al qaeda suspect captured

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

martydom is what they exhort their followers to fight to the death for but
the headmen always surrender.
52 answers Last reply
More about qaeda suspect captured
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:9YudnWLZZ51C0OTfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
    > martydom is what they exhort their followers to fight to the death for but
    > the headmen always surrender.
    >
    >

    Last time I looked, terrorism wasn't a game. So what's the point of posting
    here? There are plenty of groups around where you'll get a reasonable
    response: I wouldn't expect one here.

    About martyrdom, sure, what you say is true. But here in America, you
    certainly don't see a lot of congress people, nor their offspring, fighting
    in wars.

    It's the same concept. We must defeat the enemy; but why don't you do it,
    while I sit and calculate the outcome.


    Alanb
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce32c7a1cd52d0998a2cd@news-east.giganews.com>,
    Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

    > In article <opOdneGnzOQjxeTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
    > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    >
    > > But here in America, you
    > > certainly don't see a lot of congress people, nor their offspring, fighting
    > > in wars.
    >
    > You sure about that?
    >
    > When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress with
    > sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives and
    > senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military for
    > offsprings of congress.
    >
    > Comparing this to the roughly 300 million Americans, and a total armed
    > service and reserves strength of 2.5 million[2], this means that .8% of
    > Americans as a whole could potentially serve in Iraq.
    >
    > If anything, Congress seems a bit overrepresented in the military.
    >
    > Oh, and six out of seven with sons in the military were Republicans.
    >
    > <g>
    >
    > [1] http://web.naplesnews.com/03/04/naples/d930340a.htm
    >
    > [2] http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-ff04se.html

    Great post, I had no idea about these numbers.

    But your calculations are a little misleading. Congress doesn't have a
    1.3% representation rate. This would only be true if the politicians
    themselves were serving, and they were the only ones you were
    considering in your calculations. However, it's their FAMILY members
    who are serving. This would be a much larger group. Let's assume 2
    children per household (a conservative estimate, yes?) and one
    additional biological parent, and now we're saying that Congressional
    households have a "serving rate" of 7 in 2140, or .327%.

    This number would statistically be a significantly lower proportion in
    the Congressional households than in the general population, based on
    your proposed .8% (z = 2.45).

    Of course, these are just very rough estimates of the total number of
    Americans, total number of military service personnnel, and the number
    of people in the Congressional "family pool."

    Probably the more relevant numbers would be a comparison of
    Congressional family members serving in comparison to other wealthy
    American families. Then I have a sneaking suspicion (but no hard
    numbers) that you are probably right, the Congress is (currently)
    "over-respresented." [Just a guess, based on these numbers]

    I'd have to say, though, that I would have to agree with the original
    poster that rich, white families disproportionately put their children
    into military service. That is to say, it rarely happens.

    Just look at the people who are in government now and their records of
    service in the Vietnam War.

    Bush served in the Air Guard.
    Cheney had multiple deferments.
    Karl Rove was born in 1950 but didn't go to 'Nam.
    Bolton was born in 1948 but didn't go to 'Nam.
    Tom DeLay was born 1947 but didn't go to 'Nam.
    Dennis Hastert was born in 1942 and didn't serve in the Army because of
    "bad knees." He was on his college wrestling team though.
    Trent Lott was born in 1941 and didn't serve. He was healthy enough to
    be a cheerleader though in college.
    Wolfowitz was born in 1943, got his BA in 1965, but didn't serve.
    One final example. Roscoe Bartlett is a Congressman from Maryland. He
    was born on June 3, 1926. He turned 18 by June 4, 1944, but he didn't
    serve in WWII.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce32c7a1cd52d0998a2cd@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <opOdneGnzOQjxeTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
    > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    >
    >> But here in America, you
    >> certainly don't see a lot of congress people, nor their offspring,
    >> fighting
    >> in wars.
    >
    > You sure about that?
    >
    > When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress with
    > sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives and
    > senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military for
    > offsprings of congress.

    Sir, and these soldier representatives were fighting on the front lines?
    I'll bet they weren't, which was my point.

    Alanb
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:9YudnWLZZ51C0OTfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
    > martydom is what they exhort their followers to fight to the death for but
    > the headmen always surrender.

    You can't have a Great Caliphate without any Caliphs can you?

    Martin
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:s5ednSpWC4rCF-TfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
    >
    > have you ever seen this guy post here before? funny how someones
    > first post
    > is telling what the group rules are.
    >
    >
    I didn't know you needed references or your permission to post
    here.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > have you ever seen this guy post here before? funny how someones first post
    > is telling what the group rules are.

    While you, who have been here forever, happily fart a purely political post
    into the group.

    Best regards, Major H.
    tacops@mac.com
    http://www.battlefront.com/
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Major H" <tacops@mac.com> wrote in message
    news:BE9F8F75.81F78%tacops@mac.com...
    > > have you ever seen this guy post here before? funny how someones first
    post
    > > is telling what the group rules are.
    >
    > While you, who have been here forever, happily fart a purely political
    post
    > into the group.
    >
    > Best regards, Major H.
    > tacops@mac.com
    > http://www.battlefront.com/
    >
    >


    hardly a first, for me or a myriad of others.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce3d03952dc69c598a2cf@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <zvSdnY_c9bDjZeTfRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
    > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    >
    >> > When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress with
    >> > sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives and
    >> > senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military for
    >> > offsprings of congress.
    >>
    >> Sir, and these soldier representatives were fighting on the front lines?
    >> I'll bet they weren't, which was my point.
    >
    > Where do you imagine the "front lines" are in a conflict where our very
    > first military casualties occurred at the Pentagon, in the heart of the
    > capital?
    >
    > --

    I think you're stretching things here, because you too have a sneaky
    suspicion that basically the poor and downtrodden fight wars for America.

    The rest have jobs elsewhere (like Bush's in Vietnam), and only pretend they
    are fighting the real war.

    Alanb
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Bob" <none@nonex.com> wrote in message
    news:pKuee.10781$fI.5179@fed1read05...
    >
    > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:s5ednSpWC4rCF-TfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
    > >
    > > have you ever seen this guy post here before? funny how someones
    > > first post
    > > is telling what the group rules are.
    > >
    > >
    > I didn't know you needed references or your permission to post
    > here.
    >

    nobodt said he couldn't post here. where does it say that?
    learn to read.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Alan Bernardo" <ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net> wrote in message
    news:5dOdncQCMsoQ6effRVn-jw@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1ce3d03952dc69c598a2cf@news-east.giganews.com...
    > > In article <zvSdnY_c9bDjZeTfRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
    > > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    > >
    > >> > When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress
    with
    > >> > sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives
    and
    > >> > senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military for
    > >> > offsprings of congress.
    > >>
    > >> Sir, and these soldier representatives were fighting on the front
    lines?
    > >> I'll bet they weren't, which was my point.
    > >
    > > Where do you imagine the "front lines" are in a conflict where our very
    > > first military casualties occurred at the Pentagon, in the heart of the
    > > capital?
    > >
    > > --
    >
    > I think you're stretching things here, because you too have a sneaky
    > suspicion that basically the poor and downtrodden fight wars for America.
    >
    > The rest have jobs elsewhere (like Bush's in Vietnam), and only pretend
    they
    > are fighting the real war.
    >
    > Alanb
    >
    >

    if the thread is off topic and offensive to your sensibilities princess,
    why are you now contributing to it?
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:W_KdnZwjtupp5-ffRVn-2w@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Alan Bernardo" <ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net> wrote in message
    > news:5dOdncQCMsoQ6effRVn-jw@comcast.com...
    >>
    >> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:MPG.1ce3d03952dc69c598a2cf@news-east.giganews.com...
    >> > In article <zvSdnY_c9bDjZeTfRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
    >> > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    >> >
    >> >> > When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress
    > with
    >> >> > sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives
    > and
    >> >> > senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military
    >> >> > for
    >> >> > offsprings of congress.
    >> >>
    >> >> Sir, and these soldier representatives were fighting on the front
    > lines?
    >> >> I'll bet they weren't, which was my point.
    >> >
    >> > Where do you imagine the "front lines" are in a conflict where our very
    >> > first military casualties occurred at the Pentagon, in the heart of the
    >> > capital?
    >> >
    >> > --
    >>
    >> I think you're stretching things here, because you too have a sneaky
    >> suspicion that basically the poor and downtrodden fight wars for America.
    >>
    >> The rest have jobs elsewhere (like Bush's in Vietnam), and only pretend
    > they
    >> are fighting the real war.
    >>
    >> Alanb
    >>
    >>
    >
    > if the thread is off topic and offensive to your sensibilities princess,
    > why are you now contributing to it?
    >
    >

    I'll say this about you-- and it will be my last word to you-- you are a man
    who makes one heck of a good argument.

    Alanb
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in
    news:aqKdnaaxSKExF-TfRVn-jA@comcast.com:

    > i see you've never posted you here before. a google search shows no
    > posts by you st all

    If you ever Google me - just for the record : I'm not the guy who's hobby
    is nude model photography - really.

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns964E4C3473DAeddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.11...
    > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in
    > news:aqKdnaaxSKExF-TfRVn-jA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > i see you've never posted you here before. a google search shows no
    > > posts by you st all
    >
    > If you ever Google me - just for the record : I'm not the guy who's hobby
    > is nude model photography - really.
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx

    i feel your pain,
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Epi schreef:

    > Liar!

    Jealous ? :)

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <5dOdncQCMsoQ6effRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
    ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    >
    > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1ce3d03952dc69c598a2cf@news-east.giganews.com...
    > > In article <zvSdnY_c9bDjZeTfRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
    > > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    > >
    > >> > When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress with
    > >> > sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives and
    > >> > senators, this works out to a 1.3% representation in the military for
    > >> > offsprings of congress.
    > >>
    > >> Sir, and these soldier representatives were fighting on the front lines?
    > >> I'll bet they weren't, which was my point.
    > >
    > > Where do you imagine the "front lines" are in a conflict where our very
    > > first military casualties occurred at the Pentagon, in the heart of the
    > > capital?
    > >
    > > --
    >
    > I think you're stretching things here, because you too have a sneaky
    > suspicion that basically the poor and downtrodden fight wars for America.
    >
    > The rest have jobs elsewhere (like Bush's in Vietnam), and only pretend they
    > are fighting the real war.
    >
    > Alanb

    In the American Civil War you could pay someone to take your place on
    the front lines. I think this kind of thing has lessened greatly with
    time.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
    classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
    their stories on music are on rock groups.
    Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > In the American Civil War you could pay someone to take your place on
    > the front lines. I think this kind of thing has lessened greatly with
    > time.
    >

    This may be the case, but these days you're more than dazed if you think
    that those with money and influence aren't making decisions about who does
    or doesn't take the biggest hit in battle.

