The Thumpin' Continues :-)

Tim J. wrote:
You mean Republican accountability.

Actually I didn't; but because that's where the power has been for the
past 6 years, I expect that's where the responsibility will settle for
most stuff.

Making a show and making a true effort are two different things, and those
in glass houses. . . well, you know. ;-)

I agree, & that's why I hedged in my statement. Despite whatever
letter follows the congresscritter's name, money is still green; and
there's still plenty of it in DC. I don't expect a D or R
automatically confers sainthood on anybody. Yeah, the corruption is
probably bi-partisan, but I mostly want to see some accountability for
the failed policies and misuse of intelligence that have led to the
deaths of so many Americans, the erosion of the Constitution, and the
destuction of America's moral standing in the world. I want people
answering questions under oath, not these cozy PR stunts that have been
passing for oversight.

Wil the Dems have the stones to do what's right or will it be SSDP? I
don't know, but I at least have reason for hope. We'll see.

Joe F.

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote
wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:25:59 -0600, wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:31:36 -0600, wrote:
wrote:

I woke up kinda late today, and am so pleased that roff, at
least, is taking my wish for bipartisan peace and harmony so
close to heart......

Can Washington be far behind?



- J "Pollyanna" R

On 1 Dec 2006 09:26:08 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Tim J. wrote:
You mean Republican accountability.

Actually I didn't; but because that's where the power has been for the
past 6 years, I expect that's where the responsibility will settle for
most stuff.

Er, six years? It's 2006 - 1994 was 12 years ago.

Making a show and making a true effort are two different things, and those
in glass houses. . . well, you know. ;-)

I agree, & that's why I hedged in my statement. Despite whatever
letter follows the congresscritter's name, money is still green; and
there's still plenty of it in DC. I don't expect a D or R
automatically confers sainthood on anybody. Yeah, the corruption is
probably bi-partisan, but I mostly want to see some accountability for
the failed policies and misuse of intelligence that have led to the
deaths of so many Americans, the erosion of the Constitution, and the
destuction of America's moral standing in the world. I want people
answering questions under oath, not these cozy PR stunts that have been
passing for oversight.

Um, corruption is "_probably_ bi-partisan?" Erosion of the
Constitution? And the real biggie - "America's" "moral standing?" You
sound like a true US-centric who hasn't a clue about the way the real
world works. If you feel the need to "hedge" "probably
bi-partisan," you REALLY need to stay away from the kool-aid. And the
US Constitution is no more or less "eroded" now as compared to any other
time is its history.

And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside,
the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's
simply not something that one group's government and people could have
over another group. In relation to one another, governments and the
people they govern have interests - no more, no less. A set of
governments might have (overt and/or covert) interests that align and
those interests may be counter to the (overt and/or covert) interests of
one or more other governments, but none have any "moral standing" over
another.

Wil the Dems have the stones to do what's right or will it be SSDP? I
don't know, but I at least have reason for hope.

"The Dems?" Are you a Dem? If so, will _you_ have the stones to do
what's "right?"

We'll see.

HTH,
R

wrote in message
...
...You
sound like a true US-centric who hasn't a clue about the way the real
world works....

Well then, why don't you just go ahead and tell us how it works? Seriously.

I mean, what the hell.......get a jump on the new year.....do something
entirely different......say something.

Wolfgang
any bets on whether dicklet takes the opportunity to answer a simple,
serious question?

Well ****; I wasn't going to bother, and I may as well send Wolfgang
the SNN now, but I have a few minutes to kill, so...

wrote:
Er, six years? It's 2006 - 1994 was 12 years ago.

Er, thanks; but I can subtract four digit numbers just fine. President
Chimpy has been in office for 6 years (rounding up, of course). Would
it have helped you understand if I had said "unchecked power"?

Erosion of the Constitution?

IMO, yes.

And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside,
the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's
simply not something that one group's government and people could have
over another group.

Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"?

"The Dems?" Are you a Dem?

Are you a Republican?


Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
ups.com...

the
destuction of America's moral standing in the world.

When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing
democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it
hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans. What we need is a new
attitude! We need to reassess our foreign and domestic policies, so that
they are compatible with our: energy needs, human rights rehtoric, so-called
democratic principles, and geo-political desires. If the only thing that we
are about is, "maintaining American standards of living and ensuring that
capitalisms is the enrichment of an extreme minority, we haven't a chance of
constructing a moral stance, muchless losing one we never had to begin with.

Op

Joe F.

On 1 Dec 2006 14:10:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote:


Erosion of the Constitution?

IMO, yes.

OK, how?

And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside,
the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's
simply not something that one group's government and people could have
over another group.

Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"?

No, and it wouldn't matter anyway - governments can have neither.

"The Dems?" Are you a Dem?

Are you a Republican?

Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the
question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no,
I'm not, nor have I ever been.

HTH,
R

wrote:
On 1 Dec 2006 14:10:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote:


Erosion of the Constitution?

IMO, yes.

OK, how?

And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside,
the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's
simply not something that one group's government and people could have
over another group.

Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"?

No, and it wouldn't matter anyway - governments can have neither.

"The Dems?" Are you a Dem?

Are you a Republican?

Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the
question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no,
I'm not, nor have I ever been.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wolfgang

Opus wrote:
When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing
democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it
hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans.

I don't disagree with your assessment of that facet of our
not-so-covert foreign policy; but we have in the past been so much more
than a mere military bully on the world stage. On balance, we have
done a lot of good for a lot of people outside our borders. I'm not so
naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in
terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

Joe F.

On 1 Dec 2006 14:58:15 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Opus wrote:
When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing
democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and it
hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans.

I don't disagree with your assessment of that facet of our
not-so-covert foreign policy; but we have in the past been so much more
than a mere military bully on the world stage. On balance, we have
done a lot of good for a lot of people outside our borders. I'm not so
naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in
terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives;

I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

You do? Really, seriously?

Joe F.