess. > > You all didn't feel anything like that for Bill Clinton now did you? Of > course not. Just principled opposition, right? Always called him President Clinton out of respect of office. Thought he should be rebuked or impeached but not removed from office. I thought the original charges of sexual harrassment should not have been allowed to go through by the courts till he was out of office. But they did go through at which point he proceeded to lie to the Grand Jury. Far from my favorite but he was not a disaster like Carter. President Bush has a way of speaking I do not like at all. There nothing truely smirky behind it but it comes across that way. And the buck stops at him... we rely on him to sort through the military's proposals, listen to the cia and other intelligence sources and make the best choice possible. If that choice later turns out to be wrong he has to pay the piper... and his party will take a hit. That's the way it's always been.   Date: 23 Jan 2007 10:42:55 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst yksmir wrote: > larry wrote: > > Amazing to read that our own left-leaning liberals are at least > > figuratively joining forces with radical Islam, et. al. to make > > America lose in Iraq and around the world-- They would do whatever > > it takes to bring down the religious right in America. Their hatred > > of Bush and the Christian right is so intense they would sacrifice > > their country to get him. > > I'm embarrassed to say it but many of the liberals I know here in > California feel exactly as your last sentence reads. Blindly so. One > can disagree with many things in this administration just as in many > other administrations over the last 220 years. Vote the guy out... > vote his party out. But the acidic hatred, even at the cost of our > country's > values, lives, culture and liberty is a sad thing to see. I wasn't > around the first > 180 years so maybe this has happened every so often... just a faze the > country goes through like a house settling. But since Monica and > the chads and Iraq, politics is just a polorized mess. You all didn't feel anything like that for Bill Clinton now did you? Of course not. Just principled opposition, right?     Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:25:05 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 23 Jan 2007 10:42:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > >yksmir wrote: >> larry wrote: >> > Amazing to read that our own left-leaning liberals are at least >> > figuratively joining forces with radical Islam, et. al. to make >> > America lose in Iraq and around the world-- They would do whatever >> > it takes to bring down the religious right in America. Their hatred >> > of Bush and the Christian right is so intense they would sacrifice >> > their country to get him. >> >> I'm embarrassed to say it but many of the liberals I know here in >> California feel exactly as your last sentence reads. Blindly so. One >> can disagree with many things in this administration just as in many >> other administrations over the last 220 years. Vote the guy out... >> vote his party out. But the acidic hatred, even at the cost of our >> country's >> values, lives, culture and liberty is a sad thing to see. I wasn't >> around the first >> 180 years so maybe this has happened every so often... just a faze the >> country goes through like a house settling. But since Monica and >> the chads and Iraq, politics is just a polorized mess. > >You all didn't feel anything like that for Bill Clinton now did you? Of >course not. Just principled opposition, right? Bob Dole said it best. When our country is at war, we should present a united front to the foreign enemy. "Partisanship stops at the water's edge." So Dole would NOT criticize Clinton and the Kosovo or the Somalia fiascos in news reports the enemy would read. He would NOT give our enemy comfort by showing division. That is class. It is apparently only a Republican attribute. Bush cannot explain without simultaneously telling Radical Islam. But any thinking person realizes that he invaded Iraq because Ben Ladin wrote that after America failed to respond to a dozen smaller attacks, showing cowardice, he escalated to the 9/11 attack. Our (Clinton's) weakness invited their atttack. Bush repelled subsequent attacks by showing the opposite of cowardice, he attacked them! And he has kept them on the run for 6 years-- They respect aggressiveness. But the original reason they attacked us is still there. We are still Infidels in the Radical Islam world that cannot abide other religions with Islam. We must die--especially if we show weakness. When Democrats force us to cut and run from Iraq-- Radical Islam will attack and attack, they will try to kill us all here on our homeland. And they will go first for those they hate the most-- the appeasing cowards. Larry Larry       Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:49:06 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:25:05 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: >But the original reason they attacked us is still there. So you're saying our response failed.         Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:08:49 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:49:06 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote: >On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:25:05 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com> >wrote: > >>But the original reason they attacked us is still there. > >So you're saying our response failed. We can only hold them off for the next 30 years--at least a generation.. Bush knows that but cannot explain when the opposition party will use that to regain power. This short attention span country would not support a war without end. But Radical Islam consideres itself in a "1000 Year War" against Infidels. Their war started in the year 700. Read something, Howard. It is difficult to read books and post here several hundred times daily. Look around! You are an addict--and you're wasting your life on RSG--like BK and several others. Later   Date: 23 Jan 2007 10:30:00 From: yksmir Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst larry wrote: > Amazing to read that our own left-leaning liberals are at least > figuratively joining forces with radical Islam, et. al. to make > America lose in Iraq and around the world-- They would do whatever > it takes to bring down the religious right in America. Their hatred > of Bush and the Christian right is so intense they would sacrifice > their country to get him. I'm embarrassed to say it but many of the liberals I know here in California feel exactly as your last sentence reads. Blindly so. One can disagree with many things in this administration just as in many other administrations over the last 220 years. Vote the guy out... vote his party out. But the acidic hatred, even at the cost of our country's values, lives, culture and liberty is a sad thing to see. I wasn't around the first 180 years so maybe this has happened every so often... just a faze the country goes through like a house settling. But since Monica and the chads and Iraq, politics is just a polorized mess.     Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:12:00 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 23 Jan 2007 10:30:00 -0800, "yksmir" <yksmir@yahoo.com > wrote: > >larry wrote: >> Amazing to read that our own left-leaning liberals are at least >> figuratively joining forces with radical Islam, et. al. to make >> America lose in Iraq and around the world-- They would do whatever >> it takes to bring down the religious right in America. Their hatred >> of Bush and the Christian right is so intense they would sacrifice >> their country to get him. > >I'm embarrassed to say it but many of the liberals I know here in >California feel exactly as your last sentence reads. Blindly so. One >can disagree with many things in this administration just as in many >other administrations over the last 220 years. Vote the guy out... >vote his party out. But the acidic hatred, even at the cost of our >country's >values, lives, culture and liberty is a sad thing to see. I wasn't >around the first >180 years so maybe this has happened every so often... just a faze the >country goes through like a house settling. But since Monica and >the chads and Iraq, politics is just a polorized mess. Yes, it is amazing. The author of that book thinks it is the seething hatred of those who are agnostic or atheists-- for those who believe. And they hated Bush the instant he revealed that he is a deep believer, prays for guidance, etc. etc. That did it. They saw that as a threat. And not just here, but even more so in Europe, where the beautiful churches are mostly empty on Sunday morning. And of course Radical Islam has joined with them-- because their hatred of Christianity is the same. Islam wants to bring down Christians because they see us as threatening their religion and way of life-- we disapprove of their treatment of women and say so-- etc. etc. Bush's phenomenal unpopularity is due priily to a concerted intense campaign by the Democrats, our university faculty elite, lawyers, unions, and the immense free help from the media--who are also secularists-- who ruthlessly RIDICULE those who believe. Against all that Bush has only talk radio and the neutrality of Fox News. Tony Snow said this morning that a priy cause of Bush's problems is the media-- who tell ONLY negative stories-- and spin anything that should be positive. But it is their country too. Bush is just passing through--will be gone completely in 2 years. When they bring it down--or make us so weak that Al Queda brings us down-- many of us will know exactly who to blame. Larry       Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:47:52 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:12:00 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: >And of course Radical Islam has joined with them-- because their >hatred of Christianity is the same. Islam wants to bring down >Christians because they see us as threatening their religion and way >of life-- we disapprove of their treatment of women and say so-- etc. >etc. Muslims hate atheists more than they hate Christians (although not as much as they hate other *wrong* Muslims). But in general, Islam is a very righteous religion. You learn what to do and stop thinking. Religions of the far East are more tolerant and accepting religions. Christianity varies quite a bit - from the Righteous right, to other churches that emulate Jesus's good instead of the Pharisees' righteousness. The Righteous people who automatically *know* the right way commit most of the evil in this world today. And anybody who always claims that the other party is full of hatred and is always wrong fits in this Righteous category - spewing hatred and evil. Sometimes they do so in the name of Christ and Country, which shows their ignorance of what Jesus and the founding fathers stood for.         Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:04:08 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:47:52 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote: >On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:12:00 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com> >wrote: > >>And of course Radical Islam has joined with them-- because their >>hatred of Christianity is the same. Islam wants to bring down >>Christians because they see us as threatening their religion and way >>of life-- we disapprove of their treatment of women and say so-- etc. >>etc. > >Muslims hate atheists more than they hate Christians (although not as >much as they hate other *wrong* Muslims). But in general, Islam is >a very righteous religion. You learn what to do and stop thinking. >Religions of the far East are more tolerant and accepting religions. >Christianity varies quite a bit - from the Righteous right, to other >churches that emulate Jesus's good instead of the Pharisees' >righteousness. > >The Righteous people who automatically *know* the right way commit >most of the evil in this world today. > >And anybody who always claims that the other party is full of hatred >and is always wrong fits in this Righteous category - spewing hatred >and evil. Sometimes they do so in the name of Christ and Country, >which shows their ignorance of what Jesus and the founding fathers >stood for. Christians didn't commit the dozen attrocities that Radical Islam has done in the last 30 years. They have killed and maimed many thousand innocents. Their intent for 9/11 was 50,000 dead, all the congress, the president, most of the pentagon. The 3000 in the World Trade Center were just a sideshow. Larry   Date: 23 Jan 2007 05:34:02 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst larry wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:58:56 -0800, Bink B <dungwad@disney.com> wrote: > > >Wayne wrote: > >> By Michael Lind > >> > >> The Washington Post > >> > >> Sunday, December 24, 2006 > >> > >> It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > >> time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > >> whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > >> Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > > > >I'd exchange Carter for Nixon. Most lists from historians over the last > >40 years seem to point towards Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore and > >Grant as the worst... the Post has their own ideas I guess. > > The Post is a blatantly partisan rag like the NY Times. They have > lost all credibility because they totally shed their objectivity in > their zeal to bring down the Republican administration. The > predictable result is that readers are bailing out like rats off a > sinking ship. Those newspapers will fail in a few years. > > Watch Fox News for "fair and balanced" reporting. Liberals hate it > because FNC gives the conservative viewpoint ANY opportunity. But the > truth is that you will not know what is really going on if you watch > only CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3. They are obviously managing the news > for partisan purposes. Thank goodness for conservative talk radio. > > Larry The person who wrote the article doesn't work for the Washington Post. He was a guest columnist. George Will and Charles Krauthammer don't work for the Post, either, but that "blatantly partisan rag" publishes their columns every week.   Date: 22 Jan 2007 16:06:04 From: yksmir Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > It seems rather strange that nearly all of the 'right wing pundits' > avoided going to war when they were elgible, but now are all for it when > they can't or won't go again. Well to be fair the left wingers avoided going to war too and the liberal politicians are against it only when it fails. Easy to use hidesight. But you're right when you say most truely conservative people rarely listen to Rush.... he's just a spouter with a big mouth like Al Frankin. They are there to entertain their constituents, they have huge biases, pick on the most trivial matters, and only show you the tip of iceberg to get their points across. I can't stand Judge Judy or Dr Phil either but there are plenty who do, just as many like getting entertained by Rush and Al. I'm not one of them.     Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:07:36 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 22 Jan 2007 16:06:04 -0800, "yksmir" <yksmir@yahoo.com > wrote: > >Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >> It seems rather strange that nearly all of the 'right wing pundits' >> avoided going to war when they were elgible, but now are all for it when >> they can't or won't go again. > >Well to be fair the left wingers avoided going to war too and the >liberal politicians are against it only when it fails. Easy to use >hidesight. But you're right when you say most truely conservative >people rarely listen to Rush.... he's just a spouter with a big mouth >like Al Frankin. They are there to entertain their constituents, they >have huge biases, pick on the most trivial matters, and only show you >the tip of iceberg to get their points across. I can't stand Judge Judy >or Dr Phil either but there are plenty who do, just as many like >getting entertained by Rush and Al. I'm not one of them. Of course if it were not entertaining, nobody would listen and there would be no buyers for the sponsors' stuff. A successful show even for conservatives who are very interested in keeping this country conservative, must also be practical and pragmatic. Rush often explains that reality. Everyone should read D'Souza: "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" Amazing to read that our own left-leaning liberals are at least figuratively joining forces with radical Islam, et. al. to make America lose in Iraq and around the world-- They would do whatever it takes to bring down the religious right in America. Their hatred of Bush and the Christian right is so intense they would sacrifice their country to get him. Those who love this country and want their grandchildren to have what we had-- had better take action! Larry   Date: 21 Jan 2007 23:58:56 From: Bink B Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Wayne wrote: > By Michael Lind > > The Washington Post > > Sunday, December 24, 2006 > > It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. I'd exchange Carter for Nixon. Most lists from historians over the last 40 years seem to point towards Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore and Grant as the worst... the Post has their own ideas I guess.     Date: 22 Jan 2007 10:02:17 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:58:56 -0800, Bink B <dungwad@disney.com > wrote: >Wayne wrote: >> By Michael Lind >> >> The Washington Post >> >> Sunday, December 24, 2006 >> >> It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all >> time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers >> whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew >> Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > >I'd exchange Carter for Nixon. Most lists from historians over the last >40 years seem to point towards Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore and >Grant as the worst... the Post has their own ideas I guess. The Post is a blatantly partisan rag like the NY Times. They have lost all credibility because they totally shed their objectivity in their zeal to bring down the Republican administration. The predictable result is that readers are bailing out like rats off a sinking ship. Those newspapers will fail in a few years. Watch Fox News for "fair and balanced" reporting. Liberals hate it because FNC gives the conservative viewpoint ANY opportunity. But the truth is that you will not know what is really going on if you watch only CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3. They are obviously managing the news for partisan purposes. Thank goodness for conservative talk radio. Larry       Date: 24 Jan 2007 00:08:51 From: temp Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <lnu9r2lt2k261b4943ih1j8sdbvaefhmhq@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:58:56 -0800, Bink B <dungwad@disney.com> wrote: > > >Wayne wrote: > >> By Michael Lind > >> > >> The Washington Post > >> > >> Sunday, December 24, 2006 > >> > >> It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > >> time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > >> whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > >> Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > > > >I'd exchange Carter for Nixon. Most lists from historians over the last > >40 years seem to point towards Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore and > >Grant as the worst... the Post has their own ideas I guess. > > The Post is a blatantly partisan rag like the NY Times. They have > lost all credibility because they totally shed their objectivity in > their zeal to bring down the Republican administration. The > predictable result is that readers are bailing out like rats off a > sinking ship. Those newspapers will fail in a few years. > > Watch Fox News for "fair and balanced" reporting. Liberals hate it > because FNC gives the conservative viewpoint ANY opportunity. But the > truth is that you will not know what is really going on if you watch > only CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3. They are obviously managing the news > for partisan purposes. Thank goodness for conservative talk radio. > > Larry It's just amazing how every single news source that disagrees with you is doing it out of bias... Keep drinking the koolaid! -- Alan Baker       Date: 22 Jan 2007 12:31:30 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <lnu9r2lt2k261b4943ih1j8sdbvaefhmhq@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:58:56 -0800, Bink B <dungwad@disney.com> wrote: > > >Wayne wrote: > >> By Michael Lind > >> > >> The Washington Post > >> > >> Sunday, December 24, 2006 > >> > >> It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > >> time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > >> whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > >> Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > > > >I'd exchange Carter for Nixon. Most lists from historians over the last > >40 years seem to point towards Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore and > >Grant as the worst... the Post has their own ideas I guess. > > The Post is a blatantly partisan rag like the NY Times. They have > lost all credibility because they totally shed their objectivity in > their zeal to bring down the Republican administration. The > predictable result is that readers are bailing out like rats off a > sinking ship. Those newspapers will fail in a few years. > > Watch Fox News for "fair and balanced" reporting. Liberals hate it > because FNC gives the conservative viewpoint ANY opportunity. But the > truth is that you will not know what is really going on if you watch > only CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3. They are obviously managing the news > for partisan purposes. Thank goodness for conservative talk radio. > > Larry I had to look at the time, yep, Rush is on so you can get your 'talking points'         Date: 22 Jan 2007 10:48:49 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:31:30 -0600, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: > >I had to look at the time, yep, Rush is on so you can get your 'talking >points' Where do you think Rush gets his "talking points?" He gets strong input from a lot of conservatives--many of them my neighbors. Larry           Date: 22 Jan 2007 13:07:19 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <qm1ar2htct4tr693bvpjlbr3nmqug3tr2e@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:31:30 -0600, Lloyd Parsons > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote: > > > >I had to look at the time, yep, Rush is on so you can get your 'talking > >points' > > Where do you think Rush gets his "talking points?" He gets strong > input from a lot of conservatives--many of them my neighbors. > > Larry LMAO! Most true conservatives don't give Rush the time of day. "mr. politics" isn't even a conservative himself, and even while talking about how he is a 'Reagan conservative', he didn't bother to vote at all until after Reagan was out of office. Of course, there is the statement he often makes that his goal is to have the most listeners so he can charge the highest advertising rates. In case you didn't notice, it doesn't have anything to do with what he says being true or not, only that it garner him the largest audience. And you oons seem to think that makes this uneducated, pompous windbag some sort of pundit. And of course, he is a believer in the family even though he has no children (thank god for that!) and is on his 3rd or 4th divorce. He believes in going to war, but avoided it when it was his turn. Hell, he didn't even get a plush Nat'l Guard gig then. It seems rather strange that nearly all of the 'right wing pundits' avoided going to war when they were elgible, but now are all for it when they can't or won't go again.             Date: 22 Jan 2007 23:17:55 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Lloyd Parsons wrote: > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:31:30 -0600, Lloyd Parsons >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote: >>> >>> I had to look at the time, yep, Rush is on so you can get your >>> 'talking points' >> >> Where do you think Rush gets his "talking points?" He gets strong >> input from a lot of conservatives--many of them my neighbors. >> >> Larry > > LMAO! > > Most true conservatives don't give Rush the time of day. "mr. > politics" isn't even a conservative himself, and even while talking > about how he is a 'Reagan conservative', he didn't bother to vote at > all until after Reagan was out of office. Rush Limbaugh calls Larry's neighbor for his talking points?!?!?! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA             Date: 22 Jan 2007 14:31:07 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:07:19 -0600, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: >Most true conservatives don't give Rush the time of day. He is on the phone and in conference with such conservatives as W. F. Buckley, Newt Gingrich, Bill Crystal, et. al. every day. There is a very reason he has a huge and growing audience. His "show prep" is the best in the business. Larry               Date: 22 Jan 2007 19:04:20 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi! William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <44bar21g7m578ja63h2mmu3vgl7gour2ra@4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark" >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: >> >>>> You quote from a report that is designed to explain away why DC >>>> schools, that have more than adequate funding, perform so poorly. Just >>>> hand picking a few surburban school districts that spend more than DC >>>> does not explain away the fact that DC schools perform so poorly >>>> despite the fact that they are funded better than most of the rest of >>>> the country. >>> No, your claim was that "The Washington, D.C. public school system >>> spends the most per student than any other public school system in the >>> country" - direct quote. I showed you that that simply is not the case, >>> and now you try to wriggle onto a different tack. You were wrong - >>> period - and that says about everything we need to know about the >>> credibility of anything else you propose. >> You're confusing me with someone else, I never said that. In any >> case, the DC schools per-pupil expenditures ranks third in the US to >> only NY and NJ. > > No? Well whose post did I cut and paste that directly from? You are the > one beating that particular DC drum. I was the one who was beating the DC drum.                 Date: 22 Jan 2007 21:40:32 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi! On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:04:20 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >> No? Well whose post did I cut and paste that directly from? You are the >> one beating that particular DC drum. > >I was the one who was beating the DC drum. Thank you for clearing that up Bert.                 Date: 22 Jan 2007 20:21:56 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi! In article <lMKdnbDqUoSZzCjYnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <44bar21g7m578ja63h2mmu3vgl7gour2ra@4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:53:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark" > >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote: > >> > >>>> You quote from a report that is designed to explain away why DC > >>>> schools, that have more than adequate funding, perform so poorly. Just > >>>> hand picking a few surburban school districts that spend more than DC > >>>> does not explain away the fact that DC schools perform so poorly > >>>> despite the fact that they are funded better than most of the rest of > >>>> the country. > >>> No, your claim was that "The Washington, D.C. public school system > >>> spends the most per student than any other public school system in the > >>> country" - direct quote. I showed you that that simply is not the case, > >>> and now you try to wriggle onto a different tack. You were wrong - > >>> period - and that says about everything we need to know about the > >>> credibility of anything else you propose. > >> You're confusing me with someone else, I never said that. In any > >> case, the DC schools per-pupil expenditures ranks third in the US to > >> only NY and NJ. > > > > No? Well whose post did I cut and paste that directly from? You are the > > one beating that particular DC drum. > > I was the one who was beating the DC drum. Yes, indeed. Well, then you owe Jack an apology :-) William Clark               Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:40:11 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <5lear2ladbmpmolqht70qbbu4isjqsr24a@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:07:19 -0600, Lloyd Parsons > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote: > > >Most true conservatives don't give Rush the time of day. > > He is on the phone and in conference with such conservatives as W. F. > Buckley, Newt Gingrich, Bill Crystal, et. al. every day. There is a > very reason he has a huge and growing audience. His "show prep" is > the best in the business. > > > Larry Larry his audience has not been growing for quite some time. At best it is stagnant, at worst it has declined. I'm sure you can provide some vague at least, proof that he is in daily contact with Buckley or Crystal (or is that Kristol?). As far as Gingrich, who really cares. He's washed up and a disgraced politician. And yes, his show prep is very good. He researches to look for exactly the 'sound bite' or article sentence that fits his preconceived notions. And since his preconceived notions agree with yours, you buy it all.   Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:51:06 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst jean-yves herve wrote: > In article <1169389884.404314.61410@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > LurfysMa wrote: > > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:26:06 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Well I thought that the *official* justification for all the brouhaha > > > >was that he had lied under oath in his videotaped deposition for the > > > >Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. THis sort of justified all sorts > > > >of dirt seeking to demonstrate his perjury. > > > > > > Well, at the very least, he played a very nasty and childish game of > > > cat and mouse. Stupid really for such a st guy. Too st, I guess. > > > Bush would have gotten off with his deer-in-the-headlights look. > > > > > > But my point was that "criminal" act was not infidelity, but sexual > > > harrassment and abuse of power. Good thing there's no law against poor > > > judgment and lack of will power. > > > > > He did not harrass her. He did not use his power to seduce her. It was > > Monica who instigated and pursued that relationship. > > Learn to read a thread. We are saying the Lewinsky affair came up > because Clinton was under investigation for lying under oath like an > idiot schoolboy in the Paula Jones harassment case. > > jyh. Assuming this is intended for me, I responded to your charge that Clinton was guilty of sexual harrassment and abuse of power. Those were your words. And the Paula Jones matter is most certainly NOT why the Lewinsky affair arose. that started when Monica's "friend," Linda Tripp secretly recorded their phone conversations and turned the tapes over to mad dog Ken Starr. He was investigating Whitewater, not Paula Jones.   Date: 21 Jan 2007 06:31:24 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst LurfysMa wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:26:06 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu> > wrote: > > >In article <h1v5r2darvuhjr4935t489p18hvaana34e@4ax.com>, > > LurfysMa <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:44:27 -0500, "Head Shot" > >> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Joe Ramirez wrote: > >> >> I can't stand it -- Watergate was an elaborate conspiracy to obstruct > >> >> justice that lasted for *years.* > >> > > >> >At the end of the day; Clinton should just have said "none of your fucking > >> >business" when asked about having sex with a consenting adult other than > >> >his wife. It was a witch hunt anyway - no sane person thinks the US > >> >Government should have spent $20M to find out if Monica had sperm on her > >> >dress. I'm nost sure where that expenditure falls into the US > >> >Constitution. Cheating on your wife, while deplorable, is most certainly > >> >not criminal. > >> > >> It wasn't about cheating on his wife. It was about abuse of power. She > >> worked for him. Not sure if was a criminal act, but it would get you > >> fired from most jobs. > > > >Well I thought that the *official* justification for all the brouhaha > >was that he had lied under oath in his videotaped deposition for the > >Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. THis sort of justified all sorts > >of dirt seeking to demonstrate his perjury. > > Well, at the very least, he played a very nasty and childish game of > cat and mouse. Stupid really for such a st guy. Too st, I guess. > Bush would have gotten off with his deer-in-the-headlights look. > > But my point was that "criminal" act was not infidelity, but sexual > harrassment and abuse of power. Good thing there's no law against poor > judgment and lack of will power. > > --He did not harrass her. He did not use his power to seduce her. It was Monica who instigated and pursued that relationship.     Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:22:00 From: jean-yves herve Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1169389884.404314.61410@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > LurfysMa wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:26:06 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu> > > wrote: > > > > >Well I thought that the *official* justification for all the brouhaha > > >was that he had lied under oath in his videotaped deposition for the > > >Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. THis sort of justified all sorts > > >of dirt seeking to demonstrate his perjury. > > > > Well, at the very least, he played a very nasty and childish game of > > cat and mouse. Stupid really for such a st guy. Too st, I guess. > > Bush would have gotten off with his deer-in-the-headlights look. > > > > But my point was that "criminal" act was not infidelity, but sexual > > harrassment and abuse of power. Good thing there's no law against poor > > judgment and lack of will power. > > > He did not harrass her. He did not use his power to seduce her. It was > Monica who instigated and pursued that relationship. Learn to read a thread. We are saying the Lewinsky affair came up because Clinton was under investigation for lying under oath like an idiot schoolboy in the Paula Jones harassment case. jyh.       Date: 21 Jan 2007 19:11:58 From: Charlie Board Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst jean-yves herve wrote: > > > Learn to read a thread. We are saying the Lewinsky affair came up > because Clinton was under investigation for lying under oath like an > idiot schoolboy in the Paula Jones harassment case. Well that's a pretty stupid thing to be saying. The Lewinsky affair had already "come up". If it hadn't there would have been no questions about it to give the opportunity to lie about it under oath.         Date: 21 Jan 2007 18:17:57 From: samson Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Don't be so hard on him. Reggie Bush played a really good game today.       Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:04:41 From: LurfysMa Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:22:00 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote: >In article <1169389884.404314.61410@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> LurfysMa wrote: >> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:26:06 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >Well I thought that the *official* justification for all the brouhaha >> > >was that he had lied under oath in his videotaped deposition for the >> > >Paula Jones sexual harassment suit. THis sort of justified all sorts >> > >of dirt seeking to demonstrate his perjury. >> > >> > Well, at the very least, he played a very nasty and childish game of >> > cat and mouse. Stupid really for such a st guy. Too st, I guess. >> > Bush would have gotten off with his deer-in-the-headlights look. >> > >> > But my point was that "criminal" act was not infidelity, but sexual >> > harrassment and abuse of power. Good thing there's no law against poor >> > judgment and lack of will power. >> > >> He did not harrass her. He did not use his power to seduce her. It was >> Monica who instigated and pursued that relationship. > >Learn to read a thread. We are saying the Lewinsky affair came up >because Clinton was under investigation for lying under oath like an >idiot schoolboy in the Paula Jones harassment case. I think you need to learn how to attach your comments to the proper post. I have no idea who you are responding to and quoting, but it wasn't me. Glass houses and such... --   Date: 15 Jan 2007 16:07:57 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > BigPurdueFan wrote: > > I'm sure this point is made somewhere in this 400+ post thread, but > > George W Bush has two more years to contribute to history. I have > > ultimate confidence that he will step up and become the #1 worst > > president in US history. Just do it, GW! > > He is trying as hard as he can. He sent another aircraft carrier group and > more troops last week. That won't make a difference in his historical "ranking", unless of course he plans to use them to invade Iran, which is very possible.   Date: 15 Jan 2007 15:00:59 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Wayne wrote: > By Michael Lind > > The Washington Post > > Sunday, December 24, 2006 > > It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. I'm sure this point is made somewhere in this 400+ post thread, but George W Bush has two more years to contribute to history. I have ultimate confidence that he will step up and become the #1 worst president in US history. Just do it, GW!     Date: 15 Jan 2007 23:42:06 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst BigPurdueFan wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > By Michael Lind > > > > The Washington Post > > > > Sunday, December 24, 2006 > > > > It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > > time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > > whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > > Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > > I'm sure this point is made somewhere in this 400+ post thread, but > George W Bush has two more years to contribute to history. I have > ultimate confidence that he will step up and become the #1 worst > president in US history. Just do it, GW! I still don't see how anyone can beat Kennedy or Truman.     Date: 15 Jan 2007 18:37:57 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst BigPurdueFan wrote: > I'm sure this point is made somewhere in this 400+ post thread, but > George W Bush has two more years to contribute to history. I have > ultimate confidence that he will step up and become the #1 worst > president in US history. Just do it, GW! He is trying as hard as he can. He sent another aircraft carrier group and more troops last week.       Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:07:50 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:37:57 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote: >BigPurdueFan wrote: >> I'm sure this point is made somewhere in this 400+ post thread, but >> George W Bush has two more years to contribute to history. I have >> ultimate confidence that he will step up and become the #1 worst >> president in US history. Just do it, GW! > >He is trying as hard as he can. He sent another aircraft carrier group and >more troops last week. Oh yeah, our president is doing stuff to screw the country up, not to protect and defend. That is nonsense. What will you be saying when the next guy, even if a liberal democrat, takes over, gets the briefings, and does EXACTLY the same things? Unless you are insane and incapable of logic, you could only conclude that this new president and the former president must have known what you don't (and can't) know. This president has knowingly sacrificed his popularity for you-- for us. I think he will live to see his country thank him for that. Larry         Date: 16 Jan 2007 22:44:52 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst larry wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:37:57 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: >> He is trying as hard as he can. He sent another aircraft carrier >> group and more troops last week. > > Oh yeah, our president is doing stuff to screw the country up, not to > protect and defend. That is nonsense. Get back to us after your kid goes over to Iraq. In the meantime; Blowhound Bushtard thinks that Jesus told him to put another aircraft carrier group next to Iraq. > What will you be saying when the next guy, even if a liberal democrat, > takes over, gets the briefings, and does EXACTLY the same things? Nobody will follow in Bushtard's footsteps. You are the only person on Usenet that thinks this guy is doing the right thing. > Unless you are insane and incapable of logic, you could only conclude > that this new president and the former president must have known what > you don't (and can't) know. This president has knowingly sacrificed > his popularity for you-- for us. He could care less about popularity. He has more money than he can spend and cannot get elected again. He is taking instruction from a voice in his head; and he thinks it is Jesus Christ. > I think he will live to see his country thank him for that. The country wants him hanged by the neck until dead.           Date: 17 Jan 2007 09:25:52 From: larry Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:44:52 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote: >The country wants him hanged by the neck until dead. Well, that post simplifies this forum for me-- hereafter I just never click on a post from "Head Shot" who is apparently a "head case." I hope the Secret Service notices your post. Let us know when you get the call-- or doorbell ring. Larry             Date: 17 Jan 2007 22:12:23 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst larry wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:44:52 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: > >> The country wants him hanged by the neck until dead. > > Well, that post simplifies this forum for me-- hereafter I just never > click on a post from "Head Shot" who is apparently a "head case." I > hope the Secret Service notices your post. Let us know when you get > the call-- or doorbell ring. So types the village idiot.   Date: 11 Jan 2007 10:21:43 From: larryrsf Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Jan 7, 9:07 am, "Wayne" <waynet...@yahoo.com > wrote: > By Michael Lind > > The Washington Post--yada, yada, yada. right on schedule. EXAMPLE OF OUR WONDERFUL MEDIA -- Made in the USA : Spoiled brats The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. It is truly amazing that more people don't realize what happens. The media like Newsweek tells the stupid what they want them to believe, and then conducts a poll to see whether we got it straight. A lecture and a test. Duhhh. When people don't see other than the "news" from the liberal media, what else are they going to think? When they are told day and night for months or years that the president is dumb, etc. what are they going to say when asked about the president's intelligence, etc? Larry So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?'' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy. Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here. I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did =C3=A2=E2'=AC=C2=A6 Insane! Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH, WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY..... And you are a naive and easily led zombie if you hate Bush. =20 Larry     Date: 11 Jan 2007 14:30:45 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168539703.135545.31790@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Jan 7, 9:07 am, "Wayne" <waynet...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > By Michael Lind > > > > The Washington Post--yada, yada, yada. right on schedule. > > EXAMPLE OF OUR WONDERFUL MEDIA -- > > Made in the USA : Spoiled brats > > The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll > data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, > right? > > The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with > the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is > unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the > citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. > > It is truly amazing that more people don't realize what happens. The > media like Newsweek tells the stupid what they want them to believe, > and then conducts a poll to see whether we got it straight. A lecture > and a test. Duhhh. When people don't see other than the "news" from > the liberal media, what else are they going to think? When they are > told day and night for months or years that the president is dumb, etc. > what are they going to say when asked about the president's > intelligence, etc? > > Larry > > > > So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are > so unhappy about?'' > > Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days > a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the > summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of > these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a > grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has > seen in the last year? > > Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic > Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move > through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels > we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess > having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the > world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our > car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all > involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, > if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. > > Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You > may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a > group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch > equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and > your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat > screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a > gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family > against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free > of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods > where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers. > > How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we > enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what > has 67 percent of you folks unhappy. > > Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the > world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a > great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most > blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we > don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the > good Lord we live here. > > I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has > no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent > approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in > the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an > economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been > called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled > brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an > all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? > > Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have > volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. > There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. > They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' > discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case > scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. > > So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of > Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds > it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car > crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at > the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit > corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to > defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just > ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a > book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he > did ââ'¬Â¦ Insane! > > Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut > off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of > your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. > There is exponentially more good than bad. > > WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH, WE SHOULD > THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY..... > > And you are a naive and easily led zombie if you hate Bush. > > Larry This from the genius who predicted that Dubya's approval rating would soar above 50% long before now. Evidence from last November, especially on statewide ballot issues in Ohio, indicate that the voting public are not as dumb and stupid as Larry would make them out to be. They were able to see clearly through some issues clouded by misleading advertising from lobbying industry groups, and express their own clear mandate. Well, fancy that, Larry - people thinking for themselves! William Clark   Date: 10 Jan 2007 20:50:00 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> John B. wrote: > >>> The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the > >>> right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't > >>> have the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. > >> > >> Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has a > >> $200 BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you are > >> a Class III dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a machine > >> gun made after May 1986. You have to buy pre samples and not post > >> samples. But I have a few dozen machine guns. And they are a > >> great investment. Mine have been appreciating anywhere from 25% to > >> 50% per year. > > > > How many nukes do you have? How about SAMs? > > Now you are being silly. Obviously, to a point.....but, the right to bear arms is not all-inclusive. In fact, it's downright exclusive in many parts of the country. But I think you can pay the $200 destructive > device fee to the BATFE and get a LAWS rocket. I don't have many hand > grenades because BATFE charges $200 for each one. I did find a line on some > claymores. I might grab a few of those. Concave side points away..... > > > > >> If they did not want to "Allow States to walk away" they would have > >> put explicit language prohibiting secession. > > > > Unless they never thought to consider the question. > > We will never know - the Founding Fathers are dead. I think they considered it....they were pretty st guys...and I think it is one of those things they punted to future generations. They were trying to put together a document that all of the states could live with. There had to be a lot of compromise, glossing over, etc.     Date: 11 Jan 2007 19:56:05 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> deemsbill@aol.com wrote: >>> Head Shot wrote: >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees >>>>> the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people >>>>> don't have the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. >>>> >>>> Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has >>>> a $200 BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you >>>> are a Class III dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a >>>> machine gun made after May 1986. You have to buy pre samples >>>> and not post samples. But I have a few dozen machine guns. And >>>> they are a great investment. Mine have been appreciating anywhere >>>> from 25% to 50% per year. >>> >>> How many nukes do you have? How about SAMs? >> >> Now you are being silly. > > Obviously, to a point.....but, the right to bear arms is not > all-inclusive. In fact, it's downright exclusive in many parts of the > country. Which may or many not be a violation of the Second Ammendment. I expect the NFA of 1934 to go to the Supreme Court again some day; this time not having to do with a mafia criminal who was arrested with a sawed of shotgun. > But I think you can pay the $200 destructive >> device fee to the BATFE and get a LAWS rocket. I don't have many >> hand grenades because BATFE charges $200 for each one. I did find a >> line on some claymores. I might grab a few of those. > > Concave side points away..... Who can afford to blow those things off. It's just worth holding as an investment. Class III stuff is going up by about 25% to 50% per year. > I think they considered it....they were pretty st guys...and I > think it is one of those things they punted to future generations. > They were trying to put together a document that all of the states > could live with. There had to be a lot of compromise, glossing over, > etc. That is a fair assertion and I concur that it could have been that way. But why did Lincoln think that leaving the Union was criminal and worth going to war over?   Date: 10 Jan 2007 20:42:35 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > >>> No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. > > > >> > > > >> No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own > > > >> constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of > > > >> their people. > > > > > > > > They TRIED to leave. > > > > > > Stop saying that. They LEFT. They were forced to come back over to the dark > > > side after being destroyed by war. > > > > They declared that they left. They couldn't make it stick. They > > were only recognized as a sovereign nation by one little German > > principality. In 1865, they were glad to embrace the Union position > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You suck, Bill. Tee Hee. > > > that they never really left. > >   Date: 10 Jan 2007 20:41:25 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168428272.995513.302540@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other > > > > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a > > > > > > > > > >valid > > > > > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. > > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty > > > > > > > > clear...my > > > > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > prohibits secession. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > > > > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > > > > > allowed. > > > > > > > > Law evolves.There are plenty of things that weren't illegal in 1789 > > > > that are illegal now. Many times, how these things become illegal is > > > > someone tries them and those in power say "That's not legal". Those in > > > > power then find a way to interpret the law to make them illegal. > > > > > > Give an example... > > > > Secession. > > I'm sorry. I had mistaken you for someone who wanted to engage in > intelligent conversation. Okay....drug laws, alcohol laws, seizure laws, conspiracy laws, aiding and abetting laws, different levels of sexual assaults, hate crimes..... > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 11 Jan 2007 05:13:42 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168490484.962223.310380@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168428272.995513.302540@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't > > > > > > > > > > >have a > > > > > > > > > > >valid > > > > > > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the > > > > > > > > > > oath. > > > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty > > > > > > > > > clear...my > > > > > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the > > > > > > > > Constitution > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > prohibits secession. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. > > > > > > > It is > > > > > > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it > > > > > > is > > > > > > allowed. > > > > > > > > > > Law evolves.There are plenty of things that weren't illegal in > > > > > 1789 > > > > > that are illegal now. Many times, how these things become illegal is > > > > > someone tries them and those in power say "That's not legal". Those > > > > > in > > > > > power then find a way to interpret the law to make them illegal. > > > > > > > > Give an example... > > > > > > Secession. > > > > I'm sorry. I had mistaken you for someone who wanted to engage in > > intelligent conversation. > > Okay....drug laws, alcohol laws, seizure laws, conspiracy laws, > aiding and abetting laws, different levels of sexual assaults, hate > crimes..... All of which became illegal when a *law* was actually passed... Still waiting on the intelligent conversation. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 10 Jan 2007 03:50:57 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168406238.038787.26560@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Head Shot wrote: > > > John B. wrote: > > > > The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the > > > > right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't have > > > > the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. > > > > > > Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has a $200 > > > BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you are a Class III > > > dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a machine gun made after May > > > 1986. You have to buy pre samples and not post samples. But I have a > > > few dozen machine guns. And they are a great investment. Mine have been > > > appreciating anywhere from 25% to 50% per year. > > > > How many nukes do you have? How about SAMs? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the case of secession, the court ruled in > > > > Texas vs. White, 1869, that the states had no such right. That ruling > > > > has never been seriously challenged. Do you think the founding > > > > fathers, after all the pain and sacrifice they suffered to create the > > > > United States, would draft a constitution that allowed states to walk > > > > away from it at will? > > > > > > If they did not want to "Allow States to walk away" they would have put > > > explicit language prohibiting secession. > > > > Unless they never thought to consider the question. > > They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on the > right being given to them explicitly. And where was this right given explicitly? > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 12 Jan 2007 17:20:21 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > If the writers of the Constitution had meant for secession to be > > legal, they would've included it in the Constitution. > > According to your logic, States have almost no powers at all. > > Oh, wait, let's check Amendments 9 and 10. > > ---Tedwrad Somewhere in this thread I gave my true, no bullshit or arguing to be a stass, belief....the FF didn't put secession in the Constitution because they didn't want to deal with it. Or, just as likely, they couldn't come up with a concensus that all of the delegations would agree with. They pretty much let it slide and punted it to future generations.       Date: 15 Jan 2007 15:25:00 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > > If the writers of the Constitution had meant for secession to be > > > legal, they would've included it in the Constitution. > > > > According to your logic, States have almost no powers at all. > > > > Oh, wait, let's check Amendments 9 and 10. > > Somewhere in this thread I gave my true, no bullshit or arguing to > be a stass, belief....the FF didn't put secession in the > Constitution because they didn't want to deal with it. Or, just as > likely, they couldn't come up with a concensus that all of the > delegations would agree with. They pretty much let it slide and punted > it to future generations. I dunno, the BoR was added because the Constitution was not going to be passed by some States. Delaware IIRC was almost anarchistic at the federal level. A lot of people were seriously concerned about the federal government having far too much power. Hamilton et al. had to work their collective butts off to get it passed. They may well have not wanted to explicity mention it, but there wasn't anyone alive who didn't realize secession was an issue. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..." is exactly the broadly inclusive clause that would assuage those concerned about abuse of federal powers. It allows another Declaration of Independence. --Tedward       Date: 12 Jan 2007 21:00:54 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Somewhere in this thread I gave my true, no bullshit or arguing to > be a stass, belief....the FF didn't put secession in the > Constitution because they didn't want to deal with it. Or, just as > likely, they couldn't come up with a concensus that all of the > delegations would agree with. They pretty much let it slide and punted > it to future generations. Could be. Or not. No way to tell. But I am pretty sure there will not be a second secession.     Date: 12 Jan 2007 03:13:58 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168576660.393540.120000@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168551594.791645.320180@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > > In article <fT3p8t9eIpaN3l@redshark.goodshow.net>, > > > > > <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> states > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> insisted on > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > are > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > just > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > there to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but not to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > > > >> > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't > > > > > > >> > > > > > have > > > > > > >> > > > > > to be > > > > > > >> > > > > > written > > > > > > >> > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > > > > > >> > > > Britain. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* > > > > > > >> > them > > > > > > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be > > > > > > >> > hanged. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > > > > > > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > No. They believed they had a right to secede and when England disagreed > > > > > they declared that its lack of respect for that right gave them the > > > > > moral authority to rebel. > > > > > > > > > > It's actually spelled out rather clearly: > > > > > > > > > > "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people > > > > > to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another > > > > > and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal > > > > > station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," > > > > > > > > You should've stopped here....but using your argument, this wasn't > > > > included in the constitution. > > > > > > Sorry. It seems I must spell everything out for you. > > > > > > You claimed that the founding fathers didn't see secession as a right. > > > This clearly shows that they did. > > > > No, I'm claiming they didn't include it in the Constitution. > > They didn't include lots of things. Lack of inclusion cannot be taken as > prohibition; But it also can't be taken as being allowed. especially in light of the fact that they had used earlier > and then refrained from using the phrase "perpetual union". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these > > > > > ends, > > > > > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to > > > > > institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and > > > > > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely > > > > > to > > > > > effect their Safety and Happiness." > > > > > > > > This kind of argues against your point.....this is as much > > > > revolution as secession. > > > > > > Nope. It clearly defeats your claim that they saw revolt as a right but > > > not seccession. It makes it clear that secession was what they saw as a > > > right, because it is precisely what they *said*. > > > > Then why didn't they *say* it in the Constitution? > > They didn't say lots of things. But basing the whole secession on the > principle that people have to right to secede makes it a little > difficult to turn around and deny that right to its own constituent > states, doesn't it? No, because there had been a different govt/nation formed. The old by the people, for the people. > > > > > > > > > At the point this document was written, there was no revolt; no > > > rebellion. This made their case that if their rights were not > > > recognized, then they would be justified in using force to secure them. > > > > There was no revolt when the Declaration was written? What was it > > then, an afternoon tea on the veranda? > > Whatever there was, the colonies defined their authority to revolt in > terms of a natural right to secede from a government that they no longer > believed was in their interest. What was necessary in 1776 does not mean they thought it necessary in 1789. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm> > > > > > > All of which shows that the United States must recognize at is core the > > > right of its people to "alter or abolish" a government they find > > > destructive, for if no such right existed, then the U.S. shouldn't exist > > > at all. Alter or abolish can be seen as revolt to change the govt rather than break away from it. > > No reply, I see. Sometimes it's hard to follow everything. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 11 Jan 2007 20:44:12 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168551451.098410.317800@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168549045.831863.147280@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just there to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be written > > > > > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of > > > > > > > > > > > Great > > > > > > > > > > > Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be > > > > > > > > > hanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my > > > > > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > > > > > > > > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > > > > > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > > > > > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > > > > > > > > If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have > > > > those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? > > > > > > Those words do not appear together in the U.S. Constitution. The word > > > "perpetual" doesn't appear at all. > > > > > > In fact, since they did appear in the Articles of Confederation, but > > > were removed from the Constitution, one can infer that those who wrote > > > the Constitution no longer wanted that meaning to apply. > > > > Or you can infer a different way. That's why we can have these > > discussions....the right of secession is not spelled out...and neither > > is it forbidden. > > Explain logically how you can infer it a different way... If the writers of the Constitution had meant for secession to be legal, they would've included it in the Constitution. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)       Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:58:27 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > If the writers of the Constitution had meant for secession to be > legal, they would've included it in the Constitution. According to your logic, States have almost no powers at all. Oh, wait, let's check Amendments 9 and 10. ---Tedwrad       Date: 12 Jan 2007 05:58:02 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168577052.529086.202430@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168551451.098410.317800@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <1168549045.831863.147280@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ammendments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just there to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be written > > > > > > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of > > > > > > > > > > > > Great > > > > > > > > > > > > Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal > > > > > > > > > > land > > > > > > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we > > > > > > > > > > *made* > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be > > > > > > > > > > hanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my > > > > > > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers > > > > > > > > obviously > > > > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > > > > > > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > > > > > > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > > > > > > > > > > If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have > > > > > those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? > > > > > > > > Those words do not appear together in the U.S. Constitution. The word > > > > "perpetual" doesn't appear at all. > > > > > > > > In fact, since they did appear in the Articles of Confederation, but > > > > were removed from the Constitution, one can infer that those who wrote > > > > the Constitution no longer wanted that meaning to apply. > > > > > > Or you can infer a different way. That's why we can have these > > > discussions....the right of secession is not spelled out...and neither > > > is it forbidden. > > > > Explain logically how you can infer it a different way... > > If the writers of the Constitution had meant for secession to be > legal, they would've included it in the Constitution. You mean like, for instance, they spelled out the right to privacy... ...except they didn't. They did explicitly say that the Constitution was never intended to be a definitive list of all rights, though, didn't they? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 10 Jan 2007 15:50:45 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: >> In article <1168406238.038787.26560@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >> deemsbill@aol.com wrote: >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on >> the >> right being given to them explicitly. > > And where was this right given explicitly? Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to actually grant them.   Date: 10 Jan 2007 03:24:33 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168341972.183386.284200@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168315546.818542.202330@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker > > > > > > > >> <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >In article > > > > > > > >> ><1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you > > > > > > > >> >> know, > > > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the > > > > > > > >> Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other > > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a > > > > > > > >valid > > > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty > > > > > > clear...my > > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > > > > > prohibits secession. > > > > > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > > > > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > > > allowed. > > > > Law evolves.There are plenty of things that weren't illegal in 1789 > > that are illegal now. Many times, how these things become illegal is > > someone tries them and those in power say "That's not legal". Those in > > power then find a way to interpret the law to make them illegal. > > Give an example... Secession. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 10 Jan 2007 23:53:16 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168428272.995513.302540@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other > > > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a > > > > > > > > >valid > > > > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty > > > > > > > clear...my > > > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution > > > > > > that > > > > > > prohibits secession. > > > > > > > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > > > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > > > > > > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > > > > allowed. > > > > > > Law evolves.There are plenty of things that weren't illegal in 1789 > > > that are illegal now. Many times, how these things become illegal is > > > someone tries them and those in power say "That's not legal". Those in > > > power then find a way to interpret the law to make them illegal. > > > > Give an example... > > Secession. I'm sorry. I had mistaken you for someone who wanted to engage in intelligent conversation. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 09 Jan 2007 21:17:18 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > John B. wrote: > > The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the > > right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't have > > the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. > > Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has a $200 > BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you are a Class III > dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a machine gun made after May > 1986. You have to buy pre samples and not post samples. But I have a > few dozen machine guns. And they are a great investment. Mine have been > appreciating anywhere from 25% to 50% per year. How many nukes do you have? How about SAMs? > > > > > In the case of secession, the court ruled in > > Texas vs. White, 1869, that the states had no such right. That ruling > > has never been seriously challenged. Do you think the founding > > fathers, after all the pain and sacrifice they suffered to create the > > United States, would draft a constitution that allowed states to walk > > away from it at will? > > If they did not want to "Allow States to walk away" they would have put > explicit language prohibiting secession. Unless they never thought to consider the question.     Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:03:39 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst larryrsf wrote: > > > You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. > > Everyone who acts is liable to make mistakes--unless they have access > to a crystal ball allowing them to see into the future. > > So like watching a football game, everyone in the stands can yell what > their team should do-- but only one guy is responsible-- and he has to > make the call. It is a "cheap shot" or "Monday Morning Quarterback" > to second guess the guy who decided. > > Nobody questions that Bush did and is doing what he (and his team of > 3000+ ) thinks is best to protect this country. His motives are pure. > Sure he has been wrong, so what? It can be shown that nearly every > important decision regarding Iraq was the popular consensus at the > time--seeming st knowing what he knew. NOBODY on the other side > proposed alternative courses and put their name on it! When asked, > they all said "I am not the President," declining responsibility and > accountability. This is absolutely, completely, totally, utterly false. And that's putting it mildly. Lots and lots of people, many within his own administration, told Bush or tried to tell him that he was making huge mistakes in the way he planned to administer post-invasion Iraq. They were ignored and in some cases fired. Bush and his little cabal of neo-con psychos (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith) formed a closed circle and refused to listen to anyone who didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. > > Democrats will be afraid to vote for the non-binding resolution > regarding Iraq-- for the same reason. They want to hold Bush > responsible alone-- and just in case pulling out if Iraq turns out > wildly wrong they want to avoid responsibility and accountability. > They want him to do it so they can blame him again. > > Larry     Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:55:25 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > John B. wrote: > > No, it doesn't. It shows they held that the people had the right to > > rise up against an oppressive or tyrannial government and replace it - > > not to leave the Union and start another country. > > The Founding Fathers didn't replace King George. They started another > country. > > > >And the Supreme > > Court has upheld that interpretation. > > Nope. See Texas vs. White, 1869.       Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:40:39 From: Miss Anne Thrope Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst .       Date: 12 Jan 2007 15:20:04 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst John B. wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> John B. wrote: >>> No, it doesn't. It shows they held that the people had the right to >>> rise up against an oppressive or tyrannial government and replace >>> it - not to leave the Union and start another country. >> >> The Founding Fathers didn't replace King George. They started >> another country. > > >> >> >>> And the Supreme >>> Court has upheld that interpretation. >> >> Nope. > > See Texas vs. White, 1869. I discussed that days ago. It was done long after the war ended. A way of putting the illegality of the War of Northern Agression to bed. You do know the victors write the history books, right?     Date: 10 Jan 2007 15:49:20 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> John B. wrote: >>> The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the >>> right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't >>> have the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. >> >> Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has a >> $200 BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you are >> a Class III dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a machine >> gun made after May 1986. You have to buy pre samples and not post >> samples. But I have a few dozen machine guns. And they are a >> great investment. Mine have been appreciating anywhere from 25% to >> 50% per year. > > How many nukes do you have? How about SAMs? Now you are being silly. But I think you can pay the $200 destructive device fee to the BATFE and get a LAWS rocket. I don't have many hand grenades because BATFE charges $200 for each one. I did find a line on some claymores. I might grab a few of those. >> If they did not want to "Allow States to walk away" they would have >> put explicit language prohibiting secession. > > Unless they never thought to consider the question. We will never know - the Founding Fathers are dead.     Date: 10 Jan 2007 05:30:45 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168406238.038787.26560@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Head Shot wrote: > > John B. wrote: > > > The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the > > > right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't have > > > the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. > > > > Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has a $200 > > BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you are a Class III > > dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a machine gun made after May > > 1986. You have to buy pre samples and not post samples. But I have a > > few dozen machine guns. And they are a great investment. Mine have been > > appreciating anywhere from 25% to 50% per year. > > How many nukes do you have? How about SAMs? > > > > > > > > > > In the case of secession, the court ruled in > > > Texas vs. White, 1869, that the states had no such right. That ruling > > > has never been seriously challenged. Do you think the founding > > > fathers, after all the pain and sacrifice they suffered to create the > > > United States, would draft a constitution that allowed states to walk > > > away from it at will? > > > > If they did not want to "Allow States to walk away" they would have put > > explicit language prohibiting secession. > > Unless they never thought to consider the question. They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on the right being given to them explicitly. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 09 Jan 2007 18:17:02 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168315546.818542.202330@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty clear...my > > > > bad. > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > > > prohibits secession. > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > allowed. > The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't have the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. The Constitution is vague on a lot of points and most of them have been clarified by the courts. In the case of secession, the court ruled in Texas vs. White, 1869, that the states had no such right. That ruling has never been seriously challenged. Do you think the founding fathers, after all the pain and sacrifice they suffered to create the United States, would draft a constitution that allowed states to walk away from it at will?     Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:29:14 From: larryrsf Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst > > You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. Everyone who acts is liable to make mistakes--unless they have access to a crystal ball allowing them to see into the future. So like watching a football game, everyone in the stands can yell what their team should do-- but only one guy is responsible-- and he has to make the call. It is a "cheap shot" or "Monday Morning Quarterback" to second guess the guy who decided. Nobody questions that Bush did and is doing what he (and his team of 3000+ ) thinks is best to protect this country. His motives are pure. Sure he has been wrong, so what? It can be shown that nearly every important decision regarding Iraq was the popular consensus at the time--seeming st knowing what he knew. NOBODY on the other side proposed alternative courses and put their name on it! When asked, they all said "I am not the President," declining responsibility and accountability. Democrats will be afraid to vote for the non-binding resolution regarding Iraq-- for the same reason. They want to hold Bush responsible alone-- and just in case pulling out if Iraq turns out wildly wrong they want to avoid responsibility and accountability. They want him to do it so they can blame him again. Larry       Date: 12 Jan 2007 13:43:48 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 12 Jan 2007 11:29:14 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: <clip > >Democrats will be afraid to vote for the non-binding resolution >regarding Iraq-- for the same reason. They want to hold Bush >responsible alone-- and just in case pulling out if Iraq turns out >wildly wrong they want to avoid responsibility and accountability. >They want him to do it so they can blame him again. > >Larry As it should be. He got us into this debacle...he's responsible, and will bear the blame forever. bk       Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:34:49 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 12 Jan 2007 11:29:14 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: >Nobody questions that Bush did and is doing what he (and his team of >3000+ ) thinks is best to protect this country. His motives are pure. > Sure he has been wrong, so what? It can be shown that nearly every >important decision regarding Iraq was the popular consensus at the >time--seeming st knowing what he knew. NOBODY on the other side >proposed alternative courses and put their name on it! When asked, >they all said "I am not the President," declining responsibility and >accountability. Do you think people were wrong to trust the President when they did not know all the facts that he knew?     Date: 12 Jan 2007 06:55:34 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst > > > > > > It's actually spelled out rather clearly: > > > > > > "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people > > > to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another > > > and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal > > > station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," > > > > You should've stopped here....but using your argument, this wasn't > > included in the constitution. > > Sorry. It seems I must spell everything out for you. > > You claimed that the founding fathers didn't see secession as a right. > This clearly shows that they did. > No, it doesn't. It shows they held that the people had the right to rise up against an oppressive or tyrannial government and replace it - not to leave the Union and start another country. And the Supreme Court has upheld that interpretation.       Date: 12 Jan 2007 14:43:17 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst John B. wrote: > No, it doesn't. It shows they held that the people had the right to > rise up against an oppressive or tyrannial government and replace it - > not to leave the Union and start another country. The Founding Fathers didn't replace King George. They started another country. >And the Supreme > Court has upheld that interpretation. Nope.     Date: 11 Jan 2007 20:37:40 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168551594.791645.320180@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <fT3p8t9eIpaN3l@redshark.goodshow.net>, > > > <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> wrote: > > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> states > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> insisted on > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are > > > > >> > > > > > > > just > > > > >> > > > > > > > there to > > > > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, > > > > >> > > > > > > > but not to > > > > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > >> > > > > > > them....or to > > > > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have > > > > >> > > > > > to be > > > > >> > > > > > written > > > > >> > > > > > down to exist. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > > > >> > > > Britain. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > > > > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. > > > > > > No. They believed they had a right to secede and when England disagreed > > > they declared that its lack of respect for that right gave them the > > > moral authority to rebel. > > > > > > It's actually spelled out rather clearly: > > > > > > "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people > > > to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another > > > and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal > > > station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," > > > > You should've stopped here....but using your argument, this wasn't > > included in the constitution. > > Sorry. It seems I must spell everything out for you. > > You claimed that the founding fathers didn't see secession as a right. > This clearly shows that they did. No, I'm claiming they didn't include it in the Constitution. > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, > > > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to > > > institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and > > > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to > > > effect their Safety and Happiness." > > > > This kind of argues against your point.....this is as much > > revolution as secession. > > Nope. It clearly defeats your claim that they saw revolt as a right but > not seccession. It makes it clear that secession was what they saw as a > right, because it is precisely what they *said*. Then why didn't they *say* it in the Constitution? > > At the point this document was written, there was no revolt; no > rebellion. This made their case that if their rights were not > recognized, then they would be justified in using force to secure them. There was no revolt when the Declaration was written? What was it then, an afternoon tea on the veranda? > > > > > > > > > <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm> > > All of which shows that the United States must recognize at is core the > right of its people to "alter or abolish" a government they find > destructive, for if no such right existed, then the U.S. shouldn't exist > at all. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)       Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:57:03 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > Nope. It clearly defeats your claim that they saw revolt as a right but > > not seccession. It makes it clear that secession was what they saw as a > > right, because it is precisely what they *said*. > > Then why didn't they *say* it in the Constitution? Because the Declaration of Independence stood on its own. The Constitution *explicity* bans several powers from the States. Why doesn't it ban secession? --Tedward       Date: 12 Jan 2007 05:56:45 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168576660.393540.120000@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168551594.791645.320180@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <fT3p8t9eIpaN3l@redshark.goodshow.net>, > > > > <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> states > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> insisted on > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments > > > > > >> > > > > > > > are > > > > > >> > > > > > > > just > > > > > >> > > > > > > > there to > > > > > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already > > > > > >> > > > > > > > have, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but not to > > > > > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > > >> > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't > > > > > >> > > > > > have > > > > > >> > > > > > to be > > > > > >> > > > > > written > > > > > >> > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > > > > >> > > > Britain. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* > > > > > >> > them > > > > > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be > > > > > >> > hanged. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this > > > > > > point > > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > > > > > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. > > > > > > > > No. They believed they had a right to secede and when England disagreed > > > > they declared that its lack of respect for that right gave them the > > > > moral authority to rebel. > > > > > > > > It's actually spelled out rather clearly: > > > > > > > > "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people > > > > to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another > > > > and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal > > > > station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," > > > > > > You should've stopped here....but using your argument, this wasn't > > > included in the constitution. > > > > Sorry. It seems I must spell everything out for you. > > > > You claimed that the founding fathers didn't see secession as a right. > > This clearly shows that they did. > > No, I'm claiming they didn't include it in the Constitution. They didn't include lots of things. Lack of inclusion cannot be taken as prohibition; especially in light of the fact that they had used earlier and then refrained from using the phrase "perpetual union". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these > > > > ends, > > > > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to > > > > institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and > > > > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely > > > > to > > > > effect their Safety and Happiness." > > > > > > This kind of argues against your point.....this is as much > > > revolution as secession. > > > > Nope. It clearly defeats your claim that they saw revolt as a right but > > not seccession. It makes it clear that secession was what they saw as a > > right, because it is precisely what they *said*. > > Then why didn't they *say* it in the Constitution? They didn't say lots of things. But basing the whole secession on the principle that people have to right to secede makes it a little difficult to turn around and deny that right to its own constituent states, doesn't it? > > > > > At the point this document was written, there was no revolt; no > > rebellion. This made their case that if their rights were not > > recognized, then they would be justified in using force to secure them. > > There was no revolt when the Declaration was written? What was it > then, an afternoon tea on the veranda? Whatever there was, the colonies defined their authority to revolt in terms of a natural right to secede from a government that they no longer believed was in their interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm> > > > > All of which shows that the United States must recognize at is core the > > right of its people to "alter or abolish" a government they find > > destructive, for if no such right existed, then the U.S. shouldn't exist > > at all. No reply, I see. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 11 Jan 2007 13:37:31 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168549045.831863.147280@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are > > > > > > > > > > > > > just there to > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already > > > > > > > > > > > > > have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > > > > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have > > > > > > > > > > > to be written > > > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > > > > > > > > Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > > > > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > > > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > > > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > > > > If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have > > those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? > > Those words do not appear together in the U.S. Constitution. The word > "perpetual" doesn't appear at all. > > In fact, since they did appear in the Articles of Confederation, but > were removed from the Constitution, one can infer that those who wrote > the Constitution no longer wanted that meaning to apply. Or you can infer a different way. That's why we can have these discussions....the right of secession is not spelled out...and neither is it forbidden. > > > > > > > > > > Seriously, if they thought the states had a right to secession, why > > > > didn't they put it in the Constitution? > > > > > > Why did they mention rebellion and not secession? Why did > > > they pass the Second Amendment? Are you honestly ignorant > > > of the arguments that overthrowing a tyranical government is > > > not one of the justifications for the 2nd? > > > > Even if I give you this, how was the Fed Govt in 1860 being > > "tyrannical"? Besides, overthrowing is not seceding. > > > > > > > > > That seems like a pretty big > > > > omission. Kind of like all men having rights...unless you happened to > > > > be a slave. Or a woman. Nope, no conditional rights in the > > > > Constitution. > > > > > > You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. You > > > might want to explain how they thought rights *were* conditional > > > for white men. > > > > So, they thought they were unconditional for landowning white men, > > but not for everyone else? > > > > > > > > > > > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > > > > > > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > > > > > > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > > > > > > anarchy. > > > > > > > > > > Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate > > > > > another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional > > > > > if you *think* about it.) > > > > > > > > No, that's conditional......by definition....it is a condition on > > > > rights. > > > > > > No, it isn't. You have no right -- a lack of rights -- > > > to violate my rights. In exercise my right to self-defense > > > I do not violate your rights. It's not a condition, it is > > > self-consistency, something most political arguments lack. > > > > Other than where my rights end and your rights begin can be pretty > > subjective. > > Which doesn't make such determinations conditional. Of course it does...the courts get to decide the conditions. They do this all of the time. Gun laws are a great case in point. Some states don't see handgun ownership as a right, others do....and both opinions are derived from the Constitution. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)       Date: 12 Jan 2007 00:43:12 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168551451.098410.317800@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168549045.831863.147280@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just there to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > > > > > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > to be written > > > > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of > > > > > > > > > > Great > > > > > > > > > > Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be > > > > > > > > hanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my > > > > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this > > > > > > point > > > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > > > > > > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > > > > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > > > > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > > > > > > If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have > > > those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? > > > > Those words do not appear together in the U.S. Constitution. The word > > "perpetual" doesn't appear at all. > > > > In fact, since they did appear in the Articles of Confederation, but > > were removed from the Constitution, one can infer that those who wrote > > the Constitution no longer wanted that meaning to apply. > > Or you can infer a different way. That's why we can have these > discussions....the right of secession is not spelled out...and neither > is it forbidden. Explain logically how you can infer it a different way... -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 09 Jan 2007 23:15:11 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst John B. wrote: > The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the > right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't have > the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. Not correct. I have machine guns and hand grenades. Each one has a $200 BATFE Tax Stamp. The only thing you cannot own unless you are a Class III dealer, Class VII Manufacturer, or LEO is a machine gun made after May 1986. You have to buy pre samples and not post samples. But I have a few dozen machine guns. And they are a great investment. Mine have been appreciating anywhere from 25% to 50% per year. > In the case of secession, the court ruled in > Texas vs. White, 1869, that the states had no such right. That ruling > has never been seriously challenged. Do you think the founding > fathers, after all the pain and sacrifice they suffered to create the > United States, would draft a constitution that allowed states to walk > away from it at will? If they did not want to "Allow States to walk away" they would have put explicit language prohibiting secession.     Date: 10 Jan 2007 02:37:14 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168395422.089787.161590@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168315546.818542.202330@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker > > > > > > >> <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >In article > > > > > > >> ><1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you > > > > > > >> >> know, > > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the > > > > > > >> Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a > > > > > > >valid > > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. > > > > > > There > > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty > > > > > clear...my > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > > > > prohibits secession. > > > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > > allowed. > > > The Constitution's not that simple. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the > right to bear arms, but there are a lot of arms that people don't have > the right to bear -- machine guns, hand grenades, etc. The Constitution > is vague on a lot of points and most of them have been clarified by the > courts. In the case of secession, the court ruled in Texas vs. White, > 1869, that the states had no such right. That ruling has never been > seriously challenged. Do you think the founding fathers, after all the > pain and sacrifice they suffered to create the United States, would > draft a constitution that allowed states to walk away from it at will? Yes. Precisely *because* of the pain and sacrifice. They wanted their independence from a government with which they no longer agreed; would they agree to do themselves what they had found so objectionable when done by England? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 09 Jan 2007 11:39:45 From: Bob L Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1168189645.951990.270900@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > By Michael Lind > > The Washington Post > > Sunday, December 24, 2006 > > It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > > What makes a president horribly, immortally bad? Poor luck is not > enough. Some of the greatest presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and > Franklin D. Roosevelt, have inherited crises and risen to the occasion. > The damage must be largely self-inflicted. And there's another test: > The damage to the nation must be substantial. > > Doing nothing can be even worse than doing something wrong. Take the > worst president of all time, Buchanan. In office when Lincoln's > election in 1860 triggered the secession of one Southern state after > another, Buchanan sat by as the country crumbled. In his December 1860 > message to Congress, three months before Lincoln was inaugurated, he > declared that the states had no right to secede, but that the federal > government had no right to stop them. By the time he left office, seven > states had left the Union, and the Confederates had looted the arsenals > in the South. If Buchanan had exercised his powers as commander in > chief, the rebels might have been stopped at far less than the eventual > cost of the Civil War. > > The Civil War era also gave us the second-worst president: Johnson, > Lincoln's vice president and successor, a Tennessean who vetoed civil > rights acts and blocked the 14th Amendment because he didn't like > blacks. Johnson's policies led to his impeachment and forced the > Republicans in Congress to create a quasi-parliamentary system > ginalizing the president. > > The third-worst president is Mr. Nixon, a criminal in the White House > who is still the only commander-in-chief ever to resign. Many > presidents have abused their power, but he was the only president to > run a criminal gang out of the Oval Office engaging in spying and > burglary while he sought to corrupt the Justice Department, the FBI and > the CIA. > > Refusing to enforce the law while the country disintegrates, trying to > re-enslave emancipated blacks, and doubling as chief magistrate and > gangster - what could rival these presidential misdeeds? Unnecessary > and catastrophic wars? > > To qualify a president for the Worst of All Time list, a war must be > catastrophic as well as unnecessary. Ronald Reagan's invasion of > Grenada, George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama and Bill Clinton's > invasion of Haiti were unnecessary, but minor. And presidents can be > forgiven costly wars that were necessary or hard to avoid, such as > Harry S. Truman's stalemated war in Korea and Lyndon B. Johnson's > failed war in Vietnam, each of which was a Cold War battle more than a > separate conflict. > > The two big, unjustified wars on my list are the War of 1812 and the > current conflict in Iraq, and the first was far worse than the second. > > Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was a great patriot, a > brilliant intellectual - and an absolutely abysmal president. In his > defense, the United States then was a minor neutral nation frequently > harassed by both of the warring empires, Britain and France. But cold > geopolitics should have led Washington to prefer a British victory, > which would have preserved a balance of power in Europe, to a French > victory that would have left France an unchecked superpower. Instead, > eager to conquer Spanish Florida and seize British Canada, Madison > sided with the more dangerous power against the less dangerous. Gen. > Andrew Jackson's victory in the Battle of New Orleans (waged two weeks > after the United States and Britain, unknown to Jackson, had signed a > peace treaty) helped Americans pretend that the War of 1812 was > something other than a total wipe-out. > > By contrast, George W. Bush has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, > not Washington, and the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure are > far less than those of Korea and Vietnam. Why did Mr. Bush do it? Did > he really believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? > Was it about oil? Israel? Revenge for Hussein's alleged attempt on Mr. > Bush's father's life? The war will join the sinking of the USS Maine > and the grassy knoll among the topics to exercise conspiracy theorists > for generations. > > Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will get > his wish - as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history. > Surely Jimmy Carter is in the top 5   Date: 09 Jan 2007 07:02:18 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > > pull the first lanyard? > > > Lincoln planned to attack a foreign country to start the war. He also > ammassed troops to go to battle with. > > > > No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > The South had left that Union. That did not stop his troops from killing > obscene amounts of soldiers and the general population of non combatants. The Confederate States of America was not a foreign country. The US Constitution forbids secession, as upheld in the SCOTUS case Texas vs. White. Lincoln's view was that the Southern states were in a state of rebellion (his word) that needed to be put down. He believed that the secessionist movement would bring about the destruction of the United States if allowed to stand. I think he was right.     Date: 09 Jan 2007 10:09:34 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1168354938.199798.178530@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Head Shot wrote: > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > > the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > > > pull the first lanyard? > > > > > > Lincoln planned to attack a foreign country to start the war. He also > > ammassed troops to go to battle with. > > > > > > > No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > > part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > The South had left that Union. That did not stop his troops from killing > > obscene amounts of soldiers and the general population of non combatants. > > The Confederate States of America was not a foreign country. The US > Constitution forbids secession, as upheld in the SCOTUS case Texas vs. > White. Lincoln's view was that the Southern states were in a state of > rebellion (his word) that needed to be put down. He believed that the > secessionist movement would bring about the destruction of the United > States if allowed to stand. I think he was right. If the Northern states were willing to wage the bloodiest war in US history to save the Union, why would Confederate secession have brought about the destruction to the remaining United States? I mean, if they were so hell bent on saving the whole Union, why wouldn't they save just a Northern Union? Oh, wait, logical consistency and sovereignty rarely have much in common. --Tedward   Date: 09 Jan 2007 05:27:17 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst David wrote: > I have not seen any reference to > Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, we had: - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how news leaks grow rapidly. - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." ------ And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 hits (3870) for Watergate, including the following... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html ------ LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They don't look forward. And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years by criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will vote for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the courts or the legal system to throw us out of office. Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms back then. (LAUGHTER) And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms.     Date: 10 Jan 2007 01:45:43 From: David Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... > David wrote: >> I have not seen any reference to >> Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death > > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, we > had: > > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. > > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how > news leaks grow rapidly. > > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." > > ------ > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 hits > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html > ------ > > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They > don't look forward. > > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years by > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will vote > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the courts > or the legal system to throw us out of office. > > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms back > then. > > (LAUGHTER) > > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. There is not a topic that exists where you won't find references if you google for it. Finding references does not mean that Watergate had long term traumatizing effects       Date: 09 Jan 2007 16:18:03 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <45a3b8a7$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au >, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au > wrote: > "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... > > David wrote: > >> I have not seen any reference to > >> Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death > > > > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford > > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, we > > had: > > > > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using > > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. > > > > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how > > news leaks grow rapidly. > > > > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." > > > > ------ > > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 hits > > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html > > ------ > > > > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed > > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They > > don't look forward. > > > > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years by > > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will vote > > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the courts > > or the legal system to throw us out of office. > > > > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms back > > then. > > > > (LAUGHTER) > > > > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. > > There is not a topic that exists where you won't find references if you > google for it. Finding references does not mean that Watergate had long > term traumatizing effects Ah, so "I call you out for references" doesn't mean that then? References and quotes are provided, so you simply slide off and change the thread. How clever. William Clark         Date: 10 Jan 2007 07:45:48 From: David Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-561EBE.16180309012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <45a3b8a7$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... >> > David wrote: >> >> I have not seen any reference to >> >> Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death >> > >> > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford >> > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, we >> > had: >> > >> > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using >> > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. >> > >> > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how >> > news leaks grow rapidly. >> > >> > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." >> > >> > ------ >> > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 hits >> > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html >> > ------ >> > >> > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed >> > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They >> > don't look forward. >> > >> > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years by >> > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will vote >> > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the courts >> > or the legal system to throw us out of office. >> > >> > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms back >> > then. >> > >> > (LAUGHTER) >> > >> > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. >> >> There is not a topic that exists where you won't find references if you >> google for it. Finding references does not mean that Watergate had long >> term traumatizing effects > > Ah, so "I call you out for references" doesn't mean that then? > References and quotes are provided, so you simply slide off and change > the thread. > > How clever. You made a statement about 'right wing commentators" and then a friend of yours googled and found a few general references to Watergate - I never said that no one made a reference to Watergate in 15 years - that would be silly. I asked you for specific references about the following statement that you made which you still haven't provided " Commentators from the right are still invoking it as a justification for the death of bipartisanship and the decline in public ethics," > > William Clark           Date: 09 Jan 2007 19:52:29 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <45a40d0e$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au >, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-561EBE.16180309012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <45a3b8a7$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > > "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > >> "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... > >> > David wrote: > >> >> I have not seen any reference to > >> >> Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death > >> > > >> > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford > >> > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, we > >> > had: > >> > > >> > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using > >> > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. > >> > > >> > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how > >> > news leaks grow rapidly. > >> > > >> > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." > >> > > >> > ------ > >> > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 hits > >> > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... > >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html > >> > ------ > >> > > >> > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed > >> > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They > >> > don't look forward. > >> > > >> > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years by > >> > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will vote > >> > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the courts > >> > or the legal system to throw us out of office. > >> > > >> > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms back > >> > then. > >> > > >> > (LAUGHTER) > >> > > >> > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. > >> > >> There is not a topic that exists where you won't find references if you > >> google for it. Finding references does not mean that Watergate had long > >> term traumatizing effects > > > > Ah, so "I call you out for references" doesn't mean that then? > > References and quotes are provided, so you simply slide off and change > > the thread. > > > > How clever. > > You made a statement about 'right wing commentators" and then a friend of > yours googled and found a few general references to Watergate - I never said > that no one made a reference to Watergate in 15 years - that would be silly. > I asked you for specific references about the following statement that you > made which you still haven't provided > " Commentators from the right are still invoking it as > a justification for the death of bipartisanship and the decline in > public ethics," Read the quotes more carefully (or at all), and then just watch these same individuals every day and see how often this topic reappears. You could manage that much, couldn't you? But then, this is shifting the ground again. I think the real issue is a challenge to you to back up your initial assertion that Watergate was inconsequential with something beyond mere hot air. I haven't seen anything yet. Go on, I dare you. William Clark             Date: 10 Jan 2007 19:32:28 From: David Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-3C0EA0.19522909012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <45a40d0e$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark.31-561EBE.16180309012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <45a3b8a7$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> > "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> > >> >> "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... >> >> > David wrote: >> >> >> I have not seen any reference to >> >> >> Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death >> >> > >> >> > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford >> >> > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, >> >> > we >> >> > had: >> >> > >> >> > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using >> >> > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. >> >> > >> >> > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how >> >> > news leaks grow rapidly. >> >> > >> >> > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." >> >> > >> >> > ------ >> >> > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 >> >> > hits >> >> > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... >> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html >> >> > ------ >> >> > >> >> > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed >> >> > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They >> >> > don't look forward. >> >> > >> >> > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years >> >> > by >> >> > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will >> >> > vote >> >> > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the >> >> > courts >> >> > or the legal system to throw us out of office. >> >> > >> >> > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms >> >> > back >> >> > then. >> >> > >> >> > (LAUGHTER) >> >> > >> >> > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. >> >> >> >> There is not a topic that exists where you won't find references if >> >> you >> >> google for it. Finding references does not mean that Watergate had >> >> long >> >> term traumatizing effects >> > >> > Ah, so "I call you out for references" doesn't mean that then? >> > References and quotes are provided, so you simply slide off and change >> > the thread. >> > >> > How clever. >> >> You made a statement about 'right wing commentators" and then a friend of >> yours googled and found a few general references to Watergate - I never >> said >> that no one made a reference to Watergate in 15 years - that would be >> silly. >> I asked you for specific references about the following statement that >> you >> made which you still haven't provided >> " Commentators from the right are still invoking it as >> a justification for the death of bipartisanship and the decline in >> public ethics," > > > Read the quotes more carefully (or at all), and then just watch these > same individuals every day and see how often this topic reappears. You > could manage that much, couldn't you? > > But then, this is shifting the ground again. I think the real issue is a > challenge to you to back up your initial assertion that Watergate was > inconsequential with something beyond mere hot air. I haven't seen > anything yet. > > Go on, I dare you. OMG!!! Wow!! I can't believe it Bill, I simply cannot for the life of me believe it!! You are RIGHT!!! I tuned into cable Fox and CNN today and it's Watergate everywhere! It's just like 30 years ago - it's on every commentators editorials - you can't read the papers here without Watergate being mentioned - it's EVERYWHERE!!! O'Reilly and Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Coulter - it's all they want to talk about - I am so embarassed!! Bill, I am chagrined! All the commentators from the right are invoking Watergate as justification for the death of bipartisanship - just like you said!! I feel so foolish for doubting you. It's just like you said!!!             Date: 10 Jan 2007 18:28:35 From: David Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-3C0EA0.19522909012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <45a40d0e$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark.31-561EBE.16180309012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article <45a3b8a7$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> > "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> > >> >> "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... >> >> > David wrote: >> >> >> I have not seen any reference to >> >> >> Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death >> >> > >> >> > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford >> >> > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, >> >> > we >> >> > had: >> >> > >> >> > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using >> >> > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. >> >> > >> >> > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how >> >> > news leaks grow rapidly. >> >> > >> >> > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." >> >> > >> >> > ------ >> >> > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 >> >> > hits >> >> > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... >> >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html >> >> > ------ >> >> > >> >> > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed >> >> > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They >> >> > don't look forward. >> >> > >> >> > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years >> >> > by >> >> > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will >> >> > vote >> >> > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the >> >> > courts >> >> > or the legal system to throw us out of office. >> >> > >> >> > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms >> >> > back >> >> > then. >> >> > >> >> > (LAUGHTER) >> >> > >> >> > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. >> >> >> >> There is not a topic that exists where you won't find references if >> >> you >> >> google for it. Finding references does not mean that Watergate had >> >> long >> >> term traumatizing effects >> > >> > Ah, so "I call you out for references" doesn't mean that then? >> > References and quotes are provided, so you simply slide off and change >> > the thread. >> > >> > How clever. >> >> You made a statement about 'right wing commentators" and then a friend of >> yours googled and found a few general references to Watergate - I never >> said >> that no one made a reference to Watergate in 15 years - that would be >> silly. >> I asked you for specific references about the following statement that >> you >> made which you still haven't provided >> " Commentators from the right are still invoking it as >> a justification for the death of bipartisanship and the decline in >> public ethics," > > > Read the quotes more carefully (or at all), and then just watch these > same individuals every day and see how often this topic reappears. You > could manage that much, couldn't you? No Bill, you don't get off that easy - you made a sweeping statement for which I would like particular references - who in particular are these "commentators from the right" and how and when are they still "invoking it as justification . . . etc etc" > > But then, this is shifting the ground again. I think the real issue is a > challenge to you to back up your initial assertion that Watergate was > inconsequential with something beyond mere hot air. I haven't seen > anything yet. Now this is wierd . . . in the past 2 or 3 posts you said you did not know the point of my posts - now mysteriously you state the point clearly and don't seem to need any clarification - did someone clue you or you suddenly grew a brain? Also, to further destroy your credibility you mentioned above "a silly string of invective and obscenities" - as I don't deal in 'silly strings' I would like to see some evidence of the 'silly string' to which you are referring. Go on, I dare you. > > Go on, I dare you. > > William Clark     Date: 09 Jan 2007 09:33:46 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168349237.673986.47610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com >, "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote: > David wrote: > > I have not seen any reference to > > Watergate for 15 years i.e. not until Ford's death > > I decided to have a peek at this one ... a month ago, Gerald Ford > wasn't in the news, but in major papers on Friday, December 8, 2006, we > had: > > - The Chicago Sun-Times discussing Obama's candidacy and using > Watergate to show how a presidency can fall apart. > > - The Christian Science Monitor using Watergate as an example of how > news leaks grow rapidly. > > - A New York Times editorial entitled, "Watergate reform, R.I.P." > > ------ > And on rightwing foxnews.com, AltaVista comes up with nearly 4,000 hits > (3870) for Watergate, including the following... > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172675,00.html > ------ > > LIMBAUGH: The Democratic Party is stuck in the past. Their presumed > glory years are Watergate and Iraq and they can't look forward. They > don't look forward. > > And what they're attempting to do here is relive these glory years by > criminalizing or discrediting conservativism so that nobody will vote > for it. If they can't beat us at the ballot box, we'll get the courts > or the legal system to throw us out of office. > > Watergate, that was a nirvana. Sean, they were having live orgasms back > then. > > (LAUGHTER) > > And on the anniversaries of Watergate, they have live orgasms. Thank you, but I fear even these will be beyond him. William Clark   Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:26:12 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168315546.818542.202330@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty clear...my > > > > bad. > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > > > prohibits secession. > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > allowed. Law evolves.There are plenty of things that weren't illegal in 1789 that are illegal now. Many times, how these things become illegal is someone tries them and those in power say "That's not legal". Those in power then find a way to interpret the law to make them illegal. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 09 Jan 2007 15:56:29 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168341972.183386.284200@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168315546.818542.202330@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker > > > > > > >> <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >In article > > > > > > >> ><1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you > > > > > > >> >> know, > > > > > > >> >> the > > > > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the > > > > > > >> Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other > > > > > > > technical > > > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a > > > > > > >valid > > > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. > > > > > > There > > > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty > > > > > clear...my > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > > > > prohibits secession. > > > > > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > > > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > > > Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is > > allowed. > > Law evolves.There are plenty of things that weren't illegal in 1789 > that are illegal now. Many times, how these things become illegal is > someone tries them and those in power say "That's not legal". Those in > power then find a way to interpret the law to make them illegal. Give an example... -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:23:11 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > >>>> The South had left that Union. > >>> > >>> No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. > >> > >> No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own > >> constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of > >> their people. > > > > They TRIED to leave. > > Stop saying that. They LEFT. They were forced to come back over to the dark > side after being destroyed by war. They declared that they left. They couldn't make it stick. They were only recognized as a sovereign nation by one little German principality. In 1865, they were glad to embrace the Union position that they never really left.     Date: 09 Jan 2007 10:04:27 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > >>> No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. > > >> > > >> No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own > > >> constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of > > >> their people. > > > > > > They TRIED to leave. > > > > Stop saying that. They LEFT. They were forced to come back over to the dark > > side after being destroyed by war. > > They declared that they left. They couldn't make it stick. They > were only recognized as a sovereign nation by one little German > principality. In 1865, they were glad to embrace the Union position ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You suck, Bill. > that they never really left. >   Date: 08 Jan 2007 20:08:16 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168314916.845231.202240@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168314272.468625.166160@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > > In article <1168312940.288221.55230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more > > > > > > > >> > deplorable > > > > > > > >> > Presidents. > > > > > > > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? > > > > > > > >> Did > > > > > > > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a > > > > > > > >> Confederate, > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > >> pull the first lanyard? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> And keep in > > > > > > > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with > > > > > > > >> > them > > > > > > > >> > remaining slaves for life. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the > > > > > > > >> nation in > > > > > > > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out > > > > > > > >> all > > > > > > > >> by > > > > > > > >> itself. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > > > > > > > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you > > > > > > > >> know, > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >There is no such part. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the > > > > > > > Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > > > > BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > > > > argument? > > > > > > > > > > > > > bk > > > > > > > > > > His argument is perfectly valid. The oath quite *deliberately* talks > > > > > about defending the Constitution because *it* -- or rather the > > > > > principles it embodies, are what is important. > > > > > > > > And since the Constitution is the governing document of the > > > > nation...... > > > > > > And it mentions *nothing* about states being prohibited from seceding... > > > > ...or being allowed to secede.... > > Basic common law: that which is not prohibited is allowed. Well, there's always the perpetual union argument, etc. There's the US property argument, etc. The issue was not clearly addressed...it was settled in 1865. It is a shame that so many had to die to settle it. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 08 Jan 2007 20:05:46 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > >> > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > >> > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > >argument? > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty clear...my > > bad. > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > prohibits secession. Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 11 Jan 2007 20:32:51 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > FredK wrote: > > They believed that you can declare your independence, but must be > > prepared for it to be taken as a declaration of war. So yes - Texas > > can try to leave the US for example, but they need to be prepared for > > results other than a friendly handshake. > > > The South should bail out now. Lincoln can't do anything to start another > civil war; and this time the South has nukes. Do you really believe the world would be a better place today if the Confederacy had been successful?       Date: 12 Jan 2007 14:36:13 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> FredK wrote: >>> They believed that you can declare your independence, but must be >>> prepared for it to be taken as a declaration of war. So yes - >>> Texas can try to leave the US for example, but they need to be >>> prepared for results other than a friendly handshake. >> >> >> The South should bail out now. Lincoln can't do anything to start >> another civil war; and this time the South has nukes. > > Do you really believe the world would be a better place today if the > Confederacy had been successful? That's a tough question. I would say yes - just for the fact that people should not be forced to be part of a union they do not want to be in. A lot of rich states pay for the poor ones; and I do not see that as being fair. I live in Georgia; and if Georgia were it's own country it would have the 17th largest economy on the planet. So why should my taxes go to help a failing state that is living on the Federal teet? I am glad slavery is dead - but would it not be dead of there was a North USA and a South USA? I think enlightened people would have eventually woken up and realized slavery was wrong. Just like they did in dozens of other countries over the past 100 years.         Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:57:33 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:36:13 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote: >A >lot of rich states pay for the poor ones; and I do not see that as being >fair. I live in Georgia; and if Georgia were it's own country it would >have the 17th largest economy on the planet. So why should my taxes go to >help a failing state that is living on the Federal teet? A lot of rich counties pay for poor counties. A lot of rich neighborhoods pay for poor neighborhoods.           Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:46:25 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > I'm thinking massive foreign aid was part of the deal. > It would explain why Egypt gets so much aid. It is > certainly not the most needy country in the region by > any stretch of the imagination. Oh yeah, certainly. But there's a big leap from that to the kind of extortion you were describing. > > So, is your position that Camp David did nothing to reduce the > > prospects of war? > > No. I don't remember the US being involved in any of the > Arab-Israeli conflicts (other than as an arms supplier). We'll disagree on that one, then. For example, if Israel were under threat from Egypt right now, I think our situation in Iraq would be even more entangled. P             Date: 16 Jan 2007 17:57:56 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote > > I'm thinking massive foreign aid was part of the deal. > > It would explain why Egypt gets so much aid. It is > > certainly not the most needy country in the region by > > any stretch of the imagination. > > Oh yeah, certainly. But there's a big leap from that to the kind of > extortion you were describing. If it *were* my job to pay bribe money to stop all the killers on the planet from killing, that would sure look like extortion to me. --Tedward           Date: 12 Jan 2007 15:21:00 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Howard Brazee wrote: > A lot of rich counties pay for poor counties. And you better believe I have an issue with that. USA should not give a single penny of American tax dollars to other countries -no matter what the reason.             Date: 12 Jan 2007 16:19:35 From: Joe Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: > >>A lot of rich counties pay for poor counties. > > > And you better believe I have an issue with that. USA should not give a > single penny of American tax dollars to other countries -no matter what the > reason. > > OOPS!!!!! Time for reading lessons. Joe     Date: 11 Jan 2007 13:39:54 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <fT3p8t9eIpaN3l@redshark.goodshow.net>, > <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote: > > > In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> wrote: > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states > > >> > > > > > > > >> insisted on > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just > > >> > > > > > > > there to > > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, > > >> > > > > > > > but not to > > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > >> > > > > > > them....or to > > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be > > >> > > > > > written > > >> > > > > > down to exist. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > >> > > > Britain. > > >> > > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > > >> > > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > >> > > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. > > No. They believed they had a right to secede and when England disagreed > they declared that its lack of respect for that right gave them the > moral authority to rebel. > > It's actually spelled out rather clearly: > > "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people > to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another > and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal > station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," You should've stopped here....but using your argument, this wasn't included in the constitution. > > and > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to > institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to > effect their Safety and Happiness." This kind of argues against your point.....this is as much revolution as secession. > > <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm> > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)       Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:52:00 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, > > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to > > institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and > > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to > > effect their Safety and Happiness." > > This kind of argues against your point.....this is as much > revolution as secession. But it *is* secession. Do you know events can be more than one thing? "That's not a sport -- it's a contest!" --Tedward       Date: 12 Jan 2007 00:47:18 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168551594.791645.320180@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <fT3p8t9eIpaN3l@redshark.goodshow.net>, > > <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote: > > > > > In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> wrote: > > > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > >> > > > > > > > >> states > > > >> > > > > > > > >> insisted on > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are > > > >> > > > > > > > just > > > >> > > > > > > > there to > > > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, > > > >> > > > > > > > but not to > > > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > >> > > > > > > them....or to > > > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have > > > >> > > > > > to be > > > >> > > > > > written > > > >> > > > > > down to exist. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > > >> > > > Britain. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > >> > > > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > > > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. > > > > No. They believed they had a right to secede and when England disagreed > > they declared that its lack of respect for that right gave them the > > moral authority to rebel. > > > > It's actually spelled out rather clearly: > > > > "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people > > to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another > > and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal > > station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," > > You should've stopped here....but using your argument, this wasn't > included in the constitution. Sorry. It seems I must spell everything out for you. You claimed that the founding fathers didn't see secession as a right. This clearly shows that they did. > > > > > and > > > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, > > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to > > institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and > > organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to > > effect their Safety and Happiness." > > This kind of argues against your point.....this is as much > revolution as secession. Nope. It clearly defeats your claim that they saw revolt as a right but not seccession. It makes it clear that secession was what they saw as a right, because it is precisely what they *said*. At the point this document was written, there was no revolt; no rebellion. This made their case that if their rights were not recognized, then they would be justified in using force to secure them. > > > > > <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm> All of which shows that the United States must recognize at is core the right of its people to "alter or abolish" a government they find destructive, for if no such right existed, then the U.S. shouldn't exist at all. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 11 Jan 2007 12:57:26 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? > > > Seriously, if they thought the states had a right to secession, why > > didn't they put it in the Constitution? > > Why did they mention rebellion and not secession? Why did > they pass the Second Amendment? Are you honestly ignorant > of the arguments that overthrowing a tyranical government is > not one of the justifications for the 2nd? Even if I give you this, how was the Fed Govt in 1860 being "tyrannical"? Besides, overthrowing is not seceding. > > > That seems like a pretty big > > omission. Kind of like all men having rights...unless you happened to > > be a slave. Or a woman. Nope, no conditional rights in the > > Constitution. > > You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. You > might want to explain how they thought rights *were* conditional > for white men. So, they thought they were unconditional for landowning white men, but not for everyone else? > > > > > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > > > > > > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > > > > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > > > > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > > > > anarchy. > > > > > > Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate > > > another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional > > > if you *think* about it.) > > > > No, that's conditional......by definition....it is a condition on > > rights. > > No, it isn't. You have no right -- a lack of rights -- > to violate my rights. In exercise my right to self-defense > I do not violate your rights. It's not a condition, it is > self-consistency, something most political arguments lack. Other than where my rights end and your rights begin can be pretty subjective. > > --Tedward       Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:47:21 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > > If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have > those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? > > > > > > Seriously, if they thought the states had a right to secession, why > > > didn't they put it in the Constitution? > > > > Why did they mention rebellion and not secession? Why did > > they pass the Second Amendment? Are you honestly ignorant > > of the arguments that overthrowing a tyranical government is > > not one of the justifications for the 2nd? > > Even if I give you this, how was the Fed Govt in 1860 being > "tyrannical"? Besides, overthrowing is not seceding. > > > > > > That seems like a pretty big > > > omission. Kind of like all men having rights...unless you happened to > > > be a slave. Or a woman. Nope, no conditional rights in the > > > Constitution. > > > > You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. You > > might want to explain how they thought rights *were* conditional > > for white men. > > So, they thought they were unconditional for landowning white men, > but not for everyone else? That was simply the system they had in place at the time. They did have elections while under British rule, you know. We also inherited English Common Law lock, stock, and barrel. As to women and blacks, yes, most men thought them inferior > > > > > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > > > > > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > > > > > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > > > > > anarchy. > > > > > > > > Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate > > > > another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional > > > > if you *think* about it.) > > > > > > No, that's conditional......by definition....it is a condition on > > > rights. > > > > No, it isn't. You have no right -- a lack of rights -- > > to violate my rights. In exercise my right to self-defense > > I do not violate your rights. It's not a condition, it is > > self-consistency, something most political arguments lack. > > Other than where my rights end and your rights begin can be pretty > subjective. I can live with that. When it comes to geography, it is clear enough. --Tedward       Date: 11 Jan 2007 21:21:23 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168549045.831863.147280@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two > > > > > > > > > > > > >> states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are > > > > > > > > > > > > just there to > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already > > > > > > > > > > > > have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > > > > > > > > > > > them....or to > > > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have > > > > > > > > > > to be written > > > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > > > > > > > > Britain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > > > or look like an idiot. > > > > > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? > > > > No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* > > independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe > > in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > > If they believed this, why did they use "perpetual union"? Have > those words changed their meaning in the last couple of centuries? Those words do not appear together in the U.S. Constitution. The word "perpetual" doesn't appear at all. In fact, since they did appear in the Articles of Confederation, but were removed from the Constitution, one can infer that those who wrote the Constitution no longer wanted that meaning to apply. > > > > > > Seriously, if they thought the states had a right to secession, why > > > didn't they put it in the Constitution? > > > > Why did they mention rebellion and not secession? Why did > > they pass the Second Amendment? Are you honestly ignorant > > of the arguments that overthrowing a tyranical government is > > not one of the justifications for the 2nd? > > Even if I give you this, how was the Fed Govt in 1860 being > "tyrannical"? Besides, overthrowing is not seceding. > > > > > > That seems like a pretty big > > > omission. Kind of like all men having rights...unless you happened to > > > be a slave. Or a woman. Nope, no conditional rights in the > > > Constitution. > > > > You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. You > > might want to explain how they thought rights *were* conditional > > for white men. > > So, they thought they were unconditional for landowning white men, > but not for everyone else? > > > > > > > > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > > > > > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > > > > > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > > > > > anarchy. > > > > > > > > Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate > > > > another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional > > > > if you *think* about it.) > > > > > > No, that's conditional......by definition....it is a condition on > > > rights. > > > > No, it isn't. You have no right -- a lack of rights -- > > to violate my rights. In exercise my right to self-defense > > I do not violate your rights. It's not a condition, it is > > self-consistency, something most political arguments lack. > > Other than where my rights end and your rights begin can be pretty > subjective. Which doesn't make such determinations conditional. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 11 Jan 2007 11:16:56 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > or look like an idiot. Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? Seriously, if they thought the states had a right to secession, why didn't they put it in the Constitution? That seems like a pretty big omission. Kind of like all men having rights...unless you happened to be a slave. Or a woman. Nope, no conditional rights in the Constitution. > > > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > > anarchy. > > Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate > another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional > if you *think* about it.) No, that's conditional......by definition....it is a condition on rights. > > --Tedward       Date: 11 Jan 2007 15:05:35 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > > > > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > > > > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > or look like an idiot. > > Do you think they thought that Britain had a right to object? No. "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They *declared* independence, and you continue to argue that they didn't believe in a right to secede. Frickin' amazing. > Seriously, if they thought the states had a right to secession, why > didn't they put it in the Constitution? Why did they mention rebellion and not secession? Why did they pass the Second Amendment? Are you honestly ignorant of the arguments that overthrowing a tyranical government is not one of the justifications for the 2nd? > That seems like a pretty big > omission. Kind of like all men having rights...unless you happened to > be a slave. Or a woman. Nope, no conditional rights in the > Constitution. You won't catch me claiming they didn't make mistakes. You might want to explain how they thought rights *were* conditional for white men. > > > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > > > > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > > > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > > > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > > > anarchy. > > > > Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate > > another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional > > if you *think* about it.) > > No, that's conditional......by definition....it is a condition on > rights. No, it isn't. You have no right -- a lack of rights -- to violate my rights. In exercise my right to self-defense I do not violate your rights. It's not a condition, it is self-consistency, something most political arguments lack. --Tedward     Date: 09 Jan 2007 04:07:20 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168315546.818542.202330@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > >> > > > > > >> >There is no such part. > > > > >> > > > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > > >argument? > > > > > > > > > >> bk > > > > > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There > > > > was obviously no argument with that. > > > > > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty clear...my > > > bad. > > > > Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that > > prohibits secession. > > Quote the part that allows it. This is a circular argument. It is > not directly addressed....that was remedied in 1865. Sorry, but that's not the way it works. If it's not prohibited, it is allowed. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:57:01 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > >> The South had left that Union. > > > > No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. > > No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own > constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of their > people. They TRIED to leave. > > > No secession attempt, no war. Seems to me that it was the south at > > fault. > > Only if secession is illegal. It is most certainly not covered in the US > Constitution. The framers never saw that coming; apparently. I'm pretty sure this question was answered in 1865.     Date: 08 Jan 2007 23:06:46 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> deemsbill@aol.com wrote: >>>> The South had left that Union. >>> >>> No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. >> >> No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own >> constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of >> their people. > > They TRIED to leave. Stop saying that. They LEFT. They were forced to come back over to the dark side after being destroyed by war.       Date: 09 Jan 2007 04:09:43 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > >>>> The South had left that Union. > >>> > >>> No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. > >> > >> No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own > >> constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of > >> their people. > > > > They TRIED to leave. > > Stop saying that. They LEFT. They were forced to come back over to the dark > side after being destroyed by war. If the south had not started the war, they probably would have been OK. If they had just seceeded and challenged the north to attack them, there would probably be at least 2 countries here today. They made it easy for the north by attacking US forces and starting the war. They were so sure they would win the war, which is kinda funny, because they had no reason to be so confident. Bullets beat cotton every time in a war!   Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:55:16 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168314272.468625.166160@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <1168312940.288221.55230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > > > > > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > > > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable > > > > > >> > Presidents. > > > > > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > > > > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, > > > > > >> and > > > > > >> pull the first lanyard? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> And keep in > > > > > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with > > > > > >> > them > > > > > >> > remaining slaves for life. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in > > > > > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all > > > > > >> by > > > > > >> itself. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > > > > > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > > > > > > >There is no such part. > > > > > > > > > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > > BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > > argument? > > > > > > > > > bk > > > > > > His argument is perfectly valid. The oath quite *deliberately* talks > > > about defending the Constitution because *it* -- or rather the > > > principles it embodies, are what is important. > > > > And since the Constitution is the governing document of the > > nation...... > > And it mentions *nothing* about states being prohibited from seceding... ...or being allowed to secede.... > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 09 Jan 2007 04:05:51 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168314916.845231.202240@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168314272.468625.166160@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > > In article <1168312940.288221.55230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > > > > > > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > > > > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more > > > > > > >> > deplorable > > > > > > >> > Presidents. > > > > > > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? > > > > > > >> Did > > > > > > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a > > > > > > >> Confederate, > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> pull the first lanyard? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> And keep in > > > > > > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with > > > > > > >> > them > > > > > > >> > remaining slaves for life. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the > > > > > > >> nation in > > > > > > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out > > > > > > >> all > > > > > > >> by > > > > > > >> itself. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > > > > > > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you > > > > > > >> know, > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >There is no such part. > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the > > > > > > Constitution. > > > > > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > > > BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > > > argument? > > > > > > > > > > > bk > > > > > > > > His argument is perfectly valid. The oath quite *deliberately* talks > > > > about defending the Constitution because *it* -- or rather the > > > > principles it embodies, are what is important. > > > > > > And since the Constitution is the governing document of the > > > nation...... > > > > And it mentions *nothing* about states being prohibited from seceding... > > ...or being allowed to secede.... Basic common law: that which is not prohibited is allowed. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)       Date: 09 Jan 2007 11:36:51 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:05:51 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote: >> > And it mentions *nothing* about states being prohibited from seceding... >> >> ...or being allowed to secede.... > >Basic common law: that which is not prohibited is allowed. Absolutely. If one is charged with a crime the government has to cite exactly what law was broken. Thus, if the Constitution does not explicitly state that states do not have the right to secede, then they do have that right. Even Jefferson affirmed the right of the states to secede: Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'"   Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:44:32 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168312940.288221.55230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > > > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > > >> > > > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable > > > >> > Presidents. > > > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > > >> > > > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > > > >> pull the first lanyard? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> And keep in > > > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with them > > > >> > remaining slaves for life. > > > >> > > > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in > > > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all by > > > >> itself. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > > > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > > >There is no such part. > > > > > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > argument? > > > > > bk > > His argument is perfectly valid. The oath quite *deliberately* talks > about defending the Constitution because *it* -- or rather the > principles it embodies, are what is important. And since the Constitution is the governing document of the nation...... > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:53:50 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168314272.468625.166160@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <1168312940.288221.55230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Bobby Knight wrote: > > > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > > > > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable > > > > >> > Presidents. > > > > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > > > >> > > > > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > > > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, > > > > >> and > > > > >> pull the first lanyard? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> And keep in > > > > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with > > > > >> > them > > > > >> > remaining slaves for life. > > > > >> > > > > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in > > > > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all > > > > >> by > > > > >> itself. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > > > > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, > > > > >> the > > > > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > > > > > >There is no such part. > > > > > > > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > > BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > > argument? > > > > > > > bk > > > > His argument is perfectly valid. The oath quite *deliberately* talks > > about defending the Constitution because *it* -- or rather the > > principles it embodies, are what is important. > > And since the Constitution is the governing document of the > nation...... And it mentions *nothing* about states being prohibited from seceding... -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:43:03 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > >> > > >> >There is no such part. > >> > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > >argument? > > > >> bk > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There > was obviously no argument with that. Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty clear...my bad. > bk     Date: 11 Jan 2007 10:01:20 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be anarchy. > > --Tedward       Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:14:17 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com> wrote > > > > > > I thought it was part of the Camp David peace treaty. > > > > > Basically a bribe -- how Carteresque. > > > > > > > > To re-phrase ... we're mired in a war that appears likely to cost us > > > > roughly a trillion dollars and whose outcome is far from certain; > > > > meanwhile, you're ridiculing the mutually beneficial solution found at > > > > Camp David because it was a bribe. Do you really think paying a bribe > > > > is worse than killing innocent civilians? > > > > > > I think that's a false dichotomy *and* a strawman argument. > > > > > > Perhaps it is, but throwing out labels isn't a counterargument at all. > > Counter argument to what> I don't think paying a bribe > is worse than killing innocent civilians. But the US was > not killing innocents, so it's a pointless question. > > ** Or ** > > It's not my job to pay extortion money to all the killers > on this planet. In no sense did the Camp David accord compel anyone to pay extortion money to all the killers on the planet. And compared to the costs of becoming involved in a war, both human and financial, it was a bargain. P         Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:25:41 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote in > > > > > > I thought it was part of the Camp David peace treaty. > > > > > > Basically a bribe -- how Carteresque. > > > > > > > > > > To re-phrase ... we're mired in a war that appears likely to cost us > > > > > roughly a trillion dollars and whose outcome is far from certain; > > > > > meanwhile, you're ridiculing the mutually beneficial solution found at > > > > > Camp David because it was a bribe. Do you really think paying a bribe > > > > > is worse than killing innocent civilians? > > > > > > > > I think that's a false dichotomy *and* a strawman argument. > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is, but throwing out labels isn't a counterargument at all. > > > > Counter argument to what> I don't think paying a bribe > > is worse than killing innocent civilians. But the US was > > not killing innocents, so it's a pointless question. > > > > ** Or ** > > > > It's not my job to pay extortion money to all the killers > > on this planet. > > In no sense did the Camp David accord compel anyone to pay extortion > money to all the killers on the planet. Carter just agreed to it. > And compared to the costs of > becoming involved in a war, both human and financial, it was a bargain. There you go with the false dichotomy again. --Tedward       Date: 11 Jan 2007 13:57:06 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > > > > > No, the Brits gave in. > > > > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > > I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point or look like an idiot. > > You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. > > I don't believe secession is a right. So, stick that in your > "rsfcking morons". And most rights are conditional....speech, the > press, bearing arms, etc...none are absolute or a society would be > anarchy. Rights aren't conditional. You just don't have a right to violate another's rights except to protect your own. (That is not conditional if you *think* about it.) --Tedward         Date: 11 Jan 2007 14:08:48 From: FredK Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com > wrote in message news:eo61a9$rom$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu... > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > >> >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > or look like an idiot. > Teddy, They believed that you can declare your independence, but must be prepared for it to be taken as a declaration of war. So yes - Texas can try to leave the US for example, but they need to be prepared for results other than a friendly handshake.           Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:44:00 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > In no sense did the Camp David accord compel anyone to pay extortion > > money to all the killers on the planet. > > Carter just agreed to it. Wha ... ? > > And compared to the costs of > > becoming involved in a war, both human and financial, it was a bargain. > > There you go with the false dichotomy again. So, is your position that Camp David did nothing to reduce the prospects of war? P             Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:50:37 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote > > > In no sense did the Camp David accord compel anyone to pay extortion > > > money to all the killers on the planet. > > > > Carter just agreed to it. > > Wha ... ? I'm thinking massive foreign aid was part of the deal. It would explain why Egypt gets so much aid. It is certainly not the most needy country in the region by any stretch of the imagination. > > > And compared to the costs of > > > becoming involved in a war, both human and financial, it was a bargain. > > > > There you go with the false dichotomy again. > > So, is your position that Camp David did nothing to reduce the > prospects of war? No. I don't remember the US being involved in any of the Arab-Israeli conflicts (other than as an arms supplier). --Tedward           Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:56:06 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Charlie Board wrote: > Short version to tide you over: "Because [NAFTA]'s been an > absolute disaster for blue collar workers in both the > US and Mexico (Canada, I dunno) and it was clear > before it was adopted that it would be so". Thanks ... that's a pretty clear statement. :-) If you'd prefer to point me to a reference rather than writing up a whole discussion, I'd appreciate that, too. P             Date: 16 Jan 2007 19:01:14 From: Charlie Board Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst PB wrote: > Charlie Board wrote: > >>Short version to tide you over: "Because [NAFTA]'s been an >>absolute disaster for blue collar workers in both the >>US and Mexico (Canada, I dunno) and it was clear >>before it was adopted that it would be so". > > > Thanks ... that's a pretty clear statement. :-) > > If you'd prefer to point me to a reference rather than writing up a > whole discussion, I'd appreciate that, too. Well it would certainly be quicker. A few good ones to start with for a quick sumy: http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_jobs.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_mexico.pdf http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_ag.pdf http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_democracy.pdf             Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:11:38 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrot > > Short version to tide you over: "Because [NAFTA]'s been an > > absolute disaster for blue collar workers in both the > > US and Mexico (Canada, I dunno) and it was clear > > before it was adopted that it would be so". > > Thanks ... that's a pretty clear statement. :-) > > If you'd prefer to point me to a reference rather than writing up a > whole discussion, I'd appreciate that, too. Google it and read both sides is good advice in general. --Tedward           Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:40:56 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Charlie Board wrote: > Most Indefensible Single Decision: > 5) Clinton signing NAFTA I've enjoyed reading your other comments, so I'm genuinely interested ... what exactly is "indefensible" about NAFTA? P             Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:40:51 From: Charlie Board Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst PB wrote: > Charlie Board wrote: > >>Most Indefensible Single Decision: >> 5) Clinton signing NAFTA > > > I've enjoyed reading your other comments, so I'm genuinely interested > ... what exactly is "indefensible" about NAFTA? I'll get back to you when I've got time to do the question justice. Promise. Short version to tide you over: "Because it's been an absolute disaster for blue collar workers in both the US and Mexico (Canada, I dunno) and it was clear before it was adopted that it would be so".               Date: 20 Jan 2007 23:48:15 From: stephenj Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Charlie Board wrote: > > > PB wrote: > >> Charlie Board wrote: >> >>> Most Indefensible Single Decision: >>> 5) Clinton signing NAFTA >> >> >> >> I've enjoyed reading your other comments, so I'm genuinely interested >> ... what exactly is "indefensible" about NAFTA? > > > I'll get back to you when I've got time to do the question > justice. Promise. > > Short version to tide you over: "Because it's been an > absolute disaster for blue collar workers in both the > US and Mexico (Canada, I dunno) and it was clear > before it was adopted that it would be so". when perot tried to make that argument, al gore tore him a new asshole. it was al's finest moment. -- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the kets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared." - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official             Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:10:34 From: Jefferson N. Glapski Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1168962053.808587.205640@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Charlie Board wrote: >> Most Indefensible Single Decision: >> 5) Clinton signing NAFTA > > I've enjoyed reading your other comments, so I'm genuinely interested > ... what exactly is "indefensible" about NAFTA? It's not really free trade, but managed trade - that is indefensible. But mercantilists like that ass aren't arguing for free trade. -- http://www.ohiostatesucks.org http://www.notredamesucks.org           Date: 11 Jan 2007 19:51:53 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst FredK wrote: > They believed that you can declare your independence, but must be > prepared for it to be taken as a declaration of war. So yes - Texas > can try to leave the US for example, but they need to be prepared for > results other than a friendly handshake. The South should bail out now. Lincoln can't do anything to start another civil war; and this time the South has nukes.           Date: 12 Jan 2007 00:05:40 From: Dave Hazelwood Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:08:48 -0500, "FredK" <fred.nospam@dec.com > wrote: > >"Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com> wrote in message >news:eo61a9$rom$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu... >> <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote >> > >>> >>> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. >> >> And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously >> thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point >> or look like an idiot. >> > >Teddy, > >They believed that you can declare your independence, but must be prepared >for it to be taken as a declaration of war. So yes - Texas can try to >leave the US for example, but they need to be prepared for results other >than a friendly handshake. > I'd say good riddance and they can take Bush with them.         Date: 11 Jan 2007 20:58:58 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com > wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on >> > > > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written >> > > > > > down to exist. >> > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. >> > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. >> > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. >> > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. >> >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > or look like an idiot. The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. -- Aaron           Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:48:43 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net > wrote > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > >> > > > > > > > >> the > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > >> > > > > > down to exist. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > >> > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > >> > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > >> > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > >> > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > or look like an idiot. > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. The goal of the revolt was to secede. Don't be ridiculous. Try reading the Declaration of Indendence. It's patently obvious they were seceding. --Tedward           Date: 11 Jan 2007 21:25:23 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <fT3p8t9eIpaN3l@redshark.goodshow.net >, <aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net > wrote: > In rec.sport.football.college Edward M. Kennedy <doidy@wox.com> wrote: > > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > >> > > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states > >> > > > > > > > >> insisted on > >> > > > > > > > >> the > >> > > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just > >> > > > > > > > there to > >> > > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, > >> > > > > > > > but not to > >> > > > > > > > actually grant them. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about > >> > > > > > > them....or to > >> > > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be > >> > > > > > written > >> > > > > > down to exist. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > >> > > > > >> > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great > >> > > > Britain. > >> > > > >> > > No, the Brits gave in. > >> > > >> > So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land > >> > between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them > >> > give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. > >> > >> I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving you my opinion. > > > > And I'm pointing out the obvious -- the Founding Fathers obviously > > thought they had a right to secede. You can either concede this point > > or look like an idiot. > > The Founding Fathers obviously thought they had a right to revolt, > not a right to secede. They aren't the same thing. No. They believed they had a right to secede and when England disagreed they declared that its lack of respect for that right gave them the moral authority to rebel. It's actually spelled out rather clearly: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," and "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." <http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm > -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:54:34 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168314183.340210.97320@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Bobby Knight wrote: > > On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > >> > > > >> >There is no such part. > > >> > > >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > > > > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > > >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > > >argument? > > > > > >> bk > > > > Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There > > was obviously no argument with that. > > Sorry, I was paraphrasing. I figured the logic was pretty clear...my > bad. Explain how the logic is clear: quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)   Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:26:00 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > > pull the first lanyard? > > > Lincoln planned to attack a foreign country to start the war. Since the Confederacy never legally existed, your argument is flawed. He also > ammassed troops to go to battle with. You need to reread your history....Lincoln didn't mass troops until after Ft Sumter was attacked....you know, that was when the Upper South decided to secede. > > > > No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > The South had left that Union. No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. That did not stop his troops from killing > obscene amounts of soldiers and the general population of non combatants. No secession attempt, no war. Seems to me that it was the south at fault.     Date: 08 Jan 2007 22:28:59 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst deemsbill@aol.com wrote: >> The South had left that Union. > > No, the South had TRIED to leave the Union. No; they actually left. They had a new president and their own constitution. Lincoln overthrew that government and killed many of their people. > No secession attempt, no war. Seems to me that it was the south at > fault. Only if secession is illegal. It is most certainly not covered in the US Constitution. The framers never saw that coming; apparently.   Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:22:20 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > wrote: > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > >> > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable Presidents. > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > >> > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > >> pull the first lanyard? > >> > >> > >> And keep in > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with them > >> > remaining slaves for life. > >> > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all by > >> itself. > >> > >> > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > >> > >> > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > >There is no such part. > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid argument? > bk     Date: 11 Jan 2007 08:39:06 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > <deemsbill@aol.com> wrote > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > down to exist. > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. No, the Brits gave in. The treaty ending the ARW gave us our legal independence. Secession is a two-sided coin. Someone has to want it and someone else has to agree to it. > > --Tedward       Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:45:03 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > > I thought it was part of the Camp David peace treaty. > > > Basically a bribe -- how Carteresque. > > > > To re-phrase ... we're mired in a war that appears likely to cost us > > roughly a trillion dollars and whose outcome is far from certain; > > meanwhile, you're ridiculing the mutually beneficial solution found at > > Camp David because it was a bribe. Do you really think paying a bribe > > is worse than killing innocent civilians? > > I think that's a false dichotomy *and* a strawman argument. Perhaps it is, but throwing out labels isn't a counterargument at all. P         Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:51:27 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote > > > > I thought it was part of the Camp David peace treaty. > > > > Basically a bribe -- how Carteresque. > > > > > > To re-phrase ... we're mired in a war that appears likely to cost us > > > roughly a trillion dollars and whose outcome is far from certain; > > > meanwhile, you're ridiculing the mutually beneficial solution found at > > > Camp David because it was a bribe. Do you really think paying a bribe > > > is worse than killing innocent civilians? > > > > I think that's a false dichotomy *and* a strawman argument. > > > Perhaps it is, but throwing out labels isn't a counterargument at all. Counter argument to what > I don't think paying a bribe is worse than killing innocent civilians. But the US was not killing innocents, so it's a pointless question. ** Or ** It's not my job to pay extortion money to all the killers on this planet. --Tedward       Date: 11 Jan 2007 11:47:08 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst <deemsbill@aol.com > wrote > > > > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > > > > actually grant them. > > > > > > > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > > > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > > > > > > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > > > > down to exist. > > > > > > Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > > > It secession isn't a right we are rightful subjects of Great Britain. > > No, the Brits gave in. So where in the hell do you justify the intermediate legal land between that little fact and the time period where we *made* them give in, or rather lived as illegitimate rebels fit to be hanged. You rsfcking morons. If rights aren't absolute they are nothing. --Tedward     Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:38:42 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168312940.288221.55230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Bobby Knight wrote: > > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > > wrote: > > > > >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > > >> Head Shot wrote: > > >> > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > >> > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > >> > > > >> > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable > > >> > Presidents. > > >> > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > >> > > >> Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > > >> the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > > >> pull the first lanyard? > > >> > > >> > > >> And keep in > > >> > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with them > > >> > remaining slaves for life. > > >> > > >> Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in > > >> order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all by > > >> itself. > > >> > > >> > > >> So it was not a matter of him protecting > > >> > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > >> > > >> > > >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > > >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? > > > > > >There is no such part. > > > > Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical > BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid > argument? > > > bk His argument is perfectly valid. The oath quite *deliberately* talks about defending the Constitution because *it* -- or rather the principles it embodies, are what is important. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)     Date: 08 Jan 2007 21:31:14 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 8 Jan 2007 19:22:20 -0800, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > >Bobby Knight wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: >> >> No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the >> >> part about preserving and protecting the nation? >> > >> >There is no such part. >> >> Correct. He swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. > > Which is the governing document of the nation. Any other technical >BS you want to bring up? Does that help when you don't have a valid >argument? > >> bk Sorry. I was just pointing out that you didn't know the oath. There was obviously no argument with that. bk   Date: 08 Jan 2007 18:00:34 From: Dene Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst frankross wrote: > I'm not new here...away for a while and back with a new handle, so I > know his story (TITPB). Boy, you must have really nailed him good in > the past too. He tries hard to come up with a putdown for every post of > yours...and misses. > frank ross So why the new handle, brave guy? -Greg   Date: 08 Jan 2007 17:12:23 From: Dene Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > > There are hard hats that are more intelligent than some professors, > and some studio musicians. The fact that Dene overlooks is that he > isn't st enough to conceive that. You're pissing in the wind with > this...he's even dubbed himself the pariah of RSG...for obvious > reasons. The fact that you cannot debate ideas without insults says alot about your intelligence...and maturity. But continue to toot yer horn, Bobby. It's all you were. -Greg   Date: 08 Jan 2007 16:23:54 From: Dene Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst frankross wrote: > Dene wrote: > > frankross wrote: > >> Hmmm. The intelligence of the professor, or you, is not as apparent as > >> the studio musician. Speaking of tired, do you just sit around to snipe? > >> fr > > > > And you are who?????? > > > > -Greg > > > > Well, I'm no dene, whatever that is. > frank ross...that should give you a clue. It does. The clue says you are nobody whom I should pay any attention to. -Greg   Date: 08 Jan 2007 16:04:51 From: Dene Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst frankross wrote: > > > Hmmm. The intelligence of the professor, or you, is not as apparent as > the studio musician. Speaking of tired, do you just sit around to snipe? > fr And you are who?????? -Greg     Date: 08 Jan 2007 18:14:53 From: frankross Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Dene wrote: > frankross wrote: >> Hmmm. The intelligence of the professor, or you, is not as apparent as >> the studio musician. Speaking of tired, do you just sit around to snipe? >> fr > > And you are who?????? > > -Greg > Well, I'm no dene, whatever that is. frank ross...that should give you a clue.   