On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:34:27 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


TRANSLATION: [from KrauseCrap to English]

You must not have gotten the memo.

bb

Harry Krause wrote:


Oh, I'm more and more in favor of secession and perhaps an amalgamation
with Canada. Let the Red States sink back into the primordial ooze of
theocracy, bigotry, religious intolerance and endless war-mongering.

We came to one decision already here...we're selling our Florida real
estate, will no longer spend our vacation money in Red States, and will
avoid where possible making any purchases that support Red State
enterprises. It costs me no more to vacation in the Carib than in does
in Florida.

Our action alone will have no impact on the Red States, of course,
but...if upwards of 10 million Americans turned thumbs-down to
Jesusville...it would have an impact.


Mrs. E and I are getting close to declaring Florida as our primary
residence. I'll agree to your blue state secession plan only if you
agree to move the Red Sox to Florida.

Eisboch

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:19:38 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:


Oh, I'm more and more in favor of secession and perhaps an amalgamation
with Canada. Let the Red States sink back into the primordial ooze of
theocracy, bigotry, religious intolerance and endless war-mongering.

We came to one decision already here...we're selling our Florida real
estate, will no longer spend our vacation money in Red States, and will
avoid where possible making any purchases that support Red State
enterprises. It costs me no more to vacation in the Carib than in does
in Florida.

Our action alone will have no impact on the Red States, of course,
but...if upwards of 10 million Americans turned thumbs-down to
Jesusville...it would have an impact.


Mrs. E and I are getting close to declaring Florida as our primary
residence. I'll agree to your blue state secession plan only if you
agree to move the Red Sox to Florida.

We can move Veritek to Florida it would appear. :)

Later,

Tom

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:01:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On 09 Nov 2004 17:24:50 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We believed that the Jap-Am's were a threat to national security.

The "Jap-Ams"? Pardon me, your unwashed slip is showing.

Jap-Am, short for "Japanese-Americans". I don't know about you, but I
don't like typing any more than I have to, and I use abbreviations
when I can.



So, you have no objection to being called "KKK Fundie Dave?" Short for
Krazed Kristian Konservative Fundamentalist Dave? :}


I wouldn't mind if it were true.

Dave

On 09 Nov 2004 18:23:57 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Jap-Am, short for "Japanese-Americans". I don't know about you, but I
don't like typing any more than I have to,

So, like me, your posts are very brief. :-)

Correction, they were NOT prison camps.

When you are confined to a fenced area, housed in a barracks, not allowed to
come and go at your own free will, subject to being shot from a guard tower if
you try to escape, and your life is regimented 24/7, what would you call that,
a resort?

But once again, it was not prison, and they were not criminals.

We agree on one thing: they were not criminals.

The Japanese lost houses, farms, businesses, etc to
repossession and public auction.

THAT was wrong. It's not like they asked to become delinquent.

Ah, but if you were the landlord, the mortgage holder, etc.....should *you* be
economically punished because "you can't trust them sneaky, slanty-eyed Japs"?

The only way to avoid this very wrong situaiton would have been not hauling the
Japanese off to prison camp in the first place.

With the wisdom of hindsight, I agree with you.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:31:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:40:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On 09 Nov 2004 17:24:50 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

We believed that the Jap-Am's were a threat to national security.

The "Jap-Ams"? Pardon me, your unwashed slip is showing.

Jap-Am, short for "Japanese-Americans". I don't know about you, but I
don't like typing any more than I have to, and I use abbreviations
when I can.


When we took these "threats to national security" off to prison camps

Correction, they were NOT prison camps.

Idiot. People were taken to these places and not allowed to leave. That's
a
prison no matter how you look at it.

Name-calling already? Usually that signifies loss of argument. [Well,
I can't think of anything else, so I'll call you a name and pretend
I've won.]

Any thoughts on Dave's theory that Japanese citizens were held in a place
that wasn't really a prison?

It was an internment camp. They were not there as a result of any real
"crime". While you see no difference in the conditions, they were not
the same thing.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:03:30 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:30:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:49:12 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:27:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:05:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

Of course, the idea was to learn from history, not judge history. We are
a good people, who have occasionally done bad things. Japanese internment
was a bad thing.


As a nation, we've done lots of good things and lots of bad things.
Considering the large number of the latter, we ought to be more cautious
when we're undertaking "things" that will harm people. As an example,
there's no legitimate excuse or justification for what we did to the
native Americans. We destroyed their civilizations.


I don't see you offering up your land as restitution......

Dave


What a stupid remark.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Dave


It is up to the government of the United States to make proper
restitution to the descendents of those native Americans who were tossed
off their lands or slaughtered or both. It was formalized government
policy that cause the removals and slaughter.

Nice way to wiggle out of any responsibility. What would you say then
if the government came to claim your land as restitution?


I've got about 83 acres over in Northern Virginia the government can
have for fair market value...it'll save me the real estate commission.
I'd love to see some native Americans living on it...

Ok. Then the government can seize it for free under eminent domain and
return it to the Indians. Since you were not entitled to that land in
the first place, you should not receive any profit due to the act of
returning it to where it rightfully belongs.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:43:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:57:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


American citizens willingly curtailed many of their "rights" during
WWII, for the sake of the greater good.


You placed the word "rights" in quotation marks. One reason for using
quotation marks is to indicate that you don't believe the word indicates
something real. Is that what you believe?

In many cases, yes. People bandy the word "rights" around alot when
they really don't understand the meaning of the word. Some people
confuse "rights" with privileges. Also rights come with
responsibilities. There is no free ride. if you fail to live up to
those responsibilities, don't be surprised when you lose your rights.

Dave



Since the context of this discussion is American citizens being imprisoned
because of their ancestry, your use of quotation marks was completely
incorrect. Japanese citizens were denied ALL the rights guaranteed by the
law. They didn't willingly curtail them.

I was not referring to the Jap-Am's when I made that comment. I was
referring to normal American citizens, who had to endure curfews, the
hanging of dark curtains, the prohibition of displaying outdoor lights
(As in Christmas). Curtailed traveling due to fuel rationing,
increased financial hardship due to so many family breadwinners
fighting in the war.

I could go on, but I'm hopeful you get the general idea.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:18:27 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:05:34 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:



In many cases, yes. People bandy the word "rights" around alot when they
really don't understand the meaning of the word. Some people confuse
"rights" with privileges. Also rights come with responsibilities. There is
no free ride. if you fail to live up to those responsibilities, don't be
surprised when you lose your rights.

Our founding fathers mentioned *inalienable* rights. Which "rights" are
you referring to?

What, you want me to list them? I don't have the time, nor the desire
to do the research necessary to make up an accurate list.

Suffice to say that anything you do which has an affect on the rest of
society is up for grabs.

Dave

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:57:32 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:43:23 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


Our action alone will have no impact on the Red States, of course,
but...if upwards of 10 million Americans turned thumbs-down to
Jesusville...it would have an impact.

Harry, you really are going overboard on this. I think you need to put
this election into perspective. The reality is, what happens in
Washington, has very little impact on our lives. While you may be
distressed about the perceived shift to the right, the other reality is
that this country has *always* been governed by the center. It's a
fundamental property of democracy. That the DeLays, the Roves, the Bushs,
haven't grasped this concept, is setting them up for another failed
administration.

I tend to look at it as a tug of war. There is give and take on both
sides, and the result of which tends to be more centrist.

The problem now is that both sides have become so polarized, there is
little room left for compromise. The republicans control most of the
government, but that won't stop the democrats from using every dirty
trick in the book to throw a wrench into the works, to prevent any
workable legislation out of congress.

Then they will turn around and have the unmitigated gaul to blame the
"failure" of the government to get anything done, on the
republicans.....

Nancy Pelosi has practically said as much..


Dave