| Richard R. Gray...'s profileDissenters' CornerBlogListsSkyDrive |  Tools  Help |
|
January 26 What Bush didn't say but Gingrich did This is what is behind all the news...... http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356103,00.html "Israel is in the greatest danger it has been in since 1967. Prior to '67, many wondered if Israel would survive. After '67, Israel seemed military dominant, despite the '73 war. I would say we are (now) back to question of survival," Gingrich said. He added that the United States could "lose two or three cities to nuclear weapons, or more than a million to biological weapons." Gingrich added that in such a scenario, "freedom as we know it will disappear, and we will become a much grimmer, much more militarized, dictatorial society." "Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust," Gingrich declared, adding: "People are greatly underestimating how dangerous the world is becoming. I'll repeat it, three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. Our enemies are quite explicit in their desire to destroy us. They say it publicly? We are sleepwalking through this process as though it's only a problem of communication," Gingrich said. The former House speaker expressed concern that the Israeli and American political establishments were not fully equipped to take stock of the current threat level. "Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined that the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact. It's very clear that the problems are larger and more immediate than the political systems in Israel or the US are currently capable of dealing with," said Gingrich. 'Time to come to grips with threat' "We don't have right language, goals, structure, or operating speed, to defeat our enemies. My hope is that being this candid and direct, I could open a dialogue that will force people to come to grips with how serious this is, how real it is, how much we are threatened. If that fails, at least we will be intellectually prepared for the correct results once we have lost one or more cities," Gingrich added. He also said "citizens who do not wake up every morning and think about the possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves." January 08 Pure LibertyI thought you might like to see how pure Libertarianism apparently works: (This morning's dispatch from Somalia.) "In Kismayo, no weapons have been turned in. Many elders agreed that everyone would be better off once all guns were gone, but no one seems to want to volunteer theirs first. "It's a custom for Somalis to attack someone who doesn't have weapons," said Sultan Abdi Rashid Dure, a leader of the Galjel subclan. "When I was young, we used knives." With long, wrinkled fingers, Mr. Dure, 56, traced the web between disarmament, clans, revenge and anarchy. "During these years, every clan killed," he said. "A lot. Now there are so many feuds, so many scores to settle. We are all afraid that if we give up our weapons, other clans will take their revenge." January 07 Answer to a Libertarian friend This syllogism is wrong because it is linear:
1.. Bad people like to use force to prey on good people. 2.. Good people require a government to protect them from bad people. 3.. This government, in order to be the final arbiter, must possess overwhelming force. Answer: The founding fathers knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so they devised an infinite regression that went in a circle called checks and balances. Notice the exceptions clause to Supreme Court jurisdiction and the amendments in the constitution. The old solution is to throw the government out as frequently as possible. Thus, if you have a mouse get a cat. Then get a dog. Then starve the dog every 2 years and get another dog. Make it a small dog. Neuter the dog. Beware of more mice. But beware of rats. |
|
|
