It's all so very nice, BUT

Palomar · 2002-08-03 12:54:11

The President of the US can destroy us all- ONE person has this power.

*No, the President doesn't wield this sort of power. Are you forgetting Congress and the Senate? Our Founding Fathers created a built-in checks and balances system to prevent this sort of abuse; ours is a 3-part governmental system [judicial, executive, and legislative].

On a slightly different note: The President can declare war...but these are only words UNLESS AND UNTIL the majority of the legislative branch of government [Senate and Congress] approve war -- then it becomes action.

By the way, did you all know that the mean age of the attendees of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 was 35 years old? So young! The white powdered wigs, so fashionable at the time, make one think they were all decrepit old geezers -- many people mistake those wigs for their real hair and hair color. James Madison was only 35. Some of the attendees [and signers of the Constitution] were in their mid- and late-20s; the youngest was 26 [and sometimes I chuckle to call them Founding "Fathers", when most were about my age and some even younger than I am now!]. Benjamin Franklin was the eldest member of this assemblage; in his early 80s at the time -- and by the standards of the day, health wise, he was ancient. George Washington was the 2nd eldest member. A really good book to read, if you're interested in the development of our Constitution, is _Miracle at Philadelphia_ by Catherine Drinker Bowen. It's not a "dry" read, so don't worry...Ms. Bowen spices up what could be a dry narrative with amusing anecdotes, tidbits of gossip, snipets of personality traits, faults, strengths, and foibles of these men, etc., etc. I think it is in this book wherein it is related to two of these men found themselves having to share a room; one complained that the room was too stuffy and insisted he always slept with the bedroom window open [I suppose there were no screens or mosquito netting at the time]; the other raised a ruckus and wanted the window kept closed. I know I read this somewhere; it was amusing. I'll try to look it up again [I read so much, so pardon my not recalling the exact source or the names of the parties involved in the Battle of the Open or Shut Window].

I am so grateful to Montesquieu, Francis Bacon, John Locke, and our Founding Fathers for having had wisdom and vision in their political ideals, and writing them down, which enabled the development of a system of government which led to the nation I enjoy living in, with all its freedoms and liberties. Our Founding Fathers built upon the ideas of Montesquieu, Bacon, and Locke, and admitted as much.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-05 11:05:44

*No, the President doesn't wield this sort of power. Are you forgetting Congress and the Senate?

Umm, Cindy, the President does wield exactly this power. Please look up "War Powers Act". If you do, you might realize that the President may deploy the military for 90 days without congressional approval. This has never been challenged by Congress, so the issue of "constuitionality" has never been addresed.

Also, the President dosen't "need" congressional approval for a nuclear strike, ever. Even if we accept that he does, the President may still act without the consent of Congress, which means the damage will already be done.

Our Founding Fathers created a built-in checks and balances system to prevent this sort of abuse; ours is a 3-part governmental system [judicial, executive, and legislative].

Believe me, I understand the system, and it is no longer the same system as our Foundaning Fathers intended. the entire legeslative branch with the Senate has been undermined- it is a glorified house of reps- not a forum for State representation as it was intended. The President MAKING legislation (they propose legislation)? Not what our fore fathers intended.

And AJ, you bore me.

You continue to claim that my logic supports your rantings... it does, you're right. You know why? Because it is a general argument regarding powers of the state. You however are finding fault with the powers I advocate by providing your own specfic criteria for when these powers, if granted, might lead to abuse. The idea of the State killing innocent poeople was never addressed- it was simply stating a power of the government, not when that power would be used and why.

Would you havr the same problem if we change the situation in which the power is used? Let's say it is a city full of war criminals? Maybe a jail that has rioted. You see, I made a general statement regarding power- and now you look to fill in the story with your own version of how this power might be abused- and I agree, you make a valid point that it might be abused under those circumstances you have delineated. That being said, the power itself is not really the question, but the manner in which it is used- just likethe current powers our government has. Our government has the right to kill individuals or groups of people- yet the abuse only occurs depending on how the power is exercised. What you try to dance around is this central point (either you are an ass playing games, or you are just incredibly stupid not to see the subtle difference).

That's why I keep popinting out your iditotic game, it's you playing by yourself. I have seen countless arguments done up better than what you are attempting right now, and much more subtly.

Either you hold that the death penalty is wrong, which is the POWER I am really addressing, or you don't (that's why I keep goign back to that point). When and how it is used is immaterial to me since anyone can argue that something is just or unjust- it is all dependant upon point of view, i.e subjective.

Killing innocent people is wrong, but is state sanctioned killing okay? If you read my posts, that is what I am addressing- I have never given the specficss becuase again, it is pointless to debate the merits on each individual situation- I tire of those arguments becuase it proves nothing.

If it makes you feel better, you are right. Are you happy now? Do you feel better? Will you let the grown ups talk now?

Palomar · 2002-08-05 12:29:46

*No, the President doesn't wield this sort of power. Are you forgetting Congress and the Senate?
Umm, Cindy, the President does wield exactly this power. Please look up "War Powers Act". If you do, you might realize that the President may deploy the military for 90 days without congressional approval. This has never been challenged by Congress, so the issue of "constuitionality" has never been addresed.
Also, the President dosen't "need" congressional approval for a nuclear strike, ever. Even if we accept that he does, the President may still act without the consent of Congress, which means the damage will already be done.

*Clark, if we are talking strictly about the President of the USA having the power to destroy the USA and its citizens [sans external war, sans nuclear exchange with a hostile nation] which is how I interpreted your comment, no -- he does not have the power to decide "I will destroy the USA and its citizens." He has the power to engage in warfare, or to attack and declare war on another nation which may inadvertently wind up destroying us all...yes, that is true; but he is not a dictator with the power to wantonly and maliciously target US cities and communities for destruction by its own government.

Now you will ask "why would the President want to destroy his own nation?" He wouldn't. But you are trying to equate a gov't on Mars having the right to "throw the switch" and kill citizens of a colony with the President having the right to directly condemn US citizens to death via attacks on US communities and cities by its own gov't...he does not have this power.

I'm answering in the CONTEXT of how you present your argument.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-05 12:49:59

Clark, if we are talking strictly about the President of the USA having the power to destroy the USA and its citizens [sans external war, sans nuclear exchange with a hostile nation] which is how I interpreted your comment, no -- he does not have the power to decide "I will destroy the USA and its citizens."

What would happen to the USA if the President decided to launch nuclear missles at Russia?
The President does have the power to order a first strike.

He has the power to engage in warfare, or to attack and declare war on another nation
which may inadvertently wind up destroying us all...yes, that is true; but he is not a dictator with the power to wantonly and maliciously target US cities and communities for destruction by its own government.

True, and I never stated that would be a power for the Martian State. However, the President can order a plane full innocent civilians shot down if deemed neccessary, or even if it is deemed a "plausible threat". The President may order a town destroyed if neccessary due to biological or chemical contamination. Now, these are legitimate reasons for the use of the power, but that is all I am pointing out for Mars- powers of the state, not when and if the use of the power is legitimate.

But you are trying to equate a gov't on Mars having the right to "throw the switch" and kill citizens of a colony with the President having the right to directly condemn US citizens to death via attacks on US communities and cities by its own gov't...he does not have this power.

Yes, he does. The President does have the power to destroy whole communities of people if it is deemed neccessary. Plane full of people is the best modern day example.

Just so we don't dance.

Can a President order the death of innocent people?
If you say no, please explain the role of F-15's in the sky with shoot to destroy orders for any commercial airplanes that do not comply with their orders?
If you say yes, please explain why it is acceptable for the US president to have the power to order the destruction of innocent civilians, but not a Martian Central authority.

I am more than willing to agree that the USE of this power may be abused, or that the power itself is wrong- but debating the specfic circumstances on each case that the power might be used is unproductive (IMO).

I await direct answers and an explanation if you can.

Palomar · 2002-08-05 20:16:50

Me: Clark, if we are talking strictly about the President of the USA having the power to destroy the USA and its citizens [sans external war, sans nuclear exchange with a hostile nation] which is how I interpreted your comment, no -- he does not have the power to decide "I will destroy the USA and its citizens."

Clark: What would happen to the USA if the President decided to launch nuclear missles at Russia?
The President does have the power to order a first strike.

*Yes, first-strike against a hostile foreign power; I know that. I indicated the same in my earlier post.

Me: He has the power to engage in warfare, or to attack and declare war on another nation which may inadvertently wind up destroying us all...yes, that is true; but he is not a dictator with the power to wantonly and maliciously target US cities and communities for destruction by its own government.

Clark: True, and I never stated that would be a power for the Martian State.

*It seems to me you did.

Clark: However, the President can order a plane full innocent civilians shot down if deemed neccessary, or even if it is deemed a "plausible threat"

*Post-9/11, yes.

Clark: Now, these are legitimate reasons for the use of the power, but that is all I am pointing out for Mars- powers of the state, not when and if the use of the power is legitimate.

Me: But you are trying to equate a gov't on Mars having the right to "throw the switch" and kill citizens of a colony with the President having the right to directly condemn US citizens to death via attacks on US communities and cities by its own gov't...he does not have this power.

Clark: Yes, he does. The President does have the power to destroy whole communities of people if it is deemed neccessary. Plane full of people is the best modern day example.

*A plane full of people isn't a community.

Clark: Can a President order the death of innocent people?
If you say no, please explain the role of F-15's in the sky with shoot to destroy orders for any commercial airplanes that do not comply with their orders?

*Since 9/11, yes.

Clark: If you say yes, please explain why it is acceptable for the US president to have the power to order the destruction of innocent civilians, but not a Martian Central authority.

*The only power the President of the USA has to destroy innocent civilians that I know of pertains to erratic flight patterns of commercial airliners SINCE 9/11, such as the ones used in the terror attacks of 9/11, wherein planes traveling westward [to Ohio or California] suddenly made sharp U-turns without radioing as to why they were doing this. But keep in mind that just within the past 1-1/2 months a small airplane violated White House air space and was not shot down; it was intercepted by fighter pilots and commanded to land, but it was NOT shot down. A similar incident preceded it, with the same results -- the plane wasn't shot down.

You made a draconian statement, Clark, i.e. a colony failing to comply with certain rules or standards or whatever should have their oxygen, water, etc., cut off until such time as they would come back into compliance. You got your rear-end bitten for it by a few people here. The difference between a Marsian colony having its life-support systems shut down for a violation of rules/standards is very different, IMO, from erratic airplane flight behaviors [ala 9/11] and communities being contaminated by biological and/or chemical warfare agents. You can't negotiate or open channels of diplomacy with fanatical terrorist hijackers who have shut off the radios and stomped on the accelerator to smash into a building. You can't negotiate or open channels of diplomacy with a biological or chemical scourge [most of which are air- and water-borne, and thus wiping out a community probably wouldn't do any good anyway--in fact, such a measure may do more harm than good; people down-wind are already in danger, why chance spreading the contamination with weapons of destruction? And how could a nuclear bomb or something similar HELP the situation any??]. But the Marsian powers-that-be CAN attempt to negotiate and open channels of diplomacy with an noncompliant colony, or at least try. There are many options in this regard.

The only option you gave was "throwing the switch" on the colonists and depriving them of air, water, heating, etc.

I'm not interested in getting into a long-winded debate about this matter. Anytime a severe, extreme measure is made official and is accepted as "the right thing to do," the floodgates are open for all sorts of abuse.

You came off as being severe, draconian, and offered only one option. Again, you got your arse bit in the process. Maybe you should have considered LESS severe/drastic measures to be taken against a rogue colony and introduced them as well into your response.

::shrugs::

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-06 05:33:35

Cindy: "Again, you got your arse bit in the process."

Please excuse this totally off-topic question but I thought that all Americans used the term "ass" rather than "arse". You know, as in "let's kick ass!"
I'm intrigued that you used what I always thought was a more anglo-celtic form.
Have I been labouring under a misapprehension that all Americans use the term "ass"?

Again ... apologies for this side-tracking !
I'm genuinely curious.

clark · 2002-08-06 08:00:05

*Yes, first-strike against a hostile foreign power; I know that. I indicated the same in my earlier post.

Yet you maintain that the president dosen't have the power to kill us all. If the President has the power to launch a first strike, thus ensuring a retalitory strike which will evaporate large numbers of innocent civilians in both countries, how can you hold that the President does not have the power to destroy the USA and its citizens? You are in effect saying he has the power to effectively do something which you claim he can't. It dosen't make sense.

Clark: True, and I never stated that would be a power for the Martian State.
*It seems to me you did.

Did I? Can you point to the post? Did I state that the central authority would have the authority to wipe out innocent people indiscrimanetly? No. However, the power that i am discussing is the same powers of state that are executive branch in the USA now enjoy.

Clark: However, the President can order a plane full innocent civilians shot down if deemed neccessary, or even if it is deemed a "plausible threat"
*Post-9/11, yes.

No. You are wrong Cindy. The President has always had the power to order a plane full of americans shot down. He is one of the only people who can do that. This was not some special privliage after 9/11.

Me: But you are trying to equate a gov't on Mars having the right to "throw the switch" and kill citizens of a colony with the President having the right to directly condemn US citizens to death via attacks on US communities and cities by its own gov't...he does not have this power.

If the Supreme Court orders that the US president deploy troops to enforce a ruling, what must the President do? What happened in Alabama in the 60's? What happened at Kent State? The Executive does not have the right nor the power to kill wantonly and without purpose, but then I never stated that. The Executive does have the power to kill though- and this power is legitmazed through a judical process that prevents or mitigates abuse.

*A plane full of people isn't a community.

No, but it is a good analogy to Mars, and to the example we have been discussing. Shooting down a plane would take innocent life with it, along with the corrupt life. The same with "throwing a switch" may lead to the death of innocent people within the city. Why is it acceptable in one instance for innocent people to die, but not another?

*The only power the President of the USA has to destroy innocent civilians that I know of pertains to erratic flight patterns of commercial airliners SINCE 9/11, such as the ones used in the terror attacks of 9/11, wherein planes traveling westward [to Ohio or California] suddenly made sharp U-turns without radioing as to why they were doing this.

Nuclear strikes, shooting down planes, bombings, etc. There are a whole slew of ways the President can destroy innocent life- many more ways if that life is not American...

But keep in mind that just within the past 1-1/2 months a small airplane violated White House air space and was not shot down; it was intercepted by fighter pilots and commanded to land, but it was NOT shot down.

Which is an example of how a State has a power that it does not use- the same a Martian government may have the power to terminate life support, but never or rarely uses it. I would expect that something like that would be used as the last resort- the same as shooting down a plane is the last resort. Everyone else has only sought to villify me by putting their own version of abuse into this argument.

You made a draconian statement, Clark, i.e. a colony failing to comply with certain rules or standards or whatever should have their oxygen, water, etc., cut off until such time as they would come back into compliance.

What should be done if a city in the US begins enslaving people? What level of force should we all be prepared to take? Please notice the word "prepared"-m not what level of force will we take, or how will we gradually increase the pressure to comply with the general standards, but what level of force must we be prepared to take for a final resolution? That's my point, and I stand by it.

You got your rear-end bitten for it by a few people here.

No. I have watched as people allowed their own personal feelings cloud the actual discussion at hand. I've never once stated the things that I am said to support. What I have said is that a Martian State should have the power to terminate life support, after a judical review of some sort. I never said when it would be used, or how- that was made up by other people. We can all agree that killing innocent people is wrong- but that in and of itself does not address the REAL ISSUE!!! The real issue is the POWER of the state- IE State sanctioned murder.

If what I have been saying revolts you, then the death penalty itself must revolt you. If you hate the idea of a government with thwe ability to destroy groups of people, then look at what happens here in America- look at what YOU allow in your own country, your own government.

If you say, not here- it would never happen like that... check out the black soldiers given syphillis by Uncle Sam. Maybe those other men injected with radiation by Uncle Sam. WACO, thanks Uncle Sam.The downing of an Iranian passenger jet by US military forces in the Persian Gulf...

The difference between a Marsian colony having its life-support systems shut down for a violation of rules/standards is very different, IMO, from erratic airplane flight behaviors [ala 9/11] and communities being contaminated by biological and/or chemical warfare agents.

So then there are no standards or rules that are worth killing or dying for? If there are, then that serves to justify the power- if not, then I will accept why you don't agree with what i am saying. Again, I never dilineated which rules would be violated- the closest I came was stating that there would be some Bill of Rights or something to that effect- do you feel that our Bill of rights is not worth killing for to enforce the standards dileniated by them?

But the Marsian powers-that-be CAN attempt to negotiate and open channels of diplomacy with an noncompliant colony, or at least try. There are many options in this regard.

How and where have I denied a Martian State this ability? Just becuase they have the power to do something dosen't mean they do it, or do it right away. We have nuclear weapons- do we fire them whenever we disagree with someone? No. but it does remain an OPTION.

The only option you gave was "throwing the switch" on the colonists and depriving them of air, water, heating, etc.

That is not an option, that is a level of force you are prepared to take to enforce your will- in this case, Societies.

Anytime a severe, extreme measure is made official and is accepted as "the right thing to do," the floodgates are open for all sorts of abuse.

I agree with this statment. What is more severe then the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, why do you oppose what I propose? the death penalty is handed out singularly- yet innocent people have died. Is that okay? Are a few innocent lives lost acceptable as long as "most of em" are guilty? If so, what is wrong with wiping out an entire city?

The issue I am getting at, and which most seem to fail to grasp is regarding the State's POWER to kill. It is hypocrisy to claim that life is sacred, yet allow for murder in some instances. There are only two sides to this issue- either you support the death penalty- which means you support state sanctioned murder- which means that you accept that the State can determine when you die if it has reason. OR you are against the death penalty, you do not accept that the State has the right or power to murder you or anyone else.

Everything else is just rationalization, justification and simple hypocrisy.

The power i have delinated is extrapolated simply from the State's power to kill. The Eurpoeans are ahead of the US on this one.

Palomar · 2002-08-06 08:11:55

Cindy: "Again, you got your arse bit in the process."
Please excuse this totally off-topic question but I thought that all Americans used the term "ass" rather than "arse". You know, as in "let's kick ass!"
I'm intrigued that you used what I always thought was a more anglo-celtic form.
Have I been labouring under a misapprehension that all Americans use the term "ass"?
Again ... apologies for this side-tracking !
I'm genuinely curious.

*Truth be told Shaun, I'm something of an Anglophile. I used to get in trouble in school for spelling things the British way rather than the American way, i.e. "theatre" instead of "theater", "calibre" instead of "caliber", etc. The teachers would warn me they'd mark it as an error "next time" and to spell it "right" hereafter. I suppose this tendency comes from having read a lot of English literature very young. If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I don't doubt I've lived a few lives at least in Jolly Olde England.

Besides, "arse" sounds nicer than "ass" [the latter sounds too vulgar].

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-06 08:35:29

Me: But the Marsian powers-that-be CAN attempt to negotiate and open channels of diplomacy with an noncompliant colony, or at least try. There are many options in this regard.

Clark: How and where have I denied a Martian State this ability?

*You didn't SUGGEST it. You simply made a draconian pronouncement that all life-support systems should be cut off, "end of report."

Me: The only option you gave was "throwing the switch" on the colonists and depriving them of air, water, heating, etc.

Clark: That is not an option. that is a level of force you are prepared to take to enforce your will- in this case, Societies.

*Watching you try to back-paddle out of the severe and drastic measures you'd prescribe be taken against a colony is getting amusing, Clark.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-06 09:16:59

Clark: How and where have I denied a Martian State this ability?
*You didn't SUGGEST it. You simply made a draconian pronouncement that all life-support systems should be cut off, "end of report."

True, and then YOU and others filled in the rest, and then hold me accountable for the things I didn't say. Would a statement that the State should have the power to kill people be construed that I support the State killing all people in all situations since I didn't dileniate how and in what way this power would be use? That is effec tively what you and others are doing.

I am not back peddling. I am unfortunelty having to explain something that I had hoped was all too apparent because you think that i am saying something I am not.

The simple fact of the matter is that I stripped all the crap away we call "justification" for powers of the State and put it in very frank terms- I did this so we could all see what exactly it is I am talking about.

I could have easily said: "the martian State should maintain life support control and in the advent that it is deemed neccessary for the protection of the State, or the life of a greater number of people within Society, the State should have the power to terminate life support when it is deemed prudent and in the best interest of Society."

That is a pretty way to say, the State should have the power to terminate life support. However, it serves to hide the true issue- it serves to rationalize the act of handing over a large amount of power to a central authority.

*Watching you try to back-paddle out of the severe and drastic measures you'd prescribe be taken against a colony is getting amusing, Clark.

Laugh then. I still stand by my statements becuase it is a dileniation of powers of the state. the same as saying: The State has the power to search people. The State has the power confiscate property. The State has the power to restrict your movement. The State has the power to censure your voice. The State has the power to seperate you from your children.

It is not backpeddling, it is stripping down the issues around powers of the state from the justification and rationalization we go through in order to make it acceptable.

We say killing is wrong.
But we also say killing is okay if the person deserves it.
We say killing innocent people is never justified.
But we also say killing innocent people for a greater good is justified.

If you think that the death penalty is wrong, that the State should not have this power, then I can understand your disagreement with the POWER of the State- since it is never justified. However, if you hold that the death penalty is okay, then you accept that state sanctioned murder is okay- you then must by neccessity (unless you prefer hypocrisy) support what I am suggesting as a power of state for Mars.

Which is it? Unless you can explain how you can justify theact of the death penalty, but not the power for the state.

Palomar · 2002-08-06 14:49:28

Unless you can explain how you can justify theact of the death penalty

*I've never said a thing about the death penalty.

Please be careful in the wording of your posts; you are inadvertently insinuating I've said something relative to this specific issue, which I did not. You may not have intended to do this, but readers new to the forum or just now following the thread may get the impression I'm pro-death penalty or have said something to that effect.

I've not said anything about the death penalty.

Me: Watching you try to back-paddle out of the severe and drastic measures you'd prescribe be taken against a colony is getting amusing, Clark.

Clark: Laugh then. I still stand by my statements becuase it is a dileniation of powers of the state. the same as saying: The State has the power to search people. The State has the power confiscate property. The State has the power to restrict your movement. The State has the power to censure your voice. The State has the power to seperate you from your children.

*Here's the problem I have with you, Clark: You always go for the extreme negative "solution" and you always seem to somehow think that a Rousseauan "Will of the Society" society will take extreme and drastic measures. A colony is getting spunky and disobedient? You want to throw the switch and cut off their life support. Nature takes its course and a couple beget a child [no birth control method is 100% sure, apart from abstinence], though it's against the rules for them to have another child, or just a child at all, and so you state the child should be taken away from its parents. Why do you always opt for the most drastic and harsh alternatives, and why do you assume your Marsian Rousseauean "Will of the Society" society would go in that direction anyhow? Rousseau may have given up his 5 children for adoption [how ironic, considering...], but he was in later years a great advocate of family, breast-feeding, and etc. He'd probably be mortified to hear you suggest a child should be forcibly taken from its parents and your using his ideals to promote such drasticness.

I don't believe anyone is twisting your words around or trying to make you look bad here. You always go for the jugular on very sensitive issues. Why is that? You seem to want to justify your views of a gov't on Mars by comparing it to happenstances here on Earth, AS IF the future Marsian gov't should model itself on whatever is harsh and drastic on Earth...or as if such a thing cannot or should not be avoided.

You seem to promote the harsh, the drastic, the severe, and the punishing. You're responsible for what you post here, not me or anyone else. You also cannot control how others view, interpret, or react to your posts. Maybe you should stop a moment and consider what I'm saying here.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-06 15:09:33

*I've never said a thing about the death penalty.

I never said you did either! And if you notice, all my questions asking you what your stance is imply that you haven't said anything about wether or not you support the death penalty.

Please be careful in the wording of your posts; you are inadvertently insinuating I've said something relative to this specific issue, which I did not.

I am quite careful in the wording of my posts- and I might point out that you and others have been doing the same thing to me that you now suggest that I am doing.

The simple fact of the matter is that I was addressing the issue of the legitimacy of the state sanctioned murder, i.e the death penalty. I was trying to discuss this issue by reducing it to its most basic form, the one of power of the state- the very act itself. invariably, if history is any lesson, mankind can rationalize and justify the most barbaric of actions for any number of reasons, real or imagined.

I never suggested that innocent people be executed alongside guilty people, yet you assume so becuase you imagine the actual process of what i have been discussing- yet that act of imagining the prcess forces you to fill in the gaps and say "what about the innocent people" ad nausem. Well, considering I never delienated the situation under which the power would be exercised, I can easily reply that it is used only on cities devoid of innocent life, or as an action of last resort. But with each reply, with each explanation of "boundaries" for the fair and legitimate use of the power we act to rationalize the very power itself- the point where we say it is OK to do something becuase we feel it has justification is the point where we have agreed to hand the entire power over to the state.

If I say that the State should have the power to censure people, everyone would jump down my throat, claiming I believe in the suppresion of speech. However, if I say that the State should have the power to censure people if what they say poses a threat to life or property, then most people would shrig and say, yeah, sounds fair! What we see then is the acceptance of the same thing, depending on how it is presented. If I TWIST the words, or provide some modicum of justification, then the debate rages over the issue of "justification" (wether or not it is okay to censure people in this situation, but not this one, etc), but the argument never deals with the real issue of wether or not the State should have the power to begin with- if you argueabout the justification then you implictly accept that the State should have the power, you just disagree on when it should be allowed to use that power.

That's why AJ is full of it. That's why I keep asking you for your stance on the death penalty- it is the heart of what I am discussing.

You may think deconstruction is misled, but believe me, it allows you to see many more things much more clearly.

clark · 2002-08-06 16:02:17

*I don't have a stance on the death penalty. I'm undecided about it.

Do you feel that it is acceptable for the State to commit a premeditated murder?

If you accept that there are circumstances which warrant the application of death to an individual by the State, then you do support the act of State sanctioned premeditated murder.

If you accept that there are some instances where the death penalty is warranted as a means of detterent and punishment, then you accept that the State may determine what actions warrant the response.

If you accept that State sanctioned murder as a legitimate act and power of the State, you accept that the State may murder you if it is deemed neccessary.

The key words are "circumstances", "some instances", and "deemed neccessary". This is the area of rationalization, of justification, of blind acceptance. It is the gray area we live in- the one where we argue about when it is appropriate to use the Power, to apply the action. Yet what happens is we never address the issue of whether or not the State should have the power to begin with.

And the issue of the death penalty is black and white. Either the State has the right to kill individuals, or it does not. To say that the State has the right to kill people in certain instances, under certain circumstances, or when it is neccessary only serve to further hypocrisy and allow for the corruption of the 'legitimate" use of the power.

It used to be that people were sentenced to death for capital crimes. Now we hand down the same sentence for some non-capital offenses. It is the death by a thousand paper cuts that will ultimelty undo our liberty and our ideals.

Justification and rationalization are the means we employ inorder to accept certain practices to make life more ordely- but rationalization and justification are merely subjective judgments that vary with the wind of time, culture and history.

Either it's okay to take anothers life or it ain't. Where is the middle ground? Where can you be undecided?
???

clark · 2002-08-06 16:28:48

A colony is getting spunky and disobedient? You want to throw the switch and cut off their life support.

Again, I never delineated the circumstances that would warrant the use of the power- that is wholly imagined on your part. You assume "spunky"- please site where I said that people getting "spunky" are killed or should be! You won't find it becuase it was made up by others.

Nature takes its course and a couple beget a child [no birth control method is 100% sure, apart from abstinence], though it's against the rules for them to have another child, or just a child at all, and so you state the child should be taken away from its parents.

Put this in context of the discussion- the parents have an unplanned child, which may endanger the entire colony (who knows what the situation is, but assuming that they have reproduction restrictions in place, we can surmise at least there is some legitimate reason for those restrictions)- I also ammended that statement further by further providding some measn of judicial oversight to review those instance where a no-fault accidental birth takes place. Again, I tried to strip away all of the damn justifications that bog down most discussions and looked at simple powers of the State.

Why do you always opt for the most drastic and harsh alternatives,

Becuase Mars is harsh, and living there will be nothing but drastic. I suggest you imagine the realirty of what living on Mars will be like for 10 minutes. Imagine living in a small office building where every door, window, and wall is a potential door to death from the outside. I suggest you imagine all of the anonymous people you interact with on a day to day basis and imagine each and everyone of them being able to kill you through any myriad of ways.

Imagine your life dependant upon machines for everything. Imagine a power failure that means death, not inconvienance. Imagine having a very limited space to live in, and any extra space must be created through work- not by simply walking down the road. Imagine having to provide all of your basic resources- like air and water or power- and if any ONE of these things fails, you die. Imagine being surrounded by an environment that will kill you instantly given the slightest mistake.

Now, think about the historical reality of liberty versus saftey. Personal liberty of the kind we enjoy on planet earth would be detrimental to any colony in space for the simple reason that people are stupid, and all it takes is one stupid person to ruin the party for all of us.

You want to put children into this environment, forget any concept of personal liberty as basic biologocal drives shut down any consideration of liberty when offspring are involved (mother bear)

and why do you assume your Marsian Rousseauean "Will of the Society" society would go in that direction anyhow?

LOL. You fail to understand Rosseau. His argument do not support my arguments. He didn't make an argument in Social Contract, he simply described the method by which people form associations and how to make those associations endure. Rosseau can support any argument becuase he said nothing- he described a process- function, not form.

I believe the Martians themselves will come to the conclusions I have for the simple reason of Environment. I believed in the libertarian ideal of mars until I started thinking about what life would be like in a vacum.

He'd probably be mortified to hear you suggest a child should be forcibly taken from its parents

Sometimes it needs to happen- I support this power of the State- I disagree in its application sometimes though. I'm sure you agree with this statement as well.

Byron · 2002-08-06 19:23:16

I believe the Martians themselves will come to the conclusions I have for the simple reason of Environment. I believed in the libertarian ideal of mars until I started thinking about what life would be like in a vacum.

Ditto to me as well....I've thought that the libertarian ideal of Mars was the way to go, until I really pondered what it was going to be like on Mars, at least in the early going. Sorry to say, it ain't going to happen.... More than anything else, the environment is going to dictate how people will live on Mars. As the preservation of life rates higher than liberty or "happiness", conditions on a future Martain settlement will not be a Utopian paradise..at least not for a while.

While I struggle with the issue of captial punishment, or any "punishment" in general...I also realize that it's easy enough to think of they way things "should be" here on Earth...which certainly is something that won't apply on Mars. Just living on Mars will be an extremely drastic step for *anyone* to take...and I would hope that anyone that has hopes of becoming a member of a future Martian settlement will accept the fact that their entire way of life will be drastically affected by the conditions of the Martian environment...which will include the limitation of freedoms and privilages that we tend to take for granted here on Earth, such as being able to have children at will.

I would also like to add that although we may not like what clark has to say..I do think it's important to listen to so-called "extreme" positions, such as the ones that he has mentioned on this board. Just because we may not "like" it doesn't mean that we shouldn't tune it out either...the bottom line is that while is Earth is forgiving (sometimes, anyway..lol), Mars will not be, under any circumstance. If we want to live on Mars, we may indeed have to take such drastic steps as the licensing of children or the closing down of a settlement. Just because something "sucks" doesn't mean we should ignore it...ignorance will be the death of anyone that chooses to live on Mars. I may be unsure of a great number of things, but I am certain about that one...LOL...

B

Palomar · 2002-08-07 10:01:26

You want to put children into this environment, forget any concept of personal liberty as basic biologocal drives shut down any consideration of liberty when offspring are involved (mother bear)

*No, I don't. You apparently didn't understand my position on the original topic. Go back and re-read what I said. You are misconstruing what I said on this matter, which is all documented at this message board.

And also, I'm quite sure I understand Rousseau just fine.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-07 10:29:00

I would also like to add that although we may not like what clark has to say..I do think it's important to listen to so-called "extreme" positions, such as the ones that he has mentioned on this board. Just because we may not "like" it doesn't mean that we shouldn't tune it out either...

*There are extreme positions, and then there are the WAYS in which the extreme position is presented. IMO, Clark likes to equivocate; he can become insulting and/or demeaning when disagreed with; he will distort what one says in order to further his own line of argument, or toss in an unrelated line of argument for what only appears to be purposes of confusion [but he will not tolerate the former when he perceives it is being done to him, such as his recent exchange with AJ--and *NO*, I'm *NOT* accusing AJ of having done this]; and his deconstructionalist ala Jacques Derrida stance gives him, or so he obviously thinks, the justification to equivocate, hedge, contradict himself, play one tactic against another, etc., etc. The ends justify the means, and so long as he wins an argument, or thinks he's winning, that's all that matters. This is how I've come to view his methods of debate.

I'm checking out of the dance. I don't play games. I think I'm at least consistent and intellectually honest in both my views AND how I present them.

And Clark, don't ask me to "please point out how I've done these things." It'd be the same thing as a blind man asking me to give him the gift of sight.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-07 15:03:54

Hmmm. I take the "extreme position"? What has been extreme in anything that I have said?

Have I called for the slaughter of innocent people? No. I called for the State to have the power to shut off life support when it is deemed neccessary, after a judicial review.

Have I called for people to not be allowed to have children? No. I called for regulation of reproduction to provide stability to a Martian colony by a central coordinating body. That is not a denial of reproduction, it is a regulation of WHEN you reproduce- the same concept as regulating when a person can have a sexual relationship (18+).

The issue of burial of dead people? How is it extreme to simply state that Society- the Group- The COMMON GOOD can override the wishes of a dead person? How is that an extreme position?

The use of drugs on Mars? How is my stance extreme in stating that there should be no use of recreational drugs on Mars for the simple fact that it is a needless risk to life and multi-billions worth of property?

Am I extreme in stating that there should be no laws codifying a persons right to kill themselves? I fail to understand how that can be considered extreme when it operates from the fact that we shouldn't have laws which could be used to prevent intervention- creating a law that guareente's a right to die means that police and their like would be required to help, not hinder someone trying to take their own life.

and his deconstructionalist ala Jacques Derrida stance gives him, or so he obviously thinks, the justification to equivocate, hedge, contradict himself, play one tactic against

Contradict myself? Where? I never contradict myself- Either or recant, or explain how my statments or my posts are being misconstrued.

The ends do not justify the means, and I am not looking to "win" an argument. However, i believe I can hold my own in an argument for the simple reason that the positions I take are my own. All the bull aside, I don't depend upon any philospher or philosphy to think for me.

Enlightenment may work for you Cindy, but what will it tell you about life on Mars? Rosseau dosen't give me anything other than a style of writing- of presenting ideas, that's it. Derrida and deconstruction don't tell me how life on Mars is going to be- or even how it should be- it only gives me a different perspective with which to evaluate ideas. Philosphy is a tool to understand- it is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Maybe you dislike me becuase of the way I say things, but I am also willing to bet that it has to do with WHAT i am saying.

The fact of the matter is that I AM RIGHT, which is a disturbing reality to accept, even for me. If what I say is true, or even has the possibility of being true (and there has yet to be ONE person who has shown how it could be otherwise) it renders the dream of space and Mars for many, dead.

After all, who wants to go to space to live in a self-made prison?

Humans to Mars will probably always make sense- Humanity on mars- why? Look at the result.

30 some odd years after we land on the moon we now have an international space station with 3 people on it in LEO. Why? Economics? Political Will? Technological hurdles? No.

the problem with us living in space is US. That's why we are not on the moon- we have the technology for it- everyone keeps pointing out how we can do this or that if only we had the politcal will or the economic incentive. What you never here though is maybe living in space is just an incredibly bad idea... period.

Cobra Commander · 2002-08-08 11:07:50

Have I called for the slaughter of innocent people? No. I called for the State to have the power to shut off life support when it is deemed neccessary, after a judicial review.

There are two ways to do what you propose.
One: Dome-A threatens to destroy/secede/or takes hostages from Dome-B. Dome -B, after the vaunted "judicial review", shuts down Dome-A's life support. Unless every single resident of Dome-A is part of the plot, state murder of innocent people is the result. The comparison to a hijacked airliner is misleading in that an aircraft can be used as a weapon to kill far more people than are on the aircraft. You can't ram two pressurized domes together, anyone who takes control of one can only kill those inside. Shutting off life support kills everyone inside while preventing nothing, so what is being protected?
Two: In order to avoid killing innocents, police forces are sent in to evacuate them. In this case the whole argument becomes irrelevant because you already have cops on the scene. Apprehend the offenders, or if that is too difficult, shoot them. It's mundane and doesn't take advantage of the Martian enviroment, but it works and it doesn't needlessly kill bystanders.
Shutting off life support is not a logical extension of current methods of capital punishment and it is not a question of efficiency. Doing so is laziness at best and barbaric tyranny at worst.
Also, for the record, I strongly support the death penalty.

Cobra Commander · 2002-08-08 11:10:13

Have I called for the slaughter of innocent people? No. I called for the State to have the power to shut off life support when it is deemed neccessary, after a judicial review.

There are two ways to do what you propose.
One: Dome-A threatens to destroy/secede/or takes hostages from Dome-B. Dome -B, after the vaunted "judicial review", shuts down Dome-A's life support. Unless every single resident of Dome-A is part of the plot, state murder of innocent people is the result. The comparison to a hijacked airliner is misleading in that an aircraft can be used as a weapon to kill far more people than are on the aircraft. You can't ram two pressurized domes together, anyone who takes control of one can only kill those inside. Shutting off life support kills everyone inside while preventing nothing, so what is being protected?
Two: In order to avoid killing innocents, police forces are sent in to evacuate them. In this case the whole argument becomes irrelevant because you already have cops on the scene. Apprehend the offenders, or if that is too difficult, shoot them. It's mundane and doesn't take advantage of the Martian enviroment, but it works and it doesn't needlessly kill bystanders.
Shutting off life support is not a logical extension of current methods of capital punishment and it is not a question of efficiency. Doing so is laziness at best and barbaric tyranny at worst.
Also, for the record, I strongly support the death penalty.

Cobra Commander · 2002-08-08 17:38:24

Hmm, glitch.
posted twice in case anyone missed it the first time, I guess.

clark · 2002-08-09 08:18:48

One: Dome-A threatens to destroy/secede/or takes hostages from Dome-B. Dome -B, after the vaunted "judicial review", shuts down Dome-A's life support. Unless every single resident of Dome-A is part of the plot, state murder of innocent people is the result. The comparison to a hijacked airliner is misleading in that an aircraft can be used as a weapon to kill far more people than are on the aircraft.

Yet in the example you provide, Dome A is threatening Dome B. How is that any different than someone taking control of an airplane and threatening Washington DC?

Now you do point out the obvious flaw with allowing the wholesale slaughter of an entire city- that obviously innocent people would be killed. These innocent people are simply caught in the crossfire between the conflicting sides, and then the State condemns the guilty and the innocent to the same punishment. Obviously wrong, right?

The issue is of one where the State would be murdering people indiscriminately.

So I then ask, what right does any Nation here on Earth have to bomb another Nation?

Let's take Afghanistan as a current day example. Here we have Dome A (Afghanistan Al-Queda) threatening Dome B (US of us). Is the USA morally corrupt and wrong for bombing Afghanistan cities (read Dome A) since innocent life, as well as the guilty, are both being condemned to the same punishment, death?

Now, obstenably, we attacked Afghanistan to "fix" things there and to prevent a threat to our Nation (our Dome). We reviewed the available facts, and made a decision that "shutting off the life support"- or killing the enemy, was a legitimate and rational act of self-defense since we perceived them (Dome B) to be violating human rights, and threatening our lives. We then bomb them, killing innocent people as well as guilty people... Yet we hold our actions as valid, and moral (most do).

So what's the difference in what I have proposed and what we are currently doing and holding as legitimate and justified action?

Two: In order to avoid killing innocents, police forces are sent in to evacuate them. In this case the whole argument becomes irrelevant because you already have cops on the scene. Apprehend the offenders, or if that is too difficult, shoot them. It's mundane and doesn't take advantage of the Martian environment, but it works and it doesn't needlessly kill bystanders.

That's perfectly acceptable, and nowhere did I DENY this ability. The issue is one of Power of the State- not when, or when it is not legitimate to use the power. We have the death penalty as a punishment- yet we also have several other categories of punishment below the death penalty- do we always use the death penalty? No. Would the power given to the State always be used for every infraction? No. The US has nuclear missiles, but do we use that as a first response? Second, third or fourth? No. It is an OPTION of last resort, but an option nonetheless.

Also, for the record, I strongly support the death penalty.

Why?

Cobra Commander · 2002-08-09 21:25:36

Yet in the example you provide, Dome A is threatening Dome B. How is that any different than someone taking control of an airplane and threatening Washington DC?.

The credibility of the threat. A hijacked airliner can be flown into a building. A dome is immobile, therefore to carry out a threat against another dome requires launching missiles, invading, or some other such undertaking. If that is a viable threat, whatever action is needed IS warranted. The question is whether the threat is credible (hijacked aircraft) or merely posturing (Saddam Hussein's "Mother of all Battles" rant comes to mind.)

So I then ask, what right does any Nation here on Earth have to bomb another Nation?

It's a different argument. This isn't like bombing Afghanistan, a foreigh state that committed (or aided) an act of war against us. If American Dome-A was actually physically attacked by Afghan Dome-B, retaliation is warranted, preferably in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties, which the US campaign in Afghanistan has tried to do whenever practical.
One nation responding against another to an act of war is completely acceptable. If that is the scenario on Mars, we are in agreement.
If Dome-A and Dome-B are governed by the same body it's a different issue. Then a better analogy is "terrorists take over a building in Los Angeles and threaten to kill them if their demands are not met." Do we bomb the building they're in? Obviously not, because the prime responsibility of government is to protect its citizens and killing the hostages with the terrorists serves no purpose.
If we're dealing with hostile Martian states that are legitimate and credible threats, shutting down life support can be justified. Of course it won't be so easy, I won't let you have a switch to shut off my air and I'm quite certain you would have objections to giving me one. Even if a Martian Authority mandated it, anyone intent on defying the Authority's laws would disable it long before they took any other action.
If the threat is from criminals within the colony, shutting off life support simply kills innocent people while protecting no one (I'm assuming that any given area could be contained with pressure doors)

It is an OPTION of last resort, but an option nonetheless.

An option that doesn't make sense. When it is justified, it's unusable for reasons previously stated.

Also, for the record, I strongly support the death penalty.
Why?.

Because most criminals who commit capital offenses cannot be rehabilitated and keeping them in prison for life is a waste of resources.

clark · 2002-08-19 15:54:30

The credibility of the threat.

So then the "credibility of the threat" establishes acceptable action. If this is indeed your stance, it allows for everything I have delineated, and more. The argument then proceeds to when a threat is and isn't credible- there is no longer a discussion on the action, since if the situation warrants it, we may act in any manner- including shuting off life support.

If you accept that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment, then it is merely a matter of establishing when and when the use of the death penalty is employed. This is the whole crutch of what i have been talking about.

If that is a viable threat, whatever action is needed IS warranted.

So in order to prove my point (that a central authority should have the power to terminate life support after judicial review) I only need demonstrate ONE viable possibility for where the use of the power I am suggesting is warranted. Fine.

Here is ONE reaon: Those in power at a base have the support of most of the local population within their base to take over another base. The people threaten to use any means neccessary to take over another base (lets say they disagree with abortions, which are allowed at the other base) and prevent them from carrying out laws that the people within the base have chosen for themselves. I believe this meets the criteria for allowing the "termination of life support" dependant upon "credible threat".

