Maintain a despotic reign of terror for 20 years over a country with the world's second largest oil supply, attack neighboring countries, use chemical weapons on a country you attacked and on your own population and support and harbor terrorists, and yes, there is a good chance they will come after you. Otherwise, you are safe for now.
In theory, a democracy could vote out the constitution and vote itself into a fascist state as its last act of democracy. How many people in this country understand that this is actually possible? There is a reason for the media to be "liberal" in a nature, and a definite purpose for the media to be a watchdog. Who else is going to do it if not the media? The administration is in power, to stay in power. The congress is in power, to stay in power. The Supreme court members are not subject to voting by the people, or a recall process. It is the nature of power to corrupt, anyone want to question that theory? If that is the case, it only makes sense for some institution in this country to continually take a suspicious perspective toward men and women, fragile ego driven creatures that we are, who hold positions of power, power that can corrupt, and can be easily used to manipulate the citizens. In times of fear among the people, it becomes even easier to manipulate and control information under the heading of "national security." So in times of fear, it becomes even more important for a free press and careful examination of the leadership to ensure they are not taking advantage of the situation. There is precedent historically for the abuse of power in this country, and in other countries. What harm does it do to keep vigil at the door of democracy, and let the leaders know that we are watching everything they do, with a healthy skepticism in the process of doing so? It keeps them honest. Without a vigilant press, we are cooked. Control the press, you control public opinion, you control the next election, you control everything. You call this liberal, I call it preservation of civil liberties, that if controlled end our concept of a democratic society. "So now if the President's national security policy is broadly accepted and seen as reasonable and necessary by most of the electorate, that is not only not good, but it is bad. It means we are only one step from a fascist dictatorship, which would be bad here but for some reason is seen as a good thing for Cuba." The issue is that if the national security policy is viewed reasonable by the electorate, because false and misleading information was given to support the agenda of the administration....well, Houston, we have a problem. Every administation should be transparent, and welcome scrutiny and skepticism by the electorate. If the adminstration is squeaky clean, the more we know, the more we will trust. As long as the administration is playing by the rules, they have nothing to fear, right?
Clinton? Gee AAA, I thought even though we disagree on politics, there was a level of respect between us. But now you accuse me, in your terms of having worked for SATAN??? Peace, RS You know, I think that even though we disagree on political issues, the issue of who is and who is not an asset to ET is an issue to give thought to. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I will make my personal (abridged version) list here anyway. Notice there are many of my favorite conservatives and liberals both on my "worthy contributors" list. In no particular order...(sorry for any omissions) Worthy Contributors: AAAintheBeltway axeman Madison Mr Subliminal OPTIONAL777 vulture alfonso aphexcoil Babak bobcathy1 bungrider candletrader daniel_m darkhorse Don Bright ElCubano goldenarm hapaboy Magister Ludi Magna marketsurfer max401 nitro stu tampa TM_Direct TriPack vladiator vvv WDGann GordonGekko contributors of occasional or questionable worth FasterPussycat FRuiTY PeBBLe traderfut2000 Harrytrader contributors of no worth MondoTrader mrmarket msfe wild thunderbolt fairplay non-contributors polluting even this list SmokeyMcpat (or whatever his name was) LongShot
Yes, a mistake. I forgot the "slash". And I forgot to have "Metooxx" on the list of worthwhile contributors. (sorry Metooxx). Peace, RS
I suppose that a response that you respect would have to consist mainly of a series of insults, alongside whatever non sequiturs I happened to find interesting or amusing at the moment. You repeatedly mention me personally in your posts - always while misspelling my screen-name - and yet you never offer even the simple courtesy of acknowledging the direct questions and basic arguments I put before you. You appear not even to have clicked on the link that I provided you, and that would have directed you to my detailed treatment of the Iran-Iraq material which you seem to consider so informative, and which you appear to be accusing me of avoiding. (Here's the link again, just in case this time you can find the strength and courage to click your mouse: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=268870#post268870) You also seem to be believe that I am somehow obligated to reply to whatever you happen to post, or re-post - whether a statement of your own or by someone else. I acknowledge no such obligation, least of all to an individual who shows little or no respect either to the discussion itself or to his fellow participants. It seems obvious to me that the reason you neither respond to nor acknowledge the specific arguments that I make and the evidence that I present, and instead attack me personally, is that you have no coherent responses to make. It's typical of your approach that, even after arguing about this topic for well more than half of a year on ET, you remain unable to state and stand behind any rational, workable alternative to the policy that you have so singlemindedly been attacking. For your information, that's the kind of thing that the grown-ups have to do when taking responsibility for the future of their countries. Maybe you know that, but maybe also you've learned that your policy choices and your defenses of them, if any, can also expose your ignorance and immaturity - as when you previously suggested that giving Iraq a huge sum of money might solve "the problem." Taking a realistic position on what should have been done, and what should still be done, would also force you to reveal where your real priorities are - not just your broad ideals, or your nebulous notions of what America "used to stand for," but what you'd really support and what you'd be willing to risk or sacrifice in order to expose or defeat or bring down the "Shrub&Co mafia" or whatever you call them. It's much easier just to attack, to throw around insults and conspiracy theories, to post and link whatever latest screed happens to inflame your emotions. Oh, and for the record, I hardly ever watch Fox News, not that I would feel any shame over it. I mostly just don't care for their style, though I sometimes catch Brit Hume's show or will tune in when they have a guest I'm interested in. And I did find Fox News a bit of a relief at the point during the war when virtually everyone else seemed convinced the whole enterprise was bogging down disastrously before the valiant opposition of the brave Saddam Fedayeen and foreign volunteers... Most of the same observers are now getting exercised about the WMD pseudo-issue. If they - or you - turn out to be right even on the facts - as opposed to the implications, which are a different matter altogether - it may well be the first time you've been right about anything of substance since this entire debate began. Hmmm... I wonder what's on Fox now... Maybe it'd be worth checking out after all...
non-contributor of no worth - not even worth mentioning in this list KymarFye - ET´s resident Wolfowitz/Perle clone, delivering Freddie N.´s cut & paste miracles
Puhleeeezzzzeeee! Criticism from the Cut & Paste king? Coming from you this is a classic, although not unexpected. Even your fellow anti-Bush/anti-Republican/anti-Conservative brethren find very little in you, if anything, to admire.