Date: 08 Jan 2007 14:40:15 From: Dene Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. > > Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have > no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. > > If you think Watergate was minor you're just flat-assed stupid. > Period. Both empirical and systematic evidence is overwhelming. He > committed, and abetted, criminal acts WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED > STATES. What more would one need to realize that he's thebottom of > the sewer? > > Now I suppose you'll respond with some more claptrap about JFK, who > seems to be the only President with whom you have a problem, and all > he may have done is get laid. > -- Ain't this special. Rob offers a view without any insults. The older Bobby, showing his real maturity, counters with tired insults about Rob's intelligence. What's funny is the irony....a studio musician questioning the intelligence of a Biology professor. -Greg     Date: 08 Jan 2007 17:44:51 From: frankross Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Dene wrote: > Bobby Knight wrote: > >> Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. >> >> Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have >> no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. >> >> If you think Watergate was minor you're just flat-assed stupid. >> Period. Both empirical and systematic evidence is overwhelming. He >> committed, and abetted, criminal acts WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED >> STATES. What more would one need to realize that he's thebottom of >> the sewer? >> >> Now I suppose you'll respond with some more claptrap about JFK, who >> seems to be the only President with whom you have a problem, and all >> he may have done is get laid. >> -- > > Ain't this special. Rob offers a view without any insults. The older > Bobby, showing his real maturity, counters with tired insults about > Rob's intelligence. What's funny is the irony....a studio musician > questioning the intelligence of a Biology professor. > > -Greg > Hmmm. The intelligence of the professor, or you, is not as apparent as the studio musician. Speaking of tired, do you just sit around to snipe? fr       Date: 09 Jan 2007 00:45:24 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:44:51 -0600, frankross <fross@net.net > wrote: >Dene wrote: >> Bobby Knight wrote: >> >>> Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. >>> >>> Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have >>> no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. >>> >>> If you think Watergate was minor you're just flat-assed stupid. >>> Period. Both empirical and systematic evidence is overwhelming. He >>> committed, and abetted, criminal acts WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED >>> STATES. What more would one need to realize that he's thebottom of >>> the sewer? >>> >>> Now I suppose you'll respond with some more claptrap about JFK, who >>> seems to be the only President with whom you have a problem, and all >>> he may have done is get laid. >>> -- >> >> Ain't this special. Rob offers a view without any insults. The older >> Bobby, showing his real maturity, counters with tired insults about >> Rob's intelligence. What's funny is the irony....a studio musician >> questioning the intelligence of a Biology professor. >> >> -Greg >> >Hmmm. The intelligence of the professor, or you, is not as apparent as >the studio musician. Speaking of tired, do you just sit around to snipe? >fr There are hard hats that are more intelligent than some professors, and some studio musicians. The fact that Dene overlooks is that he isn't st enough to conceive that. You're pissing in the wind with this...he's even dubbed himself the pariah of RSG...for obvious reasons. ___, \o         Date: 08 Jan 2007 19:30:30 From: frankross Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:44:51 -0600, frankross <fross@net.net> wrote: >>> -Greg >>> >> Hmmm. The intelligence of the professor, or you, is not as apparent as >> the studio musician. Speaking of tired, do you just sit around to snipe? >> fr > > There are hard hats that are more intelligent than some professors, > and some studio musicians. The fact that Dene overlooks is that he > isn't st enough to conceive that. You're pissing in the wind with > this...he's even dubbed himself the pariah of RSG...for obvious > reasons. > ___, > \o >   Date: 08 Jan 2007 14:08:02 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:23:21 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > >Nixon was not a criminal - he conducted some minor criminal activity with > >watergate. This does not make him a criminal. > >I drove a truck last weekend. This does not make me a truck driver. > >You can't assess his term as president based on the Watergate incident. His > >presidency needs to be assessed on foreign policy, the economy, social > >progress etc. In those terms he was one of the better presidents. Watergate > >was an isolated incident > > > This had to have been written by someone either very naive, or > mentally challenged. > > Nixon was, in no terms, one of the better presidents, and Watergate > cemented his place in history as the most unethical and despicable > president to ever to occupy the oval office. > bk Funny how people want to pick up on minor little issues like Watergate and label someone as the most despicable ever, and miss the real biggies. In WWII, the US firebomed Tokyo (that's Napalmed the city) which was pretty much made of wood. They then nukes civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nakasaki. Of course we won, so our side writes the history, for now, but no matter how you look at it that US policy from the FDR/Truman administrations is a lot more despicable than anything Nixon did. There was no tactical reason to firebomb Tokyo; it was done purely for the terror effect. Same for the nukings. Of course the idea of making nukes priily terror weapons, rather than tactical weapons, also came from the FDR/Truman administrations. I wonder how different history would ahve been if they had not developed the concept of building ICBMs loading them with very "dirty" weapons and aiming them at cities, but rather focussed on the tactial uses, like neutron bombs (which have much less fallout as compared to other sorts of nukes)? In any event, when a few generations have passed, and history is not so much what Caucasians think, I suspect the end of WWII, and US actions at that time will be looked at as quite despicable...why not nuke Okinawa, for example...would have saved a lot of US lives, even if they had to put it off for a bit...would have saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. Why did they put all the people of Japanese descent into concentration camps but not all the people of German descent? Did the Japanese ever launch not tactical terror attacks on cities like the Allied forces did in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nakasaki (of course you could say the Germans did, which requires an admission that it is to them that we were comparable). The nasty irony of this is that sooner of later someone is going to nuke one of our cities for exactly the same reason we did; to get one of our govt's to knucle under to their demands. But I suppose Nixon's agents breaking into some hotel room in a keystone cops manner is far more despicable. It's more pathetic than despicable, at least to me.     Date: 08 Jan 2007 16:23:54 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 8 Jan 2007 14:08:02 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > >Bobby Knight wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:23:21 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> >> >Nixon was not a criminal - he conducted some minor criminal activity with >> >watergate. This does not make him a criminal. >> >I drove a truck last weekend. This does not make me a truck driver. >> >You can't assess his term as president based on the Watergate incident. His >> >presidency needs to be assessed on foreign policy, the economy, social >> >progress etc. In those terms he was one of the better presidents. Watergate >> >was an isolated incident >> > >> This had to have been written by someone either very naive, or >> mentally challenged. >> >> Nixon was, in no terms, one of the better presidents, and Watergate >> cemented his place in history as the most unethical and despicable >> president to ever to occupy the oval office. >> bk > >Funny how people want to pick up on minor little issues like Watergate >and label someone as the most despicable ever, and miss the real >biggies. <clip > Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. If you think Watergate was minor you're just flat-assed stupid. Period. Both empirical and systematic evidence is overwhelming. He committed, and abetted, criminal acts WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. What more would one need to realize that he's thebottom of the sewer? Now I suppose you'll respond with some more claptrap about JFK, who seems to be the only President with whom you have a problem, and all he may have done is get laid. -- ___, \o       Date: 09 Jan 2007 01:38:48 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On 8 Jan 2007 14:08:02 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:23:21 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Nixon was not a criminal - he conducted some minor criminal activity with > >> >watergate. This does not make him a criminal. > >> >I drove a truck last weekend. This does not make me a truck driver. > >> >You can't assess his term as president based on the Watergate incident. His > >> >presidency needs to be assessed on foreign policy, the economy, social > >> >progress etc. In those terms he was one of the better presidents. Watergate > >> >was an isolated incident > >> > > >> This had to have been written by someone either very naive, or > >> mentally challenged. > >> > >> Nixon was, in no terms, one of the better presidents, and Watergate > >> cemented his place in history as the most unethical and despicable > >> president to ever to occupy the oval office. > >> bk > > > >Funny how people want to pick up on minor little issues like Watergate > >and label someone as the most despicable ever, and miss the real > >biggies. > <clip> > > Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. > > Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have > no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. I see, so in war anything goes. > > > If you think Watergate was minor you're just flat-assed stupid. > Period. Both empirical and systematic evidence is overwhelming. He > committed, and abetted, criminal acts WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED > STATES. What more would one need to realize that he's thebottom of > the sewer? Alleged criminal acts. I guess that doesn't apply to Nixon (not one of my favorites, BTW). Funny how it does apply to people like Cunningham and Clinton though, which is OK by me, but it also applies to Nxon as well as Ed Kennedy. If you don't think it was a goofy keystone cops sorta thing you really do see these things differently than I do. Of course I *KNOW* the politics doesn't mean anything. Looks to me like all you look at are the politics. > > > Now I suppose you'll respond with some more claptrap about JFK, who > seems to be the only President with whom you have a problem, and all > he may have done is get laid. > Good point. However people usualy expect such leaders to do a little more than that!         Date: 08 Jan 2007 20:03:51 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:38:48 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > >> On 8 Jan 2007 14:08:02 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >Bobby Knight wrote: >> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:23:21 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Nixon was not a criminal - he conducted some minor criminal activity with >> >> >watergate. This does not make him a criminal. >> >> >I drove a truck last weekend. This does not make me a truck driver. >> >> >You can't assess his term as president based on the Watergate incident. His >> >> >presidency needs to be assessed on foreign policy, the economy, social >> >> >progress etc. In those terms he was one of the better presidents. Watergate >> >> >was an isolated incident >> >> > >> >> This had to have been written by someone either very naive, or >> >> mentally challenged. >> >> >> >> Nixon was, in no terms, one of the better presidents, and Watergate >> >> cemented his place in history as the most unethical and despicable >> >> president to ever to occupy the oval office. >> >> bk >> > >> >Funny how people want to pick up on minor little issues like Watergate >> >and label someone as the most despicable ever, and miss the real >> >biggies. >> <clip> >> >> Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. >> >> Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have >> no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. > >I see, so in war anything goes. "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war". John Lyly's 'Euphues' >> >> >> If you think Watergate was minor you're just flat-assed stupid. >> Period. Both empirical and systematic evidence is overwhelming. He >> committed, and abetted, criminal acts WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED >> STATES. What more would one need to realize that he's thebottom of >> the sewer? > >Alleged criminal acts. Alleged? You have to be kidding. He was caught red-handed by his own voice on his secret tapes. Aiding and abetting a criminal act is a criminal act itself...and hiding such facts certainly fall in that area. > I guess that doesn't apply to Nixon (not one of myfavorites, BTW). Funny how it does apply to people like Cunningham and Clinton >though, which is OK by me, but it also applies to Nxon as well as Ed Kennedy. If you don't think it was a goofy keystone cops sorta thing you really do see these >things differently than I do. If you mean the Watergate break in, yes. What a messed up burgle. If you're talking about Nixon...no. He was dead serious, and lied over and over about his knowledge...not to mention his involvement. >Of course I *KNOW* the politics doesn't mean anything. Looks to me like all you look at are the politics. > We're discussing Nixon. He was a politician, and nothing else. Want to point out his humanitarian side? >> >> Now I suppose you'll respond with some more claptrap about JFK, who >> seems to be the only President with whom you have a problem, and all >> he may have done is get laid. >> > >Good point. However people usualy expect such leaders to do a little more than >that! All of them have. Now THAT's minor. -- ___, \o           Date: 09 Jan 2007 04:01:15 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:38:48 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > >> On 8 Jan 2007 14:08:02 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >Bobby Knight wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:23:21 +1000, "David" <forgotwhy@yahoo.com.au> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Nixon was not a criminal - he conducted some minor criminal activity with > >> >> >watergate. This does not make him a criminal. > >> >> >I drove a truck last weekend. This does not make me a truck driver. > >> >> >You can't assess his term as president based on the Watergate incident. His > >> >> >presidency needs to be assessed on foreign policy, the economy, social > >> >> >progress etc. In those terms he was one of the better presidents. Watergate > >> >> >was an isolated incident > >> >> > > >> >> This had to have been written by someone either very naive, or > >> >> mentally challenged. > >> >> > >> >> Nixon was, in no terms, one of the better presidents, and Watergate > >> >> cemented his place in history as the most unethical and despicable > >> >> president to ever to occupy the oval office. > >> >> bk > >> > > >> >Funny how people want to pick up on minor little issues like Watergate > >> >and label someone as the most despicable ever, and miss the real > >> >biggies. > >> <clip> > >> > >> Not funny that, as usual , you're full of crap Rob. > >> > >> Truman was at war. Since you weren't even alive at the time you have > >> no idea what fears there were of that war continuing. > > > >I see, so in war anything goes. > > "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war". John Lyly's > 'Euphues' Then why all the huffing and puffing about 9/11? Al Queda declared war on the US during the Clinton administration. I guess they missed it...and it wasn't in any reports when Bush took over! Maybe they didn't take them seriously. After all, all they did was blow up a couple of embassies and a warship...no big deal when they got "big things" like ex Yugoslavia (which was no threat to the US in any sense) on the table! . > > > > >Alleged criminal acts. > Alleged? You have to be kidding. He was caught red-handed by his own > voice on his secret tapes. Aiding and abetting a criminal act is a > criminal act itself...and hiding such facts certainly fall in that > > > If you mean the Watergate break in, yes. What a messed up burgle. If > you're talking about Nixon...no. He was dead serious, and lied over > and over about his knowledge...not to mention his involvement. > “Someone likes every shot” At best, the cover up. But even then, you have to get the tapes into evidence, which could have been very dicey. In any event it had no real effect on anything other than Nixon was replaced with Ford. Of course to record those conversations! Doh!!! Even Yosemite Sam knows better than that! When political acts are the criteria that make people despicable, I gotta wonder.             Date: 09 Jan 2007 04:12:54 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:01:15 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: >> "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war". John Lyly's >> 'Euphues' > >Then why all the huffing and puffing about 9/11? Al Queda declared war on the US during the Clinton administration. I guess they missed it...and it wasn't in any >reports when Bush took over! Maybe they didn't take them seriously. After all, all they did was blow up a couple of embassies and a warship...no big deal when they got >"big things" like ex Yugoslavia (which was no threat to the US in any sense) on the table! . > You're really something. Al Queda isn't a recognized country...and a declaration of war? This is a stretch....even for you. >> > >> >Alleged criminal acts. >> Alleged? You have to be kidding. He was caught red-handed by his own >> voice on his secret tapes. Aiding and abetting a criminal act is a >> criminal act itself...and hiding such facts certainly fall in that >> >> >> If you mean the Watergate break in, yes. What a messed up burgle. If >> you're talking about Nixon...no. He was dead serious, and lied over >> and over about his knowledge...not to mention his involvement. >> “Someone likes every shot” > >At best, the cover up. But even then, you have to get the tapes into evidence, which could have been very dicey. In any event it had no real effect on anything other >than Nixon was replaced with Ford. Of course to record those conversations! Doh!!! Even Yosemite Sam knows better than that! Well, Nixon didn't know better, and it bit him in the ass...making it evident that he was what he said he wasn't; a crook. Incidentaly, the tapes were to be in evidence according to the Supreme Court. The effect, without a pardon, was a conviction. > >When political acts are the criteria that make people despicable, I gotta wonder. > Political acts are not the only things that make people despicable, but they certainly are up there with the others. This, I want to add, is not directed toward you Rob. You're just a little naive, but certainly not despicable. ___, \o               Date: 09 Jan 2007 14:09:18 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:01:15 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > >> "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war". John Lyly's > >> 'Euphues' > > > >Then why all the huffing and puffing about 9/11? Al Queda declared war on the US during the Clinton administration. I guess they missed it...and it wasn't in any > >reports when Bush took over! Maybe they didn't take them seriously. After all, all they did was blow up a couple of embassies and a warship...no big deal when they got > >"big things" like ex Yugoslavia (which was no threat to the US in any sense) on the table! . > > > You're really something. Al Queda isn't a recognized country...and a > declaration of war? This is a stretch....even for you. What an Ostrich? They aren't a country, so why bother? > > Political acts are not the only things that make people despicable, > but they certainly are up there with the others. This, I want to > add, is not directed toward you Rob. You're just a little naive, but > certainly not despicable. > I can honestly say the same to you. Nothing is more silly in my eye that political partisanship. It's US policy in Iraq, for example. Republican/Democrat doesn't mean anything. If this is yet another US boodoggle like Vietnam and Mogadishu, for example, no one is going to want to align themselves with the US. It doesn't make any difference in even the medium term who is the US president or who controls the US congress, it's just another US failure. To want the policy to fail to give one faction betyter talking points in some semi meaningless debate is like shooting yourself. The politics of the Iraq War don't really mean anything. The only thing that will make a difference is the perception of US success/failure.                 Date: 09 Jan 2007 15:16:23 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:09:18 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:01:15 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war". John Lyly's >> >> 'Euphues' >> > >> >Then why all the huffing and puffing about 9/11? Al Queda declared war on the US during the Clinton administration. I guess they missed it...and it wasn't in any >> >reports when Bush took over! Maybe they didn't take them seriously. After all, all they did was blow up a couple of embassies and a warship...no big deal when they got >> >"big things" like ex Yugoslavia (which was no threat to the US in any sense) on the table! . >> > >> You're really something. Al Queda isn't a recognized country...and a >> declaration of war? This is a stretch....even for you. > >What an Ostrich? They aren't a country, so why bother? > As I said, that's a mighty stretch to say that we're at war with Al Queda. Sure, that phrase is used out of context...we're at war with drugs, and cancer, too. When our Congress actually declares a military war...we're really at war, and not until then. ___, \o                   Date: 09 Jan 2007 23:08:04 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:09:18 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:01:15 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war". John Lyly's > >> >> 'Euphues' > >> > > >> >Then why all the huffing and puffing about 9/11? Al Queda declared war on the US during the Clinton administration. I guess they missed it...and it wasn't in any > >> >reports when Bush took over! Maybe they didn't take them seriously. After all, all they did was blow up a couple of embassies and a warship...no big deal when they got > >> >"big things" like ex Yugoslavia (which was no threat to the US in any sense) on the table! . > >> > > >> You're really something. Al Queda isn't a recognized country...and a > >> declaration of war? This is a stretch....even for you. > > > >What an Ostrich? They aren't a country, so why bother? > > > As I said, that's a mighty stretch to say that we're at war with Al > Queda. Sure, that phrase is used out of context...we're at war with > drugs, and cancer, too. When our Congress actually declares a > military war...we're really at war, and not until then. That is totally absurd. What drug has flown jetliners into skyscrapers; blown up warships and embassies? Al Queda has attacked the United States. So what? Just stick your head in the sand and say "we aren't at war" because Congress doesn't say so? If they nuke DFW, we still aren't at war? You have to know that sooner or later (probably sooner with your style of foreign policy) they will nuke a major western city.                     Date: 09 Jan 2007 17:22:13 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:08:04 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: > > >Bobby Knight wrote: >> As I said, that's a mighty stretch to say that we're at war with Al >> Queda. Sure, that phrase is used out of context...we're at war with >> drugs, and cancer, too. When our Congress actually declares a >> military war...we're really at war, and not until then. > >That is totally absurd. > No. Totally absurd is using semantics to an extreme. We are not legally at war. Period. You're using the second definition, which is NOT the same as that which Truman's decision to nuke Japan entailed. If you'll recall, that was the original premise. Main Entry: 1war Pronunciation: 'wor Function: noun Usage: often attributive 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war > <a war against disease> >What drug has flown jetliners into skyscrapers; blown up warships and embassies? Al Queda has attacked the United States. So what? Just stick your head in the sand and say "we >aren't at war" because Congress doesn't say so? Of course. Semantics again. > >If they nuke DFW, we still aren't at war? You have to know that sooner or later (probably sooner with your style of foreign policy) they will nuke a major western city. > Who is they? Hard to declare war against ghosts. -- ___, \o                       Date: 10 Jan 2007 03:05:59 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Bobby Knight wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:08:04 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >Bobby Knight wrote: > > >> As I said, that's a mighty stretch to say that we're at war with Al > >> Queda. Sure, that phrase is used out of context...we're at war with > >> drugs, and cancer, too. When our Congress actually declares a > >> military war...we're really at war, and not until then. > > > >That is totally absurd. > > > No. Totally absurd is using semantics to an extreme. We are not > legally at war. Period. You're using the second definition, which is > NOT the same as that which Truman's decision to nuke Japan entailed. > If you'll recall, that was the original premise. > > Main Entry: 1war > Pronunciation: 'wor > Function: noun > Usage: often attributive > > 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict > between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : > STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : > weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and > equipped for war > 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or > competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class > war> <a war against disease> Still absurd. Lots of wars have involved conflicts are not between entities called states or nations; like a civil war. You are the one making a semantic arguement. I'm talking about reality; you don't see me providing a dictionary like quote > > > >What drug has flown jetliners into skyscrapers; blown up warships and embassies? Al Queda has attacked the United States. So what? Just stick your head in the sand and say "we > >aren't at war" because Congress doesn't say so? > > Of course. Semantics again. No semantics. You are the one claiming a war requires some declaration by Congress. That's pure semantics. > > > > >If they nuke DFW, we still aren't at war? You have to know that sooner or later (probably sooner with your style of foreign policy) they will nuke a major western city. > > > Who is they? Hard to declare war against ghosts. > Gee. Who is looking to nuke US cities; and would if they could? If you don't know you have had your head in the sand far too long. You and Ted Kennedy should get a room. Maybe Teddy can go into northern Pakistan and negotiate with Al Queda. I'm sure they'll listen to reason. There is a good precedent. A Roman emperor went to negotiate with the Parthians once. They boiled him alive. The Romans did nothing in response because they weren't at war with Parthia at the time. So the Parthians took what they wanted. Set a good examples for people like the Huns, Visigoths and Vandals!                         Date: 09 Jan 2007 21:27:49 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:05:59 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: >> 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict >> between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : >> STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : >> weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and >> equipped for war >> 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or >> competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class >> war> <a war against disease> > >Still absurd. Lots of wars have involved conflicts are not between entities called states or nations; like a civil war. You are the one making a semantic arguement. I'm talking >about reality; you don't see me providing a dictionary like quote > That's because you're one of the few that I've ever known who would argue with a dictionary. You're right, the dictionary is wrong! LOL   Date: 08 Jan 2007 13:19:34 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst John B. wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Wayne wrote: > > > By Michael Lind > > > > > > The Washington Post > > > > > > Sunday, December 24, 2006 > > > > > > It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of all > > > time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval Officers > > > whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, Andrew > > > Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > > > > > (SNIP) > > > > > > Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will get > > > his wish - as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history. > > > > > > A Columbia Univ. professor named Eric Foner wrote a piece in the NY > > Times a few weeks ago saying GW Bush is the worst ever. > > > It was in the Wash. Post, actually, and here it is: > > > > What Will History Say? > He's The Worst Ever > > By Eric Foner > Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page B01 > > Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 > historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to > "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who > study the American past. > > Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. > When the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the > Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused > by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew > Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend > basic rights to former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by > contrast, scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt > to build an interracial democracy from the ashes of slavery -- and > Johnson a flat failure. > > More often, however, the rankings display a rekable year-to-year > uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. > Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are > ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, > Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and > Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a > leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's > policies, explains why. > > At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the > eight years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were > simply not up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen > to criticism or to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they > surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to > appeal to retrogressive political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and > racist ideologues). Even after being repudiated in the midterm > elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major > currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush's > presidency certainly brings theirs to mind. > > Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their > years in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling > money and favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate > taxes and supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members > of their administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists > and businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the > Wall Street Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with > business." The Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse > cronyism, corruption and pro-business bias of the Bush administration. > > Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, > Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and > abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he > viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally > spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law. > > Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to > strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the > Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, > access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of > statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to > ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration > has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that > have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. > Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing > judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The > court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate > how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law. > > One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some > historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by > keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the > years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered > priily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing > one-third of its territory for the United States. And this was bad......? > > Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for > misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an > alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Well, it was an incursion into disputed territory. When the US accepted Texas as a state, we kind of inherited their claims. Accepting the > president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it > necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any > limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had > heeded Lincoln's warning. > > Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say > with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in > his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of > leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed > predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the > worst president in U.S. history. He's not great, but doesn't belong anywhere near Buchanan.   Date: 08 Jan 2007 13:15:39 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Wayne wrote: > >> By Michael Lind > >> > >> The Washington Post > >> > >> Sunday, December 24, 2006 > >> > >> It's unfair to claim that George W. Bush is the worst president of > >> all time. He's merely the fifth worst, behind four other Oval > >> Officers whose policies were even more disastrous: James Buchanan, > >> Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and James Madison. > >> > > (SNIP) > > > >>> Like all presidents, George W. Bush wants to be remembered. He will > >>> get > >> his wish - as the fifth-worst president in U.S. history. > > > > > > A Columbia Univ. professor named Eric Foner wrote a piece in the NY > > Times a few weeks ago saying GW Bush is the worst ever. > > > I'm sticking with :Lincoln. Lincoln caused the deaths of way more soldiers > than Bushtard. By this measure, shouldn't FDR and Wilson be on your list? They do have similarities. They both lied and had a > hidden agenda. And these hidden agendas were......? Lincoln was a manic depressive with pans Disease, and > Bushtard is an alcoholic and cocaine user.   Date: 08 Jan 2007 13:09:36 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > "Emperor Wonko the Magnificent" <doug@sorensensdomain.net> wrote > > > > > > A better case might be made for Lincoln > > > > > > > > Dewd, Lincoln didn't divide the country. It was well divided when he > > > > took office. Hell, he had to sneek through yland to get to > > > > Washington after he was elected for fear of assasination. > > > > > > I take it that was before he overthrew the lyand legislature. > > > > Indeed. Most people don't realize that the Mason-Dixon line is the > > northern border of yland. Lincoln pulled some pretty awful shit > > regarding the yland legislature. OTOH, having D.C. surrounded by > > seceded states (yland and Virginny) probably seemed too awful to let > > happen. > > Lincoln didn't want to be known as the President who let the > South secede. End of story. That would be James Buchanan. > > He *was* anti-slavery, but he wasn't going to let that get in > the way of preserving the Union. So, you could say he was doing his duty to preserve the union? > > --Tedward   Date: 08 Jan 2007 13:07:00 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable Presidents. > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and pull the first lanyard? And keep in > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with them > remaining slaves for life. Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all by itself. So it was not a matter of him protecting > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the part about preserving and protecting the nation?     Date: 09 Jan 2007 03:02:54 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <1168290420.716915.17210@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > Head Shot wrote: > > Robert Nicholson wrote: > > > If Bush isn't the worse who then is the most inarticulate? > > > > Worst, not worse; and I think there have been more deplorable Presidents. > > How about Lincoln; who started an illegal war on our land? > > Okay, please enlighten us...how did Lincoln "start" the war? Did > the evil bastard sneak into Charleston, dress up as a Confederate, and > pull the first lanyard? > > > And keep in > > mind he wanted to "grandfather" all slaves - he was fine with them > > remaining slaves for life. > > Lincoln was antislavery, but didn't want to destroy the nation in > order to get rid of it. He wanted to limit it and let it die out all by > itself. > > > So it was not a matter of him protecting > > Americans from slavery - it was about his personal ego. > > > No, it was about being true to his oath of office....you know, the > part about preserving and protecting the nation? There is no such part. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)       Date: 11 Jan 2007 03:43:32 From: Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1168490665.896011.172310@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > Head Shot wrote: > > > deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > > Alan Baker wrote: > > > >> In article <1168406238.038787.26560@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> deemsbill@aol.com wrote: > > > >> They had to consider the question. At least two states insisted on > > > >> the > > > >> right being given to them explicitly. > > > > > > > > And where was this right given explicitly? > > > > > > Where is your right to bear arms? The Ammendments are just there to > > > clearly remind folks about the rights they already have, but not to > > > actually grant them. > > > > They're really more there to remind the govt about them....or to > > help keep the govt from infringing upon them. > > All of which bears out the point that a right doesn't have to be written > down to exist. Which doesn't mean it exists if not written down. > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) > 'Solaris is just a keting rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included > on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)         Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:11:02 From: PB Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > > >> Israel gets $3.6B, Egypt gets $2.4B, Jordan gets $600M, and PNA > > >> gets $200M. Like I said - it about equals out between Israel and > > >> the rest of the Mideast. > > > > > > What's 400 million among friends? :-) > > > > > > I didn't realize Egypt got quite so much. Another legacy > > > for...Carter, was it? > > > > I believe the funds to Egypt were to keep them from attacking Israel again. > > I thought it was part of the Camp David peace treaty. > Basically a bribe -- how Carteresque. To re-phrase ... we're mired in a war that appears likely to cost us roughly a trillion dollars and whose outcome is far from certain; meanwhile, you're ridiculing the mutually beneficial solution found at Camp David because it was a bribe. Do you really think paying a bribe is worse than killing innocent civilians? P           Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:26:36 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "PB" <pb4usenet@yahoo.com > wrote > > > >> Israel gets $3.6B, Egypt gets $2.4B, Jordan gets $600M, and PNA > > > >> gets $200M. Like I said - it about equals out between Israel and > > > >> the rest of the Mideast. > > > > > > > > What's 400 million among friends? :-) > > > > > > > > I didn't realize Egypt got quite so much. Another legacy > > > > for...Carter, was it? > > > > > > I believe the funds to Egypt were to keep them from attacking Israel again. > > > > I thought it was part of the Camp David peace treaty. > > Basically a bribe -- how Carteresque. > > To re-phrase ... we're mired in a war that appears likely to cost us > roughly a trillion dollars and whose outcome is far from certain; > meanwhile, you're ridiculing the mutually beneficial solution found at > Camp David because it was a bribe. Do you really think paying a bribe > is worse than killing innocent civilians? I think that's a false dichotomy *and* a strawman argument. --Tedward         Date: 12 Jan 2007 13:47:03 From: larryrsf Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Jan 12, 11:43 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > He got us into this debacle...he's responsible, and > will bear the blame forever. bk He had no choice. If you (assuming sane and responsible person) had been sitting where he was after 9/11-- knowing what he was told about their actual plan (to kill 50,000 with 10 airplanes--among the dead the entire congress, most of the Pentagon, and the White House, and knowing that Radical Islam was still coming as fast and hard as they could--with Ben Ladin's millions for finance and on the verge of getting oil money from Iraq if they could hook up-- you would also have taken bold action to fulfill the first and foremost duty of the President, 'to protect and defend.' You would have acted on the 17 UN resolutions and sent the troops of our and 25 other countries to Iraq. I know I and every one of my friends would have done exactly what he did-- knowing that another big hit would mean certain impeachment for inaction. Bush knowingly sacrificed his popularity-- history shows that NO president has ever remained popular in a protracted war-- he Invaded Iraq and persists there to protect his country-- and history will treat him kindly for that selfless decision. It is easy to say "get out of Iraq" until you also have the responsibility for the certain aftermath--the certain slaughter of millions and likely the loss of 1/5th of the world's oil to major world forces who hate us and wish us dead. The rendering of the US into a helpless and powerless "paper tiger" as our enemies extrapolate the debacles in Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Kobar Towers, and this. Every two-bit tinhorn despot would calculate that he could defeat the US with persistent terrorism. It would be a good bet that the US Left would do his work for him--again. Larry           Date: From: Subject:           Date: 12 Jan 2007 18:56:33 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst larryrsf wrote: > Bush knowingly sacrificed his popularity-- history shows that NO > president has ever remained popular in a protracted war-- he Invaded > Iraq and persists there to protect his country-- and history will > treat him kindly for that selfless decision. How is being in Iraq protecting us? Did Iraq have WMD's? If they got some WMD's, would they have ICBM's or a Navy to delivery them? If having WMD's is the defining factor; why didn't Bushtard attack North Korea, Iran, and India? > It is easy to say "get out of Iraq" until you also have the > responsibility for the certain aftermath--the certain slaughter of > millions and likely the loss of 1/5th of the world's oil to major > world forces who hate us and wish us dead. The rendering of the US > into a helpless and powerless "paper tiger" as our enemies > extrapolate the debacles in Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Kobar Towers, > and this. Every two-bit tinhorn despot would calculate that he could > defeat the US with persistent terrorism. It would be a good bet that > the US Left would do his work for him--again. We should not invade any country that is not at war with us and has not attacked us. Saddam has no intention of attacking us. Netiehr did the above countries you named; such as Kosovo or Somalia.             Date: 13 Jan 2007 00:50:28 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst In article <JeVph.336$653.174@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote: > larryrsf wrote: > > Bush knowingly sacrificed his popularity-- history shows that NO > > president has ever remained popular in a protracted war-- he Invaded > > Iraq and persists there to protect his country-- and history will > > treat him kindly for that selfless decision. > > How is being in Iraq protecting us? Did Iraq have WMD's? If they got some > WMD's, would they have ICBM's or a Navy to delivery them? If having WMD's > is the defining factor; why didn't Bushtard attack North Korea, Iran, and > India? For some reason, Larry believes that the terrorist forces are so stupid that by attacking Iraq the U.S. will automatically draw all terrorists to that country to defend it; despite the fact that the one thing that would really defend Iraq is showing the U.S. that being there isn't stopping terrorism at home. But no, apparently the terrorists are quite willing to go along with the U.S.'s "plan" as Larry now believes it to be... ...now that he no longer believes it was because of WMDs... ...which he believed when he no longer believed it was because they were involved with al Queda... I wonder what his next claim will be..           Date: 12 Jan 2007 21:59:08 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On 12 Jan 2007 13:47:03 -0800, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > > >On Jan 12, 11:43 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> > > He got us into this debacle...he's responsible, and >> will bear the blame forever. bk > >He had no choice. If you (assuming sane and responsible person) had >been sitting where he was after 9/11-- knowing what he was told about >their actual plan (to kill 50,000 with 10 airplanes--among the dead the >entire congress, most of the Pentagon, and the White House, and knowing >that Radical Islam was still coming as fast and hard as they >could--with Ben Ladin's millions for finance and on the verge of >getting oil money from Iraq if they could hook up-- <clip> "IF THEY COULD HOOK UP"? That's surmising a whole lot. Iraq had had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The "they" you speak of consisted of Saudi Arabians. Want to go to war against Saudi Arabia? Didn't think so. This was just a ploy of Dubya's to attack Iraq for one of many personal reasons. It certainly had nothing to do with 9/11. -- ___, \o         Date: 12 Jan 2007 13:22:36 From: John B. Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: > > A lot of rich counties pay for poor counties. > > And you better believe I have an issue with that. USA should not give a > single penny of American tax dollars to other countries -no matter what the > reason. Including Israel?           Date: 12 Jan 2007 16:29:08 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote > > > A lot of rich counties pay for poor counties. > > > > And you better believe I have an issue with that. USA should not give a > > single penny of American tax dollars to other countries -no matter what the > > reason. > > Including Israel? Especially Israel. If memory serves me, they get more than anyone esle. --Tedward             Date: 18 Jan 2007 20:23:03 From: Joe Ramirez Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > Charlie Board wrote: > > Why would an amendment be necessary when the power to spend > > taxes for the common defense and the general welfare > > is already specifically enumerated? > > There is no reason to believe that giving away money to mideast countries > has provided for the common defense or general welfare of the USA. In fact, > it is just the opposite. Our meddling in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and > Israel cost the lives of thousands of Americans at WTC, the Pentagon, in a > field in PA, and now in Iraq and Afghanestan. You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent. You seem to have a particular gripe about the Middle East, but sending aid there is simply an exercise of congressional discretion. It can't be constitutional to rebuild Europe after WWII (foreign aid that virtually no one would dispute promoted the defense of the USA) yet unconstitutional to send aid to Israel or Egypt. Focus on principles, not particulars. Just because you disagree with a policy doesn't make the policy unconstitutional. There's no need to legalize every debate. Joe Ramirez               Date: 18 Jan 2007 23:29:23 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Joe Ramirez wrote: > You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid > that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving money to any other country. >. You seem to > have a particular gripe about the Middle East, Not really - that's just where most of it is sent. I was livid when they gave tons to Russia when USSR split up too. > but sending aid there > is simply an exercise of congressional discretion. It can't be > constitutional to rebuild Europe after WWII (foreign aid that > virtually no one would dispute promoted the defense of the USA) yet > unconstitutional to send aid to Israel or Egypt. Focus on principles, > not particulars. You are talking about shall. I think that was a loan. > Just because you disagree with a policy doesn't make the policy > unconstitutional. There's no need to legalize every debate. I see things in black and white. I think if it's outside of the scope of the USC; then the money can't be spent. It's up to the States. The bonus of it being that way (which is what I think the Founding Fathers wanted) is that if you disagree with how a State taxes you or spends your taxes; you can go to another State.                 Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:24:01 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:29:23 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote: >> You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid >> that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent > >Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving money to >any other country. And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court agrees with us.                   Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:56:20 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote > >> You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid > >> that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent > > > >Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving money to > >any other country. > > And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court > agrees with us. Appeal to authority. The SCOTUS has reversed itself over a hundred times. --Tedward                     Date: 23 Jan 2007 08:19:49 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:56:20 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com > wrote: >> >Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving money to >> >any other country. >> >> And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court >> agrees with us. > >Appeal to authority. The SCOTUS has reversed itself over a >hundred times. That was a statement, not an appeal: First, I said "And we're saying it says nothing of the kind.". We can read the Constitution. I carry a copy with me every day. Second - Whatever the Supreme Court says currently is the Law of the Land - even when it doesn't agree with us.                       Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:50:55 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote > >> >Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving money to > >> >any other country. > >> > >> And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court > >> agrees with us. > > > >Appeal to authority. The SCOTUS has reversed itself over a > >hundred times. > > That was a statement, not an appeal: BS. You used it to back up your argument. > First, I said "And we're saying it says nothing of the kind.". We > can read the Constitution. I carry a copy with me every day. > > Second - Whatever the Supreme Court says currently is the Law of the > Land - even when it doesn't agree with us. Which doesn't make them right -- appeal to authority. I am well aware they are the final legal arbiter, constitutional Amendments and Conventions aside. Or maybe if they ruled that Pi = 3 you'd get my point. --Tedward                         Date: 23 Jan 2007 10:24:53 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:50:55 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy" <doidy@wox.com > wrote: >> That was a statement, not an appeal: > >BS. You used it to back up your argument. I call your BS and raise. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant. >> First, I said "And we're saying it says nothing of the kind.". We >> can read the Constitution. I carry a copy with me every day. >> >> Second - Whatever the Supreme Court says currently is the Law of the >> Land - even when it doesn't agree with us. > >Which doesn't make them right -- appeal to authority. I am >well aware they are the final legal arbiter, constitutional >Amendments and Conventions aside. > >Or maybe if they ruled that Pi = 3 you'd get my point. I have my disagreements with the Supreme Court already. When I use an argument and the Supreme Court disagrees with me and it is relevant - I mention it disagrees with me. I've done so in the past and will do so in the future.                     Date: 20 Jan 2007 19:09:56 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote > >>>> You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid >>>> that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent >>> >>> Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving >>> money to any other country. >> >> And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court >> agrees with us. > > Appeal to authority. The SCOTUS has reversed itself over a > hundred times. He is incorrect anyway. The SCOTUS has repeatedly given opinion on what the limits of a treaty are. Each time they were asked to give an opinion; they voted to restrict what a treaty was within the confines of that case.                     Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:28:48 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Edward M. Kennedy wrote: > "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote > >>>> You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid >>>> that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent >>> Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving money to >>> any other country. >> And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court >> agrees with us. > > Appeal to authority. The SCOTUS has reversed itself over a > hundred times. The SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what is constitutional ans what is not constitutional, the people are the final authority. The problem is that we, collectively, have come to that realization yet. We could pass a constitutional amendment removing the SCOTUS and it would be perfectly constitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution that says we can't do it.                   Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:22:34 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Howard Brazee wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:29:23 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: > >>> You can't have a constitutional doctrine applicable to foreign aid >>> that depends on precisely where the dollars are sent >> >> Agreed. I am saying the USC clearly excluded congress from giving >> money to any other country. > > And we're saying it says nothing of the kind. And the Supreme Court > agrees with us. No they don't. They were never asked to rule on it. * * yet -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson             Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:33:55 From: Joe Ramirez Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:25:08 -0500, "Head Shot" > > <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote: > > > >> The Supreme Court stated "there can be no doubt that an executive > >> agreement, not being a transaction which is even mentioned in the > >> Constitution, can impair constitutional rights." > > > > Agreed. > > > >> USA money being given to foreign > >> countries impairs your rights. Your taxes are being spent in a way > >> not in keeping with the USC. > > > > Huh? Where does the Constitution define this "right"? > > From the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a > more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide > for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the > blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish > this Constitution for the United States of America." I don't believe that the preamble establishes any enforceable rights, and certainly not any rights regarding the objectsd of federal spending. > Your general welfare and the blessing of liberty are being violated by any > political acts being illegally perpetrated by federal government that is > outside of the US Constitution. The concept of a treaty is not well > defined in the US Constitution; but the Supreme Court has given opinions on > what is acceptable within that portion of the USC; and never once have they > given the opinion that it is legal to send billions of US tax dollars in the > form of gifts to foreign governments. I understand the point you're making, but it is based on an extremely strict view of constitutional interpretation that is, frankly, quite outmoded. We spent much of the 20th century moving beyond the notion that a very precise grant of federal power is necessary to support any particular domestic or foreign policy action by the legislature or executive. Perhaps you wish this evolution in constitutional interpretation had never occurred. Perhaps you can list examples of harmful policies that it would have been great to squelch on constitutional grounds before they had a chance to damage the nation. Be that as it may, I don't think you are going to accomplish much in 2007 by insisting that foreign aid is unconstitutional. The argument smacks too much of income tax-protester style wishful thinking. Joe Ramirez               Date: 18 Jan 2007 14:44:01 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Joe Ramirez wrote: > I don't believe that the preamble establishes any enforceable rights, > and certainly not any rights regarding the objected of federal > spending. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read my posts and share your thoughts with me. IMHO - It is what it is (a famous quote by Bill Belichick) - just a preamble. A hint to what will be covered in the USC, and what the impetus behind writing it was. But it does clearly state the purpose of the USC was to protect the rights of the populous. Is misuse of tax dollars put our general welfare and rights at risk? I think it is; in the broadest sense. But I think we can look at a Preamble, and then the USC and find both the intent of the USC and the defined boundaries of it. We can further look at SCOTUS opinions and further define what those boundaries were supposed to be. And the SCOTUS opinions together with the verbiage in the USC lead me to believe that illegal acts are occurring and that this foreign aid is one of those acts. > I understand the point you're making, but it is based on an extremely > strict view of constitutional interpretation that is, frankly, quite > outmoded. We spent much of the 20th century moving beyond the notion > that a very precise grant of federal power is necessary to support any > particular domestic or foreign policy action by the legislature or > executive. It was not "we" - it was just an ongoing list of constitutional violations perpetrated by a coercive group of scumbags that we call "politicians". The pork barrel spending, illegal kickbacks, and these foreign aid packages most certainly are unconstitutional. At worst you and I voted for some of these folks - but we never had any idea what their hidden agenda or corrupt theft was. > Perhaps you wish this evolution in constitutional > interpretation had never occurred. Well, like any other taxpaying American; I wish that politicians never got corrupt and started coloring outside the lines for fun and profit. I do not call it "constitutional interpretation" - I call it a flagrant act of theft from the taxpayers. >Perhaps you can list examples of > harmful policies that it would have been great to squelch on > constitutional grounds before they had a chance to damage the nation. Right now we are talking about only the present policy of giving Israel cash so she won't nuke the Muslims; and blackmailing the Muslims so they won't attack Israel a fourth time. But that being the case; if the American taxes were properly used; those dollars would have gone to Americans and not Egyptians, Pallies, and Israelis. Perhaps that $15B that gets spent in foreign aid instead puts an end to beaten women being chased from their homes (by putting up more battered woman shelters); or to feed and house the homeless. The list of reasonable social programs that help Americans should be far more compelling than cash to Egypt. At the end of the day; a broke and battered woman cannot put cash in a politician's pocket. But the $3.6B we give Israel can be used to purchase arms from US Contractors; and those Fortune 100's like United Technologies can further kick back cash to Generals. And before you ask if I am making that up; back in the 80's when I worked for United Technologies Corporation, they illegally kicked back tens of millions to some asshole named Paisley; who further split the loot with a handful of generals in return for better contract awards. > Be that as it may, I don't think you are going to accomplish much in > 2007 by insisting that foreign aid is unconstitutional. The argument > smacks too much of income tax-protester style wishful thinking. Americans have neither the collective IQ or the attention span to understand what kind of non-constitutional spending occurs. For example Joe - if you went to the local Walt and ask 100 people if they ever year the Pork Book that is compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste (the largest federal fraud watchdog group, and headed by John McCain); how many people have read the Pork Book? IMHO, most sit in less than affluent quarters watching American Idol. Only a percentage of the population know about these things (or care about them). The average voter barely has the intelligence to absorb the content of the photos on the front page of USA Today. The fact that Americans on average are idiots does not mean that there are not political actions that are unconstitutional. It just means nobody gave a shit and it never found it's way to the SCOTUS.                 Date: 18 Jan 2007 18:12:31 From: Charlie Board Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Head Shot wrote: > Joe Ramirez wrote: > >>I don't believe that the preamble establishes any enforceable rights, >>and certainly not any rights regarding the objected of federal >>spending. > > > Thanks in advance for taking the time to read my posts and share your > thoughts with me. > > > IMHO - It is what it is (a famous quote by Bill Belichick) - just a > preamble. A hint to what will be covered in the USC, and what the impetus > behind writing it was. But it does clearly state the purpose of the USC > was to protect the rights of the populous. Is misuse of tax dollars put > our general welfare and rights at risk? I think it is; in the broadest > sense. But, again, you're *assuming* (as far as I can tell) that foreign aid is a "misuse" of tax dollars. And you're assuming it doesn't promote the general welfare. Which is a mighty silly assumption given the obvious benefits that, say, the shall Plan bestowed on an entire generation of Americans.                   Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:02:10 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst Charlie Board wrote: > But, again, you're *assuming* (as far as I can tell) that foreign > aid is a "misuse" of tax dollars. And you're assuming it > doesn't promote the general welfare. Those are my contentions, yes. > Which is a mighty silly > assumption given the obvious benefits that, say, the shall > Plan bestowed on an entire generation of Americans. Why do you think giving nuclear technology and arms to Israel makes you safer in USA? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                   Date: 18 Jan 2007 18:50:51 From: Edward M. Kennedy Subject: Re: Where will Bush rank? He's only fifth worst "Charlie Board" <charNOTlieORTHISboard@nc.rr.com > wrote > But, again, you're *assuming* (as far as I can tell) that foreign > aid is a "misuse" of tax dollars. And you're assuming it > doesn't promote the general welfare. Promoting general welfare is not sufficient to render something Constitutional. Congress was created in part to do that, but they were given ce