Re: Memorial Day (OT)



In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <2d37c449-f947-44e0-95cd-82f2ce6c3eb6@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>The blame goes to the political and military leaders who were not
> >>prepared when the war they knew was coming arrived.

> >
> > Disagree here. USA picked a fight with Japan. USA found
> > a dozen ways to deny raw materials to Japan, notwithstanding
> > our gift of the sixth avenue el. USA put Japan in a corner
> > they had to fight out of; not that Japan did not show
> > willing. Everybody knew to some degree that Japan would
> > attack. USA could read a great deal of Japanese code
> > traffic beforehand. Radar, though new, detected the attack
> > force. It suited the politicians to act surprised. Ever
> > notice that with all the tonnage sunk at Pearl Harbor it
> > was battleships, and not aircraft carriers? The carriers
> > were well out of the way. Six months later at the battle
> > of Midway the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and
> > Yorktown sank.

>
> Sounds to me like you think the World Trade Center was a government
> implosion too.


Ooook.

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<7be3c14e-dfc6-4d9c-b70e-35b43f8e9094@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 26, 2:35 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 26, 2:13 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

> >
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> > > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.

> >
> > > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."

> >
> > > >> Thanks,

> >
> > > >> Magilla

> >
> > > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > >Rose did.

> >
> > > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > > the Vietnam war.

> >
> > I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> > Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> >  Bill C

>
> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it. But forget
> that. People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos. She isn't,
> and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
> Hayden. Man up and say _they_ should have been
> tried for aid and comfort, etc.
>
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here. As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War." Clearly, the US was fighting
> North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
> South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
> homegrown VC insurgency. Given that there was no
> official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
> treason just for palling around with some country that
> we weren't officially at war with? In theory, people can
> be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
> tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
> family, the Rosenbergs). More recently, even John
> Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
> charges rather than treason.
>
> So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
> and Hanoi Jane. However, if you want to give her the
> retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
> neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
> sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree. Excepting
> Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.


<http://www.swapsale.com/Barbarella_2.jpg>

--
Michael Press
 
[email protected] wrote:
> However, if you want to give her the retroactive death penalty for
> aerobics, 80s hair and neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and
> I'm sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree.


Next thing you'll want to execute all the fatty masters for wearing
(very) tight lycra.

> Excepting Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.


<http://www.sexy-spandex.com/>
 
On May 27, 7:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 26, 2:35 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:13 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> > > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.

>
> > > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."

>
> > > >> Thanks,

>
> > > >> Magilla

>
> > > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > >Rose did.

>
> > > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > > the Vietnam war.

>
> > I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> > Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> >  Bill C

>
> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it.  But forget
> that.  People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos.  She isn't,
> and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
> Hayden.  Man up and say _they_ should have been
> tried for aid and comfort, etc.
>
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here.  As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War."  Clearly, the US was fighting
> North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
> South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
> homegrown VC insurgency.  Given that there was no
> official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
> treason just for palling around with some country that
> we weren't officially at war with?  In theory, people can
> be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
> tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
> family, the Rosenbergs).  More recently, even John
> Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
> charges rather than treason.
>
> So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
> and Hanoi Jane.  However, if you want to give her the
> retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
> neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
> sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree.  Excepting
> Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Ben, all good points, especially the lack of declared war, and yess
"manning" was an overstatement. "Treason" is purposely so incredibly
difficult to define, and prove, legally that it's alomost never used,
even in major spy cases they usually find an easier charge. You're
right in that she was only the most visible, and as D-y points out,
probably the dumbest, I tend to equate her with Sean Penn in that
department.
Nothing in this area of discussion is easy, and to even begin to
understand, and I still don't, our getting into that mess you have to
go back to our screwing over of the French, which is really what
started to sour that relationship, not anything the French did.
Bill C
 
On May 27, 9:14 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 4:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> > was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it.  But forget
> > that.  People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> > representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> > an actress who later made exercise videos.

>
> Right. On the other hand, here's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
>
> Or if Saddam was such a great threat, let's execute  Bush's father for
> not finishing him off in the Gulf War.
> -Paul


How about we shoot FDR:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/2049915441/\
Bill C
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:53:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Treason" is purposely so incredibly
>difficult to define, and prove, legally that it's alomost never used,
>even in major spy cases they usually find an easier charge.


I thought the difficlulty with prosecuting treason was liberals
defended Jane Fonda duing the Vietnam war, not that it's hard to
define. Or was it clearer before that and libs made it hard to
define?
 
On May 27, 7:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 26, 2:35 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:13 pm, Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill C

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> What did Jane Fonda do to be found guilty of treason?  Last time I
> > > >> checked she had a First Amendment right to protest the war.

>
> > > >> If I were you I would go back and re-read the Constitution if you want
> > > >> to know why she wasn't prosecuted for "treason."

>
> > > >> Thanks,

>
> > > >> Magilla

>
> > > >Providing material support in the way of propaganda. traveling to the
> > > >enemy country and doing publicity for them, etc...Same stuff Tokyo
> > > >Rose did.

>
> > > I suspect that there was probably a lot more consensus in defining
> > > what constituted an "enemy country" during WWII than there was during
> > > the Vietnam war.

>
> > I think N. Vietnam's status was pretty clear, as was manning a N.
> > Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.
> >  Bill C

>
> "Manning" is inflammatory, since as you know she
> was photographed with it, but wasn't firing it.  But forget
> that.  People talk about Jane Fonda as if she was some
> representative of the Kommie Left, but c'mon, she's
> an actress who later made exercise videos.  She isn't,
> and never was, a figure like Dellinger, Hoffmann, or
> Hayden.  Man up and say _they_ should have been
> tried for aid and comfort, etc.
>
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here.  As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War."  Clearly, the US was fighting
> North Vietnam, but officially we were just aiding the
> South Vietnamese to defend themselves against their
> homegrown VC insurgency.  Given that there was no
> official war, could Fonda actually have been tried for
> treason just for palling around with some country that
> we weren't officially at war with?  In theory, people can
> be tried for treason in peacetime, but usually they are
> tried for something like espionage instead (the Walker
> family, the Rosenbergs).  More recently, even John
> Walker Lindh was brought up on conspiracy-to-murder
> charges rather than treason.
>
> So yeah, I think there is a difference between Tokyo Rose
> and Hanoi Jane.  However, if you want to give her the
> retroactive death penalty for aerobics, 80s hair and
> neon spandex, that seems completely justifiable and I'm
> sure 8 of 9 Supreme Court justices would agree.  Excepting
> Souter, who has a thing for that sort of thing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Ben, Tom Hayden was actually the other person I was thinking of too,
and yes IMO they were all guilty of that offense, but that's my
opinion. As Magilla makes the case the dividing line is really
slippery between where protected free speech ends and a violation, of
any sort, begins. This is the question behind speech codes, wade
chuchill, affiraative action bake sales, pro-Al-Q stuff, Westboro
Baptist garbage, etc...
Yet again this is another issue I'm torn on. I know what I think of
lots of this stuff, including Fonda, etc...but I'm not sure if it came
down to it I'd disallow any of it legally. Most likely I'd exercise my
free speech and then defend theirs. It's like every other freedom
though, exercising it comes with some risk that others will disagree
and exercise theirs. In the Churhill case he was free to speak, and I
think the university, properly, was free to choose who they wanted to
be acting in their employ. If people don't like either either decision
they are free to interact/do business with someone else.
Of course this gets into what views, beliefs, and attributes are
protected by anti-discrimination laws, and all are in some form of
conflict.
I'm not trying to pick an argument, and yes I do mena that.
What makes the difference between Tokyo Rose, as presented, pre-
pardon, and Jane Fonda? The lack of a declaration of war, that you
agreed with one war being just and one not, or something else?
Bill C
 
On May 28, 8:01 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:53:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Treason" is purposely so incredibly
> >difficult to define, and prove, legally that it's alomost never used,
> >even in major spy cases they usually find an easier charge.

>
> I thought the difficlulty with prosecuting treason was liberals
> defended Jane Fonda duing the Vietnam war, not that it's hard to
> define.  Or was it clearer before that and libs made it hard to
> define?


C'mon JT, you know me better than that. Anyone defending Jane Fonda
was exercising their right to free speech, the lawyers who would have
been defending her if it had come to that would be doing the most
American thing possible, and giving her the rights guaranteed by our
Constitution, both of which should be saluted, and celebrated.
Now there are plenty of assholes on the right who agree with the
kangaroo courts Bush has set up, others as Howard pointed out defended
FDR's criminal behavior, etc...They have the right to do that but,
they are completely wrong under our Constitution IMO and should,
rightly, be slammed for it.
Unfortunately you, and lots of the left are perfectly correct when
you say that there are folks, and leadership on the right who would,
and are imposing illegal, fascist acts on the country. The use of
fearmongering over 9/11 and "the grave danger posed by terrorists" is
garbage. The danger to our system, and country is a whole lot bigger
from the assholes who are out to save us for our own good.
I know where you stand on religion, and I largely agree with you, as
far as it goes as an organized entity. Since I've commented on Wright/
Obama I want to add a bit here and defend Hagee. Don't get your blood
boiling, I'm not THAT big an idiot.
Hagee's calling the Catholic Church "The Great *****" comes directly
from Martin Luther, and, unfortunately, I really can't see Wright or
anyone else going after Martin Luther, except the hardcore, nutcase
Catholics who do it in typical nutcase fashion. It was in reference to
the Church being totally corrupt and selling "absolution", along with
selling everything else to anyone who'd pay.
Historically Martin Luther was a complete piece of ****. He rallied
and encouraged the peasants to stand up for themselves and oppose the
system. When they did, and fought the nobility and were slaughtering
the privileged. The Privileged went after Luther, he immediatley
started ass kissing, and helped lead the slaughter of the folks he
stirred up in the first place so he could protect himself and his
privilege. Lots there in common with Bush and his crusade in Iraq, no?
Paul G. has a good point about who actually shows up to fight these
days and up until after WW2 I think it was pretty much an expected
role for anyone who wanted to be in a public leadership position. They
had to have military service, or their kids. That got lost somewhere,
which is a disgrace because the people sending kids off to die and get
mangled should be leading by example if it's worth it and have fought
themselves, or sent their kids.
McCain attacking Obama is ********. He oughta start a little closer
to home, if he wants any credibility on the issue, with the current
CIC, **** Cheney:
http://www.slate.com/id/2097365/
and the other pieces of **** leading his own party, and generating
their ideology. At least Obama and the anti-war folks were, and are
honest and not hypocritical pieces of ****.
Despite the attacks and spin being promulgated by the Catholic
Church, and I'll give them that there are isolated cases where Priests
did work against the Nazis, in large part Pius the 12th went along
with the program to protect the Church's assets and not have it wiped
out alongside the Jews. Many Priests went much farther and actively
helped the Nazis with their program, seems to have been because "Those
filthy Jews Killed/Sold out our Savior.".
Even though McCain didn't have the in depth relationship with him
that Obama had with Wright he's a political ****, and should have
really looked into what Hagee had to say before jumping on that
bandwagon. He was too eager to court the nutjob moral majority types
to have any integrity on the subject so he grabbed at it, and either
thought he could get away with it, or was stupid enough to think it
wouldn't be an issue.
This goes along well with those assholes branding Islam "A religion
of violence" and pontificating on it. What they don't bother to
mention is Catholicism being brutally violent and reveling in genocide
before and after 1517, when Martin Luther caused the Reformation,
under the battlecry "By the Cross or the Sword!!".
After the Reformation the Catholic and Protestant sects fought endless
wars with each other, and anyone who wasn't one of them, and still
were in N. Ireland a couple of years ago.
None of this happened, or was really something else, the Inquisition
really wasn't a problem, etc...just ask them. Now you've got the
leadership of the right with their lips locked onto these folks asses,
primarily because the little kids, that have escaped the UN
peacekeepers are busy in the front.
If freedom of religion, and speech wasn't a cornerstone of our
history and Constitution I'd happily join you in running these people
out of the Country. Since that's not an option we need to just keep
telling people the truth about their actions, unfortunatley True
Believers want their fantasy, and not facts or reality.
Great to see Westboro Baptist losing the lawsuits, but there's got to
be a way to properly convict them with crossing the line into inciting
violence too.
Bill C
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyone defending Jane Fonda
>was exercising their right to free speech, the lawyers who would have
>been defending her if it had come to that would be doing the most
>American thing possible, and giving her the rights guaranteed by our
>Constitution, both of which should be saluted, and celebrated.


And,you said just a day or two agao, making the bar against
prosecuting treason so high that Buchco can't be touched. Here's what
you wrote two days ago. Note word "only" in first sentence:

> If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
>left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
>for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
>in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
>others.
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>C'mon JT, you know me better than that.


No, I don't know you well at all. I used to believe your spiel about
being open-minded and such, but you've (willingly or not) demonstrated
that in terms of your actions (voting) you are pretty reactionary and
all it takes are some typical right-wing tactics to have you come up
with excuses for voting in a way that, if you lived in a swing state,
enables the current administation
 
On May 28, 2:00 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Anyone defending Jane Fonda
> >was exercising their right to free speech, the lawyers who would have
> >been defending her if it had come to that would be doing the most
> >American thing possible, and giving her the rights guaranteed by our
> >Constitution, both of which should be saluted, and celebrated.

>
> And,you said just a day or two agao, making the bar against
> prosecuting treason so high that Buchco can't be touched.  Here's what
> you wrote two days ago.  Note word "only" in first sentence:
>
>
>
> > If Bush and company aren't guilty of treason it's only because the
> >left fought so hard to make it almost impossible to prosecute someone
> >for this, but they did that in self defense since there's no question
> >in my mind Hanoi Jane, at least, was guilty of it along with many
> >others.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -


To sound like a candyass here, here's the explanation of that. The bar
was fairly low during the Revolutionary War/1812 period when there was
still an actual danger to the US as a State. The bar slowly rose as
the law became more compassionate. Things likw whipping, the stocks,
etc...were phased out. By ww2 the bar had been raised to where the
people here who actually did support the Nazi regime, such as
Lindbergh, he switched positions after Pearl Harbor, you decide why,
weren't charged, neither were the banking and business folks who did
business with them.
Once the cold war started, and the total mistake that was J. Edgar
Hoover, and scumbag McCarthy went on their little crusades against
anyone who disgareed with them things started to change. After
McCarthy was discredited the bar on treason was effectively raised by
both the folks on the left, and those who believed in justice. The
Kennedy administration again raised the bar, in large part to help
protect the Civil Rights folks who were being accused of treason by
the rightwing scum, and their hero Hoover.
Given the original standard for treason, most of the civil rights
folks would've been shot, along with a shitload of folks McCarthy went
after most likely.
That's where the bar got raised, primarily by the left or in defense
of it, in response to rightwing scumbags. The problem with expanding
people's protections is when you want something different for someone.
The reality is that the folks on the left fought long and hard for
justice, freedom, the rights we ALL were supposed to be guaranteed in
the Constitution, against the conservative mainstream right, and it
was the mainstream right, not just the nutjobs who supported all the
nasty things happening in this country.
Without the patriotism, vision, and sacrifice of those folks on the
left the Country would be a whole lot worse, and much farther, in
practice, from the guarantees in the Constitution.
They had principles they believed in and refused to compromise, no
matter how much they were villified, attacked, and had to suffer for
it. They made this a whole lot better Country.
As I said one drawback was making prosecutions in general, and "anti-
American" in specific much more difficult crimes to prove.
Personally I think it's a good thing, bad point is that it's going to
make it harder to use that to get at Bush. If they could impeach
Clinton for lieing to Congress about meaningless sex they damned well
should be able to, at least, bring a boatload of charges against Bush
for lieing to everyone.
I stand by both statements I made.
Bill C
 
On May 28, 2:03 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >C'mon JT, you know me better than that.

>
> No, I don't know you well at all. I used to believe your spiel about
> being open-minded and such, but you've (willingly or not) demonstrated
> that in terms of your actions (voting) you are pretty reactionary and
> all it takes are some typical right-wing tactics to have you come up
> with excuses for voting in a way that, if you lived in a swing state,
> enables the current administation


My beliefs are excuses, and reactionary while those you agree with are
considered and thoughtful? I may disagree with you on your positions,
that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
your integrity, and the process of how you came to your opinions. Life
would be a lot easier without principles wouldn't it?
Bill C
 
On May 27, 6:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Re "treason"
> Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> here.  


By saying that, you imply there is such a thing as a constitution.
Curious.

I hope your search for tenure proves less difficult than your search
for the constitution.

> As you know, there was never a declaration of war
> during the Vietnam "War."  


You might like your warmongers to win, but they didn't win that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
 
On May 28, 3:57 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> My beliefs are excuses, and reactionary while those you agree with are
> considered and thoughtful? I may disagree with you on your positions,
> that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
> your integrity, and the process of how you came to your opinions. Life
> would be a lot easier without principles wouldn't it?
>  Bill C


I wanted to paraphrase something Howard said a long time ago, and goes
for me too:
"When you tell me you're either with us, or against us I tend to
react badly to that" My reaction most of the time is, any variation of
flipping them off as it is for Howard.
I'm not with, or against anyone as a general rule, and deeply resent
anyone trying to force that on me, or anyone else for that matter.
That's the favorite tactic of the bullies on the right in particular,
and Bush seems to have really brought that out in what used to be, and
still claims to be the open and tolerant left. Both tents have shrunk
to where only the fanatics fit under them. You can hate on us out here
in the rain, but we were pushed out.
Bill C
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I may disagree with you on your positions,
>that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
>your integrity


I'm questioning either your integrity, your emotional balance or your
wits. There is a problem with one of them - we see it in your
comments on Michael Moore, on Reverand Wright etc. You fall for
bogeymen. Not good.
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not with, or against anyone as a general rule, and deeply resent
>anyone trying to force that on me, or anyone else for that matter.


Then don't go on and on ragging on Bushco if you're not willing to
take action to remove him from office by, at a minimum voting for
someone who might beat him. You started a thread about how you think
the president is committing treason and you vote libertarian or
republican? WTF?

Why bother talking about national politics like that when some lame
anti-liberal arguments mean you're not going to vote against
McCain/Bush no matter what. You're just wasting energy.
 
Bill C wrote:
> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.


Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.
 
On May 28, 4:08 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:57:48 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I may disagree with you on your positions,
> >that's what makes the world go round, but I'm not about to question
> >your integrity

>
> I'm questioning either your integrity, your emotional balance or your
> wits.  There is a problem with one of them - we see it in your
> comments on Michael Moore, on Reverand Wright etc.  You fall for
> bogeymen.  Not good.


You're entitled to. I'm not willing to violate my principles just to
get get George Bush. That's what the law is for. I'll work to deal
with it that way. I promised Lafferty that years ago, that's what I
would do and have been doing my best to keep that promise. Where's the
independent investigation and movement for impeachment in Congress led
by the folks who agree with you? Point me to it and I'll support it
right now, even though I think it'd be better to wait until he's out
of office, as is guaranteed in other Countries like France. I've
written to all my Congress critters asking them to, and letting them
know I would support them in impeaching him. Have you? As for Micheal
Moore, or any of the others, right or left, don't twist the facts.
Have enough respect for me, and your case to present it cleanly and
let me decide on it. I'm still wondering how health care is better in
a country where the average person has a hard time even getting
aspirin. I'm also not sure what I've said about Wright that you object
to. I've said that Obama, if he was as close to the Church as he
claimed originally should have known about all this stuff, and I find
it hard to believe he didn't.
I wasn't even a member of my friend Rundy's church, but did help out
occasionally with transporting things and at events, and had a pretty
good idea what they were up to, what the sermon had been that week,
etc...just from talking with a friend about something that was
incredibly important to him. Hard to believe that he wouldn't talk
with others from the Church, just like we talk about races and racing.
Bill C
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not willing to violate my principles just to
>get get George Bush. That's what the law is for. I'll work to deal
>with it that way.


Riiiiiight. You go on about with free speech problems on college
campuses (a private or state/local government problem mainly) and let
that influence your voting on a national level, whereas the guys your
complaceny in terms of voting let into power at a national are
presiding over major consolidation in mass media.

You claim to care about veterans, but don't stop Bushco/McCain whereas
ultra-liberal Obama has a better record on veterans issues (see recent
Time magazine). But he's a liberal. Reverand Wright!

Your political views are a jumble and your political actions, at least
in terms of national voting, haven't help your principles.