Alexander Mulligan wrote:

In talk.religion.newage, Ian St. John wrote:

Alexander Mulligan wrote:

In talk.religion.newage, Ian St. John wrote:

Raj Rijhwani wrote:

On Friday, in article
     <VLObd.311643$787.96174@fe2.columbus.rr.com>
     nunya@bizniz.net "John Baker" wrote:

Dude, just vote the republicans out. <G>

I'm sorry - that's off-topic.

Shrub may well be alien, but we're searching for extra-terrestrial
*intelligence*.

The problem with Dumbya is not his intelligence. It is his reckless
disregard. Basically, a loose cannon, he cannot understand that not
everything has a military solution. The danger is that he will get
another mandate and pile up more provocations on top of his current
fiasco ( such as adding Iran to the destabilisation of the middle
east as some sources have leaked ). He may end up igniting the
entire region out of pure cussedness and inability to accept his
mistakes honestly.

Anyone that thinks there's any real difference between tweedlejohn
and tweedlegeorge is dumber than he is.

No. I do not expect Kerry to be reckless. That is a major difference
and critical difference just there.

No. That is not a major or critical difference.

I respectfully disagree.

You can't see the forest for the trees because you think
that these two people represent the opposite ends of a
spectrum, when they actually share about 98% in common, and
it is that 98% that is threatening all life on Earth and
foments and finances and makes war all over the planet.

Now you are starting to foam at the mouth. Please be a bit more reasoned. We
are comparing Kerry vs Bush, not the infinite evils of the world. Nor are
delusions of 'mind reading' impressive except to others of your kind.

That presumes to force its culture down the throats of other
peoples at the point of a gun.

Well, Bush is doing so. I do not think that you can muster an argument that
Kerry would pursue the reckless policies of the Bush administration. He is
much more likley to focus on domestic issues and wind down the war by
putting the U.N. in charge of peace keeping and, by removing the U.S.
target, of allowing neutral countries to help stimulate a recovery.

Here's a clue for you, American Asshole: You can't force people
to be free at the point of a gun.

To put it more clearly, neither freedom nor democracy are suitable to that
method.

That isn't freedom. Duh.

Nor does freedom necessarily involve living like you do.

I have no confidence that you know how I live, where, doing what job, of
what race or what nationality I am. You may be having translation
difficulties?

Duh.

The Middle Eastern Moslems could democratically choose to
live under a Moslem theocracy.

Well, the Shiite factions would, not the Sunni as near as I can tell. It is
a fact that the Baathist party was Sunni and followed a policy of secular
government. What you have hit upon is that the mixture of Kurd (shiite but
not theocratic ), Sunni, and religious Shiites are just not suitable for a
democracy which is probably why one faction ( the Sunnis ) took over. While
the Shiites would find a theocracy more in keeping with Sharia law, the fact
is that they were not THAT dissatisfied with a secular state which provided
free education and health care.

Like the Estonians democratically chose to live under a
Communist government.

The capacity of the average American for self-deception is simply
staggering.

And how exactly would you know? I do not think that Germany has all that
much contact with the average U.S. citizen.  Do not assume that the Dumbya
administration is typical of the U.S. Or the idiots that post here?

They are the greatest threat to peace on the planet, yet
they run around calling all of their victims "terrorists".

Well, Dumbya (and Tony Blair don't forget) is pursuing a policy of state
terrorism, totally without a legal leg to stand on either internationally or
in terms of U.S. law, but that does not excuse Osama. Both are criminal in
their operations,but are using their position of trust as a 'legitimating'
device.

That's also, by-the-way, what they called the Native Americans
(so called by the arrogant Americans) who resisted the theft
of their lands and the destruction of their cultures.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The U.S. currently has
an excess of absolute power. Same as 1930's germany and it's depression
recovery through militarism ( and government contracts for weapons ) under
Hitler (to feed the industrialists that funded his government) that it could
also not pay for with the tax income of the day.

I hope the Middle Eastern Moslems kick your criminal asses
right out of the Middle East.

I agree. It is just not possible to maintain an army of 130,000+ men during
what is currently peacetime ( there was NO declaration of war as this would
require an act of congress. The current troop deployment is under an
'authorisation' ( which was intended to supply troops to the U.N ). The cost
of war just cannot be maintained without curtailing the level of consumer
goods and instittuing the draft ( note that this is waiting,  pending the
re-election ) so either the war will end or it will likely become a more
sustained and wider conflict spreading to Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Looks like they probably will, too.

That would be my prediction.

And Ian? Shove your constitution and your flag, and your bible,
right up the orifice that you post from.

Exactly what did I do to piss you off?