This is to amend a thread I screwed up on, and a conversation with Anti-Bush, here referred to as AB for brevity. ( If offence is incurred, I shall alter my approach in future.) The discussion can be seen in the Pornography thread, and is about liberal VS Conservative roles. I will, later, make a self contained thread about the two for the benefit of the troll, so that we may discuss openly the matters he wills to discuss.

Below is a reproduction of the conversation, edited. We commence with a discussion of his presumptions of my political leanings.

“You think you have me Pegged, when you don’t even know where I stand on political issues, all the whole, you berate and belittle me by your incessant namecalling, while trying to force feed your liberal, unthinking agenda. "-Zarove

Of course I do. You are a conservative with a complete lack of knowledge of the political spectrum. -AB

{I have a complete working knowledge of the political spectrum, and most of my views are a mix of liberal and conservative, and I don’t really fit with either system. I only class myself as conservative because they at least aren’t trying to impose socialism. I am really a classicist Brit. } - Zarove’s reply

You think that Fascism is a left- wing system and that Hitler was a Liberal. - AB

{It was and He was. Have you any proof that he wasn’t? Saying " He was a nationalist, and that’s conservative" isn’t good enough. even if nationalism was conservative, its not the totality of Hitler’s regime. Ignoring the bulk of what he believed in and emphasising only one aspect itself is incredibly simplistic and weak, as a platform for debate. Incidentally, Nationalism is NOT a conservative value. You admit this later yourself.} - Zarove’s reply

You deny all wrongdoings of the American right, such as giving Saddam a whole bunch of weapons and allowing them to use them on their own people. - Ab

{This is actually only partially true. I denied your exaggerations of the events and your wild conspiracy theories. Not that the American right did some evils along the way. But guess what? So did the American left... this is why I am proud not to be an American... A fact about me you missed when you accused me of trying to label you a communist and anti-American… I told you then I wasn’t American.It just didn’t sink in.}-Zarove’s reply

You claim to be for limited government, yet you want to propose laws left and right to tell others what to do. -AB

{actually Conservatives claim to be for limited government, and Liberals are for a socialist system which regulates everything. This is the extent of my claims. Since the style of Government I actually want doesn’t exist, I am more for amending the current system than increasing or decreasing its power... Incidentally, Conservatives aren‘t for making new laws to restrict people. They are for enforcing existing boundaries. The Liberals are the ones who by and large propose new laws the most often.}-Zarove’s reply Am I on the mark so far? -AB

{Not even close. } -Zarove’s reply

"all you do is accept it AS TRUTH AND TRY TO IMPOSE your MORALS ON EVERYONE ELSE WHILE RAILROADING THEIR CONCERNS"- Zarove’s original statement. I am the one saying that choices should be left up to the individual. -AB

{Sounds good in theory, but in practice you limit peoples rights when you implement your system. Government will inevitably take some rights away as well as grant some, the question is which ones do we grant and which ones do we disallow. Thus, things like Murder are disallowed, and I am not granted by the state any authority to commit Murder. That one we all agree on, the rest is debate on what is and is not acceptable, and you seem to think its not. But it is. I can near guarantee that if we gave you charge over the Government you would automatically protest people using their right to free speech to speak out against Homosexuals on television or in public gatherings, and would try to reduce or even impose restrictions against moral teachings being presented in public assembly. You say, of course, you wouldn’t, but if you didn’t your whole power base would fall. Your whole system requires everyone to think like you want them to think, which means that they cannot discuss their religion in pelvic and are made to feel guilty or dirty for allowing their religion to influence their political decisions. Likewise, they cannot tell people what is and is not morally wrong, because that is an impediment to your idea of freedom. This, of course, demands that the citizenry accept that Morals are relative and subjective, and that the reason they have no right to tell others of morality is because morals are different from person to person. In order for your system to work, everyone MUST accept that there is no such thing as Morality in an absolute, external since and that morality is a constrict to be shaped however society wishes. And of course society enacts its will by the power of the state. This is why socialism leads to less and less freedom while claiming more and more. }-Zarove’s reply

The only morals I'm forcing on you are to leave everyone else alone. -AB

{Not really. This is just a pretty lie. In reality you call me an idiot and try to prevent me from speaking on this board on various issues as if I didn’t have the right to speak my mind. And lets face it this is a message board and I am a Psych student, I am NOT in the position to enact laws. The fact that you get all hot and bothered over me being opposed to Gay Marriage and Porn proves that you want to implement a sort of thought police on people. Go on now, call me Paranoid. But in the end I am right. Otherwise why are you debating on this board? Why do you claim I have no right to say what I say, and when you do say I have this right you claim I am a Bigot and wrong, without so much as an evaluation of what I am saying? By virtue of me disagreeing with you I am Bigoted, ignorant, and incapable of independent thought. Sounds a lot like both Stalin and Hitler when they criticised their opposition. But you aren’t like those two, they where both Conservatives because they where mean, mean men, and you are a Liberal and therefore nice…another thing that’s troublesome is that you also do think that way. That Liberals are smart and conservatives are stupid. In short, in order to be smart you must be a Liberal. it’s using the classification to determine the worth of the person. } -Zaroves reply

Look out for yourself. I know you consider yourself a crusader for what is right and that you have to save everyone else from themselves, but it's time to leave everyone else alone. -AB

{Actually I am a Philosopher and psychology student who thinks everyone needs to be educated in how their own mind works and how to get the most out of life. My system is proven to empower people more than yours. Your socialist system tends to make people reliant on the state, and also tends to forbid free discussion or thought that doesn’t coincide with your Libertine attitude. Mine simply presents the facts and upholds social boundaries necessary for civilisation. . You consider yourself more a crusader than I laddie bucks. In fact, conservatives want to CONSERVE the normal definitions of words, and the normal way society works. Liberals want to change things. Indeed, the driving force behind Liberalism is a desire for excitement and change. Your whole presence here berating people is a form of crusader spirit. Remember I didn’t go to your forum and try to impose my views on you, you tried to impose yours on me. Claiming I am the one who thinks himself a crusader is projecting your role on me to make yourself appear like a heroic defender against an evil change, when in reality you are the one trying to knock down the old definitions and moral codes. That sounds pretty crusader to me. } -Zarove’s reply

What other people do within the privacy of their own home is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. -AB

{Yet your stormtroopers would be very interested in what I did in my home,. See talk like yours is how Hitler got started. You make accusations against me that aren’t supported then try to regulate peoples thoughts and attitudes if they run contrarian to your views. Indeed, you constantly rely on namecalling. How many times have you called me an idiot or something akin to this? was that necessary? Cant you show curtsey and respect? Obviously not. I am guessing then you cannot show an acceptance to my right to speak or my privacy, but you can demonise me and claim you have to keep an eye on me for the public good. which would invariably be the end result. } -Zaroves reply

"if nationalism is Conservative, why is it that the Liberals say things like " Global Village" and try to implement continual socialist practices?" -Zarove, from the former post

That's not nationalism. Nationalism is extreme pride in one's nation, sometimes to the point that it is seen as superior to others. -AB, stating the obvious.

{So their goes British Pride... And actually Liberals are very attached to their nation, they just want the whole world to be that nation. That’s the point of the current trend toward globalise. Don’t get me wrong, a one world government isn’t wrong innately, but the Liberals drive for a Global government is a far cry from a natural and mutually benevolent merger. Its a nationalism of its own. } -Zarove’s reply

The "global village" would be exactly the opposite, with every culture accepting the others and learing more about each others. -AB

{Not really. In many public places these days I was told to remove my Bible which I take with me everywhere. That’s not respecting Christian culture. In fact, Liberals tend to do that with most cultures. They select one, such as Islam, or Native American, exploit it to get money form various programmes, then tell the people to set aside their various beliefs, both religious and cultural, in order to accommodate the united whole of the global village. For instance, Islam is supported externally by the Liberal agenda in America, but internally, Islam’s laws prohibiting Homosexuality are suppressed. Various other aspects of Islam are actively discouraged, but at the same time, things like clothing and Muslim names are emphasised giving the false impression that Islam is thriving, when in fact its being suppressed. In short, they accept the surface trappings of the culture, to get what they want, and to garner support, then impose their views on the people in that culture and force then to speak act and think a certain way as to have them acocmodatable in the new secularist state they have created. Liberals don’t want to learn about other cultures and let them thrive, Liberals want all the cultures to merge and fall under their control, and accept their materialistic, secularist system. } -Zarove’s reply.

"Socialism is intrinsically nationalistic, and governed by the state which represents the people." -Zarove, from the former post

Partly true. Authoritarian Socialism does. Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, utilizes some of that "global village" stuff you were whining about. -AB

{Please stop saying I am whining, all I am doing is presenting a case, not whining, and the constant derogations you place upon me are becoming tiresome. They serve no purpose. Also, the Globalise in Modern Liberalism is exactly what Hitler had in mind when he wanted to first take Germany then the world. Its the same thing, only more ambitious. On an aside, you just admitted here that Nationalism is NOT a conservative Ideal. Indeed, you just said that Authoritarian socialism is in favour of nationalism, and socialism is left wing. ( Thus also sinks your claim that Hitler was right wing. The only point in your case was that Hitler was a nationalist, and that Nationalism was CONSERVATIVE , now that you admit hat a socialist can be Nationalistic, you have also admitted that a Left wing Liberal can be nationalistic and destroyed your own case.)} -Zarove’s reply, proving that Nationalism is NOT a conservative ideology.

It's not just the socialist system itself I admire, but the culture that is needed to support it. -AB

{You mean one in which people renounce their culture and religion and accommodate a secular, materialistic lifestyle all of the state, while leading empty and depressed lives? Or the society that views Humans as expendable and life as Meaningless? Many of those now socialist Democracies in Europe have death on demand for the severely depressed or aged, euthanasia for the mentally retarded or mentally ill, allow Abortion, drug use, and Paedophilia. Meanwhile, fewer of the people in those nations actually form a happy life, its empty and life seems so meaningless to them. I know, I was their. You weren’t.} -Zarove’s sad reply.

European culture, especialy, I admire. -AB

{I am European. well, British. } -Zarove’s reply

Europeans don't kid themselves with all this "We're number one" bullshit that Americans do. -AB

{Thanks. } -Zarove.

We as a people are indoctrinated from a young age with this jingoistic sense of national pride, like the U.S. is perfect. -AB

{Which I as a right wing American conservative believe wholeheartedly right??? Oh a the times I berate Americans fo rhteir arrogance, only to be assumed to be in their number by you. } -Zarove’s reply.

Europeans don't do that. The average European graduates high school speaking at least two languages, usualy three. -AB

{The number of language, and the level of education in general, has no link to nationalism. Indeed, the USSR, which was extremely Nationalistic, was also famous for its ability to educate the youth , many of whom spoke 4 or 5 languages by the time they turned 15. These issues are unrelated. Though I think the American education system is severely lacking. } -Zarove’s reply

But what I most like about Europeans is that they don't drive gigantic SUV's. I hate these self-absorbed Americans who drive cars the size of tanks to the grocery store because they think it makes them appear powerful. Makes me sick. I prefer a nice Mini any day of the week. That's the hippie in me. -AB

{I am sure you meant to make a point here... but I really don’t think car size means much. its just a cultural fad... its not even politically motivated. } -Zar’s reply

"Actualy men are conditioned." -Zarove, from the former post

Really? Men are conditioned to like boobs? -AB, being what he said men like…

{Thanks again. You have proven you are an idiot. No, Men Like breasts on instinct, but Pornography is not just pictures of naked women, and the usual first reaction to it is revulsion. One must become desensitised to it over a period of time. There is a difference between natural sexual attraction between men and women and interest in porn, which is an exaggerated, and perverse, form of overt sexuality. A deviant form.} -Zarove’s sensual answer.

"You are by far more forceful than I. Indeed, socialism imposes secularism on EVERYONE." -Zarove, from the former post

As opposed to imposing a single religion on everyone? -AB, Building a scarecrow.

{Who suggested that? This is a straw man... } -Zarove, knocking it down.

No, in a nation as diverse as ours, secularism is the way to go.-AB

{Not really, secularism tends to have a demoralising effect. Those European nations you admire so much are reaping sorrow upon sorrow as their citizens feel less and less alive. Clinical studies have shown, for instance, the power of Prayer in assisting in healing, and in relaxation. Studies also show that people who attend religious services live longer, and are generally happier and more stable mentally. Cultures that embrace and celebrate their rich religious heritage have lower crime rates, lower abortions, and fewer teen Pregnancies. ( America does NOT celebrate its religious background before you say it does. It in fact confuses people creating a worse state than a secular one, saying religion is important then forcing it our. The duel message leads to cognitive dissonance which leads to an increase of violence.) I think that rather than forcing everyone to set said their religious beliefs, so they can live secular lives in public, and watching them wither for want of spirituality, we should advocate many religious paths and allow religion to be freely exercised by people no matter what. I don’t think its offensive for a Muslim to Pray to Mecca, nor would I find a Statue to Ghanisha particularly distracting if I worked in an office and a Hindu worked the next desk over. Secularisation removes our rich religious backgrounds and destroys the very cultures that you as a liberal pretend to wan to preserve. It does so by removing the vital force of the culture, the spiritual teachings of the religions and the sanctity of the Home.

In a secularist state, propel would be expected to act in a secular manner when leading their everyday common lives, while religion would become not but a show, a collection of empty rituals. The end result of course is that people view religious teachings as unimportant, and usually adopt a materialist approach to life, base don immediate gratification and giving in to whatever whim that strikes them. Your own rude behaviour is evidence of this.}-Zarove’s lengthy reply.

No one is stopping you from practicing your religion, and everyone else is free to practice theirs. -AB

{Actually they forbid d me to practice it openly, I must, in your words, "Keep it in the churches." I cant talk about it in public and have to hide it away, until more and more I become secularised in my habits myself, and I have less and les sin common with my religious beliefs. My religious beliefs are wholly opposed to secular standards, which I must accept in your world view, how can I do that? Lead two lives? one tolerating and condoning a way of life, and even living it, and another preaching holiness before God? Secularisation doesn’t preserve anyone’s rights, it destroys rights. Where in my system, everyone can freely worship so long as it doesn’t impede others freedoms, even if this means praying in public, or leading a public prayer, in yours we have to live secularly and put on religion for show, where we may attend a church-ritual on Sundays, but not actually live a Christian life, for fear of offending our secular standards and separation of church and state. } -Zarove’s reply

But religion has no place in the government. -AB, ignorant of what state religion is actually like.

{There goes the admiration of Europeans. Many Nations in Europe have national religions. The really funny thing is that most of them nowadays allow other religions to be practiced. Religion has a major role to play in founding culture to begin with, and should be part of government, with the Government trying its best to appease the standards and teachings passed down to us through the ages. you Americans are too hung up on that separation of church and state and fail to see that religion often underpins society and culture, and can be a very stabilising, even reassuring thing, as well as serving as a platform to effect social change. Even the late Reverend Martian Luther King used the Church as his platform for racial Desegregation! Today’s antireligious atmosphere would render this impossible. Imagine a preacher form a small Baptist congregation enacting such sweeping changes in a secularist society that looks down its nose at religion. } -Zarove’s answer

"my responsibility as each mans Brother in Christ is to prevent their daughters," -Zarove, form the former post

Your responsibility is to take care of yourself and your family in the best way you know and let others do the same. -AB, showing hi lack of concern for he Common man.

{My responsibility is to all mankind. This is compassion. Your socialist system is exposed here as unfeeling and uncaring about the general welfare of the people. } -Zarove, with love in Christ.

"Franco was better than allowing Anarchy in Spain and a Nazi potential victory." -Zarove, from the former post

Spain had a democracy before Franco. Franco just wasn't happy with the decisions of the people, so he decided he would make all the choices for them. Apparently one choice the people had failed to make was the choice to brutally torture and kill all political opposition. What a pal, eh? -AB, showing a lack of knowledge of Spanish history.

{Actually that "Democracy" was corrupt and on the verge of collapse. Hitler or Mussolini where poised to secure it for the Axis. Read history sometime, it wasn’t all that stable a Spain when Franco took over. And saying that it would be better to have anarchy is just insane. The only two possible outcomes if Franco didn’t take over would be a Soviet satellite Spain under Stalin, or a Nazi Spain under Hitler. Also read Bill's post OK? } -Zarove’s timely answer.

Spain would have been better off in anarchy then under Franco.-AB, showing his stupidity.

{See above.} -Zaroves final word in this post.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@MJUNO.COM), December 30, 2003

Answers

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

The old thread can be found here...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BfVq

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

And this has what to do with Catholicism?

God bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), December 30, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Ir has a lot to do with keepign AntfiBush off other threads so we can discuss this subject without intervenign with catholic issues.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

here referred to as AB for brevity.

Alas that your concern for brevity didn't carry over into your post!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 30, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Beleivce me, it id. Every time I tried beign brief with Anti-Bush, he uses the lack of detail in my pot as a sign of my lack of intellegence.Then he insists on makign ridiculous claims such as "Nationalism is CONSERVATIVE" even if he admits socialists can be nationalistic as well... In order to cearly refute him and hopefully shut hi,m up, UI will from this post on try to be as thourough as possible...

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 30, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

It is true, John. This thread is for a political board. It has nothing to do with Catholicism. It should be deleted.

-- (My@Two.Farthings), December 31, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

O ask that is be allowed to stand. Indulge me, lest you have to tackle Anti-Bush's political rantings on many other threads.

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@#JUO.COM), December 31, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Instead, Zarove, "Anti-Bush's political rantings on many other threads" should ALSO be deleted, along with this thread.

-- (My@Two.Farthings), December 31, 2003.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Well, either way.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 01, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

It dfoesnt seem to matter, as he doesnt seem interested in replying anyway.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 01, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"It was and He was. Have you ny proof that he wasnt?" Do you have any proof that he was? All you have said was "Liberals are bad because Hitler was a liberal." What exactly made Hitler a liberal? National Socialism was a reactionary movement against the rise of racial equality in Europe and against the allied powers. Hitler was a reactionary, not a progressive.

"I am really a classicsist Brit."

What does that mean?

"I denied your exagerations of the events and your wild conspiracy theories."

Like what?

"Not that the American right did some evils along the way. But guess what? So did the American left... this si why I am proud not to be an American... "

What evils did the American left commit with regard to Saddam? It sure as hell wasn't the American left giving Saddam all those weapons, now, was it?

"actually Conservatives claim to be for limited government, and Liberals arefor a saocialist system which regulates everything. This is the extent of my claims. Since the style of Government I actually want doesnt exist, I am nore for amendign the current system than increasing or decreasing its power.."

Conservatives want to regulate morality but not the economy. Liberals want to regulate the economy but not morality. Libertarians want to regulate nothing (or close to nothing) and authortarians want to regulate everything. I would say I fall somehwere between liberal and libertarian. What system would you prefer?

"I cn near gerantee that if we gave you charge over the Government ytou woudl automatically protest people usign theri right to free speach to speak out agaisnt Homosexuals on television or in poublic gatherings, abnd woudl try to reduce or even impoose restirctiosn agaisnt moral teachigns being presented on television. You say, of course, you woudlnt, but if you didnt your whole power base woudl fall."

I don't really want to be in charge of the government. No one person should be. I don't even see the need for an executive branch. No one should have the authority to tell you that you can't speak your mind. I have never once challenged your right to speak on this board. I have no problem with right-wing nutcases spewing out their garbage on TV. I figure if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to watch it. The only one I really have a problem with is Rush Limbaugh. For years, he has called for extreme penalties for drug users while he got high off of painkillers after the show. He is just a hyppocrit.

"In reality you call me an idiot and try to prevent me from speaking on this board on various issues as if I didnt have the right to speak my mind."

How have I tried to prevent you from speaking on this board? Why would I want to? I like debating with you. Calling you an idiot doesn't stop you from speaking.

"The vac tthat you get all hot and bothered over me being opposed to Gay Marriahe and Porn proves that you want to impelment a sort of thought police on people."

What? You are the one who keeps saying that no one should be allowed to look at things YOU find offensive, and that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because YOU think it's wrong.I have never challenged anyone's right to speak here.

"Actually I am a Philoospher and psycolohy student who thinks everyone needs to be educated in how their own mind works and how to get the most out of life. My system is proven to impower people more than yours. Your socialist systemn tends to make peopel reliant on the state, and also tends to frbid free discuzsion or thought that doesnt coincide with your Liberyine attitude."

There is a big difference between educating people and forbiding them to look at magazines you don't like.

"Yet your storomtroopers woudl be very interested in what I did in my home,"

What stormtroopers? You mean the ones next to my pink elephant?

I have never called for stormtroopers. I advocate the socialist system coupled with a democratic society. In my system, you can do whatever the hell you want tin your own home, as long as it doesn't impose on anyone else's freedom.

"See talk like yours is how Hitler got started."

That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Are you honestly that dumb? Get a grib, buddy. All I'm saying is to live and let live. Don't tell people they can't get married or look at a magazine. How is that the talk that got Hitler started? I thought Hitler got started on talk like "Kill all the Jews!" But I could be wrong.

"And actually Liberals are very attatched to their nation, they just want the whole world to be that nation."

I never said thaere was anything wrong with being attatched to your nation. That's not nationalism. That's just patriotism. There's a big difference.

"In many public places these days I was told to remove my Bible which I take with me everywhere."

I don't think that's right. No one should have the authority to tell you not to carry a book. That's Fascism. I don't support that.

"They seelct one, such as Islam, or Natice american, exploit it to get money form various prohrammes,"

How do Liberals get money from programs for Native Americans? Last time I checked, the programs (college aid, reparations for lost lands, ect.) COST the government money.

"For instance, Islam is supported externally by the Liberal agenda in America, but internally, Islams laws prohibiting Homosexuality are suppressed."

Of course they are. The United States is not an Islamic state, so we should be governed by an Islamic law prohibiting homosexuality. They can do whatever they want in their own country (I might not think it's right, but it's the will of the people), but here, our laws ore not governed by religion.

"I dont think its offensive tfor a Muslim to Pray to Mecca, nor woudl I find a Statue to Ghanisha partuicularly distracting if I worked in an office and a Hindu worked hte next desk over"

I agree with you there. We seem to have different definitions of secularism. I see secularism ar a system where religion stays completely out of the government. I don't think that people should be forbidden to show their religion in public, I just think that religion should have no effect on our government or our laws.

"Your socialist system is expodsed here as unfeelign and incarign ablut the general wlefare of the people."

Socialism is all about the welfare of the people. That's the main premise of the whole theory. Everyone works together for the good of the community and then independently for the good if the individual. Things like healthcare, food, housing, electricity, transportation, ect, are provided by the community to those who can't afford them.

"Actually that "Democracy" was corupt and on the verge of collapse."

Franco just sped things up and killed a few thousand people on the way. It's all good.

"And saying that it would be beter to hav anarchy is just insane

I would rather live with no government than a government that will torture and kill me if I speak against it.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 02, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Forgot the italics. My bad.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 02, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

What an idiot: where were all "those weapons" Anti-Bush? Iraqi troops have RUSSIAN and FRENCH weapons. Not an M-16, not an F-16, not a single American tank or APC to be found in the Iraqi arsenal. So what American weapons are you talking about?

You then confuse American support for pre-Kuwait invasion Iraq for blanket endorsement and political control over every move the Iraqi government does! Idiot!

That's like believing that America controls China because we do business with them! Influence and political control are completely different my friend. If you can't see the difference you're an idiot.

You claim Rush Limbaugh fulminated against drug users "for years". What a typical mind-less liberal: you picked that claim up from other talking heads didn't you? Of course! But actually, Limbaugh had been CONSPICIOUSLY silent about drug users since the mid-1990's.

Secondly, hypocrisy isn't defined as doing one thing while you say it's bad. It's defined as BELIEVING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU PREACH.

So if you're a parent and you tell your kid not to have pre-marital sex, you're not a hypocrite if you happened to have made the unfortunate move 20 years earlier. Impeccability is not the same thing as infallibility and the rightness or wrongness of a policy statement doesn't hinge on whether or not the preacher lives it.

But liberals - not an intelligent breed to begin with - don't do definitions especially in the very words they so love to use as curse words.

You cap off your amazing stupidity with a belief that religion doesn't affect morality and that the government (by the people, of the people and for the people) can't or shouldn't be influenced by religion.

Well let's see here...if the power of government is derived from the governed, and the governed (people) have the right to freedom of Religion - and religion always involves a moral code and life-style, then by arbitrarily banning ANY involvement of religion in government you are actually concluding that the only people with legitimate civil rights are atheists! After all, how likely or possible is it for any true believer in anything to somehow put that all aside when acting as a public officer?

Why do we help the poor? duh, in large part because of religion and morals we learned from religion.

Why do we believe minorities have rights? duh, in large part because judeo-christian religion and its morals claims they do.

Why exactly is murder, stealing, or lying under oath wrong? When were those beliefs passed in Constitutional amendments or decided upon by "the people"? We believe them largely if not exclusively because of religion.

Come to think of it, if you believe I have a right to believe and worship as I choose... and if I have a right to run for government office (local, state, and federal), there can't possibly be a "wall of separation" between state and morality - because every man is a moral being.

It's one thing to turn the US federal government into a church - which NO ONE but the atheists are trying to do. Its entirely another to allow one's own conscience (i.e. morality) to influence public policy: and that's why we have elections so the PEOPLE can decide who will govern them according to what lights and motives.

But then, you never, ever studied civics 101 did you?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 02, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Dang, you beat me to he punch.

Let me still post this.

"It was and He was. Have you ny proof that he wasnt?" -Zarove, earlier.

"Do you have any proof that he was? All you have said was "Liberals are bad because Hitler was a liberal.""- AB's reply.

{ I didnt say Liberals where bad because Hitler was a Liberal. I said Hitler, and the entire national Socialist odeal, was left wing, not that Liberals where bad because Hitler was one inevitabley you will have bad peopel in either wing. However, Hitlers whole system was left wing oreinted. And yes I have poroof that he was left wing.

He was for regulating Buisnesses. He was in favour of Gun controle. He favoured a system that distanced itsself from gamily and religion and was pro-secularism. He was in favour of Sceintism over Moral vlaue, and emotionalism over conservatyive planning.I will present my case further later. However be careful to read the end of this post.}-Zarove's current answer.

"What exactly made Hitler a liberal? "-AB {How about a quote to start?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. ) }-Zarove

"National Socialism was a reactionary movement against the rise of racial equality in Europe and against the allied powers. Hitler was a reactionary, not a progressive. "

{No, National Socialism was PROGRESSIVE, in the fac tthat it accepted the scientific distinction of race, and attemoted to better society through constant change, includign breediong superior beings. You may say this is right wing, but how so?BaCK THERN IN THE 40;'S CONSERVATIVES WHERE OPPOSED, AND TODAY Most conservatives are opposed today to genetic alteratiosn in food and cloning. He was also progressive in his attempot to socialise the states evonomic welfare, to bnationalise buisnesses, and to desiminate wealth. }Zarove "I am really a classicsist Brit." -Zarove. What does that mean? -AB

{ It means I favour a classical British Governing style.}-Zarove.

"I denied your exagerations of the events and your wild conspiracy theories." Like what?

{ One example wpouild be the AIDS conspiracy.Others woudl be the wild speculation on some of hte more dubious links between CIA Director Bush SR. and Saddam. No one queatsiosn that their is a link, just some of the things you said went farther than accepted facts.}-Zarove.

"Not that the American right did some evils along the way. But guess what? So did the American left... this si why I am proud not to be an American... " -Zarove

What evils did the American left commit with regard to Saddam? -AB

{Strawman time again I see...I didnt say they did anyhtign agaisnt Saddam. all I said was thta they are s culpable on other areas. Please stop putting qwords in my mouth.} -Zarove.

It sure as hell wasn't the American left giving Saddam all those weapons, now, was it?

{See above post by someone else. Also remember I didnt mentioN Saddam.}-Zarove

"actually Conservatives claim to be for limited government, and Liberals arefor a saocialist system which regulates everything. This is the extent of my claims. Since the style of Government I actually want doesnt exist, I am nore for amendign the current system than increasing or decreasing its power.." -Zarove

Conservatives want to regulate morality but not the economy. Liberals want to regulate the economy but not morality. Libertarians want to regulate nothing (or close to nothing) and authortarians want to regulate everything. I would say I fall somehwere between liberal and libertarian. What system would you prefer? -AB

{Actually this si simplistic and false in many regards. liberals often protest for morality concerns. Abortion rights is lobbyed on the liberal agrnda on a Moral, not economic platform. Same with Homosexual marriage. Further, Conservatives do in fact often focuus thir attention on the economy. Saying otherwise is itsself incredibley nieve. As to what system I want, I will show you one day. I am compilign a system now.}-Zarove

"I cn near gerantee that if we gave you charge over the Government ytou woudl automatically protest people usign theri right to free speach to speak out agaisnt Homosexuals on television or in poublic gatherings, abnd woudl try to reduce or even impoose restirctiosn agaisnt moral teachigns being presented on television. You say, of course, you woudlnt, but if you didnt your whole power base woudl fall." -Zarove I don't really want to be in charge of the government. No one person should be.-AB

{However you do want to impose a certain way in which the system woudl work...}-Zarove I don't even see the need for an executive branch.

{Its needed to maintain the system of checks and balances, withoht it their is less accountability.}-Zarove

No one should have the authority to tell you that you can't speak your mind. I have never once challenged your right to speak on this board. -AB

{Yes you have. "WHo the Hell are you..." comes to mind. You flat out said I had no right to support a position.}-Zarove

I have no problem with right-wing nutcases spewing out their garbage on TV.-AB

{Not everyone on the right are nutcases, nor is supportign a moral caue nessisarily garbage. Please refrain from such generalisations.}- Zarove.

I figure if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to watch it.

{ Problem is that its been proven, and is beign discussed on a couple other threads, that the culture saturated with a constant message acts on this message.And often peopel are forced to watch/luisten. At work, or in school for instance.}-Zarove.

The only one I really have a problem with is Rush Limbaugh. For years, he has called for extreme penalties for drug users while he got high off of painkillers after the show. He is just a hyppocrit. - AB

{I never liked Rush, too much of a loud moyth and ht current scandal doesnt surprise me in the least.}-Zarove

"In reality you call me an idiot and try to prevent me from speaking on this board on various issues as if I didnt have the right to speak my mind." -Zarove

How have I tried to prevent you from speaking on this board? Why would I want to? I like debating with you. Calling you an idiot doesn't stop you from speaking. -AB

{It does however attempt to undermine my speak and thus eliminate its effectiveness. its called silencing the oposition with emotionalism. ts dishonest because it creartes the illusion of free speach when in reality the oposiiton is only sused to falsely upport the cause you are arguing.}-Zarove "The vac tthat you get all hot and bothered over me being opposed to Gay Marriahe and Porn proves that you want to impelment a sort of thought police on people." -Zarove What? You are the one who keeps saying that no one should be allowed to look at things YOU find offensive, and that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because YOU think it's wrong.I have never challenged anyone's right to speak here. -AB

{Not really my position, so this si a lie. And a fine example of hat I touched on earlier. You CLAIM you arent afgaisnt ,y right to speak freely but then misrepresent me every chance you get.

Listen carefully.

I am not opposed to Porno because I just dotn like it. I am opposed becuse of the measured effect it has on peiople. Later I will shpow you MORE evidence on this. However suffice to say that I am not in opposition to Porn based on personal prefernece, saying I am is a falsification of my position. Pornography degrades women, and casues men to see women more as sex objects to gratify their lusts, And has a marked increase in the occurances of vioplent crime, sexual promiscuity, and loss of respect for women in general. The effects of Porn are detremental to those who veiw them and corrupt them. Hence I am oppsosed both for communal good ( Which you claim socialism is for) and for provate welfare.

I am also not oppoosed to peopel gettign married, I am opposed to redefinign the word marriage to suit thwee whi,s of a small minority group in which an even smaller portion actually want to get marruied. I am opposed to changing somethign that has existed sinc the dawn of humanity to make a few liberals happy. It has a corrosive effect on society itsself, as well as the infodivudual, cheapens the insyitution of marriage which is alreayd cheapened in our culture, and further degrades its image, all while forcing peopel who are morally opposed to Homosexuality to support a lifestyle they ar ein opposition to, as tax dollars go into those civil unions in the fiorm of benegits, including MY tax dollars.I beleive Bill Nealson has already well elaborated on this fact.}-Zarove "Actually I am a Philoospher and psycolohy student who thinks everyone needs to be educated in how their own mind works and how to get the most out of life. My system is proven to impower people more than yours. Your socialist systemn tends to make peopel reliant on the state, and also tends to frbid free discuzsion or thought that doesnt coincide with your Liberyine attitude." -Zarove

There is a big difference between educating people and forbiding them to look at magazines you don't like. -AB

{See above. Its not a matter of me simpley not liking them, it it where I woudl ban Power rangers and the Scooby Doo lived actuon movies. Its a matter of their proven efect on people.}-Zarove

"Yet your storomtroopers woudl be very interested in what I did in my home," -Zarove What stormtroopers? You mean the ones next to my pink elephant? -AB

{You kinda ignored the bulk of this post, didnt you?}-Zarove

I have never called for stormtroopers. I advocate the socialist system coupled with a democratic society. -AB

{Yeah. so did Lennin, read up on the October revolution and the early History ofyhe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.}-Zarove

In my system, you can do whatever the hell you want tin your own home, as long as it doesn't impose on anyone else's freedom. -AB

{Basically what we already have...}-Zarove.

"See talk like yours is how Hitler got started." -Zarove, earlier.

That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Are you honestly that dumb? Get a grib, buddy.-AB

{Dumb why? Hitler started with speaches about freeing Germany from economic ruin and the old order...}-Zarove

All I'm saying is to live and let live. Don't tell people they can't get married or look at a magazine.-AB

{neither do I. Thats a Misrepresentation of my platfrom.}-Zarove

How is that the talk that got Hitler started? I thought Hitler got started on talk like "Kill all the Jews!" But I could be wrong. -AB

{You are wrong, the Anti-Semetism became progressively worse in the moivement.. Itg began with a rejection fothe Tfreaty of Verselles, and for greater freedom for the Gemran People.}-Zarove.

"And actually Liberals are very attatched to their nation, they just want the whole world to be that nation." -Zar, earlier.

I never said thaere was anything wrong with being attatched to your nation. That's not nationalism. That's just patriotism. There's a big difference. -AB

{ Yet many Liberals do show strong Nationalistic gtendancies, and you even calle them "Authoritarian Socialists". You didnt re-read this post? I added a lot to iot. I also note that even the parts that where in it initially arent always adressed.}-Zarove.

"In many public places these days I was told to remove my Bible which I take with me everywhere." -Zarove, earlier.

I don't think that's right. No one should have the authority to tell you not to carry a book. That's Fascism. I don't support that. -AB

{May not be right, but it happens.}-Zarove.

"They seelct one, such as Islam, or Natice american, exploit it to get money form various prohrammes," -Zarove, earlier.

How do Liberals get money from programs for Native Americans? Last time I checked, the programs (college aid, reparations for lost lands, ect.) COST the government money. -AB

{The Liberlas wherent for reprerations, that was pased because of native American insistance and a nativce American political lobby. with Popular voter support. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals concened themselves over the issue till forced.

However, Liberals TODAY stress acceptance of many religions, yet they also forbid teachign christainity in schools while teachign the basics of Islam in public schools. They forbid Islam form followign a pure form however, and prefer the outward appearanc eof Islam or the Native Americans, in prder to illicite funds and still try to impose their moral odrer on everyone.}-Zarove. "For instance, Islam is supported externally by the Liberal agenda in America, but internally, Islams laws prohibiting Homosexuality are suppressed." -Zarove

Of course they are. The United States is not an Islamic state, so we should be governed by an Islamic law prohibiting homosexuality. They can do whatever they want in their own country (I might not think it's right, but it's the will of the people), but here, our laws ore not governed by religion. -AB

{At the same time mny secular reasosn can be foudn to oppose Homosexuality which you wholly dismiss. Incedentally, why shoudl the Will of the People be paramount? Why cant we try the will of God? Why is that so wrong exactly? what made the peopel a better standard than God?}-Zarove

"I dont think its offensive tfor a Muslim to Pray to Mecca, nor woudl I find a Statue to Ghanisha partuicularly distracting if I worked in an office and a Hindu worked hte next desk over" -Z, earlier.

I agree with you there. We seem to have different definitions of secularism. -AB

{No, we have a different understanding of how socialists implement it.Mine coems from hisotry, yours comes form a glossy book tellign the wonders of the theory.}-Zarove.

I see secularism ar a system where religion stays completely out of the government.-AB

{Which invariabley wills it away form the populace...as is happenign now...}-Zarove I don't think that people should be forbidden to show their religion in public, I just think that religion should have no effect on our government or our laws. -AB

{Why not? Do you beleive soemone can use his religion to arrive at his political veiws? And what is wrogn with payign Homage to God as a state? Remember lad, I am British, we have a state religion...}-Zarove

"Your socialist system is expodsed here as unfeelign and incarign ablut the general wlefare of the people." -Zarove

Socialism is all about the welfare of the people. That's the main premise of the whole theory. Everyone works together for the good of the community and then independently for the good if the individual. Things like healthcare, food, housing, electricity, transportation, ect, are provided by the community to those who can't afford them. -AB

{Then why cant we outlaw Prostitution? Is isr really in the best inerest of hte society to have hookers? Again, if its wrong for your daughter, then its worng for my daughtyer, and if its wrogn for my daughter, then its wrong for the guy i the neighbiurign rtown's daughter that I dont know... }-Zarove.

"Actually that "Democracy" was corupt and on the verge of collapse." - Zarove

Franco just sped things up and killed a few thousand people on the way. It's all good. -AB

{Not really. Franco prevented it from fallign into the clutches of the Soviet Union, of which the Kiberals where leadign it to. He also rpevented political collapse which woudl have made it an easy target for the Axis.POlease veiw his actiosn in political and historical context.}-Zarove.

"And saying that it would be beter to hav anarchy is just insane "- Zarove.

I would rather live with no government than a government that will torture and kill me if I speak against it. -AB

{But woudl you rathe rlive under Hitler and a Nazi rule than Franco? See, if it had fallen to Anarchy, then the Axis woudl have advanced in and imposed order on the weakened spain, and possibley held the Mediteranian, and posisbley won the war. Woudl that be better than Franco?}-Zarove.

Interestignly, you ignored the bulk of my post, eother the initial one on another thread, or the additional information here...

Further, peopel grow tired of the political rants of yours. So I will do weveryone a favour and ask you, politely, to take this up inEmail OK?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 02, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"What an idiot: where were all "those weapons" Anti-Bush? Iraqi troops have RUSSIAN and FRENCH weapons. Not an M-16, not an F-16, not a single American tank or APC to be found in the Iraqi arsenal. So what American weapons are you talking about?"

I'm talking about the billions of dollars worth of chemical and biological weapons that we gave Saddam back in the 80's. Why would we waste our time with a few M-16's when we could give them nerve gas? We knowingly allowed him to use his new toys on Iranian civilians (to the tune of 30,000 of them) and later on, on his own people (and when the Kurds rebelled afterwords, Saddam recieved the green light from Washington to put down the insurrection with helicopter gunships). Ignorance certainly is bliss, eh?

"You then confuse American support for pre-Kuwait invasion Iraq for blanket endorsement and political control over every move the Iraqi government does! Idiot!"

Umm...I never said that...I confuse giving Saddam a few billion dollars in chemical and biological weapons and allowing him to use them on civilians with giving Saddam a few billion dollars in chemical and biological weapons and allowing him to use them on civilians.

"Secondly, hypocrisy isn't defined as doing one thing while you say it's bad. It's defined as BELIEVING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU PREACH."

Yes, so unless Rush Limbaugh beleives that HE chould get a tough sentence for drug abuse, then he is a hypocrit as he preaches that drug abusers should get tougher sentences.

Also, all the far-right talking heads who have always ranted about how evil drug use is are hypocrits, as they were the first to come to Rush's defense.

"But liberals - not an intelligent breed to begin with - don't do definitions especially in the very words they so love to use as curse words."

That's just a dumb thing to say. I've met dumb liberals, but I've also met a lot of smart liberals. I've met some dumb conservatives but I've also met a lot of smart conservatives. I respect anyone who can back up their beleifs, no matter what their ideology is. I hate dumb conservatives and dumb liberals equaly. I respect people like Zarove--at least he can back up his positions and present reasons for what he beleives. You, on the other hand, simply show a total lack of knowledge of the world (you deny that the U.S. gave Saddam weapons) and rely on stupid generalizations (all liberals are stupid).

"You cap off your amazing stupidity with a belief that religion doesn't affect morality and that the government (by the people, of the people and for the people) can't or shouldn't be influenced by religion."

Well thank you. No, I never said that morality had no place in the government, I just said that religion should not be a factor in lawmaking.

"Well let's see here...if the power of government is derived from the governed, and the governed (people) have the right to freedom of Religion - and religion always involves a moral code and life-style, then by arbitrarily banning ANY involvement of religion in government you are actually concluding that the only people with legitimate civil rights are atheists!"

I never said that religious people couldn't participate in the government (democracy, man--everyone should participate). I simply said that laws should not be made based on the rules of one religion (i.e, a Muslim shouldn't be able to ban pork just because it's against his religion, a Christian shouldn't be able to ban premarital sex simply because his religion thinks it's wrong).

"Why do we help the poor? duh, in large part because of religion and morals we learned from religion."

Not neccessarily. Golden rule, man. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. That's all the morality you'll ever need in life, and it's not even in the Bible.

"Come to think of it, if you believe I have a right to believe and worship as I choose... and if I have a right to run for government office (local, state, and federal), there can't possibly be a "wall of separation" between state and morality - because every man is a moral being."

Of course not. Never said there should be. If you were to run for office, more power to you, and it would be your obligation to do what you think is right. But you shouldn't rule solely on the teachings of your religion.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. )"

Not that Hitler beleived any of that. "Socialist" was the political buzzword of Europe in the first half of the century. Practicaly every group tacked it on to their name, because it won support from a people ravaged by the industrial revolution. He was pandering to the masses, telling them what they wanted to hear. After the defeat of World War I and the decade of rampant poverty that followed, the German people wanted to hear that the capitalist system that had held them down would be eliminated. But it wasn't. The same capitalist system stayed in place.

"It means I favour a classical British Governing style"

As in Monarchy?

"One example wpouild be the AIDS conspiracy.Others woudl be the wild speculation on some of hte more dubious links between CIA Director Bush SR. and Saddam. No one queatsiosn that their is a link, just some of the things you said went farther than accepted facts"

When did I say anything in support of an AIDS conspiracy theory? I sure as hell don't beleive anything like that. That stuff is insane! The government created AIDS to kill african americans. What a pantload. AIDS is a natural mutation of SIV that spread to humans in Africa in the 1930's and came to America in the 70's. No conspiracies there. Now if you want a good conspiracy, check out Roswell. **hums Twilight Zone theme**

What did I say about Bush's ties with Saddam that "went farther than the accepted facts"?

"Abortion rights is lobbyed on the liberal agrnda on a Moral, not economic platform. Same with Homosexual marriage. Further, Conservatives do in fact often focuus thir attention on the economy."

That's exactly what I'm saying. Liberals want abortion and gay marriage not to be regulated...they don't beleive in regulating morality. Conservatives would like for there to be no regulation on buisiness. That means no workers rights, no minimum wage, no polution standards, no child labor laws, ect.

"Its needed to maintain the system of checks and balances, withoht it their is less accountability"

We don't need a President. A President is just an elected King. The two Houses of Congress and the Supreme Court could do just fine.

"Yes you have. "WHo the Hell are you..." comes to mind. You flat out said I had no right to support a position"

I was asking you why you thought it was appropriate for you to decide what homosexuals can and can't do. You can beleive whatever you want, there's no way I'm gonna stop you, except by passivly convincing you of my point through debate (but that probably won't happen). I just wanted to know why you thought other people should have to authority to tell gays not to get civily married.

"Not everyone on the right are nutcases"

True, very true. I know some very inteligent conservatives. And there are plenty of left-wing nutcases too. Perfect example--Janet Reno. What a psycho.

"I am not opposed to Porno because I just dotn like it. I am opposed becuse of the measured effect it has on peiople."

If that is the case, then passivly convincing people is the way to go, not outlawing it alltogether. People need to take care of themselves. Regulating morality would only create bigger dependence on thr state, as it would become everyone's mommy, telling them what is good for them and what is bad without leaving them with any choices.

"Yeah. so did Lennin, read up on the October revolution and the early History ofyhe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

Oh, beleive me, I know plenty on that subject. Yeah, Lennin's plan didn't work out so well. He origionaly called for a democratic system, but all the power got to his head. That's why I don't like the Executive Branch. Power corrupts. We haven't really had a good President since Kennedy. Everybody starts off with this idealistic talk of a great deomocracy, but somewhere along the way, you start to slip into the gray area. Eventualy, your dream gets darker and darker, until your utopia is just another despotism. That's what happened with Lenin. Once he was in power he betrayed all of his old comrades and took all the power for himself.

Although it is important to note that War Communism, the first step towards dictatorship, was taken on as a direct result of the Russian Civil War, in which the Western Powers (the U.S., France, England, and Japan) backed the Czarist counter-revolutionaries (people who wanted to reinstate the fuedalistic system that was in place before the revolution).

"Incedentally, why shoudl the Will of the People be paramount? Why cant we try the will of God? Why is that so wrong exactly? what made the peopel a better standard than God?"

We can't know the will of God on every political issue. Anyone who claims to is either a raving lunatic or completely full of it. We can get a lot out of the Bible, but no one can know who God supports for President, or how high God wants the taxes to be. And no one can really know that God beleives that homosecuality should be outalwed.

"Then why cant we outlaw Prostitution? Is isr really in the best inerest of hte society to have hookers? Again, if its wrong for your daughter, then its worng for my daughtyer, and if its wrogn for my daughter, then its wrong for the guy i the neighbiurign rtown's daughter that I dont know... "

It's our opinion that it's wrong. It might be someone else's opinion that it's ok. My freedom only goes as far as the next guy's. If I am right, then I shouldn't have to use the law to back up my morals. I should instead try to convince people that I am right.

"Franco prevented it from fallign into the clutches of the Soviet Union, of which the Kiberals where leadign it to."

Are you kidding? The Liberals in Spain were followers of Trotsky, an enemy of the Soviet Union. It was better for Stalin that Franco was in power, because a Trotskyist in power meant that Spain would be an enemy of the U.S.S.R.

The Axis powers dupported Franco anyway. They were happy either way.

"Further, peopel grow tired of the political rants of yours. So I will do weveryone a favour and ask you, politely, to take this up inEmail OK?"

Sure. I kind of prefer it in a forum so that others can see it and add their two cents, and perhaps learn from our opinions, but if you want to do it via email, fine. Another alternative would be to come over to the Anarchy II forum, where we eat, sleep, and breathe poltical rants.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 03, 2004.

checking

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 03, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"Religion, just like any philosophical system that exists to tell fo the Human condition, can offer much in our understanding of the Human condition that it speaks of, and offer useful insight into the nature of manking and relationships. Therefore, if a reasonable argument can be made for a law, even if based on religiouys teachings, that proves to be helpful to society, than it SHOULD by all means be implemented. Religion just shouldnt be imposed on people. IE, we shouldn't force everyone to be Christain."

If religion leads you to make more moral decisions, more power to you, but religious values should not be imposed on people (for example, the idea that premarital sex is wrong). People need to be able to make those decisions for themselves.

"Golden rule is in the Bible. Thats where it came from.See MAthew 7:12. its often shordtened to "Do unto others as you woudl have them do unto you," But this is a paraphrase."

Really? Huh. Well, I stand corrected. Guess you learn something new every day.

"COnsyitutional monarchy, wiht aclass system, reformed to allow the common man the ability of titlage"

CLASS SYSTEM? What is this, the middle ages? Would you have nobility and serfs?

"Liberals dont say they dont want morality regulated, but openly claim its imoral NOT to allow these things."

They say it's immoral to not allow the individual to make the choice. It's the principal of individual choice that they say is immoral to eliminate.

"No, most conservatives ar ein favour of child labour laws and workers rights. This is just leftist Propeganda.."

If it wasn't for "leftists", we would have no child labor laws, no worker's rights, no miinimum wage, no environmental standards, no OSHA, no anti-monopoly laws, no product safety standards, ect. It has historicaly been liberals who propose these things and conservatives who fight them. To deny this is to deny history.

"Not hardly. The presedent is commander in cheif of hte Militasry, and has extremely restircted powers. The Prime Minister in Brittain has more political power. And he isnt even King. A King is a Monarch who is usualluy, though not always, hereditary, and who is seen as possessing the ownership opf hte national interests and government. Like a landlord. "

I know the difference between the President and the King, thank you. I am saying that creating the office of the President was a bad idea, and it was only done because the people of post-colonial America couldn't comprehend a government without some kind of excutive official. So the office of the President was created to be their elected king.

I think if we keep the executive branch, we ought to at least have more than one person. Three or four presidents, perhaps.

"The US Presedents never took over, andthe poitn is that every time "Democratic socialism" tried to take hold it ended in disaster."

We've never had a Democratic Socialist U.S. President. And Democratic Socialism has never tried to "take hold" anywhere..that's the whole point, it's democratic. It only "takes hold" through an election.

"Didnt Kenedy have Mob Connections? And what was so wrong with Jimmy Carter? He was stern but he does build houses for he poor.Regan wasnt too bad. A bit ill, but not so bad"

I've never heard of any "mob connections" with Kennedy. Kennedy spent a lot of time trying to take down the mob. Did a lot of other great stuff too. Probably one of the best Presidents in American history. How fitting that he should also be one of the few who was killed in office. You know what they say, the good always die young.

Yeah Carter was ok, and I do like how he builds houses for the homeless and stuff. He just didn't do a whole lot as President, didn't really leave a mark.

Reagan wasn't so bad, long as you leave out Iran Contra and Reaganomics. What a joke. Had to be the dumbest economic plan ever created. Let's give the rich a bunch of money, and maybe it'll "trickle down" to the poor. Hah!

"Except peopel like me who think Democracy needs to be restricted, and seldom is ever slip into any grey areas...I am nohtign if not an absolutist."

I am an absolutist on the other side. I think democracy must never be restricted. That how tyrants come to power. When we give up rights and hope that our leaders will use the great power we give them responsibly, we set ourselves up to start down the slippery slope to dictatorship. Do you know what the Patriot Act is? You might not, since you live in Britain, but it's a big deal over here. It basicaly gives vast new powers to the police and the federal government, allowing them to arrest someone without a charge and hold them as long as they want without ever holding a trial, among other things. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but someone has to challenge it in court before the Supreme Court can overturn it.

"This is the dangers of a socialist system though, it makes it easy for htis to happen"

No, it had nothing to do with the socialist system. The problem was that the origional soviet constitution granted too much power to the government. It was meant to be provisional, lasting just long enough for the new government to get on it's feet, but Lenin and the other leaders never relinquished the power.

"So all those verses in the Bible dont mean anyhtign now? In Leviticus he had them out to death"

The Bible was written by men. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that those men put a few of their own ideas in or that they interpreted God's word in a way that coincided with the common beleifs of the time. Among the Hebrews (and most other ancient civilizations), homosexuality was evil. So naturaly, they could have interpeted the things God said to mean something to that effect.

"But the law shoudl exist to safeguard the populace.Prostitution is dangerous for the hooker and her clients , as well as having a detremental effec ton bohtthe user ofhte Prostitute an the prostitute herself. it leads tot he same sort of emotional trauma one incures throu prolonged tgortute. The prostitute must shut off her emotuons in order to sell the fantacy and do her job, which alone is mentally unhealthy."

If you think it's wrong, no one is forcing you to do it.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

''Among the Hebrews (and most normal people) homosexuality was evil. So naturally, they could have interpeted the things God said to mean something to that effect.''

This is the reasoning of somebody who doesn't care what God says, not one bit. We should realise first of all; no one's forced to obey God's commandments. This life is what WE make of it, and we are given free will.

God merely offers us a clear choice. To obey His commandments and live. To disobey them and die. Anti-bush is willing to die, since he won't let God command him; he'll decide what's good or bad, without any bother about God.

To do this, he has to trivialize the word of God. Anti-bush does it by suggesting all it was was a regional prejudice against carnal fooling around between men. ''Harmless fun'' which the people of God couldn't understand. He understands, Anti-bush; but religious folks are stupid. --They fail to understand, being inferior to smart guys like Anti bush. He is the authority on what's good and bad. Forget God. God's just a myth. RIGHT, Anti-B --? ? ? ?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"...no anti-monopoly laws..."

Now that's a bad idea imho. I've always hated that game anyways; it's all chance and everyone ends up fighting over paper money.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 04, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Eugene,

There are also verses in the Bible that condone slavery. While we're at it, let's all keep kosher. That's in the Bible too, right?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"Religion, just like any philosophical system that exists to tell fo the Human condition, can offer much in our understanding of the Human condition that it speaks of, and offer useful insight into the nature of manking and relationships. Therefore, if a reasonable argument can be made for a law, even if based on religiouys teachings, that proves to be helpful to society, than it SHOULD by all means be implemented. Religion just shouldnt be imposed on people. IE, we shouldn't force everyone to be Christain." -zAROVE, EARLIER

"If religion leads you to make more moral decisions, more power to you, but religious values should not be imposed on people (for example, the idea that premarital sex is wrong). People need to be able to make those decisions for themselves. "-AB

{I beleive I said that religiouys values shoudlnt be imposed, you are the one in favour of democracy though. Lusten carefully. In a Democratic system, we shoudl allow every free intety, be they individual or corporation or other body to petition the Government AND the populace. Therefore, restricting religion'/s ability to adress the Government is itsself anti-Democratic as it PREVENTS someone from voicing thir opinion. what of the Majority WANTED a religioys Law passed? Forcign secularism on everypone, and forcing religion to play no concern in politics, IS a restriction of their freedom and wholly OPPOSED to Democracy. At least I am advocatign allowing it a free voice. The government woudl, in my system, determine if the law's propposed by Religioous groups are in violation of the Civil rights of others, btu the religion shoudl have every ability to influence the state, just as any lobby group, any corproation, or even individual should. }-Zaroves answer.

"Golden rule is in the Bible. Thats where it came from.See MAthew 7:12. its often shordtened to "Do unto others as you woudl have them do unto you," But this is a paraphrase." -Zarove, earlier. "Really? Huh. Well, I stand corrected. Guess you learn something new every day. "-AB

{Perhaps if you spent more time actually readign the Bible you woudl knwo what it does and does not say...}-Zarove.

"COnsyitutional monarchy, wiht aclass system, reformed to allow the common man the ability of titlage" -Zarove, earlier.

CLASS SYSTEM? What is this, the middle ages? Would you have nobility and serfs? -Ab

{Wait till you see my system, I will post it on the web for you when its done. But I woudlnt force people to be born into a certain rol and remain their. Further, Middle ages or no, I beleive the system is more viable. Incedentally the rdoman Catholic Hierarchy has some similarities to what I want, not a total similarity, but some. The Pope is the King, and hte Cardinals the princes, for instance. I have a more diverse system planned, but this shoudl prime your mind to what I think...}-Zarove.

"Liberals dont say they dont want morality regulated, but openly claim its imoral NOT to allow these things." -Zarove, earlier.

"They say it's immoral to not allow the individual to make the choice. It's the principal of individual choice that they say is immoral to eliminate. "-AB

{No, they say its Immoral to not condone Homosexuality. Peroiod. They actually say constantly that anyone opposed to it is a Homophob and a Boigot, just like you did. Thats not respecting opiions, thats labling.They say its immoral to prevent abortion AND ADVOCATE IT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. srry, they moralise more than the conservatives.Juts their moral values are corrupted.}-ZAROVE

"No, most conservatives ar ein favour of child labour laws and workers rights. This is just leftist Propeganda.." -Zarove

"If it wasn't for "leftists", we would have no child labor laws, no worker's rights, no miinimum wage, no environmental standards, no OSHA, no anti-monopoly laws, no product safety standards, ect. It has historicaly been liberals who propose these things and conservatives who fight them. To deny this is to deny history. "-AB

{The Leftists didnt grant workers rights, the workers did. in England the plight of the workers had reached a peak, and Queen VIctoria, moved by the writigns of Dickens, and seeing this, made reforms. In America, Trade Unions formed around Hoffa, not the Liberals in Washington. The workers fought for their rights, not the govenrment. Child Labour was also a part of that movement.

So was Minimum Wage.

Environmental standards where pushed By Liberals, but also by Green Conservatives and by Scientuists. In fact s ientists, not liberals of Conservatives, first sounded the trumpey here. Prodict safety was demanded by the consumers and by factory owners. Again this was BEGORE refulation of corporations...

Sorry, I am not denyng hisotry, just that most o these examples predate the current trendd which is to make all social issues political.}-Zarove

"Not hardly. The presedent is commander in cheif of hte Militasry, and has extremely restircted powers. The Prime Minister in Brittain has more political power. And he isnt even King. A King is a Monarch who is usualluy, though not always, hereditary, and who is seen as possessing the ownership opf hte national interests and government. Like a landlord. " -Zarove

"I know the difference between the President and the King, thank you. "-AB

{Then act like it...}-Zarove

I am saying that creating the office of the President was a bad idea, and it was only done because the people of post-colonial America couldn't comprehend a government without some kind of excutive official.-AB

{So the Post Colonials where idiots? Sorry,theyw here already for the most part on their own, and anti-Monarichal sentement was on the rise. Further, thy had Cromwell's example... as shotty as it was...

Sorry, hid is just Gumb Flapping.}-Zarove

"So the office of the President was created to be their elected king. "-AB

{First tyouy claim to know the difference between a presedent and a King, then you say this...

Let me explain.The American Government took its Cue mainly form Roman and Greek cultures, and structured itsself based loosley on the english Parliment but centralised aroudn the themes of a Republic, NOT a pure Democracy and NOT a Monarchy, and htey COULD conceive of a Government not run by a King. The Presednet the Senete and the House of Congress all represent different dutires that parrallell, and all ofthem interlock, and prevent one form seizing power over the naitomn orruptly. The system wa sinvented to form a balance, NOT becaue the American Colomials where Incapanble of conceiving of otherwise...}- Zarove

"I think if we keep the executive branch, we ought to at least have more than one person. Three or four presidents, perhaps. "-AB

{Bad idea, clutters uo the position. The Military needs ONE central authority, not a committee. Imagine a war, where the situation was desperate. And they couldnt agree... The presedent was desifned to safeguard the laws and to watch over the Military, and this military controle NEEDS o be singular.}-Zarove.

"The US Presedents never took over, andthe poitn is that every time "Democratic socialism" tried to take hold it ended in disaster." -Zarove

"We've never had a Democratic Socialist U.S. President. "-AB

{I never said we did. I said every time a Democratic Socialist system emerged it turned out bad.Ther eis a difference.}-Zarove

"And Democratic Socialism has never tried to "take hold" anywhere..that's the whole point, it's democratic. It only "takes hold" through an election. "-AB

{Again, Hitler was a socialist AND freely elected.}-Zarove

"Didnt Kenedy have Mob Connections? And what was so wrong with Jimmy Carter? He was stern but he does build houses for he poor.Regan wasnt too bad. A bit ill, but not so bad" -Zarove

"I've never heard of any "mob connections" with Kennedy. "-AB

{Pleas read up on it. Its well cdocumented. Some even theorise his assasination was because he refused to keep some mob Pro,mises. His Family got risch as Bootleggers for crying out loud.}-Zarove

"Kennedy spent a lot of time trying to take down the mob. Did a lot of other great stuff too. Probably one of the best Presidents in American history. How fitting that he should also be one of the few who was killed in office. You know what they say, the good always die young. "-AB

{Regardles sof what they say, please look into Camelot more closely...it wasnt all that preyu...I will give you a chance before posting here.}-Zarove

"Yeah Carter was ok, and I do like how he builds houses for the homeless and stuff. He just didn't do a whole lot as President, didn't really leave a mark. "-AB

{Oh he left a mark. He was hated round he world. But he was hated because he refused to compromise his integrity, and negotiate with killers and barbarians. Because of him, several soldiers where not released form Veitnam till he left office. He also put a clamp down on the Soviets.}-Zarove

"Reagan wasn't so bad, long as you leave out Iran Contra and Reaganomics. What a joke. Had to be the dumbest economic plan ever created. Let's give the rich a bunch of money, and maybe it'll "trickle down" to the poor. Hah! "-AB

{Tes Reganimocs was a bad idea, but regan himself avoided war and made peice withthe Soviets and effectively ended the Cold War.As well as settlign many other problems. }-Zarove

"Except peopel like me who think Democracy needs to be restricted, and seldom is ever slip into any grey areas...I am nohtign if not an absolutist." -Zarove

"I am an absolutist on the other side. I think democracy must never be restricted." -AB

{Except where rleigion is COncenred. Peipel shoudlnt be able to use thur religious beleifs in their political desisions. This is restirctign Democracy.}-Zarove

"That how tyrants come to power."-AB

{Not really, Democracy IS resticted. In the US, no oen can do things that are deemed Unconstitutional. Thats a restirction. Its a good idea as it prevents tyrants by settign laws that even the elected officials must obey.}-Zarove

" When we give up rights and hope that our leaders will use the great power we give them responsibly, we set ourselves up to start down the slippery slope to dictatorship."-AB

{By resticted, I meant makign laws that coudl not be violated even by Vote, much like you have withthe constitution...}-Zarove.

"Do you know what the Patriot Act is? You might not, since you live in Britain, but it's a big deal over here. It basicaly gives vast new powers to the police and the federal government, allowing them to arrest someone without a charge and hold them as long as they want without ever holding a trial, among other things. It's blatantly unconstitutional, but someone has to challenge it in court before the Supreme Court can overturn it. "-AB

{I live in Tennesse, I am from Brittain. Nonetheless, yes its inconstitutional, byt my poitn was that the COnstitution actually restricts Democracy, in a good way. Sayign religion cannot play a part in govenrment restricts it in a bad way.}-Zarove

"This is the dangers of a socialist system though, it makes it easy for htis to happen" -Zarove

"No, it had nothing to do with the socialist system. The problem was that the origional soviet constitution granted too much power to the government. "-AB

{What abo NAZI Germany? It had laws and even a workign charter, when Hitler was elected in 1932.}-Zarove

"It was meant to be provisional, lasting just long enough for the new government to get on it's feet, but Lenin and the other leaders never relinquished the power. "-AB

{The Soviets, likje the Americans, where rebels... Further, they wherent rebellign agaisnt an unjust rtaxation but from the rihtful TZars. As an American you wont realise why this is a bad ideda, but it is. Duther, they arent the only socialist system to come about.}

"So all those verses in the Bible dont mean anyhtign now? In Leviticus he had them out to death" -Zarove

"The Bible was written by men."-AB

{No, the Bible was written by Gods instruction.}-Zarove

"Therefore, it is not unreasonable that those men put a few of their own ideas in or that they interpreted God's word in a way that coincided with the common beleifs of the time."-AB

{Yes it is. God woudltn have allowed tamperign with his word, and the Hebrews took great pains to preserve it EXactly as is, AS TFHE dEAD sEA sCROLLS PROVE. further, Giod did NOT write popular laws intot he Bible. Further still, do you really think God, who sturckDead Arrons sons for arriving Drink at the Temple and makign a Mockery ofthe preisthood, woudl allow this?

