Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

[/QUOTE]

In this movie the bunny was small, white and fluffy and it laid waste to half of Arthurs men. These were knights in full body armour (is that armor in American English? - I am so mixed up it's pathetic) with years of fighting experience. The rabbits in my yard are huge. Just think of what they could do.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


In this movie the bunny was small, white and fluffy and it laid waste to half of Arthurs men. These were knights in full body armour (is that armor in American English? - I am so mixed up it's pathetic) with years of fighting experience. The rabbits in my yard are huge. Just think of what they could do.

Agreed. Sidd and S_A_M are like the Sirs Bors and Gawain of our little group. I hope they come to their senses before they meet like fates at the fangs of your silly little rabbits.

[Spanky]

My sister just got back from the peace march in D.C. and my parents thought it was great that she went. She just seemd confused why I had such a problem with peace marches and peace in general. This is what I told her.

From my point of view there are two types of political systems. Might is right or might for right. There are no other options. If there is no law enforcement then then you get anarchy and the rule by the strong. So in my opinion you can't get justice without the use of force. In order to enforce the law and insure order (which is the only way to insure justice) you need to arrest people and lock them up. That is violence. If you don't use violence against people that do acts of injustice, you will end up with a system where might is right and there is no justice. In other words Justice and violence are inextricably linked.

So when I see people saying they are against law enforcement or say we don't need a police force, then, in my opinion they are promoting a system in which the criminals rule. Like Chicago in the 1930s. Once law enforcement breaks down the biggest and strongest thug takes control.

On the international stage justice and violence are also inextricably linked. Either might is right or there is might for right. So when I see peace marches, and people arguing to give peace a chance, I see people who want a world where might is right. A world in which people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc are allowed to do whatever they please.

I have said this before, but more people were killed in the last century by the governments that ruled them than died in war. Some poeple dispute that but in my mind if only half as many people died at the hands of their own government than died in war it still makes the same point. In many cases peace is the worst option.

When I hear people say the US cannot be the worlds policeman, that to me says, the US should allow might to be right. What is wrong with promoting justice throughout the world? Every recent war the US has fought has been aginst incredible evil. Hitler, Kim in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot Saddam Hussein etc. All these men were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.

In my opinion the idea of a peace and justice organization is a joke. You can't have both. You only get one. I choose justice. When I heard people say "Give Peace a Chance" I hear let injustice reign.

I understand the idea when people are against wars because it is being fought for an unjust reason. Our involement in suppressing the Phillipine insurrectino was an unjust war. But I think every war the US has been involved in since 1941 has been on the side of justice. Peace just for its own sake in my opinion, promotes injustice and encourages evil.

You can't have justice without using violence to create it. If you are against all forms of violence, you are against justice. It is that simple.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
My sister just got back from the peace march in D.C. and my parents thought it was great that she went. She just seemd confused why I had such a problem with peace marches and peace in general. This is what I told her.

From my point of view there are two types of political systems. Might is right or might for right. There are no other options. If there is no law enforcement then then you get anarchy and the rule by the strong. So in my opinion you can't get justice without the use of force. In order to enforce the law and insure order (which is the only way to insure justice) you need to arrest people and lock them up. That is violence. If you don't use violence against people that do acts of injustice, you will end up with a system where might is right and there is no justice. In other words Justice and violence are inextricably linked.

So when I see people saying they are against law enforcement or say we don't need a police force, then, in my opinion they are promoting a system in which the criminals rule. Like Chicago in the 1930s. Once law enforcement breaks down the biggest and strongest thug takes control.

On the international stage justice and violence are also inextricably linked. Either might is right or there is might for right. So when I see peace marches, and people arguing to give peace a chance, I see people who want a world where might is right. A world in which people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc are allowed to do whatever they please.

I have said this before, but more people were killed in the last century by the governments that ruled them than died in war. Some poeple dispute that but in my mind if only half as many people died at the hands of their own government than died in war it still makes the same point. In many cases peace is the worst option.

When I hear people say the US cannot be the worlds policeman, that to me says, the US should allow might to be right. What is wrong with promoting justice throughout the world? Every recent war the US has fought has been aginst incredible evil. Hitler, Kim in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot Saddam Hussein etc. All these men were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.

In my opinion the idea of a peace and justice organization is a joke. You can't have both. You only get one. I choose justice. When I heard people say "Give Peace a Chance" I hear let injustice reign.

I understand the idea when people are against wars because it is being fought for an unjust reason. Our involement in suppressing the Phillipine insurrectino was an unjust war. But I think every war the US has been involved in since 1941 has been on the side of justice. Peace just for its own sake in my opinion, promotes injustice and encourages evil.

You can't have justice without using violence to create it. If you are against all forms of violence, you are against justice. It is that simple.

It's ironic that the hippies that fought to stop the killing of the Vietnam War were sucessful, and probably pride themselves on their sucess. I wonder how many of them admit they are complicit in the millions of deaths in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos that lay at their doorsteps?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
My sister just got back from the peace march in D.C. and my parents thought it was great that she went. She just seemd confused why I had such a problem with peace marches and peace in general. This is what I told her.

From my point of view there are two types of political systems. Might is right or might for right. There are no other options. If there is no law enforcement then then you get anarchy and the rule by the strong. So in my opinion you can't get justice without the use of force. In order to enforce the law and insure order (which is the only way to insure justice) you need to arrest people and lock them up. That is violence. If you don't use violence against people that do acts of injustice, you will end up with a system where might is right and there is no justice. In other words Justice and violence are inextricably linked.

So when I see people saying they are against law enforcement or say we don't need a police force, then, in my opinion they are promoting a system in which the criminals rule. Like Chicago in the 1930s. Once law enforcement breaks down the biggest and strongest thug takes control.

On the international stage justice and violence are also inextricably linked. Either might is right or there is might for right. So when I see peace marches, and people arguing to give peace a chance, I see people who want a world where might is right. A world in which people like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot etc are allowed to do whatever they please.

I have said this before, but more people were killed in the last century by the governments that ruled them than died in war. Some poeple dispute that but in my mind if only half as many people died at the hands of their own government than died in war it still makes the same point. In many cases peace is the worst option.

When I hear people say the US cannot be the worlds policeman, that to me says, the US should allow might to be right. What is wrong with promoting justice throughout the world? Every recent war the US has fought has been aginst incredible evil. Hitler, Kim in North Korea, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot Saddam Hussein etc. All these men were responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.

In my opinion the idea of a peace and justice organization is a joke. You can't have both. You only get one. I choose justice. When I heard people say "Give Peace a Chance" I hear let injustice reign.

I understand the idea when people are against wars because it is being fought for an unjust reason. Our involement in suppressing the Phillipine insurrectino was an unjust war. But I think every war the US has been involved in since 1941 has been on the side of justice. Peace just for its own sake in my opinion, promotes injustice and encourages evil.

You can't have justice without using violence to create it. If you are against all forms of violence, you are against justice. It is that simple.

"All power springs from the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Zedong.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


From my point of view there [is one] type[s] of [just] political system[s]. might for right.

BIG 2!

Originally posted by Spanky


So when I see people saying they are against law enforcement or say we don't need a police force, then, in my opinion they are promoting a system in which the criminals rule. Like Chicago in the 1930s. Once law enforcement breaks down the biggest and strongest thug takes control.

And you distinguish the '30s from every subsequent period of Chicago how? The Daleys are Thugs, Spank. Every bit as corrupt as the Ceaucescus or the NK Kims. I just hope that they ultimately meet the just fate that they deserve. Like the former. Justice delayed does not have to be justice denied.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's ironic that the hippies that fought to stop the killing of the Vietnam War were sucessful, and probably pride themselves on their sucess. I wonder how many of them admit they are complicit in the millions of deaths in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos that lay at their doorsteps?

Did Ty's apology cover this? What I wonder is will the leftwing that consorts with Soros, Moveon.org and Michael Moore apologise and take responsibility for the deaths that result from the next 911? Or at the least line-up to be the first recipients of the largesse of their Islamic friends?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
"All power springs from the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Zedong.

The Second Amendment, the only amendment that really counts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Did Ty's apology cover this? What I wonder is will the leftwing that consorts with Soros, Moveon.org and Michael Moore apologise and take responsibility for the deaths that result from the next 911? Or at the least line-up to be the first recipients of the largesse of their Islamic friends?

Has Slave admitted that giving Ty the keys to this board was a mistake? If we're going to insist on full apology from them for credibility we need to admit our mistakes too.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Was Sidd drinking kool-aid before he got there?

Scotch

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
What has Bennet said about this? Has he acknowledged it? I am always suspicious of when people paraphrase what other people say, especially when there is politics inovled.

If this is true, and the real reason that they did not support the bill was to intentionally hurt schools that would be awful. I doubt this was the reason, and even in the slight chance it was, Bennet would never admit to it like that.

And this is not Gingrich's MO. If he was against the bill it was not to intentionlly hurt them so people would demand vouchers.

I have been accused by the teachers unions of demanding all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. I said the biggest problem with our school system is that the lemons (bad principles and bad teachers) are not removed. I said the biggest problem with the system is not that we don't spend enough money, it is that we waste our money. This comment was paraphrased by a teacher union rep as me saying that I thought most teachers were bad, that I was against teachers, and that I wanted their pay cut (and education funding cut). I have also been accused of wanting to destroy the system so people will choose a voucher system. I have never said such a thing, and this article seems really similar to what happened to me. Right now the teacher unions are putting out Ads that say that the bill that will increase the time it takes for them to get tenure from two years to four years will cut funding. They are lying.

But I don't see how this relates to the monster rabbits in my yard.

Wasn't this about the same time that the GOP was working to eliminate the DOE (which I supported, by the way)? If so, it does make some sense.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Scotch

Single malt?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wasn't this about the same time that the GOP was working to eliminate the DOE (which I supported, by the way)? If so, it does make some sense.

You supported the DoE or eliminating the DoE?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You supported the DoE or eliminating the DoE?

Eliminating.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Eliminating.

Right on!