XBOX 360 2666

snip

I think here you're attributing to malice that which is better explained by stupidity, or naivete, or a general atbreastude of "I don't care too much about those consequences."

(Possibly my memory is selective, but you seem much quicker to make this kind of buttumption about Democrats than Republicans. It makes it difficult for Ms. Yellow-Dog Democrat here to focus on the point.)

"Minority" in the sense of "oppressed group", maybe. I've read plenty of rants by feminists along the lines of "we're in the majority numerically , but we're STILL treated like a minority oppressed group."

I had to do some Googling to refresh my memory about what got called "Travelgate" .... Not one of the Clinton administration's finest hours, for sure, and there seems to be credible evidence of abuse of power -- though apparently Hillary Clinton denies, in her autobiography, any wrong-doing, and the independent counsel wasn't able to buttemble enough evidence to press charges against anyone in that administration.

I question whether these are the people currently "running the Democratic platform", but .... as you say, thread drift, so let's leave this one.

I think one could find plenty of evidence to support a claim that there are people in both parties that misuse power when they have it.

I didn't say that right -- it was a mistake to bring into the discussion what people might or might not expect about whether their phone calls are private. As a practical matter, you are right that phone calls are not a particularly secure form of communication (I think that's what you're saying). Just because the (US) government *can* eavesdrop, though, doesn't mean that doing so is consistent with what the Fourth Amendment says about searches and seizures, which (IMO) is what the current flap is about.

I should just drop this one, but let me try one more time:

What I'm saying is a nitpick is whether the statements "The interpretation is cast in stone" and "the document is being rewritten" contradict each other. It seems to me that they do, and I say this without reference to whether either of these statements are true, or what they imply if they are.

I question the use of "rewrite" (which to me means editing the original Arabic text of the Koran) if what is meant is "changing how people are supposed to interpret the text", but that also is a nitpick.

If you had originally said "reinterpret" rather than "rewrite" we would not be having this conversation.

snip

Well, that's a new one (to me). Interesting.

So there are no people who would agree with the statement (never mind whether it's true) "Jews are bad because they end Jesus"?

Well, maybe not. I'm pretty sure the simpler-minded would express it as "because the Bible says so" rather than "because Paul said so", but that's another nitpick.

snip

Now this is a good point -- that the real problem is not so much direct destruction as what happens when you jostle a system that's already a bit fragile. (Well, I think that's the point you're making.)

Really? There hasn't been an argument about whether Bush's decision to, um, effect regime change in Iraq has hurt or helped Al Qaeda? That was the kind of question I had in mind, and I would have thought it had been hashed out here in some form. But I could be wrong. I have trouble keeping up with this group.

But whether it's been discussed or not -- I'm not pushing for it as a thread drift here.

-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.