OT: Ann Coulter is a raving lunatic!

Agreed, she's wrong. The voting age should be at least 35, maybe 40. The military exception seems fair.

John

==================== This shows the problems with words like "win." What exactly does this mean in the contexts of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. etc.

Please describe in 100,000 words or less exactly what the citizens of the U.S. [not the trans/supra national corporations] can expect to gain in any of these areas by "winning," contrasting this with the thousands of U.S. citizens killed and maimed, and trillions of [borrowed] dollars expended. Feel free to include Columbia/Venezuela, Iran and Mexico in your analysis as these seem to be next on the hit list.

For extra credit it would also be helpful to itemize what the citizens of the U.S. would lose by declaring victory, having some nice parades, handing out lots of medals and promotions, and bringing the troops home from not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also Japan, Korea and Germany to garrison the US-Mexican border.

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Obtaining Bin Laden dead or alive, would be good enough for me.

i

Well then, she should be right at home in this newsgroup with the rest of us. Why did you mark this 'off topic'?

========= Seems like a huge amount of American blood and money for one raghead.

How about we offer his weight in gold for live COD, no questions asked? Assuming he weighs 180 lbs and gold is

1400$ per ounce this is only $4,032,000...

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

But what can you do.

I think that they are already offering more.

i

I want him like Pablo Escobar. One AR15 round in one ear and out the other.

Steve

And how, exactly, does killing innocent Afghani and Pakistani civilians move us nearer to this goal?

Thanks, Rich

Yeah, that's it! Turn him into a Martyr!

Don't you people realize that he's sitting over there rolling on the floor laughing his ass off watching Washington DC do more damage to America than any number of "terrorists" could even dream of?

The US not only lost the "war on terror," but essentially went over to the other side on the day the US regime started strip-searching American Citizens.

Thanks, Rich

======== You might also want to ask the following 5,710 Americans what they think:

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

======= also see

-- Unka George (George McDuffee) .............................. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author. The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Idealogical crusades and treating law breaking as causes for militarism are only part of the problem. The other part is US imperialism (e.g. Marines in Nicaragua in the name of the United Fruit Company). The more the USA invades/damages other countries/economies, the better its position to steer money its own direction.

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC Ret. (34 years of service and 2 Congressional Medals of Honor) had this figured out in the 1930s. The way to stop it is to put the **entire** nation on a war footing whenever the military is sent offshore:

" War Is A Racket" :[...]the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives[...] : : How to smash this racket :[...]conscript capital and industry and labor. :Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives :of our armament factories[...]and the manufacturers :of all the other things that provide profit in war time[...] :get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Continued tax cuts and no rationing for civilians during multi-trillion dollar expeditionary misadventures is just burying the country's collective head in the sand.

The problem is that, since Wilson adopted propaganda in WWI, the "truth" coming from the gov't has been a purposeful distortion and since Lend-Lease in the 1930s the USA has had an economy based on war.

snip

messing around with the demographics of who gets to vote is dangerous, the whole systems is based on a resonable power balance between givers and takers.

when the takers out number the givers it breaks down, look at what happened in Greece

-Lasse

Emigrate to Australia - voting is compulsory there, though the fine for not voting isn't all that high, and everybody older than 18 has to vote.

American right-wingers used to emigrate to Australia because it was predominantly white and didn't treat its aboriginal population very well. When they got to Australia, they found that it was nowhere near right-wing enough in a number of other respects. It's probably still a lot too left wing to suit right-wing Americans, but it does have compulsory voting.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

More because they thought the US was going to the dogs and Australia was English speaking and had lots of land and opportunities. I never heard anyone say anything about Australia being a good place because they did not treat the aborigines well or that the country was good because there were few Asians.

Dan

I'm leaning towards, if you don't pay taxes you can't vote, or if you receive government assistance you can't vote. That includes those living on SS and paying no taxes. If you can't support yourself you shouldn't be able to vote that the workers work more to pay you. We are very close to more takers than forced givers. MikeK

Well its about time I got to come back and help the My American people.

Thank you

Jim Crow

How about this - roll call votes, such that the only people who are required to pay a particular tax would be the ones who voted for it. >:->

Cheers! Rich

One can wonder about the actual motivation. What tended to upset them when they arrived was that Australia has powerful trade unions - and has had since the 1890's when the the sheep shearer's strike got the unions on the map, and left the Australian unions rich enough to be able to provide sustantial to support the London dock workers' strike.

This didn't get into the kind of reports that right-wing Americans read about Australia.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen