| Author |
Message |
Murray Arnow
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote:
| Quote: | don groves <dgroves@domain.net(seesigfordomain)> wrote:
n our recent election season, the right of the people to
peaceful assembly was violated hundreds of times in cities all
across the country. The presumption of law enforcement was one
of guilt, that a crowd of protesters would become violent, even
though the great majority did not. In many of the cases that did
become violent, inappropriate police action caused the violence
to begin, or to escalate.
It is indeed slightly amusing to see Mr Bush lecturing Mr Putin
on the virtues of democracy,
|
What is amusing about that? Is it Bush lecturing or is it the virtues of
democracy? If you choose to answer, I advise you to choose your answer
carefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:49 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
In article <cvq2a0$rb7$1@e250.ripco.com>, Murray Arnow at
arnow@iname.com hath writ:
| Quote: | J. J. Lodder wrote:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net(seesigfordomain)> wrote:
n our recent election season, the right of the people to
peaceful assembly was violated hundreds of times in cities all
across the country. The presumption of law enforcement was one
of guilt, that a crowd of protesters would become violent, even
though the great majority did not. In many of the cases that did
become violent, inappropriate police action caused the violence
to begin, or to escalate.
It is indeed slightly amusing to see Mr Bush lecturing Mr Putin
on the virtues of democracy,
What is amusing about that? Is it Bush lecturing or is it the virtues of
democracy? If you choose to answer, I advise you to choose your answer
carefully.
|
It's amusing in the same way as the pot calling the kettle black
is. Bush talks a good democracy game, he just doesn't play it
very well.
Bush doesn't understand the difference between democracy, a
political system, and unregulated, free-market capitalism, an
economic one. He thinks you can't have one without the other.
It's the latter he wants to spread around the world, not the
former.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:23 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | It's amusing in the same way as the pot calling the kettle black
is. Bush talks a good democracy game, he just doesn't play it
very well.
|
That reminds me of what Inspector Fowler of _The Thin Blue Line_ said in an
episode I saw recently:
That is a pot calling the kettle ... er ... African American.
Sorry, I'm way off topic there.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:43 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:17:55 -0800, don groves <dgroves@domain.net
(see sig for domain)> wrote:
| Quote: | Just a random thought: Is the US entering a period which will be
known by future historians as "The American Inquisition"?
|
Of course, you know that any relation between the original
Inquisition, and the myths that have established themselves in
Anglo-Saxon Protestant lore - is purely coincidental. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:09 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
drewdr@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:17:55 -0800, don groves <dgroves@domain.net
(see sig for domain)> wrote:
Just a random thought: Is the US entering a period which will be
known by future historians as "The American Inquisition"?
Of course, you know that any relation between the original
Inquisition, and the myths that have established themselves in
Anglo-Saxon Protestant lore - is purely coincidental.
|
Where does Umberto Eco fit in?
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:19 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
Murray Arnow <arnow@iname.com> wrote:
| Quote: | J. J. Lodder wrote:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net(seesigfordomain)> wrote:
n our recent election season, the right of the people to
peaceful assembly was violated hundreds of times in cities all
across the country. The presumption of law enforcement was one
of guilt, that a crowd of protesters would become violent, even
though the great majority did not. In many of the cases that did
become violent, inappropriate police action caused the violence
to begin, or to escalate.
It is indeed slightly amusing to see Mr Bush lecturing Mr Putin
on the virtues of democracy,
What is amusing about that?
|
If you were not amused there is little point in explaining.
| Quote: | Is it Bush lecturing or is it the virtues of
democracy?
|
It is the combination.
| Quote: | If you choose to answer, I advise you to choose your answer
carefully.
|
You think Big Brother is watching?
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:23 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | drewdr@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:17:55 -0800, don groves <dgroves@domain.net
(see sig for domain)> wrote:
Just a random thought: Is the US entering a period which will be
known by future historians as "The American Inquisition"?
Of course, you know that any relation between the original
Inquisition, and the myths that have established themselves in
Anglo-Saxon Protestant lore - is purely coincidental.
Where does Umberto Eco fit in?
|
And Edgar Allan Poe?
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:31:45 GMT, arnow@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
wrote:
| Quote: | J. J. Lodder wrote:
Murray Arnow <arnow@iname.com> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net(seesigfordomain)> wrote:
n our recent election season, the right of the people to
peaceful assembly was violated hundreds of times in cities all
across the country. The presumption of law enforcement was one
of guilt, that a crowd of protesters would become violent, even
though the great majority did not. In many of the cases that did
become violent, inappropriate police action caused the violence
to begin, or to escalate.
It is indeed slightly amusing to see Mr Bush lecturing Mr Putin
on the virtues of democracy,
What is amusing about that?
If you were not amused there is little point in explaining.
Is it Bush lecturing or is it the virtues of
democracy?
It is the combination.
If you choose to answer, I advise you to choose your answer
carefully.
You think Big Brother is watching?
No. No one is watching. I doubt if your Big Brother even cares. The
problem, I see, is that because you don't like Bush, you wrongly ascribe
all sorts of malevolence to him.
obPersonalOpinionInANutshell: I don't think highly of Bush in many
regards. I think he is lazy("This is hard work."). He doesn't like to
deal with detail and spends little effort in asking the what-if
questions. The people who serve him have taken this cue and also don't
seem to have much concern for the what-if.
I think his past experiences with alcohol and maybe drugs indicates
someone who has problems with addictions. He replaced alcohol with
religion. Religion helps him cope. One doesn't need to take full
responsibility for any decision when he has God's approval. The big
problem is that knowing God's intention can make one a bit rigid--it's
also a work saver.
He is far more intelligent than many will give him credit for. He
definitely knows what democracy is. He is convinced that you can't have
freedom without democracy. This is perhaps a bit naive, but he is
well-intentioned and not totally wrong. The naivete isn't lack of
intelligence; it's lack of experience. The problem with the Presidency
is that it's all on-the-job training. Unless you have considerable
experience with government, getting to the top of the learning curve
fast requires a lot of work with attention to detail. Bush started the
job at a great disadvantage.
Above all, Bush is far more complex than the opinions expressed here
indicate. He is a politician and often very good at it. Every now and
then pragmatism breaks through and takes me with a start.
Finally, I don't like him as President. His beliefs on the betterment of
the economy through trickle-down have been shown not to work. His notion
of what's good for business is good for America is naive. Business has
no social agenda. That is the province of government. Bush wants that
responsibility to be organized religion's. I think that is dangerous.
I'm not sure he fully understands the primary function of
government.[1] He has some other dangerous ideas about social issues,
which I won't go into. And Bush has, with the help of the Republicans
and reckless abandonment, skyrocketed the national debt. But I do like
him as a person, even though I enjoy taking the occasional potshot at
him.
[1] But that's not uncommon. Who here, besides Liebs, knows what is the
primary function of government?
|
All in all you make a very good case for getting rid of that
ridiculous "two terms and you are out" law, don't you think? Are
Americans so unsure of democracy as so to limit its effect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
In article <cvrbeh$6a$1@e250.ripco.com>, Murray Arnow at
arnow@iname.com hath writ:
| Quote: | J. J. Lodder wrote:
Murray Arnow <arnow@iname.com> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net(seesigfordomain)> wrote:
n our recent election season, the right of the people to
peaceful assembly was violated hundreds of times in cities all
across the country. The presumption of law enforcement was one
of guilt, that a crowd of protesters would become violent, even
though the great majority did not. In many of the cases that did
become violent, inappropriate police action caused the violence
to begin, or to escalate.
It is indeed slightly amusing to see Mr Bush lecturing Mr Putin
on the virtues of democracy,
What is amusing about that?
If you were not amused there is little point in explaining.
Is it Bush lecturing or is it the virtues of
democracy?
It is the combination.
If you choose to answer, I advise you to choose your answer
carefully.
You think Big Brother is watching?
No. No one is watching. I doubt if your Big Brother even cares. The
problem, I see, is that because you don't like Bush, you wrongly ascribe
all sorts of malevolence to him.
|
Not so, at least in my case. I ascribe far more malevolence to
Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al, than to Bush. Bush can be well-
meaning but he's completely under the control of others.
| Quote: | obPersonalOpinionInANutshell: I don't think highly of Bush in many
regards. I think he is lazy("This is hard work."). He doesn't like to
deal with detail and spends little effort in asking the what-if
questions. The people who serve him have taken this cue and also don't
seem to have much concern for the what-if.
|
Agreed.
| Quote: | I think his past experiences with alcohol and maybe drugs indicates
someone who has problems with addictions. He replaced alcohol with
religion. Religion helps him cope. One doesn't need to take full
responsibility for any decision when he has God's approval. The big
problem is that knowing God's intention can make one a bit rigid--it's
also a work saver.
|
Amen to all that.
| Quote: | He is far more intelligent than many will give him credit for. He
definitely knows what democracy is. He is convinced that you can't have
freedom without democracy. This is perhaps a bit naive, but he is
well-intentioned and not totally wrong. The naivete isn't lack of
intelligence; it's lack of experience. The problem with the Presidency
is that it's all on-the-job training. Unless you have considerable
experience with government, getting to the top of the learning curve
fast requires a lot of work with attention to detail. Bush started the
job at a great disadvantage.
|
If he truly knows what democracy is, he sure doesn't act like it.
His agenda is completely geared toward the strenghtening of
corporate power and the weakening of individual power and rights.
Demos is not spelled Inc.
| Quote: | Above all, Bush is far more complex than the opinions expressed here
indicate. He is a politician and often very good at it. Every now and
then pragmatism breaks through and takes me with a start.
Finally, I don't like him as President. His beliefs on the betterment of
the economy through trickle-down have been shown not to work. His notion
of what's good for business is good for America is naive. Business has
no social agenda. That is the province of government. Bush wants that
responsibility to be organized religion's. I think that is dangerous.
I'm not sure he fully understands the primary function of
government.[1] He has some other dangerous ideas about social issues,
which I won't go into. And Bush has, with the help of the Republicans
and reckless abandonment, skyrocketed the national debt. But I do like
him as a person, even though I enjoy taking the occasional potshot at
him.
|
He's such a easy target, at times I feel ashamed to have taken
advantage. Sort of like Dan Quayle in that respect.
| Quote: | [1] But that's not uncommon. Who here, besides Liebs, knows what is the
primary function of government?
|
To keep the masses under some semblance of control?
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | [1] But that's not uncommon. Who here, besides Liebs, knows what is the
primary function of government?
|
I'll tell. The primary function of government is to employ those of
us who are otherwise unemployable. I am most grateful for that.
| Quote: |
All in all you make a very good case for getting rid of that
ridiculous "two terms and you are out" law, don't you think? Are
Americans so unsure of democracy as so to limit its effect?
|
Yes.
It's generally agreed that the idiot Republicans who maneuvered the
22nd Amendment through to passage were taking retroactive revenge on
FDR, the only president to go past a second term. For their pains,
they kept two very popular two-term Republican presidents from
almost sure re-election had they wanted a third term -- Eisenhower
and Reagan. Dubya doesn't approach their popularity, but he might
be in a good position for a third term when 2008 comes around --
were it not for that stupid amendment.
Term limits are idiotic. Many Americans support them. Many
Americans are idiotic. Maybe not all that Aristotelian, but no less
true for that.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murray Arnow
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote:
| Quote: | Murray Arnow <arnow@iname.com> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
don groves <dgroves@domain.net(seesigfordomain)> wrote:
n our recent election season, the right of the people to
peaceful assembly was violated hundreds of times in cities all
across the country. The presumption of law enforcement was one
of guilt, that a crowd of protesters would become violent, even
though the great majority did not. In many of the cases that did
become violent, inappropriate police action caused the violence
to begin, or to escalate.
It is indeed slightly amusing to see Mr Bush lecturing Mr Putin
on the virtues of democracy,
What is amusing about that?
If you were not amused there is little point in explaining.
Is it Bush lecturing or is it the virtues of
democracy?
It is the combination.
If you choose to answer, I advise you to choose your answer
carefully.
You think Big Brother is watching?
|
No. No one is watching. I doubt if your Big Brother even cares. The
problem, I see, is that because you don't like Bush, you wrongly ascribe
all sorts of malevolence to him.
obPersonalOpinionInANutshell: I don't think highly of Bush in many
regards. I think he is lazy("This is hard work."). He doesn't like to
deal with detail and spends little effort in asking the what-if
questions. The people who serve him have taken this cue and also don't
seem to have much concern for the what-if.
I think his past experiences with alcohol and maybe drugs indicates
someone who has problems with addictions. He replaced alcohol with
religion. Religion helps him cope. One doesn't need to take full
responsibility for any decision when he has God's approval. The big
problem is that knowing God's intention can make one a bit rigid--it's
also a work saver.
He is far more intelligent than many will give him credit for. He
definitely knows what democracy is. He is convinced that you can't have
freedom without democracy. This is perhaps a bit naive, but he is
well-intentioned and not totally wrong. The naivete isn't lack of
intelligence; it's lack of experience. The problem with the Presidency
is that it's all on-the-job training. Unless you have considerable
experience with government, getting to the top of the learning curve
fast requires a lot of work with attention to detail. Bush started the
job at a great disadvantage.
Above all, Bush is far more complex than the opinions expressed here
indicate. He is a politician and often very good at it. Every now and
then pragmatism breaks through and takes me with a start.
Finally, I don't like him as President. His beliefs on the betterment of
the economy through trickle-down have been shown not to work. His notion
of what's good for business is good for America is naive. Business has
no social agenda. That is the province of government. Bush wants that
responsibility to be organized religion's. I think that is dangerous.
I'm not sure he fully understands the primary function of
government.[1] He has some other dangerous ideas about social issues,
which I won't go into. And Bush has, with the help of the Republicans
and reckless abandonment, skyrocketed the national debt. But I do like
him as a person, even though I enjoy taking the occasional potshot at
him.
[1] But that's not uncommon. Who here, besides Liebs, knows what is the
primary function of government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murray Arnow
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
| Quote: |
All in all you make a very good case for getting rid of that
ridiculous "two terms and you are out" law, don't you think? Are
Americans so unsure of democracy as so to limit its effect?
|
Only the Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | Term limits are idiotic. Many Americans support them. Many
Americans are idiotic. Maybe not all that Aristotelian, but no less
true for that.
|
Why bring up the Kojak Conjecture?
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:11:11 GMT, arnow@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
wrote:
| Quote: | rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
All in all you make a very good case for getting rid of that
ridiculous "two terms and you are out" law, don't you think? Are
Americans so unsure of democracy as so to limit its effect?
Only the Republicans.
|
Sounds like a good slogan to me. Or is that an entry for the
"truncated" thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R J Valentine
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:18 am
Post subject: Re: Inquisition? |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:13:22 GMT rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
} On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:11:11 GMT, arnow@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
} wrote:
}
}>rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
}>>
}>> All in all you make a very good case for getting rid of that
}>> ridiculous "two terms and you are out" law, don't you think? Are
}>> Americans so unsure of democracy as so to limit its effect?
}>
}>Only the Republicans.
}
} Sounds like a good slogan to me. Or is that an entry for the
} "truncated" thread?
Good one, "truncated". It's not every nonagenarian who could come up with
that so fast. Bob Cunningham is probably turning over in his.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in