# Oabama passed 'Indefinite Detention' bill on NYE!



## Precarious (Jan 3, 2012)

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Prepare for a rough one...

*Rachel Maddow Skewers Obama*

*What you need to know:*

http://globaleconomi...ng-bill-of.html


----------



## rs4guy (Jan 3, 2012)

The American way!


----------



## Termite48 (Jan 3, 2012)

Obama scares me, even though he has only one more year at the helm.


----------



## patrickfraser (Jan 3, 2012)

Still plenty of time to run this ship _further _aground.


----------



## StevieHification (Jan 3, 2012)

EVERYONE knows about this. That's why it's not talked about because everyone already knows about this. SOPA is also about to be passed which we can say goodbye to anything that can be "copy infringed", So it was nice talking to you people on Mantidforum.net while it lasted. Happy New Years!


----------



## StevieHification (Jan 3, 2012)

Oh and I forgot to add that everyone knew about SOPA that's why it's getting passed.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 4, 2012)

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.*"*

*Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator*

*Source: Attributed. 58 BC, Speech in the Roman Senate*

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

*Samuel Adams "The Father of the American Revolution" *


----------



## massaman (Jan 4, 2012)

I am a proud republican and obama is not my president sadly but glad he will be voted out this year if people wise up and use their power to oust him!


----------



## patrickfraser (Jan 4, 2012)

I'm sorry, but he IS all American's president.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 4, 2012)

General comment:

It's pretty ignorant to vote based on team mentality, whether Repugnican or Demoncrap. After all, if you examine the agenda you will find it remains the same no matter which puppet is "voted" in. Obama merely continued Bush's march toward tyranny. So pick a team and, congratulations, same result.

Every individual needs to be judged on their own merit. In my opinion, the only hope of changing policy in ways that benefit the people - and not banking, big business and globalism - is Ron Paul. Therefore, "they" (those representing the _satus quo_) will do all in their power to stop him.


----------



## gripen (Jan 4, 2012)

Precarious said:


> Repugnican or Demoncrap.


hahaha so true. picking sides is no fun!


----------



## Idolofreak (Jan 4, 2012)

Precarious said:


> ...the only hope of changing policy in ways that benefit the people - and not banking, big business and globalism - is Ron Paul...


Cool man I'm a Ron Paul supporter too. I'd vote if I was old enough.


----------



## massaman (Jan 4, 2012)

Ron Paul looks to me to be a few eggs short of a dozen and looks like he just escaped some asylum!


----------



## Precarious (Jan 4, 2012)

massaman said:


> Ron Paul looks to me to be a few eggs short of a dozen and looks like he just escaped some asylum!


And this is why the country is doomed.

Yes, it's always good to judge a potential leader by how they look rather than their record of performance. I suppose little boy Bush with his squinty, piggy eyes struck you as a real genius.

Besides, Paul is on your team! Go team, go! Rah-rah-rah! Give more money to failing, flailing banks! Start more wars! Take all our rights! Thank you, sir! May I have another?


----------



## gripen (Jan 4, 2012)

think of it this way were screwed anyway why not vote Obama. he is the lesser of many evils.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 4, 2012)

gripen said:


> think of it this way were screwed anyway why not vote Obama. he is the lesser of many evils.


The lesser of evils? He just took away our right to due process! He hasn't delivered on any of his promises. He has continued ALL of the Bush era policies. When even a party mouthpiece like Rachel Maddow feels the need to voice concern over his tyrannical leanings you know something is up.

Obama is a very bad joke. I though Bush was the worst president in American history, and he was... until Obama. The next president will either turn things around or be our last president and I only hear one man offering any alternatives to the status quo.

You are now living in Martial Law. So either stand up for real change or fall further into this growing pit of police state mentality.


----------



## hibiscusmile (Jan 4, 2012)

oh grannyma does not want to enter into this  ! :gun_bandana:


----------



## Precarious (Jan 4, 2012)

hibiscusmile said:


> oh grannyma does not want to enter into this  ! :gun_bandana:


Too late for that! *It's ON!!! * :2guns: :wheelchair: 

  :lol:


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 5, 2012)

And now , of course, it posted twice. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 5, 2012)

This is the third time that I have tried to post on this thread . The two previous attempts were "disappeared" by Ron Paul, Precarious, or a "proud Republican". Who can say, but I'll make this short and not check my facts!.

The opening quotation from Tully's Philippics is particularly apropriate to the discussion since it adresses the overreaching of governmental (senatorial) power and Anthony's attempt to elevate Julius Caesar to emperor "You all did see howon the Luperchal I thrice presented him a kingly crown" from "The Empire Strikes Back"). The rhetoric is great, but Cicero was not a very consistent politician and he paid with his life for his opposition to Anthoy, something that I hope is not likely to happen to Precarious.

The NDAA ammendment was proposed by both a Republican and Democratic senator and passed overwhelmingly in both houses. to pretend that this is Obama's law is absurd.

Obama's original objectiion to signing off on the law was that the White House saw the codification of the ammendment as a threat to presidential power. There have been many proponents of a strong presidency aside from George Bush(he was a Republican. President Obama is a Democrat for anyone who may be missing the point) and presidents from both parties in the past, such as Teddy Roosevelt ® and Harry Truman (D) have embraced this view of the presidency, so Obama is hardly espousing something new, here.

I do find, though, that Obama has reneged on the spirit of his campaign promises here, but while I personally find this contemptible, I am aware that it is a coomonplace for US presidents. Obama's predecessor, G. Bush did exactly the same with oil caps.

While most posters were content to make anti Obama comments which revealed more about their ignorance of the situation than anything else, Precarious at least suggested a saviour for our problem, even though his savior was none other than Ron Paul, fresh from a promising (or not) third place finish in the first Republican caucus.

There are two problems here. The most obvious is that his chances of changing the NDAA ammendment in the face of such overwhelming bipartisan support are just about nil. Republicans thought that Bush would get Rowe versus Wade repealed. Democrats thought that Obama would reduce greenhouse emissions. Sorry folks. You actually trusted the promises of a politician?

The second problem is with the idea of Paul becoming president. He might not repeal the NDAA, but surely he would take a crack at the Equal Rights Act? He has consistently and emphatically opposed it before and after its passing on the grounds that it did not achieve racial harmony. And I, in my ignorance, thought that it was designed to create equal living, educational, and employment conditions for blacks and whites.

As an MD, he has laid the blame for AIDS firmly on the backs of the sufferers, which he claims is a result of their naughty life style. Do we want a president who belives this? And do we want a president whose newletters contained racial slurs in the first person? When this issue was raised at the last election, he said that the rematks were taken out of context (heard that one before?). Now he says that he said that to avoid "confusing' the elctorate and that he had never made the remarks at all and that they were the work of "ghpst writers".. Would you let folks put out views that you opposed in a newsletter bearing your name without recalling or retracting them? Apparently Dr. Paul would.

Also, Sporeworld, in what is a no doubt a sincerely intended statement, quotes Dr Paul's comment that the ammendment puts the US under "martial law", a comment endorsed by Mark Udall (D) (have i got that right? politics is a family business with that clan. Mo, I think was the daddy.). What is their qualification for such profound comments? Dr Paul is an MD and Mark Udall got a bachelors in "American Civilization" (something that would have made Oscar Wilde laugh uproariously) so it seems that rhetoric aside, neither is qualified to make such a statement, though claims that abortion and the clubbing of baby seals are "murder" gives some license for such absurd exageration.

Finally, have you thought why this pathetic, nasty piece of legislation was so widely accepted by both parties? Since WWII, American poliicians have had a slew of foreign foes with which to terrorize us and support the Military Industrial Comples (Eienhouer's words, remember?). First there were the nasty Commies with their batallions of fictitious tanks ready to wipe out the Allies in Europe (and don't forget how McCarthy helped us to expose the threat at home), and then their were the "proxy wars" in Korea and South Vietnam. It has been said that we lost the latter and at best tied the former, but they were great for justifying military spending, so all was not lost. Now with our withdrawal from Iraq, where we saved the Civilized World from the threat of weapons of mass destruction (O.K. so they were imaginary, but they might have been real) and a pointless war in Afghanistan while our "friends and allies" in Pakistan were sheltering Osama bin Lauden, which will soon come to a close. So how can we justify more modest military spending consistent with the fact that we are up to our necks in international debt? Homeland Security! That's the ticket! We have become much more sophisticated in how to spend a federal dollar in home defence since Sacco and Vanzetti (I daren't check the spelling!) raised the dreaded spector of Anarchism nearly 100 years ago.

And that's it. Be cheered by the fact that as an alien, I stand a much greater chance of being held incommunicando than you US citizens, but I promise that I shall rat on each and every one of you if I think that it will help my case.


----------



## jrh3 (Jan 5, 2012)

patrickfraser said:


> I'm sorry, but he IS all American's president.


For now...... Ever heard that the CSA will rise again......hmmmmmm.......getting close........maybe so...........ahhhh the good ol days.


----------



## jrh3 (Jan 5, 2012)

gripen said:


> think of it this way were screwed anyway why not vote Obama. he is the lesser of many evils.


I guess everyone has forgot that the people have the right and power to overthrow any government. but yet they sit and watch.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 5, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> The NDAA ammendment was proposed by both a Republican and Democratic senator and passed overwhelmingly in both houses. to pretend that this is Obama's law is absurd.


Not his bill, his language. Catch up...

And I've already clearly stated both parties represent the same agenda.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 5, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> The second problem is with the idea of Paul becoming president. He might not repeal the NDAA, but surely he would take a crack at the Equal Rights Act? He has consistently and emphatically opposed it before and after its passing on the grounds that it did not achieve racial harmony. And I, in my ignorance, thought that it was designed to create equal living, educational, and employment conditions for blacks and whites.


http://www.nolanchar...t-a-racist.html

I won't watse much breath defending Paul. He is a strict constitutionalist and only supports governmental policy allowed within the guidlines set forth in Constitution. That is the basis of his opinion on the Equal Rights Act which should be known to anyone with knowledge of his record. The accusations of racism are assinine to say the least and a parroting of what the status qou prefer you think of when thinking of Ron Paul.

Polly want a cracker, you cracker?







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY


----------



## Precarious (Jan 5, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> Also, Sporeworld, in what is a no doubt a sincerely intended statement, quotes Dr Paul's comment that the ammendment puts the US under "martial law", a comment endorsed by Mark Udall (D) (have i got that right? politics is a family business with that clan. Mo, I think was the daddy.). What is their qualification for such profound comments? Dr Paul is an MD and Mark Udall got a bachelors in "American Civilization" (something that would have made Oscar Wilde laugh uproariously) so it seems that rhetoric aside, neither is qualified to make such a statement, though claims that abortion and the clubbing of baby seals are "murder" gives some license for such absurd exageration.


Here we go with the "only an expert can tell you the sky is blue" defense.  

In reality, Phil, anyone with a brain can comprehend that revocation of The Rule of Law through authorization of the military to arrest and indefinitely imprison American citizens within the United States, without Due Process and against Posse Comitatus, whether at the behest of a sitting president or not, amounts to Martial Law.

Seriously, Phil. Get a grip.






Before it gets outlawed too!


----------



## Precarious (Jan 5, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> So how can we justify more modest military spending consistent with the fact that we are up to our necks in international debt? Homeland Security! That's the ticket! We have become much more sophisticated in how to spend a federal dollar in home defence since Sacco and Vanzetti (I daren't check the spelling!) raised the dreaded spector of Anarchism nearly 100 years ago.
> 
> And that's it. Be cheered by the fact that as an alien, I stand a much greater chance of being held incommunicando than you US citizens, but I promise that I shall rat on each and every one of you if I think that it will help my case.


Arguments for increased funding of the war machine do not include any rationalization for indefinite detention of American citizens.

Faulty logic. Does not compute...






In fact, it will work the opposite effect by causing further distrust of government and growing dissent...

...which is a reason to put their new found unconstitutional powers to work! :tank: 

*Catch 22! King Me!*

http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 6, 2012)

And there I thought, Precarious, that we could debate like grown ups. You may be right about the governmenrtal profit from indefinitelyincarcerating terrorist suspects, or you may be wrong, if enough folks are incarcerated. Books tend to wander around in my apartment, but I am glad to say that _Years of Infamy_ by Nichi Nishiura, which I last saw on my toilet has moved to the pile of junk under my computer, so I am able to report that on 021942, by exective order 9066, 10,000 Japanese American citizens, most with no history of anti American or pro Japanese sentiment were incarcerated in concentration camps. So yes, from what i know of federal incarceration, and with all respect, it is probably much greater than your experience, a profitable business could be made from the reopening of such camps. This was indeed., martial law.

You say that only experts can tell if the sky is blue, by which I asume you mean that only someone with your clarity of thought (together, of course, with Dr Paul and Mr. Udall) can see past the ignorance of those in Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court who do not see the new act as the obviously illegal, since undeclared, assumption of Martial Law.

Here is a great passage from Sir Walter Scott:

Dark lightning shone from Roderic's eye:

"Sores thy presumption then so high,

" Because a wretched kern ye slew

" Homage to name to Roderic Dhu?"

"Dhu" means "black" so we know that he was a pretty serious player. For some reason i thought it apropriate.

Do not misunderstand me, Precarious, i think that the new provisions are immoral, particularly since i am more likely to be a target of them than you, but not illegal.

My lovely GN, Helen, now has her English Batchelor's degree in political science. Our discussions, naturally, usually deal with British politics, and the PM's pulling back from the EU is one to which neither of us has an easy answer, but her view of American politics in which a president of one party can be elected when the opposition has a majority in both houses and a politically appointed supreme court where the members do not necessarily reflect the party in power is shared, as you may expect, throughout Europe.We are, alas, a laughing stock.

So, we have heard the rhetoric, Precarious. What action do you advise us to take? Vote for Ron Paul with the most conservative voting record in my lifetime, and overlook his multiple shortcomings (at least in my view)? Take action by voting against your own party's candidate if he voted for the extension of the modified bill and his opponent is against it? Or what?

And if you can refrain from insulting me in your answer, that would be cool, too.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 6, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> And there I thought, Precarious, that we could debate like grown ups....
> 
> And if you can refrain from insulting me in your answer, that would be cool, too.


Phil, buddy, please... I thought we were fond enough of each other to take some ribbing. You know I love ya. :blush: 

I'm sorry if you feel I insulted you. I was merely trying to make my points in a humorous manner. And to my eyes a lot of what you said was pretty baseless. I'm not used to that from you. As I've said before, you are likely the most well-read person I have or will ever meet. So it's strange to me you can't read between the lines on these issues. I hope I backed up my tasteless jokes well enough to demonstrate a few points you found informative. After all, that's why I'm wasting my time typing away rather than lounging on a beach with a Swedish model. (It could happen!  )

If you ask me all of the candidates but for Ron Paul are nothing but tangled masses of shortcomings. The main issues at stake are economy and freedom. Paul is the only guy with any solutions. The only guy with any new ideas. The only guy not towing a party line script written by the banks and their toadie little minions. The only guy who will stand by his oath to uphold the Constitution. And most importantly to me, the only guy with the gonads to speak the TRUTH.

So feel free to nitpick. No one is perfect. Not even me!  Seriously, don't fight me on this. I swear I'm not perfect. Stop! You're embarrassing me.

But in all seriousness, what are the options? Pick the NWO clone you think looks pretty enough, as our friend massman suggests? Or cast a vote for real change? The bottom line is they (anyone who supported this bill) are all in on it. Obviously. Would you vote for such a bill? Could you be convinced to unless you were for destruction of our rights? There is not logical reason to pass this bill with the wording that protected us removed.

All we can do at this point is spread the word, which, again, is why I'm typing away rather than working on my unified field theory. (OK, I'm channeling Einstein's ghost through a ouja board, but he's dead so it's my theory!)


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 6, 2012)

Yeah, no offense ever taken for real, Henry, but we can't get too cuddly or folks will get suspicious! It's a beach, and that's for sure. In my confused, elederly way, I've been looking for political indicators, recently, in the dress of the British officers in Indian regiments in the early 20th century, which is not really my period. It is clear that as the Raj began to crumble, British officers began to desert Indian dress, like the kurta and the pugree and began to look more and more like officers of the apropriate British services, i.e.., lancers, hussars and the rest. The result, I believe was an effective, if not deliberate, withdrawal from the Indians whom they once patronized and now began to fear, with good reason as it turned out. I suspect that something similar is happening in the US. As we pull back from the idea of _pax americana_, we tend to concentrate more on the enemy at home. This has happened , of course, before, whether it be the incarceration of the "Japs" or the prosecution/persecution of the House Un American Activities Committee in the Mccarthy era, but now it seems to be not a supplement, but a fall back position.

I think that my opinion of Dr. Paul was sealed for ever by his judgment on the prospects of that poor, brain dead girl in Florida. His opinion was a denial of his medical knowledge -- this wasn't a debatable case -- in favor of his political affiliation. I don't think for a moment --do you? -- that he will be elected, but I do regard him as a contemptible liar and a racist.

I think that you are hurt more than most by this bill. I wish that i knew of a source of comfort, but beacause we have universal sufferage, we get the kind of government that we deserve. We (you) are entitled to cast a vote but that entitlement is not linked to an obligation to know what we are voting for. Sad, but true.


----------



## jrh3 (Jan 6, 2012)

Phil, was there any flaws in our government during the first 10 presidents? What happened? Is it a prophetcy being filled? or is it just pure evil taking over? These are some of the questions that would reason why we are where we are today and im guessing you have seen alot during your time to shed some input to solve the mystery of how did we get here. Was this supposed to happen or not?


----------



## massaman (Jan 6, 2012)

well mlk was not totally squeaky clean either or a hero!


----------



## Precarious (Jan 6, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> I don't think for a moment --do you? -- that he will be elected, but I do regard him as a contemptible liar and a racist.


Not sure how a politician that actually follows through on everything he says and has had a consistent message for so long can be called a liar, but who am I to judge. I suppose you are referring to the new letter thing from the 80's. Ron Paul was working as full time MD and had his name attached to multiple mail order news letters. He gave investment advice and would forecast economic trends. I'm sure you know how businesses work. The guy at the top doesn't do the grunt work. There was one single mailing that they keep bringing up. He wasn't even aware of it till 10 years after the fact.

But if in your eyes that defeats everything he stands for then how can you possibly vote for any of the more obvious liars? Pick any candidate and we can run down a list of lies they've told within that last 6 months. We wouldn't have to go back to the 80's.

I understand that many are mystified by some of his statements regarding the healthcare system, ect. His statements are made from the position that PERSONAL income tax are unconstitutional. Imagine if you were able to keep all the money you earned. In the past there was no health insurance because you earned enough money to save for emergencies. Besides that, look at how bloated the healthcare industry has become. Unlike other nations that set prices with manufacturers they let them conspire with the insurance industry, so we pay 2 to 4 times what they pay in other countries. That's why people buy medication from Canada and Mexico.

What's more Paul preaches about donation of time and care, the way the medical profession is supposed to operate. He has never turned away a patient that didn't have coverage and neither should any doctor that swore the hippocratic oath.

So again what you state is unfounded.


----------



## bobericc (Jan 6, 2012)

Ron paul has the right idea imo..

End the fed, govt spending has gone out of control

Cut those pocket-less openhand grease balls out of the picture

The rich do NOT want a free market


----------



## massaman (Jan 7, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiBc2CcyfBE


----------



## Precarious (Jan 7, 2012)

So vote Romney and get the same thing!

ReutersVideo: Healthcare: Romney vs. Obama

Gingrich Caught On Video Supporting Obama And Romney Individual Healthcare Insurance Mandate


----------



## Precarious (Jan 7, 2012)




----------



## gripen (Jan 7, 2012)

I have said it once and i will say it again. Ron Paul is not the solution!!


----------



## Precarious (Jan 7, 2012)

gripen said:


> I have said it once and i will say it again. Ron Paul is not the solution!!


And I will ask again. Who is?


----------



## gripen (Jan 7, 2012)

Obama


----------



## Precarious (Jan 7, 2012)

gripen said:


> Obama


  :lol:


----------



## massaman (Jan 7, 2012)

lol OBAMA!!!!!!

What you want another 4 years of obama drama and can you name one thing Gripen that he has done that is good for the country and good for the tax paying citizens and not those who think we need to spread the wealth mentality!

He is a tax and spend president more then all the other presidents combined and he has a socialist agenda and if you doubt me then take a look at these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s8UJ1AJnZ0


----------



## massaman (Jan 7, 2012)

please tell me your being sarcastic Gripen?


----------



## D.J. (Jan 7, 2012)

This is why I beleave that we shoul pick some untainted non politiction


----------



## Precarious (Jan 8, 2012)

D.J. said:


> This is why I beleave that we shoul pick some untainted non politiction


You're not allowed to do that. The system is set up in such a way that it's virtually impossible. Those in power like it that way. Control only 2 parties and you rule the country. But I agree and that's why I like Ron Paul. He's as far from business-as-usual as we can hope to get. And his constitutional knowledge and loyalty will guarantee our country will be run as the founders intended for a change.


----------



## gripen (Jan 8, 2012)

massaman said:


> lol OBAMA!!!!!!
> 
> What you want another 4 years of obama drama and can you name one thing Gripen that he has done that is good for the country and good for the tax paying citizens and not those who think we need to spread the wealth mentality!
> 
> He is a tax and spend president more then all the other presidents combined and he has a socialist agenda and if you doubt me then take a look at these


massaman i highly doubt you know what socialism is


----------



## massaman (Jan 8, 2012)

do you know what socialism is gripen?


----------



## massaman (Jan 8, 2012)




----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 8, 2012)

Ah, I do know about socialism having lived under a socialist party. You are not alone in abhoring socialism, Massaman, but you may find that it is best fought on an individual basis. For example, if you know anyone, like my daughter, who receives disability payments, you might want to point out that while it is not enough of itself to have the US declared a socialist state, receiving government handouts isn't "rugged individualism", either. Generally, though, "socialist" has become the latest insult, now that "card carrying communist" is so 20th century, when you are not sure why you dislike/oppose someone. If you truly want to learn about socialism, though, Pragmatic Hominid is our forum expert and could probably suggest a few texts for you.

What genuinely puzzles me, though, is your comment, Henry, about the idyllic days and sentiments of the founding fathers. I am sure that many, if not most, Americans would agree with you, but though I have lved in the US for over half a century, I missed expoure to the American Ideal with which the young in their school years are embued.

My own, limited readings on the founding fathers and such docs as the Federalist Papers give me the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that they were a bunch of upper class bigots, who believed in the suffrage of only white males and who were quite happy, from the start, to trample on their own constitution in order to obtain their ends.

I'd love to do Buchanon, the Missouri Compromise and the secession, but by counting on my fingers, I find that he is #15, which is too late for our purposes, so John Adams, a much less nice man than Buchanon, I would think, will have to do instead. He must have been the original advocate of a "strong presidency". At least Obama and Bush tend/tended to listen to their cabinet. Adams, as you know, totally disregarded his advisors in such issues as America's relationship to France, and unilaterally decided to avoid war with them Much more egregious was his passing of the Aliens and Sedition Act (do I have that right? I'm going back to bed in minute and am too lazy to look it up) which abridged Americans' right to freedom of speech and put his federalist opponents at risk of being jailed for what they said in opposition in Congress. Fortunately, Jefferson beat him at the next election (its amazing how those 3/5 of a white man add up!), but he managed to use the same bill before it expired to get revenge on some of his own enemies. The spectacle of the Shiites and Sunis clobering each other is part of a long, universal tradition.

They were creatures of their time, and I doubt if they were any worse morally than their modern equivalents, but surely, to regard them as models of moral or political probity requires us to wear very thick and very rosy spectacles.

And the sibilant, sussurating sound of my silken sheets is becoming too persuasive to resist. Tomorrow to fresh fields and pastures new!


----------



## massaman (Jan 8, 2012)




----------



## StevieHification (Jan 9, 2012)




----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 12, 2012)

Wow! What an impressive gallery of Youtube clips! This way, at least, no one can get warning points for inappropriate language. Since next Xmas is so far away, perhaps I should post this now:


----------



## lunarstorm (Jan 12, 2012)

PhilinYuma said:


> Ah, I do know about socialism having lived under a socialist party. You are not alone in abhoring socialism, Massaman, but you may find that it is best fought on an individual basis. For example, if you know anyone, like my daughter, who receives disability payments, you might want to point out that while it is not enough of itself to have the US declared a socialist state, receiving government handouts isn't "rugged individualism", either. Generally, though, "socialist" has become the latest insult, now that "card carrying communist" is so 20th century, when you are not sure why you dislike/oppose someone. If you truly want to learn about socialism, though, Pragmatic Hominid is our forum expert and could probably suggest a few texts for you.
> 
> What genuinely puzzles me, though, is your comment, Henry, about the idyllic days and sentiments of the founding fathers. I am sure that many, if not most, Americans would agree with you, but though I have lved in the US for over half a century, I missed expoure to the American Ideal with which the young in their school years are embued.
> 
> ...


Thanks Phil, I appreciate your perspective.

And I especially appreciated the alliteration in your closure. Sibilant sussurating silken sheets?! Haha! Well played sir.


----------

