Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "Freedom" in Iraq: No Unions Allowed

Expand Messages
  • quasibill
    ... in ... would ... OOOOOOOoooooooh. I get it. Someone possessed Golda Meir and MADE her pull the trigger. But of course, only those with special
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 2 6:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "tony_hollick"
      <Tony.Hollick@...> wrote:
      > One problem with the situations we're discussing is that we're
      > trying to deal with "innocent shield" tactics. I think it would be
      > disastrous policy to yield to such tactics. If all the "bad guys"
      in
      > Iraq wore Day-Glo uniforms and fought out in the open, our task
      would
      > be much easier. But they won't, of course.
      >
      > Golda Meir summed it up rather well when she said: "We can
      > forgive you for killing our children; but we will never forgive you
      > for making us kill your children."
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Tony

      OOOOOOOoooooooh. I get it. Someone possessed Golda Meir and MADE
      her pull the trigger. But of course, only those with special
      connections know about this occult power of possession, and the
      methods for developing the power. Tony just happens to be friends
      with Rear Admiral X, an actual member of MI-X, who once demonstrated
      the power to him.

      With this fact in mind, all of Tony's arguments about killing
      innocent children so that he can live a comfortable lifestyle in
      England makes perfect sense, finally.
    • abcritter
      ... Oops! I meant *against* accumulation of capital by the few.
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 12 8:42 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Hogeye Bill <abcritter@...> wrote:
        >
        >From what I've read, early in the 1800s
        > "socialism" was generally thought to mean any
        > prescriptive theory of society (as opposed to
        > "sociology" being descriptive.) Later 1800s saw it as
        > meaning something like 'accumulation of capital by the
        > few.'

        Oops! I meant *against* accumulation of capital by the
        few.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.