Re: [RELIGION][POLITICS] let it burn (was Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] there are no black helicopters...)

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Rick Buford wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > I never said that, right?
>
> from http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2004-09/msg00137.php3 
> (the previous email in that thread)
>
>    * To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>    * Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?
>    * From: Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>    * Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:55:43 -0500 (CDT)
>    * In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>    * References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED><EMAIL:PROTECTED><EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>    * Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
>    * Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
>
> If the court had any sense, they would have written a reasonable 
> definition of "sex" or "sexual relations."  The court screwed up, left 
> an opening, and Clinton took it.  He's a lawyer, just like most 
> Presidents and most Senators, Congressmen and Governors, so you should 
> expect him to follow the letter of the law in this kind of situation.

OK, so you sent the wrong URL last time.  Saying "you should expect him to 
follow the letter of the law in this kind of situation" is not the same 
thing as saying "it's not the spirit of the law that matters, it's the 
letter."  I never said that, nor would I say that.  Seeing it, my first 
question is "matters to what?"  What does that mean?


> > I think there is a real sickness in this country when people seem to 
> > care equally about one president getting a blow job and another 
> > president cheating and lying and killing and stealing.  There is no 
> > comparison. Bill Clinton could have had a dozen blowjobs a day for 8 
> > years and lied about every one of them and our national debt would not 
> > have been affected and our soldiers would not have died because of it. 
> > We can't say that for Bush's lies -- they are not benign.  Bush has 
> > destroyed our international reputation, massively increased our 
> > national debt and killed thousands of innocent people.
>
> Honestly Mike, I'm to the point where I don't think you give a rat's ass 
> about any of that.

Then why would I be writing about it?  Of course I care about it!


> You vacillate back and forth...

Between what and what?


> ...whenever it's convenient to your ideology every bit as much as you 
> accuse the right-wingers of doing.

Sorry, I don't have an ideology.  You really need to wake up to what is 
going on here.  The Bush supporters on this list are *all* trying to 
promote Christianity.  That has nothing to do with our government.  They 
are ideological.  To evaluate Bush and decide that he sucks, or worse, is 
not ideological.


> Part of the reason that liberals got marginalized in the last several 
> elections

You seem to be saying that I am "a liberal."  I don't even really know 
what the hell that is, so I would never say that I am one.


> is because they offer moderates no better alternative than 
> conservatives. Those of us that actually don't care about party 
> affiliation would be more than happy to have a significant alternative.

Me too.  Once you get one, tell me about it.  For now I only get two 
viable choices in the elections I've been voting in.  That's why I vote 
for Democrats -- they aren't the Republicans.


> Frankly, I don't even disagree with your summation of W's achievements 
> in the last term and a half

Then why not just shut up?  You waste a lot of time putting words in my 
mouth and accusing me of taking certain vague positions (being "a liberal" 
or whatnot).  What's the point?  Why not write about the topic instead of 
writing about me?  If you agree with me, then you should be passionate 
about doing something about the problems.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion