New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 4 Aug 2006 15:20 In message <3b57d2dc0pue0e65eqg504b9d9ljfig8ci(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >you take _my_ error and try to make it seem like it applies it to the >entire country as if _I_ was all of America Well, you and some of your colleagues here seem to claim to speak for the whole USA. And some of the opposite political persuasion also do that. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Frank Bemelman on 4 Aug 2006 15:31 "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> schreef in bericht news:44d34be9$0$2814$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in > bericht news:dp85d21r71jr2495asoedog49cp1kskcnk(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:26:26 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Just shows that the US has changed nothing. >>>In 1000 years the only thing the US will be remembered for will be the >>>moon landings. Not its brief shot at empire before the Chinese dominated >>>the globe. >> >> In 1950, at the end of 1000 years of European domination of the world, >> there were 22 democracies. By 2000, after a mere 50 years of evil >> American hegemony, there were 120, by far the greatest number in >> history. >> >> 120/22 = 5.4, a pretty serious factor. > > And you are counting Zimbabwe, Chile, Indonesia and Pakistan as > democracies? > > How many of the new democracies are new nation states? Papua-New Guinea > probably rates as a democracy in your book, but it does not score too well > on any index of democratic function. > > In short, point us to your list of democracies - both the one for 1950 and > the one for 2000. Does the actual number matter here? This is just one of JL's famous smoke curtains, pretending as if the increase in democracies is an all American achievement, for which the world - again - has to be thankful or something. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 15:36 John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:50:13 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > >> Full of American food, vehicles, fuel, and ammo. Britain imported 70% > >> of its food just before the war, and had no substantial domestic > >> source of avaition fuel. Texas saved England, and England prefers not > >> to remember. > > > >We also remember we had to pay the bill. It didn't come free as you seem to > >infer. > > The lives were free. You're welcome, even if you're not thankful. Of course we're thankful for your assistance. We were *both* at war though. It's not as if the US volunteered for it ! British, Commonwealth and the soldiers, airmen and sailors of other European countries died too you know ! Russian casualties were especially high. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 15:38 John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:36:14 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Don Bowey wrote: > > > >> I believe we should not fall into the trap of thinking the few USA bashers > >> here > > > >I'm bashing current US foreign policy, not the country ! > > But it hasn't changed much. The same policy that had us fight on your > side (as opposed to Germany's, or just sitting it out) is the policy > that makes us support Israel over Iran. It's that Democracy thing. You're not going to get 'your kind of democracy' in Iran this way. > >> represent their countries. > > > >Very representative actually. Not one Brit ( or any European ) has taken the 'US > >side' as presented by the right-wingers here. > > Or Israel's, either. Your point ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 15:38
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > > > > One bite of a Big Mac is enough, so I hear. > > Society made them do it! > > As twisted as all your other rumors. :( Another one who can't understand a joke ? Graham |