Comments Posted By Stan Peterson
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments
BUSH & ISRAEL: SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, HIP TO HIP
The USA has paid Israel over a quarter of a $ Trillion since a fellow I voted for and in retrospect detest, decided to bribe both sides for "Peace in out Time" and a Nobel Peace prize for himself.
Israel has a right to exist, but I fear that it will eventually lose just One war. Then the question will be where and who will accept the remnant of Israeli refugees not drowned when pushed into in the sea by the Muslims. No different in principle to what the Left (including the Jewish left), ordered for the slant-eyed South Vietnamese and Cambodians.
If one million Israeli refugees of the seven million survive, and end up in New York and New Jersey, will the Left accept them? It would probably change the politics of those Blue States like the anti-Castroite Cubans changed the political map of NYC South, that we call Miami Florida.
Therefore would the Left accept them ? I'd wager the answer would be NO. Are you reading this at all HollyWierdos Babs and Meathead? Do you even care?
Comment Posted By Stan Peterson On 3.08.2006 @ 15:16
IRAQI PRESIDENT: THE "LAST THROES" OF DEMENTIA?
In Vietnam by 1962, we were fighting organized military full time units at the regimental and division levels, supported by a protected nation area for R&R and funded by 1/3 of the worlds GDP.
In Iraq the insurgents have virtualy no military as opposed to terrorist capacity. Organized platoons are non existent. Part time insurgents units of but a handdful of part-timers are all that there is. Suicide and mining may disrupt but cannot defeat a Nation state although it may eventually tire foreign support such as the US.
Your estimate of 20,000 fighters came directly from the cheeks of your maximus glutumus.
Nutcase, Ted K the "UnaBomber" managed to conduct a bombing about one a month. Thirty Unabombers could do one a day or thereabouts.
Funny that is about the rate of Iraqi bombing that occurs in the four of 18 provinces that have any appreciable civil unrest. You can't call avoiding militaries and police and rather targeting and killing civvies, any kind of effective opposition military action.
The Iraqi leader is more accurate than any of the keyboard posters. When your opponents are quitting and acepting Amnesty, Twenty One groups since Zarquawi's death, and no one offers to challenge the Iraqi military and police units, why shouldn't he be believed?
Comment Posted By Stan Peterson On 3.08.2006 @ 16:01
LET'S TORCH THE FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT
The flag amendment is not fundamental. The true damage that the Left has done is to blur the distinction between speech and action.
You and the government can sure as hell regulate actions. You kill someone, they will prosecute. The left has destroyed the old understanding that "they can't prosecute for what your thinking..." "PC" and "Hate laws" certainly prosecute you for what you're thinking. They eviscerate the right to be private and secure in your thoughts and papers.
We need an amendment that says: Only Speech is Speech, and is protected.
Actions masquerading as "symbolic speech" are A-C-T-I-O-N-S and can be enjoined.
Flag desecration, other offensive actions masquerading as speech are not speech, wearing of offensive clothing or non clothing displays, are actions and can be enjoined. These are not "symbolic speech", ther is no such thing.
As a hypothetical example of the absurdity of "symbolic speech" I could wish that someone would kidnap the four members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court who have decided for the other 300 million Americans what its marital laws will be.
This would ordinarily be a crime but strip them naked (to insure it protected pornographic speech, (sarcasm!)), before coating them with a coat of tar. and the contents of a feather pillow, before tying them to a fence rail and leaving them to be gleefully photographed by the tipped off and gleeful Celebrity Press.
Now that action is no longer an actionable crime of kidnapping, and battery; but it is now arguably protected "symbolic speech" with a long tradition known as "tar & feathering", It si symbolic speech.
This is pure insanity.
This should be the fundamental subject for the desireable Amendment, which along the way cures Flag desecration, and so many other offensive abominations, when you consider the effect.
Comment Posted By Stan Peterson On 27.06.2006 @ 19:30
The flag amendment is not fundamental. The true damage that the left has done is to blur the distinction between speech and action.
You and the government can sure as hell regulate actions. You kill someone, they will prosecute. The left has destroyed the old understanding that "they can't prosecute for what your thinking..." PC and "Hate laws" certainly prosecute you for what you're thinking. They eviscerate the right to be private and secure in your thoughts and papers.
We need an amendment that say Only Speech is speech, and is protected.
Actions masquerading as "symbolic speech" are actions and can be enjoined.
Flag desecration, offensive actions masquerading as speech ar not speech, offensive clothing or non clothing displays, are actions and can be enjoined.
As a hypothetical example of the absurdity of "symbolic speech" I could wish that someone would kidnap the four members of the Mass Supreme court who have decided for the other 300 million Americans what its marital laws will be. This would ordinarily be a crime but and strip them naked (to insure it protected pornographic speech, (sarcasm)), before coating them with a coat of tar and the contents of a feather pillow before tying them to a fence rail and leaving them to be gleefully photographed by the tipped off Celebrity Press.
Now that action is no longer a crime of kidnapping and battery; but it is now arguably protected "symbolic speech" with a long tradition of known as "tar & feathering".
This is pure insanity.
This is the fundamental subject for the Amendment which along the way cures Flag desecration and so many other offensive abominations.
Comment Posted By Stan Peterson On 27.06.2006 @ 19:20
I am an ex Democrat. And I expect never to vote for any other Democrat in my lifetime, no matter if it were Mother Teresa herself running. She would support the crazies, who have taken my Party into lunacy.
When I grew up Democrats used to say they "stood up for the little guy". That was our proudest statment. Laughing and cheering that they sabotaged the saving of Social Security that the "little guys" depend on for two minutes of media notoriety, and being able to say "we beat GWB"! is truly pathetic.
If the the Republicans had half a brain they would replay that snipet from the SOTU a thousand times in their ads.
Democatats: "We stand ON the bankrupt pensions of the little guy"!
Comment Posted By Stan Peterson On 5.02.2006 @ 00:03
