We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Politicsforeign affairs, unchaperoned

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (241)9/7/2004 7:34:15 AM
From: Chas.
   of 261
it is a shame that you fail to understand the dynamics involved with the Russian school hostage situation in Beslan.. a truly tragic event perpetrated by a few dissident Chechnyans and supported by 15 or so radical Islamic terrorists.

Amazing that you lay the atrocity on the back of the Russian responders.......

you and Thomas deserve each other....


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Chas. who wrote (221)9/11/2004 2:51:33 AM
From: marcos
   of 261
'USA, Canada, Great Britain...... we, the free West'

So right there you are lumping three nations that would constitute a whole lot of separate tribes, had we not knocked back a good deal of tribalist excess already ..... some tribes look like they'd be real hard to merge into anything but graves, granted, still you have to admit that we've achieved a lot already, and that the general trend remains positive

'the tribes will never merge, the obstacles are religion,
ethnic loyalty, false pride of Motherland....

Agreed on religion, that's a biggie, the whackos have got to be whacked back into line with humanity from time to time .... Islam doesn't have a clergy per se, so there's no door on which their coming Martin Luther can nail his ninety-five faeces, and more's the pity ..... although, look back to the Reformation, that started up the Hundred Years War, yikes

Ethnic loyalty can get out of hand, it should never trump humanity, but i think there are positive aspects to it, it's inevitable in any case, folks like the company of other folks who speak the same language, eat the same food, have customs each other understand, and are all related to each other anyway ....... 'false pride of Motherland', not sure what you mean by this .... we know it as Patria, which is actually Fatherland, but quibbling aside i don't see anything false about it, or anything much dangerous either .... it's only really a problem for people who cross other people's borders with their troops, maybe ....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: BubbaFred who wrote (236)9/13/2004 5:09:54 AM
   of 261
The Structure of Power in the US... in 2010:


Twelve jurists comprise the Council of Guardians, six of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The head of the judiciary recommends the remaining six, which are officially appointed by Parliament.

The Council of Guardians is vested with the authority to interpret the constitution and determines if the laws passed by Parliament are in line with the Bible (Ten Commandments). This means that the council has effective veto power over Parliament. If it deems that a law passed by Parliament is incompatible with the constitution or Bible, it is referred back to Parliament for revision.

The council also examines presidential and parliamentary candidates to determine their fitness. At times, the council has dramatically winnowed the field of candidates. In the 2000 presidential election, for example, the council accorded victory to George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore case, and again in the 2004 presidential election.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: BubbaFred who wrote (236)9/13/2004 5:20:42 AM
   of 261
Follow-up to my previous post:

Council of Guardians

The Council of Guardians is a high office within the constitution of the Christian Republic of America which has the authority to interpret the constitution and to determine if the laws passed by the parliament are in line with the constitution of America or not. As such, the Council itself is not a legislative body, but it has veto power over the American parliament. Its members are composed of Christian clerics and lawyers.

The Council approves all candidates for election to the American Presidency, legislative branch, and the Assembly of Experts.

Six members of the Council are clerics selected by the Supreme Leader, who serves as America's Head of State. The other six members are lawyers proposed by America's head of judicial branch (selected in turn by the Supreme Leader), and voted in by the Parliament. Members are elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership changes every three years.

As mentioned, the council also holds veto power over all legislation approved by Congressmen. It can drop a law based on two accounts: being against Christian laws, or being against the Bible. While all the members vote on the laws being compatible with the Bible, only the six clerics vote on them being compatible with Judeo-Christianity.

If any law is rejected, they will be passed back to the Congressmen for correction. If the Congressmen and the Council of Guardians couldn't decide on a case, it is passed up to the Expediency Council for a final decision.

Chief Guardian William H. Rehnquist:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Thomas M. who wrote (240)11/5/2004 1:50:57 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
Another great post from Bilow:

"The economy is not healthy, and the Democrats should have won the election. That they did not is due, in my opinion, that they are no longer the party of labor, but instead are the party of social liberalism. To win, the Democrats need to win back the "Reagan Democrats". It's been cultural issues that have driven those voters into Republican hands. Over and over I hear old Democrats talk about how the party abandoned them."

Message 20730195


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (247)2/22/2005 4:38:56 AM
   of 261
Charm and seduction amid the chandeliers

Martin Kettle in Brussels
Tuesday February 22, 2005
The Guardian

The aristocrats of Brussels used to come to the Concert Noble to charm, to seduce and, eventually, to find themselves a mate. So this elegant 19th century Belgian drawing room was a tailor-made venue for George Bush to start the task of wooing European opinion once again.

Rarely can so many famous Belgians have been gathered together in one place as they were at lunchtime yesterday when Mr Bush strode to the podium in the company of the Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt to deliver the speech that is the political centrepiece of his visit to Europe this week.

The great and good had come from every corner of the European Union. There was the foreign minister of Luxembourg, a Danish general, and even the former head of the Tory group of MEPs.

If you are told to get to the hall two hours before the speech, then you don't count for very much. The later you are allowed to arrive, the more important you are. So it was only when Condoleezza Rice, followed by Laura Bush, slipped into the room that the invited audience stopped gossiping and snapped to attention.

And then, quite suddenly, there he was. Under five of the biggest chandeliers in Brussels the president and his Belgian host entered to a standing and prolonged ovation. So prolonged, in fact, that Mr Bush had to gesture to his own people to encourage the audience to sit down.

Mr Verhofstadt seized his brief moment in the spotlight to make the kind of remarks that British Eurosceptics expect from a Belgian prime minister. He said that Europe had failed to prevent the civil war in Yugoslavia because it had been hesitant and divided. The answer was a united Europe, as strong as the United States, he said.

But it was Mr Bush the audience had come to hear and he did not disappoint. When he described Brussels as the capital of "a beautiful nation", it was immediately clear that he was aiming to please.

Then he told a graceful story about Benjamin Franklin coming to Europe and being greeted everywhere as a friend of humankind. "I have been hoping for a similar reception," he observed, and everyone laughed, "but Secretary Rice told me I should be a realist." Laughter again.

George Bush will never be a great orator. The gestures and grimaces are too often too hard to square with the immensity of his power.

But he is a far better speaker than his most implacable detractors allow. And this speech was, quite simply, one by a politician at the top of his game. It was like listening to Caesar reviewing the condition of the Roman empire - daunting but irresistible.

At times it seemed as if Mr Bush was going to say something about every single country in the world. One moment he was reprimanding the Dutch for their racial violence, the next he was slipping in a compliment to Morocco for its embrace of reform.

But it was the Middle East that was at the heart of this speech. And it seemed to be the issue that most people in the Concert Noble wanted to hear most about too. When he called for a Palestinian state "with contiguous territory on the West Bank" and declared that a state of "scattered territories" would not work the applause was loud and heartfelt.

Afterwards the verdict was positive in the hall. Charmed? Certainly. Seduced? They liked the thought. But a partner for life? Let's see how it feels in the morning.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Thomas M. who wrote (247)4/16/2005 2:01:06 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
I see they haven't gotten any smarter on the "Politics for Amateurs" thread.

Message 21219518

Of course, it was the Contras and their allies that were killing nuns. Archbishop Romero was not murdered by the Sandinistas. He was murdered by American-trained right-wing terrorists. The Sandinistas were by far the least violent and repressive government in the area.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (249)4/16/2005 2:04:51 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 261
<<< Barry Healy on the Dead Pope's opposition to Liberation Theology:

"By assiduously aligning himself with the most reactionary elements of late 21st century power politics, John Paul II left a profound crisis in Catholicism in his wake. Latin America was once overwhelmingly Catholic but the US rulers have used their Protestant fundamentalist sects as weapons against liberationist Catholics there. Now 10% of Brazilians are believed to be talking in tongues!

In the developed capitalist countries, Catholicism continues to bleed membership as believers tire of the ridiculous strictures on their sexuality and democratic rights within the church. As AIDS threatens millions in the crucified impoverished world and wars and indebtedness worsen, the Catholic Church's lame responses are simply making it irrelevant."

The effect of II's horror at Liberation Theology - and for that matter for any kind of freedom outside of Poland - has been to drive the people of Latin America out of the Catholic Church and into the arms of American evangelical fruitcake religions, which are spreading like a plague over Latin America. >>>

And these fruitcake Evangelicals are taken seriously by amateurs like Cobalt, even as they tell obvious lies.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Thomas M.4/16/2005 2:42:59 AM
   of 261
Is Faultline an incompetent moderator or does he have an agenda? I have always tended to the former theory.

Message 20713170
Message 20719129

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (249)4/16/2005 2:54:26 PM
From: marcos
   of 261
This post was in response to the Zapata-goes-marxist [!] part of that exchange - Message 21228922

La Robolución was complex, carranza is quite right in that, however zapatismo was deadly simple - folks wanted their stolen land returned, and Zapata meant to get it back for them, and to such extent as he was able, he did so, and continues to do so

As for FaultLine, he's not around FADG recently, for a long time now ... possible health concerns again, or a recognition of the futility of it all, i think there are far more twisted moderators though, like Evile and Lindy [who banned me, lol] [but who have both lifted the bans since, for whatever reason]

Agreed on the utter uselessness of the self-professed lawyer of ad hominem fame ... on liberation theology versus whacko evangélicos, it's not quite that simple, a pure black and white thing ... from personal experience at the seventeenth parallel, trust me, there are idiots on both sides, and useful principles from both sides being used by the greedy and unscrupulous ... in the specific case in which i was involved, it was a land dispute, a clash of cultures as to the way in which they viewed land tenure, as well as competing claims to the land - and neither side had an exclusive right to the land, imho, as nobody had lived in that valley for a thousand years - until both factions moved in, in the same year[!] ... and both sides lied to me, one more than the other, this is true, but on neither side was there anyone with authority who failed to lie ... there will be other stories elsewhere, of course ... generally, yes it was a retrograde step for Juan Pablo to stomp on the LTs, but hey, this is the catholic church, what do you expect, and anyway, there are scarey whackos in all fanatic movements, and the term 'liberation' abused by many

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10