🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:29:36 -0600, tom spillman
<nospam@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Bat T Ball wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:12:27 GMT, bl@hotmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 22:29:50 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2007-06-01 19:52:47 -0400, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Trace wrote:
>>>>>> Houston-based KBR, formerly the engineering and construction
>>>>>> subsidiary of Halliburton Co., has a contingency contract in place
>>>>>> with the Department of Homeland Security to construct detention
>>>>>> facilities in the event of a national emergency.
>>>>> Stories are federal detention/concetration camps have been circulating 
>>>>> at least since the early 90's (and probably sooner).  Why should we 
>>>>> believe this one any more than the dozens that have come before it?
>>>> Because some of the stories are REAL.
>>> It's hard to convince the brain dead middle class assholes who get
>>> their news from AM that anything that doesn't involve stuffing their
>>> faces, celebrity gossip, filling up their cars or paying the mortgage,
>>> exists.  Fuck them.
>> 
>> And which one of you gave this awesome and unconstitutional power to
>> the Feds while jerking your knee after 9-11? Which one of you gave the
>> vote of confidence to the current legislature by reelecting them? Is
>> there anyone actually staying on the dark side and considering the
>> failure from NYC as a presidential candidate?  Damage done to our
>> freedom was far worse than was done physically after the criminal
>> action by the terrorists.  How about actually looking at the
>> candidates this next election and thinking of the republic as a whole
>> and not your own hole as a republic.  
>> 
>
>You said:
>
>	"Damage done to our
>	 freedom was far worse than was done physically after the 			 criminal 
>action by the terrorists."
>
>Perhaps you can enlighten me.  I, personally, have lost *NO* freedoms, 
>nor do I know *anyone* who has.  I feel as free now, as I did before the 
>current administration. After all, I have lived through the 
>administrations of FDR, HST, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, 
>Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II.  Vague generalities will not 
>be accepted, at least by me.  I lived through both WWII and the Korean 
>War where I served.  I was deployed to a combat area longer than Senator 
>Kerry and also earned a few minor decorations, so if you are talking 
>about "rights" for our detainees, you will have to explain why we didn't 
>give equivalent rights to the Germans, Japanese, Italians, North Koreans 
>and Chinese captured in those wars.
>
>Likewise, what candidates would you suggest?  I have looked carefully at 
>  ALL of the candidates in both major parties and I have found *none* 
>that I would be willing to vote FOR.  I have found a number in both 
>parties I would vote AGAINST.  The Democrats show little understanding 
>of even Economics 101, much less larger issues of macroeconomics.  They 
>actually seem to assume that price controls and excess profits taxes 
>will *help*.  Apparently, they don't remember the Carter 
>administration's results during the Arab boycott of the 1970's. 
>Remember the gasoline shortages and long lines at the service stations?
>
>They also have not learned from the mistakes of the British and 
>Canadians on health care and seem to want to bring those same problems 
>of rationing of care and long waiting lists here.  If my wife and I were 
>under either of their systems, we would both likely be dead now.  We 
>both have been successfully treated for cancer starting in 1999 and 2000 
>and we're both still here.  With cancer, prompt treatment is essential.
>
>I have lived for an extended period in the UK while on business 
>assignments and also was a manager on a new project in Toronto where my 
>wife and I were exposed the the realities of the UK heath care and the 
>Canadian system. Likewise, the Republicans, as a group, seem much too 
>theocratic for my taste.
>
>I will await your enlightenment.  BTW, flaming will be ignored, and I 
>will listen to reasoned discourse.  I will *plonk* flames or profanity.
>
>It is your choice.
>
>Regards...
>
>Tom


Then go ahead and plonk, nitwit.  You're either too blind or too
stupid to know what's going on.