The Farce Forum

[Charles Drago]

No, John missed JFK's point.

But Dawn I wish it were as simple as you say, that the US could simply run around importing democracy. But there are those who do not want democracy since it runs counter to their selfish political or religious interests. Hence they will use terrorism to kill not only Americans but their fellow counterymen. But prevail we not only must but we will. And like it or not, the tide is turning in Iraq.

America, Dawn, is not the "new Rome". We use our coliseums to play rugby, not to feed the lions.

The "lions" are the Fascist corporate mermerists who have you clucking like a chicken.

And you, like me, like all of us, are hamburger.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Tim Gratz]

Charles, I am no hamburger. You must be thinking of a BK burger!

I sleep better at night knowing there is a Republican President sleeping with his wife who will be fresh in the morning to deal with the national security problems. Charles, despite our political differences those terrorists want to kill you as much as they want to kill me. President Clinton concentrated on sexual consequences (perhaps Hilary was another Marina?) and our national security suffered as a result. Anfd look how it tore apart our nation. Now you can argue it was a GOP vendetta against Clinton but as RN once put it, he gave them the sword.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

I sleep better at night knowing there is a Republican President sleeping with his wife who will be fresh in the morning to deal with the national security problems.

Anyone who sleeps better at night knowing that George W. Bush is in the White House is in dreamland to begin with.

The idea that Bush "deals with the national security problems" is really quaint when one considers that the number one national security problem is Bush himself.

[William Kelly]

Charles, I am no hamburger. You must be thinking of a BK burger!

I sleep better at night knowing there is a Republican President sleeping with his wife who will be fresh in the morning to deal with the national security problems. Charles, despite our political differences those terrorists want to kill you as much as they want to kill me. President Clinton concentrated on sexual consequences (perhaps Hilary was another Marina?) and our national security suffered as a result. Anfd look how it tore apart our nation. Now you can argue it was a GOP vendetta against Clinton but as RN once put it, he gave them the sword.

TG,

Why did you have to drag me into this?

Again proving AG's original point.

And if the GOP wasn't holding hearings on the stains on Monica Lowinski's dress it would have been holding ingelligence oversight hearings on terrorism like it should have been. The GOP was asleep at the Oversight wheel. There were no oversight hearings when they controlled Congress.

As for sleeping well,

"I sleep each night a little better, a little more confidently, because Lyndon Johnson is my President. For I know he lives and thinks and works to make sure that for all Ameicans, and indeed the growing body of the free world, the morning shall always come."

- Jack Valenti - from Quotations From Chairman LBJ (1968, Jack Shepherd and Christopher S. Wren, Simon & Schuster, NY)

Edited November 14, 2007 by William Kelly

[Charles Drago]

Charles, I am no hamburger. You must be thinking of a BK burger!

I sleep better at night knowing there is a Republican President sleeping with his wife who will be fresh in the morning to deal with the national security problems. Charles, despite our political differences those terrorists want to kill you as much as they want to kill me. President Clinton concentrated on sexual consequences (perhaps Hilary was another Marina?) and our national security suffered as a result. Anfd look how it tore apart our nation. Now you can argue it was a GOP vendetta against Clinton but as RN once put it, he gave them the sword.

As is the case with the oh-so-revealing purgings of Purvis, these Timescent excretions require no commentary whatsoever.

Charles

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom wrote:

"...it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom."

Tom, it is MY fervent hope that the US may SOON RETURN to erring on the side of ensuring the freedoms of the individual. For just over 6 years, the exact OPPOSITE has been the actual position of the government. And a government with an obvious fear of a free citizenry is one that cannot long endure, if history is our guide.

I'm not sure that the "bell" that tolls for the loss of individual freedom in America can be "un-rung." To some, apparently there IS such a thing as "too much freedom," as they fight their cause daily in the Congress and the courts of this land to take the constitutional freedoms from the hands of the law-abiding citizens and crumple them in the hands of the power-hungry government, as if they were only so many meaningless words written on worthless paper.

The "guarantees" of the Fourth Amendment have become conditional, in the hands of the current administration...and if you think THAT'S OK...imagine how much MORE diminished they will become in the hands of a President Hillary, should God turn his back on us and allow that to occur.

Mark;

Through the 50's and into the early 60's, we as a society were by all comparison a socially responsible community who would have never dreamed of committing some of todays crimes against our fellow americans.

Today, we live in a world of extremists, and this fanaticism has even reached into the segment of those within this country who have been given all, yet want to blame the government and/or society for not having given them more.

JFK's assassination was a forerunner of the future.

So, in addition to foreign extremists who for whatever reason seek to punish America, we are now cultivating our own "home grown" varieties such as McVeigh and his group.

Additionally, the American Government is fully aware that talk shows such as this one and all of the other "blogs" where dis-satisfied americans such as the Drago's and the Gray's can spew their vitriolic

garbage, will attract others of the same class of understanding who will actually believe much of what they say.

Thusly, the greatest enemy of our freedoms is in fact those who as a result of the freedoms given, spew forth and generate hatered against the same government which ensured those freedoms to criticize it.

The first function of government is Control of the Populace.

When portions of this populace generate uninformed fanaticism, we will all suffer as more and more of our personal freedoms must be curtailed in order to counter this.

Those who have no understandings of much of anything, are also unaware that this is the central problem in Iraq!

How does one control fanaticism without becoming another Saddam?

There is actually little trouble controlling fanatacism, as death is relatively permanent, and when one knows that if they participate in such activities, that their dog; cat; children; mother; father; grandparants; and most of their cousins will be shot for their participation in such actions, few are willing to participate.

And, those few who are willing, usually will be either eliminated by their own family or at least turned in to the government.

Unfortunately for you, as well as my children, and all other younger generation americans, life in America as it was, can no longer exist.

And, as more and more uninformed fanatics are bred, more and more of those freedoms which we took for granted will have to be curtailed in order to counter the fanaticism.

So unfortunately, it will in all probabililty continue to get worse.

[Mark Knight]

The first function of government is Control of the Populace.

Says YOU. You have it backwards, Tom.

In a free society, the first function of the populace is control of the government! As Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the...governed..."

In our form of government, the citizen holds ALL rights not specifically ceded to the government. Maybe you don't realize it, but when power flows FROM the government TO the citizens, governments have an inherent right to withdraw what are essentially PRIVELEGES...and de facto "constitutional rights" cease to exist.

Perhaps THAT is the world YOU prefer to live in, Tom...but I prefer what our Founding Fathers envisioned, NOT what petty tyrants, for centuries, have envisioned.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Mark Knight

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The first function of government is Control of the Populace.

This is true only in totalitarian states.

In democratic states, government is inaugurated BY the populace and for the BENEFIT of the populace.

Unfortunately for you, as well as my children, and all other younger generation americans, life in America as it was, can no longer exist.

And, as more and more uninformed fanatics are bred, more and more of those freedoms which we took for granted will have to be curtailed in order to counter the fanaticism.

So unfortunately, it will in all probabililty continue to get worse.

Once we ease out the "uninformed fanatics" currently in the White House, there is a chance that things will improve.

[Ron Ecker]

The first function of government is Control of the Populace.

What fascist manual does that come from? Or maybe I've overlooked the "Control of the Populace" clause in the U.S. Constitution.

When portions of this populace generate uninformed fanaticism, we will all suffer

Especially when a portion of such uninformed fanaticism occupies the White House.

Unfortunately for you, as well as my children, and all other younger generation americans, life in America as it was, can no longer exist.

And it's because of the fanatics who have taken over the government, not because of any fanatics outside of it.

And, as more and more uninformed fanatics are bred

Maybe it would help to have neocons sterilized.

[Cliff Varnell]

No, John missed JFK's point.

But Dawn I wish it were as simple as you say, that the US could simply run around importing democracy. But there are those who do not want democracy since it runs counter to their selfish political or religious interests.

Like those who engineered the overthrow of democratically-elected Mossedegh

in Iran, democratically-elected Arbenz in Guatemala, and democratically-elected

Allende in Chile?

American foreign policy was hijacked decades ago by a treasonous elite

(Harriman/Rockefeller) who have always hated democracy.

Hence they will use terrorism to kill not only Americans but their fellow counterymen.

But prevail we not only must but we will. And like it or not, the tide is turning in Iraq.

It didn't take long for the Sunnis of Anbar to realize that Al Qaeda's advocacy

of a 7th Century lifestyle was not for them.

Even though the US military destroyed 70% of Fallujah in '04 -- they hate

Al Qaeda more than they hate us.

Al Qaeda has no chance of taking root outside the mountains of Afghanistan

and Waziristan.

The "War on Terror" is an utterly bogus construct pimped by Americans

In Name Only who wave the American flag with one hand and burn the

U.S. Constitution with the other.

America, Dawn, is not the "new Rome". We use our coliseums to play rugby, not to feed the lions.

Rugby? Ever spend much time in America, Tim?

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, I suspect everyone who read that post except you knew that was a little joke in honour of our English compatriots.

But note how logical we Americans are:

In what is probably our most popular sport. a player kicks a ball with his foot so we call that game FOOTBALL.

In another popular sport, to score points the player must throw a ball through a basket so we naturally call that game BASKETBALL.

And finally in another of our most popular sports, to score the player must run across a numberr of bases so we call that game BASEBALL.

All very logical.

Now perhaps Stephen or John can explain what rugby has to do with RUGS!!

And while they are at it, why the English insist on inserting absolutely useless "u"s in words!

Edited November 14, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I suspect everyone who read that post except you knew that was a little joke in honour of our English compatriots.

I suspect everyone who reads this exchange will notice that you can't

defend the treasonous hijacking of our nation's blood and treasure by

those you support.

I suspect more than a few will conclude the joke is on you.

[John Simkin]

Now perhaps Stephen or John can explain what rugby has to do with RUGS!!

In the 18th century football was played by most of Britain's leading public schools. Each school had its own set of rules and style of game. In some schools the ball could be caught, if kicked below the hand or knee. If the ball was caught near the opposing goal, the catcher had the opportunity of scoring, by carrying it through the goal in three standing jumps.

Rugby, Marlborough and Cheltenham developed games that used both hands and feet. The football played at Shrewsbury and Winchester placed an emphasis on kicking and running with the ball (dribbling). School facilities also influenced the rules of these games. Students at Charterhouse played football within the cloisters of the old Carthusian monastery. As space was limited the players depended on dribbling skills. Whereas schools like Eton and Harrow had such large playing fields available that they developed a game that involved kicking the ball long distances.

In 1848 a meeting took place at Cambridge University to lay down the rules of football. As Philip Gibbons points out in Association Football in Victorian England (2001): "The varying rules of the game meant that the public schools were unable to compete against each other." Teachers representing Shrewsbury, Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Marlborough and Westminster, produced what became known as the Cambridge Rules. One participant explained what happened: "I cleared the tables and provided pens and paper... Every man brought a copy of his school rules, or knew them by heart, and our progress in framing new rules was slow."

It was decided that only the goalkeeper should handle the ball. Rugby School was not very happy with this decision and started their own game. Understandably, the game became known as rugby.

See my page on the history of football for the full story:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fhistory.htm

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, the long and short of it is that we won the Cold War and we need no longer fall asleep worrying if there will be a nuclear exchange between superpowers. The thrust of our foreign policy was supported by "wise men" from both parties, any one of whose intelligence and experience exceeded ours put together. So to complain about intervention in a specific nation is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking. Had we intervened in Cuba as we did in Guatemala, the Cuban people would now have a much better life.

The point is we were fighting a war with real enemies who meant to destroy our way of life and our freedom. Perhaps there were occasional excesses in our activities, but winning the Cold War as we did was surely better than the horrors of World War II.

And getting back to my original points, let us start with these two: Do you agree or disagree that the Marshall Plan was a good idea? Was what Gen MacArthur did in Japan worthwhile for both the US AND Japan?

Edited November 14, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks for the interesting explanation, John. I know you are interested in sports as well as history.

We Americans did invent baseball, didn't we?

P.S.

I do note you had no answer to my question about the excessive English use of "u"s.!

Edited November 14, 2007 by Tim Gratz