Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

BWhite · 2005-02-09 12:18:38

Yet isn't it those very same short term interests that give rise to a greater shared interest by which individual states put aside some of their own desires for the common good? Ultimetly, and eventually, this acts as the seed for a common heritage and culture to develop- such as America's rise from seperate states to fight British rule. The same can be said for the American experience of the Civil War, with individual states finally bowing to the federal rule.
The EU is in the process of developing a stronger and more coherent centralized authority, and balancing against US supremacy (ala Chirac) is their clarion call to speed up efforts.

Europe will need to find a theme to unite around if they are to resist the influx of Islamic demographics. Chirac's decision to prohibit schoolgirls from wearing headscarves establishes a secular ethic that is given greater weight than the immigrant's Islamic identity.

One can be privately Islamic in France (and Europe?) however in public and civic affairs, Chirac is seeking to assure that the secular values of the society predominate over religious values.

clark · 2005-02-09 14:30:34

I would think that the lengths the EU architechts went to keep Christianity out of the EU Constution would demonstrate their comittment to secular values above any religious beliefs.

I always wondered how it would go down here in the States if they banned children from wearing crosses in school.

BWhite · 2005-02-09 15:28:50

I would think that the lengths the EU architechts went to keep Christianity out of the EU Constution would demonstrate their comittment to secular values above any religious beliefs.
I always wondered how it would go down here in the States if they banned children from wearing crosses in school.

The very same thing that annoys the religious right about Europe may well protect Europe from Islamic demographic trends =IF= the EU survives and thrives as an institution.

clark · 2005-02-09 15:51:41

But then that goes back to what I originally was saying... the US as a hyper power provides the rationale for the EU to succeed.

Look at it another way, would the United States be what it is if Old Henry had just given the states independance? What would have acted as the neccessary reason for cohesion without the outside enemy that united common interests?

"We either swing together, or swing seperately."

The members of the EU community see this. They see their irrelevance in the unmatched might of the US, and the growing irrelevance of themselves when faced with the demographic shifts in India and China (not to mention Brazil).

To me, they left the whole issue of religion out of their constution due to their own historical experiences.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-09 19:27:09

CC:-

Starting with the trivial things, the Kool-Aid reference is I suppose one of those little American culture things that doesn't translate well. Back in the '70's this kook Jim Jones led a cult down to South America to set up a religious utopia. Needless to say, it didn't work out, and the entire group committed suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid.
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" can now be used to describe blind adherence to any self-destructive idea, hence Bill's reference.

Thanks, CC, for further clarifying this 'Kool-Aid' thing. I remember the mass-suicide in South America but I don't think the actual drink used by the cult devotees to bump themselves off was emphasized in news items here. As far as I can remember, the story was just that they just took poison.
Anyhow, I can see how throwing "Kool-Aid' at someone in a discussion could become a way of indicating, in a darkly humorous fashion, that your fellow debater is a mindless cult-follower. But no such habit developed in Australia, hence my puzzlement.

Bill:-

Exactly!

Very astute, Bill!
It looks like you've seen through my little charade and discovered the truth about me. O.K., I admit it! I don't live in Australia, I'm a Texan Fundamentalist Christian who believes President George W. Bush is ordained by God to lead America and the rest of the world in a mission prophesied in the Bible. He is presiding over the End Times and must fulfill his destiny in making clear the pathway to Armageddon, the final conflict of Good and Evil in the Plain of Megiddo.
I guess my motives became transparent when you realized my hatred for President Bush was not as fervent, all-encompassing, and pure as your own .. and I'd tried so hard not to let that slip.
:laugh:

[ It seems I've failed in my appointed task to infiltrate the Church of the Demon-cratic Party. I suppose the only honourable way out for me now is .. yep, you guessed it ..pass me that Kool-Aid!! ]

BWhite · 2005-02-09 21:44:32

Hatred? Nah.

I don't hate anyone. We Catholics are taught to hate the sin, NEVER the sinner. :;):

Nice FOX News talking point, however. Well done. Ignore all criticism of Precious Leader by accusing the critic of hate.

= = =

Facts remain. The January 30th Iraqi elections (which I support) were Plan D for the Bushies and their hand picked candidate is coming in third place.

= = =

PS - - "Kool Aid drinking" as a metaphor has become commonplace with various Chicagoland sports talk radio hosts.

Example:

Caller: The Cubs will win the World Series. Or the Bears will win the Super Bowl in 2006.

Host: "Kool Aid, Kool Aid, tastes great. . ."

= = =

Shaun: Bush will be noted by history as an exceptional leader.

Bill: "Kool Aid, Kool Aid. . ."

Edited By BWhite on 1108010086

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-10 02:50:31

Your undiminished disdain for my opinions and interpretations of world events is noted, Bill. (And I'm fine with that.)
One thing I do wish, though, is that Clinton had launched the liberation of Iraq, instead of Bush. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that that would have made everything all right and we could get on with things, without all this tiresome spite.
You see, Bill, President Bush isn't my "Precious Leader". I'm not an American. None of what I think about the liberation of Iraq depends on any personal preference for who does the liberating; I support the concept itself and I've always believed it was worth the effort.

Just for the record, I never said: "Bush will be noted by history as an exceptional leader". He hasn't done enough yet to warrant that kind of prediction. ('Many a slip twixt cup and lip', and all that! )
I said things like: "It looks increasingly likely to me that President Bush .. "
And: " We could be seeing another American Presidential legend in the making. Stranger things have happened."
I believe it was your own feelings about your own President that caused you to react so strongly. All I'm doing is calling it the way I see it, from the outside looking in.
So sue me!

I think you're too close to the problem, Bill. Stand back a little and try to see it other than through the eyes of a devout Democrat. The world is actually a little bigger than America's Senate and Congress - trust me!

Catholic, huh? How do you manage .. coping with two religions?

[P.S. Don't bother telling me how Catholicism works, old chap; I was brought up a Catholic and I have painful first-hand experience of it.
I know 'hatred for the sin' when I see it, too. What you have goes considerably deeper than that, I think.
But maybe I'm wrong. ]

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 06:22:02

Nice FOX News talking point, however. Well done. Ignore all criticism of Precious Leader by accusing the critic of hate.

And the reversal, define any defense of the Administration as a FOX News talking point. Your kung fu is sloppy, grasshopper.

But perhaps it illustrates the problem we have here in America. We're often so focused on fighting the battles we forget why we're fighting in the first place.

Facts remain. The January 30th Iraqi elections (which I support) were Plan D for the Bushies and their hand picked candidate is coming in third place.

True, from a certain point of view. Elections were always part of the plan, it is only the timing and details that have changed. There was no "Plan A is shot, go to plan B" so much as a series of "dammit, screwed up. Try this". Constant adapting to changes, some anticipated and some not. A subtle difference perhaps, but there it is.

Just for the record, I never said: "Bush will be noted by history as an exceptional leader". He hasn't done enough yet to warrant that kind of prediction. ('Many a slip twixt cup and lip', and all that! )
I said things like: "It looks increasingly likely to me that President Bush .. "

And I'm inclined to agree. If events follow the course they appear to be on, Bush may be looked on favorably by posterity. No guarantees, but it's a possibility. Unless of course one has a predsiposition to attack any action taken by their opponents, however good it may be in the end.

We've all got a jug of Kool-Aid stashed I suspect. Sugar anyone?

Catholic, huh? How do you manage .. coping with two religions?

Time will tell who is right and wrong, and none will care with new battles drawn.

clark · 2005-02-10 06:31:42

Shaun, hats off. It's not often I witness someone more obnoxious and offensive than me. :laugh:

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-10 07:10:55

Awww, Clark.
Who was it said you're obnoxious and offensive? :laugh:

clark · 2005-02-10 07:11:49

Anyway... moderation in all things.

Was deposing Saddam a good thing? Yeah, everyone pretty much agrees. However, the main sticking point was that we didn't go into Iraq to depose Saddam. If -that- was the goal, then we should have, and could have, gone about the whole thing in a different manner.

What a lot of people are pissed off about is that the reasons for our actions kept changing. Bush and company looked for any justification, so long as there was a justification, to get rid of Saddam.

Is some good coming out of this? Sure. And I think everyone applauds the good that comes from the bad. But the end result is the creation of policy that is new, and poses significant risks to America in the long term, for short-term gains on questionable grounds.

You want to free the oppressed, wonderful. Let's do it. That's ultimately "why" we went into Iraq. Okay, next question? How many oppressed people will we free? On what grounds will we invade, and on what ground will we not? What are the costs we are willing to incur for ideology?

Can we effectively engage in this behavior in the long term at the cost of world opinion? Should we be striving for democracy in third world countries when we are still engaged in a war on terror? What are the priorities?

There are a whole slew of questions that go left unanswered as the public is spoon fed sound bites of: "Democracy", "Freedom", "9/11", "Terror", etc.

I don't know what they watch or read over seas, but I wonder if these questions are answered, or if they are even addressed. I know they aren't being addressed here in the States.

Instead, these questions are being ignored or left unasked. Yet somehow we are expected to ignore these pertinent questions that resolve many of the ambiguities that exist.

Notice that Bush's new resolve is to spread democracy. Okay, fine. Why wasn't this presented to the electorate prior to his election? Why is it after the fact that he presents this new goal under the mantle of a mandate from the masses?

People supported him on his war on terror- on finishing the job in Iraq. Yet now he is expanding the fight prior to any type of dialogue with the populace. All of this gets lost during the domestic side changes he is trying to initiate. This is all largely why there are so many reservations coming from so many.

Many have felt lied to, and many see the same thing happening again. [shrug]

BWhite · 2005-02-10 09:19:48

From the http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/arti … l]American Conservative - - hardly a bastion of leftie-ism.

The last weeks of 2004 saw several explicit warnings from the antiwar Right about the coming of an American fascism. Paul Craig Roberts in these pages wrote of the “brownshirting” of American conservatism—a word that might not have surprised had it come from Michael Moore or Michael Lerner. But from a Hoover Institution senior fellow, former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, and one-time Wall Street Journal editor, it was striking.

and

Stern points to the religious (and more explicitly Protestant) component in the rise of Nazism—but I don’t think the proto-fascist mood is strongest among the so-called Christian Right. The critical letters this magazine receives from self-identified evangelical Christians are almost always civil in tone; those from Christian Zionists may quote Scripture about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in ways that are maddeningly nonrational and indisputably pre-Enlightenment—but these are not the letters foaming with a hatred for those with the presumption to oppose George W. Bush’s wars for freedom and democracy. The genuinely devout are perhaps less inclined to see the United States as “God marching on earth.”

None of these words are mine, but rather those of a prominent conservative. And the following, NOT my words, so don't shoot the messenger! :;):

The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms. That would be the titanic irony of course, the mother of them all—that a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy would lead to its destruction in one of its very birthplaces. But as historians know, history is full of ironies.

Edited By BWhite on 1108049263

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 10:03:09

Yes, interesting. Hardly new, but interesting. Let's examine this:

Many conservatives have a long list of objections to various Bush policies for the simple and oft missed reason that Bush isn't a conservative, at least not in any but the most general sense.

Is he fascist? Certainly not, though some slight parallels can be drawn in some cases.

Which brings up another oft missed point: fascism isn't Right-wing, it has no more in common with the Right than it does with the Left. It's a radical ideology, it's about bold new things rather than static stability or regression.

So I partially agree with you and the author of the article you cite, along with many conservatives. Bush has expanded the federal government too much, he has spent too many hard-stolen taxpayer dollars. The manner in which the war is being conducted opens the potential for all sorts of abuses and unfortunate outcomes.

But at the same time, I support some of the very things conservatives and liberals attack. True conservatives would fight our enemies out of gravest necessity, acting only when directly threatened. Liberals would... well, sometimes I wonder if they'd fight at all. But our President and his "neo-con" backers prefer to fight proactively, go on the offense and remake the corner of the world that spawns the terrorists. It's a bold and radical position, perhaps even worthy of a fascist.

But at the same time what is happening? Those tyrannies are being replaced by republics. Nations we've taken no direct action against are beginning to feel some pressure to follow that road, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have just begun to contemplate elections, even if limited. Some argue that we're making gains abroad by destroying our own free republic but it just isn't the case, though a few examples (PATRIOT Act) stand out and indicate otherwise. Overall the trend is expanding freedom abroad and chipping away at the edifice of government that we're burdened with at home, even though some parts of it seem to be expanding and draw attention from the whole picture. An intent to expand freedom, efforts to reduce the footprint of government and a vision wrought with compromises and half-measures. Hardly a shining beacon of fascism, good or ill.

To quote the article:
"The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms."

Indeed, but let's not forget that it has been on the table for a very long time. The entire spectrum is chock full of kooks willing to deny basic freedoms to those they don't agree with, Left to Right and everywhere in between. While liberals and conservatives alike have their own reasons, sometimes even valid for concern over where this Administration is leading us they would do well to check their flanks and their six regularly.

Acknowledging that you too are a threat to liberty under the right (or wrong) conditions is an important step in protecting it. That first look around without the doctrine-filters can be disorienting, but it's worth it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

This coming from a recovering fascist.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 11:14:46

Genuine introspection. This is why I believe Cobra Commander would make a worthy pro-consul.

= = =

Persuade me that a new Iraqi government dominated by Sistani's people is part of the "Bush plan" and I would be far more willing to give credit to this Administration for spreading democracy.

So much for my being a "cult-ist"

As a factual matter, however, I believe a Shia Islamic Iraq (even if relatively moderate and non-military) is very very far removed from what this Administration intended as the end-state consequence of the regime change decision. (Edit: Recall how vigorously the US once opposed these Iraqi elections, seeking to postpone them until after a new constitution was written by caucuses we would help select.)

Frankly, I do have hope that the Administration will decide that Sistani's coalition is the best we can do, and if they make that decision, Iraq will have many tough days ahead but also will have an optimistic future.

Edited By BWhite on 1108055911

Palomar · 2005-02-10 11:25:46

*Cobra: I'm curious to know what you mean by "recovering fascist."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 11:43:12

Persuade me that a new Iraqi government dominated by Sistani's people is part of the "Bush plan" and I would be far more willing to give credit to this Administration for spreading democracy.

That I cannot do for it simply isn't the case.

That said, if that is the outcome and the situation is better than before the war I will give credit to the Administration for initiating it and recognizing (even if not publicly) that while what they sought is impossible, a "lesser" outcome is acceptable. Trying for the best outcome we can get is all anyone can do, someone who sees it too late is better than those who would do nothing.

As a factual matter, however, I believe a Shia Islamic Iraq (even if relatively moderate and non-military) is very very far removed from what this Administration intended as the end-state consequence of the regime change decision.

Depending on the timeframe for "end state" that one adheres to. From my perspective we're actually ahead of schedule, but I always envisioned a generational approach to do it properly, despite misgivings about the attention span of the American people in general. Hopefully "Culture-Building Lite" is workable with lasting effects.

Frankly, I do have hope that the Administration will decide that Sistani's coalition is the best we can do, and if they make that decision, Iraq will have many tough days ahead but also will have an optimistic future.

And on that we can agree.
<raises glass>
To the best future we can get.

Cindy:

*Cobra: I'm curious to know what you mean by "recovering fascist."

Actually, "recovering" might not be quite the right word. "Evolving" might be better. Really I just mean that I've long since stopped looking to formulaic analysis within an ideologic framework, instead opting for a pragmatic approach taking every situation as it is. Some of the old baggage is still there, but only what is still relevant and worth keeping.

The result is a big garbage heap of ideas and whole lotta grey in the Weltenschaung.

For all its clunkiness, Post-Fascist Libertarian still works better than anything else I can think of. Freedom needs limits, people need freedom, people and governments alike need responsibility.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 12:20:31

Shakespeare's play Henry V when read in conjunction with Henry VI has always struck me as a powerful argument against fascism.

Assume for sake of argument we get a truly great King. By literary mandate. Henry V is portrayed by Shakespeare as a nearly perfect king and England is happy, prosperous and free under the benevolent guidance of their sovereign. Then he dies and his son, Henry VI, is utterly incapable of continuing the tradition, and England is ruined.

For better or worse, the strength and wisdom of the legislative branch determines the political health of any republic because in that institution we have a collection of men and women who can carry on traditions that will span transitions in the holding of executive power.

Like in space policy. A President who supports space policy is only really relevant if he can accomplish something before his term expires.

Edited By BWhite on 1108059691

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 12:40:18

Shakespeare's play Henry V when read in conjunction with Henry VI has always struck me as a powerful argument against fascism.

It's an oversimplification as with fascism implemented as conceived succession isn't a matter of heredity but merit. It may well have devolved that way had it continued, but it wasn't the plan.

For better or worse, the strength and wisdom of the legislative branch determines the political health of any republic because in that institution we have a collection of men and women who can carry on traditions that will span transitions in the holding of executive power.

Which still applies in the case of fascism, particularly taking into account corporatist assemblies. Legislative bodies can be selected by means other than political party affiliation, though corporatism is one of those terms used to mean many different things leading to confusion, I'm referring to the type advocated in British fascism which has the twin virtues of having been more extensively thought out than the continental variety and having never been implemented, thus saving it from the glaring shortcomings of botched execution.

Your point is valid, though I'd present it differently. With power concentrated in the executive, it works wonderfully with a good dictator and horribly with a bad one. A legislative assembly elected by the people in some form moderates the effects both ways, hampering the good and the bad alike from their chosen course.

But then I've transcended fascism so I have nothing to defend.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 13:16:17

Shakespeare's play Henry V when read in conjunction with Henry VI has always struck me as a powerful argument against fascism.
It's an oversimplification as with fascism implemented as conceived succession isn't a matter of heredity but merit. It may well have devolved that way had it continued, but it wasn't the plan.

Let's move beyond oversimplification, okay?

From Plato's Republic:

There will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed, my dear Glaucon, of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers.

If a system of fascism could truly select as rulers those best at ruling, then such a system might well be our best hope for good government.

But remember, leaders to often rise to power through force or accident, therefore how do we (the common people) assure that our leaders are good and effective leaders?

Shakespeare's Henry V is a fascinating example because he rose to the throne by force (his father Bolingbroke overthrew Richard II via force of arms) and by accident. The "education" of Prince Hal by Falstaff (a drunkard and a thief) can justify limitless examination and Hal's emergence as the mighty King Henry V would plainly seem an accident. There is a great line of text about the accidental emergence of Henry V from the wayward youth of Hal.

England was afforded its greatest king by a combination of force and accident.

Now, read this excerpt from Federalist #1:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

= = =

In my opinion, the genius of 1776 and 1787 can be identified in Shakespeare's history plays. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1108063148

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 13:30:44

Again, I'm not arguing for the implementation of fascism but simply saying that some of it is worth re-examination. Any system based on the rule of a small elite or of one dicator has inherent and potentially fatal flaws, the same holds true for any system based on majority opinion. Balance is key, finding a way to harness the best apsects while suppressing the worst.

As for the Federalist excerpt, while the sentiment is noble it's an illusion. Accident and force always determine who wields power, we have merely found ways of buffering and concealing that fact. The means of applying force have been made more subtle and civilized and the accident of a series of competing, ill-informed choices from competing interests ending in an elected leader is itself an exercise of chance, an accident.

Whether a government is good or bad depends on those within it, not its method of organization. More authoritarian systems merely make the flaws more apparent.

In a sense, democracy and dictatorship are the twin dung heaps we're trying to build on here. Neither is solid and both reek, but perhaps by spreading them around enough something palatable can grow.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 14:09:05

Fascism DOES have its attractions. I agree with that completely.

Likewise, I was annoyed, back in high school, when they tried to teach us that drugs, or beer, or sex, wasn't really fun. Of course those things are fun! Its just that when indulged imprudently, worse consequences ensue.

Mob rule (unchecked democracy) is bad. I agree with that as well. The Founders of the American regime greatly feared mob-ocracy.

As far as I can tell, the goal in 1787 was to balance power, to prevent any one faction, any one party, any one officeholder from having unchecked power to impose tyranny.

One downside? Such a system makes it harder to get things done. Yup thats a problem and while making the trains run on time is not a bad thing in itself, the negative side effects of empowering a Mussolini offset the positive.

= = =

Telling Harry Reid to shut up and stop obstructing our President may make sense =IF= getting stuff done was the highest and most pressing duty of our government. It isn't. Maintaining institutions that balance power is.

To give George W. Bush unprecedented power (absent a declared war) because 51% of Americans voted for him would seem to embrace that very mob-ocracy we both agreed was a bad thing.

Edited By BWhite on 1108066210

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 14:29:22

As far as I can tell, the goal in 1787 was to balance power, to prevent any one faction, any one party, any one officeholder from having unchecked power to impose tyranny.

I can agree with that assessment. In practice it hasn't quite worked out as intended, but overall it's been better than most of the world has fared.

One downside? Such a system makes it harder to get things done. Yup thats a problem and while making the trains run on time is not a bad thing in itself, the negative side effects of empowering a Mussolini offset the positive.

On a purely theoretical note, it depends on the temperment and goals of the "Mussolini" in question and the importance of the thing that needs doing. If the trains run late and someone says "we need the firm hand of a wise dictator" I'll berate them. If we're being invaded by the Huns or something the argument has more merit.

No absolutes, just endless variable adding up to a balance acceptable at a specific moment.

Telling Harry Reid to shut up and stop obstructing our President may make sense =IF= getting stuff done was the highest and most pressing duty of our government. It isn't. Maintaining institutions that balance power is.

In general I agree, usually wanting government as hobbled as possible. it's when it acts poorly and can't be fixed that I become concerned.

On paper anarchy looks good <sighs> but then some hoodlums would screw it up and we'd be right back where we started.

To give George W. Bush unprecedented power (absent a declared war) because 51% of Americans voted for him would seem to embrace that very mob-ocracy we both agreed was a bad thing.

Overall I'm opposed to granting more power to anyone. Well, myself excluded of course. But then we're as hobbled by our present system as anyone else and have only so many options to work with, none of them very attractive.

We're probably not so far off in our assessments of where that balance between dictatorship and mobocracy lies as it often seems.

But then I'm something of an ad-hocrat myself, whatever works best for the time and place, adapt as needed.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 14:40:34

Persuade me that a new Iraqi government dominated by Sistani's people is part of the "Bush plan" and I would be far more willing to give credit to this Administration for spreading democracy.
That I cannot do for it simply isn't the case.
That said, if that is the outcome and the situation is better than before the war I will give credit to the Administration for initiating it and recognizing (even if not publicly) that while what they sought is impossible, a "lesser" outcome is acceptable. Trying for the best outcome we can get is all anyone can do, someone who sees it too late is better than those who would do nothing.

Likewise, I can and should credit the Administration for adopting an ad-hocracy position and letting go of Paul Bremer = Douglas MacArthur Ameri-forming of Iraq. Such credit should be given.

= = =

Here is another good thing I can say about Bush. His new budget slashes those annoying agricultural subsidies. Good!

See! No hate. :;):

(A quibble does remain as to whether Bush will stand his ground on this issue or back down to farm state GOP Senators and Representatives allowing them to campaign in 2006 as champions of the farm subsidies.)

Edited By BWhite on 1108068057

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-10 15:00:01

(A quibble does remain as to whether Bush will stand his ground on this issue or back down to farm state GOP Senators and Representatives allowing them to campaign in 2006 as champions of the farm subsidies.)

Yes, we never can tell about these things until they're actually done.

I seem to recall the Administration quielty floating a complete overhaul of the tax code including the gutting of the IRS a while back, scrapped before I could even say "Forward, damn the consequences." Can't recall the details so fleeting was it.

You had to be on the Right-wing conspiracy mailing list to get the memo on that one.

And we all know how solid the Vision... er, vague list of possibilities for Space "Exploration" is.

Okay, that's enough politico love-fest, we're scaring people.

BWhite · 2005-02-10 15:10:11

And we all know how solid the Vision... er, vague list of possibilities for Space "Exploration" is.
Okay, that's enough politico love-fest, we're scaring people.

Dude, brush up on your beltway lingo. Try:

"Space exploration potentialities and program related activities"

= = =

Speaking of which, is there ANY news on Sean O'Keefe's possible replacement?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2005-02-09 12:18:38

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#227 2005-02-09 14:30:34

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#228 2005-02-09 15:28:50

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#229 2005-02-09 15:51:41

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#230 2005-02-09 19:27:09

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#231 2005-02-09 21:44:32

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#232 2005-02-10 02:50:31

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#233 2005-02-10 06:22:02

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#234 2005-02-10 06:31:42

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#235 2005-02-10 07:10:55

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#236 2005-02-10 07:11:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#237 2005-02-10 09:19:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#238 2005-02-10 10:03:09

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#239 2005-02-10 11:14:46

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#240 2005-02-10 11:25:46

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#241 2005-02-10 11:43:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#242 2005-02-10 12:20:31

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#243 2005-02-10 12:40:18

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#244 2005-02-10 13:16:17

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#245 2005-02-10 13:30:44

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#246 2005-02-10 14:09:05

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#247 2005-02-10 14:29:22

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#248 2005-02-10 14:40:34

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#249 2005-02-10 15:00:01

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#250 2005-02-10 15:10:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer