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.
JDG wrote:
I can tell you how we don't win the war on Islamic terror - that is by
leaving in place economic sanctions that inflamed Arab resentment against
the United States around the world, and led in large part to at least one
act of terrorism right here in the US.
It were not the
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 wrote:
Geez, Doug, don't elevate the stakes here. First (you
mentioned the draft, which I snipped, sorry) we
certainly don't need a draft to put another, say,
100,000 troops in Iraq (which would put us at about
250,000, which is where we need to be). It is within
the capacity of the US
Damon wrote:
How do we win that war, John? It's a war of
attrition that we're loosing
badly right now.
Somewhat inexact. Allied forces in all likelihood
outnumber the insurgents several times over, while
maintaining high kill ratios to casualties.
But the war in Iraq is not won with military
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
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't you see Iran being the big winner if we pull
out? What kind of
threat to the stability of the region would an
Iraq/Iran alliance be?
What if they formed a close relationship to the EU
and/or Russia? Will
they be a threat to the
--- Damon, apologies. I see you were setting up the
imbecility in Iraq, not defending it. You do seem
aware of Vietnam.
From the TokinGulf Lying Pretext to hearts and minds
to never telling the truth about zones of control.
(Yesterday even the Green Zone became a killing
ground.
On my blog, I
October 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Block the Vote
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Earlier this week former employees of Sproul
Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach
of America), a firm hired by the Republican National
Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station
that their supervisors
Damon, what's your feel for military morale and
support for the war?
Overall, its my impression that the average soldier in
uniform (i.e. the enlisted, perhaps the field-grade
officers) tenatively support the conflict. One of the
comments I've seen recently, and increasingly, is that
western
--- 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,
From: David Brin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
October 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Block the Vote
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Earlier this week former employees of Sproul
Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach
of America), a firm hired by the Republican National
Committee to register voters, told a
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is
this - the Republicans overwhelming believe in the merits of the Iraq War,
and the Iraq War would never have happened under the Democrats. If you
believe, as I do, that Iraq is the
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
At 09:40 PM 10/14/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
The difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is
this - the Republicans overwhelming believe in the merits of the Iraq
War, and the Iraq War would never have happened under the Democrats.
If you
believe, as I do,
JDG wrote:
You should ask the people of Samarra how badly we're losing it right now.
First a diversion, unrelated to the question.
I can tell you how we don't win the war on Islamic terror - that is by
leaving in place economic sanctions that inflamed Arab resentment against
the United States
--- 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
David Brin wrote:
Is there time to remind divisive voices of both left
and right about another neglected word? Union. Ponder
our present bitterness, next time you see a map of
Red-vs Blue States, and recall the most dire
unspoken phrase of all.
Civil War.
Civil War is the logical
This happened with the Macedonian Empire after the
death of Alexander, with the Roman Empire after they
conquered the Mediterranean, with the Carolingian
Kingdom after the death of Charlemagne, etc.
Bit of a difference here:
WHen Alexander died he had no formal rules of
succession in place.
Damon said:
WHen Alexander died he had no formal rules of
succession in place. It was only natural for his
empire to fragment into lesser factions for all that
had a legitimate claim. Similarly, the Roman Empire
had no formal rules of succession (beyond designation
by the living emperor of
I thought that Alberto was talking about the
situation in the first
century BC before the Principate was
Ah.
(What the late Republic lacked was any way of
adequately discharging
soldiers and providing for their later civilian
lives. It's probably a
bad idea to make them dependent on
At 09:28 PM 10/13/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Is there time to remind divisive voices of both left
and right about another neglected word? Union. Ponder
our present bitterness, next time you see a map of
Red-vs Blue States, and recall the most dire
unspoken phrase of all.
Civil War.
At least
I think the core problem is the unipolar world that
was shaped during
that time. Lacking an external enemy, the romans
started fighting each
other. Even during the Punic Wars, when Rome was the
single superpower
[all other powers were magnitudes weaker than Rome -
a situation similar
to
Alberto said:
I think the core problem is the unipolar world that was shaped
during that time. Lacking an external enemy, the romans started
fighting each other. Even during the Punic Wars, when Rome was the
single superpower [all other powers were magnitudes weaker than
Rome - a situation
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least the Red States will control the nukes this
time around! ;-)
ducking
That was genuiely funny, don't duck.
Though in the category of I feel it but can't back it
up (the category that covered nearly ALL of the
right's venom toward Clinton), I
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Civil War is the logical consequence of a uni-polar
world.
Ah for Clinton's day, when we worried that, maybe,
China might start getting uppity by 2020.
Alberto is right and the neocons are insane to believe
that Pax Americana will last
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in this country are actually quite close together in
terms of their political and social views?
Yes, precisely! I write elsewhere about the fantastic
consensus to reject racism and sexism that has
transformed this country... and our progress in
Are you thinking of the revolts of Italian allies
during the Second
Punic War rather than between Romans per se? I can't
think of anything
that would pass as an inter-Roman war before the
first century BC (of
course, then there are plenty from Sulla through to
Octavian).
