Re: Opium [was: Re: freelance sysadmining -- superlong -- [WAS: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom" <tb.31112.nospam@comcast.net>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 22:23
Subject: Re: Opium [was: Re: freelance sysadmining -- superlong -- [WAS:
"Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"]]
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:07:01AM +0000, ben wrote:
> [snip]
> > whatever about the rest, a theocracy in a century! bush has already made
> > public statements about how god instructed him to invade afghanistan and
> > iraq. what the hell happend to separation of church and state?
>
> compared to the taliban and the islamists, I cannot believe you are
> acusing *US* of advocating a theocracy. talk about head up the ass.
>
> > not only do you have an unelected head of state, but those in power at
> > the present time are doing all they can to hastily invalidate the basic
> > tenets of democracy.
>
> here's where I have to appeal to those with formal logical training
> (particularly, tri-valued logic systems):
>
> It is true that margin of votes in Florida in the last election was
> below the statistical limits. It is neither a true statement that "Bush
> won the election" nor is it a true statement that "Bush lost the
> election."
>
> That is, the outcome was indeterminate. So anybody else who could have
> potentially been said to "win" would be equally illegitmate. It kind of
> sucks when you have a country without a president, so we had to do some
> Solomonic justice. Any outcome would have been equally arbitrary, this
> one was least constitutionally harmful.
>
Its not often that I agree with Tom. Should I be worried?
Reply to: