From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #287 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Tuesday, November 30 2004 Volume 06 : Number 287 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [RS] Apology [Tom Neff ] Re: [RS] Don't Faint for Me Argentina [Vanessa Wills ] Re: [RS] Re: Does distress make me look fat? ["kunigunda" ] Re: [RS] Did Iraq have Wmd's ["kunigunda" ] Re: [RS] (Off-topic) Did Iraq have Wmd's [rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu] Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show ["Kristen Myshrall" Subject: Re: [RS] Apology - --On Monday, November 29, 2004 9:33 AM -0800 David Pancoast wrote: > Those guys brought us the 55 mph speed limit in a place where it's > hundreds of miles between towns; The speed limit on the vast majority of Nevada's highways is 70mph, and it's 75mph on I-80, the major east-west Interstate. Only a few state routes and mountain roads get down to 55. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:16:56 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] Don't Faint for Me Argentina LOL! What can I say, B? Love to hear the man sing. :) - --V On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:44:02 -0500, B Gallagher wrote: > ------- > Have you ever been to one Grateful Dead concert? > Have you ever eaten just one Lays potatoe (republican spelling) chip? > And I thought I was a Fan? :) > > BG ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:19:49 -0600 From: "kunigunda" Subject: Re: [RS] Re: Does distress make me look fat? Good point! Carrie in KC > I am not much of a "party man" either way, I normally try to vote for > whoever seems like they'd make the most effective President, Senator, dog > catcher etc. But it does distress me to see historic national elections > being decided on today's menu of issues. To an outsider it must appear like > America has solved all of its *real* problems, and has nothing better to do > than fight over rare medical procedures, and how long kids should wait > until we tell them about fossils, and who gets to keep a slice of wedding > cake in the freezer. > > In historical terms it is as though the Lincoln-Douglas debates had focused > on the issue of allowing Quakers to wear hats in public, or whether > bleeding to alleviate choleric humour should be performed on the Sabbath. > Or really that they had been the Fortescue-Bartleby debates, since Lincoln > and Douglas would long since have quit politics in disgust, leaving the > field to used mule salesmen and mountebank itinerant preachers. > > In today's dangerous and exciting world, with the fate of nations, the > planet's life support system, and future prosperity all hanging in the > balance, new worlds waiting to be explored, etc, you might hope that these > national campaigns would present us with some real choices on major league > issues. People promising to leave the UN if elected, or start a Moon > colony, or fire Alan Greenspan, or declare war on China, or whatever. Then > the people would, you know, choose, and history books in AD 2150 would have > chapters entitled "The Millennium Era: Great Decisions" which went well or > badly as the case may be. > > Instead you have 50-50 elections fought over a series of addictive > distractions, while the big questions are tacitly conceded to a sort of > backroom consensus. I am not trivializing intolerance, nor denying that a > rabid theocracy would be bad news for America, but I'm also not convinced > that either of those trends really stems from the choice of President. And > meanwhile, the things that actually do stem from the choice of President > are left languishing in the public (un)consciousness. > > I don't have any solutions to this dilemma, but it bugs me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:55:22 -0500 From: "John Fix 3rd" Subject: [RS] Weapons sales > From: Jason Stanley > > France? China? Russia? They were too busy selling weapons > to people like Saddam to worry about things like that. > LOL...yes, they had to step in and take up the slack as we had decided to stop selling to Saddam. Don't pick on countries for selling weapons to Saddam when our defense contractors already made billions in the past selling to him. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:05:51 -0600 From: "kunigunda" Subject: Re: [RS] Did Iraq have Wmd's Jason sez: Unfortunately it is the U.S.'s job to be a world cop. It has been this way for many many years and we have saved millions upon millions of people by standing up for what is right. Who else is going to do it? France? China? Russia? On a darker note: Does anyone want to venture a guess as to when China will be taking over this (world cop) role? Something tells me it will eventually happen. Carrie in KC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:12:05 -0500 From: rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu Subject: Re: [RS] (Off-topic) Did Iraq have Wmd's Quoting Jason Stanley : ........... Err...lord, I just don't know where to begin. It's difficult to tackle "refutations" like these, because they are so broad and naive and allow the claimant to basically get away with anything. Look, nobody thinks that Saddam was a good guy. Nobody denies that Saddam would love to get his hands on weapons, and would love to blow us to oblivion if he got them. Hell, nobody denies that Saddam DID have weapons, and was doing his best to evade UN restrictions. Okay? Don't take the cheap comeback of saying "oh yeah? Well, look at what this guy was doing, and now tell me he wasn't bad!" That's exactly what Bush has been struggling to do, and it's exactly the kind of crap that we have to put up when pointing out Bush's incredible deceptions. Yes, Iraq had Anthrax. Yes, Iraq had missiles. Yes, Iraq was doing its best to get other material. *But did they have the material that BUSH SAID THEY HAD? Did they have the kind of capacity that Bush SAID THEY HAVE? No. No, no, no, no, and no. Yes, they had bad stuff...but so does every other country with any political clout. Yes, they would have used it given the chance...but so would every other country that hates us (and there are many other countries who have much greater capacity to hurt us). Yes, they would love to teach us arrogant westerners a lesson...but so would every other country. The point is that Iraq did NOT have *what Bush said they had*, not NEARLY the destructive capabilities that Bush & Cheney have been scaring us with. Do not sidestep the issue by saying "but they had bad stuff!" *Of course* they did! That is not the point, not even close, no matter how hard Bush tries to make it the point. Lord, it's this kind of codswallop that is supposed to make us feel bad about criticizing our government for pulling the wool over our eyes. As far as honestly believing the intel reports that "fooled" the U.S. and the British governments...well, I'm sure there are folks far more qualified than I am who can point out how incredibly flimsy and weak our vaunted "evidence" was...and who can point out the government's various threats and tactics used to force various individuals to accept/sign off on the "evidence". Again, if Bush's response to the evidence being disproven was to say "we were wrong, but we have to forge ahead", then there would be little reason to think that we manufactured evidence. But when he followed it up with one excuse after another, attempting to shift focus from evidence to other issues...well, that's what you do when you've been caught in a lie and are trying to cover your tracks. That is not the policy of an honest government. God, there's so much else to say, I just don't know where else to go. I'll limit myself to this, given that this is the issue that I weighed in on originally. (I'll let others present the obvious case for terror of the Patriot Act and its various guises.) I'll hit just one other thing: you say that I'm not qualified to make determinations from intelligence reports that I haven't read, but then you say "trust me, [the Iraqi people] are happier without him and keeping their body parts intact"? Seriously? And you know that how? We're just supposed to trust your expert knowledge? Never mind that the Iraqis hate us with a vengeance. Never mind that many Iraqis have *testified* to preferring Saddam's regime to the anarchy and rampant random killing that we have invited/inflicted on the country. Never mind that few "body parts" remain "intact" when they are subject to landmines, explosive attacks, and gunfire from those who have chosen to explore the "freedom" we have granted them by killing whomever they please. Forgive me, but no, I do not just trust that they are better off, not when so many signs point to exactly the opposite. Like I said earlier, I believe--though I do not know--that there is potential to pull this out of the fire and save this mess...but that would not change the nature of what Bush has perpetrated. - --Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:35:01 -0500 From: "Kristen Myshrall" Subject: Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show www.flemingartists.com/sh-itin.html :) Kristen >From: "kunigunda" >Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org >To: >Subject: Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:39:37 -0600 > >Kristen, anybody - What schedule? It's not on the one linked to his >website. > > > *grin* Yes I'm sure...trust me! Oh, I just checked... it's on Richard's > > schedule now. > >Frantic for confimation in KC >Carrie _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #287 ***********************************