From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V10 #195 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Wednesday, July 14 2004 Volume 10 : Number 195 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: One moment of your time ["Cynthia Conrad" ] Re: One moment of your time [FAMarcus@aol.com] Two Sides of a Losing Battle [RavFlight@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:02:46 -0400 From: "Cynthia Conrad" Subject: Re: One moment of your time I think it's time for a nice round of Spank Bush: http://www.spankbush.com/ ;-) ==Cynthia== ==================================== Blood Ruby - blud roo'-bee (n.) atmospheric alternative music somewhere in the vein of dream pop, ethereal and neoprogressive rock See also www.blood-ruby.com ==================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:50:02 -0700 From: "Jack Sutton" Subject: RE: One moment of your time Wow... necessary evil, is that kind of like collateral damage?? Perhaps you wouldn't consider it necessary if it was your children being decapitated by smart bombs launched by idiots. I keep hearing our wonderful leaders and repeating sheep saying how much safer our world is now without Saddam. Saddam is a small player in the world of terror, corruption and big time criminals. George Bush is a war criminal capable of far more destruction and mayhem than Saddam could have dreamed about. You want the world to be a safer place, get rid of GW, the world would rejoice. Jack Sutton > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of > forwardtcm@softhome.net > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:37 AM > To: Ecto > Subject: Re: One moment of your time > > >I don't find anything amusing or silly about a war. > > The war isn't amusing...the people who are closed minded about the > "problem" > are amusing. > > >Ask yourselves this... > > > >Do the children of Iraq - (who have lost parents or limbs - or > >simply thier schools, etc etc etc due to the american invasion...) > > You think Saddam was better? You think decades of torture under Saddam is > better than a short period of turmoil, prior to the establishment of a > new, > peaceful government? Saddam would have passed his rule onto his sons when > he died, and they were worse than he is. > > Civilians get hurt in wars...period. War is bad, but some things are > worse. > Are you familiar with the concept of necessary evil? > > --Doug ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:34:23 EDT From: FAMarcus@aol.com Subject: Re: One moment of your time In a message dated 7/13/04 10:57:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, forwardtcm@softhome.net writes: Did you protest when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in an effort to distract the American public from his sexual entanglements? Or were you too busy defending his right to on-the-job-knob-gobbling? I'm sincerely interested in your answer. i don't know about her answer but this is about the most moronic thing i've read in awhile. we wasted 8 years of the right trying to find a way to bury clinton. over what? they tried to impeach him over a blow job that he lied about. really. who the hell cares? how does he doing that affect our lives? did he confide in you that he was going to blow up a pill factory to distract the american public? do you really believe he did that? that he knew it was a pill factory and he choose it to make the american public believe it was dangerous so we would forget he lied about a blow job. i don't know........i kinda believe he thought he was bombing a chemical factory. or whatever the hell he was given info that it was. we''ve been doing a lot of that in the last year in iraq. bombing. being that you have all this inside info would you mind very much letting me know how many times we were right and how many times we were wrong in bombing buildings that we were told were suspect? in the last year.........while the war as been going on. what amazes me that no one is talking impeachment over what may be an outright lie from bush. weapons of mass destruction. and i suspect thats just the tip of the iceberg. and by the way.........i'm sincerely not interested in your answer fred marcus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:08:41 EDT From: RavFlight@aol.com Subject: Two Sides of a Losing Battle It's incredible to me how these discussions get started sometimes. I've just finished time at a University, and it's going back and forth there, on screens and in bookstores, and now tearing through an otherwise peaceful little music list. Good Heavens! What's amazing to me is that so many people believe that protecting a high-image member of a party means protecting your beliefs. This is precisely the fear that so many founding fathers had over the formation of political parties in the first place. The blind assumption that believing in a party platform means believing in everything a particular person in that party, especially when that person is as high profile as the president, says. The kind of devotion to political parties that raises to the level of near 'faithful religious devotion' represents, in my opinion, one of the most blatant threats to the democratic process that I can imagine. Why is it that whenever Bush is attacked, Clinton is the one attacked in response? (And of course, defended as wholeheartedly in return) Is it possible to believe that BOTH acted with the global moral compass of a war-monger? Is it fair to suggest that the past fifty to seventy-five years of foreign policy have been predicated on profit over people, and that both parties have been overrun by oligarchical yes-men? In many cases, the most significant financial investors during presidential campaigns give money to BOTH parties and both candidates. Does that not seem like political bartering? What amazes me is that Republicans continue to rally around Bush despite his clear and obvious flaws (and I want to reiterate that I am equally astonished about the Democratic reaction to Clinton) If the republicans were truly smart and held the interests of the country in mind, they would say "We offer this other candidate as an alternative to Bush. We do not feel it was right...we do not feel that might makes right...and we offer ________ (McCain would be my choice) as a Republican alternative". Of course they do not do this. Does anyone remember (or at least have they read) how long the Republicans stood by NIXON? In fact there are many who still defend the actions. Why this blind faith? Why this devotion to an idea that does not even stand for you. The political parties that both of you are fighting so religiously for have grown so detached from the needs of the actual country (and the people within it) that they are not even WORTH fighting for. Fight for people. If you are a conservative, then elect someone that matches your views. He or she doesn't have to be a Republican...all he/she has to be is a good person willing to follow the call that they set forward in their campaign, and follow through with the platform that you agreed to when you elected him. That is democracy. That is what this country should be about. The rest of this stuff is just ridiculous horse trading...and I am appalled that in an age of cynicism like ours, so many are willing to blindly follow their way to the trough of the party loyalty system. ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V10 #195 ***************************