Archive through March 01, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archive Thru March 2002: Archive thru March 2002:The Bush legacy lives on...:Archive through March 01, 2002
By Petermarc on Friday, March 01, 2002 - 12:44 am: Edit

his 'duty' was to his wife and family...
thrillseeker, pure and simple...

By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Petermarc :"his job was his choice, his decision was his choice, he was not drafted.."

Thats precisly why I'm toasting him. He went because he felt it was his duty. The paper didn't tell him to go! He knew that he was going to what is turning into the WORST AND MOST DANGEROUS place in the world for a reprter to go.

Unlike most of the half assed primma donna's in news today, he went.

I spent 4 years in the U.S. army (11B all the way) and I appreciate the risk he took. Unarmed. With no arty or cav to call on as back up.

Weather you think it was stupid or not, gotta admit, it took balls.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Good gods, man, if the election was totally rigged, don't you think they would have done a better job of it? As it is, they only squeaked by by a few hundred votes. The election could have been thrown by a nasty flu epidemic keeping a few hundred Republicans home. The election may have been tweaked a bit, but it wasn't rigged. If they were going to rig it, they would have left more of a margin of error.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:53 pm: Edit

nevermind

By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:52 pm: Edit

or 3) We live with it because we have no choice, but know in our hearts it was rigged.

and as for the situation being reversed, I don't see it happening, the Republicans are the ones who like to play it fast & loose, and feel that laws don't apply to them as long as their andidate gets in. The Dems haven't had the balls for that shit since papa Joe Kennedy passed away.

As for the Suprem Court, you are correct, and they are the way they are ultimately because this country elected Reagan and pappy Bush, and those who voted for them (and those who didn't vote) deserve wht they get.

As for the Nader/3rd part thing... the 2 parties we have are so similar it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard, most of them are bough and paid for and not looking out for YOUR welfare. If third parties aren't viable it's only beause people don't think they are. I usually don't bother preaching my views, but I try to live them. Things are only going to change when the voters realize they don't have to play along if they don't like the rules, they make the rules. If you like a major party candidate, fine. But if you're one of that large group of folks who say they don't then don't get sucked into their game, vote for someone else. It's not a matter of "spoilers", it's a matter of doing the right thing.

By Robman on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Politics and absinthe seem to have good "synergy" :^D

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:54 pm: Edit


Quote:

The election was a farce, it was rigged, and there was no way that they were going to let Gore take office even if he did win.



Oh, bullshit. If the stuation had been reversed, the Republicans would have pissed and moaned just like the Democrats did, but the courts would likely have made the same judgments and the Republicans would have eventually given up. And if Gore had won a clear plurality (like, say, if Nader hadn't been running in Florida) there would have been no contention at all. What, you think they would have staged a revolution?

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:49 pm: Edit


Quote:

Also, Florida could NOT have just appointed the electors because FL state laws says so



Florida state law is made my the Florida legislature. As this is a statute and not a constitutional clause, they would simply have to pass a law naming the electors for that occasion, and the Jeb would have signed it into law. This was discussed at length at the time.

Sure, I don't always agre with the SCOTUS, but I do acknowlege their authority.

There are irregularities of the sort that took place in Florida in every state, in every election, and I have little doubt they are oft manipulated to favor the candidate of whatever party is in the position to do the manipulation. This is just one of the rare occasions time a presidential race has been close enough that these votes made a difference. It is more than possible that, if every vote were counted in several other close states, the results there might have changed as well.

There are basically two options here: 1) you accept the results as they were tallied under law, which makes Bush the winner, or 2) you find the results so filled with erorrs that they cannot be trusted. If 2, then you cannot name a winner one way or the other. You cannot pick the data which support one side, but throw out the rest. Either it's good or its bad.

I know we are going round in circles here. If there was hard evidence that there was real wrongdoing, and it was brought before the courts and found to be the case, I would accept it. But at this point, all we have is allegations, and, to my knowlege, the only lawsuits pending are just asking for future reforms, not contending that there was intentional wrongdoing. There are a lot of allegations, but if there were hard facts, don't you think SOMEBODY would have brought them before the court by now?

By Pikkle on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:40 pm: Edit

who cares, it's all the same, just stick with the winner, you can't go wrong... unless you're some whiney bleeding heart left wing liberal who will never be satisfied with anything and espouses tons of hippocritical rhetoric that adds up to guilt laden scare tactics meant to frighten small children away from clubbing baby seals while their tiny fingers freeze in the harsh North Dakota winter...

By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:38 pm: Edit

I don't either... but I'm one of those left-wing crazies and voted for Nader... Just dislike Bush a whole lot more.

By Drbeer on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:32 pm: Edit

I didn't like Gore so I suppose I'm glad he didn't take office.

By Pikkle on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:27 pm: Edit

ya, okay, when is it not? Duh...

By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Re the FL election.

I guess everyone's going to believe what they want.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1440000/1440130.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1372000/1372065.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1174000/1174115.stm

But basically Jeb's folks in FL did everything possible to keep black (i.e. very likely to vote for Gore) away from the polls, and they broke numerous state and federal laws to do so.

Also, Florida could NOT have just appointed the electors because FL state laws says so

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0103/SEC011.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0103->Section%20011

and, yes, ultimately (and unfortunately) it came down to the Supreme court, hand picked by Reagan and Bush. If you are liberal you probably can't come up with a whole lot of decisions this supreme court made that are any good. As conservative a court as there ever was.

The election was a farce, it was rigged, and there was no way that they were going to let Gore take office even if he did win.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Yeah, it appears Captain Anthrax was just pissed off that he was laid off, or at least that is the story that is circulating. I'm pretty sure I got that from a maintream news source, so I don't think I'm blowing anything. The scary thing, is that it bears some amount of resemblance to the motivation given for the real JFK gunman in the Illuminatus! Trilogy.

So, yeah, people willing to commit mass murder and sow fear and terror come from all walks of life and do so for all sorts of reasons.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:11 pm: Edit


Quote:

The rules of law in Florida were bent and broken and stepped on to give that state to Dubya.



Not so far as the SCOTUS was concerned, and they are sorta the final arbiters of what the law says.

As far as most of the people turned away from voting, this was due to errors in the database of disenfranchised felons. Likewise, it appears that ballots cast in predominantly black counties simply had more errors than others, particlarly overvotes. The stories of police simply turning away black voters have failed to be confirmed. It was not deliberate vioation of the law, but a really big fuck-up. The US Civil Rights Commission found irregularities, but nothing criminal. Until something comes of the NAACP v. Harris suite (of which I can find nothing since it was filed) I am going to agree with them.

Regardless, the study of the ballots done by various news organizations showed that, had Gore gotten the recount under the conditions he requested, he would have lost, and had the recount had time to be completed under the conditions ordered by the SCOFla, he still would have lost. Only under one condition, if there was a state-wide recount and the critereon was evidence of voter intent, would Gore have won, by a narrow margin, but nobody had requested such a recount and it was not consistant with the rule of law, since it would have involved counting ballots which had multiple votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11&notFound=true

You do recognize that it would have been perfectly legal for the Florida Legislature to simply appoint a panel of (Republican) electors, right? They have that power and should have exercised it, just to quiet this kind of speculation.

Like I said, I'm a liberal, and would have voted for Gore if my vote wasn't nullified by the overwhelming Republican majority in VA, but it's over. The rules which existed for determining the winner of the election were flawed, but they were the only rules that we had to work with at the time. The process by which we chose the president is somewhat arbitary and pretty undemocratic anyway, so I have trouble getting so upset ofver a few hundred votes that I would undermine the presidency over it.

I mean, he does a good enough job undermining himslef, what with being an imbicile and all.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 03:34 pm: Edit

Just remember where you heard it first, nest time someone stupidly says that I get my jollies reading SOF. I wouldn't wipe my ass with SOF. I tried once. Bob Brown's cheapo ink gave my butt a nasty rash.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit

You won't see much in the press till they pop the guy and Mirandize his murderous greedy ass. Because that's the way they want it. It's the motive that will really tick you off.

Money.

By Mvario on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 02:49 pm: Edit

And I stuck those words in a search engine and got this page

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/compilationofanthraxevidence.html

Which is a lot more than I knew. I didn't realize they were zeroing in. Haven't heard much about it in the press lately (which is probably a good thing considering the hysteria they whipped up, at least here in NYC, but I'm sure they just got tired of it and wanted to look for the next thing to sensationalize). Thanks for the info Don.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 11:27 am: Edit

The challenge for American society is to protect itself while we are rooting out terror from the world stage, at least as best as possible, and then returning to normalcy at home, rolling back the intrustions into privacy and personal freedoms. This might not be easy or simple, but it is necessary, and if we fail at the rollback while succeeding at the war, then we will have indeed lost.

But if we do succeed at the destruction of global terror, then there will come a day when passengers won't have to be seperated from the cockpit of an airliner by an armored door, when CMH winners in their 80s aren't harassed by jumped up rentacops, and when Secret Service agents aren't put off flights because they happen to be Arab Americans.

By the way, Mr Rabid is right about the anthrax mailer. The government knows who he is, he is not political, he is criminal, and shamefully, one of our own. They are busily nailing down an airtight case. This guy will get to know sodium pentathol very intimately, but not for very long. Watch for these words: Dugway Proving Grounds, weaponized Ames strain, Ft Detrick, contractor.

By Baz on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 09:24 am: Edit

Don, petermarc
you guys are both right. They are animals, and cowardly animals at that. How brave is it to beat stab and kill a restrained hostage?

But he did stick his head in the mouth of the beast. He wanted to know why. He felt he had the duty. I hope that he realized the danger, and didnt go in half-cocked. I believe he did know, and felt it was worth the risk. He wasn't an amateur.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:47 am: Edit

No. For $5M the ISI guys will rat each other out. And that is the group really responsible. That is the group that the Pali PM has to bring down, and get control of, or else they will bring HIM down. Like they did Zia al Haq.

They are pros, they will sell out but not cheap.

By Petermarc on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 08:20 am: Edit

his job was his choice, his decision was his choice, he was not drafted...
and, of couse, i have no problem with going after those guys anyways, but you could offer $100 in that part of the world, and it might bring out the same amount of information...

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 07:52 am: Edit

Oh, so it's Pearl's fault, for doing his JOB?

Get your head out of your ass.

His own fault, that he got his head chopped off, like any number of hostages of the Abu Sayyef (soon to be extinct) or skinned alive like poor Bill Buckley in Beirut?

And let me remind you that THAT atrocity was personally conducted by Ossama's number two man, the head of the Eguyptian Islamic Jihad?

These people are terrorist ANIMALS and need to be put down like animals. Make no mistake about it. And that is exactly what we are going about doing.

By Petermarc on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 07:21 am: Edit

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/27/pearl.investigation/index.html

$ 5 million...how many poor families can you feed with that?

By Petermarc on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 06:24 am: Edit

>is just flat out......

dangerous as hell...one can feel sorry for his wife and baby, but come on! he was risking his life and he knew it, just like other journalists who put themselves out there like that...there is a certain arrogance by reporters that think they are supposed to be untouchable in this type of situation, or have the right to be saved when something screws up...do you think the military would have given permission for such an outing by a civilian? there is a fine line between being a hero and a thrill-seeker...

By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 04:53 am: Edit

Daniel Pearl was a very good reporter. He also had balls of steel. For a jewish reporter to go to an islamic country and try to effort a story on the Pakistani intelligence and their ties with osama bin runnin is just flat out......words fail me.

