Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Palomar · 2005-01-22 21:18:17

*I'm going to put this here, since it may not be welcome elsewhere.

The pendulum swings. I've been around long enough to know that -- so long as enough people on "both sides" fight hard enough -- neither the Left nor the Right will ever truly win.

The Left/liberals gain the upper hand and the Right/conservatives fret and stew. They begin fighting back.

And vice versa.

So why does either side continue nurturing the delusion that it can WIN eventually?

Checks and balances. Thank god this nation has them.

The Right/conservatives are gloating about their recent victories. Calls going out to ban gay marriages *period*, to try and put the Bible and prayer back into public schools, to overturn Roe vs. Wade, etc. They'll push their agenda until they go too far -- and the pendulum will swing back against them and in favor of the Left/liberals once more.

Both sides use fear tactics and hyperbole to keep folks of their persuasion loyal. Meanwhile, the grappling continues with the side which currently *only has the upper-hand* deluding itself into thinking it has finally won...

Based on what I've seen in the past -- it hasn't.

Its momentum will wind down, fresh challenges will weaken it, in-fighting will fracture it, boundaries overstepped will be tripped over, etc.

And then the opponent will gain ascendancy once again with essentially the same old game in new wrappings and ribbons.

My 2 cents' worth. The sky isn't falling.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2005-01-22 21:23:36

Maybe one should consider, that as the pendelum swings it also goes round in a circle.

BWhite · 2005-01-22 22:06:18

My 2 cents' worth. The sky isn't falling.
--Cindy

Cruelty and violence deaden (cauterize?) (numb?) those portions of the human soul which are capable of empathy, kindness and gentleness.

The swinging of the pendulum is not without consequence as each swing leaves behind living victims afflicted with hate.

For example, the men and women who perpetrated Abu Ghraib or who "Gitmo-ized detainees" are scarred forever. Would you want your daughter to EVER marry a military policeman who served at Abu Ghraib? Even if he were never charged with any crime?

The infliction of brutality devastates the souls of the perpetrator (regardless of how "just" the cause) so that love, empathy and the ability to nurture physic growth are destroyed.

Verwüstung - - thank you Gennaro - - appears to me to be what happens when souls suffer the fate inflicted by the Romans at Carthage, when they irrigated the fields with seawater (salt) to assure that nothing would ever grow again.

Palomar · 2005-01-22 22:12:49

*Bill, I was referring to the current U.S. domestic, here at home situation. Things I've seen for years now, pre-9/11 and further back to my teen years. The continual fight over abortion rights or revoking them, the separation of church from state issues, etc.

I was NOT referring to matters abroad (overseas policies or the Iraq war).

And I've decried and denounced Abu Ghraib as much as you have.

--Cindy

P.S.: It's time we had a Love-In. A Human Be-In. "And we all shine on, like the Moon and the Stars and the Sun..." (no, I'm not being sarcastic).

BWhite · 2005-01-22 22:15:17

Jose Padilla - - an American citizen - - is imprisoned in the United States without any formal charges having been filed.

- - -

PS - - Over the next 20 years, those US soldiers who have served in Iraq will be re-integrated into US society as FedEx drivers, toll booth collectors and postal employees.

Someone who shot up a speeding car occupied by a terrified Iraqi family may end up living in Las Cruces.

Edited By BWhite on 1106453879

Palomar · 2005-01-22 22:21:22

Jose Padilla - - an American citizen - - is imprisoned in the United States without any formal charges having been filed.

*Yes, I'm familiar with his case. He should have every legal right (the right to face his accusers, to -not- be detained without being charged, the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers) which is guaranteed to every other American.

Bill, try to see where I -agree- with you on various points. They do exist, more so than I think you give me credit for.

--Cindy

::EDIT::

Someone who shot up a speeding car occupied by a terrified Iraqi family may end up living in Las Cruces.

Again...I -wasn't- talking about Iraq or foreign issues. I was addressing -domestic- issues which have troubled this nation *before* Dubya took office and which aren't being resolved because neither side can win.

Goodnight, Bill.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-24 01:49:52

I think I get your drift, Cindy.
Here in Australia, the pendulum swings back and forth with varying speed over the decades, as first Coalition (conservative) governments and then ALP ('progressive') governments attain power.
The ALP confers with the Unions about wages and social policy, expands Medicare and general welfare payouts, increases taxation .. the usual stuff. Then, after maybe two, three, or even four terms, the Coalition will get in and do the opposite for a similar time period.

I love the concept of socialism but, as is no secret, I favour conservative governments because of my impression that they make things work. To that extent, then, I'm definitely biased, so whatever I say must be treated with caution.
But, having said that, it seems an inescapable conclusion, at least to me, that the ALP stifles private enterprise by playing Robin Hood. This and their largesse ultimately causes a gradual congealing of the economy and an eventual reduction in the amount of wealth available to spread around. The Coalition then tightens the purse strings, encourages individual effort, produces 'real' jobs, and creates a wealthier economy from which more people can get more personal wealth. This creates more taxation, of itself, without having to increase taxation rates and asphyxiate personal endeavour, and allows the government more money to spend on legitimate welfare cases.
To me, socialism inevitably ends up trying to divide the same pie up into ever smaller slices to redistribute it, while capitalism is busy trying to bake more pies!

Anyhow, this has all been discussed, ad nauseam, here and everywhere else, a million times before. I can never convince Lefties that they're thinking way too small, and they can never convince me I'm a close-minded, unfeeling, regressive - as hard as they try!

But yes, Cindy, in general I think you're right. The petty infighting which takes up so much of a democratic country's time and energy seems such a waste. It appeals to the primitive tribalism that still seems to drive some people and from which they are incapable of escaping, no matter how intellectual and enlightened they imagine themselves to be.

But you're the voice of frustrated reason in a cacophany of partisan paranoia, I'm afraid, and thus doomed to failure. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-24 07:05:32

The Left/liberals gain the upper hand and the Right/conservatives fret and stew. They begin fighting back.
And vice versa.
So why does either side continue nurturing the delusion that it can WIN eventually?

I don't believe most of the honchos at either side expect to win in any final sense, merely to prolong their dominance socially (even if not politically) by advancing as much of their agenda as possible when they get the chance. That's why the appointment of Supreme Court Justices has become such an issue, it's a way of maintaining some pull after the pendulum has swung away.

PS - - Over the next 20 years, those US soldiers who have served in Iraq will be re-integrated into US society as FedEx drivers, toll booth collectors and postal employees.

As has always happened after wars. Beyond that, a great many people are exposed to things every bit as horrific as you might encounter in Iraq right here in the good old US of A. Sometimes cops shoot kids, sometimes people witness brutal murders, sometimes they're forced to kill people themselves, you don't need to go to war to be "scarred" or to lose the "ability to nurture physic growth". The world is full of horrors, what our troops in Iraq experience is but a drop in a vast sea and having been through it makes them no less fit for our society than millions of others who have never left our shores.

The soul of a man is not solely the product of his experiences. The human psyche is more resilient than modern psycho-babblers give it credit for.

But yes, Cindy, in general I think you're right. The petty infighting which takes up so much of a democratic country's time and energy seems such a waste. It appeals to the primitive tribalism that still seems to drive some people and from which they are incapable of escaping, no matter how intellectual and enlightened they imagine themselves to be.

That's certainly part of it, but then there is also a very real basis for argument as well that can't be solved with mere "civility". I'm willing to sit at the table and negotiate with almost anyone, but there are things I just won't compromise on.

Why should I change, they're the one who's wrong.

It seems to me that the bitter infighting isn't so much a flaw of democratic systems but a fundamental characteristic of them, after all if everyone basically agrees why do we need a democratic system at all?

BWhite · 2005-01-24 12:17:11

Yup, we are winning http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/p … stm]hearts and minds.

We can make excuses, but the psychic toll on those poor soldiers - - in the decades to come - - will be horrific. I have great sympathy for the soldiers as it is a kill or risk being killed situation. I probably would have shot up the car myself.

I am reasonably certain the "rules of engagement" were followed and no legally culpable military misconduct occurred. However, if those US solders fail to have nightmares for decades to come, they are not human.

Had we sent in enough troops, in the beginning, to secure those weapons depots where hundreds of tons of explosives were looted, to become roadside bombs and car bombs, events like these would be far, far fewer. If hundreds of tons of bomb making material had not been left unguarded in the weeks after regime change, a speeding car would be seen as much less of a threat.

But no!

Rumsfeld had an academic thesis to prove about a leaner, lighter, cheaper military. And the Right circles up and plays Dr. Pangloss. ???

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-24 12:31:02

Had we sent in enough troops, in the beginning, to secure those weapons depots where hundreds of tons of explosives were looted, to become roadside bombs and car bombs, events like these would be far, far fewer. If hundreds of tons of bomb making material had not been left unguarded in the weeks after regime change, a speeding car would be seen as much less of a threat.

Bill, you're being snide, right? You know as well as I do that's a BS argument. It doesn't take much explosive to make a car bomb and we're talking about a country that has been swamped in such materials for decades. It is not possible to secure every explosive compound or every piece of ordnance. Send in 500,000 troops, send in 5 million, you'll still have carbombs and IEDs. They're easy.

But then it's clear that Rumsfeld isn't the only one with a thesis to prove.
:;):

Palomar · 2005-01-24 12:56:21

*What's worrying me right now is the -Iran- situation. There are more headlines lately about possible U.S. military action in Iran. I don't see how we could possibly afford it -- and I don't mean in a strictly monetary sense!

I love the concept of socialism but, as is no secret, I favour conservative governments because of my impression that they make things work. To that extent, then, I'm definitely biased, so whatever I say must be treated with caution.
To me, socialism inevitably ends up trying to divide the same pie up into ever smaller slices to redistribute it, while capitalism is busy trying to bake more pies!

*I really don't know what to say about the socialist/capitalist thing. :-\ Yes, capitalism may be busy baking more pies, but it's >exclusive< and not willing to share any more of its pies than the socialists are able to secure, divide up and distribute. Or, as Almanzo Wilder (Laura Ingalls-Wilder's husband) once said (19th century): "Everything evens up in the world. The rich man gets his ice in the summer and the poor man in the winter."

But I know life isn't fair (whoever said it would be?) -and- I do believe strongly in the work ethic. I don't believe anything is "owed to me" -- if I want it, I must put forth the effort of obtaining it myself.

Just some thoughts.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-24 13:18:58

Had we sent in enough troops, in the beginning, to secure those weapons depots where hundreds of tons of explosives were looted, to become roadside bombs and car bombs, events like these would be far, far fewer. If hundreds of tons of bomb making material had not been left unguarded in the weeks after regime change, a speeding car would be seen as much less of a threat.
Bill, you're being snide, right? You know as well as I do that's a BS argument. It doesn't take much explosive to make a car bomb and we're talking about a country that has been swamped in such materials for decades. It is not possible to secure every explosive compound or every piece of ordnance. Send in 500,000 troops, send in 5 million, you'll still have carbombs and IEDs. They're easy.
But then it's clear that Rumsfeld isn't the only one with a thesis to prove.
:;):

Saddam managed to prevent routine car bombings despite there being large numbers of Shia, and others, with motive to attack Saddam's regime.

Saddam did have gadzillions of tons of conventional weapons scattered in depots all over Iraq. We failed to secure those depots. Today, we are paying the price for that failure.

If we lacked the troops to guard those depots ourselves, then a mission critical "plan B" would have been to integrate the Iraqi army into our occupation so the same guards that kept the Shia and Saddam's internal opponents from making car bombs would continue to guard the depots until we disposed of the materials.

If that was inherently impossible, then a secure occupation was a "bridge too far" right from the very beginning - - which is the reason why Bush 41 declined to remove Saddam after Desert Storm.

I know you love aphorisms, so here is one:

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1106594363

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-24 13:44:17

Saddam managed to prevent routine car bombings despite there being large numbers of Shia, and others, with motive to attack Saddam's regime.

Through brutal repression, torture, execution and the oocasional slaughter of entire villages. Not exactly the model I'd want to follow.

Saddam did have gadzillions of tons of conventional weapons scattered in depots all over Iraq. We failed to secure those depots. Today, we are paying the price for that failure.

The vast majority of them were secured. Huge quantities of Iraqi weapons continue to be destroyed. In fact the most publicized case of "unsecured explosives" pertained to raw HE material that can't be made into carbombs in the first place and is thus irrelevant to the current situation. Some of it turned up anyway and was never really "missing", clerical error. All of it aside, the simple fact is that securing all the weapons is born of the same faulty reasoning as gun control, you just can't do it. You'll nab the majority that would not have been used regardless, but the small number of people that actually pose a threat will always find what they need.

Unless we're to believe that the presence of weapons is the prime motivator to insugency.

"Whaddaya wanna do today Abdul?"
"I dunno."
"Hey, is that a bag of semtex and an RPG?"
"Yeah! Let's go blow ourselves up and maybe take a few Marines out!"

Not buying it.

If we lacked the troops to guard those depots ourselves, then a mission critical "plan B" would have been to integrate the Iraqi army into our occupation so the same guards that kept the Shia and Saddam's internal opponents from making car bombs would continue to guard the depots until we disposed of the materials.

Not utilizing the Iraqi army was a mistake, as I have repeatedly argued starting from the day they were disbanded. But once again, conscript guards weren't the prime factor in keeping Saddam's opponents from blowing stuff up.

If that was inherently impossible, then a secure occupation was a "bridge too far" right from the very beginning - - which is the reason why Bush 41 declined to remove Saddam after Desert Storm.
I know you love aphorisms, so here is one:
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. . .

But by your own reasoning it's not impossible, Saddam managed. Had we occupied in a similar manner we could have had similar levels of order. Now I know you well enough to know you aren't advocating brutalizing the Iraqi people. The only other logical conclusion is that you start from a position of opposition and search for examples to back up the assertion that we shouldn't have gone in at all.

Fair enough, but if that's the case it casts suspicion over any proposed course of action.

I supported the action and continue to do so. I acknowledge mistakes and try to offer ways of correcting those that can be and moving on. Occasionally I get caught up in my own position as well, we would all do well to regularly examine our own motives and reasoning with a cold a critical eye.

But then maybe it's all just a warmongering fascist ploy to sow uncertainty in the opposition.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-24 18:27:21

CC:-

I supported the action and continue to do so.

Me too. :up:

BWhite · 2005-01-25 10:25:54

CC:-
I supported the action and continue to do so.
Me too. :up:

Shaun, did you scroll through the BBC photos linked above?

Shooting the parents of 7 children is how future terrorists are bred.

Not because they are Islamic monsters or they "hate our freedoms" but because some corporal from Wisconsin sprayed the family car with bullets and mommy's and daddy's blood got doused all over the backseat. Seven children suffered this and passers-by witnessed it.

The reaction of one potential passer-by was explained like this:

Somewhere in Iraq, there is a man not going back to work. He has wandered onto a street in the dark, and seen a little girl crying in the stark light of a few flashlights, face and clothes streaked with blood, crying like a favorite toy has been broken, has been smashed forever. She looks strikingly like his own daughter, she has the same hair, the same face. He sees the medics attending to what remains of her parents, he sees her brothers and sisters scattered about, each in separate flashlight beams, looking like confused angels being suddenly born upon the earth in an instant of blood and chaos. He knows it is nobody's fault, that there was nothing that could be done, and yet he will not sleep. There are no pills strong enough, after you have witnessed the birth of angels.

Tommorow he will ask for a gun or a suicide bomb belt and bin Laden's men will answer that request and we in the West will brand him a "terrorist" and it will all continue. . .

Unless our strategy takes this into account and we stop shrugging our shoulders at such incidents as "mere" collateral damage - - too bad, so sad - - we will LOSE! this adventure in Iraq.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-25 11:22:48

Unless our strategy takes this into account and we stop shrugging our shoulders at such incidents as "mere" collateral damage - - too bad, so sad - - we will LOSE! this adventure in Iraq.

This is a very complex, layered issue. These incidents are not merely "shrugged off", but taken very seriously. Precautions are taken to avoid such things as much as possible.

But they still happen. The situation is confusing, the soldiers are jumpy and the civvies are scared, it doesn't take much to touch off a mishap. The consequences of too many such incidents can be devastating and we can't dismiss them.

Yet we can't publicize and agonize over each incident either, to do so would embolden the enemy while demoralizing our own soldiers and population.

Finally, we don't know what exactly happened. We weren't there, we don't know what everyone was thinking. Maybe the driver had a reason to panic and flee, or maybe he was just frightened by the situation. There is no guarantee that the children and bystanders will turn to the terrorists either, no more so than they are guaranteed to support us for rebuilding their school. We can't allow ourselves to oversimplify matters.

The battle for hearts and minds isn't just about us being nice, many Iraqis want the insurgents out as much or more than they want us to leave. We need to get more of them on balance to believe that the insurgency isn't the way to go. When soldiers fire on a car because they thnik it's a suicide attack it's only half their fault, the people that drive up in exploding cars are just as responsible. We need to make the Iraqi people see that, it takes two to have a fight and it isn't the insurgents that are building homes, schools, power plants and hospitals.

BWhite · 2005-01-25 12:20:51

The battle for hearts and minds isn't just about us being nice, many Iraqis want the insurgents out as much or more than they want us to leave. We need to get more of them on balance to believe that the insurgency isn't the way to go. When soldiers fire on a car because they thnik it's a suicide attack it's only half their fault, the people that drive up in exploding cars are just as responsible. We need to make the Iraqi people see that, it takes two to have a fight and it isn't the insurgents that are building homes, schools, power plants and hospitals.

I agree with this 100% - - in theory - - but is this really what we are doing?

Is enough money being spent to genuinely re-build Iraqi infrastructure or is just enough money being spent to create the illusion we are re-building Iraqi infastructure.

A CYA re-building project? Or a genuine re-building project.

Press releases from the same people who said Saddam having WMD is "a slam dunk" are not necessarily reassuring. :;):

= = =

A formal "mea culpa" on the idea that Iraqi oil revenues will be sufficient to fund reconstruction and a public acknowledgement that US tax revenues MUST to used would be a valuable step forward.

Frankly, if Bush (or America) would learn from history and copy the King Henry / Thomas Beckett affair and thereafter support genuine democracy I do believe we can emerge from this not too badly off.

Sistani does wanta stable Iraq and eevn the Bush-bashing Juan Cole does not favor immediate withdrawl of troops.

But, a pubic renunciation of the Paul Bremer Ameri-forming plan and a public acceptance of an Islamic Iraq would give our occupation a much more friendly face to the Iraqi people.

= = =

Allowing the Iraqis to eventually kick us out (including those newly built airbases) may be the price we must pay to leave a stable Iraq behind us.

= = =

Edit: Just saw a media report that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson today told the US Senate that since it was "impossible to foresee" that we would face guerilla tactics during the occuaption of Iraq it was pointless to review and discuss all the mistakes we have made. . .

Bwa! Ha! Ha!

= = =

Senator Byrd:

The cost of the Iraq war has spiralled to $149 for every minute since Christ was born. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1106684602

Grypd · 2005-01-25 18:22:23

The cost of the Iraq war has spiralled to $149 for every minute since Christ was born. . .

Does this include the new requested 80$ Billion

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-25 19:18:35

CC, as usual, paints the more reasoned picture of what inevitably can and does happen in war - especially a war fought as a totally unprincipled and indiscriminate guerrilla campaign by one side.
He is correct also in saying that excessive publicizing of such terrible incidents for political purposes will undermine our morale. If that is done often enough, public resolve that this war can and must be won will waver. To this extent, those who persist in this 5th-column 'white-anting' we see every day in the media and at numerous websites, are aiding and abetting a malicious foe by playing right into their hands.

To me, this is treasonous and unconscionable behaviour in time of war - especially where it arises out of little more than petty domestic political rancour between one party and another. As I've said before, this kind of behaviour by the Allied press and population during WWII would have been a very serious offence, punishable by imprisonment or even death.

We're all in this together and I don't know anyone with at least half a brain who doesn't see the absolute need for success in Iraq. While freedom of expression is our right and must ever remain so, there are times when a little bit of common sense and discretion should prevail over crass political point-scoring by people who can't see past the end of their political noses.

I, for one, am looking forward to the first democratic election the Iraqi people have had in a long time. I know the violence perpetrated by the evil (in a very real sense of the word) forces of Islamofascism will be fierce. But few things worth fighting for have ever been easy and I wish the Iraqi people every good fortune as their hour of triumph approaches. I also wish our liberating troops, a force for good in a world of self-serving cynics, a safe passage through the coming days.
:up:

BWhite · 2005-01-25 20:15:16

Shaun, it would be easier to agree with you =IF= Karl Rove had not been crowing about how he would use the Iraq War to crush the Democratic party.

Starting a foreign war to distract people from domestic troubles has been the tool of tyrants for centuries. Calling Dubya on that is the essence of patriotism.

My criticism of Bush arises 100% from my PRIDE in being an American. As Mark Twain wrote, I will support my nation always - - Its leaders? Only when they deserve my support.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-25 21:19:56

Hmmm.
I see it always comes back to the Democrats and Republicans with you, doesn't it Bill?
Which is exactly my point. This isn't the right time for party politics.
I don't care about what Rove or Kerry or Bush or someone else said in the course of typical domestic politicking last year or the year before, however crass it may have been, and neither should you at the moment. World-changing events are taking place right now in the Middle East; events which may have a very real impact on how we live our lives in decades to come.
I couldn't care less whether you feel the need to affirm your pride in being an American, or you think Bush is a tyrant, or even if you enjoy quoting stuff from Mark Twain. That's now of no more than academic interest.

The war is ON. It must be WON. If we want to win it, and we all say we do, then I think we need to avoid using every opportunity to undermine the morale and resolve of our respective countries and their armed forces by disseminating tragic images of appallingly unfortunate incidents and other persistent and scurrilous negative propaganda.

Agreed?

[Come on, Bill. Stop sweating the parochial small stuff and try to forget the party-political bickering for a while; surely you can be bigger than that. You'll get your chance to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. In the meantime, let's "crush the Islamofascist Party", shall we?! ]

BWhite · 2005-01-25 21:48:50

Shaun, tell Bush to leave Social Security alone until after the War on Terror is won and I will agree with you;

Shaun, tell Bush to stop appointing American fascist judges until after the War On Terror is won and I will agree with you;

Shaun, can we agree that Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are equally scumbags?

Admit that Condi Rice LIED and we can discuss how to defeat Islamo-fascism.

You want unity Shaun, let me see your heartfelt condemnation of this:

Though there was no official poem for the occasion, impressionist Rich Little, emceeing the Constitution Ball at the Hilton Washington, did provide a bit of inaugural doggerel.
The gist of it was: "Let's get together, let bitterness pass, I'll hug your elephant, you kiss my ass!" And the crowd went crazy.

Until the GOP stops shit like this:

"Let's get together, let bitterness pass, I'll hug your
elephant, you kiss my ass!" And the crowd went crazy.

Dubya's a friggin pinata - - let the bashing continue . . .

= = =

PS - - Iraq had NOTHING to do with defeating bin Laden.

#1) Iraqi WMD was a LIE!

#2) Saddam working with bin Laden was a LIE!

Saddam was an evil MF secular dictator who was hated by bin Laden.

We broke Iraq. Now we need to fix Iraq. Agree with points #1 and #2 and we can talk about how to move forward. Until you agree with points #1 and #2, talk to the hand.

We cannot withdraw from Iraq, but the Right get ZERO slack from me until I get a mea culpa on points #1 and #2.

And you agree the Swift Boat Liars were a cheap political attack.

Edited By BWhite on 1106711764

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-25 22:17:03

:laugh: Ha-ha!

O.K., Bill.
I can see we're not only on different pages; we're in two different books.

Palomar · 2005-01-25 22:22:49

*Maybe we should call a "Time Out" at this point? ???

--Cindy

Euler · 2005-01-25 23:53:58

The war is ON. It must be WON.

It would be nice if the war was won(though it what it means to "win" this war is not clearly defined), but that does not mean that it "must" be won. Iraq is important, but it would not be the end of the world if Iraq does not end up with the type of government that we would like it to have.

If we want to win it, and we all say we do, then I think we need to avoid using every opportunity to undermine the morale and resolve of our respective countries and their armed forces by disseminating tragic images of appallingly unfortunate incidents and other persistent and scurrilous negative propaganda.

The people in our countries are not all children, and they should be able to make informed choices based on the best information available to them rather than having everything sugarcoated for them. Granted the news media tend to paint a very negative image in their effort to sensationalize the news, but forcing them to do the opposite is not a good option.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-01-22 21:18:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#77 2005-01-22 21:23:36

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#78 2005-01-22 22:06:18

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#79 2005-01-22 22:12:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#80 2005-01-22 22:15:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#81 2005-01-22 22:21:22

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#82 2005-01-24 01:49:52

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#83 2005-01-24 07:05:32

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#84 2005-01-24 12:17:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#85 2005-01-24 12:31:02

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#86 2005-01-24 12:56:21

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#87 2005-01-24 13:18:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#88 2005-01-24 13:44:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#89 2005-01-24 18:27:21

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#90 2005-01-25 10:25:54

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#91 2005-01-25 11:22:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#92 2005-01-25 12:20:51

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#93 2005-01-25 18:22:23

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#94 2005-01-25 19:18:35

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#95 2005-01-25 20:15:16

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#96 2005-01-25 21:19:56

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#97 2005-01-25 21:48:50

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#98 2005-01-25 22:17:03

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#99 2005-01-25 22:22:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#100 2005-01-25 23:53:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer