New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2006 12:23 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:11:01 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Frank Bemelman wrote: > >> "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... >> >> >> 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. > >Indeed. The USA probably contributed fairly insignificantly to that number. > Well, then, what has happened in the last 50 years to produce such an unprecedented change? John
From: Don Bowey on 5 Aug 2006 12:33 On 8/4/06 9:38 PM, in article 44D420C8.60B0AA98(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > And let's also remember that Turkey is one of the least democratic countries > in the region Do you have some facts for that? What are the criteria for the ranking? Personally, I don't care how a country governs itself as long as its people aren't abused. When the "means of production" are limited, such as in the far east, Communism may best for a country. You have the intelligence of a donkey.
From: John Woodgate on 5 Aug 2006 12:29 In message <MPG.1f3e71275238bccf98982f(a)news.individual.net>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes >If you fired your nukes, they'd probably go no further than France. >Hmm. Ta-DAAAAH!(;-) -- 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: John Woodgate on 5 Aug 2006 12:28 In message <0qd9d2p09rkabik0b2q3cfrdtmuelenui6(a)4ax.com>, dated Sat, 5 Aug 2006, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> writes >John, You must lay awake at night thinking up these word bombs ;-) Occasionally, but I often forget those if I don't write them down. But mostly it's like 'lightning calculation' - the phrase just appears in my mind. -- 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: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2006 12:40
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:08:53 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:36:22 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >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 ! >> >> Debate continues on whether Roosevelt got us into the war by intent. >> It certainly was our act of cutting off Japan from our supplies of oil >> and steel that made them need to expand, and simultaneously clean us >> out of the Pacific; hence Pearl Harbor. > >I dare say that debate will run and run ! I'm aware that Roosevelt was sympathetic to >the UK's position but he knew that domestic opinion was against involvement. > Well, we sent our boys over there in 1918 because it was the War to End All Wars. John |