    To say that the Pentagon is the front lines, when that was the first time in
    the history of America that American soil had been hit, is absurd. I wonder
    how many people have died at the Pentagon since that first attack on the
    Pentagon, compared to how many Americans have died fighting wars in foreign
    countries?

    I think we all know the answer to that question, and most know (though they
    pretend they don't) that the privileged are oftentimes away from the front
    lines, while those with little influence are doing most of the fighting.

    It has been that way since war was invented, is my guess.

    Alanb
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Xns964E4C3473DAeddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.11>,
    eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
    > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in
    > news:aqKdnaaxSKExF-TfRVn-jA@comcast.com:
    >
    > > i see you've never posted you here before. a google search shows no
    > > posts by you st all
    >
    > If you ever Google me - just for the record : I'm not the guy who's hobby
    > is nude model photography - really.
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx

    Liar!
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
    classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
    their stories on music are on rock groups.
    Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <go6dnZXmi8-WfeffRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
    ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    > > In the American Civil War you could pay someone to take your place on
    > > the front lines. I think this kind of thing has lessened greatly with
    > > time.
    > >
    >
    > This may be the case, but these days you're more than dazed if you think
    > that those with money and influence aren't making decisions about who does
    > or doesn't take the biggest hit in battle.

    It will always exist to some extent (sp?). Would you want to lose your
    child in a war? If you had the power to prevent it, and didn't use it,
    I would think you a very heartless person.
    >
    > To say that the Pentagon is the front lines, when that was the first time in
    > the history of America that American soil had been hit, is absurd. I wonder
    > how many people have died at the Pentagon since that first attack on the
    > Pentagon, compared to how many Americans have died fighting wars in foreign
    > countries?

    Of course, this is true. It wasn't the front lines. The rear was hit.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
    classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
    their stories on music are on rock groups.
    Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Where do you imagine the "front lines" are in a conflict where our very
    > first military casualties occurred at the Pentagon, in the heart of the
    > capital?

    Yes, but somehow I think that between serving at the Pentagon and serving at
    Falluja, as of 2005 the average US soldier would see the former as the less
    dangerous assignment.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <1115359154.870883.184960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
    eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > Epi schreef:
    >
    > > Liar!
    >
    > Jealous ? :)
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx

    I feel I have nothing to be jealous of.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She was my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce4a61463fe98849896b0@news.east.earthlink.net...

    > Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
    > classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
    > their stories on music are on rock groups.
    > Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

    Now you are showing some ignorance, I don't know about the management at
    your local npr station, but here they play celtic music, brazilian afro-pop,
    new age etc. I guess you only hear what you think you hear.

    To be honest this thread is just about as rediculous as any I have read in
    this newsgroup.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce505755911d24598a2d7@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <XwBee.32019$r81.1838@trnddc02>,
    > morglum.necksnapper@verizon.net says...
    >
    > > >> You sure about that?
    > > >>
    > > >> When the Iraq invasion began, there were seven members of Congress with
    > > >> sons in the military.[1] Given that there are 535 representatives and
    > Mentioning it pisses off precisely the right people. You know, the ones
    > who are always seething that their "patriotism" is questioned right
    > after they do something borderline treasonous or seditious.

    At least, there patriotism isn't just symbolic, and a love for the red,
    white, and blue. Instead they see the actual rights and freedoms as
    being important. Sort of summed up nicely in the "flag burning" debate.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <117mr7rd1f2qpdd@corp.supernews.com>, graesser@tca.net
    says...
    >
    > "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1ce4a61463fe98849896b0@news.east.earthlink.net...
    >
    > > Have you ever noticed NPR stations only play
    > > classical and jazz music, yet 9x% percent of
    > > their stories on music are on rock groups.
    > > Hmmm...Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
    >
    > Now you are showing some ignorance, I don't know about the management at
    > your local npr station, but here they play celtic music, brazilian afro-pop,
    > new age etc. I guess you only hear what you think you hear.
    >
    > To be honest this thread is just about as rediculous as any I have read in
    > this newsgroup.

    I hear what's there. They don't play the other things you mentioned
    here. At least, not for the most part. Did you mention rock. I didn't
    think so. Hmmm...Who is it that's ignorant? Those that call others
    ignorant are usually the stupid ones.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce53a95bfa7b26698a2db@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce52acf5043c759896b3@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > Mentioning it pisses off precisely the right people. You know, the ones
    > > > who are always seething that their "patriotism" is questioned right
    > > > after they do something borderline treasonous or seditious.
    > >
    > > At least, there patriotism isn't just symbolic, and a love for the red,
    > > white, and blue. Instead they see the actual rights and freedoms as
    > > being important. Sort of summed up nicely in the "flag burning" debate.
    >
    > Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the only true patriots are those who feel
    > a burning need to trash the symbols of the nation? Can't someone love
    > the actual rights and freedoms *and* be proud of symbols and traditions?
    >
    > Isn't the best kind of patriot the guy who does both?

    The Conservatives don't do both. They're against rights. They think it
    should be majority rules for everything. This is exactly what a right
    isn't. It says no matter what the majority thinks, you have some right.
    That's why they hate judges. Judges interpret rights. I certainly
    think the actual rights are more important than the symbols. The
    Conservatives don't seem to agree.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce543554eb48e9d98a2de@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce53d4774f7df779896b5@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the only true patriots are those who feel
    > > > a burning need to trash the symbols of the nation? Can't someone love
    > > > the actual rights and freedoms *and* be proud of symbols and traditions?
    > > >
    > > > Isn't the best kind of patriot the guy who does both?
    > >
    > > The Conservatives don't do both. They're against rights.
    >
    > They are? Which ones?
    >
    > > They think it
    > > should be majority rules for everything. This is exactly what a right
    > > isn't. It says no matter what the majority thinks, you have some right.
    > > That's why they hate judges. Judges interpret rights.
    >
    > Conservatives are, quite understandably, suspicious of judicial activism
    > [1] because judicial activism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and can
    > be indistinguishable from tyranny[2]. It's one thing to "interpret
    > rights," and quite another to legislate from the bench, and the latter
    > is increasingly prevalent - particularly in cases where the issue in
    > question hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law by the
    > legislative process or referendum.
    >
    > [This is why the left is willing to see the Democratic party go up in
    > flames over its obstructionist tactics on judicial appointments; having
    > lost every single other avenue of power - the presidency, the congress,
    > the senate, and most of the statehouses - the one area they imagine they
    > can retain their increasingly tenuous hold is the judiciary.]
    >
    > > I certainly
    > > think the actual rights are more important than the symbols. The
    > > Conservatives don't seem to agree.
    >
    > Well, they certainly don't agree with your crude strawman-effigy of
    > their argument.
    >
    > [1] You know, when judges stop interpreting laws and start making up
    > new ones.
    >
    > [2] You know, when someone never elected and absolutely untouchable
    > through any political process (short of Rule .303) starts issuing fiats.

    I hear enough of this BS on conservative talk all day. Do you ever
    think up any of these points on your own?

    Long live the American Revolution. The liberal revolution.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce5457a22b35ed49896b6@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <MPG.1ce543554eb48e9d98a2de@news-east.giganews.com>,
    > giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > > In article <MPG.1ce53d4774f7df779896b5@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    > >
    > > > > Hmmm. Are you suggesting that the only true patriots are those who
    feel
    > > > > a burning need to trash the symbols of the nation? Can't someone
    love
    > > > > the actual rights and freedoms *and* be proud of symbols and
    traditions?
    > > > >
    > > > > Isn't the best kind of patriot the guy who does both?
    > > >
    > > > The Conservatives don't do both. They're against rights.
    > >
    > > They are? Which ones?
    > >
    > > > They think it
    > > > should be majority rules for everything. This is exactly what a right
    > > > isn't. It says no matter what the majority thinks, you have some
    right.
    > > > That's why they hate judges. Judges interpret rights.
    > >
    > > Conservatives are, quite understandably, suspicious of judicial activism
    > > [1] because judicial activism is fundamentally anti-democratic, and can
    > > be indistinguishable from tyranny[2]. It's one thing to "interpret
    > > rights," and quite another to legislate from the bench, and the latter
    > > is increasingly prevalent - particularly in cases where the issue in
    > > question hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law by the
    > > legislative process or referendum.
    > >
    > > [This is why the left is willing to see the Democratic party go up in
    > > flames over its obstructionist tactics on judicial appointments; having
    > > lost every single other avenue of power - the presidency, the congress,
    > > the senate, and most of the statehouses - the one area they imagine they
    > > can retain their increasingly tenuous hold is the judiciary.]
    > >
    > > > I certainly
    > > > think the actual rights are more important than the symbols. The
    > > > Conservatives don't seem to agree.
    > >
    > > Well, they certainly don't agree with your crude strawman-effigy of
    > > their argument.
    > >
    > > [1] You know, when judges stop interpreting laws and start making up
    > > new ones.
    > >
    > > [2] You know, when someone never elected and absolutely untouchable
    > > through any political process (short of Rule .303) starts issuing fiats.
    >
    > I hear enough of this BS on conservative talk all day. Do you ever
    > think up any of these points on your own?
    >
    > Long live the American Revolution. The liberal revolution.
    > --
    >
    > Epi
    >

    gifty just spouts the rush/anne coulter line.
    all those minority protecting rules will become the gospel truth when the
    dems become the ruling party.
    he forgets the u.s. is built on individual rights and not group think.

    judges trying to overthrow the state/church separation are as activist as
    any.
    read judge borks book sometime , he rails against judicial activism but then
    he wants to overthrow all sorts of laws that he doesn't like.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > [1] You know, when judges stop interpreting laws and start making up
    > new ones.
    > [2] You know, when someone never elected and absolutely untouchable
    > through any political process (short of Rule .303) starts issuing fiats.

    Sounds a lot like islamo fascism. :)

    Best regards, Major H.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce547567902873098a2e1@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce5457a22b35ed49896b6@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > I hear enough of this BS on conservative talk all day. Do you ever
    > > think up any of these points on your own?
    >
    > You mean, a whole-cloth-new perspective on why conservatives are
    > *conservative*?
    >
    > > Long live the American Revolution. The liberal revolution.
    >
    > <laughter>
    >
    > You talking about the kind of "liberal" who marches in the streets to
    > make sure a fascist dictator can rule over 26 million human beings
    > indefinitely?

    No. I was talking about men like Jefferson. Your nervous laughter
    doesn't change anything.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce54bdb844d81009896b7@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <MPG.1ce547567902873098a2e1@news-east.giganews.com>,
    > giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > > In article <MPG.1ce5457a22b35ed49896b6@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    > >
    > > > I hear enough of this BS on conservative talk all day. Do you ever
    > > > think up any of these points on your own?
    > >
    > > You mean, a whole-cloth-new perspective on why conservatives are
    > > *conservative*?
    > >
    > > > Long live the American Revolution. The liberal revolution.
    > >
    > > <laughter>
    > >
    > > You talking about the kind of "liberal" who marches in the streets to
    > > make sure a fascist dictator can rule over 26 million human beings
    > > indefinitely?
    >
    > No. I was talking about men like Jefferson. Your nervous laughter
    > doesn't change anything.

    and men like george washington and james madison, patrick henry and many
    others, all dirty liberals.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > It will always exist to some extent (sp?). Would you want to lose your
    > child in a war? If you had the power to prevent it, and didn't use it,
    > I would think you a very heartless person.
    >>

    This is some very weird logic you got going. You're telling me that it is
    okay for someone to keep someone else from going to war through some little
    bit of trickery? And in doing so, possibly indirectly causing the death of
    dozens of others? I can see abiding by the law and stopping a son or
    daughter from having to fight in a war, but to do it with "all means
    necessary"?

    That is stupid and immoral and downright criminal. But I guess it's
    alright, as long as someone else's daughter or son dies and not mine.


    >> To say that the Pentagon is the front lines, when that was the first time
    >> in
    >> the history of America that American soil had been hit, is absurd. I
    >> wonder
    >> how many people have died at the Pentagon since that first attack on the
    >> Pentagon, compared to how many Americans have died fighting wars in
    >> foreign
    >> countries?
    >
    > Of course, this is true. It wasn't the front lines. The rear was hit.
    >

    Well, sure, that's funny. But you only crack the joke because you see the
    absurdity of yourself comparing the Pentagon to fighting on the front lines.
    You obviously do not actually believe what you said, earlier.

    Wars are not popular. They are nasty and very often unjustified. The Iraq
    War, this time, has no justifiable foundation, neither morally or ethically.
    We cannot as a country go around trying to bully smaller nations just
    because some president wants everyone to think we mean business.

    And all for what? How many people have been actually convicted in
    connection with 911? One-- some freakin' "shoe-bomber". While Bin Laden
    and the rest continue to roam, with terrorism actually gaining sustenance
    from our misguided "war on terror", while the country as a whole continues
    to think we're on the right track, while men and women die-- it is rather
    disgusting.

    But then, heck-- it ain't my son or daughter dying. I'll just slap some
    token flag on my car and support a president who is getting our country
    deeper and deeper into debt.

    "But you don't ask questions, with God on your side."-- that must be it,
    certainly.

    Alanb
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Alan Bernardo" <ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net> wrote in message
    news:Y_ydnczO76iLcubfRVn-2A@comcast.com...
    > > It will always exist to some extent (sp?). Would you want to lose your
    > > child in a war? If you had the power to prevent it, and didn't use it,
    > > I would think you a very heartless person.
    > >>
    >
    > This is some very weird logic you got going. You're telling me that it is
    > okay for someone to keep someone else from going to war through some
    little
    > bit of trickery? And in doing so, possibly indirectly causing the death
    of
    > dozens of others? I can see abiding by the law and stopping a son or
    > daughter from having to fight in a war, but to do it with "all means
    > necessary"?
    >
    > That is stupid and immoral and downright criminal. But I guess it's
    > alright, as long as someone else's daughter or son dies and not mine.

    as they say, rich man's war, poor man's fight
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" > Well, this is true for suitably small values of "no
    justifiable
    > foundation." Of course, there's all those UN resolutions, and that
    > pesky Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, not to
    > mention the flagrant violations of the 1991 cease-fire ... but who's
    > counting, eh?

    how many resolutions are there condemimg israel? are you for taking them
    out too? i'm sure you are all for bolton and share his contemptuous view of
    the u.n.
    congresses resolution was meant as a tool to help negotiations not a
    outright "sic'em" as the shrub used it. you love to cherry pick gifty.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce5db2c7d2d3b4f98a2e9@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <KtOdnWP1vsnvkuHfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
    > >
    > > "Giftzwerg" > Well, this is true for suitably small values of "no
    > > justifiable
    > > > foundation." Of course, there's all those UN resolutions, and that
    > > > pesky Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, not to
    > > > mention the flagrant violations of the 1991 cease-fire ... but who's
    > > > counting, eh?
    > >
    > > how many resolutions are there condemimg israel?
    >
    > Who cares?
    >
    > > are you for taking them
    > > out too?
    >
    > Of course not.

    well do we respect the u.n. or not, you mention the u.n. resolutions
    condeming saddam as justification in one breath and then in the next say the
    u.n. is irrelevent . which is it.
    thatt is the consistancy we'e come to expect from you.

    stick to what you're good at reviewing games.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce5b93d9eadf74998a2e7@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce588dc5ce39eba9896bb@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > > You sort of avoided the point didn't you. Conservatives seem to be
    > > > > against everything our founding fathers were for.
    > > >
    > > > Like what?
    > >
    > > Like I mentioned before, Conservatives don't seem to believe in the
    > > concept of rights.
    >
    > Ah, so it's "rights" that conservatives object to? How very *specific*
    > of you!
    >
    > <laughter>
    >
    > And here I was thinking it was *goodness* they were against.
    >
    > > If ray is so stupid, maybe you could defeat his points then.
    >
    > What points? Your lame, vague-ass assertion is that conservatives are
    > against "rights." I can defeat this dimwitted "argument" trivially.
    >
    > Watch.
    >
    > "Conservatives are in favor of the right to bear arms."
    >
    > "Thus conservatives are in favor of at least one right."
    >
    > "Thus conservatives cannot be said to 'not believe in the concept of
    > rights'."
    >
    > See how easy this is?
    >
    > Conservatives might not believe that all the things *you* imagine are
    > rights are properly rights, but it's demonstrably wrong to say that they
    > don't believe in them.
    >
    > [For my next trick, I'll mope the floor with your asinine theory that
    > conservatives are, "against everything our founding fathers were for."]

