Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2006, 10:37 AM   #51
Thomas Campbell
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 407
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

I confer with political scientists on a professional basis. Whether defined technically or as commonly used in popular discourse, "socialism" does not require the overthrow of the United States. Used as a clumsy and McCarthyesque attempt at slander on Internet forums, equating all "socialism" with advocacy of overthrow of the United States just shows sloppy thinking conflating well-worn Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric with all "socialism."

"Socialism" advocates common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. The nature of that ownership and the degree of involvement of the state in directing the economy varies. In this country, Social Security and unemployment insurance have been derided as "socialist." But the point is that "socialism" is a very broad label that includes a wide range of political preferences and convictions. The common theme relates to the nature of who owns the means of production and distribution, not overthrowing the U.S. (whatever that means). Just because some extreme socialists--in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist wavelengths of the socialist spectrum--may advocate overthrowing the U.S. does not mean all, or even most, socialists do. Some conservatives advocate and in fact have carried out seditious acts against the U.S. government. Does that mean all conservatives, or even most, advocate overthrowing the U.S.?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 10:54 AM   #52
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Thomas Campbell wrote:
I confer with political scientists on a professional basis.
So? Does that make you an expert? My wife is a surgeon, as you went out of the way to discuss on a public forum, but that doesn't make me qualified as an expert on arthroplasty. [quote] Whether defined technically or as commonly used in popular discourse, "socialism" does not require the overthrow of the United States. Used as a clumsy and McCarthyesque attempt at slander on Internet forums, equating all "socialism" with advocacy of overthrow of the United States just shows sloppy thinking conflating well-worn Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric with all "socialism."

"Socialism" advocates common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. The nature of that ownership and the degree of involvement of the state in directing the economy varies. [quote] Basically you're trying to now define "socialism" to be what you want it to be. Regardless, unless the capitalist tenets of the US are "overthrown", there will be no real socialism.

But more to the point I was making, Neil Mick's rhetoric is very closely attuned to that of the common anti-American socialist groups like http://www.wsws.org
Quote:
Some conservatives advocate and in fact have carried out seditious acts against the U.S. government. Does that mean all conservatives, or even most, advocate overthrowing the U.S.?
That was as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 11:22 AM   #53
Thomas Campbell
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 407
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

[quote=Mike Sigman]So? Does that make you an expert? My wife is a surgeon, as you went out of the way to discuss on a public forum, but that doesn't make me qualified as an expert on arthroplasty. [quote] Whether defined technically or as commonly used in popular discourse, "socialism" does not require the overthrow of the United States. Used as a clumsy and McCarthyesque attempt at slander on Internet forums, equating all "socialism" with advocacy of overthrow of the United States just shows sloppy thinking conflating well-worn Marxist-Leninist-Maoist rhetoric with all "socialism."

"Socialism" advocates common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution. The nature of that ownership and the degree of involvement of the state in directing the economy varies.
Quote:
Basically you're trying to now define "socialism" to be what you want it to be. Regardless, unless the capitalist tenets of the US are "overthrown", there will be no real socialism.

But more to the point I was making, Neil Mick's rhetoric is very closely attuned to that of the common anti-American socialist groups like http://www.wsws.org That was as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while.

Mike Sigman
Not sure why you're quoting yourself up above, Mike (putting your text in the same italics and quote box as mine).

I didn't say I was an expert. I said I confer with political scientists, whose analysis I would give more weight than yours with respect to accurate definition of political terminology. If I had a knee injury and needed arthroplasty, I'd consider your statement about your wife to be a reference, not a statement that you are an expert on orthopedic surgery. Clearly I wouldn't ask you for an arthroplasty. More childish reasoning and ill-tempered posturing on your part.

And where you say, "(u)nless the capitalist tenets of the U.S. are overthrown, there will be no real socialism," you're both defining the U.S. as you want to (fundamentally capitalist, which it's not, it's a fundamentally mixed economy) and "real" socialism as you want to.

But I'm done with this tangent. I expect you'll have more to say; you can't help yourself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 11:31 AM   #54
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Thomas Campbell wrote:
But I'm done with this tangent. I expect you'll have more to say; you can't help yourself.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... you're basically a childish hit-and-run artist who doesn't see any fault in himself. I've watched your personal-attack BS on Empty Flower and your petty personal comments on this forum. You're not what you think you are or you wouldn't be mired in trivial public comments about Mike Sigman's real or imagined shortcomings. Get a life or come see me personally if you continue to have a problem that requires personal commentary.


Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 11:41 AM   #55
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Just popped in to see Mike back to his old tricks. I loved his line about something being

"as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while."

Still whilst the debate about whether Socialism would require the overthrow of the current US constitution.

Well that would be a very difficult argument to make.

Unlike the arguement that Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. (Which is an easy arguement to make)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 12:06 PM   #56
Thomas Campbell
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 407
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
[snip] You're not what you think you are or you wouldn't be mired in trivial public comments about Mike Sigman's real or imagined shortcomings. Get a life or come see me personally if you continue to have a problem that requires personal commentary.


Mike Sigman
hi Mike,

I know who I am, thanks. I'm not the one mired in Mike Sigman. Take a look in the mirror.

best to you, sir.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 02:14 PM   #57
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
David Chalk wrote:
Just popped in to see Mike back to his old tricks. I loved his line about something being

"as childish a piece of non-reasoning as I've seen in a while."

Still whilst the debate about whether Socialism would require the overthrow of the current US constitution.

Well that would be a very difficult argument to make.

Unlike the arguement that Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. (Which is an easy arguement to make)
Everyone knows that socialism is but a stepping stone to communism...

You're all commie pinkos.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 04:22 PM   #58
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Everyone knows that socialism is but a stepping stone to communism...

You're all commie pinkos.
Whoa.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 08:59 PM   #59
Thomas Campbell
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 407
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Actually I'm more of a Libertarian, and I don't particularly care for pink.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2006, 09:04 PM   #60
hapkidoike
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 51
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Everyone knows that socialism is but a stepping stone to communism...

You're all commie pinkos.
I'm a commie pinko, you got a problem with that comrade. . .(waiting for an answer in a dark alley with a hammer and sickle).
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 01:34 AM   #61
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
I'd like to ask Neil, looking at his posts, if he's a member of a socialist organization. His posts are strikingly similar in anti-American tone and content to the World Socialists and other socialist organizations. So similar that it appears that Neil is actually not being totally clear in what he actually belives in, the overthrow of the United States.

FWIW

Mike Sigman
You might like to ask...but, until I get some agreement to cut out the personal attacks...

you von't get an answer! (*twirling mustache*)


Quote:
Thomas Campbell wrote:
More power to Mr. Mick if he's a "member of a socialist organization" (shades of Joe McCarthy). Are you "a member of a conservative organization"? More power to you. It's a free country.
OK, I admit it. You caught me. I'm a member of the Secret Club of Aikidoists who'd Like Our Tax Dollars to Be Spent on Peaceful Efforts, Instead of a Bloated, Corporate Military Machine That Delights in Tormenting The Arab World (S.C.A.L.O.B.P.E.I.B.C.M.D.T.A.W., for short).
Please...before they haul me off for indefinite stays at Gitmo, can I call my family. first?

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
Whats so wrong with a "socialist organization" ???
Ya got me. Some ppl equate it with a dirty word.

In this country, it was a Socialist organization (the WWW) that brought about the idea of unions. Demands of the Socialists in the '30's brought about reforms in retirement, social security, overtime pay and maternity leave...we'd have none of these things if it weren't for Socialists.

And, we thanked them for it, with a nice, healthy dose of McCarthy.

Quote:
Isaac Bettis wrote:
I'm a commie pinko, you got a problem with that comrade. . .(waiting for an answer in a dark alley with a hammer and sickle).
No, wait! I'm the Commie Pinko! Me, me!

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
This is what I mean about Neil's basic dishonesty. He knows full well that there were comparatively almost NO protests, but he can't bring himself to simply talk the truth.
I saved this one for last.

I shake my head in amazement at some of the weird things you believe to be true, Mike. But, I understand your ignorance (no insult intended) on the matter. The mainstream media did a fine job of blocking out the protests of the '90's. They were small, true,,,but I went to at least 2, and I know an Aikido police officer on AJ who will verify that there were protests in DC (he works on crowd control. By request, his name is private. PM me if interested)

...and then there was

(*drum roll*)

"The Battle for Seattle"

Quote:
Protest activity surrounding the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, which was to be the launch of a new millennial round of trade negotiations, occurred on November 30, 1999, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened in Seattle, Washington, USA. The negotiations were quickly overshadowed by massive and controversial street protests outside the hotels and the Seattle Convention Center, in what became the coming-out of the anti-globalization movement in the United States. The scale of the demonstrations—even the lowest estimates put the crowd at over 40,000—dwarfed any previous demonstration in the United States against a world meeting of any of the organizations generally associated with economic globalization (such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or the World Bank). The events are sometimes referred to as the Battle of Seattle.
So please...suggesting that there were no protests in the Clinton-era is just wrong. The largest protest in recent history, before Iraq, occurred in 1999, a direct result of Clinton's economic and foreign policy.

You Conservatives...you keep spoutin' the same lie over and over, and pretty soon, you start believing your own PR

Last edited by Neil Mick : 12-06-2006 at 01:39 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 09:44 AM   #62
Taliesin
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 82
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

So now we are onto Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Plutocracy, and Democracy,

In fact - going by the original Marxist definition Democracy is an essential ingredient in any genuine communist State. (The fact that some states call themselves communist doesn't make them so - doesn't ensure that they match the definition - in fact no state that has described itself as Comminist ever was)

Socialism - is yes a promotion of left of centre ideals

Capitalism - another Marxist Term for a systment where a small minority control the powers of production

Which ties in with Plutocracy - Government by the richest

Anarchy = 'without leader' Democracy = 'By the people equally' Therefore Democracy is not only a Communist Ideal but a form of Anarchy.

And remember guys - In Politics the Right are usually Wrong!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 09:48 AM   #63
Mark Freeman
Dojo: Dartington
Location: Devon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
OK, I admit it. You caught me. I'm a member of the Secret Club of Aikidoists who'd Like Our Tax Dollars to Be Spent on Peaceful Efforts, Instead of a Bloated, Corporate Military Machine That Delights in Tormenting The Arab World (S.C.A.L.O.B.P.E.I.B.C.M.D.T.A.W., for short).
Please...before they haul me off for indefinite stays at Gitmo, can I call my family. first?
No! Neil, you are a traitor and a danger to the free world, put those orange overalls on ......

Success is having what you want. Happiness is wanting what you have.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 09:52 AM   #64
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
You might like to ask...but, until I get some agreement to cut out the personal attacks...
Pretty much what I thought. No answer.
Quote:
The mainstream media did a fine job of blocking out the protests of the '90's. They were small, true,,,but I went to at least 2, [[snip]]So please...suggesting that there were no protests in the Clinton-era is just wrong.
In other words, there were comparatively almost NO anti-war protests about Bosnia/Kosovo, but Neil simply can't bring himself to admit the simple truth. He'd tell a lie even when the truth would do him good. And no.... "protests in the Clinton era" are not the same thing as anti-war protests against the Bosnia/Kosovo war. The fact is that, as Tom Hayden pointed out, the "anti-war Left" are essentially Democrats/liberals who play partisan politics. Neil wants to avoid admitting that the evidence supports this completely, so he begins bullshitting.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 09:59 AM   #65
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
David Chalk wrote:
And remember guys - In Politics the Right are usually Wrong!!
Tell it to Churchill, who repeatedly warned the Left before World War II. Tell it to the approximately 50 million people who died, largely due to the British and French "Left" and their control on the government and presses until too late.

The real problem with WWII was that at the end of it, all the Leftists who were responsible for the war that could have been so easily prevented never stepped up and admitted it was them. They pretended that they had been victims of the horrors, too. And now the Left is back doing exactly the same arrogant, haughty, elitist BS they did that led to WWII. Frankly, I think the best thing to do is to wait, as everyone did in WWII, until the carnage starts again. Luckily, the most likely attack in the US will be a large metro city, all of which are controlled by and contain large numbers of the Left. So probably the best stratagem is to sit by and placidly watch a leftist city die, much in the same way the Leftists like Neil placidly shrug off the deaths of American soldiers.

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 10:07 AM   #66
skinnymonkey
Dojo: Black Walnut Aikido - Ashland, OH
Location: ohio
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 57
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

True Mike... there may not have been large scale protests, but there aren't large scale "protests" per se for the Iraq war either.

There is a generally high opposition to the war, but still not a lot of protesting. Also, you have to remember that Kosovo/Bosnia did not last NEARLY as long as Iraq. I would guess that if Clinton had spent $300 billion and 3+ years and years over service agreements of our servicemen and women, there would have been a lot more grumbling.

Jeff D.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 10:16 AM   #67
Thomas Campbell
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 407
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Just to clarify, the "Battle of Seattle" that Neil offered as an example of protest during the Clinton era was motivated by concerns about the effects of economic "globalization" and lowering of trade barriers under the auspices of the WTO . . . not by the war in Bosnia.

My recollection is that, nationally, the protests during the Clinton administration against the conflict in the Balkans were quite small in comparison with the anti-war protests against the Bush II administration and the conflict in Iraq. I think Mike is correct on that point. Police reports on demonstration activity bear this out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 10:25 AM   #68
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Jeff Davidson wrote:
True Mike... there may not have been large scale protests, but there aren't large scale "protests" per se for the Iraq war either.
Oh, pooh. Look at the daily comments, the "stars" visiting Saddam, the calling of the president "Traitor", "Liar", etc., by Dem's, etc. None of that happened when Clinton did Europe's work for them in Kosovo. There were some complaints, which stopped almost completely once the troops were committed (unlike the liberals "even if it costs soldiers lives we must protest").... but there is no comparison about the protest amount. None.
Quote:
Also, you have to remember that Kosovo/Bosnia did not last NEARLY as long as Iraq.
We're still there. And it's purely a civil war. That was my point.

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 10:59 AM   #69
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Jeff Davidson wrote:
T...Also, you have to remember that Kosovo/Bosnia did not last NEARLY as long as Iraq. ...
Aren't there troops still there? You know, the ones that were only supposed to be the for a yr?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 11:20 AM   #70
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Just a reminder at what is at stake in this current struggle against fanatical muslims:

Hey you moral relativists here - defend this practice... pretty please...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.

Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.

Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."....

Last edited by Hogan : 12-06-2006 at 11:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:00 PM   #71
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Thomas Campbell wrote:
Just to clarify, the "Battle of Seattle" that Neil offered as an example of protest during the Clinton era was motivated by concerns about the effects of economic "globalization" and lowering of trade barriers under the auspices of the WTO . . . not by the war in Bosnia.
Correct.

Quote:
My recollection is that, nationally, the protests during the Clinton administration against the conflict in the Balkans were quite small in comparison with the anti-war protests against the Bush II administration and the conflict in Iraq. I think Mike is correct on that point. Police reports on demonstration activity bear this out.
No, that's not what Mike said (and, what Conservatives often claim).

He said:

Quote:
Mike S wrote:
This is what I mean about Neil's basic dishonesty. He knows full well that there were comparatively almost NO protests, but he can't bring himself to simply talk the truth.
to counter my claim that

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
It is also important to note that there WERE protests during Clinton's term (to the contrary of what Conservatives claim).
"Quite small" does not = "Comparatively almost none," no matter how hard Mikey tries to squirm.

Sorry, but there WERE protests during the Clinton-era...yes, they were smaller (Clinton was not as polarizing a force, as was Bush), but he was accusing me of lying about something I personally witnessed, and now he's (no doubt, behind the ignore-curtain) trying to prevaricate, as he usually does when faced with the facts.

Face it, Mike: the world is large, complicated, and much more detailed, than your simplistic worldviews that you spout out, here.

Next!

P.S. Still awaiting that agreement to use etiquette when posting (as per the forum rules, here), Mike. My PM Inbox awaits....
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:09 PM   #72
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
"Quite small" does not = "Comparatively almost none," no matter how hard Mikey tries to squirm.
That's completely dishonest if you look at the paragraphs I wrote, Neil. Why on earth would I have included in a discussion about "anti war protests" the idea of "all the protests during Clinton's presidency"???? You get so busy trying to make a point, the you lose sight of how silly your basic dishonesty makes you look.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:16 PM   #73
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Mark Freeman wrote:
No! Neil, you are a traitor and a danger to the free world, put those orange overalls on ......
Darn it...can you at least wait till February, to come and get me? Kangeiko is in late January, and I'd hate to miss it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:44 PM   #74
skinnymonkey
Dojo: Black Walnut Aikido - Ashland, OH
Location: ohio
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 57
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
We're still there. And it's purely a civil war. That was my point.
I stand corrected (kinda). We do still have troops in Bosnia - about 250.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...a_x.htm?csp=36

We also only put 20,000 troops there (out of 60,000) to start with. I realize that 20,000 is still a really large number, but it is nothing like the 140,000+ that we have in Iraq! By 2002 (as far as I can tell) we were down to around 1,800.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...nia-troops.htm

Even you have to admit that it's not nearly the same scale as what we've seen in Iraq.

Jeff D.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2006, 12:58 PM   #75
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: What would you call civil war?

Quote:
Jeff Davidson wrote:
Even you have to admit that it's not nearly the same scale as what we've seen in Iraq.
Even you have to admit that Bosnia/Kosovo represented nothing of the sort of threat that Saddam did to the US. Saddam was actively providing training and weapons to terrorist organizations, it turns out in recently translated documents and documents found during the invasion.

But like I said right after 9/11... one large attack on the US, like the WTC debacle, will not be enough to really wake up the generally sleepy and soft US. This is very reminiscent of WWII where all the signs that Japan was getting ready to do us in were shrugged off by the people... only after Pearl Harbor did the US liberals suddenly drop their theories and realize it was serious. Same will be true this time. It will take the loss of a large US city before you find a bunch of liberals starting to point the fingers at everyone but themselves about how it was allowed to happen... and screeching for "action!". It's like when I lived in Haight-Ashbury in 1967... everyone hated the "Pigs", but when their house was broken into, they were screaming for action and protection.

I think Churchill made that very famous speech in about 1947 where he pointed out that World War II could have been avoided, all the signs were there, Hitler actually said what he was going to do... but until the shit hit the fan, all the liberals and the press poo-pooed the idea and pressured for inaction. So I'm simply realistically waiting for the destruction of a major US city. Hopefully, it'll be one like San Francisco or New York. What's your pick?

Regards,

Mike
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
That's what I call Ki! Mike Galante Spiritual 5 12-26-2006 12:37 PM
Close call Ketsan General 4 06-01-2006 02:30 PM
Did not return my call DarkShodan Training 5 06-06-2004 08:15 AM
Call a sensei a sensei? happysod General 47 02-08-2004 06:32 PM
Poll: Would "aikidoka" be something you might call yourself? AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 3 01-06-2002 01:43 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:48 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate