Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2006 > Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-17, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145284149.509080.213500@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Wasn't OBL working for the CIA at that time?
>
Not sure who or what OBL is, Alistair. Can you elucidate?
>
>
> He might have more success if he stopped listening to his number one
> advisor (god).
>
I don't mind him listening to God; what I mind is him taking God's
advice...:-) A quick look at the history of the Lord of Hosts shows nothing
but bloodshed and  ness, apart from the odd win for the very close chosen
few. Don't want that in Government, now, do we? Oops....
>
> Powerful words Pete.
>
I hope others perceive them as such and are moved to try and do something
about it. The current situation in the USA is cause for grave concern.
>
> Liberalism.
Possibly. I was thinking more of tolerance and goodwill towards one's fellow
citizens. The sort of attitude that doesn't disrupt funerals or abuse
veterans, or shoot doctors at abortion clinics, or expect to have illegal
acts overlooked if there are enough people breaking the law. Respect for the
country you are living in, its laws and customs, and the people who live in
it. Working out differences by non-violent means and with goodwill,
compassion, and understanding. Not seeing compromise as surrender, but
rather as a step towards a better future for both sides. Your political
persuasion shouldn't come into it; it is Human values that I am talking
about.
And it starts with each one of us.
These thngs are required in every country; it is just that in the USA with
its potential for such greatness, they can be more easily lost than they
are in smaller places. How do you change the attitude of a nation? I don't
know, but I know how to change the attitude of a person. And if each person
can change their attitude and persuade others to do so, then maybe the whole
thing takes care of itself.
>
>
> As an aside. If the USA were to petition Her Most Britannic Majesty to
> be allowed back into the fold, I feel said petition may be favourably
> received. ;-)
>
Um... you might need to ask the Doc in his capacity as King of England...
:-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4ai2rqFsjlvrU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1145284149.509080.213500@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>Um... you might need to ask the Doc in his capacity as King of England...
>:-)
Shhhhhh... he's busy paying attention to the Woman in Front of the
Curtain, *just* as We desire.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-20, 7:55 am |
| On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:04:52 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Existing is not a crime. Being present within our borders, contrary to
>established law, is. And I don't care if they've been tried and
>convicted, they *are* breaking the law, and they're *flaunting* the fact
>that they're breaking the law.
>
>This whole thing is a turning point for our country, I believe. Will we
>enforce our laws, or bow to the desires of a pissed group of illegal
>aliens? Judging from our recent past, I'm afraid I know how this will
>turn out. :(
Sort of like people protesting illegally against Jim Crow laws which
required the blacks to stay on their side of the tracks.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:sb3f421mq8mhpi8iha3pt36kk1joe5hpki@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:04:52 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sort of like people protesting illegally against Jim Crow laws which
> required the blacks to stay on their side of the tracks.
Not sure it is quite the same thing at all, Howard.
The Jim Crow laws were an abomination. While I don't condone protesting them
illegally, it is certainly much more understandable than protesting a law
that is fair and reasonable. The coloured people discrimanated against by
JIm Crow laws were American citizens. They had rights under the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights.
Mexican people are not US citizens and have no such rights. Neither do
citizens from any other part of the world who see the USA as a fast track to
wealth. Immigration is NOT a right.
Although the analogy is superficially similar, it doesn't stand scrutiny and
it isn't fair to compare this with Jim Crow.
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4as40rFuhmblU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:sb3f421mq8mhpi8iha3pt36kk1joe5hpki@
4ax.com...
>
>Not sure it is quite the same thing at all, Howard.
>
>The Jim Crow laws were an abomination. While I don't condone protesting them
>illegally, it is certainly much more understandable than protesting a law
>that is fair and reasonable. The coloured people discrimanated against by
>JIm Crow laws were American citizens. They had rights under the Constitution
>and the Bill of Rights.
>
>Mexican people are not US citizens and have no such rights.
Softly, softly, Mr Dashwood... if it were determined that illegal aliens
in the United States of America *do*, as determined by appropriate
judicial authority, have rights under the Constitution (the Bill of Rights
being Amendments to same) then would this counter-argument be
unsupportable?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:47:54 -0400, Donald Tees
<donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>And a further point ... if a war is being fought based on "inalienable
>rights", should the rights only be extended to one side? Or should the
>people fighting that war have to abide by them to prove, at the very
>least, that they have some sort of respect for those rights?
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.
Unless they are Mexicans or Arabs, of course.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2ang7$j19$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4as40rFuhmblU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Softly, softly, Mr Dashwood... if it were determined that illegal aliens
> in the United States of America *do*, as determined by appropriate
> judicial authority, have rights under the Constitution (the Bill of Rights
> being Amendments to same) then would this counter-argument be
> unsupportable?
>
If that were to be determined it is tantamount to saying that anyone who
happens to be on American soil has the same rights as an American citizen.
So, I'm on holiday in Florida or California and I can expect to have the
same Constitutional rights as someone who was born and raised there?
What then, is the point of being a tax paying citizen?
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-21, 9:55 pm |
|
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:IIe2g.3125$DR6.224511@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snip>>>>>
>
> And if you are on holiday in Florida, or in an airport on a stopover
> during a flight to Europe or Canada, should you have any rights? Or
> should you be open to any indignity any law official wishes to inflict
> on you? What for example, if they grabbed you and threw you in jail
> because they thought you were a terrorist. Should you be allowed a
> lawyer? By current practices, you not only have no right to a lawyer,
> but they do not even have to admit to arresting you. In fact, they can
> through you into a jail for an interterminate time, and keep it entirely
> secret. They do not have to bring charges.
>
> Donald
>
I followed your link and read about Mr. Arar. It was pretty dreadful. Even
though the United States did not impose all of the indignities he suffered,
there is a certainly a good case that it would never have happened f he had
been dealt with properly in New York. I couldn't see their objection to
sending him on to Montreal. They could have alerted the Canadians and handed
over a Canadian citizen to the Authorities there. They obviously genuinely
believed he was Al Que'da. Presumably he could bring a civil case?
Answering your question above...
If I was on holiday in the USA (and I am fairly frequently), I would expect
(as Mr. Arar did...) to have access to a phone and a lawyer. I would expect
to have my basic Human Rights respected even if I didn't expect the
protection that an American citizen could expect. That means no beatings,
proper food and rest breaks, and no inhumane treatment. I think transit
passengers could reasonably expect to have access to the representative of
their country in America, also.
It's a fine line. He HAD had contact with people who were known to be Al
Que'da, even though he was quite innocent. I can understand the Americans
putting pressure on (and let's be fair, they were gentle compared to the
Jordanians and Syrians)
The awful thing here is that because he was not allowed to contact anyone,
there was no chance of anyone doing anything to help him, like notifying the
Canadian representation in New York. That is the most severe violation I see
the Americans guilty of. Deporting him to Syria is almost farcical. How can
they get it that wrong?
I'll be putting emergency rocedures in place with friends before my next
visit to the US. Not because I have contacts in Al Que'da, but because
bureaucratic bungling is a definite possibility. Especially when a nation is
conscious that they are under attack.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-22, 3:55 am |
|
"Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:tsh2g.9034$wK1.510385@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> Yes, there are several under way, though I doubt they will go far.
>
> Yes, but that is precisely why he was deported ... so they would not
> have to be gentle.
>
>
> Only be claiming that American laws do not apply to Canadians. Makes a
> bit of a mockery out of the right to work in the states that they
> negotiated by treaty, does it not?
>
> Wise move. But you see what I meant about it placing the entire country
> in disrpute? How do you trade with someone, or work with them, when
> they can have you tortured for disagreeing?
>
> I've done lots of work in the States over the years, but I doubt I'll
> ever enter the country again. I'd be afraid to, frankly.
>
> Donald
I didn't realise it was as bad as you describe Donald.
Given that it is, then I have no issue with any of the points you raised and
I can understand why you would be reticent about dealing cross border.
Perhaps the climate will change if Bush is not re-elected. But then, as I
explored in anther thread, the alternatives don't look too attractive
either...
No wonder we are getting Americans coming here to live... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4at9s4Fu0fuhU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2ang7$j19$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>If that were to be determined it is tantamount to saying that anyone who
>happens to be on American soil has the same rights as an American citizen.
That's another conclusion which might be addressed at another time, Mr
Dashwood... and it does not answer my question. Second time, then: if it
were determined that illegal aliens in the United States of America *do*,
as determined by appropriate judicial authority, have rights under the
Constitution (the Bill of Rights being Amendments to same) then would this
counter-argument be unsupportable?
DD
| |
|
| In article <4atka4Fum5h5U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Answering your question above...
>
>If I was on holiday in the USA (and I am fairly frequently), I would expect
>(as Mr. Arar did...) to have access to a phone and a lawyer.
Access to a phone is, arguably, a First Amendment (freedom of expression)
right, Mr Dashwood, and access to a lawyer is, rather explicitly, a Sixth
Amendment ('the assistance of counsel for his defense') right.
>I would expect
>to have my basic Human Rights respected even if I didn't expect the
>protection that an American citizen could expect. That means no beatings,
>proper food and rest breaks, and no inhumane treatment.
'(N)o inhumane treatment' sounds remarkably like the Eight Amendment ('
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.'), Mr Dashwood... what comes
next, expecting that you'd not be expected to testify against yourself
(Fifth Amendment)?
Hmmmm... next thing you know you'd be expecting that soldiers not be
quartered in your house without your consent (Third Amendment)... well,
that's almost to be expected.
(That the other, more 'reasonable' expectations - First, Sixth, Eighth and
Fifth Amendment rights - have since been made part of other statutes in no
wise invalidates their priomary standing, in places where the United
States of America holds jurisdiction, as Constitutional rights).
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:03:55 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>And remember, as has been pointed out many times here before, the
>Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our country...
It does not have force of law. But it does declare principals which
you are free to disagree with, which the founding fathers believed to
be important.
Do you disagree with those principles? Was the declaration of
independence wrong?
Do you 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?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:37:32 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Perhaps the climate will change if Bush is not re-elected.
He won't be.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
|
| The Irish are *illegals* now - there are many who joined the recent
movements around St Patrick's day.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...03/15/IRISH.TMP
Also, the case for the Irish is not the same historically. In the mid
1800's, it was far easier for Europeans entering the US via several
ports to apply for entry. It's not like they could easily cross and
the voyage took 14+ days. Also, it was less restrictive to immigrate
then. In the early 1900s laws were passed requiring literacy tests.
In the 20's legal quotas or limits on immigration were passed, favoring
Northern Europeans. In 1924 the U.S. passed the National Origins Act
to limit immigration by reducing the allowable entries to 2 percent
using an old 1910 census as the base of comparison (to limit Eastern &
Southern Europeans) and barring immigration from Asia (anti-Chinese,
Japanese, several attempts to restrict them happened since the Civil
War). The Natl Origins Act was repealed as recently as 1965 and racial
conditions or quotas were officially removed.
There is a long history of racism and religious intolerance being a
factor in immigration issues. If the all the illegals today were paler
in skin tone and spoke English and were protestants, I don't think
people would care. They never did care about *illegal* Swedes or Danes
or British in the past, and they don't go after the Irish now.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:58:15 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Well, did they break the laws as they came?
>
>(My point being to debunk Mr. Brazee's assertion that there's some
>anti-Hispanic sentiment behind those who oppose illegal immigration...)
My point is that if everything is the same except for the one word
"illegal", I have good reason to suspect that the word "illegal" isn't
the important reason behind the behavior - it is only the excuse for
claiming that "this time it's different".
It isn't.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-26, 6:55 pm |
| On 24 Apr 2006 21:56:50 -0700, "Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>There is a long history of racism and religious intolerance being a
>factor in immigration issues. If the all the illegals today were paler
>in skin tone and spoke English and were protestants, I don't think
>people would care. They never did care about *illegal* Swedes or Danes
>or British in the past, and they don't go after the Irish now.
I doubt it. The history of "racism" is only rarely about race as we
currently use the word. I've seen terms like "the Irish race"
used, but it's always been more of a class or culture thing.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
|
| In article <mlvu429sql29u8m3gqbdcup0458sovq9pr@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I've seen terms like "the Irish race"
>used, but it's always been more of a class or culture thing.
Hmmmmm... where was it... ahhhhh, from
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...de=source&hl=en>
--begin quoted text:
>The word "race" is often used outside its scientific definition to describe
>a particular group or nationality (eg "The Irish Race"), and that is the
>context I used it in.
Thanks for that clarification as well... I am reminded of a song from the
past century which celebrated a fictious marriage between an Englishwoman
and an American, the chorus of which contained the curious line of 'All
the English-speaking race against the world will stand'.
--end quoted text
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-28, 7:55 am |
|
"Holly" <anderschwan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146069431.453753.211500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>I agree, I think it is more a cultural/class threat. The term "racism"
> is probably a bad one that obviously incites defensive reactions in
> some people.
> I think that as long as the illegals want to have jobs, pay taxes, and
> contribute to society it shouldn't matter whether or not they came
> illegally. This country has plenty of room. Who are they harming?
> Once they get here and have families established, what can we do?
> Their children are legal citizens if they are born here.
> Right now we have an unfair system of serfdom. The ones who earn a
> living are either tied to companies paying them low wages under the
> table with no benefits, or they are forced to migrate around offering
> labor services to contractors and farmers. It happens all around here,
> and nobody does anything about it. If we want to discourage illegal
> immigration, instead of deporting people who are just going find a way
> to come back later, we should be punishing those employers who hire
> illegals in the first place. It won't stop the problem but it won't
> feed it anymore either.
> And if this country is so concerned with sprinkling magic freedom
> powder in the middle east, then why don't we try to help our Mexican
> neighbor? With all of the tax breaks given to corporations operating
> down there, I think some of their massive profits should go into
> helping Mexico become a better place to live.
> We let people starve all over the world while we waste money, it's just
> wrong. Then this country, one of the richest in the world, has
> citizens who get  because poor people want a better life too. We
> allow corporations to take advantage of the third world's poverty so we
> can buy a cheap shirt at Walmart - then we get pissed off because they
> actually want to live here too.
>
> I am more personally concerned with outsourcing labor overseas. Half
> my friends at a competing company just got laid off due to outsourcing
> to India. The good jobs are disappearing, and the bad jobs are poorly
> paying part-time no-benefit jobs that only illegals and teenagers are
> willing to take. I think that the middle class is in danger of
> extinction if things go on like this. Pretty soon we may find
> ourselves in the same situation as the illegals today. Wouldn't that
> be ironic? (I always get  on "irony" anyway, sorry if I abused
> the term)
>
I like your posts Holly. The sincerity rings through. And your attitude is
right.
You used 'ironic' exactly correctly :-)
Keep posting.
Pete.
>
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-28, 7:55 am |
| On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:16:54 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I specifically stated my own position. I have no idea what most people
>would be willing to do.
But you also said you disagreed with me. And my statement was "it
appears that most people...".
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-28, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:16:54 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I wouldn't need to. I live in a democracy that guarantees free speech. (I
>can't imagine living in a system that doesn't...)
I can. My imaginations has been supplemented by reading history.
>
>Then why have laws? (Same question as originally posed. We seem to have come
>full circle...)
Laws are created by the powerful for their own wants. Most of the
time they are laws that serve the rest of us as well.
We all know that there have been bad laws. Most of us also believe
there have been good laws. Normally, a policy of following laws
leads to the general good. Occasionally there are good reasons for
breaking a law (I gave the example of trespassing to save a child's
life). I don't know why you are inferring that it is all or
nothing, that either I follow laws and let that child die, or there's
no reason to have laws at all.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-28, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ek745253hafm1nblbvb7o2e8quv7bui0l8@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:16:54 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I can. My imaginations has been supplemented by reading history.
I've studied history as well. And I don't lack imagination. For me to live
in a society where free speech was not a fundamental right is inconceivable.
One of the main reasons I value this forum and post here, is just because it
is one of the last remaining outlets for free speech. (Look at the stuff we
cover here... :-))
>
>
> Laws are created by the powerful for their own wants. Most of the
> time they are laws that serve the rest of us as well.
>
In a democracy, the powerful are empowered by the people. If they start
serving their own ends instead of those of the society, they will find
themselves unempowered. Like the rain, which falleth equally upon the just
and the unjust, the Law is even handed to all members of the society.
If what you said above is true, and the laws are made by the powerful to
serve their own ends, then there is even more reason not to make them. I
don't believe it is true, but you and I live in different societies, so I
can't be sure that things are the same where you live as they are where I
live.
>We all know that there have been bad laws.
Letting your sweeping statement ride for the moment, even if we all did know
that, we would also notice that, when they are realised to be bad or
inadequate, they get changed.
>Most of us also believe
> there have been good laws.
Good and bad are, of course, moral terms. However, I suspect you are using
them in a looser fashion, to mean laws you approve of and laws you don't?.
> Normally, a policy of following laws
> leads to the general good.
Invariably. The consequences for individuals and society as a whole if there
is a breakdown of law, are catastrophic.
> Occasionally there are good reasons for
> breaking a law (I gave the example of trespassing to save a child's
> life). I don't know why you are inferring that it is all or
> nothing, that either I follow laws and let that child die, or there's
> no reason to have laws at all.
Because laws are absolute.
You don't have to let the child die; I covered that in my response but you
ignored it.
I'm not implying anything. Any inferences you draw are entirely your own.
If you think it is OK to break the law when it suits you, then it seems
quite legitimate for me to ask:~ "Then why have laws?"
Who wants a boat that ALMOST floats, or a parachute that ALMOST opens? Some
things require absolute (or as absolute as can be obtained in this place at
this time) standards, and the law is onesuch.
I don't want laws that are OK to break. It seems like such a massive waste
of time and energy to pass them...
Yes, I break the law sometimes. But when I do so, I know it is wrong. (Even
if (morally) 'wrong' is too strong, at the very least, it is antisocial)I
don't try and justify it by the purity of my intentions, or the 'greater
good', or the fact that 'it is a stupid/bad law anyway'. (If it's a stupid
or bad law, get it changed; you live in a democracy. Having laws gives you a
mechanism to change them.)
Ideally, if we all behaved properly and considered our fellow man, we could
probably get by without laws and would solve our differences in a spirit if
goodwill, directly with each other. Such a society would not know crime so
laws would not be necessary.
Unfortunately, such a euphoric state is unattainable because of the very
diverse (and you could argue, perverse) nature of Human Beings.
If you want to live without law your best bet is to live alone, and remote
from other people.
If you want to live in the society of others, laws are necessary and they
should be observed. (Otherwise, why have them?)
The best we can do is build a lawful society that protects all of us
equally, without fear or favour, and provides a safe environment to pursue
our lives and happiness.
Pete.
|
|
|
|
|