Wasnotwas

Response to:
http://members.boardhost.com/DT3rd/msg/1149285347.html

> Axiomatic, schmaxiomatic. It's perfectly imaginable that
> "a state" could deal with certain threats by identifying them
> correctly and then neutralising them, without significantly
> restricting individual freedoms. It's also demonstrable that
> some "states" have done so.

It's perfectly imaginable that "a state" will give everybody their own football (Jedermann sein eigner Fussball) too - but what point are you trying to *demonstrably* make?

> I'm curious now, though. Is it also "axiomatic" that "a state"
> will never tell lies and invent or exaggerate a threat to provide
> a pretext for furthering the interest of the clique that runs it?
> Is it axiomatic that the Bush Gang is among the ranks of those
> hallowed truthtelling "states"?

WTF are you rambling on about?

And why quote some of the words? You seem to have a problem with my vocabulary - can't you cope with somebody using "wanker", "quotidian" and "axiomatic"?

> According to Thug, "a state" is synonymous with the people
> who happen to rule it. And it seems that, in his view, the clique
> that currently runs the US is self-evidently trustworthy.

> I'd be curious to know exactly how Thug knows these things.

I'd be curious to know why you are posting more "worthless conjecture"?