He was the epitome of a journalist.

I'll be downing one for you Daniel.

By Pablo on Thursday, February 28, 2002 - 01:18 am: Edit

Well said Rabid.

By Mr_Rabid on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:23 pm: Edit

That's Africa. It's the middle east too. Cultural values that don't have a problem with violence.

Who are we to judge, or to stop it, unless it threatens our interests?

In the middle east, it does, cuz they gots them some black gold, texas tea...oil, that is.

I wish we would be more honest about it too. Why is everyone so afraid of that?

"Yeah, I know you are the ruler of Whateverstan, Azim. And you are really mad at the ruler of Theotherstan. But you are destabilizing the region which threatens our oil supply, and therefore the economic well being of our nation. So we are stopping your war. Sorry and stuff, but fuck off."

Was that so hard?

By Mvario on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:16 pm: Edit

But that's the thing, under the "rules of law" Gore won. Turning folks away from the polls was illegal, counting absentee ballots postmarked too late was illegal. The rules of law in Florida were bent and broken and stepped on to give that state to Dubya.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Uh, Rwanda/Burundi was and is, Hutu vs Tutsi and Tutsi vs Hutu. If you want to argue that it's quasi tribal or hemi tribal or whatever, it's still tribal, it's the African curse. Blaming it on the long departed Belgians isn't any help. Saying it was governmental is no help when the government was one group and the victims were the OTHER group.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 07:50 pm: Edit

I'm not saying that the plurality of people in Florida who voted (or were eligible but turned away) intended to vote for Bush. I'm pretty sure they didn't. I am saying that, under the rule of law as it existed at the time of the elections, the accepted procedure determined Bush to be the winner. The winner is not determined by the intention of the voters, but by the number of valid ballots counted under the existing rules.

By Mvario on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Well, on the second part I'm disagreeing with you. The point I was trying to get at was that where and when the US government intervenes is determined by econimic interests, yet historically, and today they spout rhetoric that it's all about good and evil and doing the right thing. That's why no one cares about Rwanda but threaten Kuwait and the troops go in. I'm not saying we should be the moral police of the world, though I guess I'm implying that I believe in the sovereignty of nations, so if internal shit happens in some country in the world I don't think the US (nor any other country) has the right to bring it's covert or military powers to bear.

And don't even get me started on FL. Every questionable ballot (paper or absentee) and every county that was or wasn't recounted was counted in favor of Dubya. And the actions up to the time of the elections to disenfranchise black voters was unconscionable. Do the research. Dubya did not win.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Hell, I'm a big fuzzy liberal, and I'M tired of the whole "he wasn't elected" crap. There was a rule of law in place. That law may have been flawed or poorly designed, but it was all we had to work with. Under that rule of law, Bush won. Personally, it should have never even been an issue. The FL legislature should have just appointed the electors and been done with it.

Rwanda was not "tribalism". It was a deliberate act of genocide by the government, for calculated political purposes, and one of the worst acts of genocide on record, as far as the rate of death went (about 1 million dead in a few months!). Fortunately, that government is gone, tho only time will tell if the new one is any better.

Not incidentally, the "tribal" seperation in Rwanda was imposed by the Belgians, based on how many catle people owned, in order to make their adminstration easier. Previous to that, there were no set boundries between the Batutsi and Bahutu, and individuals could move between the groups. It was more of an issue of social class than ethnicity.

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 06:06 pm: Edit

I also am getting a little tired of this bullshit about the election in Florida.

Gore lost. He had a recount.. he lost again. Recounted again, guess what? Lost again.

What does it take?

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit

The Florida newspapers counted the votes that the SCOTUS didn't, and Bush won fair and square. Sour grapes from Gore supporters count for nothing. Bush won. Gore LOST, he was the one who sought relief in the courts in the first place and now his supporters want to gripe that things didn't go their way.

Tough shit!

As to "those responsible for" Sept 11, let's not forget that Saddam has his fingers in the Al Qaeda pie, and that the choice of target was obviously HIS -- Ramsey Youssef was an IRAQI agent, and failed ten years ago, now Ossama's boys, with Iraqi control, succeeded where Youssef blew it.

So going after Iraq IS going after the folks responsible.

I seriously doubt that the US is going to was with Iran, or N.Korea, for any number of good reasons, but, that doesn't mean they are Nice Guys.

Zimbabwe isn't really our patch, it's the UK's and the UN's and the EU's more than ours. Of course Mugabe is an asshole, and y'know what? HE ALWAYS WAS, what he is doing was predicted and predictible. Read some Ruark, or some (Wilbur, not Ian) Smith. Skip the Alan Paton.

Rwanda? Get real. If we were going to intervene militarily every time tribalism rears its genocidal head in black Africa, we'd have to colonize the entire sub-Saharan continent...

By Mvario on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

oh "evil doesn't enter in to it. It's a sound-bite, marketing. Bush figures he's got everyone behind him and the military all motored up so while he goes after those responsible for the attacks on Sept 11, he might as well see if he can go after everyone else who is against the USA (read against US coporate interests).

There's evil governments all around the world and frankly Scarlett, the President doesn't really give a damn... unless of course there is an economic reason behind it. I don't see him itching to send troops in to Rwanda, Burma or Algeria. And I'm sure he doesn't want to hear about the "elections" in Madagascar and Zimbabwe... that would hit too close to home, reminding him of his big heist in FL.

"Everybody needs money, that's why they call it money"

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Evil does not exist, whether a deed is good or evil is a perception held by a person who has a view on an act.

Do I think killing Daniel Pearl was Evil? I most certainly do. Do killers think it was Evil? Probably not. Do I think that the USA, UK, USSR, China etc. have committed Evil deeds in the name of causes that they deem to be Just? Yes I do. Did the perpetrators of these deeds believe them to be Evil? Probably not, they no doubt believed that the loss of life they caused was done for the greater good.

Evil is ultimately just a matter of opinion and depends on which of the many sides of an argument you stand. I stand on the side that says the killers of Daniel Pearl were Evil bastards.

Hobgoblin

By Baz on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 01:28 pm: Edit

I've been bitten on the knobby a few times by evil, and to me the killing of pearl was just run of the mill for these bloodthirsty fucks.

Whether its a warlord with a technical, a kidnapper with a knife, or an arab with a bomb, these "people" think that bravery and courage is killing. They are so blinded by tunnel vision that they can't even see what they are doing to themselves, its just the POWER to kill others that gives them a raison d'etre.
It reminds me of inner city gang violence in the early nineties. The explanations for why it happens, after a while, just stop making sense.

By Arj on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit

I'm practicing non-action perfectly, Meaty. My words couldn't be more in harmony. Put down that gee-tar junior and get over to Religion 101. Non-action is not in-action.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 11:51 am: Edit


Quote:

You want to open the list up to China?

Now who's being irresponsible?



Oh, I'm not suggesting we "go after" China. I'm just saying that if we are going to claim that we are combatting "evil", as opposed to combatting nations who pose a threat to our interests, then we look rather hypocritical as we condemn North Korea for playing a game which China invented, or claim that when Saudi Arabia and Pakistan suppress dissedant groups by violence, it's different than it is when Iran does it.

I don't have a big problem with our focussing on those nations which are a threat to us, simply because we don't have the resources (including human lives) to police the whole world. I would just rather we were honest about it, instead of dressing it up with false moral absolutes. That way lies the sort of blind extremism that makes people crash planes into buildings full of innocent people.

And yeah, Burma/Myanmar/The Bloodbath West Of Thailand certainly ranks up there, but I doubt the US will do anything, since, AFAIK, it isn't much of a stronghold for anti-American terrorists.

On the other hand, we are more than willing to help the Phillipine government in its eternal quest to crush the Moros. Not to imply that the Moros are squeaky-clean, but I think they fall into the same category as the Palestinians, as a rightly-angered, oppressed people who have only made their oppression worse by turning to the tactics of terror.

By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 11:26 am: Edit

I am dancing around some sensitive nerves here as I can see. I don't condone the killing of Daniel Pearl. It was horrendous, and all my sympathy goes out to his family. But all this is besides my point. And if I offended anyone with my Vietnam example all I can say is that I have the utmost respect for anyone who did the right thing and fought for our country in that war, though I think our government was wrong to put and keep us their so long. Once again this is besides my point.

I don't mean to come off sounding ignorant, I don't think I have attacked anyone’s character here and if you feel I am unqualified to say these things then that's your prerogative. I have no problem with that but this is my prerogative. I can see this is getting us no where and my point about the use of the word evil seems to have been lost in all this side bullshit.

And sorry for the mix-up DrBeer. To anyone who wants to make this personal, Arj, thank you for receiving my comments with an open mind and not reverting to childish insults (is there a keyboard face for sarcasm?). Why don’t you revert to some “non-action” instead and shut-up. And before you respond with, “Why don’t you practice what you preach”, I am not continuing with this topic, I have said my peace.

By Arj on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:43 am: Edit

Meat-ball, It was I, not Dr. Beer, who criticized "sheltered blame-America-first college students." The label wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but it does seem to fit you, so you can wear it.

Don, rock on. You couldn't be more right.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:09 am: Edit

And you, sirrahy, are a wet behind the ears college kid who wouldn't know evil if it bit you on the knobby.

Spend some time in the real world, son, and you will get to see some evil. Sit in my vantage in Thailand and dare to fucking lecture ME about Vietnam, arrogant puppy.

You want to condone the killing of a journalist to produce a propaganda tape, and it's you I'd call evil. Why don't you call Pearl's wife and tell her that her husband's butchers are morally equivalent to the United States in the Indochina war?

In short -- fuck you. Ignorant snot!

By Scanion on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 09:20 am: Edit

I like Pablo's comment about it being the staff, not the President. There is a lot of truth to that. The US federal goverment is way too big for one person to run it. The President must rely on the strength of his staff, but also show leadership.

Compare Clinton and Bush 43. Clinton came became President and had a long list of objectives. However, I do not think he had a vision. He did a lot of the work himself, but I never sensed he was leading his staff. Bush 43 has articulated sweeping changes he wants to make, before and after 911. He admittedly is a hands-off leader, but trusts that his staff will execute his vision.

Many criticize Bush for lacking knowledge, but what he has shown is the ability to lead. Even if you think he is leading the US to hell in a handbasket, Bush 43 believes he is doing right.

By Meat_Nipples on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 08:59 am: Edit

To clarify about the self-righteous comment; using the word evil is so dualistic, so "we have god on our side", so if you don't agree with us you are evil, that it makes me sick. Evil is a relative term, but it implies a holier than now attitude that is just begging to be misunderstood. Our government has made a lot of bad decisions (I won't go into them, we will get off topic) in the past that, depending on who's side you are on, were evil.

If killing Daniel Pearl was done for political reasons, then it was no more evil than us going to war for political reasons (such as all the innocents that died in Vietnam) and basically no more evil than our history on this continent (again I will forgo the details). Do I believe America is evil? No certainly not. America is a great place, because I have benefited from it, I am on that side of the fence.

Evil is a childish word that reaffirms ones position and incites anger from those that disagree. "Evil" speaks to the world; “we are right and that is the end of it, f**ck diplomacy.” Do things our way or there is going to be blood shed.

Dr. Beer: I must have misunderstood you, I thought you were calling me a "sheltered college student w/ a blame America first attitude". If that wasn't directed at me then I apologize for getting defensive ;)

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation