Fire!

On Nov 1, 12:13 pm, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

Actually, Miki, _he_ doesn't. The people whom he represents and for whom he
works do. You - "The People" - hold the power in your nation. Not a man, not
even a group of men. The checks and balances in the system aren't perfect
but they do make the presumption again and again that no one man or group
willl ever "rule' the nation. If you think he's more powerful than the those
who employ him for a short time, then you don't see a Presient, you see a
King. And the Founding Fathers would be revolving right now if that were the
case. :-)

Hey, aren't you Canadian? How has it come that we need
a "foreigner" to teach American Civics 101?

Cross the border and get one of those Green Cards, for
heaven's sake, like all those Canadian actors/actresses.
But, with the current (sad) exchange rate, it's probably
not worth it. Very soon we'll be crossing north to get
jobs, especially with global warming that would make
the Northwest Territories like California (without fires
[the original topic], floods, quakes, tornadoes).

John Wheaton scribed:


"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
John Wheaton wrote:


Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or
settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne
it
was made quite clear that he would be deposed.

The same argument applies to North Korea, etc..
Too many war-mongers.


Ah you mention war-mongers so you do remember Saddam invading Iran and
Kuwait.

I am sure we all know about Saddam invading Kuwait. That was what led to
the first Gulf War and his defeat led to that resolution. Saddam was under
international control. You probably also remember the Iran-Iraq War
where
the US provided satellite information on Iranian troops positions so they
could be targeted with WMDs. The US had no problem with WMDs being used by
Iraq in that one.

Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using
WMDs.

Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA
delivered the WMD's would serve as evidence?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:16:58 -0700, "John Wheaton"
wrote:


"Ed Jay" wrote in message
.. .
John Wheaton scribed:


"Ed Jay" wrote in message
...
John Wheaton scribed:


"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Do you know, Miki, that this is the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler in the early 30s? I'm always cautious of anyone
who
would seek to silence others on the basis that their speech is
"unpatriotic" or "abuses freedom of speech".

Liberal Icon FDR also put newspapermen and other dissenters in
detention.
Are you going to compare him to Hitler as well?

FDR has nothing to do with Bush.

Very true as Bush has not locked up dissidents, or set up internment camps
as FDR did.

Nothing that FDR may have done excuses Bush. Stoopid argument, John.

Hey, William the Conqueror invaded England. Bush didn't. I guess that
makes
Bush a good guy in your book, huh? That makes as much sense as your
argument. :-)

How dissent was handled was the subject and Bush was being compared to
Hitler who imprisoned and executed dissenters. Not much of a comparison
there so I provided an example of a liberal Democrat Icon that went much
farther than Bush by directly silencing dissenters by imprisoning them.

If we are to compare to Hitler it behooves you to name at elast
one dissenter who was imprisoned and executed.

In fact, please name several dissenters, per se, that have been
imprisoned by Bush. (Perhaps we have different definitions of
"dissenter").


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen scribed:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:16:58 -0700, "John Wheaton"
wrote:


"Ed Jay" wrote in message
. ..
John Wheaton scribed:


"Ed Jay" wrote in message
m...
John Wheaton scribed:


"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Do you know, Miki, that this is the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler in the early 30s? I'm always cautious of anyone
who would seek to silence others on the basis that their speech is
"unpatriotic" or "abuses freedom of speech".

Liberal Icon FDR also put newspapermen and other dissenters in
detention. Are you going to compare him to Hitler as well?

FDR has nothing to do with Bush.

Very true as Bush has not locked up dissidents, or set up internment camps
as FDR did.

Nothing that FDR may have done excuses Bush. Stoopid argument, John.

Hey, William the Conqueror invaded England. Bush didn't. I guess that
makes Bush a good guy in your book, huh? That makes as much sense as your
argument. :-)

How dissent was handled was the subject and Bush was being compared to
Hitler who imprisoned and executed dissenters. Not much of a comparison
there so I provided an example of a liberal Democrat Icon that went much
farther than Bush by directly silencing dissenters by imprisoning them.

If we are to compare to Hitler it behooves you to name at elast
one dissenter who was imprisoned and executed.

In fact, please name several dissenters, per se, that have been
imprisoned by Bush. (Perhaps we have different definitions of
"dissenter").

I would also point out that the poster was not referring to _acts carried
out against dissenters_, but to "the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler." Once again we see words *******ized to establish a
strawman argument.

If one wants to take the time to carefully read the history of the Third
Reich's rise to power, one will find a myriad of similarities between the
methods employed to achieve its ends and the methods employed by the Bush
cabal to achieve its objectives.

Regardless of what FDR did, it does not negate or excuse Bush...except for
those true believers who will seek any excuse (not reason) to excuse Bush.

I would also point out that FDR's actions took place while the US was
defending itself against aggressors during a world war which was begun by
the aggressors. Quite a leap from Bush's pre-emptive US attack on a small,
sovereign nation that had nothing to do with attacks against US assets.

As an aside...today's Doonesberry cartoon underscored an irony: Bush saying
he was going to restore dignity to the Office of President after taking over
from Clinton, and now a Clinton will probably clean up the mess Bush made.
:-)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:54:47 -0700, Ed Jay
wrote:

Hatunen scribed:

If we are to compare to Hitler it behooves you to name at elast
one dissenter who was imprisoned and executed.

In fact, please name several dissenters, per se, that have been
imprisoned by Bush. (Perhaps we have different definitions of
"dissenter").

I would also point out that the poster was not referring to _acts carried
out against dissenters_, but to "the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler." Once again we see words *******ized to establish a
strawman argument.

If one wants to take the time to carefully read the history of the Third
Reich's rise to power, one will find a myriad of similarities between the
methods employed to achieve its ends and the methods employed by the Bush
cabal to achieve its objectives.

I've read quite a few histories of the Third Reich, in fact, I
reread them periodically, and will happily participate in a "quiz
show" with you about it.

Now, first we need to establish just what you consider a
"dissenter".

For instance, many newspaper editorialists keep lambasting Bush
and his policies. I would certainly call them dissenters. How
many of the writers have been jailed or executed? How many of
their newspapers have been shut down? And what did Hitler do
about this sort of thing?

How about the likes of Jay Leno and his endless jokes about Bush?
He's still on the air. What did Hitelr do about people like him?

The Dixie Chicks are still performing. What would the Third Reich
have odne about them?

The Democratic presidential candidates dissent from Bush's
policies constantly. They're still doing it, and one of htem
stands a good chance of succeeding Bush. What did Hitler do about
dissenting politicians and challenges to his incumbency?

So I repeat my challenges: name at least one dissenter who was
imprisoned and executed.

Regardless of what FDR did, it does not negate or excuse Bush...except for
those true believers who will seek any excuse (not reason) to excuse Bush.

I would also point out that FDR's actions took place while the US was
defending itself against aggressors during a world war which was begun by
the aggressors. Quite a leap from Bush's pre-emptive US attack on a small,
sovereign nation that had nothing to do with attacks against US assets.

There were some sorry events connected with US paranoia during
WW2. There usually are sorry events during war time.

But I'm on your side about Bush's invasion of Iraq, so you can
quit arguing with me there.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply wrong, and actually detracts
from the horror that was Nazism. The Third Reich was a far, far
more terrible place than preent-day America, and Hitler was the
personification of evil. Bush is simply an idiot with only
fourteen months left to his presidency, and even if Amendment
XXII to the Constitution were repealed I seriously doubt he could
get elected to a third term.

As an aside...today's Doonesberry cartoon underscored an irony: Bush saying
he was going to restore dignity to the Office of President after taking over
from Clinton, and now a Clinton will probably clean up the mess Bush made.
:-)

I'll support the next president no matter who she is.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:


The REAL idiots are the ones who are giving moral support to the terrorists BY attacking this

The actual idiots are the ones who created the fire storm of terrorism
by alienating most of the world.

Remember the terrorists are our buddies the Saudis.

Another major source of the insurgency is Pakistan. The administration
took Pakistan off its list of terrorism supporting countries in a deal that
allowed over flights (and tuning a blind eye to border incursions) but has
been reluctant to tackle the Islamic fundamentalists in the northern
regions that border Afghanistan.

Ed Jay wrote:


Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using
WMDs.

Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA

http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm

Hatunen scribed:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:54:47 -0700, Ed Jay
wrote:

Hatunen scribed:

If we are to compare to Hitler it behooves you to name at elast
one dissenter who was imprisoned and executed.

In fact, please name several dissenters, per se, that have been
imprisoned by Bush. (Perhaps we have different definitions of
"dissenter").

I would also point out that the poster was not referring to _acts carried
out against dissenters_, but to "the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler." Once again we see words *******ized to establish a
strawman argument.

If one wants to take the time to carefully read the history of the Third
Reich's rise to power, one will find a myriad of similarities between the
methods employed to achieve its ends and the methods employed by the Bush
cabal to achieve its objectives.

I've read quite a few histories of the Third Reich, in fact, I
reread them periodically, and will happily participate in a "quiz
show" with you about it.

Now, first we need to establish just what you consider a
"dissenter".

For instance, many newspaper editorialists keep lambasting Bush
and his policies. I would certainly call them dissenters. How
many of the writers have been jailed or executed? How many of
their newspapers have been shut down? And what did Hitler do
about this sort of thing?

How about the likes of Jay Leno and his endless jokes about Bush?
He's still on the air. What did Hitelr do about people like him?

The Dixie Chicks are still performing. What would the Third Reich
have odne about them?

The Democratic presidential candidates dissent from Bush's
policies constantly. They're still doing it, and one of htem
stands a good chance of succeeding Bush. What did Hitler do about
dissenting politicians and challenges to his incumbency?

So I repeat my challenges: name at least one dissenter who was
imprisoned and executed.

I won't take the time to take you up on your challenge, especially because
we're speaking to different issues. Either that, or you opine that
imprisonment or death are the only ways to treat dissenters.

I'm speaking to, and agreeing with the OP's assertion that many of the same
strategies and methods that brought the Third Reich to power drive the Bush
administration's treatment of dissenters. To my observation, Joseph
Goerbells wrote the Karl Rove playbook.

Regardless of what FDR did, it does not negate or excuse Bush...except for
those true believers who will seek any excuse (not reason) to excuse Bush.

I would also point out that FDR's actions took place while the US was
defending itself against aggressors during a world war which was begun by
the aggressors. Quite a leap from Bush's pre-emptive US attack on a small,
sovereign nation that had nothing to do with attacks against US assets.

There were some sorry events connected with US paranoia during
WW2. There usually are sorry events during war time.

But I'm on your side about Bush's invasion of Iraq,

Then, you hate America, right? You're a DFH if you disagree with what Bush
did. A traitor. Have you registered as a sex offender yet? I'll show you how
to stifle dissent! (Get my point?)

so you can quit arguing with me there.

I'm not arguing with you at all. You seem stuck with the thought that
jail/death are the only actions available to stifle dissent. The masses are
easily intimidated...this administration has used vilification, ridicule, ad
hominem attacks, fear, racism, segregation of dissenters and arrest to
stifle dissent.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply wrong, and actually detracts
from the horror that was Nazism. The Third Reich was a far, far
more terrible place than preent-day America, and Hitler was the
personification of evil. Bush is simply an idiot with only
fourteen months left to his presidency, and even if Amendment
XXII to the Constitution were repealed I seriously doubt he could
get elected to a third term.

We're in agreement. My concern, though, goes to the potential damage that
can be effected in the next 14 months.

As an aside...today's Doonesberry cartoon underscored an irony: Bush saying
he was going to restore dignity to the Office of President after taking over
from Clinton, and now a Clinton will probably clean up the mess Bush made.
:-)

I'll support the next president no matter who she is.

The Country is ready for a woman president, but not for a Giu. :-)
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:51:50 -0700, Ed Jay
wrote:

Hatunen scribed:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:54:47 -0700, Ed Jay
wrote:

I'm speaking to, and agreeing with the OP's assertion that many of the same
strategies and methods that brought the Third Reich to power drive the Bush
administration's treatment of dissenters. To my observation, Joseph
Goerbells wrote the Karl Rove playbook.

Specifics, please.

Regardless of what FDR did, it does not negate or excuse Bush...except for
those true believers who will seek any excuse (not reason) to excuse Bush.

I would also point out that FDR's actions took place while the US was
defending itself against aggressors during a world war which was begun by
the aggressors. Quite a leap from Bush's pre-emptive US attack on a small,
sovereign nation that had nothing to do with attacks against US assets.

There were some sorry events connected with US paranoia during
WW2. There usually are sorry events during war time.

But I'm on your side about Bush's invasion of Iraq,

Then, you hate America, right? You're a DFH if you disagree with what Bush
did. A traitor. Have you registered as a sex offender yet? I'll show you how
to stifle dissent! (Get my point?)

No. That was pretty dumb.

so you can quit arguing with me there.

I'm not arguing with you at all. You seem stuck with the thought that
jail/death are the only actions available to stifle dissent.

As soon as you invoke the Third Reich, Htler or Goebbles, tehy
are on the table. Otherwise it's penny ante stuff.

The masses are
easily intimidated...this administration has used vilification, ridicule, ad
hominem attacks, fear, racism, segregation of dissenters and arrest to
stifle dissent.

Please give us specifics as to how the masses of Americans are
intimidated. They don't look a bit intimidated to me.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply wrong, and actually detracts
from the horror that was Nazism. The Third Reich was a far, far
more terrible place than preent-day America, and Hitler was the
personification of evil. Bush is simply an idiot with only
fourteen months left to his presidency, and even if Amendment
XXII to the Constitution were repealed I seriously doubt he could
get elected to a third term.

We're in agreement. My concern, though, goes to the potential damage that
can be effected in the next 14 months.

Such as...?



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"John Wheaton" wrote
"Ed Jay" wrote in message
John Wheaton scribed:
Why I jumped in was because of the often told tale of the current
administartion lying about WMDs. If they lied so then did the entire
Clinton Administration as they stated the same things.

Without in any way being drawn into a he said/he said debate, I'll just
point out the lack of logic in the above statement.

Clinton made his statement some 10 years before.

Wrong! I posted Clinton quotes from 2002 a few months before we resumed
hostilities with Iraq, but that are other Clinton quotes floating around
that date AFTER hostilities resumed.

It can be true and not be
supportive of the statement by Bush if conditions changed in the
intervening time, a change in conditions which has been claimed,
supported, and appear to be true. At least, in all these years there's
been no evidence to support the Adminsitraiton's contention that WMDs
existed in anything approaching the numbers claimed.

Just the testimony of a number of Iraqi Generals and Mossad.