Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

On Monday, Mar 8, 2004, at 10:03 US/Eastern, Steven Champeon wrote:

> on Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:48:42AM -0500, Don Rua wrote:
>
> <snip
> > He made bold and dangerous moves to deal with terrorism.
>
> Like what? Invading Afghanistan? Toppling Hussein? Whoop-de-do. He's 
> also
> antagonized (with little effect) Iran, North Korea, NATO, Venezuala, 
> etc.

Far from it.  Iran's being forced to come clean to the IAEA, North 
Korea is hoping for a Kerry victory, NATO is in the process of 
reforming, including the development of a European rapid-reaction 
force, and Venezuela - well, aspiring dictators may no longer fly the 
red flag, but the Communist rhetoric still sounds the same.

Also, Libya has opened up, there are civil protests in Syria (that 
would be yesterday), and a host of other positive changes around the 
world.

There's no benefit in not antagonizing dangerous people just because 
the fit may hit the shan.  Just in the last century, Churchill 
antagonized Hitler, MLK Jr. antagonized Bull Connor, Mandela 
antagonized the South African regime, Reagan antagonized the Soviets, 
Clinton antagonized Milosevic, and so on.  None of these people were in 
an easy position, and numerous dangers accompanied their principled 
stands against evil.  Still, the world is a better place for their 
confronting dangerous situations.

> <snip>
> I, too, think that most of the reaction to Bush has been nonsensical,
> more driven by knee-jerk emotion than by honest reflection. And I
> /really/ didn't like the way he took power in the states, with his 
> gucci
> wearing Republican thugs and their tactics, so I am not a Bush fan by a
> long freaking shot. I've given him a chance, I've tracked what he's 
> been
> doing, and I think it's time for him and his administration to go.

I'm nowhere near wealthy enough to wear Gucci, but I've been accused of 
being a Republican and plan to vote for the man in November.

Does that make me a thug?

> I only wish I knew what the Democrats' platform was. Maybe the 
> small-gov't
> Republican party will split off from the religious nut wing and the 
> rest
> of the folks who Dubya seems bent on catering to, and we can have a 
> real
> election instead. That'd be fun - I wonder what the proportions are? 
> How
> many Greens, versus old-school Federalists, versus mainstream 
> Democrats,
> versus right-wing nutballs?

I'm also Catholic - I accept Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and 
(attempt to) adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium.  Regardless of 
my (incredibly) numerous (and numbingly repetitive) sins, does that 
make me a "religious nut wing"?  Or are religious nut wings a 
vanishingly small percentage of the Republican base, while the vast 
majority of religious Americans are not religious nut wings?

Regards -