New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 03:53 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <7mg7d2d0php4ti2vnnotee89pfuahp8dde(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 > Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >I don't know who you mean. > > I think you (or is it JT?) call them 'demoncrats'. The 2 sides call each other all sorts of nasty names. Repugnicans comes to mind. Slightly more amusing it has to be said. One thing I've noticed about Americans from the newsgroups is that they are very hostile to thoughts different to their own and very aggressive about defending their position ( including of course the use of personal abuse at an early stage ). Not amenable to rational discussion much at all. Just try pointing out the vastly lower murder rate in the UK compared to the USA on account of the few guns in circulation or our lower road death figures due to better understanding of road safety issues, better road layout and a better educated driving public and you're in for a treat ! Graham
From: Phat Bytestard on 5 Aug 2006 04:06 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:32:06 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: >In message <l3i7d2t6hnppubng26c12m121klnu976pd(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>I see no reason why presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be >>carried out on-line where the result would truly be popular. > >The reason is that 'big money' would lose a great deal of its present >control over the result. Lobbyism SHOULD be dead. Our "statesmen" should be doing what the people want, not what some palm greasing, stitch some velvet in your pocket thugs want them to do.
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 04:15 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:32:06 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: > > >In message <l3i7d2t6hnppubng26c12m121klnu976pd(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 > >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > > > >>I see no reason why presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be > >>carried out on-line where the result would truly be popular. > > > >The reason is that 'big money' would lose a great deal of its present > >control over the result. > > Lobbyism SHOULD be dead. Lobbying is inevitable in any democratic system. Indeed, its part of the process. > Our "statesmen" should be doing what the people want, not what some > palm greasing, stitch some velvet in your pocket thugs want them to > do. So remove the big money then. What goes on in the USA during campaigning wouldn't be legal in the Europe you apparently despise so much precisely because we've addressed these issues. Graham
From: John Woodgate on 5 Aug 2006 04:53 In message <44D44CE6.83B9B215(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >I'm not confident even then that it would have been a total fix. Think >of the number of Irish Catholics abroad sensitive to Republican >issues. Given enough blood, even the rabid extremists become satiated. -- 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: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 5 Aug 2006 07:16
Eeyore wrote: > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> >>> I note that the US is keen to get 60 million Muslims into the EU, >>> against the wishes of the vast majority of its people. >> And just in case you don't get it: >> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/15924.htm >> >> "As President Bush said to Mr. Erdogan just two days ago, the U.S., >> although not part of the EU, supports Turkey's bid for accession. " >> >> And you think the US has the best interests of Europe at heart eh? Why >> don't you let in 70 million Muslims to the US (not 60m as I said above). >> Or might that cause some problems longterm? > > And let's also remember that Turkey is one of the least democratic countries in > the region, yet the USA has had no qualms whatever about dealing with them ( for > reasons of military interest of course ). As they have done with their pal Musharraf, the dictator of the nuclear armed Islamic dictatorship. Dirk |