Discussion:
OT: Cartoon
(too old to reply)
Jim Thompson
2004-11-01 16:44:05 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Clarence
2004-11-01 18:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
Now THAT is funny.
Richard Crowley
2004-11-02 02:18:53 UTC
Permalink
"Jim Thompson" wrote ...
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
"Clarence" wrote...
Now THAT is funny.
It would be funnier if it had some portion of truth to it.
Rich Grise
2004-11-02 03:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
"Jim Thompson" wrote ...
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
"Clarence" wrote...
Now THAT is funny.
It would be funnier if it had some portion of truth to it.
This stuff does:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/political-humor.html

Cheers!
Rich
hamilton
2004-11-02 04:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
"Jim Thompson" wrote ...
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
"Clarence" wrote...
Now THAT is funny.
It would be funnier if it had some portion of truth to it.
Here is truth:

Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.

Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.



























;-)
Dennis M. O'Connor
2004-11-02 06:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.

And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !

--
Dennis M. O'Connor ***@primenet.com
Marc 182
2004-11-02 08:38:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@nnrp2.phx1.gblx.net>, ***@primenet.com
says...
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
This falls under the category of "I reject your reality and substitute
my own". Kerry isn't and hasn't. You made it up. Post evidence if you
think you have any.

Marc
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
2004-11-02 11:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.

I walk by the handout racks at the college where I work, and I see reams
of gov't supplied flyers titled "It's What A Man's Got To Do".
In other words, when you (males) turn 18, you have to register for the
DRAFT.

DUH.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
--
Dennis M. O'Connor
2004-11-02 14:30:39 UTC
Permalink
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <***@dslextreme.com>
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.

But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.

Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Terry Given
2004-11-04 21:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?

Cheers
Terry
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-04 23:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom
Post by Terry Given
Cheers
Terry
Terry Given
2004-11-05 00:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well
as non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming
it on socialism is ingenuous to say the least. The list of non-socialist
countries that have cmt might surprise you.

To paraphrase you:
banning homosexuality is a common thing in Islamic countries so it is no
surprise the Republicans are pushing it.

now do you see how silly your socialism comment is? there is no
cause-and-effect, its just pointless verbal posturing.

Cheers
Terry
Dennis M. O'Connor
2004-11-05 04:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <> wrote...
Post by Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well as
non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming it on
socialism is ingenuous to say the least.
I didn't blame socialism. See how the paragraph starts
"And show me someone from either side ..." ?

So your response, above, is complete nonsense.
Learn to fucking read, please.
--
Dennis M. O'Connor ***@primenet.com
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 08:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well
as non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming
it on socialism is ingenuous to say the least. The list of non-socialist
countries that have cmt might surprise you.
banning homosexuality is a common thing in Islamic countries so it is no
surprise the Republicans are pushing it.
-------------------------
Why? Republicans are usually members of the idiot faction of
an insane delusional Abrahamic religion, and Islam is in that
group!
Post by Terry Given
now do you see how silly your socialism comment is? there is no
cause-and-effect, its just pointless verbal posturing.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Wrongo! The ezample you just gave was the TRUTH!!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Terry Given
2004-11-05 10:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well
as non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming
it on socialism is ingenuous to say the least. The list of non-socialist
countries that have cmt might surprise you.
banning homosexuality is a common thing in Islamic countries so it is no
surprise the Republicans are pushing it.
-------------------------
Why? Republicans are usually members of the idiot faction of
an insane delusional Abrahamic religion, and Islam is in that
group!
This is true. I alas have never suffered from Faith (or that annoying
habit of Capitalising words to prevent rational discourse :)
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
now do you see how silly your socialism comment is? there is no
cause-and-effect, its just pointless verbal posturing.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Wrongo! The ezample you just gave was the TRUTH!!!
-Steve
As a Fur'ner, I know little about Republocrats and Demicans, so can
neither confirm nor deny - although of course the Abrahamic link is
undeniable (but rarely mentioned). They are however clearly not islamic,
which I think most people know, thereby illustrating my creative use of
the principle of Reductio Ad Absurdum to demolish the pathetic straw man
put up by DMO'C.

Cheers
Terry
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 11:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well
as non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming
it on socialism is ingenuous to say the least. The list of non-socialist
countries that have cmt might surprise you.
banning homosexuality is a common thing in Islamic countries so it is no
surprise the Republicans are pushing it.
-------------------------
Why? Republicans are usually members of the idiot faction of
an insane delusional Abrahamic religion, and Islam is in that
group!
This is true. I alas have never suffered from Faith (or that annoying
habit of Capitalising words to prevent rational discourse :)
------------------
Nothing wrong with upper case.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
now do you see how silly your socialism comment is? there is no
cause-and-effect, its just pointless verbal posturing.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Wrongo! The ezample you just gave was the TRUTH!!!
-Steve
As a Fur'ner, I know little about Republocrats and Demicans, so can
neither confirm nor deny - although of course the Abrahamic link is
undeniable (but rarely mentioned). They are however clearly not islamic,
which I think most people know, thereby illustrating my creative use of
the principle of Reductio Ad Absurdum to demolish the pathetic straw man
put up by DMO'C.
Cheers
Terry
----------
Not everything that seems indirect actually Reductio's Ad Absurdum.

Republicans are in favor of "Let the Market Decide", namely who gets
to own everything and to enslave the rest of us, and they believe
that this will magically make/keep them in the position of the
slave-masters of the planet. They are frightened by unlimited
Democracy because they know it has the power to strip them of
their unearned wealth and power they have stolen from the rest
of us. They seek to frighten the Majority out of using its power
to change the economic system, using disinforming threats and
appeals to backward power-worshipping religions with which they
are forced to align, though they are repeatedly caught violating
their strictures, to which they secretly have no actual adherence.
Republicans are inherent liars to obtain wealth and power and are
thus actually amoral.

Democrats are in favor of the Majority deciding, not merely what
clowns will next hold office and what they are limited to deciding,
to which that mere shadow of Its actual Promise Democracy has so far
been restricted, but also how the economic system is structured and
how it is permitted to function and with what result. Democracy can
decide who owns what, and why! The only lies Democrats tell are in
service to defeating the amoral criminal Republicans.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Rich Grise
2004-11-05 17:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?

I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.

Thanks,
Rich
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-06 08:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?
I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.
Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------
It wouldn't take a quarter of our early air-burst nuclear tests to
turn Islam into a meaningless religion of a few impoverished bedouins.
We survived those pretty well.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 17:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?
I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.
Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------
It wouldn't take a quarter of our early air-burst nuclear tests to
turn Islam into a meaningless religion of a few impoverished bedouins.
We survived those pretty well.
-Steve
Collateral damage?

Tom
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 18:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?
I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.
Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------
It wouldn't take a quarter of our early air-burst nuclear tests to
turn Islam into a meaningless religion of a few impoverished bedouins.
We survived those pretty well.
-Steve
Collateral damage?
That's not what's stopping them. What is stopping them is that they
wouldn't be able to get the oil for many years.

Notwithstanding the evil of mass murder on such an incomprehensible
scale.

Thanks,
Rich
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 18:54:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:39:19 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
Post by Rich The Philosophizer
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.
So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?
I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.
Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------
It wouldn't take a quarter of our early air-burst nuclear tests to
turn Islam into a meaningless religion of a few impoverished bedouins.
We survived those pretty well.
-Steve
Collateral damage?
That's not what's stopping them. What is stopping them is that they
wouldn't be able to get the oil for many years.
Notwithstanding the evil of mass murder on such an incomprehensible
scale.
There are precedents...

Tom
Post by Rich The Philosophizer
Thanks,
Rich
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-05 18:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well
as non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming
it on socialism is ingenuous to say the least. The list of non-socialist
countries that have cmt might surprise you.
banning homosexuality is a common thing in Islamic countries so it is no
surprise the Republicans are pushing it.
now do you see how silly your socialism comment is? there is no
cause-and-effect, its just pointless verbal posturing.
No...it is pointing out a flawed logical argument.

Tom
Post by Terry Given
Cheers
Terry
Terry Given
2004-11-05 00:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.

To paraphrase you:
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.

there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.

Cheers
Terry
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 08:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
Cheers
Terry
------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Terry Given
2004-11-05 10:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries. Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.

Ergo my somewhat terse "reverse your argument..." statement. Hell, he
doesnt even need to reverse the argument to see it can refute his first
statement.
Post by R. Steve Walz
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
Cheers
Terry
------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.
-Steve
too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above

Your comments about islam are however correct. It was perhaps not the
best example I could have chosen.


Cheers
Terry
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 11:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to, this is the
essence of slavery! They want you to do their work for NO PAYMENT,
in other words, as well as your own for the usual rate. Thus if they
pay you only for yours, then they pay you half what they should,
and pay themselves what they DO NOT EARN!! This is the meaning of
ALL wealth, NOT HAVING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE SLAVES! NO person
does not have to work merely because they have some magical "money",
they ALL rely on the rest of us doing ALL THEIR WORK *FOR* THEM AS
THEIR SLAVES!! Anyone who wants to be able to "not have to work again"
ACTUALLY means that they wish to ENSLAVE some of the RESt of us who
DO HAVE TO WORK! Thus ALL striving after wealth so that one does not
have to work is actually the desire and intent to ENSLAVE OTHERS!!
Post by Terry Given
Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.
--------------------------------
Israel DOES have a Socialist system! They have nationalized health,
education, retirement, vacations, and support for those who cannot
work. And MOST of Europe certainly *IS* Socialist!
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
Cheers
Terry
------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.
-Steve
too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above
-----------------------------
Few would be so stupid as to assume that. The implied allusion was
clearly that those two religions are both sexually backward Fundy
religions of the Abrahamic stripe, well known for being sexually
insipid and moronic. Only someone like I heard on a radio show the
other day ranting that the Mormons should all be taken to Guantanamo
because he assumed that "Mormons" were some kind of American "Muslim"
would assume something like that, and only out of abyssmal ignorance,
despite the totally accidental aptness of that claim against Mormonism,
because they are quite nearly as Fundy as the nuttyist Islamics!!
Post by Terry Given
Your comments about islam are however correct. It was perhaps not the
best example I could have chosen.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Yup.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Rich Grise
2004-11-05 17:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
This isn't necessarily true. It would be extremely difficult to literally
starve to death in the US, unless one were to set out to do so, which
would be suicidal, so doesn't count.

Unless, of course, you categorize "standing on the street corner waiting
for alms" or "dumpster-diving" as "work."

It _does_ pay surprisingly well, however. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-06 08:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
Re-posted because you deleted it:
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to, this is the
essence of slavery! They want you to do their work for NO PAYMENT,
in other words, as well as your own for the usual rate. Thus if they
pay you only for yours, then they pay you half what they should,
and pay themselves what they DO NOT EARN!! This is the meaning of
ALL wealth, NOT HAVING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE SLAVES! NO person
does not have to work merely because they have some magical "money",
they ALL rely on the rest of us doing ALL THEIR WORK *FOR* THEM AS
THEIR SLAVES!! Anyone who wants to be able to "not have to work again"
ACTUALLY means that they wish to ENSLAVE some of the RESt of us who
DO HAVE TO WORK! Thus ALL striving after wealth so that one does not
have to work is actually the desire and intent to ENSLAVE OTHERS!!
Post by Terry Given
Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.
--------------------------------
Israel DOES have a Socialist system! They have nationalized health,
education, retirement, vacations, and support for those who cannot
work. And MOST of Europe certainly *IS* Socialist!
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
Cheers
Terry
------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.
-Steve
too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above
-----------------------------
Few would be so stupid as to assume that. The implied allusion was
clearly that those two religions are both sexually backward Fundy
religions of the Abrahamic stripe, well known for being sexually
insipid and moronic. Only someone like I heard on a radio show the
other day ranting that the Mormons should all be taken to Guantanamo
because he assumed that "Mormons" were some kind of American "Muslim"
would assume something like that, and only out of abyssmal ignorance,
despite the totally accidental aptness of that claim against Mormonism,
because they are quite nearly as Fundy as the nuttyist Islamics!!
Post by Terry Given
Your comments about islam are however correct. It was perhaps not the
best example I could have chosen.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Yup.
------------------------------------
Repost of deleted material ends.
Post by Terry Given
This isn't necessarily true. It would be extremely difficult to literally
starve to death in the US, unless one were to set out to do so, which
would be suicidal, so doesn't count.
--------------------------------------
I just reviewed all that I wrote which you deleted and then responded to
and I see little about starving to death in the USA. Why are you
delusional?
Post by Terry Given
Unless, of course, you categorize "standing on the street corner waiting
for alms" or "dumpster-diving" as "work."
It _does_ pay surprisingly well, however. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
----------------
In any decent Communism it would be required that everyone work and
prove it to obtain access to food and that no one feed them under
penalty of law. So if they refused to work they had better learn
to eat bugs.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 08:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
I deleted the rest of it because I wasn't responding to the rest of it.

I was responding to "Everyone has to work to eat."

That is not true, unless you consider begging or dumpster-diving to
be "work."

The rest is conversation, which becomes irrelevant since it's based
on a fallacy.

Thanks,
Rich
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 08:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to,
So who gives a fuck what they want? Are they holding you at
gunpoint?

Slavery depends on the consent of the slave.

Thanks,
Rich
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 17:36:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:48:41 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
Post by Rich The Philosophizer
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to,
So who gives a fuck what they want? Are they holding you at
gunpoint?
Slavery depends on the consent of the slave.
Thanks,
Rich
I'm sure black America is really in approval of this line. :-(

Tom
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 18:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:48:41 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
Post by Rich The Philosophizer
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to,
So who gives a fuck what they want? Are they holding you at
gunpoint?
Slavery depends on the consent of the slave.
Thanks,
Rich
I'm sure black America is really in approval of this line. :-(
Hey, I didn't invent the way reality works, I merely report it.

Sorry that the facts aren't in alignment with your fantasies.

If they're pissed off about the slavery thing, they should take
it up with their African cousins that sold them to the rich white
traders.

Cheers!
Rich
Terry Given
2004-11-05 23:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to, this is the
essence of slavery! They want you to do their work for NO PAYMENT,
in other words, as well as your own for the usual rate. Thus if they
pay you only for yours, then they pay you half what they should,
and pay themselves what they DO NOT EARN!! This is the meaning of
ALL wealth, NOT HAVING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE SLAVES! NO person
does not have to work merely because they have some magical "money",
they ALL rely on the rest of us doing ALL THEIR WORK *FOR* THEM AS
THEIR SLAVES!! Anyone who wants to be able to "not have to work again"
ACTUALLY means that they wish to ENSLAVE some of the RESt of us who
DO HAVE TO WORK! Thus ALL striving after wealth so that one does not
have to work is actually the desire and intent to ENSLAVE OTHERS!!
Post by Terry Given
Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.
--------------------------------
Israel DOES have a Socialist system! They have nationalized health,
education, retirement, vacations, and support for those who cannot
work. And MOST of Europe certainly *IS* Socialist!
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
Cheers
Terry
------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.
-Steve
too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above
-----------------------------
Few would be so stupid as to assume that. The implied allusion was
clearly that those two religions are both sexually backward Fundy
religions of the Abrahamic stripe, well known for being sexually
insipid and moronic. Only someone like I heard on a radio show the
other day ranting that the Mormons should all be taken to Guantanamo
because he assumed that "Mormons" were some kind of American "Muslim"
would assume something like that, and only out of abyssmal ignorance,
despite the totally accidental aptness of that claim against Mormonism,
because they are quite nearly as Fundy as the nuttyist Islamics!!
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Your comments about islam are however correct. It was perhaps not the
best example I could have chosen.
Cheers
Terry
-------------
Yup.
-Steve
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 03:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
ROFL!

:-)
Terry Given
2004-11-06 04:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
ROFL!
:-)
As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
task, he let rip with something along the lines of:

"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."

which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.

Cheers
Terry
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 08:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Terry Given
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
ROFL!
:-)
As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."
which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.
ROFLMAOPIMP<*gasp*>LOL<*gasp*>ROFLMAOA<*gasp*>


Whew!
Rich
Terry Given
2004-11-06 10:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich The Philosophizer
Post by Terry Given
Post by Terry Given
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
ROFL!
:-)
As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."
which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.
ROFLMAOPIMP<*gasp*>LOL<*gasp*>ROFLMAOA<*gasp*>
Whew!
Rich
Hi Rich,

I hope you dont mind if I pinch your
"ROFLMAOPIMP<*gasp*>LOL<*gasp*>ROFLMAOA<*gasp*>" line and claim it as my
own :)

Honest though, thats what the guy said. We didnt get on very well. Once
after I got caned (6 of the best) for being disruptive, as I walked back
in somebody asked if it hurt - nah, I said, and was promptly marched
back outside for 6 more. I kept my mouth shut when I came back in, it
was starting to hurt by then :)

Still, it could have been worse. One of the woodwork teachers used to
take you outside, and make you bend over with your head sticking thru
the doorway whilst being caned, so the whole class looked at your face.
Another would make you bend over and stick your head underneath a desk,
so when you got caned you also smacked your head on the underside of the
desk. One teacher in particular, Harrison Ngatai (we used to call him
Nasty Harry) was banned from caning after managing to draw blood on one
poor bastard - big arms, thin cane. And my buddy Diz(zy Gillespie) got
caned in the back of the head, when Stock missed his arse. A week later
Diz was writing "stock is a wanker" on the blackboard when, unbeknownst
to Diz, Mr Stock walked in, and whacked Diz in the back of the head,
breaking his nose on the blackboard. That was 3rd form french, a real
fun class. One earthquake drill, instead of getting under our desks
(which Stock did) we threw our desks ontop of his, burying him under a
large pile. He used to swear underhis breath at the students, and
eventually left to take up a job at the all-girls school down the road.
6 months later he had a nervous breakdown, apparently the girls made us
look like amateurs :)

The summer break between my 6th and 7th form years, the government
banned corporal punishment in schools. A shame i think - I certainly
learned consequences - do what you must, but pay the price :)

Cheers
Terry
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 17:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Honest though, thats what the guy said. We didnt get on very well. Once
after I got caned (6 of the best) for being disruptive, as I walked back
in somebody asked if it hurt - nah, I said, and was promptly marched
back outside for 6 more. I kept my mouth shut when I came back in, it
was starting to hurt by then :)
Still, it could have been worse. One of the woodwork teachers used to
take you outside, and make you bend over with your head sticking thru
the doorway whilst being caned, so the whole class looked at your face.
Another would make you bend over and stick your head underneath a desk,
so when you got caned you also smacked your head on the underside of the
desk. One teacher in particular, Harrison Ngatai (we used to call him
Nasty Harry) was banned from caning after managing to draw blood on one
poor bastard - big arms, thin cane. And my buddy Diz(zy Gillespie) got
caned in the back of the head, when Stock missed his arse. A week later
Diz was writing "stock is a wanker" on the blackboard when, unbeknownst
to Diz, Mr Stock walked in, and whacked Diz in the back of the head,
breaking his nose on the blackboard. That was 3rd form french, a real
fun class. One earthquake drill, instead of getting under our desks
(which Stock did) we threw our desks ontop of his, burying him under a
large pile. He used to swear underhis breath at the students, and
eventually left to take up a job at the all-girls school down the road.
6 months later he had a nervous breakdown, apparently the girls made us
look like amateurs :)
If I was the father of any of these children, I'd have beaten the tar
out of any of these monsters, or would have at least attempted to. If
it's okay in a society to beat up children, I'd suspect a lawyer could
argue that I'd have that right with the ass, er, teachers as well.
Post by Terry Given
The summer break between my 6th and 7th form years, the government
banned corporal punishment in schools. A shame i think - I certainly
learned consequences - do what you must, but pay the price :)
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.

Tom
Post by Terry Given
Cheers
Terry
Clarence
2004-11-06 18:07:29 UTC
Permalink
"Tom MacIntyre" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!

If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 18:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence
<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.

It's only one of several options, and always the final one. A light
tap or two on the ass with an open hand is not likely to hurt anyone;
I am not taliking about drawing blood and/or inflicting pain, it's
about sending a message. Numerous courts are on my side in this in
North America. Broomsticks, paint stirring sticks, army belts, the
"strap", caning...the weapons of cowards. Thankfully times have
changed.

I am reaonably sure that it was actually NOT your step-father's line,
either...I am sure he was quite happy for you to be beaten first by a
teacher before he repeated the act. Accept my apologies if I am wrong.

Thanks for snipping the more relevant part of my post...must be a
by-product of your (unfair) corporal punishment, perhaps, to remove
evidence that may prove you wrong. :-P

Have you broken anyone else's nose?

Have a nice day.

Tom
Martin
2004-11-06 18:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Am Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:45:59 GMT schrieb Tom MacIntyre
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Clarence
<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.
It depends on the situation, it could have been, very likely, just self
defense in an assault from his stepfather - we dont really know.
--
Martin
Clarence
2004-11-06 18:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Clarence
<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.
Your speculation is unwarranted and absurd! Corporal punishment is not the
same as self defense! It was Self Defense! No crime there. Last time he hit me
it broke my collar bone. Like yourself he thought it was his "RIGHT" When he
learned I could have him put in prison, he apologized, like that helped! He
was trying to get me arrested, but the police had another view!

No, I have never broken anyone else's noise, but I did shoot a burglar in the
knee!
Self defense is always justified!

You seem to be defending the indefensible!
Terry Given
2004-11-06 21:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Clarence
<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....
Post by Tom MacIntyre
You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.
It's only one of several options, and always the final one. A light
tap or two on the ass with an open hand is not likely to hurt anyone;
I am not taliking about drawing blood and/or inflicting pain, it's
about sending a message. Numerous courts are on my side in this in
North America. Broomsticks, paint stirring sticks, army belts, the
"strap", caning...the weapons of cowards. Thankfully times have
changed.
I have yet to hit my (9.5yr old) daughter. I doubt the need will arise,
but should it I will not hesitate. I hardly even need to punish her -
when she misbehaves, I explain to her what will happen if she continues,
and that the outcome is entirely her choice. Because I am very
consistent (with a minimal set of rules too) Kate knows I will do
exactly what I say, and almost always chooses to end the bad behaviour.
I have found it to be a very effective technique, which has the added
advantage of teaching her about consequences. It didnt start to work so
effectively until she was 5 or so, and had developed a sufficient
vocabulary to understand the conversations; prior to that the bad
behaviour was punished (usually by being sent to bed, even at 10am)
Post by Tom MacIntyre
I am reaonably sure that it was actually NOT your step-father's line,
either...I am sure he was quite happy for you to be beaten first by a
teacher before he repeated the act. Accept my apologies if I am wrong.
Thanks for snipping the more relevant part of my post...must be a
by-product of your (unfair) corporal punishment, perhaps, to remove
evidence that may prove you wrong. :-P
Have you broken anyone else's nose?
Have a nice day.
Tom
Cheers
Terry
Clarence
2004-11-06 21:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Clarence
<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....
So beat him up and chain him in the basement? You can I suppose justify any
cruel treatment, You are full of it!

Nuts, you are so irrational it is not possible to have an exchange of ideas.
But anyone who would beat their kids should be publicly shamed!

You clearly have nothing of value to say, and no shame!

<snipped unnecessary verbiage>
Terry Given
2004-11-06 22:04:58 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Clarence
Post by Terry Given
Post by Clarence
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....
So beat him up and chain him in the basement? You can I suppose justify any
cruel treatment, You are full of it!
I didnt justify anything, I merely posed a real scenario and asked a
question. YOU suggested beating & chaining in a basement.
Post by Clarence
Nuts, you are so irrational it is not possible to have an exchange of ideas.
But anyone who would beat their kids should be publicly shamed!
and yet you are. Hmm.
Post by Clarence
You clearly have nothing of value to say, and no shame!
OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

Cheers
Terry (who has yet to smack his 9-year old daughter)
Clarence
2004-11-06 22:28:21 UTC
Permalink
"Terry Given" <***@ieee.org> wrote in message news:gUbjd.4466$***@news.xtra.co.nz...

Plonk!

Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 18:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clarence
<snip>
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.
Tom
That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!
But, weren't you for Bush?

Thanks,
Rich
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 18:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Hi Rich,
I hope you dont mind if I pinch your
"ROFLMAOPIMP<*gasp*>LOL<*gasp*>ROFLMAOA<*gasp*>" line and claim it as my
own :)
But of course! You _are_ its Creator, after all. ;-)

[was gonna snip the rest, as I have no more comment other than
hysterical gut-busting laughter, but it's too good to throw away]

Thanks!
Rich
Post by Terry Given
Honest though, thats what the guy said. We didnt get on very well. Once
after I got caned (6 of the best) for being disruptive, as I walked back
in somebody asked if it hurt - nah, I said, and was promptly marched
back outside for 6 more. I kept my mouth shut when I came back in, it
was starting to hurt by then :)
Still, it could have been worse. One of the woodwork teachers used to
take you outside, and make you bend over with your head sticking thru
the doorway whilst being caned, so the whole class looked at your face.
Another would make you bend over and stick your head underneath a desk,
so when you got caned you also smacked your head on the underside of the
desk. One teacher in particular, Harrison Ngatai (we used to call him
Nasty Harry) was banned from caning after managing to draw blood on one
poor bastard - big arms, thin cane. And my buddy Diz(zy Gillespie) got
caned in the back of the head, when Stock missed his arse. A week later
Diz was writing "stock is a wanker" on the blackboard when, unbeknownst
to Diz, Mr Stock walked in, and whacked Diz in the back of the head,
breaking his nose on the blackboard. That was 3rd form french, a real
fun class. One earthquake drill, instead of getting under our desks
(which Stock did) we threw our desks ontop of his, burying him under a
large pile. He used to swear underhis breath at the students, and
eventually left to take up a job at the all-girls school down the road.
6 months later he had a nervous breakdown, apparently the girls made us
look like amateurs :)
The summer break between my 6th and 7th form years, the government
banned corporal punishment in schools. A shame i think - I certainly
learned consequences - do what you must, but pay the price :)
Cheers
Terry
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 17:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Terry Given
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
ROFL!
:-)
As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."
When the "new math" was introduced in our school, our principal stated
that Base 2 and binary weren't the same.
Post by Terry Given
which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.
Sounds like working for the government...say what they want to hear.

Tom
Post by Terry Given
Cheers
Terry
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 20:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Terry Given
Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.
ROFL!
:-)
As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."
When the "new math" was introduced in our school, our principal stated
that Base 2 and binary weren't the same.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+lehrer%22+%22new+math%22
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.
Sounds like working for the government...say what they want to hear.
Yup.

;^j
Cheers!
Rich
Dennis M. O'Connor
2004-11-05 13:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries. Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do it
doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument.
Bullshit. Especially that last, which someone else posted.

If I thought you were anything but an idiot troll,
I'd pull up the posts from the archives and prove
what a pathetic liar you are.
--
Dennis M. O'Connor ***@primenet.com
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-05 18:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
No, it is pointing out that mutual exclusivity is rare.

Tom
Post by Terry Given
Cheers
Terry
Terry Given
2004-11-05 23:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
No, it is pointing out that mutual exclusivity is rare.
this is quite correct (sorry for the screw up in which I mistook you for
DMO'C). My entire point is that the original argument (basically
socialist countries do it therefore dems are socialist) was stupid - for
exactly the reason you pointed out, and clarified nicely here. My
mis-reading the name led me to argue that DMO'C contradicted himself
when in fact he did not - you pointed out the fallacious argument.

I'll try to read harder next time....
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Tom
Cheers
Terry
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 17:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
No, it is pointing out that mutual exclusivity is rare.
this is quite correct (sorry for the screw up in which I mistook you for
DMO'C). My entire point is that the original argument (basically
socialist countries do it therefore dems are socialist) was stupid - for
exactly the reason you pointed out, and clarified nicely here. My
mis-reading the name led me to argue that DMO'C contradicted himself
when in fact he did not - you pointed out the fallacious argument.
I'll try to read harder next time....
Maybe you got caned a few times too many... :-)

Tom
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Tom
Cheers
Terry
Terry Given
2004-11-06 21:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Post by Terry Given
Post by Winfield Hill
wrote...
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.
Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.
No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.
Post by hamilton
Post by Dennis M. O'Connor
And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !
To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."
I see no meaning in your response.
Is Israel a socialist country?
Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?
Tom
reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.
there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.
No, it is pointing out that mutual exclusivity is rare.
this is quite correct (sorry for the screw up in which I mistook you for
DMO'C). My entire point is that the original argument (basically
socialist countries do it therefore dems are socialist) was stupid - for
exactly the reason you pointed out, and clarified nicely here. My
mis-reading the name led me to argue that DMO'C contradicted himself
when in fact he did not - you pointed out the fallacious argument.
I'll try to read harder next time....
Maybe you got caned a few times too many... :-)
Tom
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Tom
Cheers
Terry
LOL

Nah, I blame the drugs

Cheers
Terry
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 22:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Maybe you got caned a few times too many... :-)
Tom
LOL
Nah, I blame the drugs
"They" say there's a correlation between being abused as a kid and
being an abuser.

Or is it just that all the convicted child abusers say, "I couldn't help
it - I was an abused kid!"

Did you know that 99.9% of the rapists in prison have eaten potatoes?

I wonder what % of convicted rapists are circumcised.
(yes, bring on the homo jokes, but I'll pass on the upper-decker-pecker-
checker job.)

;^j
Rich
Paul Wylie
2004-11-02 15:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad,sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.misc,alt.primenet.recovery
Followup-To: alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad,sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.misc,alt.primenet.recovery
[....]

Hey, watch your crossposting!

;-)

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
Jeff Thompson
2004-11-02 22:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
They both want to control your life, they only differ in what
part of it they want to control. And _everyone_ wants your money.
Charles Schuler
2004-11-03 23:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live. They support ridiculous policies that would quickly turn off
the electricity and the oil supplies. They seldom have a clue as to what
keeps their lights on or their automobiles running.

Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.

Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
Rich Grise
2004-11-04 00:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.
That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to redistribute
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.

Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.

And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.

Thanks,
Rich
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-04 03:06:15 UTC
Permalink
[]
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.
That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to redistribute
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.
Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.
And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
------------------------------
You just delude yourself that you're "enlightened".

TRUE enlightened self-interest is embodied best in People's Democratic
Communism, which:

1) Equalizes everyone's inheritance at birth of their fair share of
the world built up by all our common ancestors,

2) Which protects the weak from being underpaid and under-advantaged
by the strong,

3) And which grants everyone who works at something we all decide
we want together an equal wage per hour that anyone can achieve and
which anyone can be as well-off as they want,

As long as they don't fuck with anyone else's equal opportunity or
cheat anyone unfairly.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Rich Grise
2004-11-04 05:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
[]
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.
That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to redistribute
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.
Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.
And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
------------------------------
You just delude yourself that you're "enlightened".
No, no. I said that I "advocate" "enlightened self-interest." As to
whether I'm "enlightened" or not, I think, would depend on one's
definition of "enlightened."
Post by R. Steve Walz
TRUE enlightened self-interest is embodied best in People's Democratic
1) Equalizes everyone's inheritance at birth of their fair share of
the world built up by all our common ancestors,
2) Which protects the weak from being underpaid and under-advantaged
by the strong,
3) And which grants everyone who works at something we all decide
we want together an equal wage per hour that anyone can achieve and
which anyone can be as well-off as they want,
As long as they don't fuck with anyone else's equal opportunity or
cheat anyone unfairly.
Well, you seem to still be stuck on that "it's their responsibility
to feed me" mindset. Get over that, and it's a nice fantasy.

It is true, that it is the responsibility of whichever spirit I'm
the denial of, to undeny me, but that's about seven orders of
dimensionality divorced from the consensus reality.

I learn daily, in spades, that ranting at the oppressor just gives
them excuses for more oppression.

Your error, as I see it, is assuming that the oppressors are rational.

How do you stop an express train? Stand on the tracks and try to face
it down by sheer force of will? Of course not! You get squashed. You
stand alongside, and throw little rocks with intent to annoy the
wheels, and with any luck, derail it.

This is a metaphor, by the way.

Thanks,
Rich
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
2004-11-04 07:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
[]
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.
That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to
redistribute
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.
Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.
And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
------------------------------
You just delude yourself that you're "enlightened".
No, no. I said that I "advocate" "enlightened self-interest." As to
whether I'm "enlightened" or not, I think, would depend on one's
definition of "enlightened."
Post by R. Steve Walz
TRUE enlightened self-interest is embodied best in People's
Democratic
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
1) Equalizes everyone's inheritance at birth of their fair share of
the world built up by all our common ancestors,
2) Which protects the weak from being underpaid and under-advantaged
by the strong,
3) And which grants everyone who works at something we all decide
we want together an equal wage per hour that anyone can achieve and
which anyone can be as well-off as they want,
As long as they don't fuck with anyone else's equal opportunity or
cheat anyone unfairly.
Well, you seem to still be stuck on that "it's their responsibility
to feed me" mindset. Get over that, and it's a nice fantasy.
It is true, that it is the responsibility of whichever spirit I'm
the denial of, to undeny me, but that's about seven orders of
dimensionality divorced from the consensus reality.
I learn daily, in spades, that ranting at the oppressor just gives
them excuses for more oppression.
Your error, as I see it, is assuming that the oppressors are rational.
How do you stop an express train? Stand on the tracks and try to face
it down by sheer force of will? Of course not! You get squashed. You
stand alongside, and throw little rocks with intent to annoy the
wheels, and with any luck, derail it.
Sounds a lot to me like what Bin Laden did/does. :-/
Post by Rich Grise
This is a metaphor, by the way.
Thanks,
Rich
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-04 23:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
How do you stop an express train? Stand on the tracks and try to face
it down by sheer force of will? Of course not! You get squashed. You
stand alongside, and throw little rocks with intent to annoy the
wheels, and with any luck, derail it.
You just brought back a memory...I was working on the weekend for
Canada's national TV broadcaster, the CBC...it was the IWK Telethon
(that's a children's hospital in my province, and this telethon is
tied in with the Children's Miracle Telethon)...then, those video
shots from China...Tienemen Square...the single student facing down a
tank...

Tom
Post by Rich Grise
This is a metaphor, by the way.
Thanks,
Rich
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 07:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
[]
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.
That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to redistribute
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.
Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.
And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
------------------------------
You just delude yourself that you're "enlightened".
No, no. I said that I "advocate" "enlightened self-interest." As to
whether I'm "enlightened" or not, I think, would depend on one's
definition of "enlightened."
Post by R. Steve Walz
TRUE enlightened self-interest is embodied best in People's Democratic
1) Equalizes everyone's inheritance at birth of their fair share of
the world built up by all our common ancestors,
2) Which protects the weak from being underpaid and under-advantaged
by the strong,
3) And which grants everyone who works at something we all decide
we want together an equal wage per hour that anyone can achieve and
which anyone can be as well-off as they want,
As long as they don't fuck with anyone else's equal opportunity or
cheat anyone unfairly.
Well, you seem to still be stuck on that "it's their responsibility
to feed me" mindset. Get over that, and it's a nice fantasy.
-------------------
Why would you out-and-out LIE about what I have said!!

I have said that anyone who isn't working at a job that all of us
want done SHOULD BE STARVED TILL THEY DO! I have even said that
it should be ILLEGAL for ANYONE TO FEED THEM TILL THEY SIGN UP FOR
WORK!
Post by Rich Grise
It is true, that it is the responsibility of whichever spirit I'm
the denial of, to undeny me, but that's about seven orders of
dimensionality divorced from the consensus reality.
------------------------
Nobody understands what you just said there.
Post by Rich Grise
I learn daily, in spades, that ranting at the oppressor just gives
them excuses for more oppression.
--------------------------------
So then speaking against an oppressor is useless? You're ridiculous.
Post by Rich Grise
Your error, as I see it, is assuming that the oppressors are rational.
----------------------
No, I have no such erroneous belief. I'm speaking to those who are
oppressed.
Post by Rich Grise
How do you stop an express train? Stand on the tracks and try to face
it down by sheer force of will? Of course not! You get squashed. You
stand alongside, and throw little rocks with intent to annoy the
wheels, and with any luck, derail it.
This is a metaphor, by the way.
Thanks,
Rich
------------------------
If I were to stand in its way as you say I would start killing
Republicans without anyone helping me. I'd rather wait till one
half the country is ready to kill the other half. It won't be
long now.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
2004-11-04 07:34:02 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Grise" <***@example.net> wrote in message news:***@example.net...
[snip]

...
Post by Rich Grise
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
AIUI, every time there's a major snowstorm up there in Minnes-Oh-ta,
about 9 months later this mini spike in the birth rate and mini
population explosion occurs. ;-)
Charles Edmondson
2004-11-04 16:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.
That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to redistribute
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.
Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.
And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
AH-HA, so Rich, you are a Rational Anarchist! (Heinlein - "Moon is a
Harsh Mistress") Good, we need more of us... 8-)
--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
Rich Grise
2004-11-04 20:55:55 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Charles Edmondson
Post by Rich Grise
And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.
Thanks,
Rich
AH-HA, so Rich, you are a Rational Anarchist! (Heinlein - "Moon is a
Harsh Mistress") Good, we need more of us... 8-)
Unfortunately, it seems that there aren't enough of us to swing an
election! )-;

Thanks,
Rich
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-04 02:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
---------------------
Nonsense.
Conservatives want to keep your wages so low that you can never
afford to oppose thempolitically, invest your money and keep the
interest for themselves, and control your life by extracting monthly
tribute, rent/mortgage, for property that by birthright you should
have inherited.
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
-------------------------
Liberals want to take the money from the wealthy to disempower them,
and give it BACK to you who actually WORKED for it!
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live. They support ridiculous policies that would quickly turn off
the electricity and the oil supplies.
---------------------
No, those are just alarmist lies that the rich tell you to frighten
you out of disempowering them. The rich are NOT the magical reason
why the lights stay on. You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
to believe crap like that!
Post by Charles Schuler
They seldom have a clue as to what
keeps their lights on or their automobiles running.
----------------------------
But they want to give the power back to you worker-victims. Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
Post by Charles Schuler
Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.
------------------------------------
Yup. It's called organized crime, they just pay millions to keep the
people who own printing presses and TV stations from saying that!
Post by Charles Schuler
Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
----------------------------------
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them. The Rich
pay vast fortunes to convince people that nothing they can do will
help them, and that everyone who says they will is lying. It's very
important to despirit the slaves.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Rich Grise
2004-11-04 05:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
---------------------
Nonsense.
Conservatives want to keep your wages so low that you can never
afford to oppose thempolitically, invest your money and keep the
interest for themselves, and control your life by extracting monthly
tribute, rent/mortgage, for property that by birthright you should
have inherited.
Nah. That's the nazis. Ordinary conservatives just want to make
sure that nobody's having any fun, since fun is a sin.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
-------------------------
Liberals want to take the money from the wealthy to disempower them,
and give it BACK to you who actually WORKED for it!
Well, yeah, this is a very noble ideal, but exhorting the monied
to do the right thing has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of
years, to be futile. Sigh.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live. They support ridiculous policies that would quickly turn off
the electricity and the oil supplies.
---------------------
No, those are just alarmist lies that the rich tell you to frighten
you out of disempowering them. The rich are NOT the magical reason
why the lights stay on. You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
to believe crap like that!
Well, Yeah! Of course! So, are you, like I have been, still stuck on
the idea that exhortations could convince them to change their rapacious,
albeit profitable, ways?
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
They seldom have a clue as to what
keeps their lights on or their automobiles running.
----------------------------
But they want to give the power back to you worker-victims. Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
I don't understand this bit. The liberals want to see the tables
turned, not realizing that there is a very serious risk of turning
oneself into that thing that one hates. Is that it?
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.
------------------------------------
Yup. It's called organized crime, they just pay millions to keep the
people who own printing presses and TV stations from saying that!
Pretty much, yeah.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
----------------------------------
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them. The Rich
pay vast fortunes to convince people that nothing they can do will
help them, and that everyone who says they will is lying. It's very
important to despirit the slaves.
Well, the rich find themselves in the enviable position of controlling
all the resources. (BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from
capitalizing "The rich". My name is Rich, and I'm not one of them.)

And de-spiriting the slaves is very, very easy for them, since they
have already stolen all of the resources that the slaves have access
to, except for Will.

And distribution of resources is trivial, in the face of institutionalized
murder.

Thanks,
Rich
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
2004-11-04 07:51:16 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Grise" <***@example.net> wrote in message news:***@example.net...

[snip]
Post by Winfield Hill
Thanks,
Rich
Rich, Rich, Rich, goes to the beach.
Bitch, bitch, bitch, about the sand.

...
With a knick, knack, paddy whack, Give the dog a bone;
This old man came rolling home.

Eh..
JeffM
2004-11-04 21:51:13 UTC
Permalink
exhorting the monied to do the right thing
has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of years, to be futile.
Rich Grise
Not entirely accurate. In the not-so-distant past,
there was a concept called "noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)
where the richest guy in town was also the most generous,
using his money and influence to promote the general welfare.
The sharpest guys realized that if it wasn't for the serfs, little would get done.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=noblis-oblige

This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.
I'm wondering how far the divide will have to get
before the Poor realize that the Wealthy are edible.
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-04 23:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JeffM
exhorting the monied to do the right thing
has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of years, to be futile.
Rich Grise
Not entirely accurate. In the not-so-distant past,
there was a concept called "noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)
where the richest guy in town was also the most generous,
using his money and influence to promote the general welfare.
The sharpest guys realized that if it wasn't for the serfs, little would get done.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=noblis-oblige
This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.
Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy
projects, etc. I know...it does promote his business.

Tom
Post by JeffM
I'm wondering how far the divide will have to get
before the Poor realize that the Wealthy are edible.
u***@juno.com
2004-11-05 00:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom MacIntyre
Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy
projects, etc. I know...it does promote his business.
By percentages, he doesn't donate much of anything. To the poor, what he does
give seems like a lot, but he charitable donations amount to the equivilant of
a few hundred bucks at the most, to many of us. When a man with billions
donates a million, its laughable that anyone thinks that is a generous
donation.

Besides, he created massive computer illiteracy with his terrible products in
the first place, using illegal methods. Since his business is making horrific
software, the very least he can do is cough up a few bucks to help pay for
people to figure out how to use it.

John
Nicholas O. Lindan
2004-11-05 04:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Since [Bill's] business is making horrific
software, the very least he can do is cough
up a few bucks to help pay for
people to figure out how to use it.
Bonfire building 101?
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
JeffM
2004-11-05 08:37:24 UTC
Permalink
"noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)...
This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.
JeffM
Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy projects, etc.
Tom MacIntyre
What's a lot to a guy wih $50B?
When I hear him say "Ouch" I'll be impressed.
Terry Given
2004-11-05 10:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JeffM
"noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)...
This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.
JeffM
Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy projects, etc.
Tom MacIntyre
What's a lot to a guy wih $50B?
When I hear him say "Ouch" I'll be impressed.
Reminds me of a comment about wealth from one of the smartest engineers
I know, who pointed out that the optimum amount of money is 5.0 times
what you currently have.

Cheers
Terry
Rich Grise
2004-11-05 17:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by JeffM
exhorting the monied to do the right thing
has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of years, to be futile.
Rich Grise
Not entirely accurate. In the not-so-distant past,
there was a concept called "noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)
where the richest guy in town was also the most generous,
using his money and influence to promote the general welfare.
The sharpest guys realized that if it wasn't for the serfs, little would get done.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=noblis-oblige
Well, this is actually a pretty good idea, and in general, people
are pretty generous when their "cup runneth over." But, of course,
it's when the liars, cheats, and thieves found out that they could get
into government and steal with impunity, in the name of noblesse
oblige, that the system starts getting f'ed up.

i.e., when Da Gubmint takes by threat of force, that which would
have gone to charity, it seems to damp the impulse to generosity.
Post by JeffM
This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.
It appears so. I'd say the dividing line is, is coercion necessary
to implement a given plan?
Post by JeffM
I'm wondering how far the divide will have to get
before the Poor realize that the Wealthy are edible.
Pretty far - you can eat surprisingly well dumpster-diving in Palos
Verdes.

:-P

Cheers!
Rich
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 08:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
---------------------
Nonsense.
Conservatives want to keep your wages so low that you can never
afford to oppose thempolitically, invest your money and keep the
interest for themselves, and control your life by extracting monthly
tribute, rent/mortgage, for property that by birthright you should
have inherited.
Nah. That's the nazis. Ordinary conservatives just want to make
sure that nobody's having any fun, since fun is a sin.
----------------------------
Lots of what fools call fun is not, it's merely their own brainwashed
self-destructiveness from their abuse as a child. But the religiously
superstitious are against ACTUAL fun, like sexuality, but they seem
to support "sins" that are self-destructive, as being somehow better
than those that are NOT!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
-------------------------
Liberals want to take the money from the wealthy to disempower them,
and give it BACK to you who actually WORKED for it!
Well, yeah, this is a very noble ideal, but exhorting the monied
to do the right thing has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of
years, to be futile. Sigh.
----------------------------
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live. They support ridiculous policies that would quickly turn off
the electricity and the oil supplies.
---------------------
No, those are just alarmist lies that the rich tell you to frighten
you out of disempowering them. The rich are NOT the magical reason
why the lights stay on. You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
to believe crap like that!
Well, Yeah! Of course! So, are you, like I have been, still stuck on
the idea that exhortations could convince them to change their rapacious,
albeit profitable, ways?
-----------------------------------------
I'm not working to convince the rich of anything, They KNOW why they
lie to the resst of us, they PAY for the best liars and own the media!
Why would they even BOTHER to own and control the media if they did
NOT need to LIE to the rest of us to keep us down!!!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
They seldom have a clue as to what
keeps their lights on or their automobiles running.
----------------------------
But they want to give the power back to you worker-victims. Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
I don't understand this bit. The liberals want to see the tables
turned, not realizing that there is a very serious risk of turning
oneself into that thing that one hates. Is that it?
----------------------------------------
Liberals don't ALL believe in Socialism, but MOST of them do.
Rightist Reactionaries want crypto-Feudalism, where the strong
own and run everything for their advantage, and the rest of us
arethe equivalent of serfs. That *IS* what "Market" econimics
is, essentially, is, the assertion that whoever can cheat others
the best should be the richest/most powerful.
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.
------------------------------------
Yup. It's called organized crime, they just pay millions to keep the
people who own printing presses and TV stations from saying that!
Pretty much, yeah.
----------------------
Yup.
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
----------------------------------
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them. The Rich
pay vast fortunes to convince people that nothing they can do will
help them, and that everyone who says they will is lying. It's very
important to despirit the slaves.
Well, the rich find themselves in the enviable position of controlling
all the resources. (BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from
capitalizing "The rich". My name is Rich, and I'm not one of them.)
----------------------------
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!
Post by Rich Grise
And de-spiriting the slaves is very, very easy for them, since they
have already stolen all of the resources that the slaves have access
to, except for Will.
-----------------------
And there lies the rub, Majority Will can ONLY be undermined by
disinformation!
Post by Rich Grise
And distribution of resources is trivial, in the face of
institutionalized murder.
Thanks,
Rich
-----------------------------
The Majority can do whatever it wants, as soon as it WANTS!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Terry Given
2004-11-05 10:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
---------------------
Nonsense.
Conservatives want to keep your wages so low that you can never
afford to oppose thempolitically, invest your money and keep the
interest for themselves, and control your life by extracting monthly
tribute, rent/mortgage, for property that by birthright you should
have inherited.
Nah. That's the nazis. Ordinary conservatives just want to make
sure that nobody's having any fun, since fun is a sin.
----------------------------
Lots of what fools call fun is not, it's merely their own brainwashed
self-destructiveness from their abuse as a child. But the religiously
superstitious are against ACTUAL fun, like sexuality, but they seem
to support "sins" that are self-destructive, as being somehow better
than those that are NOT!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
-------------------------
Liberals want to take the money from the wealthy to disempower them,
and give it BACK to you who actually WORKED for it!
Well, yeah, this is a very noble ideal, but exhorting the monied
to do the right thing has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of
years, to be futile. Sigh.
----------------------------
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!
dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?

Mind you 80% of the worlds food comes from 4 crops - potatoes, corn,
rice, wheat.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live. They support ridiculous policies that would quickly turn off
the electricity and the oil supplies.
---------------------
No, those are just alarmist lies that the rich tell you to frighten
you out of disempowering them. The rich are NOT the magical reason
why the lights stay on. You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
to believe crap like that!
Well, Yeah! Of course! So, are you, like I have been, still stuck on
the idea that exhortations could convince them to change their rapacious,
albeit profitable, ways?
-----------------------------------------
I'm not working to convince the rich of anything, They KNOW why they
lie to the resst of us, they PAY for the best liars and own the media!
Why would they even BOTHER to own and control the media if they did
NOT need to LIE to the rest of us to keep us down!!!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
They seldom have a clue as to what
keeps their lights on or their automobiles running.
----------------------------
But they want to give the power back to you worker-victims. Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
I don't understand this bit. The liberals want to see the tables
turned, not realizing that there is a very serious risk of turning
oneself into that thing that one hates. Is that it?
----------------------------------------
Liberals don't ALL believe in Socialism, but MOST of them do.
Rightist Reactionaries want crypto-Feudalism, where the strong
own and run everything for their advantage, and the rest of us
arethe equivalent of serfs. That *IS* what "Market" econimics
is, essentially, is, the assertion that whoever can cheat others
the best should be the richest/most powerful.
The intersting thing about darwinism is that he based a lot of his ideas
on economic theories of the time, which basically were the strong eat
the weak.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.
------------------------------------
Yup. It's called organized crime, they just pay millions to keep the
people who own printing presses and TV stations from saying that!
Pretty much, yeah.
----------------------
Yup.
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
----------------------------------
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them. The Rich
pay vast fortunes to convince people that nothing they can do will
help them, and that everyone who says they will is lying. It's very
important to despirit the slaves.
Well, the rich find themselves in the enviable position of controlling
all the resources. (BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from
capitalizing "The rich". My name is Rich, and I'm not one of them.)
----------------------------
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!
Alas, the majority are sheep. Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs. But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
And de-spiriting the slaves is very, very easy for them, since they
have already stolen all of the resources that the slaves have access
to, except for Will.
-----------------------
And there lies the rub, Majority Will can ONLY be undermined by
disinformation!
Post by Rich Grise
And distribution of resources is trivial, in the face of
institutionalized murder.
Thanks,
Rich
-----------------------------
The Majority can do whatever it wants, as soon as it WANTS!
-Steve
If and only if it decides to switch its brain on. Luckily watching TV
and eating pizza is more attractive to the great unwashed.

Cheers
Terry
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 12:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
---------------------
Nonsense.
Conservatives want to keep your wages so low that you can never
afford to oppose thempolitically, invest your money and keep the
interest for themselves, and control your life by extracting monthly
tribute, rent/mortgage, for property that by birthright you should
have inherited.
Nah. That's the nazis. Ordinary conservatives just want to make
sure that nobody's having any fun, since fun is a sin.
----------------------------
Lots of what fools call fun is not, it's merely their own brainwashed
self-destructiveness from their abuse as a child. But the religiously
superstitious are against ACTUAL fun, like sexuality, but they seem
to support "sins" that are self-destructive, as being somehow better
than those that are NOT!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
-------------------------
Liberals want to take the money from the wealthy to disempower them,
and give it BACK to you who actually WORKED for it!
Well, yeah, this is a very noble ideal, but exhorting the monied
to do the right thing has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of
years, to be futile. Sigh.
----------------------------
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!
dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?
--------------------------------
Since it takes between 1% and 2% (it varies year to year) to own 50%
of the US wealth, that wouldn't be true.
Post by Terry Given
Mind you 80% of the worlds food comes from 4 crops - potatoes, corn,
rice, wheat.
------------------------------
I don't see the relation.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live. They support ridiculous policies that would quickly turn off
the electricity and the oil supplies.
---------------------
No, those are just alarmist lies that the rich tell you to frighten
you out of disempowering them. The rich are NOT the magical reason
why the lights stay on. You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
to believe crap like that!
Well, Yeah! Of course! So, are you, like I have been, still stuck on
the idea that exhortations could convince them to change their rapacious,
albeit profitable, ways?
-----------------------------------------
I'm not working to convince the rich of anything, They KNOW why they
lie to the resst of us, they PAY for the best liars and own the media!
Why would they even BOTHER to own and control the media if they did
NOT need to LIE to the rest of us to keep us down!!!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
They seldom have a clue as to what
keeps their lights on or their automobiles running.
----------------------------
But they want to give the power back to you worker-victims. Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
I don't understand this bit. The liberals want to see the tables
turned, not realizing that there is a very serious risk of turning
oneself into that thing that one hates. Is that it?
----------------------------------------
Liberals don't ALL believe in Socialism, but MOST of them do.
Rightist Reactionaries want crypto-Feudalism, where the strong
own and run everything for their advantage, and the rest of us
arethe equivalent of serfs. That *IS* what "Market" econimics
is, essentially, is, the assertion that whoever can cheat others
the best should be the richest/most powerful.
The intersting thing about darwinism is that he based a lot of his > ideas
on economic theories of the time, which basically were the strong eat
the weak.
-------------------
The Myth called "Social Darwinism" is not in any way, shape, or form
based on Darwin's Evolution of Species or natural selection.

NO competent theory of evolution suggests that advanced species such
as ours evolved by the strongest guys winning out, or we'd all look
like Neanderthal SwarzeNazi's, and you know what happened to the
Neanderthals!! They ain't here now! Humans evolved to be chief species
by being a hundred times MORE group-cooperative and group-coordinated
than any other species on this rock, and NOT by fighting amongst
ourselves AT ALL! Our superiority resides in keeping the brightest of
our nerds supported by the collective so they could innovate. It
resides in everybody running at danger to one of our weak, not running
away from it. We scared the shit out of every predator on earth because
we did things they didn't evolve to counter, like running at them en
masse, throwing things, and stabbing with sharp spears all at once!
NO other animal does anything like that, the non-victims flee, they
don't counter-attack en masse instantly as we do!
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.
------------------------------------
Yup. It's called organized crime, they just pay millions to keep the
people who own printing presses and TV stations from saying that!
Pretty much, yeah.
----------------------
Yup.
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
----------------------------------
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them. The Rich
pay vast fortunes to convince people that nothing they can do will
help them, and that everyone who says they will is lying. It's very
important to despirit the slaves.
Well, the rich find themselves in the enviable position of controlling
all the resources. (BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from
capitalizing "The rich". My name is Rich, and I'm not one of them.)
----------------------------
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!
Alas, the majority are sheep.
----------------
Except for that once in a while when they're not, otherwise we would
all still be serfs superintended in the fields by knights on horseback.
Post by Terry Given
Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs.
------------------
The ruthlessness factor is important only to the point where you cause
your serfs to become ruthless. Then you're a goner.
Post by Terry Given
But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.
------------------------
There are not enough soldiers under a nobility who will be able to take
on a Majority, and any larger army has to be raised from those slaves
themselves! As in Russia, the kids in the tanks do not fire on their
parents!!
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
And de-spiriting the slaves is very, very easy for them, since they
have already stolen all of the resources that the slaves have access
to, except for Will.
-----------------------
And there lies the rub, Majority Will can ONLY be undermined by
disinformation!
Post by Rich Grise
And distribution of resources is trivial, in the face of
institutionalized murder.
Thanks,
Rich
-----------------------------
The Majority can do whatever it wants, as soon as it WANTS!
-Steve
If and only if it decides to switch its brain on. Luckily watching TV
and eating pizza is more attractive to the great unwashed.
Cheers
Terry
----------------------------------------
So far. Wait. Watch.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Terry Given
2004-11-05 23:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your money.
---------------------
Nonsense.
Conservatives want to keep your wages so low that you can never
afford to oppose thempolitically, invest your money and keep the
interest for themselves, and control your life by extracting monthly
tribute, rent/mortgage, for property that by birthright you should
have inherited.
Nah. That's the nazis. Ordinary conservatives just want to make
sure that nobody's having any fun, since fun is a sin.
----------------------------
Lots of what fools call fun is not, it's merely their own brainwashed
self-destructiveness from their abuse as a child. But the religiously
superstitious are against ACTUAL fun, like sexuality, but they seem
to support "sins" that are self-destructive, as being somehow better
than those that are NOT!
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Post by hamilton
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your life.
-------------------------
Liberals want to take the money from the wealthy to disempower them,
and give it BACK to you who actually WORKED for it!
Well, yeah, this is a very noble ideal, but exhorting the monied
to do the right thing has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of
years, to be futile. Sigh.
----------------------------
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!
dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?
--------------------------------
Since it takes between 1% and 2% (it varies year to year) to own 50%
of the US wealth, that wouldn't be true.
I forget where I ran across those numbers, but the US is not all of the
worlds economy - not even half. But they still sound wrong.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Mind you 80% of the worlds food comes from 4 crops - potatoes, corn,
rice, wheat.
------------------------------
I don't see the relation.
If I was a terrorist, I'd go for biological warfare against those crops.
I'd also take out airliners with a bottle of rubbing alcohol and a
cigarette lighter (they burn really well).
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
The intersting thing about darwinism is that he based a lot of his > ideas
on economic theories of the time, which basically were the strong eat
the weak.
-------------------
The Myth called "Social Darwinism" is not in any way, shape, or form
based on Darwin's Evolution of Species or natural selection.
NO competent theory of evolution suggests that advanced species such
as ours evolved by the strongest guys winning out, or we'd all look
like Neanderthal SwarzeNazi's, and you know what happened to the
Neanderthals!! They ain't here now! Humans evolved to be chief species
by being a hundred times MORE group-cooperative and group-coordinated
than any other species on this rock, and NOT by fighting amongst
ourselves AT ALL! Our superiority resides in keeping the brightest of
our nerds supported by the collective so they could innovate. It
resides in everybody running at danger to one of our weak, not running
away from it. We scared the shit out of every predator on earth because
we did things they didn't evolve to counter, like running at them en
masse, throwing things, and stabbing with sharp spears all at once!
NO other animal does anything like that, the non-victims flee, they
don't counter-attack en masse instantly as we do!
thats just semantics - how you define "strong." Survival of the
fittest....not the strongest. Nevertheless Darwin did get many ideas
from prevailing economic theory. And I care not a jot about "social
darwinism" whatever that may be.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Conservatives want to shift all the money to their camp. They seldom have
even a single care for disadvantaged folks and have a smug and nasty
tendency to label them with disparaging terms.
------------------------------------
Yup. It's called organized crime, they just pay millions to keep the
people who own printing presses and TV stations from saying that!
Pretty much, yeah.
----------------------
Yup.
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Charles Schuler
Shitty choice (between liberal and conservative), in my humble opinion. I
don't much care for either label and prefer to discuss politics with folks
who understand the scientific method and who like to analyze rather than
spout party line crap.
----------------------------------
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them. The Rich
pay vast fortunes to convince people that nothing they can do will
help them, and that everyone who says they will is lying. It's very
important to despirit the slaves.
Well, the rich find themselves in the enviable position of controlling
all the resources. (BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from
capitalizing "The rich". My name is Rich, and I'm not one of them.)
----------------------------
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!
Alas, the majority are sheep.
----------------
Except for that once in a while when they're not, otherwise we would
all still be serfs superintended in the fields by knights on horseback.
The ratio of foxes to sheep is quite small. Soma = TV
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs.
------------------
The ruthlessness factor is important only to the point where you cause
your serfs to become ruthless. Then you're a goner.
maybe. Israel/palestine looks exactly like this, but the wealthy,
well-armed Israelis can flatten the palestinians no matter how pissed
off the palestinians get - hence the almost 4:1 casualty rate, and the
israelis havent even got nasty. Can 10,000,000 angry serfs with sticks
beat one ruthless bastard with a nuke? nope.

I think the argument here is that, eventually, nasty rulers will give up
before they wipe out all the serfs. or their minions will decide that
the serfs are right, and help take out the dictator. Or perhaps the
dictator simply runs out of bullets.
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.
------------------------
There are not enough soldiers under a nobility who will be able to take
on a Majority, and any larger army has to be raised from those slaves
themselves! As in Russia, the kids in the tanks do not fire on their
parents!!
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Rich Grise
And de-spiriting the slaves is very, very easy for them, since they
have already stolen all of the resources that the slaves have access
to, except for Will.
-----------------------
And there lies the rub, Majority Will can ONLY be undermined by
disinformation!
Post by Rich Grise
And distribution of resources is trivial, in the face of
institutionalized murder.
Thanks,
Rich
-----------------------------
The Majority can do whatever it wants, as soon as it WANTS!
-Steve
If and only if it decides to switch its brain on. Luckily watching TV
and eating pizza is more attractive to the great unwashed.
Cheers
Terry
----------------------------------------
So far. Wait. Watch.
-Steve
only time can tell.

Cheers
Terry
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-06 08:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!
dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?
--------------------------------
Since it takes between 1% and 2% (it varies year to year) to own 50%
of the US wealth, that wouldn't be true.
I forget where I ran across those numbers, but the US is not all of the
worlds economy - not even half. But they still sound wrong.
----------------------
No, my figures are for the USA.
But the US economy is a major part of the world economy.
In Europe it takes nearly 40% of the people to own half of everything.
Wealth is MUCH more concentrated in few hands in the USA!

http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/WealthDist_TheNation.pdf
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
The Myth called "Social Darwinism" is not in any way, shape, or form
based on Darwin's Evolution of Species or natural selection.
NO competent theory of evolution suggests that advanced species such
as ours evolved by the strongest guys winning out, or we'd all look
like Neanderthal SwarzeNazi's, and you know what happened to the
Neanderthals!! They ain't here now! Humans evolved to be chief species
by being a hundred times MORE group-cooperative and group-coordinated
than any other species on this rock, and NOT by fighting amongst
ourselves AT ALL! Our superiority resides in keeping the brightest of
our nerds supported by the collective so they could innovate. It
resides in everybody running at danger to one of our weak, not running
away from it. We scared the shit out of every predator on earth because
we did things they didn't evolve to counter, like running at them en
masse, throwing things, and stabbing with sharp spears all at once!
NO other animal does anything like that, the non-victims flee, they
don't counter-attack en masse instantly as we do!
thats just semantics - how you define "strong." Survival of the
fittest....not the strongest. Nevertheless Darwin did get many ideas
from prevailing economic theory. And I care not a jot about "social
darwinism" whatever that may be.
------------------------------------
The Group is always stonger/fitter than the individual. It took an
improvement in the brain to permit this to be utilized. A cooperating
group is more fit than the same number of individuals each for themself.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!
Alas, the majority are sheep.
----------------
Except for that once in a while when they're not, otherwise we would
all still be serfs superintended in the fields by knights on > > horseback.
The ratio of foxes to sheep is quite small. Soma = TV
------------------------------------
Actually, everyone above the lowest-paid 50% is abusing the people
beneath them. They need to be frightened out of it by Majority Terror.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs.
------------------
The ruthlessness factor is important only to the point where you cause
your serfs to become ruthless. Then you're a goner.
maybe. Israel/palestine looks exactly like this, but the wealthy,
well-armed Israelis can flatten the palestinians no matter how pissed
off the palestinians get - hence the almost 4:1 casualty rate, and the
israelis havent even got nasty. Can 10,000,000 angry serfs with sticks
beat one ruthless bastard with a nuke? nope.
-------------------------------------
But nukes aren't useful for domestic squabnles. If you nuke your
slaves you'll have to go back to work!
Post by Terry Given
I think the argument here is that, eventually, nasty rulers will give up
before they wipe out all the serfs. or their minions will decide that
the serfs are right, and help take out the dictator. Or perhaps the
dictator simply runs out of bullets.
-----------------------------
The serfs are so numerous that if they want, it won't take ten minutes.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.
------------------------
There are not enough soldiers under a nobility who will be able to take
on a Majority, and any larger army has to be raised from those slaves
themselves! As in Russia, the kids in the tanks do not fire on their
parents!!
So far. Wait. Watch.
-Steve
only time can tell.
Cheers
Terry
----------
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Tom MacIntyre
2004-11-06 17:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!
dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?
--------------------------------
Since it takes between 1% and 2% (it varies year to year) to own 50%
of the US wealth, that wouldn't be true.
I forget where I ran across those numbers, but the US is not all of the
worlds economy - not even half. But they still sound wrong.
----------------------
No, my figures are for the USA.
But the US economy is a major part of the world economy.
In Europe it takes nearly 40% of the people to own half of everything.
Wealth is MUCH more concentrated in few hands in the USA!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/WealthDist_TheNation.pdf
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
The Myth called "Social Darwinism" is not in any way, shape, or form
based on Darwin's Evolution of Species or natural selection.
NO competent theory of evolution suggests that advanced species such
as ours evolved by the strongest guys winning out, or we'd all look
like Neanderthal SwarzeNazi's, and you know what happened to the
Neanderthals!! They ain't here now! Humans evolved to be chief species
by being a hundred times MORE group-cooperative and group-coordinated
than any other species on this rock, and NOT by fighting amongst
ourselves AT ALL! Our superiority resides in keeping the brightest of
our nerds supported by the collective so they could innovate. It
resides in everybody running at danger to one of our weak, not running
away from it. We scared the shit out of every predator on earth because
we did things they didn't evolve to counter, like running at them en
masse, throwing things, and stabbing with sharp spears all at once!
NO other animal does anything like that, the non-victims flee, they
don't counter-attack en masse instantly as we do!
thats just semantics - how you define "strong." Survival of the
fittest....not the strongest. Nevertheless Darwin did get many ideas
from prevailing economic theory. And I care not a jot about "social
darwinism" whatever that may be.
------------------------------------
The Group is always stonger/fitter than the individual. It took an
improvement in the brain to permit this to be utilized. A cooperating
group is more fit than the same number of individuals each for themself.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!
Alas, the majority are sheep.
----------------
Except for that once in a while when they're not, otherwise we would
all still be serfs superintended in the fields by knights on > > horseback.
The ratio of foxes to sheep is quite small. Soma = TV
------------------------------------
Actually, everyone above the lowest-paid 50% is abusing the people
beneath them. They need to be frightened out of it by Majority Terror.
Aren't you in that category? I probably am at present, and income is
not nearly as skewed in Canada as it is in the US..

Tom
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs.
------------------
The ruthlessness factor is important only to the point where you cause
your serfs to become ruthless. Then you're a goner.
maybe. Israel/palestine looks exactly like this, but the wealthy,
well-armed Israelis can flatten the palestinians no matter how pissed
off the palestinians get - hence the almost 4:1 casualty rate, and the
israelis havent even got nasty. Can 10,000,000 angry serfs with sticks
beat one ruthless bastard with a nuke? nope.
-------------------------------------
But nukes aren't useful for domestic squabnles. If you nuke your
slaves you'll have to go back to work!
Post by Terry Given
I think the argument here is that, eventually, nasty rulers will give up
before they wipe out all the serfs. or their minions will decide that
the serfs are right, and help take out the dictator. Or perhaps the
dictator simply runs out of bullets.
-----------------------------
The serfs are so numerous that if they want, it won't take ten minutes.
Post by Terry Given
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Terry Given
But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.
------------------------
There are not enough soldiers under a nobility who will be able to take
on a Majority, and any larger army has to be raised from those slaves
themselves! As in Russia, the kids in the tanks do not fire on their
parents!!
So far. Wait. Watch.
-Steve
only time can tell.
Cheers
Terry
----------
-Steve
Charles Schuler
2004-11-04 14:22:02 UTC
Permalink
You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
Post by R. Steve Walz
to believe crap like that!
Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them.
Three "personal" slams and you are out, my friend!
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 08:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf
Post by R. Steve Walz
to believe crap like that!
Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?
This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them.
Three "personal" slams
---------------------
Only if you TAKE it "personally", WHINER!
Post by R. Steve Walz
and you are out, my friend!
--------------------
Nobody cares.

No Whining!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
John Larkin
2004-11-01 19:13:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:44:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
That makes sense. I think that most liberals and most conservatives
really pretty much want the same ends, a prosperous, healthy, just
society, but disagree on methods.

John
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"
2004-11-02 03:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:44:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
That makes sense. I think that most liberals and most conservatives
really pretty much want the same ends, a prosperous, healthy, just
society, but disagree on methods.
John
Perhaps that's because if you look past the pigeonholing terminology,
we're all people with certain traits of both.


So now past the serious point, please answer this...
What is forty feet long and has eight teeth?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The front row at a Willie Nelson Concert!!
Blair P. Houghton
2004-11-02 04:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 09:44:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
That makes sense. I think that most liberals and most conservatives
really pretty much want the same ends, a prosperous, healthy, just
society, but disagree on methods.
Conservatives believe the rules are more important than the principles.

Liberals believe the principles are more important than the rules.

--Blair
"It has a lot to do with who made the rules
and who they made them to profit."
Dennis M. O'Connor
2004-11-02 06:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blair P. Houghton
Liberals believe the principles are more important than the rules.
So what "principle" was it that led Clinton to cheat on his wife
with a government-provided intern, and then commit perjury
when asked about it ? What "principle" motivated the Liberal
nutjob that tried to run Katherine Harris down with his car ?
Or the Liberal thief caught on videotape stealing Bush signs
from his neighbor's front yard ?

The only principle the Democratic Party has is
"Do and say what you need to to win."
--
Dennis M. O'Connor ***@primenet.com
Winfield Hill
2004-11-01 21:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Jim Thompson wrote...
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
Some Pro Kerry cartoons. Enjoy. :<)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/previous-cartoons.html
--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)
Blair P. Houghton
2004-11-02 04:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
The "diff" is the Liberal means it.

Here's a cartoon for you:

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/cmp/2004/danziger2146.html

--Blair
"http://tinyurl.com/qip1"
Rich Grise
2004-11-02 04:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
You'll like this, from the John Kerry Loyalty Quiz:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blkerryquiz.htm?lastQuestion=1&answers=3&submit=Next+Question+%3E%3E&ccount=1

I like this question and its options:
Q: John Kerry is a habitual flip-flopper who comes out for something one day and against it the next day.
A. Agree
B. Disagree
C. Both agree and disagree

Cheers!
Rich

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar.
Mark Fergerson
2004-11-03 11:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.

Mark L. Fergerson
Rich Grise
2004-11-03 16:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.
Nah. The conservatives see society as an anthill, and the liberals
see it as a flower garden. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
Mark Fergerson
2004-11-04 16:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.
Nah. The conservatives see society as an anthill, and the liberals
see it as a flower garden. ;-)
So, the former want to feed us sugar water and the latter
bullshit? Sounds about right.

Mark L. Fergerson
R. Steve Walz
2004-11-05 08:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.
Nah. The conservatives see society as an anthill, and the liberals
see it as a flower garden. ;-)
So, the former want to feed us sugar water and the latter
bullshit? Sounds about right.
Mark L. Fergerson
---------------------
You're a swallower of the wealthy's disinformative bullshit.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ***@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Mark Fergerson
2004-11-05 22:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.
Nah. The conservatives see society as an anthill, and
the liberals
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Rich Grise
see it as a flower garden. ;-)
So, the former want to feed us sugar water and the latter
bullshit? Sounds about right.
---------------------
You're a swallower of the wealthy's disinformative bullshit.
You really ought to know better than that, especially
after all our previous discussions.

Maybe I compacted it a bit too far; I tend to see
cascades of consequences, like the fact that dentists would
just love all the potential work in such a case, like they
have now with "Officially Approved" dentifrices containing
massive amounts of sugar. Not to mention the other health
consequences of excess sugar consumption making work for
other branches of the "drug 'n' cut" medical types.

Besides, where does all the sugar come from? Don't
answer, as we all know that "banana republics" aren't built
solely on bananas.

Of course, that's a literal interpretation, but I meant
my statement to be taken allegorically. "Sugar water"
alludes to the Right's habit of painting everything in
shades of rose, while downplaying all the thorny
consequences of their agenda.

I won't bother explaining what I meant by the Left's
desires since you refuse to see their faults.

Mark L. Fergerson
Rich The Philosophizer
2004-11-06 03:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Grise
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Rich Grise
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
It's a matter of respective priorities. IOW for each, the
first is mandatory, the second if they can be bothered to
get around to it.
Nah. The conservatives see society as an anthill, and
the liberals
Post by R. Steve Walz
Post by Mark Fergerson
Post by Rich Grise
see it as a flower garden. ;-)
So, the former want to feed us sugar water and the latter
bullshit? Sounds about right.
---------------------
You're a swallower of the wealthy's disinformative bullshit.
You really ought to know better than that, especially
after all our previous discussions.
Maybe I compacted it a bit too far; I tend to see
cascades of consequences, like the fact that dentists would
just love all the potential work in such a case, like they
have now with "Officially Approved" dentifrices containing
massive amounts of sugar....
Of course, that's a literal interpretation, but I meant
my statement to be taken allegorically. "Sugar water"
alludes to the Right's habit of painting everything in
shades of rose, while downplaying all the thorny
consequences of their agenda.
This is wry. I was talking about how the society is organized,
R Steve Walz seems to be talking about food, albeit I do think
I grasp his symbolism, and you appear to be talking about
information distribution.

Verrry interesting....

;^j
Rich
Terry Given
2004-11-04 21:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Thompson
http://www.ronanddave.com/week/week.htm
...Jim Thompson
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/cartoons/

Cheers
Terry
Loading...