New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 18:59 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:59:18 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:58:14 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:07:18 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Interesting how hating Saddam made one a weak wimpy leftist back then, >> >> >and hating him now makes one a strong rightwing patriot. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> And what did hating the US make you back then, >> > >> >Probably considered vaguely irrational. >> > >> >> and what does it make you now? >> > >> >An increasingly popular opinion reflecting concern over the USA's inability to >> >get the picture. >> >> --- >> I asked what it makes _you_, not what popular opinion was, but no >> matter. Since you seem to identify with popular opinion, I suggest >> you're merely one of the sheep who is blindly caught up in a sheep >> stampede, LOL ;) > >I was hard pressed to find a good description. You see I don't *hate* the US nor >does anyone else I know. > >Exasperated about the USA would be more accurate. --- Because we're conducting our affairs in ways of which you disapprove, and while we're happy to take that into consideration, in the long run we'll do what we want to. What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let Israel die than to help her. Why is that? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 19:11 On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:16:09 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <c687d254mpenqg62t5jc453oqrp9l6sijr(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>In any case, lucky for you that we got dragged into it when we did, no? > >Yes. Some would say 'providential'. With a capital P, indeed. --- Providential for us, as well, that you were there since you helped us in _our_ war with Germany. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Frank Bemelman on 4 Aug 2006 19:12 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:ngj7d2hst8b7oe15nr9ksl8c3t6620fjgg(a)4ax.com... > What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I > guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let > Israel die than to help her. Why is that? An eye for an eye, not 10 eyes for an eye. Israel has just slaughtered too many. It has lost all of its credibility. It has no longer the benefit of the doubt. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Frank Bemelman on 4 Aug 2006 19:20 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:l3i7d2t6hnppubng26c12m121klnu976pd(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:42:11 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > >>Sounds fair enough. Actually, I never thought of the USA as a >>nation of fools, at least not until that nation voted for >>Bush for the *2ND* time. I mean, his first election can be >>called an honest mistake, but how can a nation continue to >>follow such an insane leader with such dangerous ideas? That >>is *very* hard to understand. > > --- > You have to understand, Frank, that we live in a country where what > we do actually _matters_, so I understand why you might be chagrined > by the fact that Bush's actions are totally different from what you > might consider to be in your best interests. > > As far as the "Nation of Fools" thing goes, even you must be aware > that the entire populace didn't vote for Bush. As a matter of fact, > only a miniscule percentage of it did, the electors who cast their > vote for him. > > http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html No, but about half the polulace voted so that the electors had a good chance keeping him in the saddle. In my book, that is the same. > A lousy system if ever I saw one, and I see no reason why > presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be carried out > on-line where the result would truly be popular. Coulda woulda shoulda? ;) -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: bill.sloman on 4 Aug 2006 19:25
John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:39:24 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Bill Sloman wrote: > > > >> "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: > >> > > >> >>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. > >> >> > >> >>Dirk > >> > > >> > 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. > > > >It seems he may have found this piece of serious disinformation ! > >http://www.hooverdigest.org/003/diamond.html > > > >I see they can't list them either. > > > >Graham > > > > > > Whatever you do, don't google "total number democracies world", or you > might encounter facts that you don't want to know. > > Oh, I'd also avoid "Berlin Wall" if I were you. If you count pre-Berlin Wall soviet satellites as non-democracies, and claim that they mostly became democracies after Yeltsin took over in Russia, you do get a marked step forward for democracy. Curiously, many of them have taken to re-electing the old Communist party politicians. In the old Soviet Union, you had to be a member of the communist party to eligible to stand in an election. In the U.S. you have to be a millionaire, or be supported by a miilionaire for it to be woth the trouble to stand for election, which doesn't strike me as all that different. > "Democracy Argentina" might be OK, since you (Maggie, actually) can > claim credit for that one. Okay - so you were looking at http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/democracy_dialogues/democracys_challenge-1.html which claims 20 democracies in 1950 out of about 80 sovereign states, and 120 out of 193 sovereign states. Looking at it the other way,there were 60 non-democratic sovereign states in 1950 and 73 today. Eeyore found http://www.hooverdigest.org/003/diamond.html which has serious doubts aboout the honesty of the elections in five of the 120 "democracies", and reservations about the freedom of the elections in Russia, Nigeria and Indonesia. I myself have doubts about the honesty of the electoral process in parts of the U.S.A. after Florida 2000, and the fairness of the electoral process that doesn't include any effective restraint on expenditure on advertising. 50 years of evil American hegemony does seem to have increased the number of states who describe themselves as democracies, but one can can have doubts about the sincerity of their devotion to democratic ideals - it seems likely that a fair number of them are aware that a democratic veneer will make it easier for them to do business with American firms and send their students to American universities. America itself is only fond of democracy as long as it produces governments that America finds sympathetic. Pinochet's military coup in Chile was notoriously US-inspired, as was the earlier coup in Guatemala. There have been qute a few others. In short, nice numbers, but a suspect classification. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |