Re: Wesley clark just entered the race

[Jake]

Yeah. That'll Happen.

Bush 2004.

Jake.


"rosie readandpost" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > >I'm not American and can't vote in your election, but I wish the
Democrats
> > >well in next years election for the good of the world.
>
>
> AMEN!
>
>

[Jake]

Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
know what month the election occurs in.

That's just my experience. Respectfully: It becomes tiresome to hear
politically opinionated people (be they liberal, conservative, or like my
friends, just lazy) claiming that "most people" or a "vast majority" agree
with them. None of us should speak for anyone but ourselves.

Jakey



"Dawn Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:25:46 -0700, "Jake"
> > announced in front of God and
> everybody:
>
> >Dis-concur. Most (of my fellow) Americans are lazy, and that is why they
> >dont vote. Be careful not to speak for "most" American. Sure, most of
> >*your* circle may feel the things that you express, but then again,
*most*
> >of mine do not.
>
> Well, all I can say is that I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion
> of your fellow citizens. Seriously.
>
> Hey, it's all subjective anyway.
>
> Dawn
>
> --
> REVIEW: "Secondhand Lions"
> http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=20374
>
> DAILY DOSE OF HUMDRUM:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/dtaylor

[Barry Smith]

"Cheri" -nogarbage> wrote in message
...
> Really? I find that quite funny, since they are about the only ones that
> network news covers. :-) Think Kennedys, Gores, Jesse Jackson, Al
> Sharpton, Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamante, just to name a few. Hint: you can
> always tell them by the number of government giveaway programs they
> support or are trying to institute. :-)
>
> --
> Cheri

Frw of these people would be considered left wing outside the US.. All in
perception..

[Barry Smith]

"Bobo Bonobo®" > wrote in message
om...
> "Uffin" > wrote in message
>...>
> > No offense, but is this really the place to be posting something like
this?
> > I personally like Bush and don't want a new president.
>
> Do you WORK for a living, or just OWN for a living? Working class
> people who support people like Bush are kind of like Jewish people who
> vote Nazi.

I think that's a bit exteme... More like the average German who voted Nazi..
They weren't to know what lay ahead...

[Carmen]

Hi,
On 19-Sep-2003, Crescent Mu_n > wrote:

> Sadly, appropriations from the OHS have become political footballs.
> Look at the port security card debacle in Port Everglades.

I know. That money gets around. I'm an amateur radio operator, and
we're often the main means of communication left standing in cases of
disasters affecting the electrical grid and/or substantial
infrastructure damage. One of the grants was made to the American Radio
Relay League to allow reimbursement for courses in Emergency
Communications (Levels I, II, and III) for hams who successfully
completed the courses. The focus of the courses is to emphasize
communication efficiency in emergency conditions and, more importantly,
how the amateur operator fits into the structure as per the use of
Incident Command. I'm an Army MARS operator, so the 16 line format used
for messages is familiar to me, but for the vast majority of hams who
were never military or aren't involved with MARS it teaches things like
that as well. Useful training, and it will stand communities in good
stead for the usual disasters, not just terrorist attacks. I'm not
confident that all the money is being so wisely spent.

> > The majority seem happy enough to allow the expansion of
> > governmental power as
> >long as they perceive it as only being used on some nameless faceless
> >(but
> >not like *me*) "Others".
>
> The polls are clear. Only one out of five Americans stand firmly
> against a National Identity Card. Of the 4 left, only one of those
> says that they only approve of a NIC b/c of the "war on terrorism".
>
> Mark of the Beast mentality. Orwellian mythologies?
>
> Have you looked at the PDF417 barcode on the back of your driver's
> license.
>
> What is it there for?

Originally, or what is it moving towards at the speed of a bullet train
under the auspices of AAMVA? :-(

Take care,
Carmen

[Carmen]

Hi,
On 19-Sep-2003, Steve > wrote:

> >> Who knows what evil lurks in men's souls?
> >
> > The Shadow knows! <G>
>
> How do you know that and didn't know about Shinola? :-)

Geek, subclass Bookworm. :-) I used to get in trouble for reading when
I wasn't supposed to as a kid.

Take care,
Carmen

[Crescent Mu_n]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:45:10 GMT, "Carmen " >
wrote:

> I'm an amateur radio operator, and
>we're often the main means of communication left standing in cases of
>disasters affecting the electrical grid and/or substantial
>infrastructure damage.

You remind me of my brother-in-law's now deceased father. I worked
with Manfred in an old, unairconditioned warehouse every summer a
block or so off the Mississippi. He was Signal
Corp/Anniston/McClellan/Colonel and had a basement full of ham gear.
I loved that man. He was the first to bring MI to my attention, we
talked for hours about his war experiences (Korea), geography and, of
course, emergency management situations.

He got exposed at Annistion, fought throat cancer.

> One of the grants was made to the American Radio
>Relay League to allow reimbursement for courses in Emergency
>Communications (Levels I, II, and III) for hams who successfully
>completed the courses. The focus of the courses is to emphasize
>communication efficiency in emergency conditions and, more importantly,
>how the amateur operator fits into the structure as per the use of
>Incident Command. I'm an Army MARS operator, so the 16 line format used
>for messages is familiar to me, but for the vast majority of hams who
>were never military or aren't involved with MARS it teaches things like
>that as well. Useful training, and it will stand communities in good
>stead for the usual disasters, not just terrorist attacks.

Your service is appreciated. I'm sure Sarge is proud of you.

Where in Tennessee? You don't have to answer.

> I'm not
>confident that all the money is being so wisely spent.

I'm confident it is not.

>> Have you looked at the PDF417 barcode on the back of your driver's
>> license.
>>
>> What is it there for?
>
>Originally, or what is it moving towards at the speed of a bullet train
>under the auspices of AAMVA? :-(

Both.

Guess who has figured out how to stuff your fingerprint, encrypted,
into that format?

Guess who has figured out how to stuff your DNA encoding, encrypted,
into that format?

[Dawn Taylor]

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:25 -0700, "Jake"
> announced in front of God and
everybody:

>Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
>because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
>the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
>know what month the election occurs in.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that is. Seriously. Why do
you think people don't care about elections? Why they don't bother to
vote on measures and tax increses and the like?

I submit -- and feel free to disagree -- that it's because they don't
think their voices make a difference. I think a great many people have
just rolled over and given up, because they believe that the vast
political machine is driven not by democracy but by money and power --
and that it'll continue to be corrupt and ****ed up whether they go to
the polls or not. So they shrug it off, don't bother to remember when
election day is, open another beer and watch some TV.

That's what I mean by "disenfranchised," by the way. I don't believe
it's mere laziness -- it's ennui borne of a feeling of hopelessness.

Dawn

[Jake]

Um.. for same reason I never manage to vote. Maybe lazy was the wrong word
(although there's still a good chunk of people for whom that it is the
problem): I always intend to vote, but I'm BUSY. I always end up realizing
the day is here when I'm at work and can't get away.

I don't feel disenfranchised- I know my vote would make a difference if I
got it out there. But my life is full, and frankly, remembering when the
day comes, where to go, and to inform my boss I need it off, driving down
there, etc. et al.... too much.

Jake. (who surely sounds quite worthless in the civic sense now)


"Dawn Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:25 -0700, "Jake"
> > announced in front of God and
> everybody:
>
> >Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
> >because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
> >the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
> >know what month the election occurs in.
>
> I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that is. Seriously. Why do
> you think people don't care about elections? Why they don't bother to
> vote on measures and tax increses and the like?
>
> I submit -- and feel free to disagree -- that it's because they don't
> think their voices make a difference. I think a great many people have
> just rolled over and given up, because they believe that the vast
> political machine is driven not by democracy but by money and power --
> and that it'll continue to be corrupt and ****ed up whether they go to
> the polls or not. So they shrug it off, don't bother to remember when
> election day is, open another beer and watch some TV.
>
> That's what I mean by "disenfranchised," by the way. I don't believe
> it's mere laziness -- it's ennui borne of a feeling of hopelessness.
>
> Dawn
>

[Barry Smith]

"Dawn Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:25 -0700, "Jake"
> > announced in front of God and
> everybody:
>
> >Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
> >because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
> >the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
> >know what month the election occurs in.
>
> I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that is. Seriously. Why do
> you think people don't care about elections? Why they don't bother to
> vote on measures and tax increses and the like?
>
> I submit -- and feel free to disagree -- that it's because they don't
> think their voices make a difference. I think a great many people have
> just rolled over and given up, because they believe that the vast
> political machine is driven not by democracy but by money and power --
> and that it'll continue to be corrupt and ****ed up whether they go to
> the polls or not. So they shrug it off, don't bother to remember when
> election day is, open another beer and watch some TV.
>
> That's what I mean by "disenfranchised," by the way. I don't believe
> it's mere laziness -- it's ennui borne of a feeling of hopelessness.
>
> Dawn
>
I think a lot of people believe that the major political parties are just
the same.. like 2 different teams wearing different colours, but basically
the same, and that whoever wins the election, nothing will really change..

[M.W. Smith]

Sorry. I gave you the last word, but I wrote this before I remembered.

HealthNutz wrote:
> Why a country would permit non-citizens to vote is beyond me.

It is beyond you probably because you have never thought about it, and
probably because you have never lived and worked for a period of years
in another country. Norway recognized that all the people who live and
work in Norway as residents of Norway, who pay quite high taxes to help
run the country, are just like citizens of Norway, except that they
don't have a Norwegian passport.

> You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you and Norway by
> American blood and material wisely. And that should probably include at
> least not bad-mouthing those that gave, so that you can preen and revel in
> your freedom...

Well, I haven't bad-mouthed anyone who gave, so I don't know what you
are talking about. But the Norwegians fought right alongside the US in
WWII. Quite a lot of them gave, as you say. In fact, it was Norwegians
who prevented the Germans from developing the atomic bomb, but let that
pass. No freedoms were given to me or the Norwegians by the US. The US
ought to represent democracy and human rights much better than it is
these days.


> You are absolutely correct on at least one point:
> I *don't* give a damn what the world thinks of American policies.

That was my point. ...and now you have the last word.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President
www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith

[ange]

>
> > You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you and Norway by
> > American blood and material wisely. And that should probably include at
> > least not bad-mouthing those that gave, so that you can preen and revel in
> > your freedom...
>
Freedom isn't and wasn't yours to give. Yes there was a war, and yes,
the wellbeing of many countries was in jeapordy, including the USA, from
the actions of aggressors during the second world war. But please do
not try and take some kind of moral high ground about selfless actions.
More than 30 million people died in that war, of which 285,000 were
American. That was people fighting for their freedom, experiencing
invasion and occupation that has impacted on their psyches for
generations. It seems to me many Americans need to travel more, and
actually find out what the rest of the world is like. Even President
Bush had not stepped on foreign soil when he became president.
Unbelievable for such an influential person on the world stage. The USA
has been acting like a big baby in a sandpit, grabbing all the toys
because it can. Listen to yourself "you would be well advised to..."
Big bully. You don't have a clue what other cultures are like, all you
see is some strange sanitized version of what your media manipulators
want you to see. Wake up!!!

[Lexin]

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you and Norway
by
> American blood and material wisely.

Actually, your statement above should read, "...freedoms given to you
and Norway by the blood and sacrifice of the people of the USSR,
Britain, France (though they were overrun), Greece, Australia, New
Zealand, Norway itself and America" (and probably a whole host of people
I've forgotten). Of the 30m people or so who died in WW2, around a
third - 10m - were from the USSR. I don't see people in the US - have
never seen them - giving credit to the Russians, who were at the time
communists, for their freedom. The history of the Russians in WW2 is
long and complicated, and I don't propose to go over it here, but the
sacrifice can hardly be denied.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[GordySumner]

"Barry Smith" > wrote in message >...
> "Dawn Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:25 -0700, "Jake"
> > > announced in front of God and
> > everybody:
> >
> > >Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
> > >because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
> > >the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
> > >know what month the election occurs in.
> >
> > I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that is. Seriously. Why do
> > you think people don't care about elections? Why they don't bother to
> > vote on measures and tax increses and the like?
> >
> > I submit -- and feel free to disagree -- that it's because they don't
> > think their voices make a difference. I think a great many people have
> > just rolled over and given up, because they believe that the vast
> > political machine is driven not by democracy but by money and power --
> > and that it'll continue to be corrupt and ****ed up whether they go to
> > the polls or not. So they shrug it off, don't bother to remember when
> > election day is, open another beer and watch some TV.
> >
> > That's what I mean by "disenfranchised," by the way. I don't believe
> > it's mere laziness -- it's ennui borne of a feeling of hopelessness.
> >
> > Dawn
> >
> I think a lot of people believe that the major political parties are just
> the same.. like 2 different teams wearing different colours, but basically
> the same, and that whoever wins the election, nothing will really change..

Yes, you are absolutely right. They do think that. It's hard to
believe they still think that after what has happened over the last 2
1/5 years though.

[HealthNutz]

Absolutely spot-on, "Lexin". You're correct on all points.

I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something understandable
to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability to
understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify.

I stand corrected and grateful that you took the time to point that out...

DustyB


"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
> "HealthNutz" wrote:
> > You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you and Norway
> by
> > American blood and material wisely.
>
> Actually, your statement above should read, "...freedoms given to you
> and Norway by the blood and sacrifice of the people of the USSR,
> Britain, France (though they were overrun), Greece, Australia, New
> Zealand, Norway itself and America" (and probably a whole host of people
....

[Carmen]

HealthNutz,
Just so you don't waste your time, please don't bother answering any of
my posts.

Carmen

[Carmen]

On 21-Sep-2003, (Chet Hayes) wrote:

Carmen wrote:
> > > >The incidents where air crews were allowed to throw Arab
> > > >appearing passengers off planes because they "made them nervous"
> > > >didn't arouse a general
> > > >outcry either.

Chet wrote:
> I thought the issue was what the US govt was doing, not one isolated
> airline crew? Of the thousands of flights everyday, this happened
> what once, maybe twice, yet it troubles you so and there is supposed
> to be some public outcry over it? Without specifics, it's impossible
> to know exactly what went on and who was right. There are far more
> instances of flight crews having to deal with unruly passengers on a
> regular basis. I'd much rather see flight crews have broad discretion
> instead of tying their hands. Anyone treated unfairly has remedies
> available in the civil courts and I'm sure the ACLU will be more than
> happy to help them.

Carmen:
My point was that the American government, which is supposed to be the
protector of our rights, did nothing to protect the rights of the
minority in this case. In the instances that came to light the
passengers weren't removed from the planes because of *behavior* - that
would be appropriate - they were removed because of *appearance*.

Carmen wrote:
> The detention of people in jails without access to
> > > >lawyers and without charges being brought against them, the
> > > >denial of
> > > >access to the subpoenas used to detain some of these people on
> > > >the
> > > >government's insistence that the information was "secret" have
> > > >been noted and
> > > >forgotten.

Chet wrote:
> Those that have been captured abroad are enemy combatants captured in
> a war and are not US citizens. Did we provide a lawyer for those
> captured in any previous war? Personally, I hope the military is
> using evey means possible to extract info from these terrorists to
> save lives.
> There are a few people who are US citizens in all this that I would
> agree are being treated unfairly. One is the Padilla (spelling) guy
> from Chicago who was arrested for working with Al Qaida and has been
> held for many months without access to a lawyer.

Carmen wrote:
This is the sort of person I was talking about - Americans, living in
America.

Chet wrote:
> BTW, do you have any complaints about what the great liberal President
> Roosevelt did when he locked up all the Japanese Americans during
> WWII? Does it trouble you that there was no public outcry at the time
> over that one?

Carmen wrote:
Hell yes! Racism is racism, regardless of the particular skin pigment
involved. Don't you see? We did that, within memory of people who are
alive right now, and *still* there was no outcry when some people
started talking along the same track - identity cards for
Arab-Americans? That ought to have set off a klaxon of alarm bells. It
didn't.

Carmen wrote:
> > Yet people like Chet will castigate me in one post for my views,
> > challenging me to produce instances of abusive behaviors on the
> > government's part, then remain strangely silent when I post those
> > instances. Hmmm...

Chet wrote:
> Never have to worry about silence here. This is the first specifics
> I've seen from you.

Carmen:
You didn't comment on them until I noted that you hadn't. They were
made the day *before* you said I hadn't provided specifics. The post
you responded to, which this is in turn a response to, was made the
18th. Your post asking for specifics was made the *19th*.


Carmen

[HealthNutz]

"ange" > wrote in message
...
....
> Freedom isn't and wasn't yours to give. Yes there was a war, and yes,
Nor yours to throw away to appease those that would steal it from me!

Something you liberals never seem to grasp: freedom, is not free. You can
not "bequeath it" to or confer it upon someone. It must be wrested from
those that would deny it to you. Guarded jealously. And fought for without
quarter when threatened. If it's not worth your life to get and hold
freedom, then you are a waste of protoplasm and a ready stooge for the next
dictator that comes along.

Wiser men by far than I, have put it far more eloquently:
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which
is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and
has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of
better men than himself."-John Stuart Mills

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not
your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May
your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen." - Samuel Adams 1776

> the wellbeing of many countries was in jeopardy, including the USA, from
Yes. And PUT into jeopardy because other countries were staffed by feckless
cowards unwilling to fight for their own freedom (that does not, of course,
apply to those countries too small and weak to mount a defense against a
larger, better armed aggressor), visionaries too blind to see the past, and
thinkers too dulled with local and private matters to take stock that their
country--nay, their whole way of life--was being threatened, UNTIL IT WAS
LOST!

> the actions of aggressors during the second world war. But please do
> not try and take some kind of moral high ground about selfless actions.
> More than 30 million people died in that war, of which 285,000 were
Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths were
at the hands of totalitarian/socialists--the very class of people that
liberals try their best to imitate, and from which they constantly seek to
curry favor.

So, you would have me take a "moral low ground" instead? Do you really
think that by standing next to you, it would be a benefit to me? To
freedom? Are you truly so naive?

....
> because it can. Listen to yourself "you would be well advised to..."
> Big bully. You don't have a clue what other cultures are like, all you
> see is some strange sanitized version of what your media manipulators
> want you to see. Wake up!!!
You sound like a child, you silly-ninny. Grow up! See if you can blink
through your tears enough to get a grip on freedom and liberty. Then look
me in the eye and tell me that you're "okay" with losing it. BTDT; didn't
like it much! If it hadn't been for the United States and her magnificent
Navy during WWII, you "Kiwi's" would be eating your mutton with chopsticks
today.

If you like we can compare passports and count stamps, times, and dates to
see who is well traveled...


Later all,
DustyB

--
So many idiots and fools, so few comets...
-= Remove CARBS to reply =-

[HealthNutz]

No prob. I'll just wait until you have an original thought...

DustyB
--
Wallow in ignorance if it suits you...you'll find the company just fine...


"Carmen " > wrote in message
...
> HealthNutz,
> Just so you don't waste your time, please don't bother answering any of
> my posts.
>
> Carmen

[Carmen]

Hi,

Carmen wrote:
> > I'm an amateur radio operator, and
> >we're often the main means of communication left standing in cases of
> >disasters affecting the electrical grid and/or substantial
> >infrastructure damage.

Crescent Mu_n wrote:
> You remind me of my brother-in-law's now deceased father. I worked
> with Manfred in an old, unairconditioned warehouse every summer a
> block or so off the Mississippi. He was Signal
> Corp/Anniston/McClellan/Colonel and had a basement full of ham gear.
> I loved that man. He was the first to bring MI to my attention, we
> talked for hours about his war experiences (Korea), geography and, of
> course, emergency management situations.
> He got exposed at Annistion, fought throat cancer.

Carmen:
Manfred sounds like he got around. :-) My "Elmer" (ham version of
"mentor") has a similar background in Signal Corp, retired military too.
His era was Vietnam though.
Have you ever thought about getting a license? I know when you looked
at Manfred's equipment you might have just seen a pile of metal with
lots of knobs but there's a wide array of niches available.
* Slow scan TV: passing pictures over the air via radio waves after
they've been digitized.
* Amateur TV: passing video over the air.
* Microwave frequency work. (A ham was responsible for developing
spread spectrum, frequency hopping technology.)
* Satellite work - you can use amateur satellites to work long distances
with low power by using the satellite as a rebroadcasting device.
* APRS: Using a GPSr and amateur radio to create a "tracking system".
* PSK31: Uses radio waves to pass text information realtime over the air
from one computer to another.
* Talk to the International Space Station.
* Fox Hunts: A transponder is hidden that emits a signal and using
triangulation techniques is hunted down.
* Morse Code or CW: This is still a viable option that's capable of
punching messages through on low power over long distances.
I know I probably sound like a recruiter, but it really is a good hobby,
although depending on what one does with it it can become a great deal
more. :-)

Carmen wrote:
> >I'm an Army MARS operator, so the 16 line format
> >used for messages is familiar to me, but for the vast majority of
> >hams who
> >were never military or aren't involved with MARS it teaches things
> >like that as well. Useful training, and it will stand communities in
> >good
> >stead for the usual disasters, not just terrorist attacks.

Crescent Mu_n wrote:
> Your service is appreciated. I'm sure Sarge is proud of you.
> Where in Tennessee? You don't have to answer.

Carmen:
Sarge and I have similar outlooks on this sort of thing - the pride is
mutual.
We live in Clarksville, which is one of the communities that surrounds
Fort Campbell. It's about 45 minutes north of Nashville.

<In reference to PDF417 codes on drivers' licenses>
Crescent Mu_n wrote:
> Guess who has figured out how to stuff your fingerprint, encrypted,
> into that format?
> Guess who has figured out how to stuff your DNA encoding, encrypted,
> into that format?

Carmen:
Um, let me guess. The military branch of the gov't?
I know that the DNA samples they took from military folks can be used to
positively identify remains in the case of deaths that cause massive
tissue destruction like plane crashes, but it's the other possible uses
that give me pause.
Sometimes it would be nice not to think so much....

Take care,
Carmen

[Lexin]

> "ange"
> > the actions of aggressors during the second world war. But please
do
> > not try and take some kind of moral high ground about selfless
actions.
> > More than 30 million people died in that war, of which 285,000 were

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths
were
> at the hands of totalitarian/socialists--

I'm not sure where you get this from, and I'm not sure if it stands up
to analysis - unless you count the Nazis as 'socialists' in which case I
point you to this link: http://www.lexin.co.uk/leftnazi.htm which is a
discussion of that very question from when I was active in political
newsgroups.

> like it much! If it hadn't been for the United States and her
magnificent
> Navy during WWII, you "Kiwi's" would be eating your mutton with
chopsticks
> today.

As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries
fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece.
Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
credit.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[Polliwogli]

HealthNutz<< I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something
understandable
to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability to
understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify. >><BR><BR>

Oh, now that is really silly. Why not keep these insults on the politics
boards where they usually live and multipy. But then maybe you are one of them
thar trolls!

[Carmen]

Hi Jake,
On 21-Sep-2003, "Jake" > wrote:

> Um.. for same reason I never manage to vote. Maybe lazy was the
> wrong word (although there's still a good chunk of people for whom
> that it is the
> problem): I always intend to vote, but I'm BUSY. I always end up
> realizing the day is here when I'm at work and can't get away.
>
> I don't feel disenfranchised- I know my vote would make a difference
> if I got it out there. But my life is full, and frankly, remembering
> when
> the day comes, where to go, and to inform my boss I need it off,
> driving
> down there, etc. et al.... too much.

> Jake. (who surely sounds quite worthless in the civic sense now)

It does make the "Bush in 2004" post you made sound pretty hollow.
Opinions aren't votes. Choosing not to vote is a form of self
disenfranchisement. As much as it kills me to say this, you should make
plans to vote, even if you're voting for Bush.

Take care,
Carmen

[HealthNutz]

"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
....
> > Yes. That is true. But, you should have added, most of those deaths
> > were at the hands of totalitarian/socialists--
> I'm not sure where you get this from, and I'm not sure if it stands up
> to analysis - unless you count the Nazis as 'socialists' in which case I
> point you to this link: http://www.lexin.co.uk/leftnazi.htm which is a
> discussion of that very question from when I was active in political
> newsgroups.
You have a well found point. There is certainly room to question the
"exact" nature of what Hitler did or didn't believe as it applied to
socialism. While I think that there are differences, I'd submit that they
are so small in practice as to be moot. A despot is a despot--does it
really matter what's in his heart? Although you've made a valid point, I
think that it is akin to splitting hairs.

MILLIONS died at the hands of Hitler. MILLIONS died at the hands of Stalin
(not to mention Pol-Pot, Mao, etc.). Do you really think that exact and
dearly debated method of whose regime was "better" (or "worse") or which can
be explicitly defined, is reason to defend one over the other?

My generic point was any non-representative, non-beholding government under
a single un-elected ruler is never a good thing. This almost always becomes
oppressive. Some more, some less. Keep in mind that over the years many
monarchies were beneficial for their subjects. Although in principle they
are both totalitarian and socialist in nature...

When I said "... of totalitarian/socialists ...", I was combining--perhaps
inaccurately in a micro-view--totalitarian governments and socialist
governments. Neither serves the cause of freedom and individual liberty,
nor do they advance opportunity for their citizenry.

....
> As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
> stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries
> fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece.
Because most of the countries between them were already under subjugation or
control to one degree or another? Or they were already allies--even if for
only out of fear or for convenience?

> Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
> gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
> credit.
I recall doing no such thing. Besides which, I speak for myself, not my
"country". I wasn't "taking the credit", I was pointing out what seems to
have escaped so many reading/writing here.

But assuming for the moment that I did, would it also follow then that those
countries that were "rescued" from the self-constructed predicament they
keep finding themselves in, be called equally "graceless" for giving the US
no "credit" for having demonstrated TWICE that it had the might, will, and
means to effect their liberation and return them to sovereignty?

Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as
countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States has
already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only
itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in how
future events are carried out?

Given that the others have not demonstrated (at least not recently) such a
capability, why should those that have (the US), be made beholden to the
ideas and concepts that got the "beholdees" into the jam in which they
always seem to find themselves (those that had to be rescued from
subjugation)?

A bit less eloquently (but shorter (:-)!):
Since you guys seem to have a knack for getting your 'nads in a crack, why
should we listen to you? How come you're not listening to us? Pride?
Arrogance? Or ignorance...?


Later my friend,
DustyB
--
-= Remove CARBS to reply =-

[HealthNutz]

Hi "Polliwogli";

Ran out of substantive things to say, did we...?

DustyB


"Polliwogli" > wrote in message
...
> HealthNutz<< I seem to have again run afoul of my desire to make something
> understandable
> to a liberal. I work hard at not overloading their simple-minded ability
to
> understand and grasp reality...and sometimes over-simplify. >><BR><BR>
>
> Oh, now that is really silly. Why not keep these insults on the politics
> boards where they usually live and multipy. But then maybe you are one of
them
> thar trolls!

[Bobo Bonobo®]

(GordySumner) wrote in message >...
> "Barry Smith" > wrote in message >...
> > "Dawn Taylor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:32:25 -0700, "Jake"
> > > > announced in front of God and
> > > everybody:
> > >
> > > >Gotcha. Sorry, but I dont know a single solitary person who doesn't vote
> > > >because they feel "disenfranchised" or whatever the liberal tagline is at
> > > >the moment. I do, on the other hand know dozens of people who don't even
> > > >know what month the election occurs in.
> > >
> > > I'm genuinely curious as to why you think that is. Seriously. Why do
> > > you think people don't care about elections? Why they don't bother to
> > > vote on measures and tax increses and the like?
> > >
> > > I submit -- and feel free to disagree -- that it's because they don't
> > > think their voices make a difference. I think a great many people have
> > > just rolled over and given up, because they believe that the vast
> > > political machine is driven not by democracy but by money and power --
> > > and that it'll continue to be corrupt and ****ed up whether they go to
> > > the polls or not. So they shrug it off, don't bother to remember when
> > > election day is, open another beer and watch some TV.
> > >
> > > That's what I mean by "disenfranchised," by the way. I don't believe
> > > it's mere laziness -- it's ennui borne of a feeling of hopelessness.
> > >
> > > Dawn
> > >
> > I think a lot of people believe that the major political parties are just
> > the same.. like 2 different teams wearing different colours, but basically
> > the same, and that whoever wins the election, nothing will really change..
>
> Yes, you are absolutely right. They do think that. It's hard to
> believe they still think that after what has happened over the last 2
> 1/5 years though.

The American people--the most innovative and productive people on the
planet--seem retarded when it comes to politics.

--Bryan 198/152/155

[Cheri]

Especially the voters in Florida. :-)

--
Cheri


Bobo Bonobo® wrote in message ...
>
>The American people--the most innovative and productive people on the
>planet--seem retarded when it comes to politics.
>
>--Bryan 198/152/155

[M.W. Smith]

HealthNutz wrote:
> Wrong! I have thought about it. And I didn't like the conclusions I came
> to.

You had the last word.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President
www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith

[Lexin]

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> There is certainly room to question the
> "exact" nature of what Hitler did or didn't believe as it applied to
> socialism. While I think that there are differences, I'd submit that
they
> are so small in practice as to be moot.

And I would disagree - Hitler didn't accept several of the basic
cornerstones of socialism, and that is hardly a small difference.

> A despot is a despot--does it
> really matter what's in his heart?

Yes, I think it does. If people make the repeated point that "political
and social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, as exemplified by tyrant
Z", it matters very much to political philosophers (and those interested
in correcting sloppy thinking) that tyrant Z did not follow X but some
other philosophy altogether. It's akin to saying, "The sky is blue,
therefore my cat is a microwave oven." In short, if you're going to
claim that social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, at least choose a
valid example.

> Keep in mind that over the years many
> monarchies were beneficial for their subjects. Although in principle
they
> are both totalitarian and socialist in nature...

Monarchies are socialist? Since when? Do you have many examples of
socialist monarchies?

> When I said "... of totalitarian/socialists ...", I was
combining--perhaps
> inaccurately in a micro-view--totalitarian governments and socialist
> governments. Neither serves the cause of freedom and individual
liberty,
> nor do they advance opportunity for their citizenry.

And do you count Britain in that? This is a country which has a lot of
the things you classify as socialist (comparatively high taxes, a
comprehensive welfare system, a national health service) but in which a
reasonably hardworking person can have a good life, and in which
entrepreneurial effort can be rewarded, at least as much as in the US.
I have to say that given the lack of a fully comprehensive welfare
system and a national health service, I wouldn't live in the US if you
paid me to come - and I'm currently a net payer for those services
rather than a user of them.

> > As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
> > stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two
countries
> > fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and
Greece.

> Because most of the countries between them were already under
subjugation or
> control to one degree or another? Or they were already allies--even
if for
> only out of fear or for convenience?

After the fall of France, Greece and Britain happened to be the last two
unconquered nations who were already in the war. Remember, this was
before the US joined. Remember also, that the US's first attitude
towards this European conflict was to let the Europeans get on with it
unaided. This was pretty prevalent up until (and even sometimes as far
as the European theatre was concerned, after) Pearl Harbour. It could
even be argued that the US joined not to ensure freedom for Europe, but
because it saw its European markets about to disappear - Hitler did not
like the US, which he saw (wrongly) as a land ruled by a Jewish elite,
too much contact with which would undermine the purity of the German
race.

> > Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
> > gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
> > credit.

> I recall doing no such thing. Besides which, I speak for myself, not
my
> "country". I wasn't "taking the credit", I was pointing out what
seems to
> have escaped so many reading/writing here.

You said, "You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you
and Norway by American blood and material wisely" and repeated the same
argument in this part of the thread. The implication was that the US,
acting alone, gave Norway and the rest of Europe this freedom out of the
goodness of their hearts, when in fact it was hard won by the peoples of
several nations, among them the USSR. And as the USSR lost 13,000,000 of
their fighting forces, and the US lost something like 295,000 it could
more properly be said that the OP should be grateful to the USSR for
their sacrifice and the blood which was shed in the cause of freedom.
Which is delightfully ironic, I'm sure you'll agree.

> But assuming for the moment that I did, would it also follow then that
those
> countries that were "rescued" from the self-constructed predicament
they
> keep finding themselves in, be called equally "graceless" for giving
the US
> no "credit" for having demonstrated TWICE that it had the might, will,
and
> means to effect their liberation and return them to sovereignty?

Graceless would be not thanking those who helped - and that, as I've
commented twice now, includes but is not limited to the USA. It could
even be argued that without the help of the USSR, keeping Hitler's
forces involved in pointless and unwinnable battles (Stalingrad,
anyone?) the USA could not have helped to anything like the extent they
did, and loss of US life would have been that much greater. It is even
possible that loss of US life would have been so great that US public
opinion would not have tolerated it, even in a fight for freedom.

> Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as
> countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States
has
> already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only
> itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in
how
> future events are carried out?

I don't believe, so, no. Freedom is worth nothing if those for whom it
has been won do not have the right to dictate their own future. That, I
would argue, applies even if they then go and do with it something the
givers don't like. It's akin, I think, to a parent denying their
grown-up children the right to go their own way and to make their own
mistakes. The problem with freedom is that it's not divisible or
limitable - you can't say to a country, any country, "OK, so now you are
free from this tyranny, but you can only be free if you now accept that
our philosophy is the best." Of what use is that kind of freedom? It
wouldn't be freedom at all, but a different species of tyranny, at least
from the point of view of those for whom it has been won.

We might think that representative democracy is the best method of
running a country, we might be able to demonstrate it by example, but
that does not mean that other countries have to accept that as a
self-evident truth, or even apply it to themselves. And it does not
matter how many lives have been lost winning this 'freedom' for that
country, freedom has to mean freedom to return to a method of rulership
that we might not like, just as giving your children freedom may mean
that they marry someone you detest and live in a trailer park. You
might hate it, you might resent it, but you can't stop them. Whether to
interfere again in their affairs is a decision you have to make again -
and sometimes again and again - something which sadly applies both to
grown-up children and other nations.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[Barry Smith]

"HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> eastern Germany. Until just recently, they couldn't do what you are
doing.
> And that same fate was AND STILL IS the goal of the international
communist
> party today.

Do you have a link for this international communist party?

[Barry Smith]

"HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> are so small in practice as to be moot. A despot is a despot--does it
> really matter what's in his heart?

It does when he's president of the United States and acting in the interests
of an elite group of secret society friends and war profiteers and against
the interests of his own people and using rhetoric about freedom and
democracy as a cover while eroding real freedom and democracy..


> Since you guys seem to have a knack for getting your 'nads in a crack, why
> should we listen to you? How come you're not listening to us? Pride?
> Arrogance? Or ignorance...?

Time to drop the word Health from your handle I think...

[Barry Smith]

"Bobo Bonobo®" > wrote in message > > Yes, you are
absolutely right. They do think that. It's hard to
> > believe they still think that after what has happened over the last 2
> > 1/5 years though.
>
> The American people--the most innovative and productive people on the
> planet--seem retarded when it comes to politics.
>
> --Bryan 198/152/155

Would be funny if it wasn't tragic.. When civil/human rights are abused in
other countries, they are among the first to recognise the injustice. When
it happens at home. they seem to think it can't be happening because they
are conditioned to believe freedom and democracy will protect them. Or am I
wrong?

[Lexin]

Chet Hayes wrote:
> If you can't take the heat and stand up to some pussy foreigner's who
> don't like the US, then maybe you should just stay home. If I were
> France or Germany, I would be so grateful to the US for saving my ass
> in WWII and from the Soviets in the cold war, that I wouldn't be
> picking senseless arguments over despots like Sadam Hussein.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, over 30m people died
in WW2 defending freedom. Around 290,000 of those were from the US.
Around 290,000 were from Britain (a far larger proportion of the
population) and 13,000,000 of them were from the USSR. If any
gratitude is felt anywhere for defending freedom in WW2, it should be
directed towards the people of the former USSR.

As far as the cold war goes, the West was in it together. The USA
shares (if I remember my geography) a tiny portion of its border with
the former USSR, but part of Germany was handed over to the
communists. There is no moral high ground here, and trying to take it
on behalf of your nation only makes you look foolish.


Lexin

[sharky@nospam.com]

In article >,
"Lexin" > wrote:

> As I pointed out before, the US was not alone in that war. At one
> stage, in the very early days of the war, there were only two countries
> fighting the might of the Wehrmacht, and they were Britain and Greece.
> Yes, probably that war could not have been won without the US, but
> gracelessly taking credit for the entire thing does your country no
> credit.

Probably? Probably? That war and more. Massive, and I mean
unprecedentedly massive shipments of foodstuffs, fuel and war materiel
to England and the Soviet UNion before we actually sent troops kept both
of these "allies" in the game almost from the beginning of hostilities.
Your country can be forgiven its permissiveness and refusal to recognize
true evil that led up to the war. This is a tendency for all democracies
(which you finally had the wit to become after being forced to witness
American colonists successfully defeating reign by accident of birth).
After the fighting began, however, England's resourcefulness and
singular courage is still the model for those virtues in the American
mind today. Even in hollywood movies where left-wingers get their
history. Don't accuse us of bad manners, however, for telling a truth
that even your PM is willing to admit. If the lot of you have any bacon
today it's because we saved it. More than once. And, to this observer,
it looks like the same dysfunctional, class-obsessed european boobouisie
that gave us WWI and WWII are gearing up for another cycle of insanity.

-Have you ever seen Al Franken and Jeanine Garofolo together in the same
room?

[Sir Algernon 'Splidgy' Streeve-Greebling]

> wrote in message
...
> Probably? Probably? That war and more. Massive, and I mean
> unprecedentedly massive shipments of foodstuffs, fuel and war materiel
> to England and the Soviet UNion

The USA *sold* overpriced stuff to UK for 2 years; this included stale food
and utterly useless ancient destroyers, for example.

> This is a tendency for all democracies
> (which you finally had the wit to become after being forced to witness
> American colonists successfully defeating reign by accident of birth).

Erm, I seem to have forgotten something. Could you please remind us who the
current US President is. I seem to recall that he is a spoilt inadequate
who reigns principally 'by accident of birth' (and sibling chicanery). To
further the analogy with C18 England, he too is surrounded by certifiably
lunatic sycophants.

> After the fighting began, however, England's resourcefulness and
> singular courage is still the model for those virtues in the American
> mind today.

Erm, is that 'after the fighting began' as in 1939, or as in December 1941?
Bear in mind that the USA only entered the 'European' war because Hitler
suicidally swung in behind Japan, and declared war on America. Otherwise,
the USA would probably have fought a Pacific war and cheerfully left the
European nations to pummel each other into oblivion.

> And, to this observer,
> it looks like the same dysfunctional, class-obsessed european boobouisie
> that gave us WWI and WWII are gearing up for another cycle of insanity.

No, grasshopper, your leaders have learned well, but they have learned
nothing. The USA is now marching into a bigger, better global conflict, but
this time armed with infinitely more terrifying weaponry, an infinitely
greater sense of blinkered self-righteousness and infinitely more
impassioned hatred ranged against it. Previous wars were primarily
territorial. This one is ideological, much like the Crusades. As such, it
is going to be far longer and far nastier ...

[Lexin]

> wrote:
> Your country can be forgiven its permissiveness and refusal to
recognize
> true evil that led up to the war.

Er...had it not been for Pearl Harbour the US would probably not have
joined the war at all. And by that time Britain had been fighting real
battles for quite some time.

> This is a tendency for all democracies
> (which you finally had the wit to become after being forced to witness
> American colonists successfully defeating reign by accident of birth).

I think you need to look back at your history books, your British
history seems to be a bit out of wack.

> If the lot of you have any bacon
> today it's because we saved it.

But not alone. No country did it alone, not even the US and my
gratitude goes to the Russians, frankly. A loss of 13m as opposed to
290,000 for the US, about the same for Britain - though given our
relative populations that's still person for person a whole lot greater
sacrifice.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[HealthNutz]

"M.W. Smith" > wrote in message
...
....
> You had the last word.
Thank you kindly, sir! (:-o)

DustyB

>
> martin
....

[HealthNutz]

"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
....
> > A despot is a despot--does it
> > really matter what's in his heart?
> Yes, I think it does. If people make the repeated point that "political
> and social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, as exemplified by tyrant
And there we have it, folks. Despot A kills 20 million human beings; depot
B kills 6 million human beings, despot C kills 1/4 of his countries
population; and we're reduced to debating the relative merits of the basis
of one despot's methods as opposed to the others? Liberal, elitist
intelligentsia ruminations at their pointless finest!

....
> I have to say that given the lack of a fully comprehensive welfare
> system and a national health service, I wouldn't live in the US if you
> paid me to come - and I'm currently a net payer for those services
> rather than a user of them.
Good! I don't want a socialized health care system that serves its citizens
as poorly as does yours. I lived and worked in GB for 4-1/2 years. My
daughter was born there. I've had the unfortunate occasion to have had need
of your "progressive" health care system. That usage gave me the
opportunity to see it from the inside, devoid of liberal spin and cover--not
a pretty thing! Americans should be grateful that they don't have to rely
on something equally overloaded and incompetent.

....
> After the fall of France, Greece and Britain happened to be the last two
> unconquered nations who were already in the war. Remember, this was
Yes. And so? This is essentially what I had said...

> before the US joined. Remember also, that the US's first attitude
> towards this European conflict was to let the Europeans get on with it
> unaided. This was pretty prevalent up until (and even sometimes as far
That would have been my option as well. You folks have been warring on and
killing each other in one way, shape, form, place or another for thousands
of years. Why get in the middle of such an endless conflict?

However, wiser heads prevailed. I'm reluctant to give them credit for
having the vision to notice that we're all living on an increasingly
"smaller" globe. And along with that comes the growing ability of
combatants to be able to visit increasingly lethal destruction upon each
other, more accurately, and at greater ranges. But those two issues made
entry important (but whether it was for that reason or not is unknown to
me). Today the globe is even "smaller", and lethality of many things is
even greater.

There can never again be a case for taking action *after* a "shot" has been
fired. That option only works for cowards and the deceased.

> as the European theatre was concerned, after) Pearl Harbour. It could
> even be argued that the US joined not to ensure freedom for Europe, but
> because it saw its European markets about to disappear - Hitler did not
Yeah. I'm sure that was it. I was wondering how long it would take for you
to get to the "eviiiil biiiig businesssssss!" part. I love how that works;
big business is evil, big government is wonderful...<big sigh!>

....
> You said, "You would be well advised to use the freedoms given to you
> and Norway by American blood and material wisely" and repeated the same
> argument in this part of the thread. The implication was that the US,
You keep on returning to the drumbeat of how it wasn't America alone. I
believe that I've already stipulated that. Except in your mind, that's not
the issue in dispute here! The issue is that without American entry into
*your* war, you wouldn't have the country you have at the moment. In case
it's escaped your notice, you (not 'you' personally, "Lexin", Europe in
general) guys were getting your asses kicked! You weren't in the process of
liberating France and the rest of the poodles over there, it was just the
opposite--you were being ground under! A point you can't seem to
understand.

Probably because all of the intelligentsia were too busy debating the
relative merits of one version of a totalitarian paradise over another.

....
> Graceless would be not thanking those who helped - and that, as I've
> commented twice now, includes but is not limited to the USA. It could
Would that be those that helped *before* the American entry into your
conflict, or the ones that help after...?

....
> > Could not then at least a weak argument be made that between us (as
> > countries on either side of that chasm), that when the United States
> has
> > already TWICE demonstrated the ability to defend freedom for not only
> > itself, but others as well; that it should at least have a fair say in
> how
> > future events are carried out?
>
> I don't believe, so, no. Freedom is worth nothing if those for whom it
Then you I will simply have to agree to disagree. As a practical man,
things to me sometimes tend to be black and white.

I've gotten along quite well through the application of a single bit of
wisdom that I came upon some time back. I live by: when you do something
and the result turns out NOT to be the one you wanted; you can be accused of
being dumb. Then, when you continue to do the same thing over and over and
over, and get the same result; that's stupid! I endeavor to live my life so
as not to be known as stupid. When I do something dumb, I resolve to learn
from it. I adjust my rudder, and attempt to avoid a repetition of that
fate.

You Europeans have managed twice in the last century, by following your own
innate wisdom (a somewhat interesting but different thread I would think),
managed to get yourselves into a pickle that America had to come over to
fix. And now you self-righteously insist that *you* are the harbinger of
what's right and proper for all? And that if we had a lick of sense we
should hurry up and take you at your wisdom? And here I thought you guys
didn't have a sense of humor...

<... long twisting, winding diatribe on freedom and democracy snipped ...>
My family and I escaped from some twisted minds version of a socialist,
totalitarian "workers paradise". Many that fled with us (all 126, as far as
we know) didn't survive that event. I understand democracy and what it
stands for. I don't need a lecture on freedom, its value or its cost, or
what it's worth to one who so easily would give it up for the illusion of
security...


Later all,
DustyB

BTW; a most impressive set of numbers. Congrats!
> Lexin
....
> LC since 9 June 2003
> (300/263/182)
>
>

[HealthNutz]

"Barry Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> > eastern Germany. Until just recently, they couldn't do what you are
> doing.
> > And that same fate was AND STILL IS the goal of the international
> communist
> > party today.
>
> Do you have a link for this international communist party?
http://www.vcp.nu/vcpnieuws/links.htm
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/links/
http://www.basque-red.net/eng/links/ecomueng/c001.htm
http://www.wpiran.org/links/links.html
http://www.communist-party.org.uk/home/index.php
http://www.communist-party.ca/links/WEurope.html
http://www.kominf.pp.fi/Textra.html
http://www.cpusa.org/article/archive/41/

Drop me a note when you've wended your way through these; I've got 360,000
more if you need them...

DustyB
--
-= Remove CARBS to reply =-

[Lexin]

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> > > A despot is a despot--does it
> > > really matter what's in his heart?

> "Lexin" wrote:
> > Yes, I think it does. If people make the repeated point that
"political
> > and social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, as exemplified by
tyrant [snippage] In short, if you're going to
>> claim that social philosophy X leads to bad effect Y, at least choose
a
>> valid example.


"HealthNutz" wrote:
> Liberal, elitist
> intelligentsia ruminations at their pointless finest!

I think if you don't understand why your thinking here is sloppy, we
probably have nothing further to discuss.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[HealthNutz]

"Lexin" > wrote in message
om...
....
> As has already been pointed out in this thread, over 30m people died
> in WW2 defending freedom. Around 290,000 of those were from the US.
Let's not include part of the 50 or so million that Stalin killed in his
internal purges in order to rid himself of those that dissented to his
vision of a workers paradise. To include them as valorous participants is
quite disingenuous of you.

I've let your 30m assertion lie, as it was only ancillary to the issue. But
I grow weary of your constant repetition of an inaccurate figure.

Total human beings exterminated over the course of the war:
Soldiers: 22.0M
Civilians
In camps, from Fascist terror: 12.0M
From hostilities, blockade, epidemics, hunger: 14.5M
From bombing: 1.5M
Total: 50M

The country-by-country medians for military personnel killed in the war are:
USSR: 10.0M
Germany: 3.5M
China: 2.05M
Japan: 1.5M
USA: 0.4M
Romania: 0.3M
Yugoslavia: 0.3M
UK: 0.28M
Italy: 0.23M
France: 0.21M
Hungary: 0.14M
Poland: 0.125M
TOTAL: 19.0M
[Source: various; Britannica, Rummel (1990), Davies (1998), Urlanis]

Even more sickening are the "democides" (deaths by governments against their
own citizens) for the Stalin era (1924-53). While numbers vary (depends on
the 'slant' of the historian), the median number hovers around 50-51,000,000
human beings!

....
> As far as the cold war goes, the West was in it together. The USA
So, was this a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?

> shares (if I remember my geography) a tiny portion of its border with
It does not. Unless you consider the one with "The Peoples Republic of
Kalifornia" ... (:-)!

> the former USSR, but part of Germany was handed over to the
> communists. There is no moral high ground here, and trying to take it
It was not "handed over to the communists", it was a part of the Yalta
agreement formulated for Roosevelt by Stalinist spies, Alger Hiss, and Harry
Dexter White. With the help of those insiders, Stalin "got" to take Poland,
the eastern third of Germany, and Hungary among other spoils.

What that has to do with "moral high ground", is beyond me. That
arrangement sucked (esp. for those in E.Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc...).
They should have let Patton have his way.

> on behalf of your nation only makes you look foolish.
No, my friend, it is you that looks simplistic, complicit, *and* foolish!

Gotta go,
DustyB

[HealthNutz]

"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
....
> "HealthNutz" wrote:
> > Liberal, elitist
> > intelligentsia ruminations at their pointless finest!
>
> I think if you don't understand why your thinking here is sloppy, we
> probably have nothing further to discuss.
On the contrary, my friend. It is you that is blind, and operating sans
thinking.

You equate "talking" about things, to "doing" something. And *that* is why
you and your socialist ilk are always in trouble...

DustyB

[HealthNutz]

"Sir Algernon 'Splidgy' Streeve-Greebling" > wrote in
message ...
....
> No, grasshopper, your leaders have learned well, but they have learned
> nothing. The USA is now marching into a bigger, better global conflict,
but
"Better"?

> this time armed with infinitely more terrifying weaponry, an infinitely
> greater sense of blinkered self-righteousness and infinitely more
I love that term, "blinkered self-righteousness". How morally superior and
indignant sounding!

But, to quote an old friend of mine, "Moral indignation is nothing more than
jealousy with a halo!" -- HGWells

> impassioned hatred ranged against it. Previous wars were primarily
> territorial. This one is ideological, much like the Crusades. As such,
it
> is going to be far longer and far nastier ...
I'll agree with that.

But if the US doesn't stand up to terror, who then? You, "grasshopper"?

If what the US is doing is wrong, what would you suggest? Roll over and
play dead? Or learn to pray to Allah on your knees while listening to bad
tapes of gawd-awful caterwauling 5-times/day?

Since none of the rest of the world is willing or able to do anything; you
should probably obey: Lead! Follow! Or get the hell outta the way!

I'm delighted that my country is standing up for freedom and liberty, even
if you aren't. And I'm willing to endure the slings and the arrows of the
those that would rather take the easy path, and submit to totalitarianism.


L8r,
DustyB

[Lexin]

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> You equate "talking" about things, to "doing" something. And *that*
is why
> you and your socialist ilk are always in trouble...

Er...no.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[Lexin]

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> But, to quote an old friend of mine, "Moral indignation is nothing
more than
> jealousy with a halo!" -- HGWells

Well, precisely. And moral indignation, it seems to me, is exactly the
attititude you're displaying with regard to Europe in our earlier
discussion.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[HealthNutz]

Er...no.

DustyB

"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
> "HealthNutz" wrote:
> > But, to quote an old friend of mine, "Moral indignation is nothing
> more than
> > jealousy with a halo!" -- HGWells
>
> Well, precisely. And moral indignation, it seems to me, is exactly the
> attititude you're displaying with regard to Europe in our earlier
> discussion.
....

[Lexin]

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> I looked through several years of newspapers, and couldn't find a
single
> instance of such civil/human rights abuses here. Perhaps you'd care
to
> enlighten us?

Well, personally and without wishing to open a whole different can of
worms, I think that any country which still has the death penalty and
moreover a death penalty which seems to be more imposed on black people
than it is on whites has quite a way to go in the human rights field.

Additionally, there's the problem of poor people not having the same
access to healthcare as everyone else. And there's that weird place
those poor people who were considered to be likely to have involvement
with terrorism were sent to - didn't look like equal access to justice
to me. Look closely at any country and you'll find issues which really
should be addressed, 'my country right or wrong' has always struck me as
being rather like 'my mother drunk or sober', it's understandable, but
it's not pretty.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[Crescent Mu_n]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:06:07 GMT, "Carmen " >
wrote:

>Have you ever thought about getting a license? I know when you looked
>at Manfred's equipment you might have just seen a pile of metal with
>lots of knobs but there's a wide array of niches available.
>* Slow scan TV: passing pictures over the air via radio waves after
>they've been digitized.
>* Amateur TV: passing video over the air.
>* Microwave frequency work. (A ham was responsible for developing
>spread spectrum, frequency hopping technology.)
>* Satellite work - you can use amateur satellites to work long distances
>with low power by using the satellite as a rebroadcasting device.
>* APRS: Using a GPSr and amateur radio to create a "tracking system".
>* PSK31: Uses radio waves to pass text information realtime over the air
>from one computer to another.
>* Talk to the International Space Station.
>* Fox Hunts: A transponder is hidden that emits a signal and using
>triangulation techniques is hunted down.
>* Morse Code or CW: This is still a viable option that's capable of
>punching messages through on low power over long distances.
>I know I probably sound like a recruiter, but it really is a good hobby,
>although depending on what one does with it it can become a great deal
>more. :-)

I found all of it very interesting but I haven't the time to take the
responsibility on...at least right now.


>Carmen:
>Sarge and I have similar outlooks on this sort of thing - the pride is
>mutual.
>We live in Clarksville, which is one of the communities that surrounds
>Fort Campbell. It's about 45 minutes north of Nashville

Know it well. I have college buddies from there, visit Middle Tenn
frequently, uncle/aunt (deceased) that lived in the Green Hills area,
etc.


><In reference to PDF417 codes on drivers' licenses>
>Crescent Mu_n wrote:
>> Guess who has figured out how to stuff your fingerprint, encrypted,
>> into that format?
>> Guess who has figured out how to stuff your DNA encoding, encrypted,
>> into that format?
>
>Carmen:
>Um, let me guess. The military branch of the gov't?

lol

They have been helpful, yes.

>I know that the DNA samples they took from military folks can be used to
>positively identify remains in the case of deaths that cause massive
>tissue destruction like plane crashes, but it's the other possible uses
>that give me pause.

Great pause.

>Sometimes it would be nice not to think so much....

Yes, it would.

[Barry Smith]

"HealthNutz" > wrote in message
...
> "Barry Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> > > eastern Germany. Until just recently, they couldn't do what you are
> > doing.
> > > And that same fate was AND STILL IS the goal of the international
> > communist
> > > party today.
> >
> > Do you have a link for this international communist party?
> http://www.vcp.nu/vcpnieuws/links.htm
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/links/
> http://www.basque-red.net/eng/links/ecomueng/c001.htm
> http://www.wpiran.org/links/links.html
> http://www.communist-party.org.uk/home/index.php
> http://www.communist-party.ca/links/WEurope.html
> http://www.kominf.pp.fi/Textra.html
> http://www.cpusa.org/article/archive/41/
>
> Drop me a note when you've wended your way through these; I've got 360,000
> more if you need them...
>
> DustyB

Ta!

[Chet Hayes]

"Carmen " > wrote in message >...
> On 21-Sep-2003, (Chet Hayes) wrote:
>
> Carmen wrote:
> > > > >The incidents where air crews were allowed to throw Arab
> > > > >appearing passengers off planes because they "made them nervous"
> > > > >didn't arouse a general
> > > > >outcry either.
>
> Chet wrote:
> > I thought the issue was what the US govt was doing, not one isolated
> > airline crew? Of the thousands of flights everyday, this happened
> > what once, maybe twice, yet it troubles you so and there is supposed
> > to be some public outcry over it? Without specifics, it's impossible
> > to know exactly what went on and who was right. There are far more
> > instances of flight crews having to deal with unruly passengers on a
> > regular basis. I'd much rather see flight crews have broad discretion
> > instead of tying their hands. Anyone treated unfairly has remedies
> > available in the civil courts and I'm sure the ACLU will be more than
> > happy to help them.
>
> Carmen:
> My point was that the American government, which is supposed to be the
> protector of our rights, did nothing to protect the rights of the
> minority in this case. In the instances that came to light the
> passengers weren't removed from the planes because of *behavior* - that
> would be appropriate - they were removed because of *appearance*.


It just really shows how wacked out your thinking is that a couple of
incidents of people being thrown off a plane is the first thing you
bring up as evidence of the evil ways of the US govt. This is a
country of 300 mil people, with thousands of airline flights a day.
This happens a couple of times, gets quickly picked up by the media,
and you complain that the US govt didn't protect their rights. What
exactly was the govt supposed to do? Should we give all arab looking
people John Ashcrofts cell phone number so that on the 1 in a million
chance this happens, they can call him on the spot?

Regarding airline procedures, Norman Maneta was interviewed on 60
minutes and made it clear that the DOT position is that everyone
should be screened and treated the same, regardless of where they are
from, what they look like, etc. He was asked, should an 80 year old
grandmother receive the same scrutiny that a group of young men of
middle eastern descent, with foreign passports that are praying before
getting on the plane get? His answer was, why of course. If I was
Bush, I would fire this idiot and get someone with some common sense,
but it shows what the govt is doing is just the opposite of what you
claim.





>
> Carmen wrote:
> > The detention of people in jails without access to
> > > > >lawyers and without charges being brought against them, the
> > > > >denial of
> > > > >access to the subpoenas used to detain some of these people on
> > > > >the
> > > > >government's insistence that the information was "secret" have
> > > > >been noted and
> > > > >forgotten.
>
> Chet wrote:
> > Those that have been captured abroad are enemy combatants captured in
> > a war and are not US citizens. Did we provide a lawyer for those
> > captured in any previous war? Personally, I hope the military is
> > using evey means possible to extract info from these terrorists to
> > save lives.
> > There are a few people who are US citizens in all this that I would
> > agree are being treated unfairly. One is the Padilla (spelling) guy
> > from Chicago who was arrested for working with Al Qaida and has been
> > held for many months without access to a lawyer.
>
> Carmen wrote:
> This is the sort of person I was talking about - Americans, living in
> America.
>
> Chet wrote:
> > BTW, do you have any complaints about what the great liberal President
> > Roosevelt did when he locked up all the Japanese Americans during
> > WWII? Does it trouble you that there was no public outcry at the time
> > over that one?
>
> Carmen wrote:
> Hell yes! Racism is racism, regardless of the particular skin pigment
> involved. Don't you see? We did that, within memory of people who are
> alive right now, and *still* there was no outcry when some people
> started talking along the same track - identity cards for
> Arab-Americans? That ought to have set off a klaxon of alarm bells. It
> didn't.


I'd like to see a link to anyone in the US govt that proposed identity
cards for Arab-Americans. What some have proposed is a national
identity card for everyone. As far as I know, none of these proposals
have come from the Bush administration or any govt agency.

BTW, it's easy to point the finger 50 years later at Roosevelt for
what he thought was the right thing at the time to save the country
fighting a world war. Now we know the outcome, that the US won the
war, and that the Japanese Americans were no serious threat.
Roosevelt didn't have the luxury of knowing how history would turn
out.


>
> Carmen wrote:
> > > Yet people like Chet will castigate me in one post for my views,
> > > challenging me to produce instances of abusive behaviors on the
> > > government's part, then remain strangely silent when I post those
> > > instances. Hmmm...
>
> Chet wrote:
> > Never have to worry about silence here. This is the first specifics
> > I've seen from you.
>
> Carmen:
> You didn't comment on them until I noted that you hadn't. They were
> made the day *before* you said I hadn't provided specifics. The post
> you responded to, which this is in turn a response to, was made the
> 18th. Your post asking for specifics was made the *19th*.
>
>
> Carmen

[HealthNutz]

"Barry Smith" > wrote in message
...
....
> But these 3rd word ********s aren't the most powerful country on earth.
They
Something that I'm continually grateful for. Think of what they might have
done, had they the means to do so, in: Bali, Mombassa, Jakarta, Jerusalem,
Riyadh...

> don't stand for freedom and democracy around the world. They didn't do
much
So that makes it okay for them to act the way they do?

> to fight Nazism/Japanese imperialism. The then decent USA did, That is why
> when the USA is being run by a cabal of utter *******s, men driven by
power
You sir, have just made the transition from being a student and scholar of
history, and a citizen of the world, to utter and insouciant idiot!

....
> other countries take notice. Ignoring acts that are little short of evil
for
> reasons of party loyalty isn't going to make things better..
You have neatly and succinctly just described yourself and the basis for
your blind allegiance to those who would wish us harm! Thank you for taking
the time to do so...

Later all,
Dusty
--
Fighting the myopic lunacy of liberalism wherever I find it...

[HealthNutz]

"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
> "HealthNutz" > wrote:
> > I've never heard of anyone being turned away from any emergency
> > room or denied medical care.
>
> Funny, that. Both here and on livejournal I have come across several
> people in the US who won't go to their doctor - if they have one - for
"Several" people? A whole several out of close to 300 million. Damn! I
guess we'll have to just become socialists in order to care for those last
two folks...

Look, you're confusing medical care and the costs associated to giving care,
with cradle to grave "anything goes" dispensing of medical services. ANY
medical care, whether self-acquired or as a "benefit" from someone else, is
a service that needs to be paid for. When an employer provides medical
benefits for his employees, he simply goes out and for some sum per month or
year purchases a medical insurance policy.

Anyone can purchase one of them, even individuals (albeit usually at a
higher premium). If it came with your job, it's not really a "benefit",
it's part of the cost of getting you to do their business--and as such it's
simply subtracted from the amount that would have been paid to you. Hardly
a subject for an economics 101 dissertation.

When "the government" does it for you, it ALWAYS includes the unfought
inefficiencies of any bureaucracy. Just like American social security. For
each $1 that goes in the top, about $0.26 is dispensed to the recipients.
That's ALWAYS how unaccountable bureaucracies work.

A private insurer fights inefficiencies, because they take from his bottom
line. A government sponsored service simply raises your taxes or reduces
your services, or most likely both! I saw that happen in the UK, and other
countries as well as here. It will ALWAYS be the result of government
meddling in what should be a private matter.

The reason hospital visits here are so expensive are manifold. But here's
one example that happens countless times each day across this land (my SIL
is an ER-tech so I get this stuff FIRST HAND). Local indigent (drunk, alky,
stoner, illegal, looser, or just plain poor <pick your poison>) goes to the
ER for treatment of one thing or another. Sticks his head in and finds 10's
or many dozens of folks ahead of him waiting to be seen (the load varies but
it's almost always a wait). He goes back out, walks down the block, finds a
phone, and calls 911. The typical response is fire, rescue, and EMD
(ambulance) is dispatched. 3-vehicles and about 10-20 people. He gets
picked up, taken back to that SAME ER, and gets seen IMMEDIATELY, jumping
ahead of all of the folks; mothers with kids, colds, coughs, flu, wounds,
broken bones, etc. He gets his boil lanced or finger wrapped, says he's
hungry (and they MUST feed him) has usually soiled his clothes (and the MUST
re-clothe him), and goes on his way. The county will not get one, thin,
dime from this looser who just scammed the hospital [& taxpayers] for the
service and the $5k ride (about the average cost to the county per
dispatch).

The hospital can't function w/o $$, so they pass this cost on to the rest of
the folks that use their service--and of course the guileless taxpayer. And
in our local ER, about a third of the folks they see are "can't/don't pay"
or skip-artist drifters.

There are other reasons for the high-cost of medical care; fear (of being
sued) and others. But it's the freeloaders on society that impose the high
price on all of us. And there's no amount, kind, or type of government
bureaucracy that will ever reduce that--it will only and always encourage
it. It's a socialist pipedream, and can never come out successfully unless
human nature can be modified. And the only folks recently that managed to
that was the old Soviet Union. You got the care you got, and you didn't
complain about it. And since folks couldn't complain, the complacent world
thought that this was the neatest thing for mankind since sliced bread (I
probably shouldn't use that analogy in this NG (:-)! ).

Socialized medicine does not work. I have no wish to see my medical
services go the way of yours just so every hung-over or malingering dimwit
can run down to the docs to get their "slip" to be off work for a few days.
No. Not me!

> things which would have me running to my NHS GP yelping for help because
> they say that they can't afford it. It's folks like that who worry me,
> who have something niggling, or even quite serious but which isn't
> serious enough to go to the local hospital which takes poor people, but
> can't afford the doctor bills to get it sorted out.
That's why you carry medical insurance. And that's why you plan on taking
care of yourself. Instead of investing in another pack'o fags (cigarettes
for the yanks reading here), this weeks lotto ticket, a few pints at the pub
while standing at the oche and tossing a few...

As the old Arab saying goes; once the camel gets his nose in the tent, it's
his. First the stupid compassionless liberals wanted social security, then
medic-aid, and now insurance...there's never going to be an end to it.
Human nature will ALWAYS want more than they pay for. Soon it'll be shoes,
then VCR's, then satellite systems, there's no end to what folks
want...except to take care of themselves...at their own expense...

I pay for my family and my own medical insurance, why do you feel entitled
to stick your hand into *my* pocket and demand that I pay yours as well?
That's not freedom for me, that's enforced, indentured servitude.

....
> You must have been very, very unlucky in your treatment over here
Perhaps, not enough exposure to know. But I do know that my British
neighbors seemed to concur with my observations.

....
> > I'm delighted that they've been captured and are now down there.
>
> Even the ones who haven't done anything?
Of course. The place is filled to overflowing with innocent, peaceful,
Muslims. When they are found to be without involvement, they are released
and repatriated immediately.

Keep in mind that those folks weren't taken captive by storming and subduing
a coffee shop. They were taken captive during and after violent
fire-fights. So please don't lay the "those poor folks" argument on me too
thickly.

> > And I
> > suspect that the victims of the events of 9/11 not agree with you.
> How does imprisoning innocent people get them justice?
As long as the victim are still dead, they'll see no "justice". See above
for your specious guilt assessment.

....
> Yes, I noticed those countries, too. I don't see any rush on the part
> of any country - yours, mine or anyone else's - to solve the problems of
> the people laboring under tinpot dictators but whose countries have no
It was wrong not to interfere, so we agree. Something should have been
done. By force of arms if necessary. But who? The UN? They're a debating
society that has no army, no purpose, and no courage. By the French? The
Russians? Chinese? Or possibly the US? If we don't go in; and we're
uncaring, clueless, unfeeling assholes. If we go in; and it's to rape,
plunder, murder innocent (gun-toting) citizens, and grab all the oil &
mineral rights as we wrap up yet another imperial conquest. As the saying
goes, we can't win for losin'...

> oil. Coincidence? Or does the USA's desire to intervene in other
> people's countries only apply in certain circumstances?
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with no one from those countries
having flown airliners into our cities, stridently braying how they were
going to defend their causes against "the evil ones" (anybody except
themselves), and none of them have the means to mount a meaningful attack
against us or their neighbors?
D'ya think that might have had anything to do with it?

The third-world ********s with oil, literally pump their treasury out of the
ground. The have vast wealth, that appears even greater when set against
their rather meager numbers and their stark, institutionalized poverty.
Like all tin-pot dictators the first thing they do is use that oil money to
buy weapons, and "become important!" Nobody, in that neck'o the woods
becomes really important until and unless they can tweak the nose of the
"great Satan". And if easily and often done, that begins to empower them to
think that maybe they are the equal of the "great Satan". One thing leads
to another, and you have a fracas over it.

If the US had the balls and will to do so, they'd wait for one of those
third-world wanna be's to reach out and try that. Then turn and stomp 'em
absolutely flat and back into prehistory. The lesson would only need be
done once. I'd bet the rest of 'em would find other things of occupy their
free time, as opposed to angrily posing for CNN...

Damn! Where's the time gone...gotta run...
DustyB

[Lexin]

Lexin wrote:
> > Funny, that. Both here and on livejournal I have come across
several
> > people in the US who won't go to their doctor - if they have one -
for

"HealthNutz" wrote:
> "Several" people? A whole several out of close to 300 million. Damn!
I
> guess we'll have to just become socialists in order to care for those
last
> two folks...

The fact that there is *anyone* in an advanced and wealthy country like
the US claiming that they can't afford basic medical care is worrying,
at least to my mind. And one of those was working, but at a job which
didn't include medical insurance as a benefit and which was so low paid
she couldn't afford hit herself. Not didn't want to pay, but couldn't.
I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
wouldn't.

> When "the government" does it for you, it ALWAYS includes the unfought
> inefficiencies of any bureaucracy.

And when the service is provided by private industry it includes the
inefficiencies of private bureaucracy. Administration of medical care
and insurance services is unavoidable and expensive, it makes little
difference whether it's private or public - except that when it's
private you get many more bureaucrats, because each private company has
to have their own. This even spreads as far as having their own company
lawyers. I do know that in the UK (for example) all legal services for
the whole of three government departments, one of them being health, is
provided by about the same number as can be employed by one very much
smaller private company. And legal services ain't cheap.

I once had the pleasure of having dinner with a top NHS executive (a
Chief Executive of a major city hospital, and a very pleasant and funny
bloke) and a selection of other executives, including ones from private
companies involved in support services. In response to questioning from
a group of students they had to admit that privatisation of hospital
services such as cleaning and catering probably hadn't saved the UK
taxpayer a single penny. And, IMO, those services in hospitals now are
worse than they were when they were publicly provided, the staff
providing them are paid less, and have poorer job security. The theory
that private companies could provide these services cheaper and better
because they had an eye to the bottom line - which was what we were
told - simply hasn't been borne out by experience. Which was what the
public service unions said at the time, only the government of the day
didn't want to listen.

> Just like American social security. For
> each $1 that goes in the top, about $0.26 is dispensed to the
recipients.
> That's ALWAYS how unaccountable bureaucracies work.

Where do you get these figures from? I wonder because social
security - in both the US usage of the term and the different European
usage - is something I happen to know a great deal about (social
security systems and how they compare across countries was the subject
of my masters degree) and I don't recall seeing those figures before.

> There are other reasons for the high-cost of medical care; fear (of
being
> sued) and others. But it's the freeloaders on society that impose the
high
> price on all of us.

More likely it's the multiplicity of service providers in the form of
insurers which all have separate bureaucracies in the form of
administration.

> I pay for my family and my own medical insurance,

So do I, only it comes out of my wages in the form of taxes and national
insurance. Besides, how is someone very elderly supposed to pay for
medical insurance? It's fine for someone young, who's working and can
take care of themselves in the way you espouse but I wonder what you'd
think if your parents were elderly and in poor health - they have
medicaid and the like, and thus would be among those 'freeloaders' you
castigate. By the time people are elderly and in poor health and need
medical services, their insurance premiums have long gone into some
company executive's house in the country.

> That's not freedom for me, that's enforced, indentured servitude.

Well, yes. But they so is working for an employer as soon as you have a
mortgage or a car loan. It's life, live with it.

> > > I'm delighted that they've been captured and are now down there.
> >
> > Even the ones who haven't done anything?
> Of course.

And that, guilty or not, consulates attached to their home countries are
having difficulties gaining access to them and organising legal
representation - the plight of three of the detainees who have British
citizenship made the news the other day. As far as representation is
concerned, they're entitled to it whether guilty or not because without
that decent representation we can never know whether they're guilty or
not.

In the face of atrocity (in this case an IRA bomb which killed several
people) public hysteria and the understandable desperation of law
enforcers to have something to show for their efforts led to the
miscarriages of justice known as the "Guildford Four" and the
"Birmingham Six" - people who spent several years in prison for
something they hadn't done. In the case of the Birmingham Six, had we
had the death penalty they would have died so strong was public opinion
against them. I wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen again in my
country, and I don't want to see it happen in anyone else's.

> If we don't go in; and we're
> uncaring, clueless, unfeeling assholes. If we go in; and it's to
rape,
> plunder, murder innocent (gun-toting) citizens, and grab all the oil &
> mineral rights as we wrap up yet another imperial conquest. As the
saying
> goes, we can't win for losin'...

That's the price you pay for being the most powerful country in the
world. Like a parent, you can never be right, and it's something you
have to learn to live with.

--
Lexin
www.redrosepress.co.uk
www.livejournal.com/~lexin
LC since 9 June 2003
(300/263/182)

[Barry Smith]

"HealthNutz" > wrote in message
...
> "Barry Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...
> > But these 3rd word ********s aren't the most powerful country on earth.
> They
> Something that I'm continually grateful for. Think of what they might
have
> done, had they the means to do so, in: Bali, Mombassa, Jakarta,
Jerusalem,
> Riyadh...
Irrelevant..
>
> > don't stand for freedom and democracy around the world. They didn't do
> much
> So that makes it okay for them to act the way they do?
Irrelevant
>
> > to fight Nazism/Japanese imperialism. The then decent USA did, That is
why
> > when the USA is being run by a cabal of utter *******s, men driven by
> power
> You sir, have just made the transition from being a student and scholar of
> history, and a citizen of the world, to utter and insouciant idiot!
Is that the best you can do?
>
> ...
> > other countries take notice. Ignoring acts that are little short of evil
> for
> > reasons of party loyalty isn't going to make things better..
> You have neatly and succinctly just described yourself and the basis for
> your blind allegiance to those who would wish us harm! Thank you for
taking
> the time to do so...

So to whom do you think I owe my "blind allegiance" then? Or does thinking
your president is an unworthy peice of scum mean that I am automatically
anti American and pro terrorist?

>
> Later all,
> Dusty
> --
> Fighting the myopic lunacy of liberalism wherever I find it...
More like defending the cause of authoritarianism and political *******ry
wherever it is under challenge by free thinking people.

[Chet Hayes]

"rosie readandpost" > wrote in message >...
> > For example, I have no problem with a wire tap being granted that
> > allows the govt to intercept a suspected terrorists calls wherever
> > they are made, eg public phone, cell phone, internet phone, friends
> > phone, rather than getting a seperate warrant for every place calls
> > are made. Would you prefer to dance around on the head of a pin here
> > while more Americans die?
> >
> > As for learning from history, most Americans did, on 9/11. And
> > compared to what this country's response and course of action could
> > have been, all that we have done so far, looks very reasonable and
> > humane.
>
>
> this is a totally FEAR BASED response, and EXACTLY what the present administration is doing to the AMERICAN public.




This is simply updating wiretap laws from 75 years ago to the reality
of how communications are made today. What exactly is your problem
with this? Following your convoluted logic, if the FBI already has a
warrant for a suspects home phone, business phone, etc. and they see
him take his buddies cell phone and start talking, they should have to
go get another warrant and start all over again, instead of being
allowed to intercept that call under the original warrant. Sounds
very logical, fair and straightforward to most Americans. We would
rather catch criminals than play some liberal nonsense games, by which
suspects who aren't completely stupid, can keep moving to different
ways of communicating and accomplishing their goals, while the FBI
spins it's wheels.

[HealthNutz]

"Lexin" > wrote in message
...
....
> The fact that there is *anyone* in an advanced and wealthy country like
> the US claiming that they can't afford basic medical care is worrying,
I just paged through my copy of the document that outlines the charter of
the great country that I have adopted as my own. Nowhere in it did I find a
passage entitling someone to the fruits of my labors in place of theirs.
The words go something like, "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness ...", not, "... life, liberty, and equality of outcome and things
I can't be bothered to get ...".

> at least to my mind. And one of those was working, but at a job which
> didn't include medical insurance as a benefit and which was so low paid
> she couldn't afford hit herself. Not didn't want to pay, but couldn't.
And this is somehow my fault? I didn't get to have a say in her education
or her dedication to same, to her selection of a job/career, or where she
lives. As far as I know, it's illegal in this country to force someone into
servitude at a task, in a location, and at a reward that they won't
willingly and freely accept.

Bottom line; if you're dumb enough or ignorant enough to take a job that
won't give you the kind of life you think you're entitled to, it's your
fault, not mine! I can't afford to get a home in Hilo on the north coast
either. Does that make it your problem to fix? If you want to live like a
brain surgeon, become one. If you want to live one-step up from poverty, do
that instead... But don't make it my business to attend to your
business...I have enough to do with my own...

> I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
> pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
> wouldn't.
Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that this
thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from heaven; is
so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking it
weren't so ignorant.

There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray that
some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out that
corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased costs
are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always laughing at
you simple but only slightly useful idiots.

No government or business service or "benefit" is provided from the goodness
of someone's heart; it's ALWAYS taken, sometimes by force and under the
threat of eminent incarceration, from someone that didn't wish to give it.

> > When "the government" does it for you, it ALWAYS includes the unfought
> > inefficiencies of any bureaucracy.
> And when the service is provided by private industry it includes the
> inefficiencies of private bureaucracy. Administration of medical care
You're running about 6-sandwiches shy of a deli, my friend. Private
industry is beholding to the bottom line. They do not have the seemingly
limitless pockets of the taxpayer to pick in order to make up any
differences. They have to run and work at a profit. Otherwise they'd
become just another government function. That's why they are ALWAYS
superior to a government provided service.

That some specific service or function could be better done by the
government bureaucracy it replaces, can be debated, and sometimes may be so
(military, for instance, foreign relations, etc...). But I'd submit that
it's more a function of how poor or well that original bureaucracy worked,
and how well thought out it's replacement was. Replacing our DMV with
drones as equally uninspired as the present crop, working in the same
environment, and passing out the same bumbling, red-tape, bound processes,
isn't likely to be improved by privatization. OTOH; most any bank issuing
credit cards could take over that job at a tiny fraction of the cost of our
non-functional DMV monstrosity.

ANYTIME you have a non-accountable agency doing anything, it will ALWAYS be
done with less quality and care--and at greater cost!

> and insurance services is unavoidable and expensive, it makes little
> difference whether it's private or public - except that when it's
> private you get many more bureaucrats, because each private company has
> to have their own. This even spreads as far as having their own company
See the bit about companies and their bottom line above...

> lawyers. I do know that in the UK (for example) all legal services for
> the whole of three government departments, one of them being health, is
> provided by about the same number as can be employed by one very much
> smaller private company. And legal services ain't cheap.
I can't speak to the veracity of your statement. But in the absence of
facts to the contrary, I'll accept your view on this for the moment. That
having been said, I don't see how this in any way undermines my response to
you? You've just admitted that a government bureaucracy can't do it as
well---but then again, I already knew that! It was you that didn't....

....
> > Just like American social security. For
> > each $1 that goes in the top, about $0.26 is dispensed to the
> recipients.
> > That's ALWAYS how unaccountable bureaucracies work.
>
> Where do you get these figures from? I wonder because social
It's easy, actually. I did this exercise some years ago, but given
bureaucratic inertia, I suspect there's little positive change. You simply
take the number of dollars put into SS each year, and subtract the number of
dollars dispensed for services to those intended for that service. The
difference is the "shrinkage" that occurs internally to support all of the
government guaranteed life-time union jobs that become part of the load on
the taxpayer.

> security - in both the US usage of the term and the different European
> usage - is something I happen to know a great deal about (social
> security systems and how they compare across countries was the subject
> of my masters degree) and I don't recall seeing those figures before.
I would submit that perhaps you seek a refund. As it seems that you weren't
taught all that much considering the time, effort and money it took to do
that. Wait! Was this "education" paid for by the taxpayers by any chance?

....
> More likely it's the multiplicity of service providers in the form of
> insurers which all have separate bureaucracies in the form of
> administration.
Absurd on the face of it! So they each have their bureaucracy, so does any
government agency. You don't understand the real concept of redundancy
until you get into the government paper mill They still have to do it to
the bottom line, the government simply dips into my pocket when their
management gets too stupid to run things...

....
> So do I, only it comes out of my wages in the form of taxes and national
> insurance. Besides, how is someone very elderly supposed to pay for
Which effectively leaves one without a choice. Keep in mind as well, that
no place in England is more than 100 miles from the sea. Drive from
sea-to-shining-sea in your country, and you'll cover a plethora of towns,
villages, cities, and such. There are folks living here where a trip into
town or to see the doctor, can be several hundred miles...ONE way! With
nothing but sage brush or forests to break up the view. Having your
"designated" facility located several hundred miles away would not be a good
choice, when I want to see "my doctor" and not "your doctor"...

> medical insurance? It's fine for someone young, who's working and can
> take care of themselves in the way you espouse but I wonder what you'd
> think if your parents were elderly and in poor health - they have
So, you're saying that "old age", a heretofore unknown outcome of living
one's life, simply snuck up on and took over their lives? Is that about
right? Whatever happened to their responsibility for taking care of
themselves? If they simply wandered blindly into old age, unprepared, why
is it *my* problem to fix their lack of thinking and planning? Or is it
that a lifetime of paying the burdens of others ignorance, poor planning, or
desire to live in a welfare state, cost them so much that there was nothing
left over for themselves?

> medicaid and the like, and thus would be among those 'freeloaders' you
> castigate. By the time people are elderly and in poor health and need
> medical services, their insurance premiums have long gone into some
> company executive's house in the country.
Or into some government bureaucrats retirement benefits. Either way, it's
gone.

For me, I'd rather take care of me, myself. I don't want you or anyone else
to have a hand in guiding my investment decisions of what was taken by force
from me. As it is, my government left me an IOU with which to fund my
retirement, and my children and grandchildren; the bill... Socialism at
it's finest!

> > That's not freedom for me, that's enforced, indentured servitude.
>
> Well, yes. But they so is working for an employer as soon as you have a
> mortgage or a car loan. It's life, live with it.
No, that's an existence. I don't have to have a mortgage or car. I can
think and plan intelligently when I use my own money. I've not seen a
government program that cares more about me and mine than I do.

....
> And that, guilty or not, consulates attached to their home countries are
> having difficulties gaining access to them and organising legal
Good! If they were so concerned about contact and access to them, they
should have dressed them in uniforms and given them dog-tags and military ID
cards. Then the Red Cross would have been first in line to see them, and
they'd be accorded all of the rights of prisoners of war. Certainly better
than the rights of American and British POW's at the hands of Saddam.

Tell me, did Saddam's minions treat your uniformed and identified POW's in
the manner you're demanding that we treat these unidentified, skulking
vermin? Did the Iranians during Carter's hostage crisis? Did the Somalis?

> representation - the plight of three of the detainees who have British
> citizenship made the news the other day. As far as representation is
You should feel shame that they publicly identified themselves with your
otherwise great country. Instead you feel outrage that we don't canonize
them for their religion fueled idiocy.

> concerned, they're entitled to it whether guilty or not because without
> that decent representation we can never know whether they're guilty or
> not.
They were combatants. Unmarked (no uniforms or ID's) combatants. They have
no rights; anywhere; in any legal system. If it were up to me, they
wouldn't even get food or water. As long as they're locked up, they're not
killing yanks, brits, auzzies, each other, or flying airplanes into
buildings...

> In the face of atrocity (in this case an IRA bomb which killed several
> people) public hysteria and the understandable desperation of law
> enforcers to have something to show for their efforts led to the
> miscarriages of justice known as the "Guildford Four" and the
> "Birmingham Six" - people who spent several years in prison for
> something they hadn't done. In the case of the Birmingham Six, had we
> had the death penalty they would have died so strong was public opinion
> against them. I wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen again in my
> country, and I don't want to see it happen in anyone else's.
So you're saying that because your law enforcement functions were so inept,
that ours must be as well, and that we should follow your lead? You
couldn't figure out if these guys were innocent or guilty, but you're
certain that we've captured only the innocent ones? Did I get that just
about right?

....
> That's the price you pay for being the most powerful country in the
> world. Like a parent, you can never be right, and it's something you
> have to learn to live with.
And that's why we going to do our way. If you don't like it, you're welcome
to jump in and take a leadership roll. Any time you like. Cuz frankly, I'm
getting tired of us doing all the work, taking all the risks, paying all the
costs, just so the worlds free-loaders can bitch and moan about how we
didn't do enough for them...or that it's all about oil...


Later my misguided socialist friend,
DustyB

[Barry Smith]

"HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> > I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
> > pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
> > wouldn't.
> Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that this
> thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from heaven;
is
> so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking it
> weren't so ignorant.
>
> There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray that
> some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
> corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out
that
> corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased costs
> are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
> service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
> socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always laughing
at
> you simple but only slightly useful idiots.

Personally, I am willing to pay higher prices if I know the producer was
bound by a higher code of ethics. Just as I am happy to pax taxes if I know
it is being used to improve society: public schools and hospitals and people
who need looking after getting what they need.

[Chet Hayes]

"Barry Smith" > wrote in message >...
> "HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> > > I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers should
> > > pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
> > > wouldn't.
> > Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that this
> > thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from heaven;
> is
> > so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking it
> > weren't so ignorant.
> >
> > There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray that
> > some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
> > corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out
> that
> > corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased costs
> > are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
> > service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
> > socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always laughing
> at
> > you simple but only slightly useful idiots.
>
> Personally, I am willing to pay higher prices if I know the producer was
> bound by a higher code of ethics. Just as I am happy to pax taxes if I know
> it is being used to improve society: public schools and hospitals and people
> who need looking after getting what they need.


You're just the kind of person all the politicians like. Happy to
send them more money so they can try to fix all the worlds problems
with more spending.

Me, I say send them not a nickel more and let them learn how to live
with what they already get, like the rest of us. I don't know about
you, but I can't go to an employer and say, gee, you know, it would be
really worth it to put a new roof on my house, so give me a raise.

[Barry Smith]

"Chet Hayes" > wrote in message
m...
> "Barry Smith" > wrote in message
>...
> > "HealthNutz" > wrote in message
> > > > I felt that, really, in a country such as the US, her employers
should
> > > > pay for the insurance, but apparently they couldn't afford it or
> > > > wouldn't.
> > > Saying that an "employer" should pay for something or other, and that
this
> > > thing being paid for should then be viewed as entitled manna from
heaven;
> > is
> > > so short-sighted as to be laughable--and it would be if those seeking
it
> > > weren't so ignorant.
> > >
> > > There's no end to stupid and illogical dim-bulbs that constantly bray
that
> > > some cost, law, tax, or fee should be imposed upon those evil, rich
> > > corporations. Not a single one of those dipsticks has yet figured out
> > that
> > > corporations don't care! By their very nature *ALL* such increased
costs
> > > are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer of that corporation's product or
> > > service. That's how business works. A small but vital fact that you
> > > socialists haven't yet grasped; and why corporations are always
laughing
> > at
> > > you simple but only slightly useful idiots.
> >
> > Personally, I am willing to pay higher prices if I know the producer was
> > bound by a higher code of ethics. Just as I am happy to pax taxes if I
know
> > it is being used to improve society: public schools and hospitals and
people
> > who need looking after getting what they need.
>
>
> You're just the kind of person all the politicians like. Happy to
> send them more money so they can try to fix all the worlds problems
> with more spending.
>
> Me, I say send them not a nickel more and let them learn how to live
> with what they already get, like the rest of us. I don't know about
> you, but I can't go to an employer and say, gee, you know, it would be
> really worth it to put a new roof on my house, so give me a raise.
I agree so some extent. Just depends how willing you are to put up with
impoverished areas where crime is the main commercial activity. People will
always fall through the cracks and that helps no one.. At least if people
have enough to survive on, it keeps money circulating through the economy
and keeps local business going even during recessions.. You won't be
surprised to learn that I don't believe in the trickledown theory..

[Gary Rimar]

> you don't get it do you? The structure of the UN is about democracy and
> participation of the nations of the world in making decisions that
> affect everybody.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting up in the morning deciding who
is going to be for breakfast.

The UN is a lopsided organization that is anti-US, and while not totally
worthless, in some respects they are even worse than worthless.

Of course, as a Jew, I'm biased. When terroists go out with the expressed
intent and kill a dozen women and children in Israel, that is considered
"regrettable." When Israel retaliates and kills a terrorist that
masterminded the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, and in the process kills a
dozen women and children which the terrorist has surrounded himself, that is
a "war crime." The Palestinians say that terror is the only way they can
fight against the Jews because they don't have the ability to conduct a war.
Well then, how come the UN is sitting on (and ignoring) a petition to make
homicide bombing a war crime? How come when the Arab nations conduct a war
and acquire land from Israel they are allowed to keep it, but if during a
defensive action against Arab aggression Israelis get back some of that land
they are expected to give it back?

You might think I'm anti-Arab as well as anti-UN. I don't have a problem
with peaceful people, and if peaceful I couldn't care less what genetic
material went into making the person. I have a problem with terrorists, and
I don't care what religion or region they call their own. I'm just getting
sick and tired of some of the garbage that is going on in the world now, and
when Colin Powell equates terrorist homocide bombings with defensive
actions, I get ****ed. When Presidential candidates think that we have to
equate terrorist attacks with defensive actions so we can be "an honest
broker," I get very ****ed.

My apologies to the group for my rant, but I just had to get that off my
chest.