Subject:
|
Re: A Brave New World
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:09:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> and it seems the US government just can't let Cuba alone
> either. It must really get some people's backs up that Communism is happily
> trundling along just off shore.
It does. I find it amusing when people react that way.
> I don't know your opinion on this, so don't
> take it as an attack. But, I fear now that Bush will not fare so well as
> Clinton on global matters.
I think it depends on what you mean by 'well.' Our conservatives have become
much more concerned with the domestic agenda than in the recent past. Bush
mirrors that concern. I think he's likely to be less popular abroad, but that
doesn't really matter.
> I think interfering with another country is acceptable though if
> its welcomed by the population of that other country.
I think such interference is OK when it's really important. Regardless of
their opinion.
> I'd just like to understand
> why the US is the way it is, particularly since we all started out from the
> same point in history.
I think it's important to remember that at least many of the Europeans who
ended up here, were misfits in their own nation. (Maybe y'all culled out those
with genetic disposition toward authority conflicts.)
Despite writing down your right to overturn dodgy
> governments and replace them with new ones (clearly stemming from having
> just done so to the British rulers over there), you don't appear to have
> done it nearly enough for your own satisfaction*.
That is my stance. I think we would be healthier if we were wiping the slate
clean every few years...like 20-50, and beginning anew.
> The British, on the other
> hand, have never needed a bit of paper to tell them how to refine the
> government, and doubtless ever will.
We have bits of paper limiting what the government can do to us. You don't.
Theoretically, a law could pass tomorrow that enslaved you. That would be
tougher here, I think.
> *Please do not take this as incitement to riot. I gather the FB-Aye
> consider investigating such matters as far too serious to get involved with
> trivia like international jurisdiction.
I don't think the Fat Boys' Institute will hassle you over it.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) Hmm. We all send 'peace keeping' forces around the world, but they usually have some degree of domestic interest involved. I was impressed with Clinton's involvement in the middle east, and his involvement in Northern Ireland (though not to (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
