New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 4 Aug 2006 20:30 On 4 Aug 2006 16:25:48 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >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 you don't??!!! > 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. Well, take a look at these... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf > >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. Not so. Money is clearly necessary to mount a successful political campaign on any but the local level, but the money is available to virtually any viable candidate; he/she needn't be rich, and many mayors, govenors, and representatives aren't. Is Tony Blair poor? Jacques Chirac? Horst Kohler? And were they selected by popular election? > >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. Agreed. They are called "democracies." John
From: Rich Grise on 4 Aug 2006 21:00 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:32:02 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: > In message <f5a7d2pdo9eqlha46iun58gsdve3knqbqh(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug > 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>What I meant was the population, _not_ the land mass, FHS! > > Yes, of course, but the question is still nonsense. No-one can tell what > would happen; it depends so much on why you disappeared and when. And not only that, but there wouldn't be anybody there to find out! Cheers! Rich
From: Jim Yanik on 4 Aug 2006 20:42 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:+X65pK5C760EFwNV(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <f5a7d2pdo9eqlha46iun58gsdve3knqbqh(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 > Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>What I meant was the population, _not_ the land mass, FHS! > > Yes, of course, but the question is still nonsense. No-one can tell what > would happen; it depends so much on why you disappeared and when. If the US (nation,not landmass)were not around anymore,the rest of the world would eventually become less free.Perhaps enslaved. They do not realize the threats they face,and are unwilling to prepare to deal with them. They wrongly believe that negotiation or isolationism will solve all their troubles. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 4 Aug 2006 20:44 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:3ptbWzycMm0EFwvd(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <hhm4d21q5mgl9vu47lcd7krn5cfrb35b7t(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 > Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >> And, you should be afraid of us. You should be _very_ afraid. > > Rest assured, John. We ARE very afraid of people who express views > similar to those you express. They are so like those expressed by > militant Islamists. Then you have a misplaced sense of things. Our ACTIONS speak for themselves,and so do the Islamics. You seem to believe they are equivalent. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 4 Aug 2006 20:46
John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:EGRndMZvAz0EFw6f(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <44d32761$0$16497$e4fe514c(a)dreader12.news.xs4all.nl>, dated > Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> writes >>I'm told that China has enough dollars in the bank to *buy* the entire >>USA ;) the Japanese tried that a few years ago,lost their asses. >> >>And probably enough to buy Europe as well ;) > > Hence the saying, 'Go west, yuan man!'. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |