OT: Driver's licenses for illegals - just to bizarre

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:34 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> still me wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 22:31:48 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> So when I read local newspaper headlines about prosecutions for
>>>>> false voter registrations, those are just stories made up as part
>>>>> of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?
>>
>>>> You removed too much context to know what the hell you're talking
>>>> about. (Hint: the original material I quoted was specifically
>>>> about New York, and quoted election officials. HTH.)
>>
>>> But the "original material" you quoted was from an editorial source
>>> and lacked any evidence that false registration was actually
>>> happening. I'd say you two balance out.
>>
>> So you think the quotes from elections officials were just...made
>> up? I say they know more about the subject than some faceless
>> e-tard on Usenet, but maybe that's just me.
>>
>> BTW, you're the one who started this OT thread. Yet another...
>
> Can you cite any document that proves that undocumented people are
> voting? Otherwise, it is still a myth that you are perpetuating
> because you heard that someone said, or you read that someone said. Is
> there any documentation that you can cite of an undocumented receiving
> a voter registration card? Is there any documentation that traces a
> vote to a non us citizen?

The argument is what WILL happen (scan upthread for what the elections
officials actually said). The goal of the Democrat party is to cultivate
voters wherever and however they can. (One losing congresscritter -- Ms.
Busby -- got caught saying "you don't need papers to vote" out here in CA
and promptly lost to Brian Bilbray.) Illegals, convicts, homeless mentally
ill... you know, the new base! (Gotta replace the dwindling union
membership and all the would-be Dems never born. Stats is stats.)

HTH

 

[Bill Sornson]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> SMS ???. ? <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> still me wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:44:44 GMT, Jasper Janssen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Just another example of granting rights to non citizens...
>>>> Yes, those nasty buggers, thinking they're human. Can't have that.
>>>>
>>>> Jasper
>>>
>>> Human rights, civil rights, yeah, the get those, even as illegals.
>>>
>>> Voting rights (should) require citizenship.
>>
>> It's probably better to have drivers have licenses rather than have
>> drivers without licenses, since they're going to drive no matter
>> what.
>
> A driver's license does not assure future conduct at all. If it did,
> no one would ever be in violation of traffic laws, insurance laws,
> etc.
> Trusting someone who entered illegally (violation), pays no taxes
> (violation), operates a vehice currently while unlicensed
> (violation), and violations of many other categories, could be a tad
> naive. Did I get this wrong again?

No.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> SMS ???. ? <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> still me wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:44:44 GMT, Jasper Janssen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Just another example of granting rights to non citizens...
>>>> Yes, those nasty buggers, thinking they're human. Can't have that.
>>>>
>>>> Jasper
>>>
>>> Human rights, civil rights, yeah, the get those, even as illegals.
>>>
>>> Voting rights (should) require citizenship.
>>
>> It's probably better to have drivers have licenses rather than have
>> drivers without licenses, since they're going to drive no matter
>> what.
>
> A driver's license does not assure future conduct at all. If it did,
> no one would ever be in violation of traffic laws, insurance laws,
> etc.
> Trusting someone who entered illegally (violation), pays no taxes
> (violation), operates a vehice currently while unlicensed
> (violation), and violations of many other categories, could be a tad
> naive. Did I get this wrong again?

No.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> From the available information (e.g., the 9/11 Commission report), the
> Taleban was essentially a national government engaged in supporting al
> Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was not

So why did Hillary claim he was? (I've posted the quote a million times.)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> From the available information (e.g., the 9/11 Commission report), the
> Taleban was essentially a national government engaged in supporting al
> Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was not

So why did Hillary claim he was? (I've posted the quote a million times.)

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no good
>>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement
>>>> over local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we
>>>> would have gang and mafia style government... given the present
>>>> state of humanity....
>>>
>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans
>>> and gangs.
>>>
>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and
>>> replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One
>>> wonders if they have too much of their identity invested in a
>>> particular nation?
>>
>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>
> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
> particular poster).

What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that nations
have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your meaning seemed
quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt act.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no good
>>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement
>>>> over local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we
>>>> would have gang and mafia style government... given the present
>>>> state of humanity....
>>>
>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans
>>> and gangs.
>>>
>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and
>>> replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One
>>> wonders if they have too much of their identity invested in a
>>> particular nation?
>>
>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>
> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
> particular poster).

What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that nations
have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your meaning seemed
quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt act.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
>>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
>>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no good
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement
>>>>> over local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we
>>>>> would have gang and mafia style government... given the present
>>>>> state of humanity....
>>>>
>>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans
>>>> and gangs.
>>>>
>>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and
>>>> replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One
>>>> wonders if they have too much of their identity invested in a
>>>> particular nation?
>>>
>>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>>
>> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
>> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
>> particular poster).
>
> What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
> violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that nations
> have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your meaning seemed
> quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt act.

I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental human
right.

As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
"idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic" to
be an insult, no?

I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
>>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
>>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no good
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement
>>>>> over local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we
>>>>> would have gang and mafia style government... given the present
>>>>> state of humanity....
>>>>
>>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans
>>>> and gangs.
>>>>
>>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and
>>>> replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One
>>>> wonders if they have too much of their identity invested in a
>>>> particular nation?
>>>
>>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>>
>> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
>> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
>> particular poster).
>
> What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
> violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that nations
> have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your meaning seemed
> quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt act.

I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental human
right.

As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
"idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic" to
be an insult, no?

I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

 

[still me]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 20:27:45 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> and
ideologically bent poster wrote:

>The argument is what WILL happen (scan upthread for what the elections
>officials actually said). The goal of the Democrat party is to cultivate
>voters wherever and however they can. (One losing congresscritter -- Ms.
>Busby -- got caught saying "you don't need papers to vote" out here in CA
>and promptly lost to Brian Bilbray.) Illegals, convicts, homeless mentally
>ill... you know, the new base! (Gotta replace the dwindling union
>membership and all the would-be Dems never born. Stats is stats.)

In other words, there is *no* evidence.

 

[still me]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 20:27:45 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> and
ideologically bent poster wrote:

>The argument is what WILL happen (scan upthread for what the elections
>officials actually said). The goal of the Democrat party is to cultivate
>voters wherever and however they can. (One losing congresscritter -- Ms.
>Busby -- got caught saying "you don't need papers to vote" out here in CA
>and promptly lost to Brian Bilbray.) Illegals, convicts, homeless mentally
>ill... you know, the new base! (Gotta replace the dwindling union
>membership and all the would-be Dems never born. Stats is stats.)

In other words, there is *no* evidence.

 

[still me]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 20:31:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> an
ideologically bent poster wrote:

>Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> From the available information (e.g., the 9/11 Commission report), the
>> Taleban was essentially a national government engaged in supporting al
>> Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was not
>
>So why did Hillary claim he was? (I've posted the quote a million times.)

Hillary is irrelevant. This isn't a case of the Democrats vs. the
Republicans except for hopeless ideologues like you.

What matters are the facts and they were evident to anyone with a clue
at the time. What matters are the direct lies and misrepresentations
by *our President* and his agents. What matters are the constitutional
violations. What matter is that this was/is a neo-con, billion dollar
driven crusade for their own benefit.

 

[still me]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 20:31:46 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> an
ideologically bent poster wrote:

>Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> From the available information (e.g., the 9/11 Commission report), the
>> Taleban was essentially a national government engaged in supporting al
>> Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was not
>
>So why did Hillary claim he was? (I've posted the quote a million times.)

Hillary is irrelevant. This isn't a case of the Democrats vs. the
Republicans except for hopeless ideologues like you.

What matters are the facts and they were evident to anyone with a clue
at the time. What matters are the direct lies and misrepresentations
by *our President* and his agents. What matters are the constitutional
violations. What matter is that this was/is a neo-con, billion dollar
driven crusade for their own benefit.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 9, 9:08 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
> >>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
> >>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no good
> >>>>>> reason.
>
> >>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement
> >>>>> over local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we
> >>>>> would have gang and mafia style government... given the present
> >>>>> state of humanity....
>
> >>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans
> >>>> and gangs.
>
> >>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
> >>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and
> >>>> replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One
> >>>> wonders if they have too much of their identity invested in a
> >>>> particular nation?
>
> >>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>
> >> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
> >> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
> >> particular poster).
>
> > What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
> > violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that nations
> > have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your meaning seemed
> > quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt act.
>
> I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental human
> right.
>
> As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
> "idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic" to
> be an insult, no?
>
> I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.

Does Google have spell checker? I could really use that. Yes, I
think a lot of philosophies are idiotic -- I didn't call you an idiot,
though. I forgive people their philosophies except when they become
harmful rules of social behavior as with certain religions and
political systems. I also don't think much of any philosophy that
throw its believers into crushing and unproductive depression -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Nov 9, 9:08 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
> >>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
> >>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no good
> >>>>>> reason.
>
> >>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big improvement
> >>>>> over local clans and gangs. If we had no "government" then we
> >>>>> would have gang and mafia style government... given the present
> >>>>> state of humanity....
>
> >>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like clans
> >>>> and gangs.
>
> >>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
> >>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend and
> >>>> replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous insults. One
> >>>> wonders if they have too much of their identity invested in a
> >>>> particular nation?
>
> >>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>
> >> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
> >> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
> >> particular poster).
>
> > What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
> > violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that nations
> > have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your meaning seemed
> > quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt act.
>
> I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental human
> right.
>
> As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
> "idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic" to
> be an insult, no?
>
> I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.

Does Google have spell checker? I could really use that. Yes, I
think a lot of philosophies are idiotic -- I didn't call you an idiot,
though. I forgive people their philosophies except when they become
harmful rules of social behavior as with certain religions and
political systems. I also don't think much of any philosophy that
throw its believers into crushing and unproductive depression -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
>>>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
>>>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no
>>>>>>> good reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big
>>>>>> improvement over local clans and gangs. If we had no
>>>>>> "government" then we would have gang and mafia style
>>>>>> government... given the present state of humanity....
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like
>>>>> clans and gangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend
>>>>> and replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous
>>>>> insults. One wonders if they have too much of their identity
>>>>> invested in a particular nation?
>>>>
>>>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>>>
>>> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
>>> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
>>> particular poster).
>>
>> What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
>> violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that
>> nations have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your
>> meaning seemed quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt
>> act.
>
> I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental
> human right.

So you are stating that nations have no right to control who enters
their borders. I'm glad that's clear. You seem to live in an odd
little world at times, Tom.

> As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
> "idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic" to
> be an insult, no?

No, I'd say it's an observation on this particular stance of yours
rather than an insult.

> I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.

That's good.

 

[Tim McNamara]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive
>>>>>>> ideas such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned
>>>>>>> tribalism - pitting one group against the other for no
>>>>>>> good reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big
>>>>>> improvement over local clans and gangs. If we had no
>>>>>> "government" then we would have gang and mafia style
>>>>>> government... given the present state of humanity....
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like
>>>>> clans and gangs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend
>>>>> and replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous
>>>>> insults. One wonders if they have too much of their identity
>>>>> invested in a particular nation?
>>>>
>>>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>>>
>>> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
>>> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
>>> particular poster).
>>
>> What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
>> violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that
>> nations have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your
>> meaning seemed quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt
>> act.
>
> I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental
> human right.

So you are stating that nations have no right to control who enters
their borders. I'm glad that's clear. You seem to live in an odd
little world at times, Tom.

> As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
> "idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic" to
> be an insult, no?

No, I'd say it's an observation on this particular stance of yours
rather than an insult.

> I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.

That's good.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas
>>>>>>>> such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism -
>>>>>>>> pitting one group against the other for no
>>>>>>>> good reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big
>>>>>>> improvement over local clans and gangs. If we had no
>>>>>>> "government" then we would have gang and mafia style
>>>>>>> government... given the present state of humanity....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like
>>>>>> clans and gangs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>>>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend
>>>>>> and replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous
>>>>>> insults. One wonders if they have too much of their identity
>>>>>> invested in a particular nation?
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>>>>
>>>> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
>>>> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
>>>> particular poster).
>>>
>>> What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
>>> violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that
>>> nations have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your
>>> meaning seemed quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt
>>> act.
>>
>> I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental
>> human right.
>
> So you are stating that nations have no right to control who enters
> their borders. I'm glad that's clear. You seem to live in an odd
> little world at times, Tom.

The primary purpose of nations is to organize larger "tribes" so
organized violence can be conducted on a larger scale. Of course, many
approve of this organized violence, as long as their side is the one
causing most of the harm.

>> As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
>> "idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic"
>> to be an insult, no?
>
> No, I'd say it's an observation on this particular stance of yours
> rather than an insult.

Strange differentiation there.

>> I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.
>
> That's good.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 8, 7:29 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A highly advanced society would eliminate such primitive ideas
>>>>>>>> such as nations that are rooted in old fashioned tribalism -
>>>>>>>> pitting one group against the other for no
>>>>>>>> good reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Idealism is ok, but the concept of nations is a big
>>>>>>> improvement over local clans and gangs. If we had no
>>>>>>> "government" then we would have gang and mafia style
>>>>>>> government... given the present state of humanity....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with nations are that they are too much like
>>>>>> clans and gangs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was not advocating anarchy, but a unified (but not uniform)
>>>>>> human society. However, certain people failed to comprehend
>>>>>> and replied in a knee-jerk fashion, including gratuitous
>>>>>> insults. One wonders if they have too much of their identity
>>>>>> invested in a particular nation?
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to reread your posts if that's what you meant.
>>>>
>>>> If the meaning was not clear, a request for clarification was in
>>>> order, not jumping to conclusions and gratuitous insults (by a
>>>> particular poster).
>>>
>>> What you said was that nations that restrict the movement of people
>>> violate human rights; this was in response to my assertion that
>>> nations have a right to regulate who enters their borders. Your
>>> meaning seemed quite clear and it's a bit late to play the hurt
>>> act.
>>
>> I stand by my original statement. Free movement is a fundamental
>> human right.
>
> So you are stating that nations have no right to control who enters
> their borders. I'm glad that's clear. You seem to live in an odd
> little world at times, Tom.

The primary purpose of nations is to organize larger "tribes" so
organized violence can be conducted on a larger scale. Of course, many
approve of this organized violence, as long as their side is the one
causing most of the harm.

>> As to the insult, that was from Mr. Beattie, who used the phrase
>> "idiodic (sic) philosophical constructs". I would construe "idiotic"
>> to be an insult, no?
>
> No, I'd say it's an observation on this particular stance of yours
> rather than an insult.

Strange differentiation there.

>> I am not hurt at all by insults on Usenet.
>
> That's good.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 9, 3:55 pm, still me <[email protected]> wrote:
> >No, because the perpetrators of 9/11 were non-state actors
>
> Arguable. They were Taliban supported and The Taliban appeared to be
> in de-facto control of Afghanistan.

There is actually no proof or even reasonable evidence to suggest that
the hijackers were "supported" by the Taliban. The Taliban publicly
allowed OBL to reside in their country... though I honestly doubt they
could have kicked him out if they'd wanted to... and there isn't even
evidence that the hijackers were supported by OBL! The US could have
engaged in a strike against OBL without bothering the Taliban or
taking over the country. The Taliban were nothing but an easy target,
while the supposed real danger (OBL and his gang) are still lose. Of
course there were also important oil-pipeline reasons for taking over
Afganistan. Iraq was invaded to eventually obtain greater control over
oil supplies and establish military bases. Notice this doesn't help
*us* at all (seen the price of oil lately?), but certainly enriches
the oil companies tremendously. This entire war is huge money and
power grab for oil companies and those who finance the debt... and a
great excuse to reduce freedom in the US.

Ever wonder how we can cut taxes and yet spend as much as we want?
Remember how we were actually running a surplus in the late 90s? And
we still don't have inflation now, and unemployment is low... but for
some reason even though productivity is ever rising, wages are
stagnant, and the value of the dollar is dropping like a rock. It
always shows up somewhere...

Hillary definitly plays to the neocons. If she is elected we will have
more of the same.