Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 28 Nov 2006 17:53 On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:04:07 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ekhg1i$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <456C3FB2.16D1B25F(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> ><snip for brevity> >>>> Miners have skills that middle-income city slickers never learned. >>> >>>And are no longer valued ! >> >> They were no worth anything in the government-owned mines that >> were kept open just to keep thsoe people busy. > >Not true. You have no idea about running a country or people. > >>> >>>> All those workers needed was permission to go out and work. Union >>>> rules kept them idle. >>> >>>Simply not true BAH. >> >> They could not go out and work on a second job when idle. > >Yes they could. > >> Union life is almost a communist entity. They even have their >> own military infrastructure. > >Blimey. Do you visit reality very often? > >>> >>>It would be an insult to miners to call them idle. >> >> When a union is on strike, the members are not allowed >> to find another job. > >Yes they are. > >> They have to stand on the strike >> line and carry a piece of paper. > >Are you talking about the UK or US here? --- Ah, so... your powers of divination fail you and you have to ask? Feet of clay, indeed! -- JF
From: unsettled on 28 Nov 2006 19:55 John Fields wrote: > 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. It is in drastic need of overhaul. The problem is that the replacement would have its own wrinkles.
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 20:17 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > 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. > > Minority parties hold extraordinary power, as long as the are > needed to support a government. Having seen it in the UK ( it's quite rare ) I'd comment only that it wasn't the experience here. > > > > 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..... > > What makes you think it's going to happen at all? I don't especially. Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 20:23 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > Union life is almost a communist entity. They even have their > > own military infrastructure. > > Blimey. Do you visit reality very often? Good Lord ! I must have missed that one. Do US unions have their own militias then ???? < boggle> Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 20:36
John Fields wrote: > 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! The Swiss version seems to work rather well. Graham |