From: Avery on
Actually I have seen hundreds if not thousands of images of terrorism
over the past who knows how many years. How many images were there of
people jumping/falling from the New York towers? How many times did
we see Saddam Hussein falling through that trapdoor? We saw that not
too long after we saw "Shock and Awe" over the people of Bhagdad.

Remember the images of firemen carrying bodies of babies out of
that building in Oklahoma - Oh sorry, that was right wing,home grown,
"USA is great" terrorism. That probably should'nt count.

I still have burning memories of the Bali nightclub bombings, hundreds
of images of suicide bombings in Israel and Gaza. How about some
memories of the Spanish train bombs or the London bombings. And while
we are at it how about Paschedale, The Ardennes, The Somme, Dresden ,
Coventry, Changi , Burma Railroad, Hiroshima,Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mi
Lai.

Have you ever read anything (I'm tempted to stop there) about the
Catholic Church's Spanish Inquisition?

I have barely begun to touch on the totality of the images of
terrorism. You should not pick and choose.

Terrorism is , and always has been a political weapon.
How dare you suppose that only one side of the agenda partakes.



From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Aa-dnS6w8L_-kjrXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.250fe94890cf501f9897c8(a)news-east.giganews.com...
>> "Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
>> selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
>> Congress."
>> - Rassmussen Reports
>
> I wouldn't use the telephone book, but I would use the voter registration
> rolls, and I would pick two hundred people at random from all over the US,
> every couple of years, until I had about 600 people, and then they would
> run the country for 6 years each group, with the oldest group being
> replaced by a fresh 200 every two years. That way, we would get rid of all
> the crooked lawyers, and get a congress of real citizens, from every walk
> of life....Store keepers, fishermen, farmers, engineers, doctors,
> accountants, policemen, and yes, even an occasional lawyer. We'd have much
> better, and more honest, representation than we have right now, that's for
> sure.

Sounds like you want to go back to the old days when this was just how it
was done. You can make the case that this was how the founding fathers
envisioned the Congress. Now, it's full of lifetime officeholders, some of
whom could give a darn as to what their constituents want. It's time for
term limits. If anyone wants a reson for term limits, I'll give you two -
Barney Frank and Charles Rangel. These guys should be poster children for
term limits. I'd throw Ted Kennedy in there too but he's passed on.


From: mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH on
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

>
> Sounds like you want to go back to the old days when this was just how it
> was done. You can make the case that this was how the founding fathers
> envisioned the Congress. Now, it's full of lifetime officeholders, some of
> whom could give a darn as to what their constituents want. It's time for
> term limits. If anyone wants a reson for term limits, I'll give you two -
> Barney Frank and Charles Rangel. These guys should be poster children for
> term limits. I'd throw Ted Kennedy in there too but he's passed on.
>
>

Term limits won't work for Congress.

What would happen would be term limited puppets being played by the
real player behind the curtain.

The only cure is to vote them out early and often.

And keep a free press. Without Fox News we would be in really bad shape.

Doug McDonald
From: Neil Harrington on

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25109694840dbcee9897d5(a)news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <4aa6c94e$0$1631$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>,
> scharf.steven(a)geemail.com says...
>
>> >> Surely, you aren't suggesting that we "cut and run' are ya?
>> >
>> > I've never suggested this. I think victory in Afghanistan is
>> > essential.
>> > Fortunately, the new president appears to agree with me 100%.
>>
>> I think we need to define "victory." The Soviet Union realized that
>> Afghanistan was a hopeless case. Bush and his cronies paid far too
>> little attention to Afghanistan for political reasons, essentially
>> wasting eight years of effort and money. There needs to be a more
>> realistic plan.
>
> Yeah. Whew. I'm all ears. What *is* Obama's "plan?"

Obama does not make plans. He makes speeches and promises.

>
> Exactly.
>
> On anything.

Yes, but look at his inspiring slogans.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

YES WE CAN!

Both of them completely, absolutely, positively 100% devoid of any actual
meaning, but look at all the people they have INSPIRED!

Don't forget, Obama in one speech so inspired Chris Matthews that the latter
said, "I felt a thrill run up my leg!" Now that is really something. How
many professional news people get thrills running up their legs?


From: Neil Harrington on

<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:h88af1$ph2$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu...
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds like you want to go back to the old days when this was just how it
>> was done. You can make the case that this was how the founding fathers
>> envisioned the Congress. Now, it's full of lifetime officeholders, some
>> of whom could give a darn as to what their constituents want. It's time
>> for term limits. If anyone wants a reson for term limits, I'll give you
>> two - Barney Frank and Charles Rangel. These guys should be poster
>> children for term limits. I'd throw Ted Kennedy in there too but he's
>> passed on.
>
> Term limits won't work for Congress.

They might, but since they couldn't become law without Congress endorsing
the idea it is sort of moot.

>
> What would happen would be term limited puppets being played by the
> real player behind the curtain.
>
> The only cure is to vote them out early and often.

Hear, hear! . . . But easier said than done.

>
> And keep a free press. Without Fox News we would be in really bad shape.

Yes, Fox News and Matt Drudge and the rest of the blogs.

An op-ed in the Washington Times a few days ago pointed out that the good
old (and reliably Democrat) mainstream media so scrupulously avoided any
mention of the developing Van Jones scandal, that when he finally resigned
most people hadn't even heard of him.