From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 22:55:57 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>
>>I don't care how many "wars" we lose. Bush and
>>company must go.
>>
>
> Well, Samantha, we already know that you'd like
> nothing more than to bow down, apologize, and
> surrender to the muslim world, so this is no real
> suprise.
>
As usual, you studiously and insultingly miss the point.
>
>> It is not a matter of "dislike". It is a matter
>>of the
>>greatest threat to American freedom and well-being
>>that has been
>>called "President". Do you actually like this man
>>who threatens
>>so much I thought you believed in?
>>
>
> Not at all. I considered him at the time of the
> election to be the lesser evil, Gore being a far
> greater threat. Furthermore, in comparing him to al
> Qaeda and other Islamists around the world, comparing
> him to Greenpeace and other luddites around the world,
> and comparing him to the EU/UN and other socialist
> governments around the world, I consider him to be a
> far lesser evil than any of these.
Let see. We have an Attorney General who is a known
ultra-fundie; a Secretary of the Interior who is of the "use it
before the second coming" school; a VP who is majorly embroiled
in large-scale corporate questionable practices; a President who
was not elected even after his brother did his best to rig
Florida in his favor; a Secretary of commerc controlling (among
other duties) the country's coastlines who is a major oilman; a
Secretary of Defense who is a super hawk; a Secretary of Energy
who once voted to abolish the department he now leads and his
majorly funded by the automotive industry; a Secreatary of
Health and Human Services who received funding from Philip
Morris and is majory anti-abortion (along with Ashcroft). This
is a short list but I think it makes a bit of slant toward
questioning whether we could possibly have been worse off if the
other guy had won.
Why on earth would you compare him to al Qaeda (well, other than
that his family has deep Saudi ties including to many Saudis who
are prime funders of Al Qaeda) or to various other evils in the
world. My remarks are aimed at his effect on this country and
his ability or disability to well care out the work of a US
President without failing to uphold the Constitution he is sworn
to uphold and defend. Comparing him to various other people
in very different positions hardly seems relevant.
>
> While I greatly dislike the drug laws, being able to
> smoke a doobie on occasion doesn't improve my civil
> liberties and lifestyle to anywhere near the same
> degree as my ability to freely pack heat when I feel
> it is warranted, and both Bush and Ashcroft have
> therefore done light years more good for my civil
> rights in the last year than any left wing
> administration or organization has ever, or will ever,
> accomplish.
>
Have they? I suppose as long as your 2nd Amendment is improved
a bit you will ignore direct assaults on the 4th, 5th, 8th and
several areas of the Constituion? Doesn't that seem just a tad
one-sided to you?
> These days I comply with the drug laws because it is a
> mandate of my job, enforced by random testing. I
> currently cannot afford to get any cloning done, so
> I'm not so worried about that, and when I do I'm
> likely to wish to keep it so private that the
> government will never find out about it anyways, since
> it's one of those things entirely outside the
> Constitutional powers of the feds, IMHO.
>
Right now Bush and company are happily ripping up the
Constitution, supposedly in the name of your "safety". So I
wouldn't count on them or their successors being much impressed
or bound by the Constitution. Especially since "we the people"
don't seem to even notice or much care.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:56 MST