Mike,

>>>>>I'm amazed at how you can support throwing perpetrators of victimless crimes into jail, but you just look teh other way when an international law is broken and thousands and thousands of people are dying because of it.
>>>>Well, tell that to those who blow up innocent people and turn down magnanimous offers.
>>>Nice side step.
>>Not at all.
>
>So, how do you decide which laws are enforacble and which ones aren't? And why has your opinion changed so much since Message #593655

I don't think I do - except where the laws might want to force me to disavow my beliefs. Candidly, I am enjoined to obey al laws whether I like them or agree with them. I really don't have a choice in the matter. Do I 'fudge' on things like the speed limit? Sure, at times I do. As far as 'enforceable', osh, I didn't know I had been appointed enforcer. <g> Through my elected representative I suppose...


>
>You: If it is 'better' or 'more right' to allow people to hold themselves above the law than not, again, that's just anarchy IMO.
>
>Me: I'm not holding myself above the law, I'm respecting why that sign is there, and doing my part as a citizen so everyone else can be safe on the roads.
>
>You: Sure you are if you allow yourself the right to change/obey the laws at a whim I'd think.
>
>Instead of another straw man, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Well, if I'm understanding where we are in the discussion correctly I both believe in man's free will but in the responsibility to use it correctly. IOW, along with freedom comes responsibilities. If someone is willing to hold themselves above the law then they must be willing to take the 'hit' that comes along with it - all of which is quite apart from the intrinsic presence or lack thereof of any connection to morality. If you think that you are above the law (say the speed you drive on a country road) then take the chance. Don't complain if you get a ticket though.

I do not claim that I have the right to change law "on a whim", but I do claim to have the same right that you do in expressing my point of view both through the ballot box and in the public square.

>
>>That he's going to his grave a failure?
>
>Thats probably true. Anyone in his position would fail. Its a loose-loose situation that really sucks. No argument there.
>
>>Then why is he touted as a great leader? If he can't lead he's no such thing and he a the hollow shell. Or do you want it both ways Mike? <g> I'll read your responses to Mark after I post this.
>
>What do you mean I can't have both ways? I'm not follwoing you here, you may be mkaing stuff up now. Point out where I claimed he was a great leader.

Well, look.. If Arafat is a great leader then he should be able to stop the suicide attacks. If he's not a great leader then Israel should put him on a boat in the Mediterranian and tell him to go find another place to live. If, however, he is in control then the conclusion is is that he has ordered the suicide bombings and is therefore directly culpable.

You did seem to suggest that you thought he (Mr. Arafat) was the leader of the PLO. As such I think he should be help responsible whereas you appeared to be backing him in that you suggested he really wasn't the great leader he's portrayed to be. I disagree. I think he's fully in control but at the same time a master deceiver with a gullible western press corp.

>
>>Ok.. Name me one Islamic state that has ever raised it's prople's lives to at least a post 1600 level.
>
>As Tracy kindly pointed out, UAE. However, here's a good question, how many countries will be able to bring their nation to a post 1900's level? UK and Canada come to mind. I know one that won't: US.

Really?? You're suggesting that the US is currently in a pre-1900's level??? How is that? <g>

You're not confusing Minnesota with the US are you now?? *GD&RVVF*

>
>There comes a point when a government (much like a company) gets way to comfortable where it is when it stops moving forward. Thats when bad things start to happen. I don't think our American politicians are smart enough to avoid the same mistakes that something like the Middle East ran up against. This problem is as common as using war to fight it differences, like you point out. They can both be fixed over time.

Well, I'm not in favor of governmental ossification for sure. The best way I know to deal with this is reduce its size and scope of responsibilities. That won't necessarily make the problems disappear but can make them smaller in size & scope and more easily challenged.

>
>For someone who believes that God will make things right, you sure don't have alot of hope for humans. Or do you basically just think God watches out for Christians? Or maybe only matters that directly concern you?

I have zero nope in humanity. Mankind is not able to lift itself up and out of its troubles. Mankind needs God who will help, if asked. God watches out for everyone but not everyone wants God to watch out for them. As far as matters that directly concern me Mike, gosh, I hope not. If its any of your business I do pray for the President and Congress (liberals and conservatives. <g>) and fo forth. I have even prayed for you Mike and will continue to so do - that God will be merciful in your life and open your eyes to His love for you and that you will accept Him and His free gift of salvations before you die and suffer a fate you really do not want. I think I'm able to look beyond my own nose I suppose... <s>

Now, does that mean that individuals cannot do good things? Of course not! I mean in this case that 'humanity' is thought of as an aggregate.

>
>>You are aware that in all of recorded history that only about 200 years or so have been 100% war-free. That's 200 out of about 6000 years Mike. And you think I'm being unrealistic or naive perhaps? <g>
>
>Nope, just despaired. Hmmm, I thought that wasn't supposed to happen with a non-human starting point?


I have no despair here Mike. I find myself thrilled to think that soon all of this will be set right. In the mean time I'm going to be involved politically and vote! <g>