Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on December 30, 2003, 11:57:36 AM
-
I listen to the radio while driving, as you know.
There is a discussion on whether Saddam Hussein is a fundamental muslim fanatic or just a pragmatic secular socialist leader who resorted to using religion in hard times - and thus he would have no problems making a deal with US.
Curtis Sliwa (the conservative talk-show host) says that of course Saddam was a religious fanatic - claiming that Hitler and Stalin both were tyrants but neither of them turned to religion in tough times.
Obvioulsy, both Hitler and Stalin publicly turned to religion in tough times and it is surprising how any literate man familliar with the history of WWII may not know that. I believe that most listeners probably believed him. No wonder people have so many misconceptions about everything.
Of course the call screener did not allow me to correct him on the air.
Just yesterday a Mike whatshisname sitting in for Bob Grant tells how hyppoctrytical and lying Michael Jackson was - referring to sayings of Christ after his alleged conversion to Islam.
Hello! Islam is not some obscure faith, it's the secong largest on Earths and supposedely the mortal enemy of our civilisation. Would it be asking too much from a public speaker on the issues to know that Jesus Christ is a venerated prophet in Islam?
What's so surprising if a muslim talks to christians and refers to the great person prominent in both religions?
Of course the screener did not let me correct him either.
The amount of pure counter-factual crap constantly said on the radio is amazing - as well as the public that has no idea about the reality and eagerly eats it up.
Do you have any more examples of obvious lies or ignorance about major, unquestionable things that you would like to share? Rant away.
miko
-
God Miko it's so nice to hear someone who belives what I do about Islam...
-
Hawklore: God Miko it's so nice to hear someone who belives what I do about Islam...
I have no idea what you believe about Islam and you have no idea what I believe about it either.
I know - not believe - that Christ is the venerated figure in Islam as well as his mother.
That's just a commonly known fact.
miko
-
Just yesterday a Mike whatshisname sitting in for Bob Grant tells how hyppoctrytical and lying Michael Jackson was - referring to sayings of Christ after his alleged conversion to Islam.
I never heard a word about Michael Jackson converting to Islam, and I dont think he did.
it's the secong largest on Earths and supposedely the mortal enemy of our civilisation.
Can't recall anyone of importance worth a darned saying that, except maybe a TV Evangelist or two, but they are all pretty much lying hypocrites and not worth listening to.
BTW, Curtis Sliwa is just some person who got himself famous by starting a citizens patrol group, and doesnt have the education or experience to speak to world issues in a public forum. You shouldn't be surprised he doesnt want debate on his show, but then you shouldnt waste your time listening to him either.
BTW, NASDAQ did quite well recently, I still dont think the sky is falling.
dago
-
Noticed this in a news story, discussing Jermaines appearance on Larry King Live.
Jackson's brother Jermaine has converted to Islam but is not a member of the Nation of Islam. Asked during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" whether his brother planned to convert, Jermaine Jackson said he did not.
dago
-
Dago: I never heard a word about Michael Jackson converting to Islam, and I dont think he did.
He talked about it, so he must have heard it - it's not a kind of event that a person is likely to invent by coincidence. It was discussed quite a lot over the last few days - as if it's a confirmed fact. Whether it is true or not about M.J., it does not make a difference whether it is hyppoctitical for a muslim to cite Jesus Christ.
I see you do not listen to the news much - good for you! :)
Dago: Can't recall anyone of importance worth a darned saying that, except maybe a TV Evangelist or two, but they are all pretty much lying hypocrites and not worth listening to.
Err... Those orange alerts against islamic terrorists. The president Bush arguing that islam is a religion of peace. Our army sitting in the middle of the birthplace of Islam. The 19 guys who knocked the WTC and damaged Pentagon because our army base supposedely desecrated the land of Saudi Arabia holy to the muslims.
Sure you must have noticed that the amount of mentions of "Islam" or "Muslims" in the media has increased by about a billion times since before September 2001.
One would think it would cause people to read what the heck that "Islam" is about - even in very general sense.
You shouldn't be surprised he doesnt want debate on his show, but then you shouldnt waste your time listening to him either.
Need something to keep me from falling asleep. NPR is as bad as the conservative radio, though much smarter and better educated. They make fewer factual errors but their (socialist) premises are more faulty.