Ita more unreasonable to assume men tampred withte word of God, and added their own ideas into the text, than to asusme otherwise.

Further, its interestignthat we cannot tryst the Bible because it disagrees with you.}-Zarove

"Among the Hebrews (and most other ancient civilizations), homosexuality was evil. So naturaly, they could have interpeted the things God said to mean something to that effect. "-AB

{God spoke directly to them, and they write what he said. Do you really think Moses just sorta write what he thought God told him? This is Heresy. Not rational in any way. In fact a lot of the laws where REJECTED by the Hebrews... and MOST o fhteir neighboiurs practiced Homosexuality at the time.They wher ein Caanan.It was even part pf their religiosu services.}-ZaROVE

"But the law shoudl exist to safeguard the populace.Prostitution is dangerous for the hooker and her clients , as well as having a detremental effec ton bohtthe user ofhte Prostitute an the prostitute herself. it leads tot he same sort of emotional trauma one incures throu prolonged tgortute. The prostitute must shut off her emotuons in order to sell the fantacy and do her job, which alone is mentally unhealthy." -Zarove

"If you think it's wrong, no one is forcing you to do it. "-AB

{The point was that its not just wrong, its dangerous and contrinutes t th crime rate, adultary rAYE, and overall degredation of society...}-Zarove

"There are also verses in the Bible that condone slavery. "-AB

{Actually this is a common charge, but wrong. The Bible didnt mention Slavery as Understood by the Amwerican slave owners. FCurther, slavery wasd a step UP from wht they had been doing as a society on earth, which was killing every enemy. Usually the slaves where cirminals, peoel who owed some debt, or war captives. Remember the Old Testement was designe dot make us as a people ready for the new, it was directing us toward an end. If you are on Bottom you build up. what did you want, them to drop soemthing as complexe as the Constitution or the Magna Carta on them?}-Zarove

"While we're at it, let's all keep kosher. That's in the Bible too, right? "-AB

{I do. I am a vegitarian. Further, that was liften in the New Testement...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 04, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

AB you claim that the United states sold BILLIONS of dollars worth of chemical weapons to Iraq.... yet all UN investigations show that Iraq produced its own mustard and VX gas... they had the industrial wherewithall to produce it and did. The USA hasn't produced CB weapons in years - and has been actively destroying previous stockpiles for years as well.

In the Iran/Iraq war (1979-1989) the Iraqi army was supplied by the Soviet Union whereas Iran's army was largely filled with AMERICAN weapons such as the M-60 tank, the F-14 fighter jet, and other weapons systems bought in the early 1970's under the pro-American Shah.

The only transfer between Iraq and the USA was of technology: pre- 1979 Iraqi university request for research stocks of Anthrax and other bacteria strains for medical research. Such strains are generally made available for many countries' research universities.

They were not given weaponized anthrax or any other biological warfare agent.

But the burden of proof is on you my friend: you used the words "Millions and billions of dollars worth" of CB weapons...not I. The shells and munitions those chemicals and other agents were delivered in were SOVIET - not USA. The whole sheebang was an "made in Iraq" affair, and the USA DID publicly denounce Iraq for use of CB weapons against Iranian and Kurdish people when it was proven to the outside world that they had been gased.

But this is a convenient myth (i.e. lie) of the left so you won't find any proof will you and you won't admit your mistake...unless you are more a friend of the truth than of your ideology.

Your call. I hope you step up.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 05, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

You might want to start doing your homework on Iraq and Iran and the whole "who's who" and "who done it?" angles.

Here's a useful link from an organization that is knowledgable and not biased in favor of the US administration:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

I heard a couple of really nice things in the last 2 days that I wanted to share with you all, since you seem to be interested in politics:

1) Al Franklin spent the days leading up to Christmas with the troops in Iraq and Afganistan (in some pretty tight spots). He did a USO show that was, from all descriptions, very much like a Bob Hope show (not political). My hat is off to him, it was a nice and a gutzy thing to do.

2) Rumsfeld declined the honor to be Time magazine's person of the year this year. He told the magazine the troops deserved the honor. See the article

Bravo Zulu to both!

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

Al Franklin? Who is he?

-- (?@?.?), January 08, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"But I woudlnt force people to be born into a certain rol and remain their."

Well that's what a class system is. I can't see what possible advantages there are to a class system, or to a Monarchy in general.

"The Leftists didnt grant workers rights, the workers did. in England the plight of the workers had reached a peak, and Queen VIctoria, moved by the writigns of Dickens, and seeing this, made reforms. In America, Trade Unions formed around Hoffa, not the Liberals in Washington. The workers fought for their rights, not the govenrment. Child Labour was also a part of that movement."

In America, workers attempted to organize and improve their conditions for years. But they had to lobby Congress to get laws passed. It was generaly "liberals" (mainly from the Progressive and Socialist parties) who proposed such changes, and wealthy conservatives, in the pocket of big buisiness, who fought them.

"Environmental standards where pushed By Liberals, but also by Green Conservatives and by Scientuists. In fact s ientists, not liberals of Conservatives, first sounded the trumpey here. Prodict safety was demanded by the consumers and by factory owners. Again this was BEGORE refulation of corporations..."

That's all true, but it all comes down to the fact that when the laws were proposed, the main opposition came from conservatives who were afraid of change.

"The Military needs ONE central authority, not a committee. Imagine a war, where the situation was desperate. And they couldnt agree... The presedent was desifned to safeguard the laws and to watch over the Military, and this military controle NEEDS o be singular"

The military shouldn't be the biggest issue. If our society wasn't so damn militaristic, it wouldn't be. Did you know the United States hasn't been on a peacetime economy since the 30's? War has become the number one buisiness in this country. And that scares me. History has shown that capitalism will drive men to do anything for money, and as long as war is the quickest way to get that money, we can expect to see many more wars in the near future. Many more pointless ones, at that. In a time of war, perhaps Congress could grant one of the three executives Commander-in-Cheif status, and revoke it when the war eneded.

"I said every time a Democratic Socialist system emerged it turned out bad"

Examples?

"Again, Hitler was a socialist AND freely elected"

But he wasn't a democratic socialist. He bel;eived very little of the quasi-Socialist agenda that he spewed out. He was pandering for the vote of the lower class, much like Bush claimed to be a supporter of limited government during the 2000 coup..er...election...and four years later we have the biggest federal government since Reagan.

Furthermore, Hitler had tried to overthrow a liberal democracy through violent revolution earlier..this does not adhere at all to Democratic Socialism, which calls for reform through democratic measures (if at all possible...the exception would be a total dictatorship where democratic reform is not an option...this was not the case with the Weimar Republic).

Once elected, he gained his increased powers by manipulating the people into fear. He had his men go out in plain clothes and beat people in the streets, and then blamed it on the Jews and the Communists, and promised to protect them if they supported him. He had the Reichstag burned down, and said that if he was granted extra powers he would keep the people safe. Don't even get me started on the paralels between that and 9/11...

"Pleas read up on it. Its well cdocumented. Some even theorise his assasination was because he refused to keep some mob Pro,mises. His Family got risch as Bootleggers for crying out loud"

Did not know that. Huh. I will look into this. Thanks. But based on the good things he did as President...his devotion to minority rights, ect...i would still say he was a damn good President.

I have to get some sleep...have a test tommorow...I will post the rest of my reply tommorow night.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

"But I woudlnt force people to be born into a certain rol and remain their." -ZAROVE, earlier

"Well that's what a class system is. I can't see what possible advantages there are to a class system, or to a Monarchy in general. "-AB.

{No, a class based society is one in which rank and social standing are meeted out, and each has a role to perform. This is why its called a class system. Again, the Roman Catholic Church is basicaly a class system, however, the preistss arent born ionto their position, nor are they seen as better than the laity. Further, I was Born into a class system, so I have seent he advantages personally. BBut since you don't even know what my system woudl look like you are sepakign form ignorance, and I ask for your pateince as I post the system later. Suffer to say, your failure to see an advantage to a Monarchy is not suffieinct to syaing hat their is no advantage, indeed, a central leading figure can brign a since of Unity to the people if th lader is given enough of a spotlight. They become a symbol of the cultural identity, as well a s a means to unite the whol of ht epeople under a common effort.}-Zarove, in responce.

"The Leftists didnt grant workers rights, the workers did. in England the plight of the workers had reached a peak, and Queen VIctoria, moved by the writigns of Dickens, and seeing this, made reforms. In America, Trade Unions formed around Hoffa, not the Liberals in Washington. The workers fought for their rights, not the govenrment. Child Labour was also a part of that movement." -Zarove, earlier

"In America, workers attempted to organize and improve their conditions for years. But they had to lobby Congress to get laws passed. It was generaly "liberals" (mainly from the Progressive and Socialist parties) who proposed such changes, and wealthy conservatives, in the pocket of big buisiness, who fought them. "-AB

{Not entirely true, in fact many Conservatives, whom you seem only willign to Demonise, worked for workers rights as well. all you are doing hre is presenting a one sided view of Hisotry which makes the Liberals the heroes and the conservatives the villains. You so this often, If a Tyrant rose to power, then he was conservative. If a hero lived, he was Liberal. Its a mean of makign it appear that a liberal will automaticlaly be good, and a conservative bad. dispite your comments about good liberals, the general attitutde you rpresent abotu conservatism is that conservatives lead to all the horrors of hisotry and liberals to all advances. However, in this matter, I can safely say that you ar ein efrror. I can post a lengthy case of you would like illustrating the point, but before I do, may I ask you what proof you have of the charges you levy?}-Zarove's reply.

"Environmental standards where pushed By Liberals, but also by Green Conservatives and by Scientuists. In fact s ientists, not liberals of Conservatives, first sounded the trumpey here. Prodict safety was demanded by the consumers and by factory owners. Again this was BEGORE refulation of corporations..." "That's all true, but it all comes down to the fact that when the laws were proposed, the main opposition came from conservatives who were afraid of change. "-AB

{Not really. Many Conservatives actvely promoted environmental cleanup laws. This is nothign but further glorification of Liberals, whom you think can do no wrong...}-Zaroves reply.

"The Military needs ONE central authority, not a committee. Imagine a war, where the situation was desperate. And they couldnt agree... The presedent was desifned to safeguard the laws and to watch over the Military, and this military controle NEEDS o be singular" -Zarove, earlier.

"The military shouldn't be the biggest issue. If our society wasn't so damn militaristic, it wouldn't be. Did you know the United States hasn't been on a peacetime economy since the 30's? War has become the number one buisiness in this country. And that scares me. History has shown that capitalism will drive men to do anything for money, and as long as war is the quickest way to get that money, we can expect to see many more wars in the near future. Many more pointless ones, at that. In a time of war, perhaps Congress could grant one of the three executives Commander-in-Cheif status, and revoke it when the war eneded. "-AB

{Maybe you are unclear on this matter.The Preseent has kimited powers. He isnt an elected King. Further, his office is soley linked to the Military. He also has the ability to Veto laws and orevent the house or senete form grabbing too much power and has the ability to settle some disputes between the two, unless these are legal disputes in which cas the supreme court settles the matter. The presedential office was ALWAYS militaristic. It was NEVER an office that was designed for anyhtign lse. What you are proposing is basically to have a Military that has no cntral, elected leader in charge, or, if we do, to have multiple people in charge each with equel power which woudl elad to chaos if they disagreed and we NEEDED military desisions.

Further, war isnt a Big Buisness becaue of the ofice of Presedent. we had a presedent in the US since the beginning of hte nation and the treason of 1776.

The reaosn for the outbreak in wars has been social distabilkity that leads to civil riots and chaos. Further, with the end of WW2 we sayw a massive increase in soviet activities which lead o an alert status that resulted itsself int he Cold War, which is justifiable, becazuse had we NOT taken precautions we woul all have fallen into the Red by now. After he collapse of the Societ states, many micropowers then decided to buy cheap weapons, and or use the after effects fo the collapse of social order to set up new tyrannies. The world has become a dangerous place, this is the reason for more advanced military programmes.

Besides, war isnt a buisness, and often costs the govenrment money. Look at the recent Iraqi war. It ddnt benefit american Conservative coffers, it xrained the economy.Anti-Militarism is jut as dangerous as militirism is, in that it leaves the way clear for social chaos, and takeovers from horile powers.}-Zarove.

"I said every time a Democratic Socialist system emerged it turned out bad" -Zarove

"Examples? "- AB

{We listed seveal already. in theory the Union of societ Socialist Republics beig the largest one. Just read their constitution sometime.}- Zarove

"Again, Hitler was a socialist AND freely elected" -Zarove

"But he wasn't a democratic socialist."-Ab

{No, because such didnt really exist at he time. thats a relatively recent term. He wa a national Socialist, which was related.}-Zarove

"He bel;eived very little of the quasi-Socialist agenda that he spewed out."-AB

{Proof of this comes from where? Your say so? Again, Hitler was mean, therefore he wasnt a socialist...}-Zarove

"He was pandering for the vote of the lower class, much like Bush claimed to be a supporter of limited government during the 2000 coup..er...election...and four years later we have the biggest federal government since Reagan. "-AB

{Hitler and Bush arenothing alike. Not only where the masses of Germany Pro-Hitler whereas their is storng Anti-Bush Sintament , ( No pun intended) but Hitler's platform called for sweepign reforms and change,w hereas Bush isnt lookign for Change. You said yso yourself, conservatives want to preserve the Status Quo.

Besides, we are on high alery status after 9/11, you sort of ignore the mitigating cercumstances, or woudl you prefer it if Amwrica had shrugged off the attacks and done nothing?}-ZAROVE

"Furthermore, Hitler had tried to overthrow a liberal democracy through violent revolution earlier.."-AB

{ Liberal Democracy you say... odd, it was Provisional Govenrment allowd the German people after WW1, and not Liberal. If anyhtign they didnt want to rock the boat and make their neighbours mad...}-Zarove

"this does not adhere at all to Democratic Socialism, which calls for reform through democratic measures (if at all possible...the exception would be a total dictatorship where democratic reform is not an option...this was not the case with the Weimar Republic). "-AB

{Its also not hre case of the Weimar republic that they where Liberal. They where provisional, allowed to exist, and thus allowing German soverignty, only as acourtesy after the eviction of the Keiser regime in WW1. Again, all good things, or all victims, are liberal, all bad are conservative. Its a daemonising effort. Firther, hitler cliame the Repunlic itsself was a dictatorship, because it was imposed on the masses. Like any good Liberal, he said whatever justigied his actiosn at the monment.

Hitler was also not afraid of Change, as you claim conservatives are, as he made the most massive and total weeping reforms in the history of Germany that remain unurpassed even today.}-Zarove

"Once elected, he gained his increased powers by manipulating the people into fear. He had his men go out in plain clothes and beat people in the streets, and then blamed it on the Jews and the Communists, and promised to protect them if they supported him. He had the Reichstag burned down, and said that if he was granted extra powers he would keep the people safe. Don't even get me started on the paralels between that and 9/11... "

{9/11 was an attack on America by foign interests. There ar eno parrllells. Further, all you have said above is true, but I se liberals quiet willign to use deciet to gain greater power. They do it all he time. when they bolsteir the latest sceintific journal that links Homosexuality to Gnetics, and fail to mention later that the findings where disconfirmed, they are usign deciet. When they cast blame on Christains for bihotry, they are usign the same meathofs as Hitler. Sorry, this doesnt reall suppor your case.I will also post more after you have had a chance. And elaborate more.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 09, 2004.

Response to ANTIBUSH DISCUSSION form another thread......

First I'll reply to the other half of your old post:

"Tes Reganimocs was a bad idea, but regan himself avoided war and made peice withthe Soviets and effectively ended the Cold War"

The Cold War had practicaly ended itself by the time Reagan assumed office. Gorbachov had made reforms, and the military tension was nowhere near what it was in the 60's. Now if you want a President who really avoided war, look at JFK. Hell, it could have been the end of western civilization as we know it if Kennedy hadn't stepped in and gotten the missiles out of Cuba.

"Except where rleigion is COncenred. Peipel shoudlnt be able to use thur religious beleifs in their political desisions. This is restirctign Democracy"

I beleive I have phrased this wrong right from the beggining. Let me start over. I think that the values of one religion should not be forced on others. For instance, conservative christians shouldn't ban gay marriage simply because it's against their religion (or their idea of what marriage should mean).

"Not really, Democracy IS resticted. In the US, no oen can do things that are deemed Unconstitutional. Thats a restirction. Its a good idea as it prevents tyrants by settign laws that even the elected officials must obey"

We already have several tyrants in power (or at least men who would like to be tyrants). Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ridge, Ashcroft (does anyone else find it ironic that he lost an election to a dead guy but is now one of the most pwerful men in the country?), take your pick.

"The Soviets, likje the Americans, where rebels... Further, they wherent rebellign agaisnt an unjust rtaxation but from the rihtful TZars. "

You and I obviously have a VERY DIFFERENT idea of what makes a "rightfull" government. I really don't see what, if anything was rightfull about a government where none of the leaders were elected, the rulers were despised by the majority of the population, and peasants were still bound to their lords by SERFDOM! Serfdom, for god's sake! In the twentieth century!

"No, the Bible was written by Gods instruction"

But at the end of the day, it's still men who put ink to paper (or papyrus or goatskin or whatever).

"Giod did NOT write popular laws intot he Bible."

Of course he didn't. Men did.

"Further still, do you really think God, who sturckDead Arrons sons for arriving Drink at the Temple and makign a Mockery ofthe preisthood, woudl allow this?"

See, there you go again. You can't take all the stories of the Old Testament literaly. They're just stories to teach the reader good Judeo-Christian values. Do you actualy think that God literaly held the sun in place for Joshua's troops to keep fighting? You have to remember, those stories had all been handed down oraly for centuries before they were ever written down.

"I do. I am a vegitarian"

Really? Just out of curiosity, what convinced you to make the switch? I stopped eating most meat because I read a book called Fast Food Nation, which exposed the distgusting, dangeruous, and unsanitary conditions of the meat industry (and the pssibility of E coli contamination, although I still eat meat occasionaly (with my family, when I know where the meat came from...I just don't trust resturaunts).

Joe,

"In the Iran/Iraq war (1979-1989) the Iraqi army was supplied by the Soviet Union whereas Iran's army was largely filled with AMERICAN weapons such as the M-60 tank, the F-14 fighter jet, and other weapons systems bought in the early 1970's under the pro-American Shah."

We've already established that. Iraq wasn't friendly with the Soviets, Soviet equipment was generaly the cheapest and easiest to get in the thrid world. As for the chemical weapons Iraq used to kill 30,000 Iranian civilians, those were either U.S. supplied or produced in a U.S.-funded program.

"The whole sheebang was an "made in Iraq" affair, and the USA DID publicly denounce Iraq for use of CB weapons against Iranian and Kurdish people when it was proven to the outside world that they had been gased."

Of course we denounced it once the media got wind of it. But as long as most Americans aren't seeing it on the evening news, anything goes. Before the mainstream media made a stink about it, Bush the Elder couldn't have cared less how many innocent people died. Of course once the American people heard about it, it was a travesty. That's not hypocracy, that's politics.

Zaorve, back to you:

"indeed, a central leading figure can brign a since of Unity to the people if th lader is given enough of a spotlight. They become a symbol of the cultural identity, as well a s a means to unite the whol of ht epeople under a common effort."

Cultural unity doesn't have to rely on some tiera-wearing fruit. Screw the Queen. Why would anyone respect a person who has never worked a day in their life and has done nothing to earn their position other than luck into being born into a certain family?

"Not entirely true, in fact many Conservatives, whom you seem only willign to Demonise, worked for workers rights as well."

Look, I'm not saying that all conservatives fought against the workers rights movement, but in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, most of them did. They labeled labor unions as "communists" or "anarchists" to turn the people against them. Without the Progressive Party and the Socialist Party, the worker's rights movement would have been set back decades. That's just the plain and honest truth.

"Not really. Many Conservatives actvely promoted environmental cleanup laws"

Look, this is a fact. FOR THE MOST PART, the Greens and the Democrats are the ones who propose laws to protect the environment, and Republicans who shoot them down.

"Further, war isnt a Big Buisness becaue of the ofice of Presedent. we had a presedent in the US since the beginning of hte nation and the treason of 1776. "

That's not what I meant. I was simply making the point that America doesn't have to be so militaristic, and that the real reason behind it is because war is such a big industry in this country. Not that it was because of the office of the President.

"Further, with the end of WW2 we sayw a massive increase in soviet activities which lead o an alert status that resulted itsself int he Cold War, which is justifiable, becazuse had we NOT taken precautions we woul all have fallen into the Red by now."

Does that justify Vietnam?

"After he collapse of the Societ states, many micropowers then decided to buy cheap weapons, and or use the after effects fo the collapse of social order to set up new tyrannies. The world has become a dangerous place, this is the reason for more advanced military programmes."

The world has become a dangerous place for those who make enemies. If the U.S. stopped it's policy of corporate imperialism, then maybe most of the world wouldn't hate us. It's a catch-22, we have to bomb Iraq because there are terrorists, but there will be more terrorists because we bombed Iraq.

"Besides, war isnt a buisness, and often costs the govenrment money. Look at the recent Iraqi war. It ddnt benefit american Conservative coffers, it xrained the economy.Anti-Militarism is jut as dangerous as militirism is, in that it leaves the way clear for social chaos, and takeovers from horile powers"

It costs the government money, but it makes our leaders rich. Where does Bush have most of his money? Oil and defense, the only two industries that have profitied from the war on terror. And how is anti-militarism dangerous? All the "anti-militarists" want is for American boys to stop dying halfway across the world for a cause that is pure bullshit. But what does Bush care? Not like his daughters will ever have to risk their lives. They can just stay home and smoke pot as long as they want, just like he did.

"Hitler and Bush arenothing alike. Not only where the masses of Germany Pro-Hitler whereas their is storng Anti-Bush Sintament , ( No pun intended) but Hitler's platform called for sweepign reforms and change,w hereas Bush isnt lookign for Change. You said yso yourself, conservatives want to preserve the Status Quo. "

Well, let's see. For starters, Bush and Hitler both used wars abroad to distract the people from problems at home, both made a lot of false promises, both of them labeled their opponents as "unpatriotic", Hitler called opponents "Jewish sympathisers" while Bush calls his opponents "terrorist sympathisers". Want more?

"9/11 was an attack on America by foign interests. There ar eno parrllells."

Of course there are. It all fits into the Machiavellian theory of controlled chaos-- problem/reaction/solution. Bascialy, if a government wants to reach a goal that would prove unpopular with the people, it must first create a problem to which the solution would be that goal. Take Hitler. His goal was to gain more power. So, he had the brownshirts beat people in the streets and had the reichstag burned. That was the problem. The people's reaction was to grant him increased powers to fight the "communist jews" who were behind these "attrocities", which leads us to the solution, where Hitler has all the power he wants.

Now apply that situation to Bush. He has three goals--more power, more money, and more popularity. That's his solution. Now all he needs is a problem. Pretty soon, 9/11 happens. The people's reaction is to a)pass the Patriot Act and other legislation that granted the government increased powers, b)allow Bush's invasions (that's right, invasions) of Afghanistan and Iraq, c)Bush was more popular. Now I'm not saying that Bush planned 9/11, but I wouldn't put it past him. I don't know exactly what the deatails were of 9/11, but I do know it didn't go as the official story ays it did. I know I sound a little on the crazy side now, but just try to keep an open mind. Here is a great site to start with: www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Also, go to the Anarchy 2 forum and check out a thread I started called 9/11: Question Everything.

You know, even though our opinions differ on just about everything, I have to say I respect you. I respect anyone who can give reasons for their beleifs. I see too many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who talk a lot but just don't have a clue. A whole lot of people are like "I support Bush...because it's patriotic...and he helped fight the terrorists...GO USA!" while other people just say "Bush sucks! Republicans suck! Anarchy!" (while I can't say I dissagree with the second statement, the people i'm reffering to just say that because they see all their favorite singers say it, and that just pisses me off).

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 14, 2004.

First I'll reply to the other half of your old post: "Tes Reganimocs was a bad idea, but regan himself avoided war and made peice withthe Soviets and effectively ended the Cold War" "The Cold War had practicaly ended itself by the time Reagan assumed office. Gorbachov had made reforms, and the military tension was nowhere near what it was in the 60's. Now if you want a President who really avoided war, look at JFK. Hell, it could have been the end of western civilization as we know it if Kennedy hadn't stepped in and gotten the missiles out of Cuba. "-AB

{The Cold War was far from Over... the uban missle Crisis was just the hot spor we remmber, but in the 1970's we almist went to war over an asteroid... each side thought it may be a missle. Plus, you still had Vietnam issues, and you also had Carter battlign Communism. Gorbechave sdid a lot, but so did Regan, and the world woudlnt have balanced without both, but sence we where talkign US PResidents, I ignored Gorbi, and thatcher for that matter.}-Zarove

"Except where rleigion is COncenred. Peipel shoudlnt be able to use thur religious beleifs in their political desisions. This is restirctign Democracy" -Zarove, earlier.

"I beleive I have phrased this wrong right from the beggining. Let me start over. I think that the values of one religion should not be forced on others. For instance, conservative christians shouldn't ban gay marriage simply because it's against their religion (or their idea of what marriage should mean). "-AB

{This is still restircted Democracy, as the popular vote would be prevented that woudl allow this. Further, Gay Marriage is banned for several sound reasons we have already discussed. Its not a simpel matter of " My religion says so" and their nbeign no good reason OTHER THAN religious doctorine. Usually thier are reasons behond those doctorines, and those reasons shoudl be considered. You se, to think otherwise, and treat religion as if its just arbitrary...But by so doing you ignore the wole reason TO ban Gay marriage. Its not JUST because its agaisnt the religion, btu because its harmful to society, as we have already discussed and will again...}-Zarove. "Not really, Democracy IS resticted. In the US, no oen can do things that are deemed Unconstitutional. Thats a restirction. Its a good idea as it prevents tyrants by settign laws that even the elected officials must obey" -Zarove, earlier "We already have several tyrants in power (or at least men who would like to be tyrants). Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ridge, Ashcroft (does anyone else find it ironic that he lost an election to a dead guy but is now one of the most pwerful men in the country?), take your pick. "- AB

{Bush isnt a Tyrant. Disagree with him or no, he hasnt done anyhting thats near tyrannical, and has been far too lenient on the populace to be remotely seen as such. This is just exageration, based ony uo not liming hi poliscies. }-Zarove

"The Soviets, likje the Americans, where rebels... Further, they wherent rebellign agaisnt an unjust rtaxation but from the rihtful TZars. " -Zarove

"You and I obviously have a VERY DIFFERENT idea of what makes a "rightfull" government."- AB

{Considerign that I am British, and lack that American Arrogance, and dont asusme that Democracy is the only system of Government that is good, yes, yes we do.}-Zarove

"I really don't see what, if anything was rightfull about a government where none of the leaders were elected, the rulers were despised by the majority of the population, and peasants were still bound to their lords by SERFDOM! Serfdom, for god's sake! In the twentieth century! "-AB

Before we address tyoyr rather Bigoted statements above, their are three things at ussye.

One, God is a porper noun. so its not for gods sake, its for Gods sake. Its an insult to spell it in lower case, and peopel nowadays started doign it diliberatley to show disrfespect. Dont do this again here. Secondly, don't use God's name in Vain, its also offensive.

Thirdly, the Majority of the Russians dodnt dispise the Tsars. Thatgs mythology, not fact. Nicolas suffered in popylarity, but not he Tsarist system.

Now, let me ask you this, why is it so bloody important that officials be elected? Will if the people? Sorry, this is Bigotry. You assume that the only rightful form of govenrment is YOUR form, and all others are evil. Therefore, if the system doesnt have elected officials, its evil, and the peopel MUST hate it...

This is arrogance, and presumes too much agaisnt any argument in favour of a non democratic system.

"No, the Bible was written by Gods instruction" -Zarove

"But at the end of the day, it's still men who put ink to paper (or papyrus or goatskin or whatever). "-AB

So you are contendign that God woudl allow them to corrupt his word? God is a Liar? He said he woudl keep his word pure for Our insturction. If course, that can be a man made thing too, anythign that disagrees with you is man mande. Homosexuality isnt agaisnt God, because Anti-Bush said so, and he knows more about what God wants than God's prophets...

Sorry, this is just ignorance and heresy.

"Giod did NOT write popular laws intot he Bible." -Zarove

"Of course he didn't. Men did. "- AB

{No, God did. Juts because YOU disagree withthem doesnt mean that they where written by emn and can be discarded. This from someone who doesnt even know what the Bible contains OR its history. what next? Men write the life of Jesus, so maybe he wasnt virgin born, and dint ressurext? Maybe that whole lot about Not worshippign idols is man made. maybe that thinf int he Bible where we are to respect all men is made up too. Guess what else might be invented by men... the Godlen rule, wll we had better ignore it...Sorry, this is somethign that you are just plain wrong about. God woudl NOT have allowed his owrd to be corrupted by men, and you havent advocated ANY argument to even SUPPORT your claim tot he contrary. }-Zarove.

"Further still, do you really think God, who sturckDead Arrons sons for arriving Drink at the Temple and makign a Mockery ofthe preisthood, woudl allow this?" -Zarove "See, there you go again. You can't take all the stories of the Old Testament literaly."-AB

{Yes I can.}-Zarove

"They're just stories to teach the reader good Judeo-Christian values. Do you actualy think that God literaly held the sun in place for Joshua's troops to keep fighting?"- AB

{Yes, you have a problem with Miracles? I beleive the earth stopped moving and it was Phenomenological language.But I beleive it happened. But I suppose you dont because its a miracle, as I said earlier, you must also reject the VCirgin Birth, or the ressurection, as they, too are miracles.I do not.}-Zarove.

"You have to remember, those stories had all been handed down oraly for centuries before they were ever written down. "-AB

{Two things you ignore. The first beign that Oral transmisison ended with Moses, who write the Law. Joshua lived AFTER Moses, and thus the story was not passed down orally but recorded by scribes.

Only the events predatign Moses and the Exodus where handed down orally.

Further, this sint like Telephone, where thigns get distorted over time. In an oral culture, the stories coudl be retained in tact exactly as they where presented without variation. Indeed, in some remote parets of the world, oral traditions live, and are IDSENTICLE no matter what village youfo to, word for word.we have lost this ability because we do not train outr minds to remmeber so much and in sych detail. We are lazy. But you are projecting that onto the past.

So not only are you ignorant of the ability to transmit things orally, and assumignthat they wil distory, you are also ignorant of the hisotry of the Bible, as most fo the events where NOT transmitted Orally.

Stop listenign to Liberal propeganda here, and look up the hisotry, maybe take a theology course form a traditional semenal.}-Zarove.

"I do. I am a vegitarian" -Zarove

"Really? Just out of curiosity, what convinced you to make the switch?"-AB

{Nothing. I always hated to eat meat.}-Zarove

"I stopped eating most meat because I read a book called Fast Food Nation, which exposed the distgusting, dangeruous, and unsanitary conditions of the meat industry (and the pssibility of E coli contamination, although I still eat meat occasionaly (with my family, when I know where the meat came from...I just don't trust resturaunts). "-AB

{I dislike the taste of meat, and also dislike the idea of killign an animal. }-Zarove

"Joe, "In the Iran/Iraq war (1979-1989) the Iraqi army was supplied by the Soviet Union whereas Iran's army was largely filled with AMERICAN weapons such as the M-60 tank, the F-14 fighter jet, and other weapons systems bought in the early 1970's under the pro-American Shah." We've already established that. Iraq wasn't friendly with the Soviets, Soviet equipment was generaly the cheapest and easiest to get in the thrid world. As for the chemical weapons Iraq used to kill 30,000 Iranian civilians, those were either U.S. supplied or produced in a U.S.-funded program. "-AB

{Proof please.}-Zarove

""The whole sheebang was an "made in Iraq" affair, and the USA DID publicly denounce Iraq for use of CB weapons against Iranian and Kurdish people when it was proven to the outside world that they had been gased." Of course we denounced it once the media got wind of it. But as long as most Americans aren't seeing it on the evening news, anything goes. Before the mainstream media made a stink about it, Bush the Elder couldn't have cared less how many innocent people died. Of course once the American people heard about it, it was a travesty. That's not hypocracy, that's politics. "- AB

{Proof plase, no that it maters. EVen Bill Clinton is seen as a Murderer...}-Zarove

"Zaorve, back to you: "indeed, a central leading figure can brign a since of Unity to the people if th lader is given enough of a spotlight. They become a symbol of the cultural identity, as well a s a means to unite the whol of ht epeople under a common effort." Cultural unity doesn't have to rely on some tiera-wearing fruit."- AB

{Do not refer tot he crown and royals in this fashion. Unless the spacific individual deserves contempt as a person, such as Charlse and his disgraceful conduct, this sort of statement is highly Bigoted and unruely.And typically American!}-Zarove

" Screw the Queen."-AB

{More bigotry form the American. The only good govenrment is a Democracy... sorry lad, this is just flat out BAD MANNERS. }-Zarove

"Why would anyone respect a person who has never worked a day in their life and has done nothing to earn their position other than luck into being born into a certain family? "-AB

{Are you really tthis stupoid when it comes to Monarchy? A lot of them DO work, and indeed, most fo them have repsoncibilities. Stop beign both uninformed about Monarchy and bigoted againt anyhtign thats not liek you.}-Zarove.

"Not entirely true, in fact many Conservatives, whom you seem only willign to Demonise, worked for workers rights as well." -Zarove, earlier.

"Look, I'm not saying that all conservatives fought against the workers rights movement, but in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, most of them did. "-AB

{Noo, they coudnt habe. Their was no such thing back then... And it was Ultra Conservative qaueen Victoria that decided to open up work programmes and end poor hosues in Brittain. After reading Dickens. The more liberal Parlement wanted mor poor houses and moor sweatshops. She was the last great Queen. }-Zarove.

"They labeled labor unions as "communists" or "anarchists" to turn the people against them,"-AB

{The Term Communist was COINED int he 19th century and tot he generalpopulace meant nothing... Communism was neither feared not recieved. It was a political theiry that few knew anyhtign abiout in the 19th century, and in the ealru 20th century was popular among academics and scholars, and even thegenral populace in such nations as America. The term took on senester connotations AFTER the 1930's.}- Zarove.

"Without the Progressive Party and the Socialist Party, the worker's rights movement would have been set back decades."-AB

{So CVoctoria did nothing... Sorry, this is just projecting modern values such as Liberal and conservative onto a past that largley didnt understand this veiw of partisenship.Further, it was often the conservatives that pushed for social reform, if we can safely call them conservative. The 19th century ws also the beginign of religious reforms.The rise in fundamentalism happened n this century.}-Zarove.

"That's just the plain and honest truth. "- AB

{Not accordign to History books.Its propeganda. But then, you also beleive the whole of the Old testement was orally transmitted, and that Gid coulnt keep their facts streight as they manupulated their wpord. Godf must be pretty impotant in yoyr world veiw, as he cant even keep his prophets straight on what he seeks them to say...}- Zarove.

"Not really. Many Conservatives actvely promoted environmental cleanup laws" -Zarove

"Look, this is a fact. FOR THE MOST PART, the Greens and the Democrats are the ones who propose laws to protect the environment, and Republicans who shoot them down. "- AB

{Nope. President Bush, whom you hate, sugned recently as last year an environmental Porposal, at the beheist of his parry. Its in everyones concern to have a clean earth.}-Zarove

"Further, war isnt a Big Buisness becaue of the ofice of Presedent. we had a presedent in the US since the beginning of hte nation and the treason of 1776. " -Zarove

"That's not what I meant. I was simply making the point that America doesn't have to be so militaristic, and that the real reason behind it is because war is such a big industry in this country. Not that it was because of the office of the President. "- AB

{You said that the office of president was a signof militerism, but its noit, especially if we look a tthe hisotry.}-Zarove.

"Further, with the end of WW2 we sayw a massive increase in soviet activities which lead o an alert status that resulted itsself int he Cold War, which is justifiable, becazuse had we NOT taken precautions we woul all have fallen into the Red by now." -Zarove

"Does that justify Vietnam? "-AB

{Veitnam was unjustified, but happened a full decade AFTER WW2.Plus it was supported byt he Liberals...}-Zarove

"After he collapse of the Societ states, many micropowers then decided to buy cheap weapons, and or use the after effects fo the collapse of social order to set up new tyrannies. The world has become a dangerous place, this is the reason for more advanced military programmes." -Zarove

"The world has become a dangerous place for those who make enemies. If the U.S. stopped it's policy of corporate imperialism, then maybe most of the world wouldn't hate us."-AB

{Corporate Impirialism? Lad, not only do you have NO IDEA ht am Impire is, you have absolutley NO IDEA why America is hated, and what keeps me IN America. Hdeck. I make fun of Americans yet CHOOSE to live here... because that oh so lovely European society you are so fond of is systematiclaly destorying the family, a sytem of real firndship, and creatign a welfare state, which makes the popel dependant on the govenrment, while subverting religious beleifs and toting secularism as "Modern." They hate america for the same reaosn I am hated on th net, because it takes stands, and even it is decaying...The wicked hate the righeous.America may not be oure, but its purer than europe right now. And thats painful for ME to admit.}- Zarove.

"It's a catch-22, we have to bomb Iraq because there are terrorists, but there will be more terrorists because we bombed Iraq. "-AB

{Unrelated. And unproven.}-Zarove

"Besides, war isnt a buisness, and often costs the govenrment money. Look at the recent Iraqi war. It ddnt benefit american Conservative coffers, it xrained the economy.Anti-Militarism is jut as dangerous as militirism is, in that it leaves the way clear for social chaos, and takeovers from horile powers" -Zarove, earlier

"It costs the government money, but it makes our leaders rich. Where does Bush have most of his money? Oil and defense, the only two industries that have profitied from the war on terror."- AB

{ Another cnspiracy theory... th Bush Families Oil is domestic I beelive...}-Zarove

"And how is anti-militarism dangerous? All the "anti-militarists" want is for American boys to stop dying halfway across the world for a cause that is pure bullshit. "-AB

{So if America is attaked, it shpoud roll over and play dead... just like europe. Maybe even praise its attacxkers, and welcome ithe religion of those hwo most want urope subjigated while piurging Chrisyainity out... yeah great idea... we can be just as bankrupt morally, and jut as socially dependant, as europe.....}-Zarove.

"But what does Bush care? Not like his daughters will ever have to risk their lives. They can just stay home and smoke pot as long as they want, just like he did. "-AB

{Bush himself went to Iraq and spend the holidays. He sint that safe, an dplaces even more dangers upon himself. Some respect boy. even if you disagree with him, he hasnt doen anyhtign nessisarily THAT bad...}-Zarove

"Hitler and Bush arenothing alike. Not only where the masses of Germany Pro-Hitler whereas their is storng Anti-Bush Sintament , ( No pun intended) but Hitler's platform called for sweepign reforms and change,w hereas Bush isnt lookign for Change. You said yso yourself, conservatives want to preserve the Status Quo. " -Zarove, earlier.

"Well, let's see. For starters, Bush and Hitler both used wars abroad to distract the people from problems at home, both made a lot of false promises, both of them labeled their opponents as "unpatriotic", Hitler called opponents "Jewish sympathisers" while Bush calls his opponents "terrorist sympathisers". Want more? "

{Bush didnt use the war to distract Nyone. 9/11 came to us, and the war didnt divert any atention to anywhere. very politician makes false promises, may as well to out all of hem. the test si also political harfon. Theur policies and tactics are however no he same when anylised.Inly superficial likenesses can be found.}-Zarove

"9/11 was an attack on America by foign interests. There ar eno parrllells." -Zarove, earlier.

"Of course there are. It all fits into the Machiavellian theory of controlled chaos--"- AB

{Macheavelli didnt invent the theory of Contorled Chaos. Find the reference in "The Prince." I dare you. He advocated a ytem of realistic politics in which the ruler balance between the will of th enobles and will fo the people, and not be given to too much excessive vice.His theory was more of practicle rule than of contoled chaos.}-Zarove

"problem/reaction/solution. "- AB

{Not part of Machiavelli. He anylised the pratfalls and benefits to pre esistin states over new ones, and rebellion created states over those formed peacefully.Have ytou even read "The Prince."?}-Zarove

"Bascialy, if a government wants to reach a goal that would prove unpopular with the people, it must first create a problem to which the solution would be that goal."-AB

{Finally soemthign similar to Machiavelli. But, alas, this is not the whole of the idea behind he prince, and itsn controled chaos, but subtle cultural manipulation.}-Zarove

"Take Hitler. His goal was to gain more power. So, he had the brownshirts beat people in the streets and had the reichstag burned."- AB

{Hitlers goal was a new world order, with his master race on top. Not simp.ley power, but a whole new culture. ( WHich is a large part of why hes not conservative.)}-Zarove

"That was the problem. The people's reaction was to grant him increased powers to fight the "communist jews" who were behind these "attrocities", which leads us to the solution, where Hitler has all the power he wants. "- AB

{Yes. Hitler lied and manipulated, this sint in duspite...}-Zarove

"Now apply that situation to Bush. He has three goals--more power, more money, and more popularity."-AB

{Prove it.( Not that this is beyinf pecukation range, this is politics...)}-Zarove.

"That's his solution. Now all he needs is a problem."-AB

{Uhm... no his problem was unpopularity form word go...}-Zarove

"Pretty soon, 9/11 happens. The people's reaction is to a)pass the Patriot Act and other legislation that granted the government increased powers, b)allow Bush's invasions (that's right, invasions) of Afghanistan and Iraq, c)Bush was more popular. Now I'm not saying that Bush planned 9/11, but I wouldn't put it past him. I don't know exactly what the deatails were of 9/11, but I do know it didn't go as the official story ays it did. I know I sound a little on the crazy side now, but just try to keep an open mind. Here is a great site to start with: www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm "-AB

{I dont accept consoiracy hories as fat unless thy are proven, which you cant do withthat website... until you find hard, incriminating evidence, this is pur speculation.And disrespectful to those who died...}-Zarove

"Also, go to the Anarchy 2 forum and check out a thread I started called 9/11: Question Everything. "-AB

{No thanks. Politics sint my thing...}-Zarove

"You know, even though our opinions differ on just about everything, I have to say I respect you. I respect anyone who can give reasons for their beleifs. I see too many people (on both sides of the political spectrum) who talk a lot but just don't have a clue. A whole lot of people are like "I support Bush...because it's patriotic...and he helped fight the terrorists...GO USA!" while other people just say "Bush sucks! Republicans suck! Anarchy!" (while I can't say I dissagree with the second statement, the people i'm reffering to just say that because they see all their favorite singers say it, and that just pisses me off). "-AB

{Thanks.}-Zarove.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 15, 2004.

Anti-bush still hasn't proven that the US sent Iraq BILLIONS of dollars worth of chemical weapons. Plus, his history is wrong, the president at the time was Reagan, not Bush senior or junior.

He just believes the myth that Iraq was incapable of producing simple chemical weapons by itself (hey anti-Bush, the Europeans used chemical weapons in 1915... it's not rocket-science. Of course the Iraqis could have produced their own stuff.

But then, the TRUTH would overturn the little apple cart of "blame American first" and "Only the USA is guilty of crimes. Every other nation is innocent and completely helpless".

ZAROVE has proven himself to be well informed and honest. AB has only proven that an opinionated person full of zeal and passion doesn't need proof or evidence or facts or logic to continue to stoke hatred for a country, a president, or a CAUSE.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 16, 2004.

I never said Bush was President at the time. He was Vice President during the Reagan Administration, but most of his support for Saddam came when he was CIA Director.

As for proof, what more proof are you looking for? It's certainly no secret. But, since Fox News conveniently doesn't mention it, it's easy for people like you to slip into the jingoistic beleif that our leaders would never support evil people like Saddam. Guess what: you're wrong. The people in charge of our country don't care about any of us. They want more money and more power. Most of the people in charge of our country are just plain evil. Now you can either sit there and pretend that's not the case while they are screwing the world over worse and worse, or you can accept it and stand up and do something about it.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

President Bush was right about the axis of evil.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 19, 2004.

The problem is, you confuse paat mistakes wih preasent evil. There was need for a new stabi,ising forc ein he Middle east in the Mid Eighties. Thats why they supported Saddam, so that he woudl prevent a global crisis... Saddam LATER BETRAYED the US Leaders and created a socialist stazte. But this was not somehtign the US CIA Had anyw au of knowing, and it was either trust Saddam, or let the whole Middle East fall into a chaos in which the world may be effected. It was a tactical decision, not poure evil... as you make it out ot be, and its not a secret, its well atested to.

But we NOW are standign uo AGAISNT sadam and the Terorists, and its NOT all for power or money.

Further, you also dislike people who DID oppose some of this warfare, Like Pope John Paul 2.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 19, 2004.

Bill,

That article didn't tell em anything I didn't already know. Yes, Iran may or may not have some weapons. Yes, North Korea does have a few nukes (notice we don't mess with the countries that have REAL weapons...). Yes, Iraq did have weapons at one time and they did defy the U.N. That's already been established; no one is disputing that. But the fact is that Bush LIED to get us into this war. He told us that he had EVIDENCE, satelite photos, ect. that made him certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That just wasn't true. If you think Sadddam had weapons when we invaded his country, don't you think he would've used them on us? So far we have found NOTHING in Iraq to back up Bush's claims. The best he's been able to come up with were some shells that used to contain chemical weapons, but they have been buried for at least ten years!

"Thats why they supported Saddam, so that he woudl prevent a global crisis..."

Did they ever show Loony Tunes in Britain? Anyway, there was one episode where Porky Pig had a mouse in his hotel room. So he had a cat sent up. But pretty soon the cat started bugging him, so he had a dog sent up to chase away the cat. But the dog wouldn't leave, so he had a lion sent up. But then the lion was going to eat him, so he had an elephant sent up to chase it away. Then he had to get a mouse to scare away the elephant and it started all over again.

This is pretty much our foreign policy in the Middle East. The liberal democracy of Iran didn't like us, so we intalled the Shah (the U.S. seems to prefer brutal dictatorships over a left- leaning democracy any day of the week). But the Shah got overthrown, so we supplied Saddam with weapons and turned the blind eye as his body count reached 7 digits. But after a while Saddam started to piss us off, so we get brutal dicatorships Turkey and Saudi Arabia to help us fighting Saddam. I wonder what's next...

Wait a minute...what "global crisis" was Saddam supposed to prevent? Iran was hardly a global threat back in the 80's.

"Saddam LATER BETRAYED the US Leaders and created a socialist stazte.'

I don't think that Iraq's borderline flirtation with socialism is it's gravest sin...

"But this was not somehtign the US CIA Had anyw au of knowing"

We knew, we just didn't care. We even gave saddam the green light to use helicopter gunships when the Kurds revolted in the late 80's (they had a right to...Sadddam had just killed half a million of them).

"But we NOW are standign uo AGAISNT sadam and the Terorists, and its NOT all for power or money.

Man, would it be easier if that were true.

"Further, you also dislike people who DID oppose some of this warfare, Like Pope John Paul 2.'

Actualy, as far as Popes go, I kind of Like John Paul II. I'm not sure if you know of his background before he became Pope, but he used to be a prominent figure in the eastern European Socialist movement. He fought both the capitalist and communist establishments. Plus, he is against the war, which I admire.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

But the fact is that Bush LIED to get us into this war. He told us that he had EVIDENCE, satelite photos, ect. that made him certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

So did Clinton.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

From David Kay, this weekend: "We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration...It is not a political 'gotcha' issue. It is a serious issue of 'How you can come to a conclusion that is not matched in the future?'"

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

"Thats why they supported Saddam, so that he woudl prevent a global crisis..." -ZAROVE, earlier.

"Did they ever show Loony Tunes in Britain? Anyway, there was one episode where Porky Pig had a mouse in his hotel room. So he had a cat sent up. But pretty soon the cat started bugging him, so he had a dog sent up to chase away the cat. But the dog wouldn't leave, so he had a lion sent up. But then the lion was going to eat him, so he had an elephant sent up to chase it away. Then he had to get a mouse to scare away the elephant and it started all over again. "-AB

{Yes we saw Luny Tunes... and again I have lived for years in Tennessee... at any event, we alreadty allagree that the US Screwed up, all I am saying is hat the US ISn't as culpable as you mak eit, you are demonising the states in a way that even I won't do.The US has had its fair share of evil actions, form the disgraceful treatment of the Natives, to the slave trade, to Veitnam and its atrocities, however, some actions the US Took, though endign badly, arent for reasosn of sheer power and controle, and at the time seemed liek good ideas. They screw up. Their human. Deal with it.}-Zarove's reply.

"This is pretty much our foreign policy in the Middle East. The liberal democracy of Iran didn't like us, so we intalled the Shah (the U.S. seems to prefer brutal dictatorships over a left- leaning democracy any day of the week)." -AB

{Now now, read your history, the situration was far more complexe than this at the time. I will address this if you woudl like, but for now I am askign you to reinvestigate. It wasnt a simple mayyer of Iranian Liberal Democracy not likign the US... a whole lot more went on than this.}-Zarove

"But the Shah got overthrown, so we supplied Saddam with weapons and turned the blind eye as his body count reached 7 digits."-AB

{Care to show sources? I will, later. I am still jet lagged, and now shcool is takign its toll, but I shall show a lot of answers in the near future, as I demonstrated I coudl earlier.But as for now, I seem to recall that this was seen, byt he world, as a viable option at the time, and was nto seen as bad until hindsight caught up with us.}- Zarove

"But after a while Saddam started to piss us off, so we get brutal dicatorships Turkey and Saudi Arabia to help us fighting Saddam. I wonder what's next... "-AB

{Again, this is revisionists histoyrt that oversimplifies the situation and ignores the opposign veiw. This isnt really a goo dprotrayal of what happened. Saddam seemed stable at the time and a viable way to restpre soem order, and the US didnt know he woudl become a Dictator at the time he was supplied.}-Zarove

"Wait a minute...what "global crisis" was Saddam supposed to prevent? Iran was hardly a global threat back in the 80's. "-AB

{OK, thats just uninformed. Iran not only possesses Oil, but also had sway wiht OTHER Oil rich nations, as well as supplies to military grade weapons, and ties to Islamic Extreemist groups willign to commit Jihad agaisnt the west.Economically it was a threat, as well as militarily.}-Zarove

"Saddam LATER BETRAYED the US Leaders and created a socialist stazte.' -Zarove, earlier.

"I don't think that Iraq's borderline flirtation with socialism is it's gravest sin... "-AB

{You woudlnt, but then again, this socialist state was also murderous...but then,. thats not because it was a socialist sttae... granted, we cannot find an example of a NONbloody socialist state, but thats OK...}-Zarove

"But this was not somehtign the US CIA Had anyw au of knowing" -Zarove

"We knew, we just didn't care. We even gave saddam the green light to use helicopter gunships when the Kurds revolted in the late 80's (they had a right to...Sadddam had just killed half a million of them). "-AB

{I woudl like a sourc here...}-AB

"But we NOW are standign uo AGAISNT sadam and the Terorists, and its NOT all for power or money. -Zarove

"Man, would it be easier if that were true." -AB

{Your arguments are far form convencing in proving its not...}-Zarove

"Further, you also dislike people who DID oppose some of this warfare, Like Pope John Paul 2.'

"Actualy, as far as Popes go, I kind of Like John Paul II. I'm not sure if you know of his background before he became Pope, but he used to be a prominent figure in the eastern European Socialist movement. He fought both the capitalist and communist establishments. Plus, he is against the war, which I admire. "-AB

{I like the current Pope as well, and I didnt know his background ( Again, not catholic...) But I like his peace efforts.Even if I disagree with his U.N friendly, E.U. supporting politics.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF@JUNO.COM), January 26, 2004.

Bill,

"So did Clinton." Very true. I'm not much of a Clinton fan, either. OTOH, when Clinton left office, the stock market was high, unemployment was down, and we were actualy MAKING money. Thank you, Mr. Bush (I refrain from calling him President as he was not elected), for turning all of that into a 3 trillion dollar deficit.

Zarove,

"Care to show sources?"

What part of that statement don't you agree with?

"Again, this is revisionists histoyrt that oversimplifies the situation and ignores the opposign veiw. This isnt really a goo dprotrayal of what happened. Saddam seemed stable at the time and a viable way to restpre soem order, and the US didnt know he woudl become a Dictator at the time he was supplied"

At the beggining, this was treu, but we continued to supply him with weapons up until the late 80's, and by that time his sadistic killing sprees were well-documented and in full swing. Right now, the U.S.'s allies in the region are Isreal, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, all of whom have blood on their hands and are racking up their human rights violations. I have a good friend who's family was forced to flee Turkey because her father protested against the government. He had friends ho were killed by the government.

"You woudlnt, but then again, this socialist state was also murderous...but then,. thats not because it was a socialist sttae... granted, we cannot find an example of a NONbloody socialist state, but thats OK."

Sure we can. Britain. The Netherlands. Sweden. Denmark. Germany (to an extent). Most of Europe is at least partly socialist, and they have far less blood on their hands than the US.

"I woudl like a sourc here"

Cut and pasted from cbsnews.com

Bush's message was heard, and the Iraqis rose up against Saddam. Their rallying cry: Ayatollah al-Hakim. It was a classic popular uprising and it was succeeding. The rebels took over 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, and they killed scores of Saddam's Ba'ath party officials.

But when they turned to Washington for help, Bush turned them down.

The Americans gave Saddam the green light to use helicopter gunships to crush the rebellion. Saddam leveled the Shiite's holiest cities and shrines and summary executions became the order of the day.

Happy?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

unitalic

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

But when they turned to Washington for help, Bush turned them down.

That is because Bush, Sr. gave his word at the UN and to the Nato allies. The people you can't trust are at the UN and in Europe, sir. You know, the guys Dean wants us to ask the permission of before we protect ourselves.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

Yes, North Korea does have a few nukes (notice we don't mess with the countries that have REAL weapons...).

North Korea is a real problem now that Clinton allowed them to have nukes. North Korea lied about its nuclear program. But President Bush exposed those lies. So now what do we do? We can't trust them to tell us the truth. If we go in militarily, hundreds of thousands in South Korea die. If we don't, they might sell nukes to terrorists (they sell whatever they have to anyone with money, they don't care). The military solution is out, so that leaves us the diplomatic solution. Bush is trying that solution. And it looks like he has their attention. North Korea reminds me of a 12 year old bully.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

"The only other small thing that affected the economy by sucking out billions of dollars was 9/11! I guess if clinton didn't tick the terrorists off so much we wouldn't of had hundreds of thousands of jobs sucked out of the economy on 9/11."

Clinton? What did Clinton do to piss of the terrorists? If the terrorists had been from Bosnia, I'd understand, but in the Middle East, Clinton did much more to help the Isreali peace proccess than Bush ever did. The terrorists were "ticked off" by American corporate imperialism. Our corporations screw ove third world countries, destroy their economies and then make sure the entire antion relies on them to rebuild it, they rape the local culture, they put 8-year- olds to work making sneakers with little lights in the heels for 12 cents an hour, while the American military drops bombs on schools and hospitals during it's many "peacekeeping missions". The terrorists had a right to be angry, of course the end most certainly did not justify the means. Nothing can justify murdering 3,000 people.

"That is because Bush, Sr. gave his word at the UN and to the Nato allies. The people you can't trust are at the UN and in Europe, sir. You know, the guys Dean wants us to ask the permission of before we protect ourselves.

That is because Bush, Sr. gave his word at the UN and to the Nato allies. The people you can't trust are at the UN and in Europe, sir. You know, the guys Dean wants us to ask the permission of before we protect ourselves.

Why is the European Union untrustworthy? If we alienate all of our friends like this, we'll be alone pretty quickly and we'll be facing a world that doesn't like us. And Iraq wasn't about protecting ourselves. Iraq had shown no hostility towards us, and the claim that they were supporting Al Quaeda has been proven to be just another false, arbitrary statement made up by George W. Bush. Granted, I'm glad Saddam is gone, but don't make it out like Iraq was some threat to us. It doesn;'t count as "defending ourselves" if WE are the agressor.

"North Korea is a real problem now that Clinton allowed them to have nukes. North Korea lied about its nuclear program. But President Bush exposed those lies."

Wow, that George W. Bush sure is a brave, valiant man isn't he? A crusader, always fighting for what is right. Give me a break. At the end of the day, Bush doesn't care whether we live or die. As long as he has the support of just enough people so that his election rigging won't be too obvious. Yeah, Clinton could have done more. I blame them both. They're all the same, anyway. The Democrats, the Republicans. All representitives of corporate America masqerading as democratic organizations. And it all comes down to the fact that corporate America doesn't care about North Korea. As long as little asian pre-teens continue to supply all of our trendy clothes and sneakers, corporate America couldn't be happier. And since they own both Clinton and Bush, no action will be taken against North Korea.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

-- (end@italians.com), January 27, 2004.

TEST

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

Interesting ar ticle on Kucinich supporters in NH.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

The EU sint trsutirthy because it makes free speach wrong while claimign it supports free speach. The Numbe rof peopel who wrote letters to government officials or did other nonviolent, nonthreatening protests, who where arrested as dissonence, has increased in the last 10 years.

The EU beleives that rleigion shoud be pushed far intot he background, whovh you agree with, but the end result is a strangle hold.Religion si fine for ritual, but one whoudltn liv eones life by it...

The UE advicates secularism ABOVE ALL ELSE, and imposes its moral standard on others. The EU allows murderers ans rapists to live in luxuries, whole overtaxing the regular citisenry, and forcing them to rely on handouts to the state, which makes them rliant on the state. Again, it creates a wlefare state.

The EU will break treaties if its in its own best interests while tryign to dictate tothe world what is and isnt rifght, all while critisisimg America for the same.

The EU has basicaly destoryed the spirit of the people, and imn Europe the crime rate is increasing steadily... even htough Europe ikes ot think its sdafe.

Suicide rates are also up, and people, taught htat thr Bible contradicts and rleigion is ourdated, and taufght htat their life is relaly unimportant and everythign is subjective, nd nothign relaly has meaning ( Which is what we are taught in brittain these days as well laddie) tend to give htemselves over to destructive practices like drigs, promiscuity, alcahol, een suicide... all whoile paung hteir promaty bills to the state.

Yeah, socialism is relaly good... and lets not forget how HONEST ht eEU Has been it eh past...

You talk about how fgood those socialised nations are, and yet forget I was their, and left, and am not going back... again, wlefare states arent good, people whith no meanign in thei lives arent good. If I tewll them about Jesus, its wrogn because I am infringing on their rights, while they can basj Chrisyainity all they want... yeah fair...

I cant help them by tellign them of my faith, because thats wrong... btu they can mock and ridicule all theyw ant...

Sorry lad, and sorry for my posts past and preasant not beign really good, but I will make effort to make them mor eimpactful, but for now I know that the EU Lies, and destoryes lives. And has a LOT of lood on its hands, it just likes to vcover itsself up.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

Zarove Im sure your EU post was helpful to someone but I really wonder who? A little less hot air and a few more "facts" might lend your assertions a glimmer of credibility.

Anti Bush a helping hand if I may,and a few authors if you get time.

re economics the best argumets IMO against capitalists is the contrast between the freemarket ideals and those of the Catholic Church. If you wish to stop capitalist "Catholic" people in their tracks its n0 more of a challenge than searching through an online version of the Catholic Catechism. Of course there are a few crummy right wing American theologians who attempt(and fail) to do so..long time dissenters most of them, Novak being the most widely quoted and lame of the lot.

My personal favourtie author to effectively dismantle utiliarian/capitalism is of course Pope John Paul II an intellectual thinker of immense depth and clairty I urge you to read Crossing the Thresehold of Hope even as a non catholic or non believer a very powerful and acessible read.

Or try the encylical VERITATIS SPLENDOR for size:

"Consequentialism" or "proportionalism" utilitarianism and pragmatism, teleological ethical theories:

These theories can gain a certain persuasive force from their affinity to the scientific mentality, which is rightly concerned with ordering technical and economic activities on the basis of a calculation of resources and profits, procedures and their effects.

Such theories however are not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behaviour contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition.

Its exactly these theories that right wingers sieze upon. Take Iraq as an example and the commandment "Thou shall not Kill" and see how this moral teaching is ignored because of the percieved "good conseuqenses or outcomes".

Yet the Pope says

"But the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour is "according to its species", or "in itself", morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species."

There are obviously other ways of addresssing the arguments of capitlists these focus on attacking the outcomes based utilitarian pragmatisim that underpins their philosophical beliefs. To deny that capitalism can exist outside of an utiltarianism framework is of course absurd although Im happy to hear Zaroves attempts in achieving this. How he can equate the fruits of such thinking: greed, selfishness, materialism, individulism and the aquistion of only utility or happiness with Catholic morailty is of course an impossible task.

If you prefer to tackle ethical problems from a purely philosophical view poin loook no further than philosopher Bernard Williams. Ive been reading alot of essays from this gent and he is hard to beat IMHO regarding the flaws in utilitarianism.

As for the other major issue that you two guys are going at being the actions of States its highly amusing to see some treat nation states as moral agents. They have only interests, and sometimes the pursuit of interests leads all states in directions that are difficult to defend. Impossible to defend in fact if we are using catholic morality and certain aspects of AMerican (or most other nations) foreign policy. Yet youll find plenty of defenders of power polictics and unsentimental geopolitical view here although most are far too indocritinated or ignorant to realise it.

This repellent sophistry effectively condemns the countless victims of such realpolitik to eternal silence and is again only intrested not in the means but only the outcomes, ie whats "good" for AMerica.

The american people should wake up to what really drives foriegn policy in regard to the middle east and oil, they should be asking: What pacts with which devils are "we" currently making in the pursuit of those (whose?) nebulous interests, and what necessary price must be paid in blood by others for our "noble" cause?To the victor the spoils and all that. SHucks. You see AMericans of he conservative bend are trapped in a warrior mentality but thats something else alltogether.

ANyway I dont believe Zarove has much of a grasp on the real notion of freedom and importantly certainly shows zero understanding how how negaive freedoms are not the same as positive freedoms- this concept has made alot of sense to me in clarrifying freedom- read Sir Isaiah Berlin IMHO hes the MAN regarding this concept. Good luck, hope they help, perhaps youve already read a few things from Berlin and Williams if not I hope you get the chance :)

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

"Zarove Im sure your EU post was helpful to someone but I really wonder who? "-Kiwi

Maybe if you stick around and listen, instead of makign attacks, you...I dotn always have tome to make well orginised posts...

I have a life away form this you know.

"A little less hot air and a few more "facts" might lend your assertions a glimmer of credibility. "-Kiwi

Uhm, consider how many facts I have posted ALREADY in this thread... consider how much I have said, and focis less on this one post... consider that their may be reasons for my hastey post... and stoip tryign to make me look less creidble when I have ALREADY shown credibility. I dont want to keep proving that all the time...

"re economics the best argumets IMO against capitalists is the contrast between the freemarket ideals and those of the Catholic Church. "-Kiwi

Since I am not Catholic, this is irrelevant, doubely o sinc ei am also not a capitolist, you just sorta assumed this...

"If you wish to stop capitalist "Catholic" people in their tracks its n0 more of a challenge than searching through an online version of the Catholic Catechism. Of course there are a few crummy right wing American theologians who attempt(and fail) to do so..long time dissenters most of them, Novak being the most widely quoted and lame of the lot. "-Kiwi

And this applies to anyhting we have said...how?

"My personal favourtie author to effectively dismantle utiliarian/capitalism is of course Pope John Paul II an intellectual thinker of immense depth and clairty I urge you to read Crossing the Thresehold of Hope even as a non catholic or non believer a very powerful and acessible read. "-Kiwi

I edited the rest out, as its irrelevant. We arent discussign the benefits of capitolism, we are discussing the problems of socialism, and their are more than two options. Its not that cut and dry. Its nto a simple matter of sayign that I am not a socialist theirfore I am a capitolist...

. "To deny that capitalism can exist outside of an utiltarianism framework is of course absurd although Im happy to hear Zaroves attempts in achieving this."-Kiwi

You really havent been paying attention to my former posts have you? My last post was written in a hurry, and yet those in which I make good points on, you seem to ignore... One of the main themes in my post is tht I am NOT a capitolist... I dont see why its hard for you to grasp the notion of a nonsocialist who isnt a capitolist.........remember, traditional govenrment, class system??? Monarchy? Morals allowed in govenrment???remmember?

any attemot too link me to American style govenremnt, let alone capitolism, will only show YOUR ignorance of ME.

I am not even an American!

Capitolism is fairly new, and wholly opposed to anything I have ever written.

Please please please read everythign I say and domt attack me on the basis of a single post...

"If you prefer to tackle ethical problems from a purely philosophical view poin loook no further than philosopher Bernard Williams. Ive been reading alot of essays from this gent and he is hard to beat IMHO regarding the flaws in utilitarianism. "-Kiwi

I prefer the Bible, its far more accurate. If that aside, many religious philoosphies also handle ethics, and for that matter so did Plato...

"As for the other major issue that you two guys are going at being the actions of States its highly amusing to see some treat nation states as moral agents. They have only interests, and sometimes the pursuit of interests leads all states in directions that are difficult to defend. Impossible to defend in fact if we are using catholic morality and certain aspects of AMerican (or most other nations) foreign policy. Yet youll find plenty of defenders of power polictics and unsentimental geopolitical view here although most are far too indocritinated or ignorant to realise it. "-Kiwi

This is why I suggest placing a higher regard on morality and less on politics, like it use ot be...

Then again, I m not catholic either...

"This repellent sophistry effectively condemns the countless victims of such realpolitik to eternal silence and is again only intrested not in the means but only the outcomes, ie whats "good" for AMerica. "Kiwi

Again, I am not American...

"The american people should wake up to what really drives foriegn policy in regard to the middle east and oil, they should be asking: What pacts with which devils are "we" currently making in the pursuit of those (whose?) nebulous interests, and what necessary price must be paid in blood by others for our "noble" cause?To the victor the spoils and all that. SHucks. You see AMericans of he conservative bend are trapped in a warrior mentality but thats something else alltogether. "-Kiwi

The word needs to wake up and start trying to do the right hting, and stop playing the political games it normally does...

"ANyway I dont believe Zarove has much of a grasp on the real notion of freedom and importantly certainly shows zero understanding how how negaive freedoms are not the same as positive freedoms- this concept has made alot of sense to me in clarrifying freedom- read Sir Isaiah Berlin IMHO hes the MAN regarding this concept. Good luck, hope they help, perhaps youve already read a few things from Berlin and Williams if not I hope you get the chance :) "-Kiwi

Accusing me of lack of understanidng...old hat trick, AB already did this... sadly, I know more abour freedom than you can know, and more about its cost, and responcibilities, and morals.

Freedom is NOT attainale in a socialist system, simpley because it ENFORCES a secularist worldveiw and declares rleigions rights to exist only in religioys affairs, which are lelective, and even actively shins peopel who allow themselves to be enfluenced by their religion in desision making.

Want to talk freedom in Europe? You must agree withhte majority and whatever the current trend the state tells you. I know, again, I was their...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

"Whatever it was it was enough to get them to start planning the destruction of the WTC."

Wow. There's a convincing argument. God knows it couldn't have been American corporations destroying their countries...nope, it had o be Clinton, the only President we've ever had who could get Isreal and Palestine to actualy sit down and talk...

Again, I'm no Clinton fan, by any stretch of the imagination, but to blame him for 9/11 is a bit of a stretch.

"France and Russia were making millions from the oil for food program in Iraq. Because of this, they were doing all in their power to keep that program going and prevent the US from invading."

I know that, and I'm not naive enough to think that their motives were totaly pure. But you can't have it both ways. Chirac and Schroeder only cared about the money, but Bush just wanted to save those innocent people, right? No ones motives are pure. All world leaders are driven by the quest for money and power. To beleive that Bush is any different is stupid and ingorant. By the way, did you know that the Bush family fortune was built off and investment in Nazi banking interests?

"Saddam was a threat to the US. He tried to assassinate a former president"

Allegedly...

Not like he didn't deserve it. Anyone who takes a shot and one of the Bushes is a hero in my book.

Let me rephrase that...I don't think Saddam is a hero...he did a lot of other bad things...I just don't have a problem with him trying to assasinate Bush.

"and he was feeding Hammas and the PLO with arms and money to keep the Palestinian war going. The only countries on the Israeli side are the US and Israel in that war. We know Iraq was actively manufacturing missiles that could attack Israel."

Yes, those poor Isrealis. All they did was roll their tanks into a few villages, bulldoze a few neighborhoods...why on Earth would those whacky Palestinians be mad at them?

I support Palestine's call for an independent nation. I just don't support the way they are reacting to Isreal. Yes, Isreal kills Palestinian women and children, but you can't stop it by killing more. Blowing yourself up on a bus full of kids won't free anybody. If the Palestinians sat down on the street and sang "Give peace a chance", they'd get beaten by Isreali police officers. But the whole world would be watching. Then they'd be free. If Martin Luther King had blown himself up in a supermarket, there would be no civil rights. It was a revolution of love. Like the Georgian revolution that occured recently. They ousted the President by walking into the Parliament building with roses. People spontaneously walked onto the streets. Pretty soon they had the majority of the country protesting the government, and the whole world was watching. If they had started out violently, the government would have had an excuse to use the military.

"The criticism Bush is getting internationally is because he really is doing something about the ‘axis of evil’"

No, it's because Bush took us into a war that a huge part, if not a majority of the american people didn't want, and that a majority of the world didn't want. WE are the rogue state. Most of our allies are dictatorships. We have more weapons of mass destruction than every other country put together. Bush is a terrorist, plain and simple.

Zarove,

The EU isn't perfect, I was just showing you that there are socialist states that don't have concentration camps and mass executions. There are definitely things I would do differently from the EU.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

Not like he didn't deserve it. Anyone who takes a shot and one of the Bushes is a hero in my book.

You have a personal problem here. Advocating the assasination of any president is a moral fault. You need to examine your hatred, it is self defeating.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

By the way, it is also illegal.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

The EU isnt purtely socialist either, and is blocked on many occassions by national nterests... but those are slowly erodign awy, and we are seeign lkess and less national soverignty, and withthe passing of the national soverignty we also see the eroding of peoples freedoms, and the deminisment of their souls, as Human dignity is reduced to prodict management...

The EU Is NO WAY NEAR the ideal...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 28, 2004.

Remember those government officials in Europe who were writing against the US before the Iraq war? Well it looks like a lot of European government officials were being bribed by Saddam. The list includs members of Arab ruling families, religious organizations, politicians and parties from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria, France, Italy and other countries.

Oh, yea, and the head of the BBC just resigned for falsely accusing people in England of 'cooking the books.'

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

Bill,

What are you going to do, call Joh Ashcroft and have me sent to Guantonimo Bay? Ahh, good old U-S-of-A, land of the free.

I never said I was going to assasinate the president. I'm just saying if somebody did, I wouldn't shed a tear.

As for the "bribed by Saddam" idea, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch. They did have some very lucrative oil contracts, though. Not that Bush's motives were any purer.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

I never said I was going to assasinate the president. I'm just saying if somebody did, I wouldn't shed

Advocating the assasination of any president is illegal and is advocating murder, which is sinful. As far as I am concerned you are no longer welcome in this group.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Remember Bill, hjes 17, and foolishness abounds in the heart of a child...as CHristains we shoudl try to show love, even to those we are offended by, its soemthign that even I must work on, but I htink we shoudl encourage good, rather than csst away the foolish youth.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2004.

Zarove, I didn't know he was that young.

Anti-bush, A lesson we all must learn in life is discretion. Passion is fine in youth, but you need to learn to control your speach.... something many of us need to work on :)

Remember, what you write on the Internet is published in a public medium. You can be held liable for it. Others have gotten into a lot of trouble for what they wrote that was illegal in one way or another or for admitting to crimes on the Internet. There are ways of tracing just about anyone if the FBI wanted to. This is a good thing in this time of war.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Then I suppose you're a supporter of the Patriot Act?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Me?

No. I am sceptical of the Patriot Act. I think the FBI is trying to make their life easier. Can't blaim them for that, but as citizens we need to defend our rights or they will be taken away. The history of our constitution shows that the Bill of Rights was put in place dispite the government (same goes for most of the ammendments).... The federal government will always tend to be overbearing (under Republicans or Democrates) and the people will always need to be vigilent against that. If you are really 17, it is good to see a new generation understands this and has outspoken individuals out there to defend the rights of the people.

It is obvious from 9/11 and from the Iraq WMD debaucle (if it proves to be that Iraq didn't just move stuff to Syria) that we need to beef up our national intellegence. How, while keeping our fundamental rights, is the tricky part.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

"Many Democrats support sending money TO the peopel who supply the world with terrorists, supposedly for food and education, btu that is in return used on terror attacks, and thats a fact you can look up on almost any news site..."

WOW! Talk about a half-truth...

In late 2002, while Bush was trying to win support for the war on Iraq by claiming that we should spread Democracy, he was attempting to overthrow a democratic government in Venezuela.

Who is our biggest Arab ally in the war on terror? Saudi Arabia! A country where all political opposition is killed and tortured, and where hands and feet are chopped off for trivial crimes like petty theft or not showing up for prayers on time. T^hey are also one of the biggest recipients of foreign aid from the U.S., thanks to Dubya.

As CIA Director, Bush Sr. gave Saddam billions of dollars worth of chemical and biological weapons, and knowingly allowed him to use them on civilians both in Iran and his own country. You want to talk mass murder? When Saddam committed his first large-scale anihilation of Kurds, they rose up and tried to win independence. It was the CIA who helped put down the insurrection.

George H.W. also worked extensively with Noriega in his years as CIA Director. Traded arms with him, gave him plenty of money, and looked the other way while his goons terrorized Panama. I'll spare you the "conspiracy theories" about Bush's participation in the drug trade (email me for more on that).

Need I explain Iran Contra?

Nixon had the democraticaly elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, killed and installed Augusto Pinochet into power, where he killed thousands and had all political opponents killed.

The list of Republican-supported dictatorships goes on...and other than Bill Clinton's support for several tyrants (including Sani Abacha of Nigeria and King Hassan II of Morocco, just to name a few), I'm drawing a blank as to what Democrats you're talking about.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Bush took us into a war that a huge part, if not a majority of the american people didn't want,

Nope, at the time we went into war the vast majority of Americans were in favor of the war.

Who is our biggest Arab ally in the war on terror? Saudi Arabia!

Nope, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are stronger allies than Saudi Arabia. In fact so is Jordan and Turkey. Saudi Arabia was and is a weak partner in this war and only is starting to pursecute terrorists now that they have had bombings on their own territory.

As CIA Director, Bush Sr. gave Saddam billions of dollars worth of chemical and biological weapons,

Nope, we never gave them chemical or biological weapons. Do you have proof of this I have not seen?

Either you have been misled or you are misinterpreting what you are reading.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

"Many Democrats support sending money TO the peopel who supply the world with terrorists, supposedly for food and education, btu that is in return used on terror attacks, and thats a fact you can look up on almost any news site..." -ZAROVE, earlier.

"WOW! Talk about a half-truth... "-AB,

{Not a half truth at all. Look whose the biggest supporter of forgin aid, the Liberals. Look who they wan tot send the money to. The people in the middel east. Look whose pockets the money goes into, the terrorist, or terrorist-supporting tyranical governments.Very little fo the financial aid reaches any comon man, and all one need do is see how many starving peopel their ar ein those third world coutnries, then look at hte presidential palaces, which grow opulant on US Tax dollars...Do I need to get more spacific again?}-Zarove

"In late 2002, while Bush was trying to win support for the war on Iraq by claiming that we should spread Democracy, he was attempting to overthrow a democratic government in Venezuela. "-AB

{Bill's already coverign this, but I woudl like to know more abouthte Venusuala thing... mainly form a nonpartisan source.}-Zarove

"Who is our biggest Arab ally in the war on terror? Saudi Arabia! A country where all political opposition is killed and tortured, and where hands and feet are chopped off for trivial crimes like petty theft or not showing up for prayers on time. T^hey are also one of the biggest recipients of foreign aid from the U.S., thanks to Dubya."-AB

{Bill's covered this one too...}-Zarove

"As CIA Director, Bush Sr. gave Saddam billions of dollars worth of chemical and biological weapons, and knowingly allowed him to use them on civilians both in Iran and his own country."-AB

{We already covered this earlier...Their is no proof of this, and all evidence suggests that Iraq mad eits own chemical and biological weapons.}-Zarove

"You want to talk mass murder? When Saddam committed his first large- scale anihilation of Kurds, they rose up and tried to win independence. It was the CIA who helped put down the insurrection. "- AB

{Was it now...let me look into this, give me a week.}-Zarove

"George H.W. also worked extensively with Noriega in his years as CIA Director. Traded arms with him, gave him plenty of money, and looked the other way while his goons terrorized Panama. I'll spare you the "conspiracy theories" about Bush's participation in the drug trade (email me for more on that). "-AB

{Woudl rather bone up on this topic, but I think you may be exagerating, as per usual..I will let you know what I find}-Zarove

"Need I explain Iran Contra?"-AB

{Nope, that was in the news...}-Zarove

"Nixon had the democraticaly elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, killed and installed Augusto Pinochet into power, where he killed thousands and had all political opponents killed. "-AB

{Wasn't Nixon Impeached?}-Zarove.

"The list of Republican-supported dictatorships goes on...and other than Bill Clinton's support for several tyrants (including Sani Abacha of Nigeria and King Hassan II of Morocco, just to name a few), I'm drawing a blank as to what Democrats you're talking about."-AB

{Maybe because their havent been that many Democrats that sat as president in the last coupoel decades?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2004.

Also of note... the greatest president in US Hisotry, Abraham Lincoln, was a Republican.The claim that Republicans only serve to PREVENT beneficial social change is negated by him, the claim that republicans ar eonly after momney is refuted by him.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 04, 2004.

Guys, the political parties change based upon those who lead them. Today the Democrates are led by far left leaning people (some say libertarian socialists), under Clinton they were mid left leaning men and women. Under Kennedy they would have been called moderate (by today's standards). The Republicans under Bush are self defined 'compassionate conservatives' meaning they want social reform but are trying to be fair about it. 9/11 also gave them a 'neo-conservative' leaning as far as International politics was concerned. Under Regan Republicans could have been called conservatives. Under Nixon, moderate conservatives. Under Lincoln they would be called liberal (by today's standards).

Bottom line: Democrate and Republican is meaningless over time. You need to see who during that year is in power.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 04, 2004.

TENET:The Search must continue

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

"Nope, at the time we went into war the vast majority of Americans were in favor of the war."

Actauly, according to ABC, support for the war in March 2003 was 59%. A majority, but not by much. In January 2003, two thirds were against it. His postwar ratings were 43%. Yes, at the very beggining of the war, there was a majority, but certainly not a vast one. Of course that was when we thought Iraq actualy had weapons, and before we found out that Bush's Niger uranium claim was a lie.

Our President lied to start a war. Doesn't that tick you off just a wee bit?

"Nope, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are stronger allies than Saudi Arabia. In fact so is Jordan and Turkey. Saudi Arabia was and is a weak partner in this war and only is starting to pursecute terrorists now that they have had bombings on their own territory."

Bahrain is a hereditary monarchy. Political parties are prohibited. Freedom House (an independent group that studies civil liberties worldwide) rate Bahrain's freedom as 5 (the rating system goes from 1 to 7, 1 being totaly free and 7 being not free at all). Bahrain is not free. You can read a total overview of Bahrain's freedom here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/bahrain.ht m

Kuwait is also a monarchy. It receives a 4 in political freedom and 5 in civil liberties. It's an oppressive government who any decent President would have nothing to do with. You can read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/kuwait.htm

Oman is even worse. It received a 6 in political rights and a 5 in civil liberties. It is a traditional monarchy, ruled by an ancient dynasty with no constitutional overview. The Sultan has absolute power and there is no posibility of democratic change. Also not an ally any decent human being would have. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/oman.htm

Quatar is worse than Oman. It's rating is 6. It's a traditional monarchy, has no constitution, and it's been ruled by one family since the mid-1800's. It is ruled by Islamic law (stoning, women have to wear veils, hands get chopped off for stealing a toothbrush). It is not free. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/qatar.htm

The United Arab Emrates receives a 6 in political rights and a 5 in civil liberties. They are a federation of traditional monarchies. No elections at all. No political parties. It is an autocratic society that is regarded as not free. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/united- arab-emirates.htm

Turkey recieves a higher rating, 3 in political rights and 4 in civil liberties, but it should still be regarded as an authoritarian society. The military has far too much influence on the government, and their record of police abuses is troubling. Have I related to you the story of my friend's father, who was forced to flee Turkey a few years ago because of his political beleifs? Turkey's treatment of the Kurds is also apalling. 37,000 Kurds have been killed by the Turkish military. You can read the full overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/turkey.htm

Jordan receives a rating of 6 in political freedom and 5 in civil liberties. They are a traditional monarchy. Their King has suspended all elections indefinitely (so they're likely to pick up an even worse rating in the 2004 edition). Their constitution offers almost no protections against arbitrary arrests and detentions. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/jordan.htm

It's good to see that the Uinted States is in such good company.

"Nope, we never gave them chemical or biological weapons. Do you have proof of this I have not seen?"

Ok...this is common knowledge...to not accept this is to let your nationalism blind you...since it's so fundamental I'm not sure what you would accept as proof...

How about an article from the Washingtojn Post?

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

"Not a half truth at all. Look whose the biggest supporter of forgin aid, the Liberals. Look who they wan tot send the money to. The people in the middel east. Look whose pockets the money goes into, the terrorist, or terrorist-supporting tyranical governments.Very little fo the financial aid reaches any comon man, and all one need do is see how many starving peopel their ar ein those third world coutnries, then look at hte presidential palaces, which grow opulant on US Tax dollars...Do I need to get more spacific again?"

Examples?...

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

Just a few of the dictators supported by the "Land of the Free". I think you'll find that most were supported by Republicans...

"Bill's already coverign this, but I woudl like to know more abouthte Venusuala thing... mainly form a nonpartisan source."

I understand your wanting more info on that. The mainstream media in America really dropped the ball on covering that...most Americans don't even know there was an attempted coup in Venezuela...here is a good place to start:

observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

"Wasn't Nixon Impeached?"

Yes, but ironicaly it was because of a different illegal, undemocratic activity (Watergate). Need I say more?

"Maybe because their havent been that many Democrats that sat as president in the last coupoel decades?"

Probably true, but not much of a telling point. The beleif that US foreign policy is dictated out of a genuine interest for human rights has been proven time and again to be false. Leaders in both parties have santioned and supported some of the most brutal crimes against humanity ever (and our corporate leaders are even worse...they don't even have the fear of being voted out of office to keep them halfway honest). Would the Democrats have done things any differently? A few would; most wouldn't. That's the two-party system for you: it sucks. But it won't do anybody any good to look at what may have been. The fact is that what was...was that every Republican President since Nixon supported dictators.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

"Wasn't Nixon Impeached?"

No, he resigned before he could be impeached. Only 2 presidents have been impeached:

Andrew Johnson, president of the United States; acquitted May 26, 1868.

William J. Clinton, president of the United States; acquitted Feb. 12, 1999.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

"Nope, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are stronger allies than Saudi Arabia. In fact so is Jordan and Turkey. Saudi Arabia was and is a weak partner in this war and only is starting to pursecute terrorists now that they have had bombings on their own territory." -Bill

"Bahrain is a hereditary monarchy. Political parties are prohibited. Freedom House (an independent group that studies civil liberties worldwide) rate Bahrain's freedom as 5 (the rating system goes from 1 to 7, 1 being totaly free and 7 being not free at all). Bahrain is not free. You can read a total overview of Bahrain's freedom here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/bahrain.ht m "-AB

So whats wrong with Monarchies? Just because they arent democracies, doesnt makw them evil.Likewise, Democracy is not the only viable system of govenrment, nor is it the only legitimate system.

This in and of itsself is WORSE, more anti monarchy bogotry, automatically, if its a monarchy, tis evil, and shoudl b replaced with a demoracy, as Monarchy is illegitimate, because some American youth said so...

"Kuwait is also a monarchy. It receives a 4 in political freedom and 5 in civil liberties. It's an oppressive government who any decent President would have nothing to do with. You can read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/kuwait.htm "-AB

Am I indecent? I beleive in Monarchical Brittian, and be,eiv ehte currnt Democracy is destprying the nation, and as proof, I show the moral decline, the social confusion, nd rise in scovil unrest.

Again, Monarchy is not a legitimate form of govnermnet because you wan tot dictat eot bpeopel whay is right and what is wrong,a nd put popylar opinion and american vlaues above anythign else.

"Oman is even worse. It received a 6 in political rights and a 5 in civil liberties. It is a traditional monarchy, ruled by an ancient dynasty with no constitutional overview. The Sultan has absolute power and there is no posibility of democratic change. Also not an ally any decent human being would have. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/oman.htm " -AB

Wven though I am for restirctions on Monarchies, tou havent really shwo how the system itsself is automatically evil. ( remember, siting any problem with the Sultan or human rights vioplations woudl not automariclalyw in the case. It must be an argument agaisnt hte system itsself, and an llustration as to why this form of govnermen tis illegetemate.)

"Quatar is worse than Oman. It's rating is 6. It's a traditional monarchy, has no constitution, and it's been ruled by one family since the mid-1800's. It is ruled by Islamic law (stoning, women have to wear veils, hands get chopped off for stealing a toothbrush). It is not free. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/qatar.htm" -AB

Again, I beleive in Monarchies, and whereas I disagree iwhthteir laws, the system of governance is NOT automatically evil because you say so.

Besides, you ar eht eone who wants global vi.llage understanding, why not try to understand Islamic law? Whereas I am gree to oppose it, you arent, unless you abandon your ideal of tolerence and allowing peoipel to do as hey please.

"The United Arab Emrates receives a 6 in political rights and a 5 in civil liberties. They are a federation of traditional monarchies. No elections at all. No political parties. It is an autocratic society that is regarded as not free. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/united- arab-emirates.htm "-AB

Again, Monarchies are bad because AB Said so, and the only legitimate form of Govenrment is Democracy, because popular opinion is more important than anyhtign else on the planet...sorry, you javent shown why beign a Monarchy is bad.

Remember, citing spacific crimes doen by a govnemrnet doesnt invALIDAT EHTEIR FORM OF GOVENRMENT. aFTE RALL, aMERICA HAS A DEMOCRACY AND YOU SITE FLAWS HERE TOO...

"Turkey recieves a higher rating, 3 in political rights and 4 in civil liberties, but it should still be regarded as an authoritarian society. The military has far too much influence on the government, and their record of police abuses is troubling. Have I related to you the story of my friend's father, who was forced to flee Turkey a few years ago because of his political beleifs? Turkey's treatment of the Kurds is also apalling. 37,000 Kurds have been killed by the Turkish military. You can read the full overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/turkey.htm "-AB

Nonetheless, you are citing spacific problems withhte administration of the govenrmentof Tirkey, NOT flaws twithte system itsself.

This is what I wish you to avoid when you tell me exaclty why Monarchy is wrong.

"Jordan receives a rating of 6 in political freedom and 5 in civil liberties. They are a traditional monarchy. Their King has suspended all elections indefinitely (so they're likely to pick up an even worse rating in the 2004 edition). Their constitution offers almost no protections against arbitrary arrests and detentions. Read the overview here:

www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/jordan.htm "-AB

So their constitution neeeds revision, btu this still does not show wbhy the Monarchical system is bad.

It is asusmed ot be illegetemate because itys not democratic, but sint this arrogance on the part of the American socialist? Sorry, I am not buyign that Monarchy is bad because you say so.

"It's good to see that the Uinted States is in such good company. "-AB

Yes, it is. Maybe the US Needs a King as well.

"Nope, we never gave them chemical or biological weapons. Do you have proof of this I have not seen?"

"Ok...this is common knowledge...to not accept this is to let your nationalism blind you...since it's so fundamental I'm not sure what you would accept as proof... "-AB

I am a British nationalist and wholly Opposed tot he United Sttaes form of govnerment, think of the Founding Fathers as not but taitors tot he corwn, and veiw the whole system as madness. Show me evidence.

"How about an article from the Washingtojn Post?

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true"-AB

It dodnt work for me, I will try it in a little while.

"Not a half truth at all. Look whose the biggest supporter of forgin aid, the Liberals. Look who they wan tot send the money to. The people in the middel east. Look whose pockets the money goes into, the terrorist, or terrorist-supporting tyranical governments.Very little fo the financial aid reaches any comon man, and all one need do is see how many starving peopel their ar ein those third world coutnries, then look at hte presidential palaces, which grow opulant on US Tax dollars...Do I need to get more spacific again?"

"Examples?... "-AB

Most nations in Africa and the Middle east ...under the CLinton administrtation. The awardign of COmmunist CHina by William Jefferson CLintion and his administration favoured nation status.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

"Just a few of the dictators supported by the "Land of the Free". I think you'll find that most were supported by Republicans... "-AB

You still cant do much mor htan say "Theur monarchies, theirgore they arent good govenrmentys." A bit Myopic of you.

"Bill's already coverign this, but I woudl like to know more abouthte Venusuala thing... mainly form a nonpartisan source."

"I understand your wanting more info on that. The mainstream media in America really dropped the ball on covering that...most Americans don't even know there was an attempted coup in Venezuela...here is a good place to start:

observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html "-AB

The Gardfian? Sorry, its just leftist propeganda. Its written, as an example, many blatantly anti-CHristain articles. The Play Corpus Christi was defneded, and even called Nonblasphenmous. ( So portraying Jesus as Gay and engaging in gay sex orgies with his apostles isnt blasphemy, and we CHristaisn are just too stupid to appriciate the beuty of it...)

The Gardfian is opposed to anyhting traditional vlaues, christai n, or rational. Igts not an imbartial news source like the Lonfon Times, its a propeganda paper for the left.

"Wasn't Nixon Impeached?"

"Yes, but ironicaly it was because of a different illegal, undemocratic activity (Watergate). Need I say more?"-AB

Watergate was overblown.

"Maybe because their havent been that many Democrats that sat as president in the last coupoel decades?"

"Probably true, but not much of a telling point."-AB

No, but I dont think that the Democrates woudl b better than the republicans...

"The beleif that US foreign policy is dictated out of a genuine interest for human rights has been proven time and again to be false. "-AB

O agree, even wiht iberals this is trude. Its ll about agenda, politics,and party lines. This is why I am opposed tot he system we have.

"Leaders in both parties have santioned and supported some of the most brutal crimes against humanity ever (and our corporate leaders are even worse...they don't even have the fear of being voted out of office to keep them halfway honest). Would the Democrats have done things any differently? A few would; most wouldn't. That's the two- party system for you: it sucks. "-AB

Yes, it does, this si why I am for abiloshment of the system... too bad you think my form of cgovnemrnet i illegetemate as it doesnt put emphasis on cheatgn politicians and popular votes.

"But it won't do anybody any good to look at what may have been."-AB

Then by all means, stop.

"The fact is that what was...was that every Republican President since Nixon supported dictators. "-AB

And bill Clinton Didnt? Further, soem of those IDCTATORS ARE mONARCHS, NOT DICTATORS.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

"So whats wrong with Monarchies? Just because they arent democracies, doesnt makw them evil.Likewise, Democracy is not the only viable system of govenrment, nor is it the only legitimate system. "

I wasn't attempting to discredit the monarchic system (I'll save that for later). I was showing that many nations the Bush Administration associates itself with are oppressive, tyrranical governments. Say what you want about monarchy as a system, but you can't deny that all of the governments in question are definitely not free. People are jailed for speaking out against the government. All oposition to the King is banned.

"Besides, you ar eht eone who wants global vi.llage understanding, why not try to understand Islamic law? Whereas I am gree to oppose it, you arent, unless you abandon your ideal of tolerence and allowing peoipel to do as hey please."

I never said I was for any kind of "global village". When I made some passing remark about it a while ago, I was simply pointing out that it meant something different than what you envisioned. I see no reason why we need a global village...an entire planet is far too big an area to governed fairly by one entity...I hate big government.

"Nonetheless, you are citing spacific problems withhte administration of the govenrmentof Tirkey, NOT flaws twithte system itsself. "

Which is what I was trying to do in the first place.

"Yes, it is. Maybe the US Needs a King as well."

Having grown accustomed to that stupid American idea called freedom, I must dissagree with you.

"Most nations in Africa and the Middle east ...under the CLinton administrtation. The awardign of COmmunist CHina by William Jefferson CLintion and his administration favoured nation status."

I've already called Clinton on that. Do you have any other examples?

"Watergate was overblown."

Yeah, just a third rate burglary that happened to involve CIA agents and the President of the United States attempting to use the power of his office to spy on a rival political party and harrass amd threaten anyone who tried to break the story...totaly overblown.

"And bill Clinton Didnt?"

Again, I've already detailed Clinton's support for dictators.

"Further, soem of those IDCTATORS ARE mONARCHS, NOT DICTATORS."

A Dictator is someone who wields absolute (or almost absolute) power; often using it unjustly. Therefore, all the Kings mentioned were dictators.

As for Monarchy,

Tell me, what has any King or Queen done that deserves my respect? The only reason they have power is because they were born into it. Does that mean they deserve it? Monarchy only perpetuates ancient class distictions and the stupid, outdated beleif that some people are inherently better than others.

Yes, democracy is often hijacked by corrupt politicians. However, if they start to stink too bad, we can vote them out come election day, and they're out of a job. But if a King gets corrupt? Anyone who wants to be free of his tyrrany is called a "traitor to the crown".

The fear of being voted out of office is the ONLY thing that keeps leaders halfway honest. Remove that factor, and greed and corruption run rampant. As much as I hate the government of the United States, I'd choose the Democratic system of government over being a serf in your system any time, pal.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

Bahrain is a hereditary monarchy.

Not counting Turkey (which is arguably not in the Middle East), the only Middle East democracy is in Israel. Soon, we pray, Iraq as well.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

I was pointing out that the US government allies itself with despotic regimes that oppress people. It is just plain hypocritical of Bush to talk about bringing freedom to Iraq while he supports oppressive regimes all around it.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

Most countries, including the US take actions based upon national interest. I think the point Bush is trying to make is that Iraq was a danger to the US. After 9/11 Bush could not sit by and wait for Iraq to give a WMD to one of the terrorist organizations Iraq delt with or someone in the country getting a WMD to the terrorist organizations Iraq didn't formally work with. David Kay said the same and said the instability of Iraq was worse than we thought. Iraq was a country we could do something about relatively quickly. North Korea was not.

Take care,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

Looks like the President answered your question this morning. From the 'Meet the Press' interview:

President Bush: In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can't rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace, and it's too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is able to act.

Russert: But there are lots of madmen in the world,  Fidel Castro …

President Bush: True.

MR. Russert: … in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don't go in and take down those governments.

President Bush: Correct, and I could  that's a legitimate question as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea.  And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq.  As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we were in.  In Iraq  I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning.  We are making good progress in North Korea.

As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they're in danger, but the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program.  And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and China, along with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message to Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship, disclose and destroy your program in a transparent way.

In other words, the policy of this administration is to be  is to be clear and straightforward and to be realistic about the different threats that we face.

Russert: On Iraq, the vice president said, “we would be greeted as liberators.”

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

Having grown accustomed to that stupid American idea called freedom, I must dissagree with you. -AB

I am sorry, but thats not much an answer...you see, Monarchy doesnt bring instant oppression, neither does democracy gerantee freedom...

A Dictator is someone who wields absolute (or almost absolute) power; often using it unjustly. Therefore, all the Kings mentioned were dictators.-AB

By that definition even God is a dictator...sorry, its still misleading.

Tell me, what has any King or Queen done that deserves my respect?

{Queen Victoria helped hte lower class after the DEMOCRATIC PARLEMENT wanted to keep them in poorhouses and labour camps. Richard the Lionheart defended the pilgrims right and freed Jwerusalem form oppression. Alfred fought the Viking Invaders and prevented the Pillage of the Isles.Need I go on?}-Zarove

The only reason they have power is because they were born into it.-AB

{Not always and not in all systems. Take a look at the Papacy. Its a Monarchy by Appointment A similar system can, and often has been, employed. Also, in history, many peopel became Kings form low births. Look at Abraham, tribal cheifton. He was born not a rler. Likewise, King David. Their ar even a frw european kings.

But I disgress...}-Zarove

Does that mean they deserve it?

{Depends ont he system. If its land based , or based on some sort of ownership, yes. You seem too illeterate on forign systems of govenrance to realise this, btu Govenrment is NOT always seperatr form such things as land ownership, religion, ect... the system int he US and in mos European nations is base don a seperate entity state, whereas in Monarchies, its a close body system in which the Monarch is seen as the landlord.People do inherit land...}-Zarove

Monarchy only perpetuates ancient class distictions and the stupid, outdated beleif that some people are inherently better than others. - AB

{OR...they perpetuate a sytem of govenrance and traditions based upon legal ownership beign transmitted...Monarchies are not intrinsically identicle to Republics in the scope pf their philosopjhy, and cannot be direclty compared, as you are attempting. You are comparign a Monarch and aristocratic line with elected officials in congress. Where the congresmen are elected, which to you is good, the others are born into the position, which is bad. In that light, I woul be compelled to agree, however, in reality, they arent seen as intrinsically better, just intitled to a legacy of legal rights.}- Zarove

Yes, democracy is often hijacked by corrupt politicians. However, if they start to stink too bad, we can vote them out come election day, and they're out of a job.

{Keep dreamign Yankee.In practice, democracies lend themselves easier to oppression than Monarchies.This is because people, Like the freely elected Hitler, can consolidate his power base and hide it in the huge beurocracy. Monarchies usually have smaller governign bodies, and as a result cant hide as much. If its a constitutional Monarchy where even the crown is held accountable tot he law, then even they are subjected to it.}-Zarove

But if a King gets corrupt? Anyone who wants to be free of his tyrrany is called a "traitor to the crown".

{Or, hes removed for the thrine... which has happened repeatedly...... gfurther, my reformed ssystem hasnt even been looked at, before you talk maybe you shoudl actually LEARN about Monarchies...}-Zarove

The fear of being voted out of office is the ONLY thing that keeps leaders halfway honest.

{NBot only do I find it alarmign that you htink that a leader cant be Honest on his own and needs to hav the fear of punishment over his head to make him be good, I likewise note that CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchies have laws restirctign the power otf the King, and that Kings have been removed form power for indiscression.}-Zarove

Remove that factor, and greed and corruption run rampant.

{Only in a system lead by party lines and backdoor politics, such as DXemocracy, where [eopel tend to think more of how to get elected, how to win points, and how to consolidate power form rivals. In most monarchiesmthe crown has alreayd consolidated its power. Their woudl be no need for backdoor politics, and no need for corporate interests to back them. Their is actually less corrption in historical monarchies than in historical republics. I refer toyou to History, and see for yourself that the roman Republic, wiht a democrativcally elected senate, actually had more hidden corruption than the empirial age possessed. Yes, it had soem bad emporors as well, such as Nero, or Callegula, but they where openly KNOWN as bad and soon replaced. Unike a corrupt senator, or worse, a corrupt senate.Your theory that Monarchies woudl be more corrupt than Democracy is foolhearty, as with a Monarchy youy wither havde an appointed official, or an hereditary one. Corript politicians either begin as corrupt and play the circits to get omntp power, ot become corript based on the doubel dealign and havign to compete with rivals.}-Zarove

As much as I hate the government of the United States, I'd choose the Democratic system of government over being a serf in your system any time, pal.

{You dotn even know MY system, you havent looked at my reform system, which I havent written up. My system doesnt even have serfs. Likewise, form your inane ramblings, you dont even understand the principles of Monarchy, you just asume the Kikng takes the same rle as the president, only he can be as corrupt as he wants and no oen can stop him. Not only do you lack thr basic knowledge of what a Monarchy is ( its not identicle with democracy except the peopl ar eborninto a role...) you likewise speak in RORAL ignorance about the system I endorse as you dotn even know what My system is like. }- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2004.

"After 9/11 Bush could not sit by and wait for Iraq to give a WMD to one of the terrorist organizations Iraq delt with or someone in the country getting a WMD to the terrorist organizations Iraq didn't formally work with."

You mean the WMD that has not yet been proven to exist? Wow, that's conivncing.

I like how Bush conveniently avoids talking about the dictatorships he supports.

"I am sorry, but thats not much an answer...you see, Monarchy doesnt bring instant oppression, neither does democracy gerantee freedom... "

You're right. Monarchy just guarantees that whatever the government decides to do, the people won't have a say in it.

"By that definition even God is a dictator...sorry, its still misleading."

In the literal sense, yes. However, the working definition of the word bcarries the connotation that the dictator rules unjustly. So God wouldn't be a dictator. In fact, I see God as more a libertarian. He tells us what is right and what is wrong, but he doesn't use force to make us follow his laws.

"Queen Victoria helped hte lower class after the DEMOCRATIC PARLEMENT wanted to keep them in poorhouses and labour camps."

What exactly did she do to help them?

"Richard the Lionheart defended the pilgrims right and freed Jwerusalem form oppression."

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that he led Europe into pointless bloodshed over a city that rhe majority of Europeans would never "make a pilgrimage" to, and a ccomplished absolutely nothing other than racking up a six-fugure body count.

"Not always and not in all systems. Take a look at the Papacy. Its a Monarchy by Appointment A similar system can, and often has been, employed."

So which do you support? Herdeditary monarchy, or a system of appointment?

"Depends ont he system. If its land based , or based on some sort of ownership, yes. You seem too illeterate on forign systems of govenrance to realise this, btu Govenrment is NOT always seperatr form such things as land ownership, religion, ect... the system int he US and in mos European nations is base don a seperate entity state, whereas in Monarchies, its a close body system in which the Monarch is seen as the landlord.People do inherit land..."

Aha. So in a monarchy, commoners like you or I would simply "come with the land". We're just tennants on some tierra-wearing fruit's land.

" Where the congresmen are elected, which to you is good, the others are born into the position, which is bad. In that light, I woul be compelled to agree, however, in reality, they arent seen as intrinsically better, just intitled to a legacy of legal rights."

I see. So they are born with the legal right to make all the decisions, and you and I are born witht he legal right to have no say in our government. Gotcha.

"Monarchies usually have smaller governign bodies, and as a result cant hide as much. If its a constitutional Monarchy where even the crown is held accountable tot he law, then even they are subjected to it."

A President is also held accountable by law, and we can vote him out of office every four years if he isn't doing a good job. If a King isn't doing a good job, we're pretty much stuck with him until he croaks. Besides, what good does it do to hold a King accountable to the law if he makes the law?

"Or, hes removed for the thrine... which has happened repeatedly...... "

And how do we go about removing a King from office? It's not as easy as it sounds. Remember, he's the one with the army, and he isn't likely to give up without a fight...

"NBot only do I find it alarmign that you htink that a leader cant be Honest on his own and needs to hav the fear of punishment over his head to make him be good, "

No, leaders can be good on their own. But not many of them are. The vast majority of our leaders are evil bastards who, if free from the fear of reprecussions, would screw us all over even worse than they already do. The evil, corrupt, greedy politicians vastly outnumber the good, decent ones.

Not only do you lack thr basic knowledge of what a Monarchy is ( its not identicle with democracy except the peopl ar eborninto a role...) you likewise speak in RORAL ignorance about the system I endorse as you dotn even know what My system is like.

Well, when you enlighten me with your glorious monarchy where people aren't simply the property of the aristocracy, then we'll talk.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

AB, before the liberation of Iraq (the war is the war on terrorism, the Iraq battle was not a war, just a battle in the war), no major power in the world doubted that Iraq had WMD. The only question was would Saddam eventually cooperate with the UN, which he had not started to do, and get rid of the WMDs. What we have discovered after the war was he either hid the WMD agents (now days countries don't normally store WMD bombs, just agents and empty bombs- we have found empty bombs) or shipped them to some other country (they are not that bulky) or distroyed them. We do know his chemical and biological industry was poised to resume whenever he gave the order (not so of the nuclear industry which was just building back the foundations when we invaded). All this has been reported by Kay.

President Bush has said, "the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman." ... "And the world is a safer and better place as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

By the way, if you are indeed 17, you may not know: Saddam had agreed to disarm and to do so in a verifiable manner. He never complied with that obligation.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

"I am sorry, but thats not much an answer...you see, Monarchy doesnt bring instant oppression, neither does democracy gerantee freedom... " -ZAROVE, earlier. You're right. Monarchy just guarantees that whatever the government decides to do, the people won't have a say in it. -AB

{Are you this midless Lad? Have you never heard of Parlement? For this matter you have also convenced me you have never read machiavelli. Rulers rule ONLY bu the peopels comncent, as the people always outnu,mber the rulers.}-Zarove

"By that definition even God is a dictator...sorry, its still misleading." -Zarove, earlier. In the literal sense, yes. However, the working definition of the word bcarries the connotation that the dictator rules unjustly. So God wouldn't be a dictator. In fact, I see God as more a libertarian. He tells us what is right and what is wrong, but he doesn't use force to make us follow his laws. -AB

{Read the Bible, God is no Libertarian. He has often enforced his rule, however, God doesnt think as we think, and sisnt primarily concerned with life on earth but the state of the Soul.Alo note that God doesnt exaclty let us get away with what we want and call all forms of lifestyle OK, and does have a place called Hell...}-Zarove

"Queen Victoria helped hte lower class after the DEMOCRATIC PARLEMENT wanted to keep them in poorhouses and labour camps." What exactly did she do to help them? -AB

{She instituted the abolition of Poor houses and labour camps, and enforced a policy of fair wage and worker protection.}-Zarove

"Richard the Lionheart defended the pilgrims right and freed Jwerusalem form oppression." -Zarove, earlier. That's one way to look at it. Another would be that he led Europe into pointless bloodshed over a city that rhe majority of Europeans would never "make a pilgrimage" to, and a ccomplished absolutely nothing other than racking up a six-fugure body count. -AB

{Or another way fo looking at it is that he freed a lot off Jews whose land it was form Islamic Oppression, as they where treated as slaves and even forbidden to build Synagoges their, and Chrisyaisn where killed or forced into slavery by the same Islamic parties...Note, you overlooked Alfred.}-Zarove

"Not always and not in all systems. Take a look at the Papacy. Its a Monarchy by Appointment A similar system can, and often has been, employed." -Zarove, earlier. So which do you support? Herdeditary monarchy, or a system of appointment? -AB

{For preference, appointment, but I will support any legal system of governanc ot a point. ( Which includes federalist republics like the United States. Legiti,macy is not based on rather or not I agree with its policies.)}-Zarove

"Depends ont he system. If its land based , or based on some sort of ownership, yes. You seem too illeterate on forign systems of govenrance to realise this, btu Govenrment is NOT always seperatr form such things as land ownership, religion, ect... the system int he US and in mos European nations is base don a seperate entity state, whereas in Monarchies, its a close body system in which the Monarch is seen as the landlord.People do inherit land..." -Zarove

Aha. So in a monarchy, commoners like you or I would simply "come with the land". We're just tennants on some tierra-wearing fruit's land. -AB

{No, thats in a Feudal Heirarchy, in most Monarchies the Crown is seen as principle landlord, but the peopel do often have a fair say.Likewie, I woudl like to note that this si the second time tou refered to Her Majesty as " A tiara wearign fruiot." I have asked you not to, now I am callign you on it. Why on earth shoudl I have any respect for YOU when you insult Her Majesty, not base don any apast misdeed she has done, but on the fact htta she is a Queen.In short, how can I repspect your veiws when you neither fully understand anyone elses, nor do you show the common courtesy due to a person?

What if I had some on to this Cahtolic Board and started callign the Pope, a "White robed ninny". Think that woudl go ovr well? Now, mind your tounge and some respect, and for the record her makjesty HAS in fact worked in her life and DOES own corporate interests urside of the monarchy, as well as riskign her life back in WW1.

You will not address her, or monarchy in adverse light on the grounds that you dont like it, nor will you take personal references with no basis in reality as a uture policy.

This is the final warning, one more time and I WILL come down on you. I wont tolerate forever your insulence.}-Zarove

" Where the congresmen are elected, which to you is good, the others are born into the position, which is bad. In that light, I woul be compelled to agree, however, in reality, they arent seen as intrinsically better, just intitled to a legacy of legal rights." - Zarove, earlier.

I see. So they are born with the legal right to make all the decisions, and you and I are born witht he legal right to have no say in our government. Gotcha. -Ab

{As I said earlier, you have No vlue as tot he actual proccess of a Monarchy, neither do you understand the role of Parlement, nor do you even know the basics of the Magna Carta.Inshort, your an inonformed idiot American youth who makes absolutely NO effort to actually UNDERSTAND the system and oversimplifies it into a parody of what it really is in orfer to ridicule it.}-Zarove

"Monarchies usually have smaller governign bodies, and as a result cant hide as much. If its a constitutional Monarchy where even the crown is held accountable tot he law, then even they are subjected to it." -Zarove, earlier. A President is also held accountable by law, and we can vote him out of office every four years if he isn't doing a good job. If a King isn't doing a good job, we're pretty much stuck with him until he croaks. Besides, what good does it do to hold a King accountable to the law if he makes the law? -AB

{I siggest you actually READ about Monarchies, the King canot simpley make all the laws as he see's fit... that is an uninformed veiw.Further, supreme court judges LIKEWISE are life posts, and their are proccesses in place to rid us of less desireable ones.}-Zarove

"Or, hes removed for the thrine... which has happened repeatedly...... " -Zarove, earlier

And how do we go about removing a King from office? It's not as easy as it sounds. Remember, he's the one with the army, and he isn't likely to give up without a fight... -AB, earlier.

{This is different than a preident, who ALSO has the army, how? Only if hte Army is actually loyal does this happen. Read about Cromwell sometime, see how it has happened before.}-Zarove

"NBot only do I find it alarmign that you htink that a leader cant be Honest on his own and needs to hav the fear of punishment over his head to make him be good, " -Zarove, earlier.

No, leaders can be good on their own. But not many of them are.-AB

{The legacy of Democracy, where popykarity outwieghts truth or justice, I may add. Incedentally, a culture that is base don self motivation and greed priduces people who are self motivated and greedy.That's why I am opposed to such things as promiscuity and homosexual marriage, any impulse shudl be honoured as legitimate.}- Zarove

The vast majority of our leaders are evil bastards who, if free from the fear of reprecussions, would screw us all over even worse than they already do. The evil, corrupt, greedy politicians vastly outnumber the good, decent ones. -AB

{Hence my idea of an appointed govenrment, with strict rules and fuidelines, is a good one, by your own admission, as my system reduces the very thing that makes them corrupt, the desire for votes.}-Zatove

Not only do you lack thr basic knowledge of what a Monarchy is ( its not identicle with democracy except the peopl ar eborninto a role...) you likewise speak in TOTAL ignorance about the system I endorse as you dotn even know what My system is like. -Zarove, earlier

Well, when you enlighten me with your glorious monarchy where people aren't simply the property of the aristocracy, then we'll talk. -AB

{Brittain in the neinteenth century was a place where peopel had rights, and a little reform and it woudk work even today. But I cant enlighten you to my personal system as I havent worked it out yet. However, my main point agaisnt you is that you declare things as illegitimate governments if they arent followign your personal philosophy, IE Democracy. You didnt list the type of Government Turkey had, but did on all the Monarchies. This was implicit, if nto outright saying, that Monarchies are objectionable and we shoudlnt be allies with ANY Monarchy, then you AFFED the listings on violations of crime. But Monazrchy itsself isnt objectionable, any more than anby other form of govenrment that either legiti,ately came into beign, or is well established enough as to not be changable without social unrest.}-Zarove

-- ZARIVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2004.

A very interesting article:
U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

"Rulers rule ONLY bu the peopels comncent, as the people always outnu,mber the rulers."

So why not let them **choose** their rulers?

"Read the Bible, God is no Libertarian. He has often enforced his rule, however, God doesnt think as we think, and sisnt primarily concerned with life on earth but the state of the Soul.Alo note that God doesnt exaclty let us get away with what we want and call all forms of lifestyle OK, and does have a place called Hell..."

Exactly. God ets us make our own decisions, but we must accept responsibilty for them at some point. That's basicaly the libertarian philosophy. Give people choices and let them face the consequences when they make the wrong ones.

"Or another way fo looking at it is that he freed a lot off Jews whose land it was form Islamic Oppression, as they where treated as slaves and even forbidden to build Synagoges their, and Chrisyaisn where killed or forced into slavery by the same Islamic parties..."

Actualy the Arabs that lived in Palestine at the time didn't bother the Jews or the Christians. It wasn't until the Seljuk Turks invaded that they were harassed. The Crusades, however, succedded in liberating Jerusalem for only a few years and the majority of people they killed were Arabs who had no interest in enslaving anyone. The main point of the Crusades was so European Nobles could steal land and treasure.

"Note, you overlooked Alfred."

Yep. Nothing wrong with Alfred.

"No, thats in a Feudal Heirarchy, in most Monarchies the Crown is seen as principle landlord, but the peopel do often have a fair say.'

What fair say do the English have in what the Queen does?

"Likewie, I woudl like to note that this si the second time tou refered to Her Majesty as " A tiara wearign fruiot." I have asked you not to, now I am callign you on it. Why on earth shoudl I have any respect for YOU when you insult Her Majesty, not base don any apast misdeed she has done, but on the fact htta she is a Queen.In short, how can I repspect your veiws when you neither fully understand anyone elses, nor do you show the common courtesy due to a person? "

I respect people who earn their positions. Not people who luck into them.

What if I had some on to this Cahtolic Board and started callign the Pope, a "White robed ninny". Think that woudl go ovr well? Now, mind your tounge and some respect, and for the record her makjesty HAS in fact worked in her life and DOES own corporate interests urside of the monarchy, as well as riskign her life back in WW1.

Elizabeth risked her life in WWI? Wouldn't that make her over 100 years old?

"This is the final warning, one more time and I WILL come down on you. I wont tolerate forever your insulence."

Oh no! Shall I be put in the stocks? Will her majesty have me beheaded?

"As I said earlier, you have No vlue as tot he actual proccess of a Monarchy, neither do you understand the role of Parlement, nor do you even know the basics of the Magna Carta"

The purpose of the Magna Carta was simply to make the King grant more rights to the Nobles.

"I siggest you actually READ about Monarchies, the King canot simpley make all the laws as he see's fit... that is an uninformed veiw.Further, supreme court judges LIKEWISE are life posts, and their are proccesses in place to rid us of less desireable ones."

Yes, but those processes are democratic and can be done peacefully. If a King needs to be removed from office it must involve a coup d'etat.

"Hence my idea of an appointed govenrment, with strict rules and fuidelines, is a good one, by your own admission, as my system reduces the very thing that makes them corrupt, the desire for votes."

How does the desire for votes corrupt someone? The desire for votes encourages them to be less corrupt. If you are constantly in fear of your job, you're going to be motivated to do a good job, whereas if a friend appoints you you are going to slack off and be corrupt because there is no incentive not to.

"You didnt list the type of Government Turkey had"

You're right. My bad. Turkey is a Republic (although it has only been holding free elections for a few years now), but one with a troubling history of human rights violations that continue to this day. The military has far too much influence on the government. Citizens have very few civil rights and don't enjoy the protection that we do from arbitrary arrests and police abuse. The military is often used for law enforcement.

Not all democracies are good. But I think the only legitimate form of government is one where the people have an active say in their government at every level, and no man is given a higher social status simply because of the family he was born into. That said, the government must also have a constitution that ensures the people's civil liberties. The US, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, is the closest to that government, although many major changes must still be made.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 15, 2004.

"Rulers rule ONLY bu the peopels comncent, as the people always outnu,mber the rulers." -ZAROVE So why not let them **choose** their rulers? -AB

{sort of didnt pay attention to Machiavelli , did you?}-Zarove

"Read the Bible, God is no Libertarian. He has often enforced his rule, however, God doesnt think as we think, and sisnt primarily concerned with life on earth but the state of the Soul.Alo note that God doesnt exaclty let us get away with what we want and call all forms of lifestyle OK, and does have a place called Hell..." -Zarove

Exactly. God ets us make our own decisions, but we must accept responsibilty for them at some point. That's basicaly the libertarian philosophy. Give people choices and let them face the consequences when they make the wrong ones. -AB

{Except God makes all the rules, and you must follow them or you wuill be pubished.Relatung this back to Homosexuality, for a momnet. God said it was wrong. You say its not wring. You want the majority of peopel to say its not wring. If the majority of peopel said its not wrong, then its not wrong, and it becomes moral,ly acceptable, and God hoimself must bopw to it. At least inm your worldveiw. Sadly, God dosnt bow to it, and will punish the action regardless of public acceptability.

Thats not Libertarian. We are beign tested, not beign granted full permission to do as we please.

We who Obey God must do so out of love and free will, if we dont, we are to pay the price, but this sint libertarian, rather, God invites us to spread this morality to others,a nd live by it as a society as well as as individuals.}-Zarove

"Or another way fo looking at it is that he freed a lot off Jews whose land it was form Islamic Oppression, as they where treated as slaves and even forbidden to build Synagoges their, and Chrisyaisn where killed or forced into slavery by the same Islamic parties..." - Zarove

Actualy the Arabs that lived in Palestine at the time didn't bother the Jews or the Christians. It wasn't until the Seljuk Turks invaded that they were harassed. The Crusades, however, succedded in liberating Jerusalem for only a few years and the majority of people they killed were Arabs who had no interest in enslaving anyone. The main point of the Crusades was so European Nobles could steal land and treasure. -AB

{You just like beleiving anythign that shows a tarnished reputation on a beloved Historical charecter. You look for ppaces to critisise those in hisotry, in rder to lower them, htus to use their fall as a stepping stone to your rise. A Hero, famed for valour, in your world, becomes a villain, so that you can denounce him and stand in favour of the oppressed. This way,y uo can look the hero for your loud protests.

This wont work this time though, as it fails to consider reality.

Here is the true story of Richard's life, not taintged by your obsession to demonise anyone who can show that things can be done a different way than your way.

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon27.html}-Zarove

"Note, you overlooked Alfred." -Zarove

Yep. Nothing wrong with Alfred.-AB

{The you admit that their have been good kings.}-Zarove

"No, thats in a Feudal Heirarchy, in most Monarchies the Crown is seen as principle landlord, but the peopel do often have a fair say.'

What fair say do the English have in what the Queen does? -AB

{None in what she does. and the Average English Citisen doesnt have a say in what another English Citisen does. The Queen has the same rights as everyone else of free volition.}-Zarove

"Likewie, I woudl like to note that this si the second time tou refered to Her Majesty as " A tiara wearign fruiot." I have asked you not to, now I am callign you on it. Why on earth shoudl I have any respect for YOU when you insult Her Majesty, not base don any apast misdeed she has done, but on the fact htta she is a Queen.In short, how can I repspect your veiws when you neither fully understand anyone elses, nor do you show the common courtesy due to a person? " - Zarove

I respect people who earn their positions. Not people who luck into them. -AB

{Then you respect no one, as everyone, even in a Democracy, lucks into their position.}-Zarove

What if I had some on to this Cahtolic Board and started callign the Pope, a "White robed ninny". Think that woudl go ovr well? Now, mind your tounge and some respect, and for the record her makjesty HAS in fact worked in her life and DOES own corporate interests urside of the monarchy, as well as riskign her life back in WW1. -Zarove

Elizabeth risked her life in WWI? Wouldn't that make her over 100 years old? -Ab

{You know, their are such things as TypeO's... I meant WW2.}-Zarove

"This is the final warning, one more time and I WILL come down on you. I wont tolerate forever your insulence." -Zarove

Oh no! Shall I be put in the stocks? Will her majesty have me beheaded? -AB

{Such Humour doesnt impress me, or anyone else, and only shows how you arent intereste din intllegent exchange. Onlyh forcign your veiw. As much as you talk about freedom of speach and tolerence, what you mean only is that everyone shpudl be forced to listen to your diatribes, while not having to bother wihtthe common courtesy of actually listenign and tryign to understand thir veiws.

You dont beleive in understanding, you beleive in forcign your owrldview and mocking others.}-Zarove

"As I said earlier, you have No vlue as tot he actual proccess of a Monarchy, neither do you understand the role of Parlement, nor do you even know the basics of the Magna Carta" -Zarove

The purpose of the Magna Carta was simply to make the King grant more rights to the Nobles. -AB

{And thed Purpose of the US COnstitution was ot grant land theifs and traitors the ability to govern their colonies after rejectign the Legal Govenrment. But the point is British Law does, in fact, limit the Crowns power.}-Zarove

"I siggest you actually READ about Monarchies, the King canot simpley make all the laws as he see's fit... that is an uninformed veiw.Further, supreme court judges LIKEWISE are life posts, and their are proccesses in place to rid us of less desireable ones." -Zarove

Yes, but those processes are democratic and can be done peacefully. If a King needs to be removed from office it must involve a coup d'etat. -AB

{Kings can be removed peacefully, and often Parlement has rendered a Kign Ineffectual, and Impotent, if he does a bad job. ( Or if they are doing a good job and Parlement is corrupt.As with to-day.)}-Zarove

"Hence my idea of an appointed govenrment, with strict rules and fuidelines, is a good one, by your own admission, as my system reduces the very thing that makes them corrupt, the desire for votes." -Zarove

How does the desire for votes corrupt someone? The desire for votes encourages them to be less corrupt. If you are constantly in fear of your job, you're going to be motivated to do a good job, whereas if a friend appoints you you are going to slack off and be corrupt because there is no incentive not to. -AB

{No, this makes it intot he current political Game. See who can promis the most, see who can throw the most mud and where it sticks... the current Democracy we have encoruages attacks on the opposition, while also allowing corporate investors to pay off elected officials. sorry, Democracy is clearly capable of becomign corrupt. Likewise, the other isuse is that Democracy placed the supreme importance on the "Will fo the People", which can be easily manipulated. Ever hear the old Saying that its easier to convence a crowd than a single man? its ture. advertisers for instance manipulate ht emasses intp buiying this or that prodict, the media has a powerful role in shaping cultural attitutdes.

Politicians in a democracy, a society geared to work on majority rule, tru to educate the people to thik as they wan thtem to think, iun a way that supports their party and hteir position, which means large scale ( And well doculemted) attempts at social engeneiring, form school reforms to pyblic trelations policies, always remain on the fore.

Yoiu think tat the fear of not gettign elected makes them honest, while hte reverse is true, the desire to get elected renders the given politicins minds capable of wprkign subtlety and deciet, while engeneirign a society to supprot them becoems the cheif concern.}- Zarove

"You didnt list the type of Government Turkey had" -Zarove

You're right. My bad. Turkey is a Republic (although it has only been holding free elections for a few years now), but one with a troubling history of human rights violations that continue to this day. The military has far too much influence on the government. Citizens have very few civil rights and don't enjoy the protection that we do from arbitrary arrests and police abuse. The military is often used for law enforcement. -Ab

{My point was that the system of Govenrment was seen as one of the reasons why the nation was evil in toyr etes.

You where essentially claimign that Monarchies where evil by virtue of them beign Monarchies. In short, Turkey is bad, but at leats its A Republic, but these other c ountries not only have Human rights violatiosn to consider, tjheir also Monarchies,which is a reaosn in and of itsself to see them as enemeis, at leats, by your Bigoted mindset.}-Zarove

Not all democracies are good. But I think the only legitimate form of government is one where the people have an active say in their government at every level, and no man is given a higher social status simply because of the family he was born into. -AB

{What you beleive constitutes legitimacy is irrelevant. The word doesnt change its meanign for yhou you know. democracy may be the system of Govenrment you prefer, but this does not render other systems illegetemate.Iys not deciced by your say so, and you seem to fail to understand that a prefeence for a system of govenrance is notequatable to it being the only legitimate form of Govenrance.}- Zarove

That said, the government must also have a constitution that ensures the people's civil liberties. -AB

{How American of you... every nation shoudl be a democracy and have constitution. Otherwise its not legetemate as a Govenrment...... In short, every nation must be a little America clone, or else its bad...do you see how arrogant this is? Do you realise a common code of Laws does just the same?}-Zarove

The US, while not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, is the closest to that government, although many major changes must still be made. -AB

{ The US IS that type of Govenrment, you just wan tto add a socialist dymension to it and claim everythign is Illegetemate because it disagrees with you.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 15, 2004.

"The you admit that their have been good kings."

Don't be stupid, of course I admit there have been good Kings. Kings are just like every other group of people: some are good, some are bad. Arthur was a good King too.

Franco was a bad dictator (just to bring up an old point).

"None in what she does. and the Average English Citisen doesnt have a say in what another English Citisen does. The Queen has the same rights as everyone else of free volition."

Ok, if you're going to be smart, I'll rephrase it. What fair say do the English have in the decisions the Queen makes as a ruler?

"And thed Purpose of the US COnstitution was ot grant land theifs and traitors the ability to govern their colonies after rejectign the Legal Govenrment."

The Biritsh Government was opressing the American people. High taxes, soldiers quartered in our homes, your army opening fire on civilian protesters...what would you have done? Sat and drank tea while a foreign army was breathing down your neck?

"Kings can be removed peacefully, and often Parlement has rendered a Kign Ineffectual, and Impotent, if he does a bad job. ( Or if they are doing a good job and Parlement is corrupt.As with to-day.)"

Where was parliament to remove George III? It was our duty to revolt.

"How American of you... every nation shoudl be a democracy and have constitution. Otherwise its not legetemate as a Govenrment...... In short, every nation must be a little America clone, or else its bad...do you see how arrogant this is? Do you realise a common code of Laws does just the same?"

No, every nation should allow it's people to have a say in how the country is run and should respect it's people's human rights. That's all I'm asking.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 17, 2004.

"The you admit that their have been good kings." -ZAROVE, earlier.

Don't be stupid, of course I admit there have been good Kings. Kings are just like every other group of people: some are good, some are bad. Arthur was a good King too. -AB

{But the whole point here was to demonstrate that Kings could rule well. You did ask for examples. I have them, so I am not beign stupid, you are in tellign me that their have been good Kings after demanding I show the list...}-Zarove

Franco was a bad dictator (just to bring up an old point). -AB

{Mo, he was nessisary. Also, Bad form as we arent currently discussing him.}-Zarove

"None in what she does. and the Average English Citisen doesnt have a say in what another English Citisen does. The Queen has the same rights as everyone else of free volition." -Zarove

Ok, if you're going to be smart, I'll rephrase it. What fair say do the English have in the decisions the Queen makes as a ruler? -Ab

{Maybe they have a lot, since the Parlement usually issues the new laws. Both houses and the Queen simpley ratify laws.}-Zarove

"And thed Purpose of the US COnstitution was ot grant land theifs and traitors the ability to govern their colonies after rejectign the Legal Govenrment." -Zarove

The Biritsh Government was opressing the American people. High taxes, soldiers quartered in our homes, your army opening fire on civilian protesters...what would you have done? Sat and drank tea while a foreign army was breathing down your neck?

{Nice us of the term "Fiorgin Army." History lesson for you, if you pelase. Most of those "Gorgheners" where acutally Born in the colonies themselves. America wa snto an idndependant nation which wa soccuipied by Brittain, it was a colonial terrototy, theorfore the army wasnt Forign, especially considerign the majority of soldiers in the Redcoat Army where local born, as stated earlier.Also, I happen to Hate Tea.}-Zarove

"Kings can be removed peacefully, and often Parlement has rendered a Kign Ineffectual, and Impotent, if he does a bad job. ( Or if they are doing a good job and Parlement is corrupt.As with to-day.)" - Zarove

Where was parliament to remove George III? It was our duty to revolt.- AB

{No it wa snot your duty to revolt, unless you support rhe duty of the Confederacy to succeed. Incedentally, a Cirript Parlement needed ot be dealt with cvia proper channels. Parlement simpley screwed that one up.}-Zarove

"How American of you... every nation shoudl be a democracy and have constitution. Otherwise its not legetemate as a Govenrment...... In short, every nation must be a little America clone, or else its bad...do you see how arrogant this is? Do you realise a common code of Laws does just the same?" -Zarove

No, every nation should allow it's people to have a say in how the country is run and should respect it's people's human rights. That's all I'm asking. -AB

{Read up.You have explicitely said that al nations need a constitution and that Democracy is the only legitimate system of Govenrment. I mean repeatedly. In your last psot you said that only a nation with a contitution was legetemate.Dont backpeddle.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 17, 2004.

Zarove:
This is completely off-topic argument. Let this forum concern us with faith, the Church and God. Kindly drop these ponderous political subjects. Nothing is advanced by your attempts at cleverness except your own ego.

And-- Is it too much to ask you; slow down and type with some attention to the spelling? You leave a trail of illegible nonsense behind you where ever you write. God help you and cover your absurdity.

_________________

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2004.

Eugine I have xplaiend before that I have difficulty with spelling.

As to the argument, I relaise its off topic, the whole poitn of it was to confine the rantings of Anti-Bush. I am not tyring to soudn cleaver, however, I am trying to possibley end the political debates by confining them.

-- ZROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 17, 2004.

"But the whole point here was to demonstrate that Kings could rule well.

It's not as balack and white as that. Some Kings rule well, most are terrible. Just like presidents. A few winners, a whole lot of losers. Only with a President, we know he's leaving after four years (or sooner, provided the wheels of democracy are turning properly). In a traditional monarchy, not only are we stuck with a King for life, we then have to deal with his idiot son. Jeez, just imagine if George Bush Sr. were King!

"Mo, he was nessisary."

Mo to you as well.

Franco was about as neccessary as testicular cancer. He simply wasn't happy with the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, so he decided to take matters into his own hands. But then again, monarchists aren't particularly concerned with concent of the government anyhow, so I can see why you would see him as "neccessary". It must also have been neccessary to torture anyone who spoke against him, and have all of his political enemies killed, right?

"Nice us of the term "Fiorgin Army." History lesson for you, if you pelase. Most of those "Gorgheners" where acutally Born in the colonies themselves. America wa snto an idndependant nation which wa soccuipied by Brittain, it was a colonial terrototy, theorfore the army wasnt Forign, especially considerign the majority of soldiers in the Redcoat Army where local born, as stated earlier.Also, I happen to Hate Tea."

The colonists saw themselves as a different people...they did not see themselves as English...therefore an English army in THEIR homes was a foreign power.

It doesn't take an "official" border to make a nation.

I'm more of a coffee person myself.

"Maybe they have a lot, since the Parlement usually issues the new laws. Both houses and the Queen simpley ratify laws."

I'm sure the people had plenty of say when George was quartering soldiers in their homes without permission...

"No it wa snot your duty to revolt, unless you support rhe duty of the Confederacy to succeed."

No, because the confederacy's only reason for seceeding was so they could own other human beings. In that case it was our duty as humans to put an end to it. If they had abolished slavery then I would support them to secede until the cows come home. But they did not have the moral highground on that one.

"Incedentally, a Cirript Parlement needed ot be dealt with cvia proper channels. Parlement simpley screwed that one up.'

Well the "proper channels" were certainly doing a bang-up job, weren't they?

"Revolution is the locomotive of history."--Karl Marx.

"A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing."--Thomas Jefferson.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 17, 2004.

"But the whole point here was to demonstrate that Kings could rule well. "-Zarove.Earlier.

It's not as balack and white as that. Some Kings rule well, most are terrible. Just like presidents. A few winners, a whole lot of losers. Only with a President, we know he's leaving after four years (or sooner, provided the wheels of democracy are turning properly). In a traditional monarchy, not only are we stuck with a King for life, we then have to deal with his idiot son. Jeez, just imagine if George Bush Sr. were King! -AB

{Consider for a moment hat youy complain abouthte current American system, and I see htis as Moot. Accordign to you, most rulers are bad and corrupt anyway, even in a democracy, so either way we have bad leaders in your philoosphy, so I dont see the difference. Also, not all Kingd sons ar eidiots you know...}-Zarove.

"Mo, he was nessisary." -Zarove, earlier.

Mo to you as well. -AB

{I beleive we discussed both mispelligns and typeo's.}-Zarove

Franco was about as neccessary as testicular cancer. He simply wasn't happy with the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, so he decided to take matters into his own hands. But then again, monarchists aren't particularly concerned with concent of the government anyhow, so I can see why you would see him as "neccessary". It must also have been neccessary to torture anyone who spoke against him, and have all of his political enemies killed, right? -AB

{Muy objective analysis of hisotry has been presented already, and all of these poitns you choose unfathomabley to ressurect have already been dealt with in former posts. Granco was not good, btu he was better than the alternative. Further, th will fo the people was beign ignored by the so-called democracy of the time. In addition, Majority rule can often be a tyranny in and of itsself.}-Zarove

"Nice us of the term "Fiorgin Army." History lesson for you, if you pelase. Most of those "Gorgheners" where acutally Born in the colonies themselves. America wa snto an idndependant nation which wa soccuipied by Brittain, it was a colonial terrototy, theorfore the army wasnt Forign, especially considerign the majority of soldiers in the Redcoat Army where local born, as stated earlier.Also, I happen to Hate Tea." -Zarove, former post

The colonists saw themselves as a different people...they did not see themselves as English...therefore an English army in THEIR homes was a foreign power. -AB

{Most colonists actuslly didnt support the reoution, thats a Popular myth. Most where for reformation of the Govenrment, but not for a clean break fromt he Empire. Also, they where British Colonists, not english. Each Colony supported their own local identity, IE, Georgians, Virginians, ect... Not all British peopel consider themselves English either. Those form either Wales or Scorland surely dont.( Of course the scots seldom class themselves as British, they tend to have a stronger cultural tie to their homeland.)}-Zarove

It doesn't take an "official" border to make a nation. -AB

{Actually yes it does...}-Zarove

I'm more of a coffee person myself. -AB

{I drink Juice or water. I dislike Coffee as well.}-Zarove

"Maybe they have a lot, since the Parlement usually issues the new laws. Both houses and the Queen simpley ratify laws." -Zarove, earlier

I'm sure the people had plenty of say when George was quartering soldiers in their homes without permission... -AB

{King george was not in charge of Military Operations, the Generals wshere, so the blame is on them for issuing th order, which came locally. Incedentally, the Americans didnt do much better int he Civil War when The Union forced Southern women and old men to share hteir homes with Union officers. As a matter of record, more rapes occured to southern women in the Civil War than to colonial women in the revoluiton at the hands of the redcoat army.

This was common practice, to supply soldiers lodging was considered a duty in the times before military housign was a secured definate and before civil rights became recognised.

Lets not forget all those natives whom where so well treated by the American revolutionaries... Yes, I beleive civil rights is a good idea, btu I dont project my understanding onto a past that had little to no understanding of it.}- Zarove

"No it wa snot your duty to revolt, unless you support rhe duty of the Confederacy to succeed." -Zarove

No, because the confederacy's only reason for seceeding was so they could own other human beings. -AB

{Not true. The slave issue, which Galvinised the war, was acutlaly a back burner issue. The primary mtivation for the Confederacy, as clealry outlined in boht the declaration to succeed and in the ocnstitution of the confederacy, is the right to state soverignty over the rule of a centralGovenrment. The Confederacy beleived in the states right to make internal laws and self govenrment, whereas the Union beleived in loyalty primarily tot he cetral government.

Slavery was not really the biggest issue of the war,let alone the only reason for succession.}-Zarove

In that case it was our duty as humans to put an end to it.-AB

{Yes and poor, monarichal slaves we where in Birittain, but at least we put an end to it well before the states did. Or for that matter anyone else. britain lead the way in endign slavery and the slave trade.Score one for the Union Jacket.}-Zarove

If they had abolished slavery then I would support them to secede until the cows come home. But they did not have the moral highground on that one.-AB

{Then why not support Britain which had abolished slavery before America? Honestly I htink Americasns think that the civil war was the turnign point int he slave trade around the world...}-Zarove

"Incedentally, a Cirript Parlement needed ot be dealt with cvia proper channels. Parlement simpley screwed that one up.' -Zarove

Well the "proper channels" were certainly doing a bang-up job, weren't they? -AB

{This form a guy who likewise complains abouthte American system as it stands in current. Yes, givernemnts screw up, and since you admitted the same of America, maybe its time for you to begin another revolution.}-Zarove

"Revolution is the locomotive of history."--Karl Marx.

"A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing."--Thomas Jefferson.

{A quote form a communist and a quote form a Traitor and slave owner isnt all that impressive. Shall we turn instead tot he word of God?

An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him. Proverbs 17:11

1 Samuel 15:23 states For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Lets nto forget his verse

form 1 Timothy srarting at verse 1of chapter 2.

1. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2. For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Who trusts you more, the word of God, or the word of jefferson, who denied the Bible's authority and dileberately edited out Miracels? or the words of a Communist who woudl see the faith abandned for wreckless hedonism?

Whom do you trust, mortal man, wiht yor soul and your future? Jefferson, Marks, or Jesus who is Christ?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2004.

"Consider for a moment hat youy complain abouthte current American system, and I see htis as Moot. Accordign to you, most rulers are bad and corrupt anyway, even in a democracy, so either way we have bad leaders in your philoosphy, so I dont see the difference. Also, not all Kingd sons ar eidiots you know..."

People in general are like that. The majority of people in the world are evil, dishonest people.

"Most colonists actuslly didnt support the reoution, thats a Popular myth."

Revolutions don't get off the ground without the support of A)The military (in which case it is a coup), B)A foreign power, or C)The people. America did not have the support of the British military (obviosly). We didn't have the support of France or Spain until about halfway through the war, after the Battle of Saratoga, and even then they did a pretty half-assed job of it up until the very end. So tell me, if the revolution didn't have the support of the people, who did support it???

I suppose you're willing to defend England's conquest of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (not to mention France). I bet all the Irish your people killed were "traitors to the crown" too, right?

"Actually yes it does..."

Ok, you're right, I phrased that wrong. What I meant was that the colonists (who shouldn't even be called that, as most of them were born in America) saw themselves as an entirely different nationality. They did not see themselves as British. The army occupying THEIR HOMES without their consent was just as forign to them as Isrealis are to palestinians now.

"I drink Juice or water. I dislike Coffee as well.",/i>

I like a cup of coffee in the morning. Wakes you up. On the schedule American public schools are run on, you need it too. Homework until 11 PM (on a good day), then waking up before 6. I need the caffeine.

Do you like soda?

"King george was not in charge of Military Operations, the Generals wshere, so the blame is on them for issuing th order, which came locally. Incedentally, the Americans didnt do much better int he Civil War when The Union forced Southern women and old men to share hteir homes with Union officers. As a matter of record, more rapes occured to southern women in the Civil War than to colonial women in the revoluiton at the hands of the redcoat army."

He still knew it was happening. A King who cared about his people should have stopped it. Incidentaly, a Parliament who gave a damn should have removed George from the thrown.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 18, 2004.

"Consider for a moment hat youy complain abouthte current American system, and I see htis as Moot. Accordign to you, most rulers are bad and corrupt anyway, even in a democracy, so either way we have bad leaders in your philoosphy, so I dont see the difference. Also, not all Kingd sons ar eidiots you know..." -ZAROVE, EARLIER.

People in general are like that. The majority of people in the world are evil, dishonest people. -AB

{Again, this means that the system of governance is doomed formt h word go to be evil, therfeby nullifying your point about democracy being the only legitimate system. Noen fo them ar elgitimate as they are all evil.}-Zarove

"Most colonists actuslly didnt support the reoution, thats a Popular myth." -Zarove, earlier.

Revolutions don't get off the ground without the support of A)The military (in which case it is a coup), B)A foreign power, or C)The people. America did not have the support of the British military (obviosly). We didn't have the support of France or Spain until about halfway through the war, after the Battle of Saratoga, and even then they did a pretty half-assed job of it up until the very end. So tell me, if the revolution didn't have the support of the people, who did support it??? -AB

{1: Not all revolutions are supported eithe rby the militsary, a forign power, or the people, leas tof all in a time such as the colonial period.Stop thinkign like a moderner. Many peopel didnt even know their had been a revolution till after it was over.Small fringe groups can, and often do, seize power.}-Zarove

I suppose you're willing to defend England's conquest of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (not to mention France). I bet all the Irish your people killed were "traitors to the crown" too, right?

{What conqueast of Scotland? Sorry lad, Scotland and England jpined into the United Kingdom under the Scottish Born James the First ( Odd coincidence, I am discussing his masterful Bible translation as well on this board.)

The United Kingdom was formed when the english Crown was passed to James Stewart after the death of elezabeth.

Wales likewise wasnt conquered.

Please read a real history book on these matters before speaking about htings you clearly do not know anyhtign about.}-Zarove

"Actually yes it does..." -Zarove

Ok, you're right, I phrased that wrong. What I meant was that the colonists (who shouldn't even be called that, as most of them were born in America) saw themselves as an entirely different nationality.- AB

{Being Born in America doesnt make you not a colonist. the deifnition of Colonist is not one that leaves one place and settles in another. The definition is anyone living in and sustainign a colony, this includes those born in the colonies, so they SHOULD be called colonials.And no, most dodnt see themselves as a different nationality. In fact, none of them did until Jefferson, Washington and the gang decided on High Treason. And sdont bring up cconqueasts of Britain, not only do you not knpw who we actually did and didnt Conquer, you have the difficult spot of illustratinv the signifigance since the Americans wherent victims of conqueast but colonialists.}- Zarove

They did not see themselves as British. The army occupying THEIR HOMES without their consent was just as forign to them as Isrealis are to palestinians now. -AB

{Bad analogy, see abnove. The Americans did see themselves as British, for starters, so much so that General Wahington actually attained his rank of General in the British Armed forces, and managed to fight valiantly in thee RFedcoat army. Tjeoirs even a statue of him in London commemorating his courage.

Furthermor, the Israili Palastinian thing is about the Israilies and Palastinians beign two different peopels and cultures, unlike the American COLONIES which had been FOUNDED BY the British Empire, the palastinians where never Jewish, nor decended direclty form the Jews. That alnalogvy is sheer idiocy.

Clealry you have no idea what you are prattlign on about.}-Zarove

"I drink Juice or water. I dislike Coffee as well.",-Zarove, also note this si where the iralics messed up.

I like a cup of coffee in the morning. Wakes you up. On the schedule American public schools are run on, you need it too. Homework until 11 PM (on a good day), then waking up before 6. I need the caffeine.- AB

{Iattended an Amwerican high school, I manahed without coffee, and I graduated early.}-Zarove

Do you like soda? -AB

{No. Prefer water or juice. I do also like sobe.}-Zarpve

"King george was not in charge of Military Operations, the Generals wshere, so the blame is on them for issuing th order, which came locally. Incedentally, the Americans didnt do much better int he Civil War when The Union forced Southern women and old men to share hteir homes with Union officers. As a matter of record, more rapes occured to southern women in the Civil War than to colonial women in the revoluiton at the hands of the redcoat army." -Zarove

He still knew it was happening.-AB

{Took 6 months to get messages to Wengland, further this was common practice even in America well intot he 19th century.}-Zarove

A King who cared about his people should have stopped it. -AB

{This asusmes two things, the first beign that he woudl have had the ability to see an alternative. Remember the times lad, no one saw a difference then.

It also assumes a ane King Feroge, everyone knew he was mentally unstable. He was only allowed to remain on the thrine because of Monitary interests in several ke investros ethat he was protecting. He was removed form the throne after the loss of the colonies, and his on reigned as regent.}-Zarove.

Incidentaly, a Parliament who gave a damn should have removed George from the thrown. -AB

{They did. But woudlnt you know it, beurocracy got int h way.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 18, 2004.

Sorry I didn't reply to the other part, accidentaly hit submit. Anyway, here it is.

"Not true. The slave issue, which Galvinised the war, was acutlaly a back burner issue. The primary mtivation for the Confederacy, as clealry outlined in boht the declaration to succeed and in the ocnstitution of the confederacy, is the right to state soverignty over the rule of a centralGovenrment. The Confederacy beleived in the states right to make internal laws and self govenrment, whereas the Union beleived in loyalty primarily tot he cetral government. "

A nice cause to fight for, but at the end of the day, it was just a battle over the right to own slaves.

"Yes and poor, monarichal slaves we where in Birittain, but at least we put an end to it well before the states did. Or for that matter anyone else. britain lead the way in endign slavery and the slave trade.Score one for the Union Jacket."

I'm aware of that. Good job, Britain. Score one for human rights.

"Then why not support Britain which had abolished slavery before America? Honestly I htink Americasns think that the civil war was the turnign point int he slave trade around the world..."

I support Britain 100% in abolishing slavery.

"This form a guy who likewise complains abouthte American system as it stands in current. Yes, givernemnts screw up, and since you admitted the same of America, maybe its time for you to begin another revolution."

Not quite yet, but I definitely see one on the horizon in the next 20- 30 years, if things keep going the way they are going now. One of two things will happen. Either the government will start giving more power back to the people (and subsequently end this campaign of terror we are waging in the third world), or the people will take it back. Now is not quite the time for revolution, as the possibility for peacefull change still exists through something called DEMOCRACY.

"A quote form a communist and a quote form a Traitor and slave owner isnt all that impressive. Shall we turn instead tot he word of God?"

What makes Karl Marx a bad guy, other than the fact that he was a Communist? You are doing the same thing you accused me of doing. You said I was claiming that nations were bad simply by virtue of them being monarchies (which I wasn't...the nations in question were all without a doubt dictatorships...). Now you are sayin Marx is a bad guy simply by virtue of being a Communist.

As for those Bible verses, you are taking them out of context. The Bible does not say that it is a sin to revolt against an unjust government. Look, the Bible was written by men. Yes, there was divine inspiration, but at the end of the day it was men who actualy wrote it down and interpreted the word of god. The attitude at the time was not to revolt against the Jewish kings, because they were well-liked by everyone.

Hey, here's another quote from Karl Marx (I'm doing this from emeory, may not be exact, but you get the picture):

"The Church, and religion in general, has done much to help the poor. In it's quest to help the poor, the Church should be regarded as a friend to Communists everywhere."

Marx had no problem with religion. What his successors did is a whole different story.

"Again, this means that the system of governance is doomed formt h word go to be evil, therfeby nullifying your point about democracy being the only legitimate system. Noen fo them ar elgitimate as they are all evil"

But in a democracy, at least the government answers directly to the governed, instead of to a bunch of aristocrats.

"Not all revolutions are supported eithe rby the militsary, a forign power, or the people, leas tof all in a time such as the colonial period.Stop thinkign like a moderner. Many peopel didnt even know their had been a revolution till after it was over.Small fringe groups can, and often do, seize power."

It takes a pretty big stretch of the imagination to call Patriots a "fringe group". The idea that most people didn't know there was a revolution is just stupid. Most commoners in Britain probably didn't, but Americans did. The war was going on in their towns, and on their front porches. The Continental Army would never have won if the majority of Americans didn't support them.

"What conqueast of Scotland? Sorry lad, Scotland and England jpined into the United Kingdom under the Scottish Born James the First ( Odd coincidence, I am discussing his masterful Bible translation as well on this board.)"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scotland#War_with_England

That's an encyclopedia article detailing the English invasion of Scotland. Think back...Edward invaded...William Wallace led the rebellion defeated him...after a long war the English eventualy won.

But then I suppose William Wallace was a traitor to the crown as well. Hey, for that matter, so was Gandhi, right?

Yes, England also invade Wales.

How about all the Irish that resisted Cromwell? Were they also traitors?

And how about Joan of Arc and all the French who resisted. Were they traitors too?

"Took 6 months to get messages to Wengland, further this was common practice even in America well intot he 19th century."

No it didn't. It took six weeks for a ship to cross the Atlantic. Not six months.

The English rule over America was tyrrany. An army from halfway across the world was forcibly entering people's homes, taxing them unreasonably, giving them NO representation, and opening fire on protesters. What would you have done?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 19, 2004.

Sorry I didn't reply to the other part, accidentaly hit submit. Anyway, here it is.

{Ots OK, it was useless.}-Zarove

"Not true. The slave issue, which Galvinised the war, was acutlaly a back burner issue. The primary mtivation for the Confederacy, as clealry outlined in boht the declaration to succeed and in the ocnstitution of the confederacy, is the right to state soverignty over the rule of a centralGovenrment. The Confederacy beleived in the states right to make internal laws and self govenrment, whereas the Union beleived in loyalty primarily tot he cetral government. "

A nice cause to fight for, but at the end of the day, it was just a battle over the right to own slaves. -AB

{No, slavery was not the main isuse, it wasnt even abolished till AFTER the war was over. Sory, this is sheerly wrong. The war was only about state rule VS Central rule, slavery had already been dalt with, and htough boht sides disagreed, they allowed the pratice of slavery in the south, so long as it was regulated.}-Zarove

"Yes and poor, monarichal slaves we where in Birittain, but at least we put an end to it well before the states did. Or for that matter anyone else. britain lead the way in endign slavery and the slave trade.Score one for the Union Jacket."

I'm aware of that. Good job, Britain. Score one for human rights. -AB

{Hence, dont bring up slavery again, it gets old.}-Zarove

"Then why not support Britain which had abolished slavery before America? Honestly I htink Americasns think that the civil war was the turnign point int he slave trade around the world..."

I support Britain 100% in abolishing slavery. -AB

{And now for soemthing mor einteresting...}-zAROVE

"This form a guy who likewise complains abouthte American system as it stands in current. Yes, givernemnts screw up, and since you admitted the same of America, maybe its time for you to begin another revolution."

Not quite yet, but I definitely see one on the horizon in the next 20- 30 years, if things keep going the way they are going now. One of two things will happen. Either the government will start giving more power back to the people (and subsequently end this campaign of terror we are waging in the third world), or the people will take it back. Now is not quite the time for revolution, as the possibility for peacefull change still exists through something called DEMOCRACY. -AB

{I forsee the collapse of th est and a reutn of a dark age period... unless we begin to colonise mars, and pull ourself out of th mroak and economic mess w have made.}-Zarove

"A quote form a communist and a quote form a Traitor and slave owner isnt all that impressive. Shall we turn instead tot he word of God?"

What makes Karl Marx a bad guy, other than the fact that he was a Communist? You are doing the same thing you accused me of doing. You said I was claiming that nations were bad simply by virtue of them being monarchies (which I wasn't...the nations in question were all without a doubt dictatorships...). Now you are sayin Marx is a bad guy simply by virtue of being a Communist. -AB

{Except we have discussed htis and Communism IS a bad idea. Sorry, it isd.}

As for those Bible verses, you are taking them out of context.

{No, I wasnt. Only the 1 samule reference can ven begin to have that said about it, th others where well withn context.}-Zarove

The Bible does not say that it is a sin to revolt against an unjust government.

{The Bible does say that rebellion is not the answer. sorry this is wrong, we shoudl stirve for reform, not rebellion.}-Zarove

Look, the Bible was written by men.

{Or so you say, but considering how little you know of its origins, hisotry, or ciontents, I say that I have a better, much firmer understnding on the topic. It was not the product merley of men.}- Zarove

Yes, there was divine inspiration, but at the end of the day it was men who actualy wrote it down and interpreted the word of god.-AB

{POnce again we see god show up...you know its an insult to see that wiothout the cap on it...we don worship god, we worship God...

Also, it was not mens interpretation that was wirtten down, but the word of God. Zstaing othereise is nothign but an attempto to wrenth away the Bibles authority because you disagree with it in pzarts.}-Zarove

The attitude at the time was not to revolt against the Jewish kings, because they were well-liked by everyone. -AB

{what Jewish King was in the time of Timothy? sorry, Pauls letter to Timothy was not written aboutthe Jewish Kings, in fact, Jerusalem wa sunder roman Controle, and no one thinks Roman rule was just... My point of scripture stands, rvolution is not endorsed.}-Zarove

Hey, here's another quote from Karl Marx (I'm doing this from emeory, may not be exact, but you get the picture): -AB

{Then its not a quote/}Zarove

"The Church, and religion in general, has done much to help the poor. In it's quest to help the poor, the Church should be regarded as a friend to Communists everywhere." -AB

{And, what about the whole Opiateof the masses crack? Sorry, he may have just been panderign here, but I woudl liek to see a real reference.}-Zarove

Marx had no problem with religion. What his successors did is a whole different story. -AB

{Opiate of the masses...}-Zarove

"Again, this means that the system of governance is doomed formt h word go to be evil, therfeby nullifying your point about democracy being the only legitimate system. Noen fo them ar elgitimate as they are all evil"

But in a democracy, at least the government answers directly to the governed, instead of to a bunch of aristocrats. -AB

{Do you know how easy it is to controle the masses? Contoring a crowd is easier than cvontroliong an individual... sorry, democrcy becoms nothign but competition in which groups vey for social controle.}- Zarove

"Not all revolutions are supported eithe rby the militsary, a forign power, or the people, leas tof all in a time such as the colonial period.Stop thinkign like a moderner. Many peopel didnt even know their had been a revolution till after it was over.Small fringe groups can, and often do, seize power."

It takes a pretty big stretch of the imagination to call Patriots a "fringe group".

{No, it doesnt, this is Hisotry.}-Zarove

The idea that most people didn't know there was a revolution is just stupid.

{I said many, not most...}-Zarove

Most commoners in Britain probably didn't, but Americans did.

{Actuially commoners in britain had access to newspapers. Many in the backwoods of America didnt.}-Zarove

The war was going on in their towns, and on their front porches.

{Not in all towns and all porches... further, what of those who lived itn eh back woods? }-Zarove

The Continental Army would never have won if the majority of Americans didn't support them.

{Now you sell your notion short. Not only did htey have substantial forign aid form france ( which you doewnplay) but th fact is that Feidel Castro weas a Minority and still took over. If he doesnt serve as an example, then I can find others. Small gurilla groups can overwhelm the majority army without massive support in some instances.}-Zarove

"What conqueast of Scotland? Sorry lad, Scotland and England jpined into the United Kingdom under the Scottish Born James the First ( Odd coincidence, I am discussing his masterful Bible translation as well on this board.)"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scotland#War_with_England

That's an encyclopedia article detailing the English invasion of Scotland. Think back...Edward invaded...William Wallace led the rebellion defeated him...after a long war the English eventualy won.

{But scorland retained its independance, did it not? It was not conquered. Sorry this is just pointing out that their was a war, which no one doubted.}-Zarove

But then I suppose William Wallace was a traitor to the crown as well. Hey, for that matter, so was Gandhi, right?

{Ghandi wa snot a traitor, and Wallace wasnt even english!}

Yes, England also invade Wales.

{You are stll spouting manlbed hisotry...But skipping his as you have me rather irretated by the below...}-Zarove

How about all the Irish that resisted Cromwell? Were they also traitors?

{A lot of the english resisted Cromwell, Cromwell was a traitor! No oen who resisted him was a Traitor tot he corwn, in fact Cromwell ruled after he abolished the corwn!}-Zarove

And how about Joan of Arc and all the French who resisted. Were they traitors too?

{How can the French, who arent part of britain, be traitors? }-Zarove

"Took 6 months to get messages to Wengland, further this was common practice even in America well intot he 19th century."

No it didn't. It took six weeks for a ship to cross the Atlantic. Not six months.

{Sorry, slip of the hand. }-Zarove

The English rule over America was tyrrany.

{At least accordign to you... and a few American hisotry books, Try one form neither party, a neutral source.}-Zarove

An army from halfway across the world was forcibly entering people's homes, taxing them unreasonably, giving them NO representation, and opening fire on protesters. What would you have done?

{The army wanst form halfway around the world, most of the soldiers in that army, including th officers, where BORN IN THE COLONIES.The colonies where not an oppressed conquered nation ruled by forigners, you seem to forget this, Even Washington was In the British Army once.

You seem to suffer the dilusion that the British Officers where actually FORM britain... they where form the colonies themselves.

As to the lack or representation, I agree that this was worng, btu this doens tmean that revolution is the only option, they coudl have just as easily lead a reformation fo the govenrment.

As to shootign protestors, Americans bac then did hte same, and in fact evicted the native population to take their land. May have been cruel, but was the 18th century.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 19, 2004.

"No, slavery was not the main isuse, it wasnt even abolished till AFTER the war was over."

Well they couldn't abolish it DURING the war, could they, as it was already illegal in all the states that stayed with the Union?

"Hence, dont bring up slavery again, it gets old."

You were the one who brought up the comparison to the confederacy...

"I forsee the collapse of th est and a reutn of a dark age period... unless we begin to colonise mars, and pull ourself out of th mroak and economic mess w have made."

Please elaborate...the complete fall of western civilization? How? Nuclear war? Revolt? I'm intrigued.

"Except we have discussed htis and Communism IS a bad idea. Sorry, it isd."

Doesn't make Marx a bad guy. Just somebody with a different point of view than us. He beleived in a utopian system where everyone would work for the good of the community first and themselves second. Problem is, people just don't think like that. Actualy, there are a lot of problems, but we both know that, so I'll skip it. Anyway, Marx was still a smart guy and the economic theories from Das Kapital are still studied seriously today. But, then, I suppose you've never even read it...

"And, what about the whole Opiateof the masses crack? Sorry, he may have just been panderign here, but I woudl liek to see a real reference."

Marx was discussing the way the establishment has used religion over the years to control people. He was not implying that religion itself was a bad thing. You want a refference for the other quote? READ THE COMMUNIST MANNIFESTO. It's like 30 pages. You can knock it out in one afternoon.

"Do you know how easy it is to controle the masses? Contoring a crowd is easier than cvontroliong an individual... sorry, democrcy becoms nothign but competition in which groups vey for social controle."

It's harder to control the masses when they gave you your job, wheras in a monarchy you just happened to be born into the right family. What makes you more suited to rule? Nothing. In democracy (if practiced correctly), the people provide a system of checks and balances over themselves.

"No, it doesnt, this is Hisotry."

Where the hell do you get your history, buddy?

"Actuially commoners in britain had access to newspapers. Many in the backwoods of America didnt."

Of course, the smart, educated British knew what was was going on, but us stupid Americans didn't have a clue.

"Now you sell your notion short. Not only did htey have substantial forign aid form france ( which you doewnplay)"

We've been over this. France didn't lift a finger until after the Battle of Saratoga, when the Americans had already won half the damn war. Spain didn't join the fight until the last few months, and all they did was chase the British through the swamps in Louisiana. America did the majority of the fighting and footed a vast majority of the bill. Pretty amazing, huh? Especially since, according to you, most Americans either supported the crown or didn't know there was a revolution.

It sure is easy to win arguments when you make things up, isn't it?

"th fact is that Feidel Castro weas a Minority and still took over. If he doesnt serve as an example, then I can find others. Small gurilla groups can overwhelm the majority army without massive support in some instances."

Castro did have the support of the majority of the lower class of Spain, as leftist revolts often do. He baited them with false promises of free elections and food for everyone and elimination of classes, ect. But in the end, it was all just a pipedream, like every other communist revolt.

At least I admit it the screwups on my side of the spectrum.

"But scorland retained its independance, did it not? It was not conquered. Sorry this is just pointing out that their was a war, which no one doubted."

I suppose it's too much to ask you to actualy READ the entire thing. After William Wallace's death, Scotland came under English control. Then Robert the Bruce regained Scottish independence at the Battle of Brannockburn. Yes, England and Scotland did unite peacefully for a while under the Stuart family, but the majority of Scots lost support for the Crown once William of Orange usurped it. After that, most either wanted independence or a return of the Stuarts to the thrown. They didn't go into the United Kingdom quite as easily as you make it out to be.

"Ghandi wa snot a traitor, and Wallace wasnt even english!"

Why wasn't Ghandi a traitor? He proposed breaking away from Great Birtain too.

According to Edward, Scotland was his kingdom, so Wallace would be a "traitor to the crown" as well.

"You are stll spouting manlbed hisotry...But skipping his as you have me rather irretated by the below..."

No I'm not. Edward (you, our friend who also invaded Scotland...God Save the King) invaded Wales, appointed his son Prince, and set up a puppet government that was totaly subserviant to England. Later, Henry VIII banned the Welsh language and culture altogether. If that's not conquest, tell me what is?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wales

"How can the French, who arent part of britain, be traitors?"

Edward III claimed the French throne (man, that's a busy family...), thus making them, according to him, traitors to the crown.

"At least accordign to you... and a few American hisotry books, Try one form neither party, a neutral source.'

Then what would you call it? Neccessary, like Franco's torture chambers?

"As to the lack or representation, I agree that this was worng, btu this doens tmean that revolution is the only option, they coudl have just as easily lead a reformation fo the govenrment. "

How? They had no representation, no political power. They had no say in the government. They had no means through which to peacefully reform it. They had no foothold to gain any power at all. The government wasn't listening. There was no other option.

Look, I do not support violent revolution, as long as there is any other alternative. But in some cases, there just isn't.

Once in a while, however, a thrid way does come along. I'm not sure if you heard about this, but a few months ago, Georgia underwent a revolution that was 100% bloodless. Their President had taken control of the government in a rigged election and Parliament was controled by his cronies (also falsly elected). There was no hope of democratic change. So, seemingly out of nowhere, the entire country walked onto the streets in protest. Leaders of the protest raided the Parliament building--but they were totaly unnarmed. All they had were roses. The entire army stood down and refused to fight. Their President then stepped down and agreed to let the government be reorganized. In Georgia, they are now calling it "the Rose Revoluton".

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 20, 2004.

Both of you fellows are invited to begin your own political forum outside the one you're occupying here. Greenspun has no objections to your move, I'm sure.

We are here as the Catholic forum for discussions. You two have contributed very little or nothing to the discussions on Catholic faith. Look for another space; PLEASE!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2004.

EUGINE- The putpose pof this thread was to Isolate AB, as he wsnt leaving. I seldom discuss politics, period.I came to learn about Catholisism, as at the first I knew relativley little about it.This is mere diversion. I have invited AB to in fact add me to MSN List, thereby removign this discussion form the board altogather, but he to date has not aded me to MSN Or, for my knowledge, reinstalled this messenger.

Once he has doen this I will mke effports to comply to your requeast.

"No, slavery was not the main isuse, it wasnt even abolished till AFTER the war was over." -Zarove, earlier.

Well they couldn't abolish it DURING the war, could they, as it was already illegal in all the states that stayed with the Union? -AB

{It wasnt even the main issue before the war... thats the point. The War didnt begin when the south refused to give uo its slaves.}-Zarove

"Hence, dont bring up slavery again, it gets old." -Zarove, earlier.

You were the one who brought up the comparison to the confederacy... - AB

{Yes, but the slavery issue was not the point of the Confederacy, nor was the slavery issue the issue that elad to war.}-Zarove

"I forsee the collapse of th est and a reutn of a dark age period... unless we begin to colonise mars, and pull ourself out of th mroak and economic mess w have made." -Zarove, earlier.

Please elaborate...the complete fall of western civilization? How? Nuclear war? Revolt? I'm intrigued. -AB

{Nothign so dramatic, rather, as the roman world declined, I see the moral degredation, and the overextended economy eroding the Western world over a long perod of time. History tnds to repeat itsself.}- Zarove

"Except we have discussed htis and Communism IS a bad idea. Sorry, it isd." -Zarove

Doesn't make Marx a bad guy. Just somebody with a different point of view than us.-AB

{But his ideas on these maztters where discredited, theirfore quotes form him arent authority.}-Zarove

He beleived in a utopian system where everyone would work for the good of the community first and themselves second. Problem is, people just don't think like that.

{Agreed.But this doesnt make him an auhtoirity to be heeded.}-Zarove

Actualy, there are a lot of problems, but we both know that, so I'll skip it. Anyway, Marx was still a smart guy and the economic theories from Das Kapital are still studied seriously today. But, then, I suppose you've never even read it... -AB

{You woudl be surprised at what I have and havent read.}-Zarove

"And, what about the whole Opiateof the masses crack? Sorry, he may have just been panderign here, but I woudl liek to see a real reference." -Zarove

Marx was discussing the way the establishment has used religion over the years to control people. He was not implying that religion itself was a bad thing. You want a refference for the other quote? READ THE COMMUNIST MANNIFESTO. It's like 30 pages. You can knock it out in one afternoon. -AB

{Having read it, as well as other Marks works, I know for a fact that Marks was OPPOSED to rleigion. Religioys veies he tolerated, to an extent, but religion itsself was his enemy. He was for "free love" and he was agaisnt traditional moral understanding, as well as Mans duty to God.}-Zarove

"Do you know how easy it is to controle the masses? Contoring a crowd is easier than cvontroliong an individual... sorry, democrcy becoms nothign but competition in which groups vey for social controle." - Zarove, earlier.

It's harder to control the masses when they gave you your job,

{This is a Joke, right? You asusme that its harder, nit its actually eaiser. In fact,one can say Democracy is BASED ON controling the masses ot convence them to vote for you. social engeneers are busier in Democracies than in Kingdoms, because htey have to shape the attitudes of the people in order to suppor threir platform. They dont do the righ thing because they are afraid of loosing their job, they try to tel the masses what the right hting is. }-Zarove

wheras in a monarchy you just happened to be born into the right family. -AB

{Except this often leads to complacence in the Monarchs, and does not automatically equate to peopel blindly followign the King.In fact, most of the toime in Hisotry the King has had opponants amongst the people. The peopel see him as just lucky to be King and feel freer in critusising him, precicely because hes not elcted, whereas in Democracy they felt ( Initially) that they coudlnt queasiton them as they represented the will f the people. Luckily,. that stage is over, regretabely we went too far in critisism.}-Zarove

What makes you more suited to rule? Nothing. In democracy (if practiced correctly), the people provide a system of checks and balances over themselves.

{No, in a sencable republic the govenrment provides a system of checks and balances. Democracy in and of itssel fin its pure form doesnt automaticlaly include a system of checks and balances, and often can be equated to Mob Rule without a sytem inplace. Further,. if you read hisoory you woudl se hte Kings wherent always free to do whatsoever pleased them, their is a system of balance their as well.}- Zarove

"No, it doesnt, this is Hisotry."

Where the hell do you get your history, buddy? -AB

{Regular.}

"Actuially commoners in britain had access to newspapers. Many in the backwoods of America didnt." -Zarove

Of course, the smart, educated British knew what was was going on, but us stupid Americans didn't have a clue. -AB

{Misrepresentation you seem to excell at. Not all peopel in Britain wudl have known of the revolt either, but more cities equerl better coverage. Those American colonists who lived in the back woods, no mater how smrt, where often out of the loop.This is a pre internet, pre TV, pre radio culture. Some peopel where missed, its just part of Hisotry.Not an insult.}-Zarove

"Now you sell your notion short. Not only did htey have substantial forign aid form france ( which you doewnplay)" -Zarove, earlier.

We've been over this. France didn't lift a finger until after the Battle of Saratoga, when the Americans had already won half the damn war. -AB

{Technically, the war coudl have still fallen to the Redcoat Army, an the French move was practicle, politics all tooo often are about conveneince and interest, not morals.

Incedentlaly, the natice American allies of the Colonial Army also helped, which tou ignore. Indeed,theyir gurilla tactics, far superior to the British Army, was the main rason thy won any ground, and htis was the controbution of the Native American Indians, whom where later rewarded by beign forcebly evicted form their own land.}-Zarove

Spain didn't join the fight until the last few months, and all they did was chase the British through the swamps in Louisiana.

{No one mentioned psain.}-Zarove

America did the majority of the fighting and footed a vast majority of the bill.

{so the native Americans dodnt help?}-Zarove

Pretty amazing, huh? Especially since, according to you, most Americans either supported the crown or didn't know there was a revolution. -Ab

{No, accordign to me many didnt knwo their was a war, not most, and most where not wishing to break form the Crown. Even Ben Franklin at the start was open to reformation over a clean break. ( This later changed of course.) }-Zarove

It sure is easy to win arguments when you make things up, isn't it? - AB

{I didnt make anyhtign up, accusations are themselves inventions.}- Zarove

"th fact is that Feidel Castro weas a Minority and still took over. If he doesnt serve as an example, then I can find others. Small gurilla groups can overwhelm the majority army without massive support in some instances." -Zarove

Castro did have the support of the majority of the lower class of Spain, as leftist revolts often do. He baited them with false promises of free elections and food for everyone and elimination of classes, ect. But in the end, it was all just a pipedream, like every other communist revolt. -AB

{And America had support. The Grench army mau not have marched, but theiy where more than willign to supply arms.Incedentally, their ar emany revolutions in which a small gorup took over. Look at Sout America for instyance, or Africa in the 20th century.}-Zarove

At least I admit it the screwups on my side of the spectrum. -AB

{No you dont, and I admit screwups more htan you. I admited that Parlement mishandled George did I not? You asusme that I supprt every action Britain ever took, which will be dealt with blow, but this asusmptio is much like your assumption that I was a right wing conservatived, and your asusmption that I was an American, and your other variosu ausmptions. They arent well thoguht out.}-Zarove

"But scorland retained its independance, did it not? It was not conquered. Sorry this is just pointing out that their was a war, which no one doubted." -Zarove

I suppose it's too much to ask you to actualy READ the entire thing. - AB

{I have. But fo you know the cultural context, as well as the meanign of this war? Do you understand the culture of th time? I doubt it.}- Zarove

After William Wallace's death, Scotland came under English control. - AB

{This is true, but it wasnt as cut and dry as you are implying.}- Zarove

Then Robert the Bruce regained Scottish independence at the Battle of Brannockburn. Yes, England and Scotland did unite peacefully for a while under the Stuart family, but the majority of Scots lost support for the Crown once William of Orange usurped it.-AB

{And they had a right to, again, I dont support all of englands past decisions 100%, thats assumed. But I do understand the cercumstaces better.}-Zarove

After that, most either wanted independence or a return of the Stuarts to the thrown. They didn't go into the United Kingdom quite as easily as you make it out to be. -AB

{Actually they went into the UK Queit easily under James the sixth. They jut had an unhappy time after the userption of power an being downgraded. Howver, again, I o not support 100% of past english desisions. That wa sonly asusmed on your part, based on the faT THAT I DOTN SUPPORT HE aMERICAN REVOLUTION. yOU ACT AS THOGUH CONDEMNATION FO THE aMERICAN REVOLUTION MEANS THAT i WILL SUPPORT ALL PAST DESISIONS OF bRITAIN. SICH IS FOOLISH.}-zarove

"Ghandi wa snot a traitor, and Wallace wasnt even english!"

Why wasn't Ghandi a traitor? He proposed breaking away from Great Birtain too. -AB

{Here is a perfect example fo the above statement. Yopu asusme that because I am opposed to the American revolution that this means that I woudl be agaisnt all actions agaisn the crown, and that I beleive in an infallible British govenrment. I do not, nor do I sipport myself all the Crowns actions, nor is it treason to disagree.

The American revolution, in tr mind, has this mythic appearance, and anyone opposed ot it is eithe rinsane or blinded or evil. Well, I am none.

Brittain had an illegitimate claim on India and treated its "Colony" badly, India deserved independance.It was a soverign nation that was occupied.

You may not reiterate that the American colonies where the same way, but the colonies where always British terriroty, not a nation thay was unjustly conqured by Britain.see th difference?}-Zarove

According to Edward, Scotland was his kingdom, so Wallace would be a "traitor to the crown" as well. -AB

{Crown disputes are common, this doesnt make peopel who make these charges traitors.}-Zarove

"You are stll spouting manlbed hisotry...But skipping his as you have me rather irretated by the below..."

No I'm not. Edward (you, our friend who also invaded Scotland...God Save the King) invaded Wales, appointed his son Prince, and set up a puppet government that was totaly subserviant to England. Later, Henry VIII banned the Welsh language and culture altogether. If that's not conquest, tell me what is? -AB

{Yes, Hisotry has bad decisions, much like toyr complaints at the moment of America. Soem legitimate, some not. The point is however, that I dont always support the corwn, and the next point is that you dont seem to grsp the culture of the itme.}-Zarove

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wales

"How can the French, who arent part of britain, be traitors?"

Edward III claimed the French throne (man, that's a busy family...), thus making them, according to him, traitors to the crown.

{No, that makes it a contested claim, NOT treason. }-Zarove

"At least accordign to you... and a few American hisotry books, Try one form neither party, a neutral source.' -Zarove

Then what would you call it? Neccessary, like Franco's torture chambers? -AB

{Call what, I was referign the the revolution.}-Zarove

"As to the lack or representation, I agree that this was worng, btu this doens tmean that revolution is the only option, they coudl have just as easily lead a reformation fo the govenrment. "

How? They had no representation, no political power.

{You answer this below...}-Zarove

They had no say in the government.

{If you had truely red machiavelli, you woudl realise this sint tue. The revolution itsself proves this sint true.}-Zarove

They had no means through which to peacefully reform it.

{See below.}-Zarove

They had no foothold to gain any power at all. The government wasn't listening. There was no other option.

{See bel,ow.}-Zarove

Look, I do not support violent revolution, as long as there is any other alternative. But in some cases, there just isn't.

{In this case their was, they coudl have refused liek Ghandi did, or better yet, insisted on parlementary rights. Storming London was a possibility too, and they didnt need to storm it with guns, just lobbys, turn the zeal into a political movement, not a war.}-Zarove

Once in a while, however, a thrid way does come along. I'm not sure if you heard about this, but a few months ago, Georgia underwent a revolution that was 100% bloodless. Their President had taken control of the government in a rigged election and Parliament was controled by his cronies (also falsly elected). There was no hope of democratic change. So, seemingly out of nowhere, the entire country walked onto the streets in protest. Leaders of the protest raided the Parliament building--but they were totaly unnarmed. All they had were roses. The entire army stood down and refused to fight. Their President then stepped down and agreed to let the government be reorganized. In Georgia, they are now calling it "the Rose Revoluton".

{Thsi could have happned in the 1776 revlt, they coudl have easily done somethign similatr, the fact is they didnt.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2004.

"It wasnt even the main issue before the war... thats the point. The War didnt begin when the south refused to give uo its slaves."

No, the war began when Lincoln was elected, mainly on the platform of abolition. This was the last straw for the South and they seceded.

"Yes, but the slavery issue was not the point of the Confederacy, nor was the slavery issue the issue that elad to war."

I agree there were other issues, but slavery was a major point and it was the spark that set the whole thing off.

"Nothign so dramatic, rather, as the roman world declined, I see the moral degredation, and the overextended economy eroding the Western world over a long perod of time. History tnds to repeat itsself."

True. The West does seem to be following the pattern of decline shown by the Roman Empire. But the Dark Ages could have been bypassed if it weren't for the barbarian invasions. Without that, the Empire would have slowly declined, decentralized, and eventualy split into several Kingdoms. All of the knowledge would live on. Roman traditions would be quite present in Europe today. The Eastern and Western churches probably never would have split. America probably would have been discovered centuries earlier. But I digress...

"But his ideas on these maztters where discredited, theirfore quotes form him arent authority."

Not all of them. Many of his ideas lived on and were absorbed into the American labor movement in the late 1800's and early 1900's. He had many valid ideas.

"Agreed.But this doesnt make him an auhtoirity to be heeded."

Never said it did. But he did make a few wise observations here and there.

"Having read it, as well as other Marks works, I know for a fact that Marks was OPPOSED to rleigion. Religioys veies he tolerated, to an extent, but religion itsself was his enemy. He was for "free love" and he was agaisnt traditional moral understanding, as well as Mans duty to God."

Yes, he was opposed to organized religion's role in the establishment. He did not agree with YOUR moral views. I also like how you label your own ideals as the "tradiotnal moral views", automaticaly saying "I am right, you are wrong, end of story". It's not that simple, pal.

"They dont do the righ thing because they are afraid of loosing their job, they try to tel the masses what the right hting is. "

And what would prevent a monarch from doing this?

"Technically, the war coudl have still fallen to the Redcoat Army, an the French move was practicle, politics all tooo often are about conveneince and interest, not morals."

Exactly. France wanted to make sure the rebels had a chance before lifting a finger. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of a war.

"Incedentlaly, the natice American allies of the Colonial Army also helped, which tou ignore. Indeed,theyir gurilla tactics, far superior to the British Army, was the main rason thy won any ground, and htis was the controbution of the Native American Indians, whom where later rewarded by beign forcebly evicted form their own land."

What's your point? I haven't attempted to justify the mistreatment of native Americans. It can't be justified. That has nothing to do with the justification for the revolution.

"so the native Americans dodnt help?"

Yes, they did. But they fought more in the backwoods, while most of the major battles were fought by colonials further East.

"No, accordign to me many didnt knwo their was a war, not most, and most where not wishing to break form the Crown. Even Ben Franklin at the start was open to reformation over a clean break. ( This later changed of course.)"

Even George Washington was opposed to open rebellion in the beggining. Many things changed that, including the increased unfair taxation of the American people, the Boston Massacre, ect.

"And America had support. The Grench army mau not have marched, but theiy where more than willign to supply arms."

But they didnt supply a single musket ball until after Saratoga. The revolution had already gotten going by then. No foreign power helped the rebellion get off the ground.

"In this case their was, they coudl have refused liek Ghandi did, or better yet, insisted on parlementary rights. Storming London was a possibility too, and they didnt need to storm it with guns, just lobbys, turn the zeal into a political movement, not a war."

What do you think the Boston Tea Party was, if not a nonviolent political movement?

Of course, when they tried a political movement in broad daylight in Boston, British soldiers opened fire and killed a bunch of them.

"Thsi could have happned in the 1776 revlt, they coudl have easily done somethign similatr, the fact is they didnt."

No, it most definitely could not not have happened. The only reason the Rose Revolution worked was global communication. CNN was on the story within five minutes of the march on the Parliament building. The only reason the President didn't simply have them all killed was because the entire world was watching. He knew if he gunned down men armed with only roses, CNN would have the footage and it would be in every Western living room by dinner time.

Another interesting aspect was the massive protests all over the nation that seemed to happen spontaneously and baffled political analysts everywhere. It started out with a few small-scale plans that people began discussing on the internet, and people simply passed it on through the internet person to person (plus the word of mouth).

Here is what would have happened if they had tried that in 1776:

They would storm the Parliament building with roses and demand...what? That George stepped down? No, they'd probably simply demand the indepence of the American colonies.

Ok, so they demand independence. Want to know what happens next? George laughs at them. Probably has them killed for good measure. There are no mass protests in the streets of America, no spontaneous laying down of arms by the military. No one even has know the whole thing ever happened. There is no mass media coverage via instant satelite footage. Rumors of the event may reach a few educated Americans six weeks later, but other than that, they accomplish absolutely nothing other than pissing George off (so he'll probably tax them even worse).

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 21, 2004.

"It wasnt even the main issue before the war... thats the point. The War didnt begin when the south refused to give uo its slaves." No, the war began when Lincoln was elected, mainly on the platform of abolition. This was the last straw for the South and they seceded.

{http://www.expage.com/blinksd

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/context.html} Zarove "Yes, but the slavery issue was not the point of the Confederacy, nor was the slavery issue the issue that elad to war." -zarove earleir

I agree there were other issues, but slavery was a major point and it was the spark that set the whole thing off. -AB

{No, mosgt historians agree that their was a lot more goign on, and htat Slavery was actually a Minor point. The war was brewing over Cultural, ecponomic, and Political reasons for a lognm time, and slavery was ony one isuse, and not even the one at the fore.}-Zarove

"Nothign so dramatic, rather, as the roman world declined, I see the moral degredation, and the overextended economy eroding the Western world over a long perod of time. History tnds to repeat itsself." - Zarove, earlier.

True. The West does seem to be following the pattern of decline shown by the Roman Empire. But the Dark Ages could have been bypassed if it weren't for the barbarian invasions. Without that, the Empire would have slowly declined, decentralized, and eventualy split into several Kingdoms. All of the knowledge would live on. Roman traditions would be quite present in Europe today. The Eastern and Western churches probably never would have split. America probably would have been discovered centuries earlier. But I digress... -AB

{There is no end to Barbaarianism in our world, just look at hte Middle east, and soem African nations. Barbarians can easily Storm Rome again, and she may well fall in supremacy once more. ( Fugiratively, not literally speaking.)}-Zarove

"But his ideas on these maztters where discredited, theirfore quotes form him arent authority." -Zarove, earlier.

Not all of them. Many of his ideas lived on and were absorbed into the American labor movement in the late 1800's and early 1900's. He had many valid ideas. -AB

{The point is, that simpley because MArx advocated revolution doesnt mean I have to agree. The quote was useless.}-Zarove

"Agreed.But this doesnt make him an auhtoirity to be heeded." - Zarove, earlier. Never said it did. But he did make a few wise observations here and there. -AB

{He also made many poor observations, that significgantly putwirght his valid points.}-Zarove

"Having read it, as well as other Marks works, I know for a fact that Marks was OPPOSED to rleigion. Religioys veies he tolerated, to an extent, but religion itsself was his enemy. He was for "free love" and he was agaisnt traditional moral understanding, as well as Mans duty to God." -Zarove, earlier.

Yes, he was opposed to organized religion's role in the establishment. He did not agree with YOUR moral views. I also like how you label your own ideals as the "tradiotnal moral views", automaticaly saying "I am right, you are wrong, end of story". It's not that simple, pal. -AB

{I like how you make idiotic assumptions, like the fact hat I am opposed ot the American revolution means I support 100% of British Actions ever taken, or the fact that I am an american right winger... this is anothe rexample. I didnt automaticlaly sya My moral vlaues where superior, nor where the words "Traditional Moral Understanding" meant to reflect MY veiws. We are talkign about he Victorian era, when I wasnt alive, and hte traditional Moral Understandign of hte peopel in Marx time, which Marx opposed. This is a History discussion, and I am objectively removed form it, I woudl kindly ask you not to make sch unjust remarls as that again. Further, Marx was opposed to religion, Hod, or ANY Moral understanding as he didnt beleive Morality itsself existed except as a social construct. He was an atheist.}-Zarove

"They dont do the righ thing because they are afraid of loosing their job, they try to tel the masses what the right hting is. " -Zarove, earlier. And what would prevent a monarch from doing this? -AB

{As stated before, they dont have to. Since they have the position for life, unless they really screw up, then tghey dont have to shape the populace to their own mind, as they have job security. Democratic candidates often manipylate te masses, King seldom have, since they dont have to. This doesn tmean its never happened, just as not all Democratic leaders have manipulated. I repsect Lincoln beleive it or not, but mos Democriacies becoems about cial engeneiring, especialluy in the later stages. ( Which we ar ein now.) Monarchies last longer, on the hwole, than Democracies in history, as a general rule ( Note I said GENERAL) Further, please bare in mind I am not for conventional Monarchy either, as I do not support blood asscension. So dont mak this some personal thing, OK.}-Zarove

"Technically, the war coudl have still fallen to the Redcoat Army, an the French move was practicle, politics all tooo often are about conveneince and interest, not morals." -Zarove, earlier.

Exactly. France wanted to make sure the rebels had a chance before lifting a finger. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of a war. -AB

{No, they supplied firearms and other goods before Saratoga. hey supplied troops after.

http://www.xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/volunt.htm

http://www.oppapers.com/print.php?id=29842&idenc=KxyHiuJa http://www.americanrevolution.com/FrenchAlliance.htm

}-Zarove

"Incedentlaly, the natice American allies of the Colonial Army also helped, which tou ignore. Indeed,theyir gurilla tactics, far superior to the British Army, was the main rason thy won any ground, and htis was the controbution of the Native American Indians, whom where later rewarded by beign forcebly evicted form their own land." -Zarove, earlier.

What's your point? I haven't attempted to justify the mistreatment of native Americans. It can't be justified. That has nothing to do with the justification for the revolution. -AB

{The poitn is the Colonils didnt win it all on their own and arent as impressive as you Yanks try to paint it.}-Zarove

"so the native Americans dodnt help?" -Zarove, earlier.

Yes, they did. But they fought more in the backwoods, while most of the major battles were fought by colonials further East. -AB

{Not acocrdign to my books, many Natives gave their lives even in mainland areas of the Colonies. Further, it was thier war tactics, superior tot he British system, that enabled the American Gurella tactics to be developed, and thus, with superior teqqnique, defeat the British Standing Army. For their valiant contribution, they where banished form their own land.}-Zarove

"No, accordign to me many didnt knwo their was a war, not most, and most where not wishing to break form the Crown. Even Ben Franklin at the start was open to reformation over a clean break. ( This later changed of course.)" -Zarpve, earlier.

Even George Washington was opposed to open rebellion in the beggining. Many things changed that, including the increased unfair taxation of the American people, the Boston Massacre, ect. -AB

{The Bostan Masacre didnt kill that many people lad... more later. But no, the Taxation remaiend the same at his point, the revolution idea justw ent to their heads.}-Zarove

"And America had support. The Grench army mau not have marched, but theiy where more than willign to supply arms." -Zarove, earlier.

But they didnt supply a single musket ball until after Saratoga. The revolution had already gotten going by then. No foreign power helped the rebellion get off the ground. -AB

{Not accordign to my books, and soem of them where written by Americans themselves. The Frensh supplied plenty of goods tothe revolutionaries, as even a failed revolt woudl upset the British balance,a nd maybe allow them a wndow of oporrunity ot gain power, especially in the seas where British rule was absolute. Further, early French volunteers where als inliste dint h revolutions army. More official interaction was withheld because France didnt wan tto risk open war with Britain unles htey where sure they cudl pull that off.}-Zarove

"In this case their was, they coudl have refused liek Ghandi did, or better yet, insisted on parlementary rights. Storming London was a possibility too, and they didnt need to storm it with guns, just lobbys, turn the zeal into a political movement, not a war." -Zarove, earlier.

What do you think the Boston Tea Party was, if not a nonviolent political movement? -AB

{I didnt coplain abothtat, but at the same time they coudl, and shoudl, have continued.}-Zarove

Of course, when they tried a political movement in broad daylight in Boston, British soldiers opened fire and killed a bunch of them. -AB

{About htat Massacre...

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=6510

,A regretful event, but hardly what you epict. 5 men, not many,where killed. Further, it was not true to say that these men wher epeacefully protestign and the British army stepped in and slaughtered them wothoyt merct. Thes emen had formed Gangs and had terrorised the Officers. Also note this important fact, the AMERICAN CO,LONIAL courts AQUITTED th British Soldiers, see final excerpt.

Preston and six of his men were acquitted; two others were found guilty of manslaughter, punished, and discharged from the army. This is not the event you desciribe.}-Zarove

"Thsi could have happned in the 1776 revlt, they coudl have easily done somethign similatr, the fact is they didnt." -Zarove, earlier. No, it most definitely could not not have happened. The only reason the Rose Revolution worked was global communication. CNN was on the story within five minutes of the march on the Parliament building. The only reason the President didn't simply have them all killed was because the entire world was watching. He knew if he gunned down men armed with only roses, CNN would have the footage and it would be in every Western living room by dinner time. -AB

{Saying it coudltn have happned is not the same as proving it, and mass communicatiosn was not nessisary. Indeed, many peaceful events happened, WITHOUT bloodshed, over the cours eof History, that could have been inacted here. Including the sojourn of Jesus, none of his followers joine din open rebellion to rome. Likewise, others have risen in peace and changed much. Do I need ot list them?}-Zarove

Another interesting aspect was the massive protests all over the nation that seemed to happen spontaneously and baffled political analysts everywhere. It started out with a few small-scale plans that people began discussing on the internet, and people simply passed it on through the internet person to person (plus the word of mouth). -AB

{Interestign to know. Still the Yankee rvolt was unnessisary, and your false depiction fo the Bostan massacre proves you incapable of rationally discussing this.}-Zarove.

Here is what would have happened if they had tried that in 1776: -AB

{At leat...accordign to you...}-Zarove.

They would storm the Parliament building with roses and demand...what? That George stepped down? No, they'd probably simply demand the indepence of the American colonies. -AB

{either way it was within thir ability, and enough of them doing it woudl prove effective. Many within and without parlement wantd to remove the mentally unstable George, this woudl have tipped the scales, and opened discussion.}-Zarove

Ok, so they demand independence. Want to know what happens next? George laughs at them.

{I thought you said htey stormd parlement? And what if they manage to convnece enough of the Ministers that they are right? it has happened before, you know. }-Zarove

Probably has them killed for good measure.

{Pure speculation, based on groundless basis. Sorry, this woudlnt have happened for nonviolent protests. Then agai in your world th Bostan Masacre was an event where peaceful protestors where gunned down by the hundreds by ruthless soldiers with impunity.}-Zarove

There are no mass protests in the streets of America, no spontaneous laying down of arms by the military.

{But they may well stor th streets of London, and parlement may discuss their plans in negotiation.}-Zarove

No one even has know the whole thing ever happened. There is no mass media coverage via instant satelite footage. Rumors of the event may reach a few educated Americans six weeks later, but other than that, they accomplish absolutely nothing other than pissing George off (so he'll probably tax them even worse). -AB

{The way you try to make the british world work in this period shows a COMPETE LACK of understanding of anyhting. Also, George didnt lecy taxes, parlement did.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2004.