[CLUE-Talk] More lies? [Fwd: Iraq - 9/11 connection]

[Jeff Cann]

On Wednesday 17 December 2003 5:11 pm, Srbraukhof at aol.com wrote:
> Somewhere along the way our 'representatives' decided that their jobs were
> not to 'represent' the consensus of their constituents, but to use their
> office to further their own political agenda.  

Be careful!  You seem to be doing something easy to do -- revise history -- 
were we harken back to a better, more noble time when politicans were simple 
public servants.  Unfortunately, I don't think this time never existed and I 
challenge you to prove it did.

IMHO, furthering agendas is the way politics has always been.  Read about the 
Roman senate for examples of agenda and politics.  It is not surprising that 
since our government was based on this model, we have the same side effects 
(i.e., agendas).  Is it coincidence?  I think not.

At least our senators aren't having each other killed over their agendas.  Our 
gov't has had it's share of political crises over its 230 year history.

IMHO, human nature + society = agendas.  You have them, I have them.  
Politicians have them.

> In my many years of voting, I have never seen the politically correct and
> legal elite overturn the results of an election or referendum like they
> have over the past 12 years.  

What examples did you have in mind?

I can think of some examples, like the MA Supreme Court ruling on gay 
'marriage'.  

However, I think any examples will be exceptions, rather than a general trend.

> We say "This is what we want.", and they say
> we're wrong and don't know any better.  I'm a bit more than offended when
> these people start calling us, who they supposedly work FOR naive and
> stupid. 

Couldn't agree more with this point.

Later,
Jeff

-- 
http://isuma.org/