One nation responding against another to an act of war is completely acceptable. If that is the scenario on Mars, we are in agreement.

When did Afghanistan attack the USA? PEOPLE in Dome-Afghanistan attacked Dome B(America), then hid in Dome-Afghanistan. Dome-B's response was to attack everyone in Dome-Afghanistan. How is that any different than what I have been suggesting? How is the terran example more acceptable than the martian one I have been describing?

Why are nations allowed to resolve their disputes with violence, but not those who live under the same government? Monopoly of force? What about the United Nations, created by the United States, a forum to air the grievances between nations- to settle disputes without violence- dosen't the very exsistence of the UN negate any moral superiority in violence between nation states? Or put another way, why can the US go to war, but not US states? What's the differwence between Congress and the UN?

If Dome-A and Dome-B are governed by the same body it's a different issue.

Why? What is the difference?

If we're dealing with hostile Martian states that are legitimate and credible threats, shutting down life support can be justified.

So then you would agree that the central government should have the power to terminate life support! However, to be fair, you want to establish the "acceptable" use of the power- the when and where's... right?

Of course it won't be so easy, I won't let you have a switch to shut off my air and I'm quite certain you would have objections to giving me one. Even if a Martian Authority mandated it, anyone intent on defying the Authority's laws would disable it long before they took any other action.

Irrelevant. Seems pretty straightforward, what you suggest- however, that avoids the issue of allowing the central authority the power to terminate life support.

If the threat is from criminals within the colony, shutting off life support simply kills innocent people while protecting no one (I'm assuming that any given area could be contained with pressure doors)

Economic embargo's simply kills innocent people, leaving the criminals to run the country and live like kings- yet we accept that action as legitimate and "humane". How is that any different?
When we bomb cities, innocent people pay with their lives so a few criminals can die- is that acceptable? Why?

An option that doesn't make sense. When it is justified, it's unusable for reasons previously stated.

Nuclear weapons as an "option" don't make sense either, yet there are those who feel rather secure and justified with the use or threat of that option. I point this out to demonstrate how your statement does not disqualify the use of termination of life support- even for whole cities.

Because most criminals who commit capital offenses cannot be rehabilitated and keeping them in prison for life is a waste of resources.

Economic considerations aside, do you feel comfortable being part of the murder of innocent people? To kill a man is to take everything away that he can ever have- you deny him the opportunity to exsist. In order to justify this action, we depend on a human system of law and justice- we hope to have the wisdom of god, but must depend upon the limited senses and fralties of humanity.

How do you justify the cold blooded murder of one single innocent person that is tried, convicted, and executed by Society?

What form of compensation can be afforded to the victim of such injustice?

A prisoner can be freed- absolved, and compensated in at least some form. If you're dead, what can we return to you? Compensation for the victims family? That's like having your car stolen and the theif gives your Aunt a new car. Would you be satisfied with THAT result?

Do you see?

JSheets · 2002-08-22 12:36:54

:0
Hi, I am an absolute newbie here except that I have tried to read a number of posts to get acquainted. Hope you don't mind if I jump right in. Please excuse any missed history on my part.

It is very interesting how your discussion group has created a very well thought out, comprehensive bill of rights that includes all the things that current society does right, while attempting to address the things that society currently does wrong.

A problem that I see is that these rights really shouldn't become laws lest they give someone power. A system based upon respecting others rights rather than enforcing our laws might be a better way to go. This might require a completely different form of government such as that which requires that leadership be chosen by impartial lottery a-la Arthur C. Clarke, in order to ensure that power be shared completely.

If everyone ever to move to Mars were to agree to be governed by these rights, this would at least guarantee one generation of compliance which could very likely establish a foothold of a power base to ensure these rights.

The experiences of the United Order system in Utah at the turn of the last century demonstrates how difficult it is to have everyone equal, but no one lead.

I feel however that the previous discussions about when is it acceptable to cut off another's access to necessary items such as air if they are "bad" is an antithesis to this bill of rights.

Maybe I have missed it, but what about the role of Banishment? This could be quite an effective tool that could stop both imminent and repeatable threats while preserving the stated rights of the individual.

Some may say that it hinders the right to travel or the right to own property, but so does the death penalty. Any person considered criminal may have a role to play "anywhere but here" as they say. I wonder if it should also be a priviledge to be martian rather than just a right. But where to banish the criminals? It is rather more likely that once colonies are established on Mars, the Terran governments will tire of warehousing their criminals and start shipping them to Mars. They are not likely to accept any Martian criminals. Mars is likely to fill the role of Australia which really wasn't a bad thing for Australians either then or now.

Maybe part of the technology we should be considering is the development of a way to profile criminal behavior and either weed those individuals out or find a way to mitigate their behavior somehow. I am not anxious to engage in any type of eugenics program which is what this kind of thing might require.

Next, my problems with creating a government "in absentia" are the following:
If a Terran government funds exploration and sets up a base, then it may assume to claim rights to govern.
If a Terran corporation funds exploration and sets up a base, then it may assume to claim their own government or none at all. It may even claim to BE the government.

Also, it is more likely that whoever manages to fund and therefore control the bases will do so by might and as we all know, no power was ever wrested from those in power except at the end of a weapon. History is likely to repeat itself unless the nature of mankind is changed somehow.

Cheers,

Jeff Sheets

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-08-03 12:54:11

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#52 2002-08-05 11:05:44

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#53 2002-08-05 12:29:46

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#54 2002-08-05 12:49:59

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#55 2002-08-05 20:16:50

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#56 2002-08-06 05:33:35

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#57 2002-08-06 08:00:05

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#58 2002-08-06 08:11:55

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#59 2002-08-06 08:35:29

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#60 2002-08-06 09:16:59

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#61 2002-08-06 14:49:28

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#62 2002-08-06 15:09:33

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#63 2002-08-06 16:02:17

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#64 2002-08-06 16:28:48

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#65 2002-08-06 19:23:16

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#66 2002-08-07 10:01:26

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#67 2002-08-07 10:29:00

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#68 2002-08-07 15:03:54

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#69 2002-08-08 11:07:50

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#70 2002-08-08 11:10:13

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#71 2002-08-08 17:38:24

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#72 2002-08-09 08:18:48

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#73 2002-08-09 21:25:36

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#74 2002-08-19 15:54:30

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#75 2002-08-22 12:36:54

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

Board footer