Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jimmy Carter
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 31 of 64 (766882)
08-23-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
08-23-2015 7:32 AM


Percy writes:
For some reason you and Rrhain and RAZD seem to be just itching for an argument with anyone who dares say anything negative about Carter or positive about Reagan.
You must be amazed to encounter our itchiness to express our disagreement on a debate site. For some reason.
Go figure.
Carter is not my guy, and Reagan is not my guy. I don't have a guy. Since the beginning of time political people have believed that their guy is a great statesman and the other guy a horrible beast. These people are always with us, never realizing that there are no real devils or angels out there and that seeing the world in black and white is part of the problem.
Perhaps Rrhain, RAZD and I are polarized political extremists--true believers, haters, part of the problem--unable to see the subtle shades of gray by which you discern Carter a failure and Reagan a success.
Or perhaps you are merely wrong.
At any rate, you clearly have no appetite for this particular debate, since you are willing to engage it only with Wiki links and offensive descriptions of those who disagree with you.
I've lost my appetite for it as well. I expected better than bare links and insults.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 7:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 1:27 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 32 of 64 (766884)
08-23-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Omnivorous
08-23-2015 12:16 PM


Omnivorous writes:
Percy writes:
For some reason you and Rrhain and RAZD seem to be just itching for an argument with anyone who dares say anything negative about Carter or positive about Reagan.
You must be amazed to encounter our itchiness to express our disagreement on a debate site. For some reason.
No, not really. I pretty much meant what I wrote, not what you're saying.
Perhaps Rrhain, RAZD and I are polarized political extremists--true believers, haters, part of the problem--unable to see the subtle shades of gray by which you discern Carter a failure and Reagan a success.
What I actually said was that Carter wasn't a very good president, and that Reagan was a better president.
Or perhaps you are merely wrong.
At any rate, you clearly have no appetite for this particular debate, since you are willing to engage it only with Wiki links...
Of course I could be wrong. I didn't post links to Wikipedia to prove I was right. But you guys have been been treating my opinion like it was an outlier, so I posted those links to show that my opinion is so widely shared that it's very similar to the ones at Wikipedia.
...and offensive descriptions of those who disagree with you.
If you're offended by being described as seeing the world in terms of black and white then don't act that way by making extreme claims and extremely biased statements (e.g., "So there were big positives to Reagan's presidency that I missed? Pray tell.", et al.), and don't characterize mainstream views as outliers.
Reagan is not my guy, but to you guys he does seem to serve as a lightning rod for anyone who mentions him in anything other than an unflattering light. All I'm doing is refusing to see Carter and Reagan as either all good or all bad, but you guys don't seem to like that at all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2015 12:16 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Omnivorous, posted 08-24-2015 7:46 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 33 of 64 (766886)
08-23-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
08-22-2015 8:10 PM


Percy writes:
Leadership isn't something tangible, but it has important positive effects. Reagan had it....
So did Charles Manson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 08-22-2015 8:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 3:32 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 34 of 64 (766894)
08-23-2015 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
08-23-2015 2:16 PM


ringo writes:
So did Charles Manson.
Oh, good grief. Will you cite Hitler next? Godwin would be proud.
Look, if you have a substantive response to something I said then please proceed, by all means, but this is just more silly posturing. What is so hard to understand that I'm neither a rabid Carterite nor a rabid Reaganite. I could go to a conservative site and as easily get beat up for not being enthusiastic enough about Reagan. I'm in the middle between you polar opposites, and there's nothing particularly strange or unusual or difficult to understand about that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 08-23-2015 2:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 08-23-2015 3:50 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 35 of 64 (766899)
08-23-2015 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy
08-23-2015 3:32 PM


Percy writes:
Look, if you have a substantive response to something I said then please proceed, by all means, but this is just more silly posturing.
I'm just pointing out that "tangible leadership" is not necessarily a good thing. Carter was a better leader than Reagan because of where he led us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 3:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 4:30 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 36 of 64 (766903)
08-23-2015 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
08-23-2015 3:50 PM


ringo writes:
Carter was a better leader than Reagan because of where he led us.
And how did people feel about his powers of leadership and where he had led us in the fall of 1980? As I recall, the networks had already called the election by 8 PM Eastern Time:
Look, you guys like Carter, I get it. But it's not like there's not ample evidence out there that he made somewhat of a hash of his presidency. It makes no sense to treat people who lived the Carter years and haven't forgotten like they're crazy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 08-23-2015 3:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-23-2015 5:52 PM Percy has replied
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 08-24-2015 11:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(5)
Message 37 of 64 (766906)
08-23-2015 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
08-23-2015 4:30 PM


Not claiming to be any sort of expert, but...
I've looked upon the Reagan administration as being the political equivalent of a hallucinogenic drug. And the U.S. voting population drank the Kool-Aid (not the Jonestown variety).
I think the U.S. would have been better off with George H.W. Bush president, rather than Reagan. One fond remembrance of H.W. is his primary campaign statement call Reagan economics "voodoo economics". Then, when questioned about this as Vice-President, H.W. response (IIRC) was "God, I wish I had never said that." Plus, H.W. had the sense not to pursue countermeasures, to Saddam Hussein' misadventure, back into Iraq.
Jimmy Carter's mistake was thinking that the U.S. citizenry could handle hearing the truth. Alas, the preferred the Kool-Aid.
In general, I think the President tends to get too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when things go badly. Except for things like launching wars, which is squarely in the hands of the President.
My general over-simplification is - Ronald Reagan was effective at leading is bad directions, and Jimmy Carter was ineffective at leading in good directions.
OSLT.
Moose
ps: I do get a warm fuzzy out of seeing that big patch of blue up at the north-central part of the U.S.

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 9:15 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 38 of 64 (766923)
08-23-2015 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Minnemooseus
08-23-2015 5:52 PM


Re: Not claiming to be any sort of expert, but...
Minnemooseus writes:
I've looked upon the Reagan administration as being the political equivalent of a hallucinogenic drug. And the U.S. voting population drank the Kool-Aid (not the Jonestown variety).
...
Jimmy Carter's mistake was thinking that the U.S. citizenry could handle hearing the truth. Alas, they preferred the Kool-Aid.
That would be the "Some of us are more discerning than others of us" argument.
In general, I think the President tends to get too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when things go badly.
Agreed.
My general over-simplification is - Ronald Reagan was effective at leading is bad directions, and Jimmy Carter was ineffective at leading in good directions.
I would over-simplify even further. They both led in good and bad directions, one more effectively than the other. Earlier someone blamed the GOP for Carter's ineffectiveness, but remember Tip O'Neil throwing up his hands in frustration as his Democratic house passed Reagan legislation? It's called leadership.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-23-2015 5:52 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2015 8:42 AM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 64 (766931)
08-24-2015 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
08-23-2015 9:15 PM


It's called leadership, but...
... It's called leadership.
And I think you confuse pied-piper effectiveness with good leadership.
Reagan's "leadership" was based on lies and misinformation portrayed as "truth" by a B-class actor that could say lines as though he meant them.
Reagan's "leadership" has taken us down the path to today's income\economy disaster, and made the middle east situation worse.
Reagan's "leadership" resulted in the greatest number of white house staff convictions for breaking the laws of this country.
Reagan's "leadership" involved invading a small defenseless sovereign nation on a pretext that served no purpose other than to assert US Imperialism and Corporatism.
I would over-simplify even further. They both led in good and bad directions, one more effectively than the other. ...
Can you name *one* good direction that Reagan lead us?
Can you name *one* bad direction that Carter lead us?
Really?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 9:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by dronestar, posted 08-24-2015 11:01 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 08-24-2015 3:16 PM RAZD has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 40 of 64 (766937)
08-24-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
08-24-2015 8:42 AM


Re: It's called leadership, but...
RAZD writes:
Can you name *one* bad direction that Carter lead us?
Sheesh RAZD, are you kidding me?
How about we just look at how Carter enthusiastically supported international dictators and their murderous actions . . .
1. Carter JOYFULLY shaking hands with Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud:
Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Human right violations in Saudi Arabia . . .)
The very strict regime ruling the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is consistently ranking among the "worst of the worst" in Freedom House's annual survey of political and civil rights.[4]
Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees is common, widespread and generally committed with impunity.
In Saudi Arabia's case this includes amputations of hands and feet for robbery, and flogging for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" and drunkenness.
Saudi Arabia engages in capital punishment, including public executions by beheading.
Saudi Arabia is a destination country for men and women trafficked for the purposes of involuntary servitude and commercial sexual exploitation.
Females as young as seven years old are led to believe they are being wed in earnest, but upon arrival in Saudi Arabia subsequently become their husbands’ sexual slaves, are forced into domestic labor and, in some cases, prostitution.
Saudi women face discrimination in many aspects of their lives, such as the justice system.
Human rights in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia
Still unimpressed with Saudi Arabia's human rights violation's record? Anybody remember 9/11?
Fifteen out of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Gee, I wonder why Bush Jr didn't invade Suadi Arabia? . . .
2. Osama Bin Laden (Indirectly):
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahidin began during 1980, that is, after the Soviet army had invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the truth, kept secret up to now, is quite different: it was in fact on July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive on clandestine aid to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. The arming of these forces not only empowered bin Laden but also led inexorably to the reactionary Taliban taking over in Afghanistan and to all of the resulting human rights violations, including crimes against women, which resulted from this take-over. That is, this cynical plan knowingly sacrificed Afghanistan to a terrible fate, all in the name of the U.S.’s Cold War aspirations. This was hardly the act of someone who valued human rights or even basic notions of human decency.
stateofnature.org - This website is for sale! - stateofnature Resources and Information.
3. General Suharto: Every Carter fan should be aware of this war criminal action . . .
Following the Indonesians' 1975 invasion of East Timor, Carter continued to arm Indonesia's army dictatorship as well as give diplomatic support (vetoing U.N. resolutions to end the atrocities in the former Portuguese colony). This war has killed more than 200,000 East Timorese, making it the worst genocide relative to population since World War II. Carter did nothing to pressure General Suharto (Indonesia's chief of state) to end the war. He was an ally and major supporter of the Indonesian military's repression of its own population, as well as the slaughter of the East Timorese people.
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html
4. Anastasio Somoza:
During his watch, Carter aided and supported Nicaragua's then-dictator Anastasio Somoza, who murdered and repressed tens of thousands of his own people. When Somoza's forces were about to lose control of the main cities, Carter attempted to launch an invasion under the fig leaf of an intervention by the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS refused and Carter then planned to send the US military to salvage Somoza's army, which was established by and beholden to the US government-but it was too late. Carter made sure that Somoza was ferried out of the country on a Red Cross-painted US aircraft. The C.I.A. under Carter helped to re-establish Somoza's army as a terrorist force against the people of Nicaragua.
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html
5. Pol Pot:
Carter secretly supported the genocidal Pol Pot government ousted by Vietnam in 1979. This secret support was essential to further punishment of Vietnam for having successfully defended her own population against the American invaders. US Indochina strategy also intended to outflank the Vietnamese, who were aligned with the Soviet Union, and to back the Pol Pot forces, aligned with China.
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html
6. Shah of Iran
American installed puppet Shah of Iran. Carter declared his support for the Shah of Iran-despite the rampant torture practiced by the Shah's secret police in close collaboration with the C.I.A.-more emphatically than Richard Nixon had: "There is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal friendship and gratitude."
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html
Read that again: 'There is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal friendship and gratitude." Ugh!
7. Augusto Pinochet:
Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterward.
Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned and as many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.
By the time of his death on 10 December 2006, about 300 criminal charges were still pending against him in Chile for numerous human rights violations during his 17-year rule, and tax evasion and embezzlement during and after his rule
Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia
8. Ferdinand Marcos
the Carter administration approved this guy’s $88 million loan from the World Bank
He ruled under martial law from 1972 until 1981 and his regime as dictator was known for corruption, extravagance, and brutality.
Ferdinand Marcos - Wikipedia
9. Dictator Robert Mugabe:
President Jimmy Carter invited Robert Mugabe to the White House in 1980 and fully supported this dictator's rise to power in Rhodesia
10. Sandanista Daniel Ortega
Carter used the full power of the office to install Sandanista Daniel Ortega in power in Nicaragua.
Lastly: Supporting and providing US arms to country's with human right violations is against the US law. Carter should be damned for his unending support for Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Columbia.
As I wrote before, Carter was shameful as a president. IMO, his past crimes of actions should not be erased because of his post-presidency words.
Chomsky writes:
If the Nuremberg Laws were applied every post-war American president would have been hanged.
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm
Indeed.
Edited by dronestar, : opportunity to mock war-criminal Bush Jr was originally missed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2015 8:42 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2015 3:12 PM dronestar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 41 of 64 (766938)
08-24-2015 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
08-23-2015 4:30 PM


Percy writes:
And how did people feel about his powers of leadership and where he had led us in the fall of 1980?
History didn't stop in 1980.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-23-2015 4:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 42 of 64 (766967)
08-24-2015 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by dronestar
08-24-2015 11:01 AM


Re: It's called leadership, but...
I sense a slight contradiction with your claims. On the one hand, you say that
quote:
During his watch, Carter aided and supported Nicaragua's then-dictator Anastasio Somoza, who murdered and repressed tens of thousands of his own people. When Somoza's forces were about to lose control of the main cities, Carter attempted to launch an invasion under the fig leaf of an intervention by the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS refused and Carter then planned to send the US military to salvage Somoza's army, which was established by and beholden to the US government-but it was too late. Carter made sure that Somoza was ferried out of the country on a Red Cross-painted US aircraft. The C.I.A. under Carter helped to re-establish Somoza's army as a terrorist force against the people of Nicaragua.
but, at the same time, you assert
quote:
Carter used the full power of the office to install Sandanista Daniel Ortega in power in Nicaragua.
This would suggest that Carter was fighting to keep the Somoza dictatorship in power, whilst simultaneously using the full power of his office to overthrow him in favour of Ortega and the Sandanistas.
Have you accidentally intermingled incompatible criticisms from Carter's opponents to the right and left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by dronestar, posted 08-24-2015 11:01 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by dronestar, posted 08-24-2015 4:34 PM caffeine has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 43 of 64 (766968)
08-24-2015 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
08-24-2015 8:42 AM


Re: It's called leadership, but...
RAZD writes:
Can you name *one* good direction that Reagan lead us?
Can you name *one* bad direction that Carter lead us?
Is it not obvious to you guys how blatantly biased you're being? Being able to say only good or only bad about someone is as certain a sign of bias as there can be. When it comes to Carter/Reagan you guys have no objectivity.
I see Dronester has replied. He appears to be as ardent an anti-Carterite as you guys are anti-Reaganites. Maybe now you guys will get the ugly argument you've been itching for. Be careful what you wish for. As you're fond of saying, enjoy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2015 8:42 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by dronestar, posted 08-24-2015 4:38 PM Percy has replied
 Message 48 by xongsmith, posted 08-24-2015 10:54 PM Percy has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 44 of 64 (766974)
08-24-2015 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by caffeine
08-24-2015 3:12 PM


Re: It's called leadership, but...
CAF writes:
Have you accidentally intermingled incompatible criticisms from Carter's opponents to the right and left?
Hey Caffeine,
My apologies, this stuff is difficult to list/explain in truncated fashion without detailed timelines.
Ortega and Somoza were both dictators. A president that valued humanitarianism/human rights would not have supported either.
Ortega's relationship with the United States was never very cordial, due to U.S. support for Somoza prior to the revolution.
Daniel Ortega - Wikipedia
Maybe this example will help . . . the US fully supported Egypt's Mubarak, UNTIL it was clear the Egyptians were going to dispose of him. The US couldn't control his 'departure,' so when Mubarak was shown the door, THEN the US threw their weight into supporting the next military dictator.
Or maybe the Saddam Hussein example is better. The US loved, LOVED, Saddam when he was gassing the Kurds with US weapons. But once Saddam disobeyed his master, the US turned on him.
The military industrial complex could not have been happier with the rise of ISIS.
Warning Against Hasty Exit for Mubarak
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned on Sunday that removing President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt too hastily could threaten the country’s transition to democracy.
Clinton Warns Against Hasty Exit for Mubarak in Egypt - The New York Times
Analysis: Obama Telling Mubarak: Time To Go
Analysis: Obama Telling Mubarak: Time To Go - CBS News

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2015 3:12 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by caffeine, posted 08-25-2015 1:15 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 45 of 64 (766975)
08-24-2015 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
08-24-2015 3:16 PM


Re: It's called leadership, but...
Percy writes:
He appears to be as ardent an anti-Carterite as you guys are anti-Reaganites.
Great reading comprehension skills Percy, . . .
drone writes:
Carter's post-presidential WORDS almost make him a hero to me . . .
quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/...57442--abc-news-politics.html
;
[Jimmy Carter] denounced the Obama administration for "clearly violating" 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights."
A former U.S. president is accusing [Obama] of sanctioning the "widespread abuse of human rights" by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.
In addition to the drone strikes, Carter criticized the current president for keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, where prisoners "have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers."
The former president blasted the government for allowing "unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 08-24-2015 3:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 08-24-2015 5:03 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024