Leaving the community

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:06:25 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

Damn Corky you're going to make me remeber what we talked about last week.
But from my response I'd be willing to bet that yyou said something to the
effect that Bush, unlike Clinton, likes to kill people with the military
and
my statement refers to Clinton ordering Cruise Missle attacks on asprin
factories.

In this sir, you err. The discussion at the time was regarding
missinformation. Bush's missinformation took us to war, Clinton's
missinformation got him in big trouble with his wife, and some
extremely uptight Republican's. Granted, fondling a young intern in
the Oval Office is a bit uncouth, even if she did initiate the
relationship by raising her skirt to show off her thong underware. No
question, he demonstrated a woeful lack of decorum and insulted his
wife and their marriage publically.

It was a comparison of grande scale, war versus a yucky stained dress.

Corky Scott


The point was that Clinton shot cruise missles at an asprin factory to move
the attention of the public from the "yucky stained dress." Last time I
checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.

Gig,

Last time I
checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.


Well, if that was a war, then what do you call the mess in Iraq now?
While technically, you are correct, it doesn't really compare.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Trent,

to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

And you're right.


By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?


Yes, it is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message

By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?


Yes, it is.

Cool. I had been wondering what it stood for for some time now. Finally got
smart and did a little googlin'.

-Trent

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:06:17 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
wrote:

The point was that Clinton shot cruise missles at an asprin factory to move
the attention of the public from the "yucky stained dress." Last time I
checked shooting cruise missles at someone was an act of war.

Oh. Ok I did not see how you were connecting things. I doubt that
Clinton thought up attacking the terrorist targets all by himself.
I'll bet he discussed things with his security advisors and the JCS
and asked them for some options to consider. This was in response to
the information that terrorist cells were discovered, right? One was
a direct attack on Bin Laden?

Have you noticed the number of revelatory books written by people who
worked for Bush and left that employment that have come out during
Bush's first term? Revelations like the Bush White House ignored
repeated warnings about El Qaida and that they were focused on
attacking Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11, and that after the
attack Bush specifically asked for evidence linking Iraq to the
attacks? That's what happens in a free society, news like that leaks
out.

But I don't recall anyone in the Clinton administration, or any
journalist coming up with hard facts confirming the missile attacks as
mere diversions from Clinton's infidelity in the Oval Office. I do
recall a lot of smirking "wag the dog" allegations from journalists,
but no confirmation, just speculation, and a movie that got people
thinking.

Can you point to hard evidence that Clinton lobbed missiles as a
diversion?

Thanks, Corky Scott

Trent Moorehead wrote:



Also, "poor" can be a relative term (poverty level notwithstanding).

No kidding. We have the richest poor people in the world.

Trent,

European airfields tend to start with E and L (in the south) where the
US ones start with K. The German ones start with ED, D being
Deutschland.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:NZmmd.344440$wV.223588@attbi_s54...
I'm confused here -- did you NOT write that top paragraph?

You replied to that message. But I never wrote anything like what you
accused me of writing.

If not, I apologize. (Although it's STILL a load of crap -- it's just not
yours! :-)

What I wrote is NOT a load of crap. What you wrote had nothing to do with
what I wrote, and put words into my mouth that I never said. I choose not
to address what you wrote in the interest of "helping" you stay true to your
claim that you want to chat about piloting, not politics. Suffice to say,
your response was inflammatory and irrelevant.

Pete

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...
You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying
to
make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

IMHO, scandals like those regarding Enron, Worldcom, and the Iraq War are
proof enough that you don't need to be poor to be a criminal.

But to suggest that there's NO statistical correlation between poverty and
crime, and *especially* between poverty and property crimes (like theft), is
just plain incorrect.

Perhaps saying it out loud is an insult to the poor people who don't commit
crimes. But that's a matter for the PC police, not people who are
interested in factual statements.

Pete

C J Campbell wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These
people who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would
do well to remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe
in God from participating in the political system. However, I have found
that it is too much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend
the same courtesy to me.

I would never exclude you and your opinions from the political debate.

Where the line is crossed is when the 'religious' attempt to codify some of
their beliefs in law. Too often nowadays the debate is focused on a
particular issue as 'right vs. wrong' when it really is a question of what
is the appropriate role of a 'religion neutral' government. It leads to the
great polarization we see today because there is no room to compromise on
'core' beliefs. It also implies that one set of religious beliefs are being
favored over another.

Abortion and gay rights are the big ones today and they are perfect
examples.

No one, not even the most liberal, believes that abortion is a good thing.
Yet they are often portrayed as being "for abortion". The appropriate
question is should the government be involved in medical decisions and/or
can the government decide what a woman can or can't do to her own body?

In the gay marriage issue we should be debating whether or not the
government should be involved in deciding who one can marry and if it
should even be in the marriage business at all.

When I was growing up Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays.
Would anyone suggest that the government step in and close all the steak
houses? Of course not. But not because it is a trivial matter. Rather it is
readily apparent that not all religions share this view and the government
would be seen as favoring one religion over another if it were to try to
intervene.

I believe that life doesn't begin until you can breathe on your own and that
if two consenting adults want to marry then that's the way "God" wanted it.
I expect my government to give equal weight to my 'religious' beliefs as
yours.

Who was the wise man that said 'You can't legislate morality'?

--
Frank....H