BTW, NASDAQ did quite well recently, I still dont think the sky is falling.
The second part of your sentense bears no relation to the first one in the context of our discussion. So a dot or even a new paragrpaph would be more appropriate than a comma.
My claims of worsening problems in american economy and impending crisis did not rely on the stock market going down at this time - in fact they predicted just such a rise.
Why wouldn't NASDAQ go up? We are printing money and it has to go somewhere besides paying for imports. It's a regular monetary-induced business cycle and we are on the resource-wastefull capital-misallocating upswing - when people are borrowing, hiring and investing. Then they will be declaring bancrupcies, firing and liquidating.
miko
-
He talked about it, so he must have heard it - it's not a kind of event that a person is likely to invent by coincidence. It was discussed quite a lot over the last few days - as if it's a confirmed fact. Whether it is true or not about M.J., it does not make a difference whether it is hyppoctitical for a muslim to cite Jesus Christ.
He talked about it so it must be true? I don' t think him mentioning ISLAM equates to converting to it. His brother has said he didnt and wasn't going to. That is better information in my opinion. If he does, so what? As you mentioned, Christ is respected as a Prophet of God in Islam, so why would it be hypocritical for a muslim to discuss a prophet?
You say this: supposedely the mortal enemy of our civilisation
Based on this: Those orange alerts against islamic terrorists. The president Bush arguing that islam is a religion of peace.
Now come on Miko, that is one huge stretch even for you. Normally your arguements are alot more rational and based on something a little more solid. Warnings against terrorists and the President recognizing Islam as a religion of peace makes Islam a "mortal enemy"? I don't think so. I dont think any sensible person would. Nor would I think our having soldiers on the ground at an isolated base in Saudi Arabia make them our mortal enemies.
What I do think has happened is a few person full of hate and envy have used religion as a tool to brainwash and fill with hate some weak minded individuals to do their bidding.
dago
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Obvioulsy, both Hitler and Stalin publicly turned to religion in tough times and it is surprising how any literate man familliar with the history of WWII may not know that. I believe that most listeners probably believed him. No wonder people have so many misconceptions about everything.
miko
How do you justify your belief that "most listeners probably believed him?" Do you really have that low an opinion of everyone else or that high an opinion of yourself?
-
Do you really have that low an opinion of everyone else or that high an opinion of yourself?
Both I suspect, though I never underestimate the gulliblity of the average person. Look how many supported Clinton and voted for Gore. :D
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Both I suspect, though I never underestimate the gulliblity of the average person. Look how many supported Clinton and voted for Gore. :D
dago
Well, yeah, but not most. ;)
-
I wrongly worded it Miko2d sorry about that...
Just nice to see someone that isn't into constantly slamming Islam.
-Just something I want to say-
I'm as afraid of Christian Extremists as I am Islamic Extremists, if thats what you could call Osama Bin Laden.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
I wrongly worded it Miko2d sorry about that...
Just nice to see someone that isn't into constantly slamming Islam.
-Just something I want to say-
I'm as afraid of Christian Extremists as I am Islamic Extremists, if thats what you could call Osama Bin Laden.
Just curious, what is it that you fear about "Christian Extremists"? You don't work at an abortion clinic do you? I know they're killing those Abortionists at an alarming 1 or 2 per decade.
-
Hawklore: Just nice to see someone that isn't into constantly slamming Islam.
Naturally. I only listen to the radio not to fall asleep while driving. I learn from books.
Dago: He talked about it so it must be true? I don' t think him mentioning ISLAM equates to converting to it.
Dago, unless you really fail to understand what this conversation is about, you must be pretending to be so... er.. incapable of understanding what the heck I am talking about, so I will repeat only once more.
Not only do I not care if M.J. really converted from Christianity to Islam, it would not matter to me if he did because I am not religious and do not believe in either Islam, Christianity or any special properties of J. Christ.
I only care that the radio talk show host believed that a muslim convert cannot honestly cite the words of Christ. He said that a muslim convert siting christ to christians proves hypocricy of that convert - whether it was a real or hypothetical muslim convert.
That shows his ignorance of a simple and well-known fact about Islam - that Jesis Christ is a venerated figure Islam shares with Christianity.
miko: supposedely the mortal enemy of our civilisation
Now come on Miko, that is one huge stretch even for you. Normally your arguments are alot more rational and based on something a little more solid.
Now, come on, Dago! What do you think "supposedely" means? You seem to be a native English speaker. Don't you know that qualifiers like "supposedely" and "allegedely" serve to distance a speaker from somebody else's claim he is repeating, to indicate that he does not believe what he is saying is necessarily true and only passes it along or refers to someone else's possibly fallacious views?
In this case "supposedely the mortal enemy of our civilisation" means "according to imperialist neo-con socialist government, lying media and some rabid bible-thumpers - all of whom are liars or ignorant idiots, but not necessarily in my opinion..."
AKIron: How do you justify your belief that "most listeners probably believed him?" Do you really have that low an opinion of everyone else or that high an opinion of yourself?
Oh, God. Another one who does not understand a simple semantics and meaning of plain english words.
People who know the facts do not need to believe - they know. People who knew that particular piece of histiry were not affected, except confirmed their opinin of the media persons' ignorance.
So obviously I am only talking about people who did not know that particular fact and mis-learned it from mr. Sliwa.
And neither do I hold in low regard people who do not know about soviet or german religious policies - unless you are a public figure making an argument that is totally based on this detail of history.
The people who did not know about Stalin and Hitler only had Sliwa's word on whether they turned towards the public support of religion. So they learned the incorrect knowlege. How many people do you think would even stop to think "he may be telling the truth or he may be lying" about this particular statement?
How many people will make a mental note "make sure not to repeat that untill I check with several historical texts."
Americans swallowed this particular kind of lies wholesale. I see it everywhere - that's how I know.
It is a commonly heard explanaton - I do not know whether it is true or not but I never heard it argued - that the message "In God we trust" on money introduced in 1950s as well as "under God" in the pledge was introduced in the same period served to differentiate americans from "godless" soviet communists.
Have you heard anyone comment that the image of "godless communists" clashes with Joseph Stalin attending massive public services conducted by the Patriarch of all Russia, elevating priesthood and commisioning movies that show the history of Russian as based on christian traditions?
If people who did not know otherswise gave any thought to the Sliwa's statement, they probably thought "he would not lie on such a minor point - after all the discussion is about whether Saddam Hussein was an incorrigible enemy of america, not about soviet or german history" and leave it at that.
A lot of americans do not seem to have learned much in school of from books - and I do not talk much with uneducated americans, so my picture may be even rosier than the reality.
It is my strong opinion that americans filled the gaps if knowlege from the speeches of public persons, from items commonly referred to as a matter of fact despite them being completely invented - and recently at that.
How many people hear that we are bringing "freedom and democracy" to Iraq as well as the principles of the Founding Fathers - like "Jeffersonian Democracy", without raisinhg an eyebrow?
I bet an average american would be surprised that it is impossible to find a single positive reference to "democracy" in a public address of an american president or any official paper (like Constitution) before Woodrow Wilson. As for the Founding Fathers, starting with Jefferson, you would have to look hard to find a company of people exuding such hate and disgust towards democracy - and rightly so.
How many people know that an expression "Jeffersonian Democracy" or paper money with Andrew Jackson portrait on it are affronts to the memory of individuals mentioned?
That seems quite a rant but since all those misconceptions are imparted to the people from the media, I just took my own invitation to add them.
miko
-
I learn from reading books, and listening to people that know of the subject and don't just say they know of it..
I'm 15, I shouldn't of posted here, lol, I feel like I didn't say what I meant to say..
-
Hawklore: I learn from reading books, and listening to people that know of the subject and don't just say they know of it..
At your age and for quite a while you would be very lucky to spend a few minutes with even a middling-quality expert - even among the living ones.
Unless you mean an expert in something practical like plumbing or cars.
With a book, you can spend as much time as you wnat with geniuses from Aristotle to Einstein to Ludwig Von Mises.
I'm 15, I shouldn't of posted here, lol, I feel like I didn't say what I meant to say..
You should post mere then - after all it's better to develop your conversational and reasoning skills while anonymous with a ready and moderately hostile audience that will quickly point out any shortcomings. :)
miko
-
Ah, well, there are extremists among the nonreligious as well as the religious. Oppression has many faces.
