Text 24153, 224 rader
Skriven 2006-10-30 18:39:01 av Mimi Gallandt (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 24147 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Election
================
John Hull -> Gary Braswell wrote:
 JH> Gary Braswell -> RICHARD HELM wrote:
 GB>> RICHARD HELM -> GARY BRASWELL wrote:
 RH>>> On 29 Oct 10, GARY BRASWELL wrote to MIMI GALLANDT:
 RH>>> on the subject: Election

 GB>>>> MIMI GALLANDT -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 MG>>>>> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:

 JB>>>>>>> So as the elections move closer, one has to ask oneself, why do
 JB>>>>>>> the terroris want the republicans to lose the election and
 JB>>>>>>> democrats to win ?  As soon as folks rationalize that question,
 JB>>>>>>> they will pull the right levers in the poll places.

 VH>>>>>> The terrorists rightly regard a Democratic victory in this
 JH> election
 VH>>>>>> as a major victory for them.

 MG>>>>> Of course they do and they're correct, it would be.

 GB>>>> And now there are 4.

 RH>>> Your comments simply don't make sense.  Terrorists win when the
 GB>> citizenry
 RH>>> losses confidence in the government.  The Democratic Party by its
 GB>> words and
 RH>>> deeds HAVE given support to the goals of terrorists.

 GB>> The terrorists have been trying to influence our national elections
 JH> when
 GB>> they come.

 GB>> To get both parties claiming the other is a means for terrorist
 JH> victory
 GB>> is a victory for the terrorists.


 RH>>> One process that the Democratic Party hopes to win the majority in
 JH> the
 RH>>> coming election is by discouraging Republican voters confidence in
 GB>> their
 RH>>> elected representatives and NOT vote on or before Nov 7.  *IF* that
 GB>> happens
 RH>>> then by text book definition the Democratic Party HAS aided the
 GB>> terrorists.

 GB>> That is one process and not a new one. I don't happen to agree with
 JH> it.
 GB>> But why it is done makes the difference. I doubt the Democratic
 JH> party is
 GB>> doing it because the terrorists have said lack of Republican voter
 GB>> turnout will help us win.

 JH> If the Democrat Party cared a damn about what it stood for, knowing that
 JH> the terrorists preferred it to the GOP, they would change their
 JH> platform.  That they don't says to me they don't give a damn.

 GB>> Terrorists have stated their preference of what party is elected
 JH> and the
 GB>> parties are using the very terrorists words in elections.

 JH> The GOP is doing so as a warning to the party faithful that Democrat
 JH> policies put us in harm's way to an even greater extent.  The Dems are
 JH> doing so to regain party power.

 GB>> And of course, if the terrorists hit us, even not on our soil, just
 GB>> before the election, it drives votes to the incumbent and Republicans.
 GB>> But I don't think Republicans are sitting around hoping for a
 GB>> pre-election hit either.


 RH>>> The Democratic Party hasn't offered a single plan to accomplish the
 RH>>> objective of supporting democracy in Iraq or any other country in the

 GB>> The Democrats are just like the Republicans were before the advent of
 GB>> Newt and the Contract With America. Contrarians who are out and
 JH> want in
 GB>> and either cannot or will not formulate policy, but just point out
 JH> what
 GB>> is wrong and talk about change.

 JH> Oh, baloney, Gary.  The GOP has always had an agenda to lower taxes, get
 JH> rid of welfare, etc.  It took us a long time to overcome the Democrat
 JH> incumbents, and we couldn't have done it had Clinton not tried to make a
 JH> run on our guns and without the help of Rush Limbaugh.

 GB>> I love the idea of supporting and spreading democracy. I wish it
 JH> was our
 GB>> policy since we first started this country. But we have a long
 JH> record of
 GB>> supporting tyrannical dictators who in then old days just declared
 JH> they
 GB>> were anti-communist and would get help from us. In more modern times,
 GB>> all they had to be was the enemy of our enemy with no thought of what
 GB>> happens afterward. Now if they claim they are anti-terrorist, they
 JH> will
 GB>> get a pass.

 GB>> To be honest, I worry what will pass for Democracy in the Arab world.
 GB>> They could easily establish an Islamic Republic who elect their
 GB>> representatives, but still practice orthodox or even radical tenets of
 GB>> their faith and be against us and maybe even fight us.

 JH> The Arab world doesn't want democracy, and in fact, doesn't understand
 JH> it.  They want an Islamic theocracy across the entire world, subject to
 JH> Shia law.  Just because they elect representatives doesn't make them a
 JH> democratic form of government.

 GB>> Certainly their governments could be made up of terrorists or factions
 GB>> of terrorists. We see examples of that now.

 GB>> Without a reformation or renaissance in their religion and culture, I
 GB>> don't see much hope for what we think of as a democracy holding.

 GB>> My own .2 worth is we are seeing a slower version of what is left
 JH> if the
 GB>> wake of colonialism. The the undeveloped world, after colonialists
 JH> left
 GB>> and traditional monarchs took back over, the radical elements
 JH> eventually
 GB>> threw them out of power and established all sorts of brutal regimes
 JH> that
 GB>> only now are we seeing true democracies rise from.

 GB>> I think much of the Arab world is in the transition phase from
 GB>> monarchies to regimes.

 JH> They are in transition from one country living in the 14th century to
 JH> all of the middle east - if we let them.  Islam is not set up to allow
 JH> individual freedom and one man one vote type of government.  It depends
 JH> on the subjugation of the individual to the almighty Allah and his holy
 JH> mullahs on earth.  It is organized and run as a dictatorship, nothing
less.

 GB>> Conservatives who warned about nation building are right. You cannot
 GB>> give democracy to peoples who have never really known it.

 GB>> I guess I am still a fool then, because I don't want to believe it.

 JH> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 RH>>> entire world.  In fact that party's last candidate for the Office of
 RH>>> President of the United States has openly stated on two occasion
 GB>> that the
 RH>>> peoples of the countries where we had soldiers on line didn't even
 RH>>> understand democracy.  He said it about the Vietnamese and he's
 GB>> said it
 RH>>> about the Iraqis.

 GB>> I don't think the people have to understand democracy to want it. They
 GB>> understand freedom and that is all that is needed to get things going.
 GB>> Then they have to have the will to fight and die for it.

 JH> The very definition of freedom is antithetical to Islam and everything
 JH> it stands for.  You cannot be a devout muslim and also believe in
 JH> republican democracy.

 RH>>> Clearly the ONLY way that the Democratic Party can win in the coming
 RH>>> election is that people don't vote.  *IF* that happens the
 GB>> terrorists HAVE
 RH>>> won.

 GB>> Well, its the off season vote, right? Where in times past, mostly only
 GB>> the loyal base votes.

 GB>> There is a lot of discontent out there. I guess if the Democrats
 JH> can get
 GB>> the Republican base not to vote it would be a landslide.

 GB>> I don't think that will happen.

 GB>> Discontent and uneasiness does not have to be defined in people for
 JH> them
 GB>> to vote a different way.

 GB>> Cynically we all know that what a politician says is not always
 JH> what he
 GB>> does and just because you have a plan, it may not be the right one or
 GB>> even one the people want more of at the moment.

 JH> We elect people to represent us.  Their job is to use their best
 JH> judgement to do what is necessary to carry out that mandate.  Sometimes
 JH> they blow.  But that's why we have elections.  If somebody is not doing
 JH> what they were elected to do, we can vote them out.  Their job is not to
 JH> facilate from one plan de jour to the next trying to satisfy the whims
 JH> of the populace.

 GB>> I think the Dems can win if lots of people come out and vote.

 GB>> I know a lot of Dems who are all fired up now. I know a lot of
 GB>> Republicans who are not happy with the way things are going.

 GB>> I also know its all anecdotal.

 GB>> But I do know one thing. Whenever we do engage in the democratic
 GB>> process, unfettered by terrorist propaganda that one party or another
 GB>> gives them victory, we win. If we left them divide us, we have lost.

 JH> It used to be that US political policy differences between the parties
 JH> ended at the water's edge.  Overseas we spoke with one voice and one
 JH> mind, supporting the president and his foreign policy.  The world
 JH> respected us in those days.  But that isn't the way it is anymore.  The
 JH> Democrats have become so enamored of wielding power and retaining power
 JH> at any cost that they have sacrificed that solidarity, and exposed us to
 JH> the kind of attacks carried out by fascist Islamic terrorists.  It isn't
 JH> a matter of them dividing us, its a matter of the Democrats abandoning
 JH> those things that enabled us to function on the world stage, solely to
 JH> regain and retain political power on the home front.


 JH> You really need to harden your heart, Gary, and realize that they want
 JH> to kill us, and don't give a damn about such niceties as democracy and
 JH> fair play, justice, or morality.

Ain't that the truth? BTW; I notice that you use Mozilla also and that you are
able to get yours to quote that which you're replying to with the quoted text
starting with the identifier ie GB> indicating that the quoted text is from
Gary. Can you explain how to configure it to do so? If it would be better done
in email and not taking up echo bandwidth my email is

mimigal@cox.net

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)