Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] fury over WTC ads

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] fury over WTC ads
  • Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:50:14 -0500


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 -





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page