The toadies who suggest kissing security's a--

rollei53 · Jul 2, 2006

I agree with you. People need to make a firm, but non-violent, stand before this country goies down the tubes.

Therefore, I will make just such a stand right now by asking you to refrain from using language that tempts you to retreat and substitute the actuall spelling of the words with dashes and symbols. Do the use of dashes and symbols somehow change the public use of such language from immoral to moral? Do you actually think that those who are offended by such language are somehow fooled into not knowing what you are actually saying? Having morals doesn't make one stupid. Nor does having the desire to be respectful of others. So stand firm. If what you have to say is right, say it. If it isn't, don't.

Chato · Jul 2, 2006

And read both many times.

The real enemy is not Islam, rather Fundamentalist Religion that refuses to acknowledge the right of any other religion to exist. Christianity is just as proseltying as Islam, and history is full of examples of intolerant Christianity. If your point is that Fundamentalist Christianity no longer controls any country, all well and good. The majority of those countries that are controlled by Fundamentalist Islam are in fact creations of the United States. From Saudi Arabia to the former Taliban in Afghanistan - We built em. And we did it because "tame" Fundamentlaists were useful in fighting Communism.

In simply analysing the Koran, we find unlike Christianity, the Koran recognises that a virtious Chirstian or Jew CAN get to paradise. Whereas Christianity makes no such concession.

I am not a relgious man. However I've read both the Old and New Testiments many times and in different translations. Surely you jest when you say Islam is more brutal than Judaism or Christianity? Have you ever taken a good long look at what God told the people to do to the occupants of the "Promised Land?" Or what God told the people to do to those who refused to accept him. The Bible is one passage of mass murder after another.

And histoory is also full of Popes and Ministers breaking thiewr promises with the exuse that no promise to an unbeliever need be taken seriously - Whereas the Koran demands that all oaths - EVEN to unbelievers be obeyed.

If I had to choose between them for morality, Islam wins. But I don't have to choose between two forms of Fundamentist dogma. Now do I? Nor do I have to compare two superstitions for the purpose of choosing between them.

At the Moment, Fundamentalist Islam is more of a threat to Civilisation then Fundamentalist Christianity. On the other hand, when I hear the President lecture us that various aspects of science are merely theories, that the Second Coming is near, then I have to pause and reflect on which threat is ultimately the worse.

Dave

Gondor · Jul 2, 2006

linuxworks said:
Gondor said:

Good to hear that you don't want to generalize.

Click to expand...

oh, most definitely! its the text, first and the leaders second.
the people are just 'following orders', as it were.

Perhaps to some extent but I don't know really. At least in US I would say that the leaders can not go against the public opinion. If people demand action, i.e. war, they will get it. War is also a way for a President in trouble to focus the news on other things and unite the nation.

linuxworks said:
fundies are the ones to follow those orders and take things to
extremes. and yes, there are certainly extremes on both sides.
but you must admit that when it comes to a live and let live
attitude, that is mostly absent in the muslim world. there is no
tolerance for secular law, really; you must follow islamic law.

Please stop generalizing, that is not true, at least not in Turkey. Where do you get these things from? I asked you earlier which countries you have visited, for how long and how many muslims do you know? Have you ever been outside US?

My opinion is that the last years US has managed to make:

many of their friends to disagree and dislike US (I am here)
many of the ones who disliked US now start to feel hatred for US
some the ones who hated US really much now even feel sympaties for terror organizations such as AQ

It's not bold to say that the way US has handled the truth regarding Iraq before starting war (lies to UN and ignoring the decision of UN for example), the way they treated the prisoners (sexual abuse etc.) have had some things to do with it.

It's not only muslims who dislike US now. Unfortunately the news media in US isn't very objective imo. Being objective would in the eyes of many americans be anti american and this would more or less be suicide for any news company in US. As Bush say, either you are with us or against us. Is that tolerant? UN wasn't with you and Bush has with his word declared that UN is an enemy of US.

linuxworks said:
but I should also say that the US is slipping INTO a fundie state.
the separation of church and state has never been in a worse state
than it is now ;(

linuxworks said:

Since I haven't read the Koran I have to take your word for that it
contains hatefull things. I belive you, so now we agree that there
are hateful texts in both Koran and the Bible. I would also think
that Christians tend to be overlook the hateful things in the Bible
since we know that our God is a good, generous and forgiving God.

Click to expand...

I don't want to get too much into religion (hmmm, almost too late
for that, I guess) but I can find many passages in the
christian/jewish bible that show god is a VENGEFUL god. a very
hateful one, at that. however, I'm not aware of any passages in
the old or new testament that compel its follows to conquer the
world and make it all christian or jewish. there really isn't that
motivation, at least not in writing and in formal teachings; but
there is in the koran. its a conquering religion, at its roots.
mohammed was a ruthless warrior; hardly a jesus-like character at
all!

please read up on the LIFE of mohammed and how the religion
started. a religion can only be as 'saintly' as its leader. I'll
leave it at that.

Perhaps I will some day but the Koran doesn't interest me that much. I am more interested in what people thinks, how they see things than in some book written a long long time ago.

The Bible has been through the ages been interpretated differently even though the text is the same. I assume the same thing applies for the Koran so I think it's more interesting how muslims thinks and interpretate it.

The people get the leaders they deserve.

linuxworks said:
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
~~(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~~~

Gondor · Jul 2, 2006

Gondor said:
linuxworks said:

Gondor said:

Good to hear that you don't want to generalize.

Click to expand...

oh, most definitely! its the text, first and the leaders second.
the people are just 'following orders', as it were.

Click to expand...

Perhaps to some extent but I don't know really. At least in US I
would say that the leaders can not go against the public opinion.
If people demand action, i.e. war, they will get it. War is also a
way for a President in trouble to focus the news on other things
and unite the nation.

Gondor said:

fundies are the ones to follow those orders and take things to
extremes. and yes, there are certainly extremes on both sides.
but you must admit that when it comes to a live and let live
attitude, that is mostly absent in the muslim world. there is no
tolerance for secular law, really; you must follow islamic law.

Click to expand...

Please stop generalizing, that is not true, at least not in Turkey.
Where do you get these things from? I asked you earlier which
countries you have visited, for how long and how many muslims do
you know? Have you ever been outside US?

My opinion is that the last years US has managed to make:

many of their friends to disagree and dislike US (I am here)

many of the ones who disliked US now start to feel hatred for US

some the ones who hated US really much now even feel sympaties

for terror organizations such as AQ

It's not bold to say that the way US has handled the truth
regarding Iraq before starting war (lies to UN and ignoring the
decision of UN for example), the way they treated the prisoners
(sexual abuse etc.) have had some things to do with it.

It's not only muslims who dislike US now. Unfortunately the news
media in US isn't very objective imo. Being objective would in the
eyes of many americans be anti american and this would more or less
be suicide for any news company in US. As Bush say, either you are
with us or against us. Is that tolerant? UN wasn't with you and
Bush has with his word declared that UN is an enemy of US.

Gondor said:

but I should also say that the US is slipping INTO a fundie state.
the separation of church and state has never been in a worse state
than it is now ;(

Gondor said:

Since I haven't read the Koran I have to take your word for that it
contains hatefull things. I belive you, so now we agree that there
are hateful texts in both Koran and the Bible. I would also think
that Christians tend to be overlook the hateful things in the Bible
since we know that our God is a good, generous and forgiving God.

Click to expand...

I don't want to get too much into religion (hmmm, almost too late
for that, I guess) but I can find many passages in the
christian/jewish bible that show god is a VENGEFUL god. a very
hateful one, at that. however, I'm not aware of any passages in
the old or new testament that compel its follows to conquer the
world and make it all christian or jewish. there really isn't that
motivation, at least not in writing and in formal teachings; but
there is in the koran. its a conquering religion, at its roots.
mohammed was a ruthless warrior; hardly a jesus-like character at
all!

please read up on the LIFE of mohammed and how the religion
started. a religion can only be as 'saintly' as its leader. I'll
leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I will some day but the Koran doesn't interest me that
much. I am more interested in what people thinks, how they see
things than in some book written a long long time ago.

The Bible has been through the ages been interpretated differently
even though the text is the same. I assume the same thing applies
for the Koran so I think it's more interesting how muslims thinks
and interpretate it.

The people get the leaders they deserve.

Gondor said:

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
~~(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~~~

Click to expand...

Btw, it's a bit ironic that you are the first person ever suggesting I should study Mohammed and the Koran. Since you claim that all muslim wants to convert everyone to Islam I mean. Not a single muslim has ever told me to study Islam.

linuxworks · Jul 2, 2006

Gondor said:
linuxworks said:

Gondor said:

Good to hear that you don't want to generalize.

Click to expand...

oh, most definitely! its the text, first and the leaders second.
the people are just 'following orders', as it were.

Click to expand...

Perhaps to some extent but I don't know really. At least in US I
would say that the leaders can not go against the public opinion.

which US are you talking about?

the one I live in is the one where the leader DO AS THEY WISH, with no regard to the peoples' opinions. that is precisely what got us INTO this problem with iraq! and also what keeps the problem going. the country has given something in the 20's for percent of approval rating for bush. clearly the people are NOT behind him, but he simply does not care.

same with congress. they stopped representing the people years ago.

Gondor said:
War is also a
way for a President in trouble to focus the news on other things
and unite the nation.

definitely. straight out of orwell/1984. bush LOVED the fact that he had a chance to become 'a war president'. he had nothing going for him, really, until 9/11. he was well on his way to becoming a real do-nothing president.

Gondor said:
Gondor said:

fundies are the ones to follow those orders and take things to
extremes. and yes, there are certainly extremes on both sides.
but you must admit that when it comes to a live and let live
attitude, that is mostly absent in the muslim world. there is no
tolerance for secular law, really; you must follow islamic law.

Click to expand...

Please stop generalizing, that is not true, at least not in Turkey.
Where do you get these things from? I asked you earlier which
countries you have visited, for how long and how many muslims do
you know? Have you ever been outside US?

I have travelled quite a lot, to a bit of europe, asia and australia. I consider myself well travelled, certainly much more so than most americans (many americans don't even HAVE a passport. that's a true fact.) I have been to the UK probably 10-20 times. I also live in the silicon valley where there are many cultures and religions. I am well exposed to peoples of many nationalities. and I have never personally met a muslim person who was not kind and considerate and easy to be around. the muslim people that I tend to meet, however, tend to be 'westernized' and so its not really a total representation. the ones who left the middle east (etc) are the ones who mostly have admitted that its better in the west; else why would they have left?

again, its the writings I have an issue with, NOT THE PEOPLE. how many times do I have to keep saying that?

Gondor said:
My opinion is that the last years US has managed to make:

many of their friends to disagree and dislike US (I am here)

that's true - the US has certainly alienated much of the world. but that was mostly bush's doing, and nothing INHERENT in the way the western world works.

Gondor said:
many of the ones who disliked US now start to feel hatred for US

those who disliked the US will not be won over. waste of time, anyway. people too set in their ways will not change in key ways.

Gondor said:
It's not bold to say that the way US has handled the truth
regarding Iraq before starting war (lies to UN and ignoring the
decision of UN for example), the way they treated the prisoners
(sexual abuse etc.) have had some things to do with it.

agreed again! all this is NOT typical of the US. it is not! I reject that premise. the US does NOT stand for torture or underhanded techniques. this is ENTIRELY a bush phenomenon. please don't judge the rest of us by the actions of a delusional madman.

Gondor said:
It's not only muslims who dislike US now. Unfortunately the news
media in US isn't very objective imo.

they are not doing their job, its true. the US news is mostly worthless - its either too far right or too far left. agreed.

Gondor said:
Being objective would in the
eyes of many americans be anti american and this would more or less
be suicide for any news company in US.

yup. it was funny to see ALL anchors on news shows start to wear the US flag on their lapel. sigh. caving in to 'patriotic pressure'. "hey that guy has a flag on his jacket, I guess we have to, also, or they'll call us unamerican". disgraceful.

Gondor said:
As Bush say, either you are
with us or against us. Is that tolerant?

he does not now, nor did he ever speak for people like me. he did not win a 'landslide' either, so clearly he does not represent the mass population of the US, either, if you look at numbers.

Gondor said:
UN wasn't with you and

UN is a puppet org that is less than useless. it should be fixed or abandoned.

Gondor said:
Bush has with his word declared that UN is an enemy of US.

bush is a moron. but that still doesn't change the fact that the UN is dunsel.

Gondor said:
Perhaps I will some day but the Koran doesn't interest me that
much.

its useful to know ABOUT it, though. know WHY there is such a cultural divide. I certainly don't believe the words, but its useful to know how the 'other side' thinks and what values they have and don't have.

Gondor said:
I am more interested in what people thinks, how they see
things than in some book written a long long time ago.

HOW they think IS governed - strongly - by that book. THAT is why its so key that people see the actual writings (in translation) so they can know first-hand instead of being told by someone who was told by someone who read it on a bumpersticker!

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
~~(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~~~

Gondor · Jul 2, 2006

linuxworks said:
which US are you talking about? the one I live in is the one
where the leader DO AS THEY WISH, with no regard to the peoples'
opinions. that is precisely what got us INTO this problem with
iraq! and also what keeps the problem going. the country has
given something in the 20's for percent of approval rating for
bush. clearly the people are NOT behind him, but he simply does
not care.

same with congress. they stopped representing the people years ago.

Many feel the same here in Sweden about the swedish government but still I can only agree with this to some extent.

In what way did the opinion for Bush change when preparing US for war? Do you think this could serve as a signal to both Bush and to the democrats of what kind of politics to offer?

In Sweden most say they dislike taxes but still we vote for the Social democrats who always rais taxes. The right wing parties have realized that they cannot argue for any significant tax cuts so they are pushed to the left by the voters. This of course results in that there are no alternative for voters who want tax cuts in Sweden.

As I said earlier, in my opinion the people get the leaders and the alternatives they deserv.

linuxworks said:
I have travelled quite a lot, to a bit of europe, asia and
australia. I consider myself well travelled, certainly much more
so than most americans (many americans don't even HAVE a passport.
that's a true fact.) I have been to the UK probably 10-20 times.
I also live in the silicon valley where there are many cultures and
religions. I am well exposed to peoples of many nationalities.

Sounds like you have traveled far more than most americans then, and that includes Bush before he became President. However, since you don't have traveled in muslim countries perhaps you shouldn't have so strong opinions of how they are and how they think.

linuxworks said:
and I have never personally met a muslim person who was not kind
and considerate and easy to be around. the muslim people that I
tend to meet, however, tend to be 'westernized' and so its not

Or perhaps you would feel the same even if you learned to know muslim people in muslim countries.

linuxworks said:
really a total representation. the ones who left the middle east
(etc) are the ones who mostly have admitted that its better in the
west; else why would they have left?

Well, it's kind of hard for you to meet a muslim in a non muslim country if they haven't moved. I know several ex americans who now live in Sweden, does this mean that Sweden is a better country than US? Perhaps you know some ex swedes who now live in US, should we call it a draw then? Btw, I am planning to spend much more time in Turkey in the future, does this mean Turkey and muslim countries are better than western countries?

But many of the muslims who have moved to western countries did so because they was against the regims in their home country. No question if you ask me that democracy is best but now we are talking about political systems and not religion.

linuxworks said:
those who disliked the US will not be won over. waste of time,
anyway. people too set in their ways will not change in key ways.

I am more positiv, it takes longer time to earn trust than to loose it but it can be done.

linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:

It's not bold to say that the way US has handled the truth
regarding Iraq before starting war (lies to UN and ignoring the
decision of UN for example), the way they treated the prisoners
(sexual abuse etc.) have had some things to do with it.

Click to expand...

agreed again! all this is NOT typical of the US. it is not! I
reject that premise. the US does NOT stand for torture or
underhanded techniques. this is ENTIRELY a bush phenomenon.
please don't judge the rest of us by the actions of a delusional
madman.

So what do you think about terror attacks from Al Quaida, is that typical for muslim people or is just a few mad men? Please don't judge muslims because of a very small fraction of people who is not even elected by muslims.

linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:

It's not only muslims who dislike US now. Unfortunately the news
media in US isn't very objective imo.

Click to expand...

they are not doing their job, its true. the US news is mostly
worthless - its either too far right or too far left. agreed.

and they just don't report things that their viewers don't want to here. It's very easy to switch channel if you think it's anti american. Bush said it was anti american of a news paper to reveal that bank transaction was sniffed by the government. Such information should not be reveald to the american people.

I don't have the news channel Al Jazeera so I don't really have an opinion about it. But from what I have heard it may very well give you more objective news, and also important, from a different angle.

linuxworks said:
UN is a puppet org that is less than useless. it should be fixed
or abandoned.

UN will never be better than it's members, especially not if some strong members ignores what's decided and ignores paying there fees.

linuxworks said:
its useful to know ABOUT it, though. know WHY there is such a
cultural divide. I certainly don't believe the words, but its
useful to know how the 'other side' thinks and what values they
have and don't have.

Yes agree, but if you think that the words literlly dictates what people think you will draw the wrong conclusions.

linuxworks said:
linuxworks said:

I am more interested in what people thinks, how they see
things than in some book written a long long time ago.

Click to expand...

HOW they think IS governed - strongly - by that book. THAT is why
its so key that people see the actual writings (in translation) so
they can know first-hand instead of being told by someone who was
told by someone who read it on a bumpersticker!

So how come different muslim countries are so different then? In Turkey for example they have alwaysed danced, used alcohol etc.

Gondor · Jul 2, 2006

Gondor said:
Gondor said:

and I have never personally met a muslim person who was not kind
and considerate and easy to be around. the muslim people that I
tend to meet, however, tend to be 'westernized' and so its not

Click to expand...

Or perhaps you would feel the same even if you learned to know
muslim people in muslim countries.

Furthermore in my experience I could even argue for the opposite in some occasions. Muslims (as well as anyone) who move to a new country and a new culture sometimes tend to stick to old ways of living and become (more) fanatic.

The reason for this I think is that when you are insecure of how to deal with the new world you may choose to stick to old traditions even more than you ever have done.

People are in my experience much more alike than you would assume when watching news on TV.

Darlene Goff · Jul 2, 2006

I have little use for either, but if it is not feasible to vote Green Party or other third party, I have to ask myself who started the current war, who feels it is in our best interest to be there indefinitely, who crafted the Patriot Act which compromises our personal freedoms, and who has the worst record on the environment. I then vote the opposite.

--
Darlene
Dee Seventy, Dee Fifty, Eighty Eight Hundred
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

linuxworks · Jul 2, 2006

Darlene Goff said:
I have little use for either, but if it is not feasible to vote
Green Party or other third party, I have to ask myself who started
the current war, who feels it is in our best interest to be there
indefinitely, who crafted the Patriot Act which compromises our
personal freedoms, and who has the worst record on the environment.
I then vote the opposite.

idealists really hate when I say this, but it has ALWAYS been, in essence, 'who sucks the least'.

vote for the guy you hate the least.

but unfortunately, it has to be 1 of 2 parties. (yes, I'm of the mind that people who voted for the 'other parties' really just helped bush get into office. the first time, some people voted for ralph nader and it was 'cute'. up until we found that those votes had actually HELPED son-of-a-bush get into office. the 2nd time around, people -started- to wise up and realize the wrong that he (and they!) did and most decided to do what they could to vote democrat. simply because they really wanted to try to get bush OUT of office.

there is simply too much at stake to waste your vote on symbolism.

the repubs ran on 'we are the adults, we'll fix the things that the other party broke'. well, they had almost 2 terms and royally screwed us all over. I really hope people wise up and realize that the R's are bigger liars and that they are NOT the 'adults' but irresponsible warmongers and pawns of big business and energy companies. exactly what we DON'T need right now.

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
~~(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~~~

GCam · Jul 2, 2006

Chato said:
Mr. Lincohn did NOT suspend Habeaus Corpus. The executive branch
AND the Congress suspended it. Nor did he set up "military
tribunals." Those were Court Martials, held in areas of the country
declared to be under Martial Law. In WW II, faced with the two
greatest Military machines in history, even those acts which were
later termed wrong or illegal, were presented to the Supreme Court
for a rulling. Right or wrong, things were done by Law and not by
one persons judgement.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425

Lincoln was sworn in March 1861. Congress did not convene until July, by which time Mr. Lincoln had already taken the steps he felt necessary to defend the UNION, ordering the resupply of Fort Sumter, which had been receiving daily provisions from the city of Charleston since secession. Many newspapers were shutdown as well, and when the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, Lincoln ordered that Roger Taney, the Chief Justice, arrested for writing the opinion. Fortunately for all, Lincoln sent a U.S. Marshall who was a friend of both he and Justice Taney, and the arrest never occurred. Mr. Lincoln was in charge, make no mistake about that. gc

GURL · Jul 2, 2006

Gondor said:
In the opposite several crimes has been documented by people with
cameras. What was for example the name of that black guy brutally
attacked by police men several years ago (was he even killed?). A
similar thing happened in Sweden recently [..]

As a security guard, being photographed is very unpleasant. Because you want not to be identified and for the reasons you stated above.
--
Georges Lagarde http://www.panorama-numerique.com

dave_s93 · Jul 3, 2006

Patrick T. Kelly said:
I think the concern with the current political situation is fun but
not relevant. The security guard in the mall is not reacting to
some international threat but rather to the threat of customers
suing over an invasion of privacy.

But if they are in public, there is no "expectation of privacy." Note, I am referring to being on public property, not private property that is publically accessable. Plus,these customers will probably be photographed (or videoed) by security cameras.

Patrick T. Kelly said:
I have never been told to "move along" because I was carrying a
camera. I have been told I could not take pictures on certain
private property and I have had pictures taken on private property
restricted in manner--no tripod, flash, et cetera.

However, I was not raised to believe that I was the center of the
universe and my right to take a picture trumps all others. If it's
your mall you can tell me you would rather I didn't take pictures.

The mall is private property, and the owners can set the rules. However, I believe the OP was referring to security guards who get upset with people on public streets taking photos of "their" building - you need to read the following thread to fully understand the context of this thread.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=19038743

As for the law on this, see the following link:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Hope this clears things up for you.

Mojo151 · Jul 3, 2006

The truth is what really happened, I was there at the time.

I believe you are correct about Truman sleeping well after he made he 'rolled

over and went to sleep'. The death and use of a 'city destroyer' weapon did not bother him one bit, after all, we fire bombed cities and killed tens of thousands without one tear. What haunted him was the idea that this decision tainted his place in history.

Neo-Cons today like to pretend that 'lock-step' mentality with the government was the norm years ago. But, in truth, it was not.

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[37]

GCam said:
Partially true, since there were small home factories contributing
to the war effort. How much? Who can say, but in critical times,
every little bit helps. The Battle of Britain, along with the
bombings, then later the rockets, certainly steeled the Brits to
fight even harder. But....such things do eventually wear down the
combatants.

GCam said:

BTW, one more story. In grade school we did a field trip to the
Harry S Truman Library. Truman happened by and asked us if we had
any questions. Well! I just knew something interesting was going to
happen since he picked my older brother. Well! My brother asked him
if he really had to drop the atomic bomb. Truman went ramrod
straight and got beet red. He then shuddered and walked rapidly
away. I have since learned that the decision was a very heated
discussion at the time. He was told in no uncertain terms that it
would be a criminal action. The decision haunted him forever!

Click to expand...

I cannot imagine Harry Truman ever doing that to a child. As far
as I know, he answered every question any child asked as best he
could given the child's ability to understand it. And in all the
histories I have read, I have never seen it said that anyone told
Truman that dropping the bomb was a criminal action. One thing
about the man, he always sought as much counsel as he could get on
decisions like that, but he took final responsibility for the
decision. I have never read that the decision haunted him forever
either. He was a man who could, once the decision was made, roll
over and go to sleep, knowing it was done. I have forwarded your
story to the Truman Library for confirmation. gc

--
Rick

Tim the Grey · Jul 3, 2006

And I can buy Flight Simulator for the PC, and fly into EVERY building in New York at will. Should we perhaps indite Microsoft as an accessory after the fact?

Get real, and grow up.

Britain had terrorist outrages for nearly 40 years, funded by unfriendly foreign nationals. Did any US government stop the illegal arms trade, in fact, even comment?

Shut up, and go back to your backwoods bunker.
--
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

Gondor · Jul 3, 2006

Who you vote for is of course important but they do opinion polls all the time to know exactly how the people react on all the things that happens.

Let them know what you like and dislike and you can control the politics far more.

Organize photo sessions with as many photographers as possible. Do what the law allows you to do even when the security guards tells you to stop. Do this frequently at different places and let the press know so they can cover it if they want.

If the security guards do anything illegal then report him to the police. If the Police do something illegal report them also. You have once faught for your rights and now it's the time to defend those rights.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=19044258

Darlene Goff said:
I have little use for either, but if it is not feasible to vote
Green Party or other third party, I have to ask myself who started
the current war, who feels it is in our best interest to be there
indefinitely, who crafted the Patriot Act which compromises our
personal freedoms, and who has the worst record on the environment.
I then vote the opposite.

--
Darlene
Dee Seventy, Dee Fifty, Eighty Eight Hundred
http://www.pbase.com/imacatmom

David Hughes124436 · Jul 3, 2006

Kiss a lot of toads and one will turn into a prince... It's just a matter of kissing enough of them.

Tristan Cope · Jul 3, 2006

In the broader context, it is nationalism and patriotism, along with religion that cause all this nonsense in the first place.

It's astonishing that in the US which allegedly prides itsself on its democracy and freedom, the word "liberal" is used as an insult.

In Europe, and certainly in the UK "nationalism" is more generally seen as a bad thing (e.g. the BNP), and we don't talk about patriotism in the same way at all. That's because we've had a very long time to see the damage that nationalism and patriotism cause.

There is no equivalent in europe to the way americans use the expression "un-american".

If we can get over this nonsense of countries putting their own individual interests first, then we might make some progress. Even more so if we could stop the religious nutcases on both sides of the equation from having any power.

tbcass · Jul 3, 2006

rander3127 said:
--People suggesting "writing a letter" rather than confronting
security staff in public areas (because it's the right thing to do)
are missing the point. There is a REASON the instinctive reaction
of telling security to go f---- themselves cuts in. Because in
free society,
they wouldn't be DOING what they are doing and as free people,
we react strongly to it. It may be somewhat irrational, but it's
borne
of being free all our lives.

Free? A totally free society would be chaos. Some restrictions are necessary. The reaction you suggest is a sign of immaturity.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

marcuson · Jul 3, 2006

GCam said:
Anger towards the terrorsits? Sure, but McDonalds and RJ Reynolds
both killed more people in 2001 than Al Qaeda.

As well as motor vehicle accidents. What's the annual road toll? 40 to 50,000, I think.

--

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt
1759 - 1806

tbcass · Jul 3, 2006

Your whole post is total political rubbish. How can anyone claim to know the motivation behind all this? You can't read their minds. You can disagree with what's being done but when you claim to know what motivates them you immediately lose any credibility.

My impression is this. The present leadership honestly believes they are doing the right thing to protect the country. Your right about declaring war but since there is no country to declare war against how could they? It's been common practice throughout history in times of emergency or war for a temporary restriction of freedoms. What we are seeing now is nothing compared to restrictions imposed during WW2. If Bush had not increased security and we had been attacked again I suppose you would have called for his head over lack of security. I admit Iraq was a mistake but then I believe the real target is IRAN. (look where Iran sits between Iraq and Afganistan)
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

The toadies who suggest kissing security's a--

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Darlene Goff

Guest

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts