Jump to content

Ian

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ian

  1. I fail to see how that contradicts my point I PS I was a bit harsh in my last post. Thx for not taking offence. I
  2. And whence do you obtain your pristine wisdom? From on high? I
  3. Thx for the kudos dude but you and I seem be at odds. My understanding is that he was fleeing the plane and was on a skywalk to the tarmac when he was shot. Granted that comes from CNN.... I
  4. Not to diminish the anguish and horror that beset the World Trade Center, I believe it's our obligation as citizens to stabilise the behaviour of the body-politic, regardless of circumstances. I
  5. There was a time in my memory when law-enforcement agents would refrain from using deadly force at all costs, including personal risk, in their effort to defuse a combustible situation. Only when imminent danger to the community was obvious and unavoidable would they bring to bear their fatal authority. And in most cases that worked and civil order was restored and enriched. Sadly, that regime appears to have passed. I
  6. I expect more of you Bruce. Yeah, I might have been a bit cavalier in making my point but I'm not impressed with your return. I
  7. And you are assured of this on what grounds? The supply of evidence provided by Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the horde of ad-seeking sycophants whiffing their after-jets? Or perhaps the drivel pouring forth from the White House, by way of Fox, CNN and MSNBC? I
  8. I think that's a wonderful idea, as in a Greek chorus. I
  9. Let me phrase it differently: Do you or do you not accept the Ameican constitution as the final court of appeal on matters moral and political? A simple yes or no will suffice. I
  10. Fair enough, but I never hated Hurley. On the contrary.... Cheers fella and don't be a stranger, I
  11. The point being discussed is the legitmate target of war under the American constitution. I suggest the conflict in Iraq does not satisfy the requirements of war set out in the constitution of the United States of America. I
  12. Sorry to be so late but that is an absolutely gorgeous and sublimely descriptive turn of phrase. Late again but I gotta say that's spot-on analysis, if somewhat deficient grammatically. I
  13. That's a pretty good word to meditate on. I
  14. The American presence in South Viet Nam was predicated upon the illegitimacy of Ho Chi Minh's authority in the north. You can't argue both sides of the coin. I
  15. BS, misty, First, there was no North Vietnamese government, according to the American military regime that occupied South Viet Nam. I
  16. I was speaking to my audience Dog. Sorry if my lack of capture offended you. I
  17. I'd like to bring this subject back to my original intention. It seems to me that, despite its Christian pretentions, America is deeply paganistic. Not the South and not Hollywood -- America. I
  18. And on that point you and I agree, to the marrow of my bones as it happens. I will limit my behaviour for the public good, subject only to my transgression from righteousness. I
  19. I know people will hate me for this but I can't keep silent: First, Bush's White House told lies to justify entering Iraq. Second -- and more important -- the United States of America is not at war. Under the American constitution, very specific conditions must be met in order for the nation to be considered at war. These conditions have not been met. Rather, they have been ignored, scandalised and condescended to by both the administration and the Congress. I
  20. kd, There are plenty of rows in this house. The one thing I can sequester is the fact that SzuSzu and I never speak down to our kids. No baby-talk and no false explanations of untidy events. I
×
×
  • Create New...