>>In South Vietnam, our client regime
>
>The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam.
You are a complete fucking imbecile.
There were several "regimes" in S. Vietnam that served at the
whim of the US State department.
>
>I think I've made my point.
The one on top of your head?
>
>Dig deeper, young Jedi, you've only scratched the surface.
Whereas you're still sitting there staring at the surface.
It's easier (at least for me) to forgive people who *try* to
delve beneath the surface and don't quite grasp what they've dug up
than to forgive those who never look.
Seaver and May are saying essentially the same thing--that
individuals should be allowed to determine there own destinies.
Harmon comes to this position by way (apparently) of a more "touchy
feely" world view while May comes to it from the Techno/Philosophical
position.
Does it matter how you get there? We all pretty much want the
same thing--the ability to live our own lives free from the
interference of those who wish to control our lives and our output.
They (Seaver and May) both detest the actions of the US government in
many areas, they are just focusing on different flaws and violations
in the same system.
This isn't some hippy bullshit "Can't we just get along", but
rather an attempt to point out that both "sides" are saying the same
thing, just using different words.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
