Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 28 Nov 2006 16:22 T Wake wrote: > It strikes me that although detention _will_ reduce the (other) crimes > committed by the addict for the period they are incarcerated, the long term > prospects are pretty glum. One of the few true lose-lose situations.
From: T Wake on 28 Nov 2006 16:27 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456C4B19.1EF9D405(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmcbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>Take a look at European nations that are blatant socialists. >> >> > >> >> >OK, Sweden. Saab, Volvo, Scania -- plenty of private enterprise. >> >> >> >> They're not private and they're not owned by Swedes. >> > >> >Stop lying please ! >> >> I can buy stock of the manufacturers of those products. >> They are not private and they are not owned by Swedes. > > What do you mean by 'private' in that case. > > They're not state-owned are they ? > It appears "private enterprise" has been redefined to mean something which is not run by the government and does not have shares available to trade. An interesting definition.
From: T Wake on 28 Nov 2006 16:41 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6fb$456ca8a6$4fe75f0$11912(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> It strikes me that although detention _will_ reduce the (other) crimes >> committed by the addict for the period they are incarcerated, the long >> term prospects are pretty glum. > > One of the few true lose-lose situations. > Yes. Would suffering the pain across society of allowing the drug addicts to remain out of jail while rehabilitation is attempted be worth it? I don't know. It is easy to say from the comfort of my home, but if my children were killed by the addict I would probably have a very different view point[*]. Even if the nation (any nation) went for the warm and fluffy option of rehab and treatment, there has to be a point at which some one is decided to be un-treatable, then the prison cycle and its attendant problems occur anyway. War on Drugs seems to me, sadly doomed to failure one way or another. [*] This is one of the reason (IMHO) the law should remain unemotional. The idea behind justice is it is "just" not vengeance. When the media show crying families calling for [insert change of law] it always strikes me as a crazy thing to respond to. Sadly, politicians are aware of the need to get re-elected!
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2006 17:09 On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:27:28 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >> Powerful minority parties were an >> >> >>anathema to them, as is seen now in parliamentary systems. >> >> >> >> Not at all. They saw the problems in England with a two-party system, and >> >> at least some felt they could be solved with multiple parties. >> > >> >Funny how it's turned out now then ! >> >> --- >> Why? We naturally gravitate to diametrical opposites. From time >> immemorial to the present we've had our time subdivided into night >> and day. From that we have evolved into creatures with symmetrical >> external bodies with mirror-image left and right sides. We also >> have good and evil, one and zero, right and wrong, republicans and >> democrats... > >So you guys have a 2 party system and we have a multi-party system. --- LOL, have _you_ got a lot to learn!!! http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm --- >In any case, the party system is broken now. Here at least. It may take some time >for you guys to catch up. --- To catch up to a broken system? That doesn't sound like such a good idea to me. Now, if you can somehow come up with a working direct democracy, _that_ would be news! -- JF
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2006 17:30
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:38:22 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> > John Fields wrote: >> > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> > > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> Powerful minority parties were an >> > > >> >>anathema to them, as is seen now in parliamentary systems. >> > > >> >> > > >> Not at all. They saw the problems in England with a two-party system, and >> > > >> at least some felt they could be solved with multiple parties. >> > > > >> > > >Funny how it's turned out now then ! >> > > >> > > --- >> > > Why? We naturally gravitate to diametrical opposites. From time >> > > immemorial to the present we've had our time subdivided into night >> > > and day. From that we have evolved into creatures with symmetrical >> > > external bodies with mirror-image left and right sides. We also >> > > have good and evil, one and zero, right and wrong, republicans and >> > > democrats... >> > >> > So you guys have a 2 party system and we have a multi-party system. >> >> Our system is two-party, by design. The founding fathers were >> afraid of a parliamentary system where a minority party could >> easily hold immense power. > >I have an issue with your idea of "immense power". Not very likely IME. --- There exists a parallel between your Prime Minister and our President in terms of their being the political heads of our respective governments, but since your system doesn't provide the checks and balances ours does, your PM wields, theoretically, immensely more power than does our President. Nearly that of a King, so perhaps you've not come as far as you'd like to think. Just for fun, let's set up a scenario where, for some reason, your PM runs amuck and, using his vast power, manages to take the UK to the brink of nuclear war. Who is the only person who can put him down quickly? --- >> > In any case, the party system is broken now. Here at least. It may take some time >> > for you guys to catch up. >> >> Not going to change without a new Constitution. > >If that's what it takes..... --- It's not going to happen. We've gotten to the top of the heap with our Constitution and it's not likely we're going to abandon it for something as silly as pie in the sky. -- JF |