Ah. Rich is
--- Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah. Rich is right. Did some research. The Social War
was in the 90's. I was thinking of some of the
conflicts between the Plebes and the Patricians
(which
didn't amount to armed warfare, so it would seem, or
at least not in the same vein as the
Wasn't that the time that led into the Gracci and
then
Spartacus?
I don't know exactly the fall of the dates, but yes,
they would have all been contemporaries of one
another...
Damon.
=
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qui
Damon said:
Memory is getting fuzzy here, but wasn't there the
Social War in the early (late?) 500's, or 400's?
No, the Social War (i.e. the war against the Italian allies [socii])
was in the early first century. It ran from 91BC to 87BC, more or less.
This was right around the time of the
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judging from the rate at which retired generals ans
admirals are stepping up to speak their minds, we
should have that bulwark on our side.
Facts, again. I believe that the ratio of senior
officers who have publicly pledged their support to
the Bush
David said:
Wasn't that the time that led into the Gracci and then
Spartacus?
The problems during the tribunates of the Gracchi were caused by social
changes brought on my the Second and Third Punic Wars and the various
wars against Hellenistic monarchies and Spanish tribes and the like in
the
Damon said:
I don't know exactly the fall of the dates, but yes,
they would have all been contemporaries of one
another...
Here are key dates:
218-201BCSecond Punic War
200-168BCVarious interminable wars against Hellenistic states
149-146BCThird Punic War
139-132BCFirst slave
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I recall, it's the /opponents/ of the moveon.org
types who
bring their opponents to a violent end.
Dave
Abraham, Martin, John Maru
The Weather Underground, the SLA, the Black
Panthers...and which party was Lincoln nominated by, again?
=
At 09:23 AM 10/14/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Not to inject facts into a fevered rant - God forbid
anyone should do that on the list - but the whole
concept of a massive red state/blue state divide is a
fictional creation of media elites.
I think a greater reason why this divide is
At 11:27 AM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Though in the category of I feel it but can't back it
up (the category that covered nearly ALL of the
right's venom toward Clinton), I seriously worry about
what W might do if he saw power slipping away.
Want to place a wager on it?
You do realize
At 11:31 AM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Civil War is the logical consequence of a uni-polar
world.
Ah for Clinton's day, when we worried that, maybe,
China might start getting uppity by 2020.
Alberto is right and the neocons are insane to believe
that Pax Americana will last forever...
Don't worry, Republicans will accept the results of
the election, even if
we do feel that it leads inevitably towards
surrender in the war on terrorism.
Well, speaking as the other side, if Bush wins I feel
that it will be another 4 years of bungled attempts to
fight the War on Terrorism. So
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:27 AM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Though in the category of I feel it but can't back
it
up (the category that covered nearly ALL of the
right's venom toward Clinton), I seriously worry
about
what W might do if he saw power slipping
Richard Baker wrote:
I thought that Alberto was talking about the situation in the first
century BC before the Principate was formed (the conquest of the
Mediterranean being essentially complete by the time Octavian became
Augustus).
Yes and No.
I was _including_ that time period and the
The Roman Empire lasted for what, 500 years minimum?
America just got
going really since 1945. Moreover, even the best
estimates for China
don't have them overtaking us for at least 50-100
years, minimum. It
looks to me like we have plenty of time to shape the
world of our future.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:21:34 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judging from the rate at which retired generals ans
admirals are stepping up to speak their minds, we
should have that bulwark on our side.
Facts, again. I believe
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Despite the fact that the pace of world events is
dizzyingly faster than in Roman times, and meetings
between EU-Russia-China would easily craft a
formidable multipolar rival, that we seem bent on
pushing into being.
This is absurd. I can just imagine
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the main reason for that, do you think,
Gautam? Kerry's
post-Vietnam anti-war activities? The Swift-boat
stuff? Of the few
vets I know, none seem to care as much as I would
have thought about
the Vietnam-era stuff. Or is it just distrust of
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is absurd. I can just imagine the Russians -
who
think the largest long-term threat to their security
is the Chinese
This is coldwar thinking. Not 21st Century thinking.
We do not have to face an equal number of nuclear
weapons in order
--- Gautam's rationalizations below are sad.
Since a security guard is likely a republican, his
rationalizations are similar to the Swift Boaters for
truth.
I prefer looking at Kerry's comrades in arms, EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF WHICH stepped forward to be with him,
expressing admiration and
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is coldwar thinking. Not 21st Century
thinking.
No, it's _knowledgeable_ thinking. It's thinking,
period, actually.
For you to ignore the incredibly profitable and cozy
arms relationship between Russia and China right
now,
by the way, is
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Judging from the rate at which retired generals ans
admirals are stepping up to speak their minds, we
should have that bulwark on our side.
Facts, again. I believe that the ratio of senior
officers who have publicly pledged
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Gautam's rationalizations below are sad.
Since a security guard is likely a republican, his
rationalizations are similar to the Swift Boaters
for
truth.
What's perhaps more sad is that you feel free to talk
like this when you don't even read
What's perhaps more sad is that you feel free to
talk
like this when you don't even read posts. What part
of registered Democrat didn't you understand? And
I
_love_ the sort of thinking that leads you to a
security guard is likely a Republican, by the way.
Same back at you. I regret
Have to throw in with Gautam on this. Last report I
read said China has bought a total of 78 Su-27s that
are currently in-service, a multi-year buy. Just 78.
Compare that to the number of F-15s the US has
(educated guess: 1500). Hardly a vast or overhwelming
number. So small, in fact, that the
At 02:10 PM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin 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?
When the Bush Administration came into office, their central
At 02:06 PM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Don't worry, Republicans will accept the results of
the election, even if
we do feel that it leads inevitably towards
surrender in the war on terrorism.
Since it is now proved that the VASTLY SUCCESSFUL
AFGHANISTAN INTERVENTION - the one that was
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.
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
_love_ the sort of thinking that leads you to a
security guard is likely a Republican, by the way.
OopsssI screwed up the editing here. Dr. Brin did
_not_ say the above that's in quotes. Damnit. I
should have reread more carefully before I
--- 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
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hm...Wes Clark... potential SoD you
think?
xponent
Too Early For Appointment Strategy Maru
rob
God help us, I hope not. I can't imagine a plausible
worse choice. Plus, while I don't think Kerry's that
bright, he's not dumb
David Brin wrote:
I am now ending this. My life does not need shrill
shouting matches and name-calling with Gautam and
John. While they are smart guys, the chances of
wither side budging the other are nill. I respect
them more than they probably think I do, but I no not
have dittos and spare
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I think that's what you're asking others to
do, David, I find that
it works better for me to give myself those
reminders, rather than
others. And yet this posting itself could easily be
construed as such
advice... and it probably is,
David Brin wrote:
Nick. Wisdom. My viscera are not as wise as my
philosophy. I regret allowing them to reach up and
control my mouth (or typing fingers.)
Happens to all of us, especially when we find that we can earn a living
with strong points of view!
I was tested on this quite recently,
At 05:31 PM 10/14/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Now let's just all pray that Pete Peterson gets
Treasury.
Ahem. I'll be praying for Snow to get Treasury ;-)
JDG - O.k., not necessarily Snow, but just as long as the President is
re-elected... ;-)
Chickens before they've hatched,
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
be but won't be is Franklin Raines. He's got caught in the Fannie Mae
scandal, though. It's a real pity.
Yeah, well, I'd say he's partly responsible for the huge taxpayer
swindle that Fannie Mae continues to run. There is no way
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: W and the apocalypts
You need to read my comment in the context of my other post on The Great
Divide.
The difference between
- Original Message -
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: W and the apocalypts
You riff about Russia was both pompous and ridiculous.
I have as many contacts as you do, including
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:
This is absurd. I can just imagine the Russians - who
think the largest long-term threat to their security
is the Chinese - the Chinese, who are dependent on a
$150BB trade surplus with the US - and the EU, which
is over any significant period of time going to be
absorbed by its
John wrote:
The difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is
this - the Republicans overwhelming believe in the merits of the Iraq
War, and the Iraq War would never have happened under the Democrats.
If you
believe, as I do, that Iraq is the central front in the War on
Gautam wrote:
Facts, again. I believe that the ratio of senior
officers who have publicly pledged their support to
the Bush Administration to that supporting Kerry is
well over 2:1. Kerry is very, very, very unpopular in
the military, to put it mildly.
I'll bet Bush is very unpopular with the
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll bet Bush is very unpopular with the enlisted
men and women.
Extending their enlistments is perhaps the single
best way to alienate
them and degrade moral.
--
Doug
To the extent that we have evidence (not much, but
some) this does not
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
___
My God. Have you no memory or sense of irony about
how your words sound like Vietnam 1966, 1967, 1968,
1969
Yes, David. But you snipped the rest of what I said.
And the rest, was my point.
Damon.
=
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL
--- 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
At 08:09 PM 10/12/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote:
All right, I was challenged to come up with direct links between W
and the apocalypts. Here you go:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hill1019.html
There is one quote here, The evil one is among us.This quote could
just as easily refer to the real
- Original Message -
From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: W and the apocalypts
All right, I was challenged to come up with direct links between W
and the apocalypts. Here you go:
http://www.counterpunch.org
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Evil One usually refers to Satan. Evangelicals often picture
Satan
as active in the world, prompting people to do evil.
Scott Baio?
http://www.peoples.ru/art/cinema/actor/baio/baio_1.jpg
I expect my children to be alive when the Rapture comes
Behalf Of JDG
I'm more worried about how the Moveon.org types of the world
are going to react to the Bush win.
Well, I can guarantee it won't involve nukes. grin
- jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Oct 13, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of JDG
I'm more worried about how the Moveon.org types of the world
are going to react to the Bush win.
Well, I can guarantee it won't involve nukes. grin
As I recall, it's the /opponents/ of the moveon.org types who
bring their opponents to
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
