The destructive folks are not good. I'd totally agree. You should have seen the chaos during the Gulf War! Not so cool. But it's really just a few dozen. Most are harmless hippy-free-love folks about 30 years out of their era.

George Wallace was a democrat. Josef Stalin was a socialist who believed that big government was the answer to all of societys ills and who took from the rich and gave to the poor. Sounds like the losing candidate in the most recent election.

The most recent Gulf War? I saw a little TV coverage. I was in SF during Gulf War I (grew up in SF).. don't remember if the protests were that bad.

---

_______________________________________________

"bunch of racists from the pre-integration south". ....

I think he must also be talking about Democratic Senator Robert Byrd :-)

"Latin Dictators"...

Would that be Castro? Jimmy Carter's buddy? :-)

Me, I just rode my bike over the Golden Gate bridge and smiled at the beautiful scenery and one more day of not filling up my SUV. It's only four years.

My sentiments exactly. Did I support Shrub? Yup. Would I have jumped into Kilauea volcano if he had lost? No way! It's four years, and these things are cyclical. The Dems consolidated their power during WWII and rode that horse for 40 years, and we didn't become Communist or something. The Reeps are just doing the same thing.

And besides, the very institutional-like nature of our federal bureaucracy prevents any president or legislative body from going totally hog wild and reordering society into whatever fevered version of Dem or Reep utopia it is that they imagine. It's really like a pendulum. It swings from left to right and back again. Hopefully, it never goes too far right or too far left.

And, like you, I got up this morning, walked out to my lanai (porch) and looked down into the blue Pacific ocean and smelled the plumeria flowers in my garden and thought: "Man, life is good" :-)

K

"I've also never been crazy about religious christian zealots, but they've never tried to kill me because I don't believe."

Are you trying to say that there aren't violent extremist "Christian" groups out there?

"Strange how secular Democrats are siding with extremely religous militant muslims who believe in forceful conversion or death. I was going to say I don't get the Democrats, but I really do. It's about power. Militant Islam can play a part just as it has in Chechnya. Convert to Islam and then you have the best guerilla military organization on your side. Who cares that the objective has changed, now there's a real chance at power. That scares the shit out of me.
"

Huh? What kind of conspiracy theory cereal have you been eating?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes, Janet Reno killed most of them and their women and children years ago in Waco.

Are you trying to say that there aren't violent extremist "Christian" groups out there?
---Nope, not saying that at all. I'm sure they exist. I don't like religion, period. Perhaps good for moral guidance, but to achieve anything worthwhile, you must die. Morality of Death. Democratic Secularism has no morals, for it is completely relative. Even with laws, not all are held accountable to the same standard. Moral virtue not based on religion that celebrates life can be achieved without death, but most aren't given the knowledge.


Huh? What kind of conspiracy theory cereal have you been eating?

---None. I know it sounds crazy. That's what's so disturbing. Clarification - Conversion to Islam in Chechnya wasn't necessary, it has had a large Islamic presence for hundreds of years. However, the seperatists are being funded by Wahhabists that are not indiginous to Chechnya.

---

Sean

"None. I know it sounds crazy. That's what's so disturbing. Clarification - Conversion to Islam in Chechnya wasn't necessary, it has had a large Islamic presence for hundreds of years. However, the seperatists are being funded by Wahhabists that are not indiginous to Chechnya. "

what does any of that have to do with "secular Democrats"

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

He was elected because the sitting governor at the time was more corrupt the any Daly ever was and will be sitting in a federal court room this March answer for his level of corruption.

Yeah, and I guess the combination of Ryan's pervertedness and Obama's great speak at the democratic national convention won the election.

The Republican party in Illinois is a mess, and to bring Alan Keyes in to run this fall was another brilliant move. I don't think they could have beaten Obama, but they could have run someone out there that wasn't a complete loon.

To repeat my same sentiment regarding the democrat's presidential candidate .. "this is the best they could do?". I agree with Keyes's "restrained government" and "self control in place of government control" ideas ... but even I'd rather have him as my preacher instead of my senator. His going away party was a pretty good sermon (if you share his religious views).

Keyes had no shot.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Secular (no religion) Democrats are siding with Muslim Jihadists (extremely religious) which makes no sense to me other than they are both non-christian, non-jewish, non-buddhist, etc. However, (and i guess this is the part you consider conspiracy) if the Democrats ever need a strong internal military arm, they could convert to islam, remain in power as politicians and use the mujahideen, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other as their military arm to get people right. Like Hitler's Brown Shirts. It could happen today between politicians and American gangsters. I'm kinda scaring myself at the moment just thinking that it's more than possible and that I can't imagine what it was like for Jews in Germany during Kristalnacht.<shiver>

---

Sean

I guess I'm not seeing your connection between Chechnya and Democrats supporting jihadists.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sorry. The connection is that Chechen rebel separatists are already using the militant arm of Wahabbi Islam against Russia and the Democrats could use them for their needs as well with little effort(conversion). And that's where I see why you think it's a conspiracy. Democrats using militants, but that's how I view those protestors who side wtih the Dems. Hope that completes the circle in my circular logic.

---

Sean

Sorry. The connection is that Chechen rebel separatists are already using the militant arm of Wahabbi Islam against Russia and the Democrats could use them for their needs as well with little effort(conversion).

I dunno......most people think that Dems (at least the majority of the hard left of the party) are pretty much secular-humanistic in their thinking, so I don't know if they'd be able to bite the bullet and swallow hard enough to go out and secure the services of Wahabbism or its adherents, though their hatred of all things Bush was pretty scary this time ;-)

To me, they'd be much more likely to try to copy the Reepub playbook from the is election cycle and try to strengthen and grow their hardcore constituencies (who can be every bit as zealous and overbearing in their superiority as the Wahabbiists ;-) to the point where the turnout at the polls would overwhelm any advantage Reps might have among the "morals values" voters in this recently-completed election.

K

It takes a few generations to clean out, the brain damage produced by too many acid trips in the 60,s . Maybe the greatgrand kids will be OK.

George Wallace was a racist who believed in preventing African-Ameicans from voting. Kind of like the Republicans in the last two elections. Yes, he was a Democrat, but what's left of his constituency is part of the Republican base.

Stalin believed in the supression of free speech. I can think of a current Repulican president who also believes in the supression of free speech.

My point isn't to take sides. It is only to point out that there isn't a lot of black and white in this debate, and both sides have aspects that are pretty ugly. That's not to excuse the demonstrators in San Francisco, but the right wing fringe of the Republican party is equally unatractive.

"Kind of like the Republicans in the last two elections."

Prove it.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Jeff, you said you were sorry you ventured into the Lavender Room and would retreat back to the tri forum, yet here you are. Good for you, It's quite addictive talking to intelligent people even if we don't all agree.

I had a long nastygram all written to respond to this post, but if you care, I'd like to ask you to explain your statements.

"George Wallace was a racist who believed in preventing African-Ameicans from voting. Kind of like the Republicans in the last two elections. Yes, he was a Democrat, but what's left of his constituency is part of the Republican base."

---Are you saying that those remaining Republicans are racist?

"Stalin believed in the supression of free speech. I can think of a current Repulican president who also believes in the supression of free speech."

---How does President Bush believe in suppression of free speech?

"My point isn't to take sides. It is only to point out that there isn't a lot of black and white in this debate, and both sides have aspects that are pretty ugly. That's not to excuse the demonstrators in San Francisco, but the right wing fringe of the Republican party is equally unatractive."

---Why is this a problem for you?

---

Sean

[reply]
I'm rather more bemused by the rally. I've lived in the Bay Area, after all, and I must admit to a certain pleasure that the people there do, in fact, have a passionate belief system for [i]something, [/i]which is better than being a captive of Derrida's deconstructivist philosophy, which is what I mainly observed in the Berkely-Palo Alto crowd the last time I lived there.

K[/reply]

Derrida was a committed leftist for his entire life. The word is "deconstructionist", not "deconstructivist." Deconstructivism is a school of architectural theory. And I'm very tired of people both on the right and the left gloating over the man's death. Whatever happened to "do not speak ill of the dead"?

P.S. I am not a deconstructionist, though I admire some of Derrida's work.

---

--Vimalakirti

"It is a designation, a description, an appellation, nothing but a name. But in the final analysis, the ultimate sense, there is no Person to be found herein. . ." --The Questions of King Milinda

I'm definitely not saying that Republicans are racists. I am saying that since the 60s, part of the Republican's program has appealed to racists. I think that is one of the reasons that the south has become solidly Republican. I also do think that there was a vote suppression program carried out by the Republicans in this election that was similar to what used to go on in the South.

On free speech, anyone who speaks in disagreement with the President has had problems. After 9/11, anyone who disagreed with the President's response was labelled unpatriotic. I think that's why the Patriot Act was passed so easily, even though, in my view, it is flawed. When CBS tried to braodcast a show that was unflattering to the Reagans, they were intimidated into pulling it. Networks that are perceived to be unfriendly to the administration are denied access. Access is how these people conduct newsgathering operations. By denying them access and threatening to deny them access, it intimidates the networks into being very unquestioning.

My original point was that extremists on both sides worry me. I think that an anarchist represents the Democratic Party as little as an anti-government domestic terrorist represents the Republican Party. Neither side has a monopoly on extremists and it is as unfair to say that the demonstrators in San Francisco are the Democratic Party as it is unfair for me to say that Timothy McVeigh represents the Republican Party.

Derrida was a committed leftist for his entire life. The word is "deconstructionist", not "deconstructivist." Deconstructivism is a school of architectural theory. And I'm very tired of people both on the right and the left gloating over the man's death. Whatever happened to "do not speak ill of the dead"?



First, I don't know you, but welcome aboard. Second, how do you know that it's true that Derrida's actually dead? ;-) Third, the guy was a deluded fool and his philosophy caused the train of thought to run off its track for quite a while.

Lastly, I don't think my post was in any way a gloat over the man's MAYBE death (if you have read him, you'll understand why I said what I said). I don't gloat, sir. You'll find that out from my posts and if you bother to spend any appreciable time among all of us, the "enlightened elite", in this forum. ;-))

Now, run along and continue with your "English as a second language" classes ;-)

K