someguy Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 One. I do not discuss political opinions. It does no good. There is too much observer bias that gets in the way of facts.I agree that observer bias gets in the way of facts, but isn't it important to discuss such issues anyway. Standing by and watching things fall apart is certainly not a good strategy. This goes for all subjects not just politics. You seem to be a very intelligent person, you may have alot to teach others. That can't get done by not discussing. Maybe it would be best to point out that bias and try to show people to be understanding on both sides of the issue. Thomas Sowell is not a stupid man, yet he expresses an opinion. Just as I would express an opinion, if I were to say that I disagree with you as to your assessment of Ronald Reagan's intelligence. That is my opinion, not quantifiable by any measurement except by comparison with a generally agreed failure(Jimmy Carter), and a set of agreed successes(Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Clinton). Thus as an opinion about Reagan that I expressed, if I saw it, I could readily expect you to discount it as an objective result-measured observation that a rational man who saw the same evidence could easily duplicate. Why should you take my word for the same evidence we see when you could easily argue the opposite view based on the value weightings you assign to the variables? If you do not agree with my political definition of 1=1, then what is the point. As far as I am concerned, your value of 1=1 in politics is just as valid to you as mine is to me. Yet we would both agree in discussions quite quickly that your value =1 is not equal to my value =1. The only thing I would demand is that I respect your baseline interpetation and that you respect mine. Only on the facts of record would I then argue which I discuss in (2) and (3) where I honestly believe that the recorded history shows that your interpetation of Ronald Reagan might be in some slight error. While it is true that their is opinion based arguments in politcs that does not make them into useless conversation. Many times some persons opinion turns out to be right and the others wrong. The discussion is not whether Reagan is intelligent, it is to what degree is reagan intelligent. Is he Einstein intelligent? Is he krusty the clown intelligent? The point is we need somone of extraordinary inteligence to run the country not someone who is just crafty. Two. Reagan hand wrote the letters given in the hot-link as private correspondence in his own cursive script. Quick examination of the letters reveals a deep sarcastic coarse sense of humor and a rather distinct author's voice, that reveals a man writing from within himself-a piece of his character, not something that is dictated to him.I said maybe, but in any case the point is still missed. Three; Despite the popular histories, and the generally accepted belief that the US government is so vast that a president cannot know everytrhing that goes on within it, the FACT remains that the National Security Council is the structured executive arm of the National Security Council and is the president's personal staff. The NSC is the closest thing a president has to his own military staff. It does what he tells it he wants. Reagan knew that any order he gave to it would be carried out.. Any corporate officer worth his salt, or military officer knows what that means; plausible deniability for the record to escape legal responsibility to, and interference from outside agents. Most folks understand this game; so they either blame or forgive Reagan his actions. I'm something of a legalist, myself. I like the law, no matter how confused, to be obeyed; but I do recognize, and admire, the quick-witted fox who works his way through the hedge of the law to get that chicken. This would assume that the commander in chief knows how to use his NSC and that there is no corruption involved. That no one is making powerplays to gain info from them before it gets to the president, or to give the president false info. Again the point is we do not want a quick witted fox. We want the fox that says,"this is the chicken, I am going to eat it" and then does that, right in front of the public eye. The whole point of the contra was the illegal activity involved and who was going to take the blame. Corruption is the norm and we accept it. Why?Some Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damocles Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 I agree that observer bias gets in the way of facts, but isn't it important to discuss such issues anyway. Standing by and watching things fall apart is certainly not a good strategy. This goes for all subjects not just politics. You seem to be a very intelligent person, you may have alot to teach others. That can't get done by not discussing. Maybe it would be best to point out that bias and try to show people to be understanding on both sides of the issue. The point is to discuss the problem(the chicken) at hand and not the person. The problem is(the chicken). The solution is(plucking that chicken). Once men and women of good will decide on the problem(the chicken), and its solution(plucking its feathers), then you go out to find the fox to pluck that chicken. While it is true that their is opinion based arguments in politcs that does not make them into useless conversation. Many times some persons opinion turns out to be right and the others wrong. The discussion is not whether Reagan is intelligent, it is to what degree is reagan intelligent. Is he Einstein intelligent? Is he krusty the clown intelligent? The point is we need somone of extraordinary inteligence to run the country not someone who is just crafty. And there we disagree. I want Oppenheimer to manage the scientists, and Truman to have the good judgement to limit the Korean War. Oppenheimer as a politician would have been a disaster(as he was.). Truman, though, surrounded by the most incredibly brilliant,(Dean Rusk, Douglas MacArthur))but stupid(in the political and moral sense) men; had the good common sense you need in a leader. Intelligence isn't the only quality, for which you need to seek. I said maybe, but in any case the point is still missed.Maybe I missed something, but I thought you wrote that Reagan was a relatively average puppet of special interests, while I thought I wrote that he WAS the special interests(as in their leader)? This would assume that the commander in chief knows how to use his NSC and that there is no corruption involved. That no one is making powerplays to gain info from them before it gets to the president, or to give the president false info. Again the point is we do not want a quick witted fox. We want the fox that says,"this is the chicken, I am going to eat it" and then does that, right in front of the public eye. Reagan did. Clinton did(Where do you think Sandy Berger received his nickname "Sandy Burglar"?) Both Bushes apparently did not. Somalia and the Iraq fiasco. Sometiimes you should listen to your experts(Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell.). You hired them to staff your NSC for a reason, you know.The whole point of the contra was the illegal activity involved and who was going to take the blame. Corruption is the norm and we accept it. Why?Some Guy Actually the whole point of the Contra thing was political power. Who was going to run foreign policy?Tip O'Neil or Ronald Reagan? The better Irishman won. As always, the best; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted May 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nice post Damocles. :confused: I concur for the most part. What I liked about Truman, and I didn't even exist at the time,Was his accountability and tough stance on Pork-Barrel projects!! The Buck Stops Here. He was responsible, tough, and open-minded. Not the hollowed out stand -ins we have nowadays... We have a great thing here in the USA.Why throw it away??Why do we do the things we do? Why can't we utilize the Budget for better and greater things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damocles Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nice post Damocles. ;) I concur for the most part. What I liked about Truman, and I didn't even exist at the time,Was his accountability and tough stance on Pork-Barrel projects!! The Buck Stops Here. He was responsible, tough, and open-minded. Not the hollowed out stand -ins we have nowadays... We have a great thing here in the USA.Why throw it away??Why do we do the things we do? Why can't we utilize the Budget for better and greater things? As for why we do things the way we do? http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm That is Federalist #10. We have a great thing here in the USA.Why throw it away??Why do we do the things we do? Why, for example, don't we use the budget for the things we need to do desperately?(See 1-5 in my previous post. D.) I have no clue. Why does a madman hide in the mountains of western Pakistan plotting and committing the murders of people who had previously done him or his no harm whatsoever? In fact, why did he plot the murders of the very people who saved his religion's "holy sites" from being overrun by the "Butcher of Baghdad", a Bathist that he hated as much, if not more than he hated the "infidels"? I haven't figured that one out, either. Yet I see that I pay my part (about $20. billion US per month), in a war that has as one of its ultimate objectives, his murder in reprisal. Could someone please explain this? As always, the best of wishes; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Why does a madman hide in the mountains of western Pakistan plotting and committing the murders of people who had previously done him or his no harm whatsoever? In fact, why did he plot the murders of the very people who saved his religion's "holy sites" from being overrun by the "Butcher of Baghdad", a Bathist that he hated as much, if not more than he hated the "infidels"?... Could someone please explain this?He truly believes what he is doing is right for the future. While I am obscenely against acts of terror and destruction, I can see some logic and positive effect as a result of 9/11, for example. Every coin has two sides, some are just worth more than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted May 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 He truly believes what he is doing is right for the future. While I am obscenely against acts of terror and destruction, I can see some logic and positive effect as a result of 9/11, for example. Every coin has two sides, some are just worth more than others. Who was the best US president? I am for Bush's tough stance on terror. :evil: But we need to seal the borders...:doh: I actually approve of wiretaps and surveilance.why not?lets nail those bastards first. looking at everyone suspiciously,Racoon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damocles Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 He truly believes what he is doing is right for the future. While I am obscenely against acts of terror and destruction, I can see some logic and positive effect as a result of 9/11, for example. Every coin has two sides, some are just worth more than others. For whom? Did that madman advance his agenda? Did he change a single government to his purpose?Or does he have the people he wanted to drive out, flooding the skies and seas in the middle east with machines and men looking for him Are there infidels swarming everywhere in the lands he considered sacred telling "puppet governments" what to do and how to do it? Is Al Qaeda killing infidels or is it reduced to killing the "true believers"(Sunnis) in a campaign of terror trying to goad them into supporting a civil war in Afghanistan? Or how about the attempt to forment Sunni/Shia civil war in that botched war in Iraq? Arab on arab war? More misery on misery? This is what that madman wants? Osama bin Laden is a bigger fool than anybody on our side in this stupid insane conflict. As always, best wishes; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 [sarcasm] Tell me how you really feel? Your post was rather unemotional. [/sarcasm] What do you think I meant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 The point is to discuss the problem(the chicken) at hand and not the person. The problem is(the chicken). The solution is(plucking that chicken). Once men and women of good will decide on the problem(the chicken), and its solution(plucking its feathers), then you go out to find the fox to pluck that chicken. The problem is not the chicken the problem is the fox. The fox is what destroys the system for the advance of his own interests and not those of the nation (the chicken). We do not need someone who is out to wrong the nation(Pluck the chicken) in order to serve his own power interests. To use your own words, once men and women decide that the problem is the fox then they will pluck the fox and put in an "honest politician". (Oxymoron? That is the problem). We have had more than enough foxes and we need to remedy that. And there we disagree. I want Oppenheimer to manage the scientists, and Truman to have the good judgement to limit the Korean War. Oppenheimer as a politician would have been a disaster(as he was.). Truman, though, surrounded by the most incredibly brilliant,(Dean Rusk, Douglas MacArthur))but stupid(in the political and moral sense) men; had the good common sense you need in a leader. Intelligence isn't the only quality, for which you need to seek. True I am saying we need someone not of just intelligence but of integrity, honesty, virtue, and above all somone who puts the interests of the country and it's people above that of corporate and their own interests. Maybe I missed something, but I thought you wrote that Reagan was a relatively average puppet of special interests, while I thought I wrote that he WAS the special interests(as in their leader)?Maybe you're right about Reagan, maybe he was shrewd and calculating and smart. Honestly, I don't remember. What I do remember was that he was often made to look the fool. The point I make is that he is a "puppet of corporate power" because he acted in the interests of corporate power, the way most politicains do. Whether or not the strings are directly pulled or they act of their own interests is not the issue. It is that they act against the better interest of the people. If they are a puppet they should be a puppet of the people not the corporate power. Some Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 What I liked about Truman, and I didn't even exist at the time,Was his accountability and tough stance on Pork-Barrel projects!! The Buck Stops Here.Good stuff here. Integity. Working to diffuse the system of garbage politics. What we need. He was responsible, tough, and open-minded. Not the hollowed out stand -ins we have nowadays...Exactly.We have a great thing here in the USA.Why throw it away??Why do we do the things we do?Because we stand by idly. Why can't we utilize the Budget for better and greater things?Bacause that cuts into profits and corporate welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 He truly believes what he is doing is right for the future. While I am obscenely against acts of terror and destruction, I can see some logic and positive effect as a result of 9/11, for example. Every coin has two sides, some are just worth more than others.Absolutely. This guy is extreme but he believes he is acting in the interests of his nation and his people. What choice is left for those who are dwarfed in the face of ultimate US christian power. They feel much like we do, maybe even more so, that the opposing foces are trying to cover the world in their beliefs. If the tide were turned you would see the same actions from our people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 I am for Bush's tough stance on terror. :evil: It is like what was said earlier. you can't fight an enemy that has no substance to attack. Everyone has a tough stance on terror. Nobody wants it. He has not done anythinng to stop it by invading other countries, if anything he encourages it further.But we need to seal the borders...:doh: If someone wants in they will get in.I actually approve of wiretaps and surveilance.why not?Because they will use them for other interests besides terrorism. The point of the free world is to be free. Even if the wiretaps actually caught terrorists it would only be the ones strupid enough to discuss it openly. Those are not the ones we need to worry about.Fear is used to control the people. Fear of terror is used to support unsubstaniated war and to blind the public as to the real agenda. To get the public to give power to the governement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Did that madman advance his agenda? Yes, he killed some of the people who ar constantly killinmg his people. Did he change a single government to his purpose?Many people and countries are up in arms about the way the US handled the situation so, yes. Or does he have the people he wanted to drive out, flooding the skies and seas in the middle east with machines and men looking for him Big drawback. This is why terrorism is a last resort. A sign showing that diplomacy and talk is failing them in the face of a unbending enemy. Are there infidels swarming everywhere in the lands he considered sacred telling "puppet governments" what to do and how to do it?Is there major insurgency? Are there many people rising to the defense of these terrorists? It is plain to see our actions are not helping. Is Al Qaeda killing infidels or is it reduced to killing the "true believers"(Sunnis) in a campaign of terror trying to goad them into supporting a civil war in Afghanistan?True there is infighting about how to deal with the people who have destroyed their land and killed their brothers. Those who have come to their land and attacked them. Odd the parallel as to what happened to us. Arab on arab war? More misery on misery? This is what that madman wants? Is this what we want? More misery on misery? Osama bin Laden is a bigger fool than anybody on our side in this stupid insane conflict.True but left with no choice what are the Arab peolpe to do. We block all the dignified ways to deal with their issues such as diplomacy. We are just as big of fools to attack the wrong people in "response" 9/11. We are only bringing further misery and hatred upon ourselves and futhering the cause of Bin Laden. Some Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damocles Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 The problem is not the chicken the problem is the fox. The fox is what destroys the system for the advance of his own interests and not those of the nation (the chicken). We do not need someone who is out to wrong the nation(Pluck the chicken) in order to serve his own power interests. To use your own words, once men and women decide that the problem is the fox then they will pluck the fox and put in an "honest politician". (Oxymoron? That is the problem). We have had more than enough foxes and we need to remedy that. First of all, the problem is not the fox(the manager for getting at that chicken). The problem is the situation(the chicken) in which we find ourselves. Politicians are not the solution, Economics and resource management is the solution(How we use our resouces to feather pluck the chicken.). Politics is how we do economics and resource management in this country.(Selecting the managers who catch the chicken, boil the chicken, and pull out its feathers.). It is why the messy process of policy is called politics. Those chicken pluckers are not cheap. Hopefully you hire a good one every now and then. Do not equate the fox(a clever politician) with the jackal(a corrupt politician). True I am saying we need someone not of just intelligence but of integrity, honesty, virtue, and above all somone who puts the interests of the country and it's people above that of corporate and their own interests. Reagan was honest in his fashion. He told you what he was going to do and he did it. Its not his fault that people did not believe him or thought he was stupid in the way that he did it. Read this; http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ That man had "integrity, honesty, virtue and above all somone who put the interests of the country and it's people above that of corporate and his own interests." Think I'm kidding? Read the book and see what his program was and who he claimed it was aimed to benefit. Personally I'll take a dose of "faulty Reagonic practical capitalist business-based morality" to any political ideology-any political ideology -that uses some lunatic premise that treats people as "lumpenvolk" based on class warfare, religious bigotry, or "race, sex, or national origin". Maybe you're right about Reagan, maybe he was shrewd and calculating and smart. Honestly, I don't remember. What I do remember was that he was often made to look the fool. The point I make is that he is a "puppet of corporate power" because he acted in the interests of corporate power, the way most politicains do. Whether or not the strings are directly pulled or they act of their own interests is not the issue. It is that they act against the better interest of the people. If they are a puppet they should be a puppet of the people not the corporate power. Politics in the United States is often based on the attempt to make the opponent look foolish; That was the baboon of the prairie, Abraham Lincoln in a political cartoon, as published during the 1860 presidential election. How about Scottish Highlander Lincoln? Think about that. What I do remember was that he was often made to look the fool. The point I make is that he is a "puppet of corporate power" because he acted in the interests of corporate power, the way most politicains do. Remember that Lincoln was a railroad corporation lawyer and that one of his chief legislative objectives was the transcontinental railroad. That civil war/slavery thing was just a side issue. I agree that we disagree on this in the case of Reagan. See point one when I started my commentary in this thread.. 1=1. Your viewpoint is quite valid. I do not agree with it, and I have my good reasons for my opinion. But that is my 1=1. ------------------------------------------------- Absolutely. This guy is extreme but he believes he is acting in the interests of his nation and his people. What choice is left for those who are dwarfed in the face of ultimate US christian power. They feel much like we do, maybe even more so, that the opposing foces are trying to cover the world in their beliefs. If the tide were turned you would see the same actions from our people. Such a misunderstanding about what the man Osama bin Laden and what he believes is so profound that I must ediucate; http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/ That man is a madman. What islam was there when the Romans first held Jerusalem? What harm had America done to his people?(See my comments about the CIA below.) Americans bought oil from the lands he claimed as "holy"? We gave them our wealth to enrich themselves(which they misused) and he damns us because we reject his superstition? It is not our fault that the arabs chose to rule themselves the way they chose; http://www.inpr.org.tw/activities/20030826_9.pdf http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php [/url] http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_08.pdf Now I will tell you this. I HATE the CIA. That organization has ruined the US in Iran, Chile, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and it is directly responsible for creating that madman Osama bin Laden; http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/90.cfm Now there is where you and I can agree that Reagan and William J. Casey made profound errors in judgement. And finally, someguy, ponder this; Better the oppression of Turks than the justice of Arabs.Arab Proverb As always: the best; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damocles Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 [sarcasm] Tell me how you really feel? Your post was rather unemotional. [/sarcasm] What do you think I meant? Before there is misunderstanding, I read your previous post;He truly believes what he is doing is right for the future. While I am obscenely against acts of terror and destruction, I can see some logic and positive effect as a result of 9/11, for example. Every coin has two sides, some are just worth more than others. And I was left to interpret that you could see that that maniac might see himself as justified. I can see some logic and positive effect as a result of 9/11, for example. And I was puzzled. No rational man looking at the misery unleashed by 9-11 can conceivably conclude that anything good came of it for either the arabs or us. Especially from the arab point of view, I cannot see any positive result. Have they not now become the official "villiain", as a legitimate group to hate by our rather bigotted society?(Next to illegal immigrants of course.[sarcasm at that justification of bigotry intended. D.]) If I have some emotional baggage I express in the post when I excoriate Osama bin Laden, it is because looking at a smoking hole at Church St. & Vesey St. tended to instill some of that baggage. I looked at madness. And all I still see is madness from that episode. Sorry, about the emotionalism. As always, the best wishes; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 No rational man looking at the misery unleashed by 9-11 can conceivably conclude that anything good came of it for either the arabs or us. Especially from the arab point of view, I cannot see any positive result.If your proposition is true, then it would seem I am not a rational man. The eyes of those previous asleep to the world's situation are beginning to open. Those who might not otherwise care about the future of mankind may now find themselves asking important questions and, better, finding solutions to the problems of the world. Those in the middle east who have often been described a centuries behind may begin to change and catch up to the rest of the world, contributing new ideas and new energy to long stagnant problems. America may take back it's government which, for all too long, has been too strongly influenced by special interests and big business, doing so becase they see how mismanaged so many issues have been and hoping for something greater. The act sheds light on just how many blatant hypocracies exist on this planet, and how often it seems we are living in 1006 instead of 2006. And there are a select few, those who are truly lucky, who no longer want there to be borders and hatred but understanding and similarity and growth. But again, I've never claimed to be a rational man. :shrug: Although it has two sides, it's still the same coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damocles Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 If your proposition is true, then it would seem I am not a rational man.That is a judgement you must make for yourself on yourself. All I can do is suggest why a sane man would look on that ruin and see nothing but the madness and the hatred that led to the act and realize that the puny egos that conceived the deed look for someone else but themselves to blame for the failures that they are. That to take their frustrations at themselves out upon the innocent who had nothing to do with their own faults, that they refuse to see in themselves as being of themselves, puts them in the ranks of the insane; that they use violence as their chosen meams of venting frustration, means to me a childlike madness that conceived the act. The eyes of those previous asleep to the world's situation are beginning to open. MINE were never closed. Those who might not otherwise care about the future of mankind may now find themselves asking important questions and, better, finding solutions to the problems of the world. Been doing that as a man ever since I fiirst picked up the concept "heat pollution".Those in the middle east who have often been described a centuries behind may begin to change and catch up to the rest of the world, contributing new ideas and new energy to long stagnant problems. They still have one last chance, before the oil and the fresh water runs out. Time is not on their side. My guess is that they have a generation left. After that? Malthus, at least within their range. It all comes down to energy. If they have too many superstitious people, chasing too few joules? I pity them. America may take back it's government which, for all too long, has been too strongly influenced by special interests and big business, doing so becase they see how mismanaged so many issues have been and hoping for something greater. Don't wait for it. Work toward it. The act sheds light on just how many blatant hypocracies exist on this planet, and how often it seems we are living in 1006 instead of 2006. http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm http://hindutva.org/landrajput.html http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html Who attacked whom? And there are a select few, those who are truly lucky, who no longer want there to be borders and hatred but understanding and similarity and growth. I want peace, but not on Osama's terms. I want him dead. The same way I want the butchers of Dhafur dead, the same way I want the butchers of Mogadishu dead. the same way I want the fools who murdered the innocent in Rwanda dead, the same way I want the butchers in Zimbabwe...you nget the picture? You need a military to do that and you need force of arms. I'm sorry but you aren't going to get a one world state-ever. Not as long as you have fiends who seek power over their fellow men because they can. But again, I've never claimed to be a rational man. :shrug: You are a rational man. I recommend that you harness that idealism you have that is so at variance with the reality of the human condition and work toward your vision. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. But do not think it will be easy, or that most of humanity will not be against you, because despite what they say, most of them will be. Just don't let it stop you. Remember in a little place in Philadelphia-a bunch of hypocrits invoked words by which we still after 230 years have yet to achieve; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. We haven't given up trying............... Although it has two sides, it's still the same coin. That coin(war) has many faces, but in the end it comes down to two sides; barbarism and superstition against rationalism and realism. Choose your side which is rationalism and fight to win. As always; the best of wishes; (PS; It isn't just some arabs who are on the wrong side of the equation. Look at the title of this thread. D.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.