Leaving the community

Peter Duniho wrote:

what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of innocent
civilians terrorism.

Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection prior
to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".

No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Yes, there is.

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:53:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. :-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

The two things the article pointed out was they are growing rapidly
and *currently* are Republican.

I think possibly Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel) may have written a
column on it as well.

Roger

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...


Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"


Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...


I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
with you. Did you see yourself defined?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
in
my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"


Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...

I was accused of being paranoid and asked for a reason why Cecil thought so.
You posted a copy of a web page.



I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

I watch about 2 hours per month, nice try though. I was expecting to see a
post that was relevant to what I had asked, not some regurgitation of
something that had no bearing on my post, though I did see that projection
was mentioned and i can only attribute that to Cecil and his ideas about gun
owners.

BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
with you. Did you see yourself defined?

No sore spot, just wondering why it was presented. I asked about paranoia
and was responded to with Freudian nonsense. I also see no neurosis in my
behavior, though will admit that you may not think I can be objective on
this point. Owning firearms and stating so does not make one paranoid or
neurotic, in spite of what the gun control crowd will have people believe.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

Technically, they have no control. But honestly, why would a party that
claims to be "conservative" (it was the Radical Republicans that argued for
ending slavery, for crying out loud..."conservativism" in its purest form,
IMHO) all of the sudden swing around and start wanting to restrict
individual's behavior?

The Republican Party is strongly against legalizing gay marriage and
abortion, is strongly in favor of prayer and religious references in schools
and government (but only Christian prayer and references, naturally), and
there's even a pretty good movement that's been going for the last couple of
decades to teach the book of Genesis in science classes.

For a party that claims to be "conservative", they have swung about as far
way out the other direction as is possible, on several issues, all of which
directly related to personal liberties. Of course, they are still in favor
of businesses being able to do whatever they want.

Basically, the Republican Party is only "conservative" when there's money in
it for them and their own. Otherwise, they've been whoring themselves out
to the Bible Belt for a long while already.

The correlation between the Republican Party's faith-based lawmaking and
Christian evangelical and fundamentalist groups is well-documented. Anyone
who thinks it's just some old canard has their head in the sand.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Stefan" wrote in message
...
what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection
between
terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent
civilians terrorism.

Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection
prior
to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".


Well yes, actually, there was a proven connection even during Clinton's
time. Saddam regularly paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers for
Hamas and offered rewards for anyone who would kill Americans.

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

C J Campbell wrote:

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Stefan