On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:36 PM, eckinator wrote: > 2010/9/17 P N Stenquist <[email protected]>: >> >> I have thought about it. I've also thought about the need for national >> security. I'm content with the compromises that have to be made to secure >> the latter. > > *Advocatus diaboli mode on* please define national security - where do > you draw the line between the interests of the public and the > interests of the ruling party? Is the use of clandestine operations to > preserve the power of a certain group still national security? we have > much the same issues here and I think there is no easy answer to that > question so I'd like to hear your opinions all the more. > Cheers > Ecke
When leadership is ultimately determined at the ballot box, the interests of the ruling party will eventually and inevitably come to reflect the interest of the public -- even if there are temporary diversions from a logical course. Of course there are the paranoid few at both fringes who believe that a conspiracy of some sort dictates all. For those, I have no answers other than "take your meds." Paul > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