-
Miko
He said that a muslim convert siting christ to christians proves hypocricy of that convert - whether it was a real or hypothetical muslim convert.
That shows his ignorance of a simple and well-known fact about Islam - that Jesis Christ is a venerated figure Islam shares with Christianity.
I have misunderstood your previous post, sorry about that, I agree with you on this, and most of your other statements.
I do not agree that MJ has necessarily converted to Islam, but to be perfectly honest, I really don't care if he did or didn't. I pretty much ignore MJ and the news coverage of him. Pathetic person he has unfortunately become, I wonder just how screwed up his childhood must have been for him to turn out so freaking weird.
I still think you are either paranoid of government, or are a closet anarchist. I don't care either way, you really will have zero effect posting whatever you want on this board, it certainly has a limited audience, and spooling you up does give me some enjoyment.
Dont take it all so serious, this nation has a lot of good years ahead, we haven't taken to deport Ukranians, yet. The economy will suffer bumps and will enjoy rebounds. The Bush admin will not be able to suspend our rights or restrict our freedoms forever, and we will remain for many years to come the greatest nation on earth.
dago
-
If you wanted to get on the air you shoulda said "mega dittos Curt"
-
Dago: I still think you are either paranoid of government..
I am no more paranoid about the government than I am paranoid about a brain cancer - I know very well how each of them develop.
Just because some people tend to ignore unpalatable knews - whether about government or about cancer - does not make realistic people paranoid.
, or are a closet anarchist
And all you know about anarchism is from soundbites on the radio, right? You think "anarchism" is the synonym for "absence of order"?
What do you know about "anarchism" besides the fact that it is one of the numerous philisophical/economic views opposed to coercive government? Do you know any other?
Cold you name any notable theoreticians of Anarchcho-Capitalism. What their main points are? Where are they whong?
Could you do the same about Marxism? Keynsianism? Austirian Economics? Monetarism?
Or do you just implicitely trust the media who are so obviously ignorant or lying?
Would there be any point for me to explain the difference between minarchism or anarcho-capitalism?
I don't care either way, you really will have zero effect posting whatever you want on this board,
Err.. Close to zero. But than again, so is the yield of gold mining is close to zero. As long as it's not zero it makes all the difference.
But even if I did not sway anyone on thios board, the enterprise would not be wasted for me. You see - I am developing an argument system that would counteract the corrupting influence of american popular culture (of which I lack detailed knowlege) in people of low intelligence - comparable to that of a young child.
Dont take it all so serious, this nation has a lot of good years ahead
Some, but probably not a lot. But I am sure the government will have some good scapegoat.
The economy will suffer bumps and will enjoy rebounds.
How about the raising degree of time-preference? Capital decumulation? How long will material well-being keep increasing while teh level of civilisation is decreasing?
The Bush admin will not be able to suspend our rights or restrict our freedoms forever
Of course not. He will just chip off some more, and then his successor from whichever party and so on. Happened hundreds of times in history, the same scenario, the same causes. Hardly surprising to expect the same effect.
Americans may believe that now it's different because we have Democracy - as if it has just been invented, rather than tried many times.
Or that the technology will change something - even though few of the previous cultures failed for lack of technology?
What else do you have besides blind trust to think that it will turn out different?
Anyway - aren't we having fun as long as we manage to be more or less civil?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Dont take it all so serious, this nation has a lot of good years ahead
Some, but probably not a lot. But I am sure the government will have some good scapegoat.
miko
In this you may be right. Socialism is growing much too fast to suit me and will be our downfall if we continue the trend.
Back to Stalin and Hitler. Are you saying then that you believe they were truly religious men? While both used the church to further their political and/or war goals (and Stalin only after the outbreak of war) I think neither had any real faith in God. Could it be that the announcer you dismiss was referring to the true nature of their beliefs?
-
AKIron: Back to Stalin and Hitler. Are you saying then that you believe they were truly religious men? While both used the church to further their political and/or war goals
No, of course not. Just like Saddam did not become religious when he put "Allah Akbar" on the state flag in 1991.
The argument between Sliwa and Kuby was as following:
Kuby: Hussein was a pragmatic. He may have disliked US after we foiled his plans but his primary goal was not to hurt US but survive in power. He would have cooperated with us, given a chance.
Sliwa: No, he could not cooperate with us even though opposing us was suicidal to him. He was a religious fanatic hell-bent on hurting us at any price.
Kuby: He was not - he was a secular dictator who pretended to turn towards religion to help his popularity in hard times.
Sliwa: No, he was different - the other pragmatic dicatators who could have pretended turning towards religion in hard times - Stalin and Hitler - did not do so, Hussein must be different.
miko: BUT THEY BOTH DID YOU IGNOIRANT ****!
miko
-
AKIron,
No I don't work at an abortion clinic, and never will.
Just having Christian people hate the Islamic way of life (religion) and not taking time to read a book, or listen to someones points like me, I stood up for the Islamic religion in a christian class, and got attacked.
I knew that I was correct and they were wrong for I have read books and talked with other people on there opinions.
Your realize that there is the Extremist way of looking at the Bible, then theres this way of looking at it and trying to understand it, so theres the same thing with the Quran.
BAH!!!
God I hate it when I sound like an idiot.
I'm just saying that Christian Extremists are practically the same as Islamic Extremists, they could go and Hijack airplanes and run it into a cave or something!
-
I am no more paranoid about the government than I am paranoid about a brain cancer
Ah, denial, one of the most easily recognized symptoms of paranoia. But remember, you're not really paranoid if they are all out to get you.
all you know about anarchism
"Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." "
"Anarchism today is being used to find solutions to the problems of power; not just state power, but corporate power and all immediate forms of domination among individuals and organizations"
Pretty well sounds like you Miko, so are you saying I was wrong and you are not an anarchist?
I am developing an argument system that would counteract the corrupting influence of american popular culture
And you are using, or plan to use this argument system how?
How about the raising degree of time-preference?
The raising degree of time-preference I feel can be expected to adjust as the lower valleys in our economy are experienced in those unwilling or without the foresight to prepare. Is there or will there be a long term solution, or is one even necessary? I dont know. What is your answer to it?
while teh level of civilisation is decreasing
A very subjective opinion that, one that would be argued by many. I would be interested in the matrix by which you have decided that civilization is declining. I happen to think there are many parameters by which it could be argued that civlilization is not declining but rather continuing to flourish and improve.
Happened hundreds of times in history,
Yup, thankfully we got rid of those pesky witches who were infecting Salem Mass. Actually I think we enjoy many freedoms and protections that were not even close to available or protected just 50 years ago. No system of government is perfect, mistakes are made, but normally always eventually recognized and corrected. No, the sky is not falling, we are not soon to sink into a dark abyss of lawlessness and economic ruin, we will have our peaks and valleys and we will survive, and anarchists will continue to dwell in their paranoia, trying to alert everyone to the upcoming apocalypse.
Did you fear Y2k and the predicted collapse of our society? Did you stock up on grain and guns and power generators? Did you subscribe to the notion that Nostradamus had predicted the world would end at the year 2000? Or that the Bible foretold it?
If you live in NY Miko, please move out, move to an area of the country where children play in green fields, where people enjoy the sunsets and each other. Somewhere where a blue sky can be seen and clean water flows gently down a lazy river. Find a place where the radio plays soft music and discourse is about the price of beef and pork, where a big event is a grass fire, where political discussion is limited to the price of a dog license. You need a break from your current environment. :aok
dago
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sliwa: No, he was different - the other pragmatic dicatators who could have pretended turning towards religion in hard times - Stalin and Hitler - did not do so, Hussein must be different.
miko: BUT THEY BOTH DID YOU IGNOIRANT ****![/i]
miko
Ah, well, there ya have it, Sliwa didn't know what he was talking about. No crime in being ignorant though if you talk about a subject as if you know more than ya do it makes you look, well, ignorant. Guess that's kinda obvious. FWIW, I thought everyone realized Saddam used Islam only when it suited him.
-
Originally posted by Dago
[B
"Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." "
"Anarchism today is being used to find solutions to the problems of power; not just state power, but corporate power and all immediate forms of domination among individuals and organizations"
Pretty well sounds like you Miko, so are you saying I was wrong and you are not an anarchist?
[/B]
Not to answer for Miko, because he can answer just fine for himself, but Miko has never stated he is for no government. He is for government for things like protection of property and containment of crime, but he is not for government interference in daily lives and the free market. I'm probably off a little, but just by reading his posts I have gathered this much.
Just thought I would throw that in there to show you that you can get his viewpoint by reading his posts.
-
but he is not for government interference in daily lives and the free market. I'm probably off a little, but just by reading his posts I have gathered this much.
Read my posts a little more, this sure sounds like exactly what he is about.
Anarchism today is being used to find solutions to the problems of power; not just state power, but corporate power and all immediate forms of domination among individuals and organizations"
Its not necessarily an evil thing, but I think that statement pretty well sums up Miko, at least in my opinion.
dago
-
I would say Miko is closer to a minarchist than an anarchist.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
miko: BUT THEY BOTH DID YOU IGNOIRANT ****![/i]
You mispelled 'Ignorant', or maybe should have used 'Ignoramus'
-
Dago: Ah, denial, one of the most easily recognized symptoms of paranoia.
What about strong opinions based on no facts?
But remember, you're not really paranoid if they are all out to get you.
Let's me check - over 60% of my income, most of my property through restrictions and regulations, my personal behavior. Guess what - "they" already got me.
Pretty well sounds like you Miko, so are you saying I was wrong and you are not an anarchist?
First, the Webster definition is faulty and obviously self-contradictory. Unless they mean by "anarchism" something completely different from what I mean by "anarcho-capitalism", they are way off.
Second, I am not an anarchist - if only because I did not have time to study the books yet. So I am provisionally a minarchist.
And you are using, or plan to use this argument system how?
Rising my children, of course. I need to know what kind of crap they are going to be exposed to. Otherwise I am content mnding my own business and wish everybody else to do the same.
The raising degree of time-preference feel can be expected to adjust as the lower valleys in our economy are...
I do not blame you in the least but you are not talking about the same thing I do.
I am sorry but I do not heve time right now to elaborate on that. It is basically a measure of civilisation. We - the western society - is getting de-civilised for the last few decades and most social problems stem from that.
It has nothing to do with short-term events but rather works on the scale of generations.
Actually I think we enjoy many freedoms and protections that were not even close to available or protected just 50 years ago.
You are wrong. There is only one degree of freedom and any attempts of giving more freedoms is really restricting them. You cannot give people more real freedoms or rights by limiting them.
Its follows from the nature of rights - which are just the reverse side of oblicagions. Givinmg someone extra rights always means imposing obligations on someone else - which means limiting their freedoms.
Did you fear Y2k and the predicted collapse of our society?
No. I expected multiple minor problems and that was exactly what we've got.
I am not religious in the least, so neither Nostradamus nor the Bible have any bearing on my expectations.
I just know what the runaway monetary policy and socialist government does to a society, how it works and why.
Anarchism today is being used to find solutions to the problems of power; not just state power, but corporate power and all immediate forms of domination among individuals and organizations"
If you do not see an obvious contradiction in this statement, you have somehow managed to retype it without reading it.
Corporation is a voluntary association of capitalists, entrepreneurs and workers. In order to supress corporations, one would need a coercive power of the government. But it also says they are against having a government. So how would they both avoid having government and manage to coerce people from forming corporations?
miko
-
Miko, I am not a brilliant person, dont claim to be, and many on this board would certainly agree. But you on the other hand seem to believe you are, I dont agree.
You like to blather, but you say nothing. You dont refute with fact, you dont offer example, you just make pronouncments.
You typically really say nothing.
You try and make others feel inferior, but if they really analyse what you say, they will realize you say very very little.
I understand your concerns about loss of liberties. But I think you overreact. Rights and liberties have been gained, or maybe I should say reclaimed through court rulings. Maybe a review of Supreme Court rulings over the last 50 years or so would be enlightning.
How about actually proving something for a change?
dago
-
How about constructing a logical argument instead of making personal attack for a change?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Just curious, what is it that you fear about "Christian Extremists"? You don't work at an abortion clinic do you? I know they're killing those Abortionists at an alarming 1 or 2 per decade.
Ya they dont have to, Jr. is pres. and victory is in sight, why go to jail?