At 12:24 AM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Coda: I've been trying to conjecture what would make
this bunch so absolutely reliably serve the interests
of a hostile foreign power.
Here's a question for you.Name one example of Bill Clinton taking a
policy position directly contrary to the
Here's a question for you. Name one example of Bill Clinton taking a
policy position directly contrary to the Saudis.
Anything intended to balance budgets, keep our readiness up and make friends in the
Muslim world. All three destroyed by Bush , helping Al Jazeera stir up pan Islam
JDG wrote:
Here's a question for you.Name one example of Bill Clinton taking a
policy position directly contrary to the Saudis.
During Clinton's reign, the Saudis payed tribute to the USA. It
bleeded them so much that they had to ask help to the IMF,
and the IMF, in return, required them
Today, giving a speech at Microsoft and touring labs, I found not one open Bush
supporter. Tons of conservatives admitting it was their turn to clean house.
And today, of all people, Pat ROBERTSON joined Pat Buchanan talking about holding his
nose in order to support Bush... if possible.
This one's less surprising.
William Gibson appears to be among those of us obsessed with getting rid of Dubya:
http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/blog.asp
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:32 PM, David Brin wrote:
This one's less surprising.
William Gibson appears to be among those of us obsessed with getting
rid of Dubya: http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/blog.asp
Which concludes:
Therefore, obviously, the right thing to do is to stick to the
Coda: I've been trying to conjecture what would make
this bunch so absolutely reliably serve the interests
of a hostile foreign power. Past theories have
focused on money. But I don't think mere greed, as
insatiable as their greed is, can explain it.
Then I thought of a parallel... J Edgar
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
This is understandable, of course. It's worth
pointing out - it never makes my Indian friends happy,
but it doesn't make it any less true - that India, particularly in
foreign policy, still a _very_ immature democracy.
Oh, I have no problem with you saying that.
Ritu wrote:
But as for the global perspective of the public, well,
I don't know which country can claim to have a population with a global
perspective.
The population of the Cayman Islands? :-)
Alberto Monteiro
___
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't believe in anonymous speech,
I agree. Such veils lull outspoken people into
imagining that elites could not (trivially) track them
down. We must all recognize that preventing tyranny
is vastly better than hiding from one when it does
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For what it's worth, the Indian perspective is the
same as Dr. Brin's.
Clinton was the one American President who actually
managed to engage
the imagination of the Indian public and change the
public perception of
the US, the one who actually made us think
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
That's interesting. The story I've heard from people
I know in the Indian diplomatic service is exactly the
opposite.
Ah, but I was talking about the public perception. The IFS view is
certainly more pro-Bush. The politicos and the media are more or less
evenly
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting. The story I've heard from
people
I know in the Indian diplomatic service is exactly
the
opposite. They felt completely ignored under
Clinton,
Now this is just absurd. BC initiated a major
campaign aimed at India upon
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now this is just absurd. BC initiated a major
campaign aimed at India upon entering office. It's a
historical fact. A BIG historical fact. Live with
it
Well, Dr. Brin, if senior members of the Indian
foreign service aren't aware of any such thing,
Would you care to make a wager on it?
Absolutely! $100 right up top.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you care to make a wager on it?
Absolutely! $100 right up top.
Just to be clear, you are going to wager $100 that if
Kerry wins the election, significant numbers of Bush
Administration officials are going to flee the counrty
for fear of
Oh I should not have bothered. You go for the most
absurdly dramatic interpretation instead of one that's
pragmatically measurable.
How about this. By 2008, several times as many
officials of the 4-year GWB admin will have copped
pleas or been sentenced for malfeasance or corruption
of some
At 12:06 PM 10/15/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
To the best of my memory, Clinton's is the only
administration to score zero on indictments.
Many times zero doesn't work, does it?
Weren't Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy indicted? Its been a long time now,
but I seem to recall that they were.
Weren't Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy indicted? Its
been a long time now,
but I seem to recall that they were.
AFAIK charges dismissed
Also, Bill Clinton was indicted - its called
impeachment
Indictment is a specific term... but I'll give you an
indictment... leading to aquittal
- and
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$100 is still on the table.
For what, exactly? I'm a graduate student, I'm _happy
_ to take your money :-), but I'd like to know what
the terms are. How many senior Bush people will have
to be indicted and/or flee the country to avoid
prosecution before
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Ah, but I was talking about the public perception.
The IFS view is
certainly more pro-Bush. The politicos and the media
are more or less
evenly divided between these two views. The army
subscribes to neither,
refusing to believe in
How many senior Bush people will
have to be indicted and/or flee the country to
avoid prosecution before I have to pay you? How few
before you have to pay me?
How few would it take for a one-term administration to
look more corrupt that a two term that had one
(totally politically stage
Why do you tempt me in?
BC was imperfect. His relentless efforts to find
middle ground with neocons and end the divisiveness
were ended too soon. He wasted the same charm on ugly
interns.
But to ignore BC's efforts in India is especially
loony. They were huge and masterful.
And I will not
David,
Why do you tempt me in?
A bit too Get thee behind me, Satan for my tastes :-).
And I will not look lower down. You and I are done
for now, John. Thrive. Enjoy the cult. If they win,
I may someday badly need friends who had supported
them, so I apologize for anything you found offensive.
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like you're afraid you'll be one of the first
up against the wall in that event.
I have lived my life as a contrarian, peoud to engage
everybody I meet, over any conceivable issue - exactly
opposite to W's proud isolation. I know that any
other
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any event, for the record, I deeply apologize to
Gautam and John. I kiss the toes. I beg to be
considered for probation in their basements, when
the
roundups begin.
See, Dr. Brin, here's the problem. As far as I am
aware, there is exactly one
--- Gautam
In that case, I will simply cut my losses and stop
irritating you, Gautam. I hope it will make you feel
slightly better that here, in NON-battleground
California, I am thinking about voting Libertarian! I
will certainly do so for several lower offices.
Only the Gore Effect stops
On 14 Oct 2004, at 11:47 pm, JDG wrote:
Would you like to place a wager on which nation will be a closer US
ally in
20 years, Iraq or Vietnam?
That would be Vietnam. Practical people.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog :
Gautam wrote:
unlike you or anyone
else on this list, I did that knowing there's a good
chance there could be adverse professional
consequences for me for saying something like that in
public.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, my friend.
--
Doug
___
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must differ with you on this, Doug. Gautam is
showing his intellectual
honesty and willingness to speak the truth as he
sees it, no matter how
inconvenient that is. That certainly hurts his
chances at a career in
politicseven though it is a
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure about that, my friend.
--
Doug
Unless you're thinking about a career in politics,
Doug, I find it hard to imagine that someone will be
looking at the archives of what you say on the list.
Now if you _are_, of course, that's
Dan wrote:
I must differ with you on this, Doug. Gautam is showing his intellectual
honesty and willingness to speak the truth as he sees it, no matter how
inconvenient that is. That certainly hurts his chances at a career in
politicseven though it is a virtue. :-)
I wasn't doubting his
JDG wrote:
Today, relations with India (and Pakistan) are
stronger than ever.
Thanks to Bill Clinton
What's next from you Dr. Brin - that Bill Clinton wrote the
Declaration of Independence?
*g*
For what it's worth, the Indian perspective is the same as Dr. Brin's.
Clinton was the one
33 matches
Mail list logo