    I didn't mention any specific rights. I mentioned the concept.
    Apparently you have no argument here since you didn't address it. The
    fact that they can find one they like doesn't really mean much. There
    still against the concept.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <Y_ydnczO76iLcubfRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
    ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    > > It will always exist to some extent (sp?). Would you want to lose your
    > > child in a war? If you had the power to prevent it, and didn't use it,
    > > I would think you a very heartless person.
    > >>
    >
    > This is some very weird logic you got going. You're telling me that it is
    > okay for someone to keep someone else from going to war through some little
    > bit of trickery? And in doing so, possibly indirectly causing the death of
    > dozens of others? I can see abiding by the law and stopping a son or
    > daughter from having to fight in a war, but to do it with "all means
    > necessary"?
    >
    > That is stupid and immoral and downright criminal. But I guess it's
    > alright, as long as someone else's daughter or son dies and not mine.

    You remind me of the animal rights guy who said he would rather see his
    child die than benefit from animal testing. You need to start looking
    at things with real human emotions, not just politics.
    >
    > >> To say that the Pentagon is the front lines, when that was the first time
    > >> in
    > >> the history of America that American soil had been hit, is absurd. I
    > >> wonder
    > >> how many people have died at the Pentagon since that first attack on the
    > >> Pentagon, compared to how many Americans have died fighting wars in
    > >> foreign
    > >> countries?
    > >
    > > Of course, this is true. It wasn't the front lines. The rear was hit.
    > >
    >
    > Well, sure, that's funny. But you only crack the joke because you see the
    > absurdity of yourself comparing the Pentagon to fighting on the front lines.
    > You obviously do not actually believe what you said, earlier.

    What joke? I made no such comparison. I only say things I believe.

    Are you european? I ask because I view European liberals in sort of the
    same light I view American conservatives.

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce5d0fc65952a6a98a2e8@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <Y_ydnczO76iLcubfRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
    > ifeelyourpain@ihatebush.net says...
    >
    > > > It will always exist to some extent (sp?). Would you want to lose your
    > > > child in a war? If you had the power to prevent it, and didn't use it,
    > > > I would think you a very heartless person.
    >
    > > This is some very weird logic you got going. You're telling me that it is
    > > okay for someone to keep someone else from going to war through some little
    > > bit of trickery? And in doing so, possibly indirectly causing the death of
    > > dozens of others? I can see abiding by the law and stopping a son or
    > > daughter from having to fight in a war, but to do it with "all means
    > > necessary"?
    > >
    > > That is stupid and immoral and downright criminal. But I guess it's
    > > alright, as long as someone else's daughter or son dies and not mine.
    >
    > <helpless laughter>
    >
    > Here we have one dumbass forgetting that the other dumbass is on his
    > side. Oh, my, but this is ironic and delightful.
    >
    > > Wars are not popular. They are nasty and very often unjustified. The Iraq
    > > War, this time, has no justifiable foundation, neither morally or ethically.
    > > We cannot as a country go around trying to bully smaller nations just
    > > because some president wants everyone to think we mean business.
    > Hmmmm. How many acts of terrorism have occurred on US soil since 9/11?
    >
    > Zero?

    How many occurred in the three or four years before?

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    She's my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ....and god I swear I love no other.
    Not like my drinkin', drunken, druggy lover.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:MPG.1ce6230f364a5cca9896bd@news.east.earthlink.net:

    > Are you european? I ask because I view European liberals in sort of
    > the same light I view American conservatives.

    That's because in many European countries (not the UK with it's Lib-
    Dem's) the Liberal party is actually the right-wing party. This word-
    orientation makes more more sense too as they are in favour of free
    enterprise vs. state-owned and individual responsibility vs.
    collectivism. Check the composition of the Liberal faction

    http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps.short_list?
    ilg=EN&ictry=&ipolgrp=ALDE&iorig=

    All solid conservatives :)

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Thu, 5 May 2005 19:13:34 -0400, Giftzwerg
    <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >And the latest "poor and downtrodden" friend of mine who was dispatched
    >to Iraq with his unit was a finance and insurance manager with a six-
    >figure income.
    >
    >I'm curious; is he only "poor and downtrodden" when he's actually
    >serving his country?
    >

    I will hazard a guess that he is speaking in generalities, and you are
    speaking in anecdotes. I suppose it is fairly easy to poke holes in
    each others arguments when each is arguing on a different scale (or
    even a different topic).

    During Vietnam there was a "general trend" for those who could afford
    college, to get college deferments. Now, with the all volunteer army,
    there is a "general trend" that- those with few job prospects, would
    consider the military a better choice than those with hot job skills.

    This does not suggest that the term "general trend" applies to 100%
    of the populace.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Eddy Sterckx wrote:
    > Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > news:MPG.1ce6230f364a5cca9896bd@news.east.earthlink.net:
    >
    >
    >>Are you european? I ask because I view European liberals in sort of
    >>the same light I view American conservatives.
    >
    >
    > That's because in many European countries (not the UK with it's Lib-
    > Dem's) the Liberal party is actually the right-wing party. This word-
    > orientation makes more more sense too as they are in favour of free
    > enterprise vs. state-owned and individual responsibility vs.
    > collectivism. Check the composition of the Liberal faction
    >
    Here in the UK we seem to have bucked the trend by getting a Lib-Dem
    party that is to the left of the Labour party, who in turn are only just
    to the right of the Conservative party :-)

    p.s. Why does everyone lump all of Europeans together as though we only
    hold one view?

    > http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps.short_list?
    > ilg=EN&ictry=&ipolgrp=ALDE&iorig=
    >
    > All solid conservatives :)
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx
    >
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    JAB <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote in news:q1%ee.24081$5A3.3109@newsfe4-
    win.ntli.net:

    > Eddy Sterckx wrote:
    >> Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >> news:MPG.1ce6230f364a5cca9896bd@news.east.earthlink.net:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Are you european? I ask because I view European liberals in sort of
    >>>the same light I view American conservatives.
    >>
    >>
    >> That's because in many European countries (not the UK with it's Lib-
    >> Dem's) the Liberal party is actually the right-wing party. This word-
    >> orientation makes more more sense too as they are in favour of free
    >> enterprise vs. state-owned and individual responsibility vs.
    >> collectivism. Check the composition of the Liberal faction
    >>
    > Here in the UK we seem to have bucked the trend by getting a Lib-Dem
    > party that is to the left of the Labour party, who in turn are only
    just
    > to the right of the Conservative party :-)
    >
    > p.s. Why does everyone lump all of Europeans together as though we
    only
    > hold one view?

    For the same reason you hear the phraze "Americans like/do/act
    <whatever>" so often over here. In an oral discussion a generalization
    is often seen as a strong argument, while in a written discussion where
    people take the time to think about it, it often becomes absurd.

    You won't see the smart guys in here ever posting something in absolute
    terms - and I'm absolutely 100% sure of that !

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Eddy Sterckx wrote:
    > JAB <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote in news:q1%ee.24081$5A3.3109@newsfe4-
    > win.ntli.net:
    >
    >
    >>Eddy Sterckx wrote:
    >>
    >>>Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in
    >>>news:MPG.1ce6230f364a5cca9896bd@news.east.earthlink.net:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Are you european? I ask because I view European liberals in sort of
    >>>>the same light I view American conservatives.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That's because in many European countries (not the UK with it's Lib-
    >>>Dem's) the Liberal party is actually the right-wing party. This word-
    >>>orientation makes more more sense too as they are in favour of free
    >>>enterprise vs. state-owned and individual responsibility vs.
    >>>collectivism. Check the composition of the Liberal faction
    >>>
    >>
    >>Here in the UK we seem to have bucked the trend by getting a Lib-Dem
    >>party that is to the left of the Labour party, who in turn are only
    >
    > just
    >
    >>to the right of the Conservative party :-)
    >>
    >>p.s. Why does everyone lump all of Europeans together as though we
    >
    > only
    >
    >>hold one view?
    >
    >
    > For the same reason you hear the phraze "Americans like/do/act
    > <whatever>" so often over here. In an oral discussion a generalization
    > is often seen as a strong argument, while in a written discussion where
    > people take the time to think about it, it often becomes absurd.
    >
    > You won't see the smart guys in here ever posting something in absolute
    > terms - and I'm absolutely 100% sure of that !
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    In my limited experience of meeting Americans I was taken aback by the
    difference between those I met in Washington and those in Texas.

    About the only generalisation that seems to hold true is the that all
    claim to be Irish, Scottish, Polish etc. :-)
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Nice try, but conservatives - just like everyone else - believe in a
    > wide variety of "rights." This logically presupposes a belief in the
    > concept of rights. That they defend a wholly different subset of all
    > possible rights might upset you, but it fails to rescue your idiotic
    > argument.

    Then why is it they think the majority should always decide everything?
    This belief runs against a belief in the concept of rights.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Mingus wasn't really a jazz genius.
    He was more a genius in just music period.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce671b6636cdde998a2ec@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce623881a8edc169896be@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > Hmmmm. How many acts of terrorism have occurred on US soil since 9/11?
    > > >
    > > > Zero?
    > >
    > > How many occurred in the three or four years before?
    >
    > Who cares? If the discussion is about our *response* to 9/11, and
    > whether it has been effective or not, then babbling about what happened
    > before 9/11 is entirely irrelevant.

    The point would be that zero is not a significant amount less than
    zero. You're the one who brought it up.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Mingus wasn't really a jazz genius.
    He was more a genius in just music period.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce674d08ccf70998a2ed@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce67279f0a12b4f9896bf@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > Nice try, but conservatives - just like everyone else - believe in a
    > > > wide variety of "rights." This logically presupposes a belief in the
    > > > concept of rights. That they defend a wholly different subset of all
    > > > possible rights might upset you, but it fails to rescue your idiotic
    > > > argument.
    > >
    > > Then why is it they think the majority should always decide everything?
    >
    > Hmmm. In a democracy, who should decide things?
    >
    > The minority?

    Dude, maybe you need to take a government class. Rights guarantee
    certain things no matter what the majority thinks. That's all they are.
    Imagine this, the majority decides one day that no conservative opinion
    can be expressed publicly. That doesn't work though. Can you guess
    why? I'll give you a hint. The word starts with an "r." No, not
    Republicans.
    >
    > > This belief runs against a belief in the concept of rights.
    >
    > How so?

    See above. Rights gaurantee certain things no matter what the majority
    thinks. That's all they are. That's there only reason to exist.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Mingus wasn't really a jazz genius.
    He was more a genius in just music period.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce67b433e6e609a98a2ee@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce672da79399fd29896c0@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > > > Hmmmm. How many acts of terrorism have occurred on US soil since 9/11?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Zero?
    > > > >
    > > > > How many occurred in the three or four years before?
    > > >
    > > > Who cares? If the discussion is about our *response* to 9/11, and
    > > > whether it has been effective or not, then babbling about what happened
    > > > before 9/11 is entirely irrelevant.
    > >
    > > The point would be that zero is not a significant amount less than
    > > zero. You're the one who brought it up.
    >
    > The original sentiment, which you elided, was:
    >
    > "And all for what? How many people have been actually convicted in
    > connection with 911? One-- some freakin' "shoe-bomber". While Bin
    > Laden and the rest continue to roam, with terrorism actually gaining
    > sustenance from our misguided "war on terror", while the country as a
    > whole continues to think we're on the right track, while men and women
    > die--it is rather disgusting."
    >
    > Now, there are multiple instances of stupidity and naivety encapsulated
    > in the ill-reasoned agglomeration of stock-phrases from the lefty
    > lexicon, but to refute the mainly silly points:
    >
    > (1) It makes no difference how many "convictions" are forthcoming from
    I was responding to your point. I agree that a lot more has been done
    for security since 9/11. I wouldn't say that's just because of Bush
    though. I think more would have been done under any president. I don't
    blame Bush for not taking terrorism as seriously before 9/11 than he
    does now either. Only natural.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Mingus wasn't really a jazz genius.
    He was more a genius in just music period.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1ce680bd3dabe30198a2ef@news-east.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <MPG.1ce6182289bef68b9896c1@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > > Then why is it they think the majority should always decide everything?
    > > >
    > > > Hmmm. In a democracy, who should decide things?
    > > >
    > > > The minority?
    > >
    > > Dude, maybe you need to take a government class. Rights guarantee
    > > certain things no matter what the majority thinks. That's all they are.
    >
    > Obviously. But the devil's in the details, and the whole issue boils
    > down to exactly what things are rights and what things aren't rights. I
    > much prefer a state of affairs where we actually *write down* the rights
    > we have (Hey, we could call the paper we write them on a
    > "constitution!"), the better to know precisely what our rights are - and
    > what the rights of our fellows are *not*.
    >
    > And the fact that some "rights" can be zero-sum gains that affect
    > certain citizens negatively, I much prefer that the process of granting
    > new "rights" be undertaken through the political process. It's no
    > accident that the Founding Fathers made the process of altering the
    > Constitution a *very* difficult political process that requires an
    > enormous *majority*.
    >
    > The left appears to like the process whereby a tiny minority of activist
    > judges "discover" new "rights" where they previously didn't exist - even
    > when those rights conflict with others.
    >
    > > Imagine this, the majority decides one day that no conservative opinion
    > > can be expressed publicly. That doesn't work though. Can you guess
    > > why? I'll give you a hint. The word starts with an "r." No, not
    > > Republicans.
    >
    > Imagine this, a tiny minority of judicial activists discover one day
    > that the US Constitution states that no liberal opinion can be expressed
    > publicly.
    >
    > What ya gonna do about that, chief?
    I was talking about conservatives think the majority should decide
    everything. Not judges.

    > Obviously.

    It wasn't so obvious to you a minute ago.

    > Imagine this, a tiny minority of judicial activists discover one day
    > that the US Constitution states that no liberal opinion can be expressed
    > publicly.
    >
    > What ya gonna do about that, chief?

    Somebody has to interpret the rights. It's the judiciary the way we
    have it set up. We can't just have everyone running around interpreting
    it for themselves. Is that what you would suggest? The judges have
    gone too far sometimes, but that's not every time they make a non-
    conservative opinion. This is what conservatives act like.
    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Mingus wasn't really a jazz genius.
    He was more a genius in just music period.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Imagine this, a tiny minority of judicial activists discover one day
    > that the US Constitution states that no liberal opinion can be expressed
    > publicly.
    >
    > What ya gonna do about that, chief?

    If you meant would I rather have a system with no rights. Definitely
    not.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    Mingus wasn't really a jazz genius.
    He was more a genius in just music period.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1ce674d08ccf70998a2ed@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <MPG.1ce67279f0a12b4f9896bf@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    > epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > > > Nice try, but conservatives - just like everyone else - believe in a
    > > > wide variety of "rights." This logically presupposes a belief in the
    > > > concept of rights. That they defend a wholly different subset of all
    > > > possible rights might upset you, but it fails to rescue your idiotic
    > > > argument.
    > >
    > > Then why is it they think the majority should always decide everything?
    >
    > Hmmm. In a democracy, who should decide things?
    >
    > The minority?
    >
    > > This belief runs against a belief in the concept of rights.
    >
    > How so?

    we live a republic gifty, the senate and the independent judiciary where
    created to deflect the "tyranny of the majority" by the founding fathers.
    alexander hamilton said "democracy is mobocracy". thats why the came up with
    rules requiring 60% votes to change the rules and why the senate and not the
    house of reps has the duty to confirm judges. they did all that to keep it
    from just being majority rule. sometimes the individual or the minority is
    right.
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" > Imagine this, a tiny minority of judicial activists discover
    one day
    > that the US Constitution states that no liberal opinion can be expressed
    > publicly.
    ?


    thats what bush and his ilk are aiming for. they don't even want you to
    think it at home.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games