Text 15080, 234 rader
Skriven 2008-05-10 11:06:23 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 14984 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Unrest in France
========================
09 May 08 09:20, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB>>> Roy, what do you want me to do? I don't damn the States out of
 RB>>> hand,

 RW>> Just out of ignorance.

 RB> Do you mean that if I were better informed, I _would_ damn the States
 RB> out of hand?

No, you already do that. Better informed would mean that you're not
damning it out of ignorance.

 RB>>> although the present situation frightens me.

 RW>> I wouldn't let it bother you, since it's only temporary. In January,
 RW>> things will look different, whether a Democrat or a Republican sits
 RW>> in the White House.

 RB> Regrettably, I don't believe that for one minute. I'd be happier if I
 RB> could, but the damage that's been done in the past 8 years is not
 RB> going to undone overnight, regardless of who leads the next
 RB> administration.

Didn't your hear the facetiousness in my voice?

 RB>>> I got into hot water defending the Iraq invasion in the German
 RB>>> echos, because I was honestly convinced that there _were_ WMDs if
 RB>>> the intelligence people said there were, and thought Iraq was a big
 RB>>> place to hide such things.

 RW>> And you were ashamed of doing that because you think the Germans,
 RW>> French and Russkies were right?

 RB> No, I see I was wrong because they _were_ right, as even the US
 RB> administration meanwhile admits.

Yes, and out of the otherside of his mouth, GW says it was the right thing
to do, regardless of the intelligence. I tend to agree.

 RB>>> It never even occurred to me that the information was being
 RB>>> manipulated. I trusted both the President and his advisors, and
 RB>>> firmly believed in the separation of powers in the Constitution.

 RW>> So did I...and I'm not sorry that it turned out the way it did. Iraq
 RW>> will be a better place to be in the future...all they need to do is
 RW>> take the ball and run with it.

 RB> Like in the last few years? That's another thing I'd like to believe,
 RB> but can't.

If things go as the Dems plan, Obama will pull 'all' US troops out of Iraq
the last week of January, 2009. Iraq will then be influenced by Iran,
which will lead up to an attempt to obliterate Isreal. You thought the US
was the intimidating force of the world, just wait.

 RB>>> the President was a gung-ho fanatic,

 RW>> I think he did the right thing.

 RB> And I meanwhile think he did the one thing that would enable bin
 RB> Laden, al Quaida and the Taliban to regroup and strengthen.

Oh yeah? Where is their strength? Or is hiding in the mountains between
Afghanistan and Pakistan something to worry about? Keep your eye on Iran.
That will be the next biggest threat to the world.

 RB>>> and the constitutional separation of powers is a myth.

 RW>> Is it? I see the separation everyday. Congress is always fighting
 RW>> with the White House, and vice versa.

 RB> And who loses? Congress.

Congress hasn't acted on their own because they know they won't get
re-elected if they do. The first 100 days of the Dems leading both houses
produced nothing they promised before they got elected. You and I both
know that Congress could make an attempt to bypass vetos, all it takes is
a 2/3rds majority vote. The Dems know they don't have it, so does the
Prez. It's really funny how one man can intimidate 538 people into doing
nothing.

 RW>> The only people who seem to make any sense are the Supreme Court
 RW>> justices.

 RB> And they stay well away from the hot potatos.

I've been doing a study on what it takes to get a case to be heard before
the USSC. It isn't easy. Most of the time the nine justices have during a
day is used up in reviewing cases that want to be heard. The rest of the
time they use to hear cases and write opinions. That takes up their
alloted 24 hours per day. Since most of them are so old, I wonder how much
time is spent napping.

 RB>>> Just look at Bush's blatent rejection of the idea that he cannot
 RB>>> order domestic wiretaps without judicual approval - and Congress'
 RB>>> kowtow to that view.

 RW>> The only people who have anything to worry about there are those who
 RW>> would conspire with the enemy. I'm for it.

 RB> This kind of BS is also prevalent among those here in Germany who are
 RB> uninformed and unable to realize that _everyone_ has something to
 RB> hide.

Sure...I have nothing to hide, so I don't feel intimidated by it. Others
may have problems with it, but I don't think it's a big deal.

 RB> The most regrettable part of it is that they generally only
 RB> realize their error too late, and then scream because they themselves
 RB> are the targets of government snooping.

I could agree with you there, if I lived in Europe. Here, Congress has to
agree and pass it into law permanately. Then it will have to pass under
the noses of the USSC before anyone should be worried about it.

 RB>>> To be frank, I'm frightened. I'm frightened at the developments in
 RB>>> the States and even more frightened that our own politicians
 RB>>> embrace every democracy-limiting, privacy-intrusive act of Mr. Bush
 RB>>> so enthusiastically. Democracy, quo vadis?

 RW>> You have democracy over there? Odd, I didn't think there was such a
 RW>> thing in countries who haven't got the 'people' running government.

 RB> And how long have you lived outside the States to venture such an
 RB> opinion?

That's an opinion voiced by your friends there who believe it's called
freedom. They don't know real freedom, as they have no experience with it.
It's like the subject above where the government snoops into your private
life. They think they have freedom, but they really don't.

 RB>>> In times past, the States was a refuge in a troubled world. I
 RB>>> regret deeply that is no longer the case, and can only hope that a
 RB>>> new administration - probably several will be necessary - will
 RB>>> manage to rebuild the loss of democracy and confidence in the
 RB>>> States.

 RW>> I'm still as free as I was on September 10, 2001...

 RB> That's what you think.

That's what I know.

 RW>> What I see is an improvement in illegal immigration laws. If you
 RW>> want to come here and work, fine, but when the job is done, go home.

 RB> Too late, Roy. If the States had wanted that, it would have had to
 RB> start a couple of hundred years ago.

You're not living here, so you have no idea what is wanted here.

 RB> And of course, it would not have developed as it did for lack of
 RB> population.

right, it developed as it did because the government didn't allow the
border patrol enougn money or manpower to enforce the law. Not to mention
the people who want those illegals here to pick their fruit.

 RB>>> Roy, I was born in the States and grew up there. What happens there
 RB>>> concerns me greatly. I want to see a United States that is free,

 RW>> Look no further. It's free.

 RB> It _was_ free.

I'm looking all about and all I see is freedom. There's no gestapo roaming
the streets harrassing anyone.

 RB>>> democratic and again respected in the world. The present situation
 RB>>> makes me desperately unhappy.

 RW>> The best you can hope for in your situation is to become a German
 RW>> citizen and don't look back. We'll take care of America without your
 RW>> presence.

 RB> As a matter of fact, I _am_ a German citizen, naturalized after some
 RB> 35 years here. At the time, I was sad that I had to give up my
 RB> American citizenship to become naturalized, but meanwhile that
 RB> sadness has faded considerably.

Great. Don't worry about America, she's in good hands.

 RB> I think once you get past the border, the intrusive, demeaning and
 RB> downright insulting "security" checks (do they really think foreign
 RB> visitors are going to bomb a taxi from the airport to the city??),

You can never tell. That's done in other countries, there's nothing to
make me think it can't be done here. The more security the better.

 RB> the people in the States are just as good-natured and pleasant as
 RB> they always were. The problem is getting past the border: that's no
 RB> more fun nowadays than a night in prison, with the risk that one
 RB> false word will get you held without charge for interrogation and
 RB> possibly put on the next plane leaving the States at your expense.

Well, if it walks like a duck, etc.

 RB> But I don't expect you to understand that, as you've apparently never
 RB> ben outside the States (except maybe on a visitors' card to Mexico),

There isn't a visitor's card required to enter Mexico. There is a passport
required to go deep into Mexico, but that can be waivered if you have
enough cash. Crossing the border into Mexico only requires a ride or walk
across the border. I havn't been near the border of Mexico in a few years,
but entering probably hasn't changed a one bit.

 RB> and have thus never had to grit your teeth at the border controls -

The only border controls are coming back to the US. Drive or walk up to
the border patrol officer and declare your citizenship and show proof of
citizenship if asked. State your business in Mexico. Tell him what
you're bringing back and if it's under $100 worth, duty free. Else pay the
duty and bid goodday.  BP to US citizen - 'Ok, have a nice day.'

I hear that it may have changed, a photo ID issued by the US government
may be required now. No big deal. In the near future, State photo IDs will
have the HLS logo on them and it'll be just as easy to cross as it was in
the past.

 RB> if you had visited a country behind the Iron Curtain, you might have
 RB> some idea how foreigners now view American immigration procedures.
 RB> The only difference was that the Iron Curtain countries never took
 RB> your fingerprints.

Too bad you gave up your US citizen papers. You could now get a passcard
and wouldn't need to go through all that.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)