|
She's in the money
Hoges in WA wrote:
Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? Stephen No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry. I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased. [...] I have a different Jewish experience to Larry's, and I have many Jewish associates and friends but as I said, I understand why he is of the opinion he is. So, your experiences with people who have real cultural differences is helping you understand someone who is racist. That makes no sense. You just denied you would do what a vile racist has done and then used an explanation of what you would do to say you understand the racist. Stephen |
She's in the money
Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:37:49 -0500, " Gregory Hall" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: "Larry" wrote in message ... Joe wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, you can make jokes about anyone you want. The problem is that your history of racially motivated attacks is pretty clear, so your claim about making jokes about other groups is a load of crap. Do what you want. I'm not your mother, but I certainly am not going to just let it slide without saying anything. And this is the News Group that has nurtured Wilbur for all these years. Albert Albert, I don't think nurtured is the right word, but I see your point. I've spoken out about this sort of behavior previously. And rather proves the validity of my previous statement. I don't see Larry saying those things about the Jews.... shoot, he doesn't even say those kind of things about Wilbur-Gregory-whatever. Albert I can't imagine anyone here condoning Neal's behavior, and his continued harassment of me _is_ a prime example. It's an individual attack and has nothing to do with the subject of racism, at least nothing I can determine. If you look at some of the stuff Larry's posted, you'll find he's said some pretty vile things about Jews. But, believe what you want. I'm not going to repeat them. He popped up with his racist crap, and I called him on it. You seem to have a problem with the latter, so whatever floats your boat. Nope, you got it wrong. I wasn't saying that Larry shouldn't be condemned, rather that if one individual is to be condemned for something then equally everyone should be condemned if they, in this case, bad mouth someone then condemn them, but don't let another individual get away with the same sort of actions. I remember Wilbur insulting Peggy until she vanished from the scene however I don't remember legions leaping out of the woodwork to condemn Wilbur. You should. Legions are always condemning him. How could you have missed it? Stephen |
She's in the money
Bruce wrote in
: If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing, then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it? Bruce, here in Zionist America, you're not supposed to utter "Jew" in any context, whatsoever. It's become politically incorrect to just say the word and you'll be attacked for it. Anyone, who is not a Jew, isn't supposed to say "Jew", anywhere. -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry |
She's in the money
"Larry" wrote in message
... . . .here in Zionist America, you're not supposed to utter "Jew" in any context, whatsoever. It's become politically incorrect to just say the word and you'll be attacked for it. Anyone, who is not a Jew, isn't supposed to say "Jew", anywhere. What jew say, mon? Wilbur Hubbard |
She's in the money
On 2/28/10 1:13 PM, Larry wrote:
wrote in : If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing, then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it? Bruce, here in Zionist America, you're not supposed to utter "Jew" in any context, whatsoever. It's become politically incorrect to just say the word and you'll be attacked for it. Anyone, who is not a Jew, isn't supposed to say "Jew", anywhere. Now that you are "retired," perhaps it is time to stop blaming Jews for your failure of a life, eh? |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:37:49 -0500, " Gregory Hall" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ayareasolutions... wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message 1.13... "Capt. JG" wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: "Larry" wrote in message ... Joe wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, you can make jokes about anyone you want. The problem is that your history of racially motivated attacks is pretty clear, so your claim about making jokes about other groups is a load of crap. Do what you want. I'm not your mother, but I certainly am not going to just let it slide without saying anything. And this is the News Group that has nurtured Wilbur for all these years. Albert Albert, I don't think nurtured is the right word, but I see your point. I've spoken out about this sort of behavior previously. And rather proves the validity of my previous statement. I don't see Larry saying those things about the Jews.... shoot, he doesn't even say those kind of things about Wilbur-Gregory-whatever. Albert I can't imagine anyone here condoning Neal's behavior, and his continued harassment of me _is_ a prime example. It's an individual attack and has nothing to do with the subject of racism, at least nothing I can determine. If you look at some of the stuff Larry's posted, you'll find he's said some pretty vile things about Jews. But, believe what you want. I'm not going to repeat them. He popped up with his racist crap, and I called him on it. You seem to have a problem with the latter, so whatever floats your boat. Nope, you got it wrong. I wasn't saying that Larry shouldn't be condemned, rather that if one individual is to be condemned for something then equally everyone should be condemned if they, in this case, bad mouth someone then condemn them, but don't let another individual get away with the same sort of actions. I remember Wilbur insulting Peggy until she vanished from the scene however I don't remember legions leaping out of the woodwork to condemn Wilbur. If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing, then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I don't think you can use the example of Neal being a jerk or harassing someone as an argument against condemnation of racial prejudice. You can't equate one-on-one harassment with condemning a whole group of people based on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. At least I don't see how they're in any way comparable. What Neal did to Peggy was reprehensible, and several people did come to her defense, but that's not "essentially" the same thing. I'm not sure of your definition of legions. It's a pretty small newsgroup. In any case, I've said what I believe. If you believe something different, fine. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
... Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? Stephen No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry. I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased. I think that's a reasonable argument, but I have a question (or perhaps a comment). Don't you think we need to struggle against our prejudices? I think that allows us to make the claim we're fully human. To illustrate the point:- Genetically there is no difference between Palestinians and Jews. (the ones from Israel) They are both Semitic. However, I generally dislike the Palestinians and generally like the Jews. That demonstrates prejudice - I prejudge based on my experiences. To use your point as the illustration... perhaps you don't know Palestinians as well? Perhaps there's some other factor involved (up to you to share it). I think we can't get away from have prejudices and bias, but we have a choice of either fighting against those internal mindsets or "ignore" them. I didn't comment below, but I think all of your points say about the same thing... With respect to Asians, I generally get on well with Chinese, although I am not all that well disposed to those from Peking and prefer the company of southerners - again, this is experience as I find the ones from the north far quicker to espouse Chinese political aims and the ones from the south more inclined to eat good food and drink heaps. I like the company of Cantonese, but not party-liners from the capital. This distinction also applies on Oz, as I generally am not all that well disposed to people from Canberra (the capital) as they are far more liberal elitist than the rest of Australia. I am led to believe that you people have this problem with Washington DC apparatchicks also. With respect to Africans, I would not countenance giving someone from the Congo anything other than suspicion, whereas I'd be happy to relax in the company of someone from Tanganyika. Unfortunately, in that blighted tribal basket-case, there are very few tribes to like. It has nothing to do with race and is all about track records, which is what most people base their prejudices on. Most just don't recognise it or admit it. I have a different Jewish experience to Larry's, and I have many Jewish associates and friends but as I said, I understand why he is of the opinion he is. I hope this makes it clearer. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry wrote: On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: wrote in message ... wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about Baptists is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same grief, maybe more. Stephen I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made by Larry. And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper schools and "red brick universities". And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians. In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that appears to be universal is entirely logical. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you missed them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I certainly do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now. The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his anti-Semitism. Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
... "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:37:49 -0500, " Gregory Hall" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message news:gdOdnQvhVJAU_RTWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@posted. bayareasolutions... wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message 31.13... "Capt. JG" wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: "Larry" wrote in message ... Joe wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, you can make jokes about anyone you want. The problem is that your history of racially motivated attacks is pretty clear, so your claim about making jokes about other groups is a load of crap. Do what you want. I'm not your mother, but I certainly am not going to just let it slide without saying anything. And this is the News Group that has nurtured Wilbur for all these years. Albert Albert, I don't think nurtured is the right word, but I see your point. I've spoken out about this sort of behavior previously. And rather proves the validity of my previous statement. I don't see Larry saying those things about the Jews.... shoot, he doesn't even say those kind of things about Wilbur-Gregory-whatever. Albert I can't imagine anyone here condoning Neal's behavior, and his continued harassment of me _is_ a prime example. It's an individual attack and has nothing to do with the subject of racism, at least nothing I can determine. If you look at some of the stuff Larry's posted, you'll find he's said some pretty vile things about Jews. But, believe what you want. I'm not going to repeat them. He popped up with his racist crap, and I called him on it. You seem to have a problem with the latter, so whatever floats your boat. Nope, you got it wrong. I wasn't saying that Larry shouldn't be condemned, rather that if one individual is to be condemned for something then equally everyone should be condemned if they, in this case, bad mouth someone then condemn them, but don't let another individual get away with the same sort of actions. I remember Wilbur insulting Peggy until she vanished from the scene however I don't remember legions leaping out of the woodwork to condemn Wilbur. If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing, then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I don't think you can use the example of Neal being a jerk or harassing someone as an argument against condemnation of racial prejudice. You can't equate one-on-one harassment with condemning a whole group of people based on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. At least I don't see how they're in any way comparable. What Neal did to Peggy was reprehensible, and several people did come to her defense, but that's not "essentially" the same thing. I'm not sure of your definition of legions. It's a pretty small newsgroup. In any case, I've said what I believe. If you believe something different, fine. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com You also stated that when you look at things they sometimes morph into lizards. With that in mind, why should anybody care what your 10X LSD overdosed mind believes about anything? -- Gregory Hall |
She's in the money
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry |
She's in the money
"Larry" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Why don't you tell us again how Hitler didn't finish the job. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions... "Larry" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Why don't you tell us again how Hitler didn't finish the job. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com Why don't YOU tell us again how Timothy O'Leary didn't finish the job? -- Gregory Hall |
She's in the money
On 2/28/10 5:30 PM, Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Larry "thinks" the Israelis are going to attack the U.S. So, Larry, you would have been happier if the Germans had been able to complete the final solution, eh? |
She's in the money
On Feb 26, 12:23*pm, Larry wrote:
Joe wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Sheeze Larry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYufgDZBxs Juju's the place you dont want to go. Joe |
She's in the money
On Feb 26, 11:36*am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Joe" wrote in message ... I'd be happy to send her a bag or two free Nellie. In fact, if you ever left your rum soaked barco lounger and sailed anywhere I'd send you a bag too. But that's never going to happen is it? If you were smart, you'd send her a couple bags of the boat blend and ask how much it would cost to be a future sponsor. I told you to begin with that she's a winner. I know sailing talent when I see it. That's one reason I got so disillusioned with you, Joe. I thought you had sailing talent but you proved otherwise. How can I ever forgive you for making me look so stupid? Now, don't you go around trying to jinx Jessica. Like you said, she isn't home yet and anything can happen. Somebody needs to warn her to not count her chickens before they hatch. If she gets complacent she could end up not making it. Wilbur Hubbard (typing and wirelessly sending from the desk aboard my blue water yacht, 'Cut the Mustard') Sorry Nellie, we do not sell "blends" just single source estate coffee hand picked and selected with care. We do this to provide our customers with bold yet smooth as velvet flavors. Our "Boat Roast" is a Costa Rican Coffee from the Tres Rio's region. Robust in body, deep in flavor, bursting with aroma. Looks like Jessica did not "cut a deal with the Devil" and rounded the horn staying a hundred miles or so offshore. She's on the home stretch now. Joe |
She's in the money
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry wrote: On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: wrote in message ... wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about Baptists is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same grief, maybe more. Stephen I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made by Larry. And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper schools and "red brick universities". And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians. In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that appears to be universal is entirely logical. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you missed them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I certainly do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now. The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his anti-Semitism. Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc. As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive him based on his activities.. of course, the Southerner who see indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial. Right? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
She's in the money
Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen |
She's in the money
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:33:05 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:37:49 -0500, " Gregory Hall" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message news:gdOdnQvhVJAU_RTWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@posted. bayareasolutions... wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message 31.13... "Capt. JG" wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: "Larry" wrote in message ... Joe wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, you can make jokes about anyone you want. The problem is that your history of racially motivated attacks is pretty clear, so your claim about making jokes about other groups is a load of crap. Do what you want. I'm not your mother, but I certainly am not going to just let it slide without saying anything. And this is the News Group that has nurtured Wilbur for all these years. Albert Albert, I don't think nurtured is the right word, but I see your point. I've spoken out about this sort of behavior previously. And rather proves the validity of my previous statement. I don't see Larry saying those things about the Jews.... shoot, he doesn't even say those kind of things about Wilbur-Gregory-whatever. Albert I can't imagine anyone here condoning Neal's behavior, and his continued harassment of me _is_ a prime example. It's an individual attack and has nothing to do with the subject of racism, at least nothing I can determine. If you look at some of the stuff Larry's posted, you'll find he's said some pretty vile things about Jews. But, believe what you want. I'm not going to repeat them. He popped up with his racist crap, and I called him on it. You seem to have a problem with the latter, so whatever floats your boat. Nope, you got it wrong. I wasn't saying that Larry shouldn't be condemned, rather that if one individual is to be condemned for something then equally everyone should be condemned if they, in this case, bad mouth someone then condemn them, but don't let another individual get away with the same sort of actions. I remember Wilbur insulting Peggy until she vanished from the scene however I don't remember legions leaping out of the woodwork to condemn Wilbur. If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing, then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I don't think you can use the example of Neal being a jerk or harassing someone as an argument against condemnation of racial prejudice. You can't equate one-on-one harassment with condemning a whole group of people based on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. At least I don't see how they're in any way comparable. What Neal did to Peggy was reprehensible, and several people did come to her defense, but that's not "essentially" the same thing. I'm not sure of your definition of legions. It's a pretty small newsgroup. In any case, I've said what I believe. If you believe something different, fine. Well, we agree on one thing anyway :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
She's in the money
On 2/28/10 9:19 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, wrote: On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: wrote in message ... wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about Baptists is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same grief, maybe more. Stephen I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made by Larry. And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper schools and "red brick universities". And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians. In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that appears to be universal is entirely logical. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you missed them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I certainly do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now. The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his anti-Semitism. Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc. As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive him based on his activities.. of course, the Southerner who see indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial. Right? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Oh, please...what we don't need is a misinformed, misguided apologetica for Larry's hatred of jews. |
She's in the money
Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry wrote: On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: wrote in message ... wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about Baptists is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same grief, maybe more. Stephen I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made by Larry. And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper schools and "red brick universities". And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians. In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that appears to be universal is entirely logical. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you missed them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I certainly do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now. The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his anti-Semitism. Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc. As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive him based on his activities.. Right, judging him based upon his own acts. No prejudice involved, and it's the best way of judging someone. of course, the Southerner who see indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial. Right? Right, prejudice is judging an entire group based upon the actions of a few in that group. It is a fallacy and a very poor, not to mention, evil, way of judging anyone. Stephen |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:33:05 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:37:49 -0500, " Gregory Hall" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message news:gdOdnQvhVJAU_RTWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@posted .bayareasolutions... wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Larry" wrote in message . 131.13... "Capt. JG" wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: "Larry" wrote in message ... Joe wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, you can make jokes about anyone you want. The problem is that your history of racially motivated attacks is pretty clear, so your claim about making jokes about other groups is a load of crap. Do what you want. I'm not your mother, but I certainly am not going to just let it slide without saying anything. And this is the News Group that has nurtured Wilbur for all these years. Albert Albert, I don't think nurtured is the right word, but I see your point. I've spoken out about this sort of behavior previously. And rather proves the validity of my previous statement. I don't see Larry saying those things about the Jews.... shoot, he doesn't even say those kind of things about Wilbur-Gregory-whatever. Albert I can't imagine anyone here condoning Neal's behavior, and his continued harassment of me _is_ a prime example. It's an individual attack and has nothing to do with the subject of racism, at least nothing I can determine. If you look at some of the stuff Larry's posted, you'll find he's said some pretty vile things about Jews. But, believe what you want. I'm not going to repeat them. He popped up with his racist crap, and I called him on it. You seem to have a problem with the latter, so whatever floats your boat. Nope, you got it wrong. I wasn't saying that Larry shouldn't be condemned, rather that if one individual is to be condemned for something then equally everyone should be condemned if they, in this case, bad mouth someone then condemn them, but don't let another individual get away with the same sort of actions. I remember Wilbur insulting Peggy until she vanished from the scene however I don't remember legions leaping out of the woodwork to condemn Wilbur. If you select one individual for using a word that you don't care for and fail to condemn every other who does essentially the same thing, then that rather smacks of prejudice doesn't it? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I don't think you can use the example of Neal being a jerk or harassing someone as an argument against condemnation of racial prejudice. You can't equate one-on-one harassment with condemning a whole group of people based on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. At least I don't see how they're in any way comparable. What Neal did to Peggy was reprehensible, and several people did come to her defense, but that's not "essentially" the same thing. I'm not sure of your definition of legions. It's a pretty small newsgroup. In any case, I've said what I believe. If you believe something different, fine. Well, we agree on one thing anyway :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Heh... well, that's something for sure! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry wrote: On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: wrote in message ... wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about Baptists is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same grief, maybe more. Stephen I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made by Larry. And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper schools and "red brick universities". And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians. In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that appears to be universal is entirely logical. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you missed them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I certainly do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now. The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his anti-Semitism. Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc. As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive him based on his activities.. of course, the Southerner who see indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial. Right? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) See my other comment, but how would anyone be able to judge someone without some factual backup? The person in question inevitably falls into his racial diatribe, which is what he did. So, from his view a Southerner who observes a black behaving badly who them condemns all blacks would be in my view a racist, because you can't judge an entire people based on a few bad people. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
... Bruce wrote: On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:43:29 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:35:07 -0500, Harry wrote: On 2/27/10 7:57 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:03:05 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in news:zP-dncsy_ reasolutions: wrote in message ... wrote in news:79711f1e-f9e8-4e35-bd25- : It's bad JuJu to count your eggs at sea. Joe Talking about money, wouldn't that be bad JewJew? -- "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!" Larry Larry, your racism really has no place here or anywhere. Why isn't anyone allowed to make a JOKE with the word JEW in it? Am I supposed to feel guilty? I don't. If I make a joke about Baptists, noone complains. Why only Jews? A derogatory joke about Jews is racist, a derogatory joke about Baptists is not racist. Pretty simple. If you were consistently derisive about any other race, like Africans or Asians, you'd be getting the same grief, maybe more. Stephen I suggest that your statement is incorrect. Do some research on the type of jokes told in the Catskill resorts, commonly known as the Borsch Belt. Or read up on current Israeli humor. You will find that the jokes are far more vicious then the rather innocuous remarks made by Larry. And, if you think that a joke about Baptists can't be derogatory have a look at N. Irish humor, or even British, for that matter who not only differentiate between "church" and "chapel" but also proper schools and "red brick universities". And is you want to hear really vicious ethnic humor listen to the Chinese, if you want to talk about Asians. In fact I have never been anywhere that the "people" didn't talk about the "other people". I don't know that condemning something that appears to be universal is entirely logical. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) I think there's a big difference between Borsch Belt humor and the many racist comments Larry's made over the last, say, year. Perhaps you missed them. I think Stephen recalls them, which was why he commented. I certainly do. I called Larry on them then, and I do now. The old borscht belt humor was about Jews telling jokes about Jews to other Jews. Larry's anti-Jewish comments and "jokes" are grounded in his anti-Semitism. Ah.. rather a prejudgment isn't that? Larry is anti-Semitic and thus if he uses the word "Jew" twice in a row it is bad? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope... dozens of times, probably more than that. Read through some of his previous posts where he said A.H. didn't finish the job, etc. As I have commented, you are judging Larry based on how you perceive him based on his activities.. Right, judging him based upon his own acts. No prejudice involved, and it's the best way of judging someone. of course, the Southerner who see indolent Negro and conceives the notion that Negros are lazy, or the Australian who sees Aborigines reeling drunk in the streets and conceives the notion that Black-fellows are worthless, or the Thai who observes that drunken tourists groping the prostitute and conceives that foreigners are really pretty sleazy people are prejudicial. Right? Right, prejudice is judging an entire group based upon the actions of a few in that group. It is a fallacy and a very poor, not to mention, evil, way of judging anyone. Stephen Correct. I'm not judging all people who's first name is Larry based on Larry's behavior. Yet Larry is basing his view of Jews on the actions of a very few. In fact, he goes well beyond just judging them. He makes vast leaps in logic to support his notion of them being evil. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
She's in the money
Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) No. The so-called CSA were a coalition of reb redneck advocates of White Supremacy, moonshiners, and inbred Scots-Irish ridge-runners. Those with "education" were distinguishable from the rest mostly in that they coulld read the bible, so gleaned from it's pages the means to stay sober long enough to accumulate more money to purchase better uniforms, horses and sabers for glorious slaughter. The CSA was never a country, just as pirates are not a country, though they can readily stitch together a flag. And with women vote less and Jim Crow controlling polls even after Abolition, the Union wasn't a democracy either. Even now with a 2-party political system, each party selling their legislative votes to the highest bidder, you can't call the U.S. a democracy. It is more accurately called an "Auction Form of Government." The Union side preserved that. And Larry is an anti-Semite in his speech, otherwise he would wouldn't say Jew this and Jew that. Anti-Israel speech can be political, but anti-Jew speech is anti-Semitic. Larry likes to spout off and use his right of free speech to generate controversy, mostly tin-hat powered, but booze amps it up. I don't see him as evil-hearted to where he would drop the cyanide pills in a gas chamber. But much like the members of the aforementioned CSA, he's a redneck souse at heart, so without reins on him, no telling what he'd do. One thing for sure. Since alcohol is known to kill brains cells, he was surely once a genius. Again proving that a lick of common sense is not a requirement for "genius." |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The confederacy was an abomination, not a country. |
She's in the money
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves were not freed in states not in rebellion. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
She's in the money
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500, Harry
wrote: On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The confederacy was an abomination, not a country. Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress was in 1775. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
She's in the money
On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500, wrote: On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The confederacy was an abomination, not a country. Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress was in 1775. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope. |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves were not freed in states not in rebellion. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do you think he though slavery was ok? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message ... Hoges in WA wrote: Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? Stephen No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry. I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased. [...] I have a different Jewish experience to Larry's, and I have many Jewish associates and friends but as I said, I understand why he is of the opinion he is. So, your experiences with people who have real cultural differences is helping you understand someone who is racist. That makes no sense. You just denied you would do what a vile racist has done and then used an explanation of what you would do to say you understand the racist. Stephen I understand why he's angry. |
She's in the money
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Hoges in WA" wrote in message ... Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? Stephen No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry. I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased. I think that's a reasonable argument, but I have a question (or perhaps a comment). Don't you think we need to struggle against our prejudices? I think that allows us to make the claim we're fully human. That would be an ideal. On an intellectual level, I get an Arab magazine bi-monthly and have received it since 1977. I have learned a lot about Arab culture, history, literature and achievement (Ibn Battuta was a bit of a cruiser!). I can distinguish between an educated Arab and a Palestinian thug from a criminal family. However, until I know where they come from, I treat them with suspicion and relax once I know. If I'm wandering along a street in my home town and a group of Australian Aborigines is coming towards me, male or female, my defences are up at once. If at all possible, I'll cross the street - I can't afford time off work to attend court cases. That's pre-judging or, prejudicial. It's discriminatory, based on hard-won experience. It's also something I will not stop doing and something I won't stop complaining about until they begin to behave. If, on the other hand, I was to encounter a group of aborigines in Cairns, on the other side of the coutnry, I would be more likely to be interested rather than suspicious, as most of them have a job and a future to protect. I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just admit I do. My attitude is roundly criticised by many of our acquaintances (my wife's really) but mention "American" to an Oz lefty and you get rolled eyes, sneers etc. They don't see their discrimination as being as bad as mine because they think they're entitled to "that" prejudice and I'm not entitled to mine. Just makes my sniping worse. Hoges in WA snipped -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves were not freed in states not in rebellion. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do you think he though slavery was ok? I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an unpalatable condition. Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York Tribune 22 Aug 1862. Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
She's in the money
"Harry" wrote in message ... On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500, wrote: On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The confederacy was an abomination, not a country. Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress was in 1775. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope. Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920. Does this then mean that the United States was not a legitimate democracy until that date? Or were women "represented" by the vote of some man who was appointed their "guardian"? And if the latter, would not the same apply to those bound by slavery also? Throughout history, "Democracy" has rarely meant that ALL the people had a vote. This is not intended as an indictment of democracy, nor to support the idea that some people should be disenfranchised, but simply to point out a very basic fact. Based upon the very principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the Confederate States of America was a separate and sovereign nation (or Confederation of Sovereign States) immediately upon declaring their status as a separate nation. Whether or not one approves of their form of government is irrelevent to the discussion. It is instructive to note, however, that states left the Union and joined the Confederacy by VOTING to do so. Pretty democratic if you ask me. And no, I am NOT defending slavery, segregation, racism, separatism or anything of the kind. KLC Lewis -- KLC Lewis WISCONSIN Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping www.KLCLewisStudios.com |
She's in the money
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "Hoges in WA" wrote in message ... Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? Stephen No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry. I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased. I think that's a reasonable argument, but I have a question (or perhaps a comment). Don't you think we need to struggle against our prejudices? I think that allows us to make the claim we're fully human. That would be an ideal. On an intellectual level, I get an Arab magazine bi-monthly and have received it since 1977. I think the struggle is the important part. No one can be 100% successful (unless you're a saint). We all have deep-seated prejudices, but we can and should strive to overcome them. I have learned a lot about Arab culture, history, literature and achievement (Ibn Battuta was a bit of a cruiser!). I can distinguish between an educated Arab and a Palestinian thug from a criminal family. However, until I know where they come from, I treat them with suspicion and relax once I know. If I'm wandering along a street in my home town and a group of Australian Aborigines is coming towards me, male or female, my defences are up at once. If at all possible, I'll cross the street - I can't afford time off work to attend court cases. That's pre-judging or, prejudicial. It's discriminatory, based on hard-won experience. It's also something I will not stop doing and something I won't stop complaining about until they begin to behave. It's also called self-preservation, and I don't see something wrong with it. The circumstance has a lot to do with it. If you were attending some professional conference that had a lot of Aborigines in attendance, would you feel the same way while listening to a lecture? Crime is crime, and it's reasonable to take precautions, but I would have the same reaction if I were about to encounter a bunch of skin heads. If, on the other hand, I was to encounter a group of aborigines in Cairns, on the other side of the coutnry, I would be more likely to be interested rather than suspicious, as most of them have a job and a future to protect. Right... I didn't read this until after I typed previously. :-) I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just admit I do. I think anyone who is being intellectually honest would say they either do or struggle mightily not to. My attitude is roundly criticised by many of our acquaintances (my wife's really) but mention "American" to an Oz lefty and you get rolled eyes, sneers etc. They don't see their discrimination as being as bad as mine because they think they're entitled to "that" prejudice and I'm not entitled to mine. Just makes my sniping worse. Yes. Entitlement... that's a harbinger of unfettered prejudice. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message m... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves were not freed in states not in rebellion. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do you think he though slavery was ok? I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an unpalatable condition. Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York Tribune 22 Aug 1862. Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln (Team of Rivals most recently). -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Harry" wrote in message ... On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500, wrote: On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote: Larry wrote: "Capt. wrote in easolutions: Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding. Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in today, fighting Israel's wars for them. Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of many. One of the best, but one of many. Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now- nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the planet. Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought significant wars against each other and probably never will. Stephen Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it significant? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that _all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't. I don't think Lincoln did. The confederacy was an abomination, not a country. Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress was in 1775. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) Nope. Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920. Does this then mean that the United States was not a legitimate democracy until that date? Or were women "represented" by the vote of some man who was appointed their "guardian"? And if the latter, would not the same apply to those bound by slavery also? Excellent point! For it's time, it would have been considered legitimate. At least around the turn of the century. The Greeks started the silly business, there were some in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Middle Ages, and it went on from there. Throughout history, "Democracy" has rarely meant that ALL the people had a vote. This is not intended as an indictment of democracy, nor to support the idea that some people should be disenfranchised, but simply to point out a very basic fact. Very true. Based upon the very principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, the Confederate States of America was a separate and sovereign nation (or Confederation of Sovereign States) immediately upon declaring their status as a separate nation. Whether or not one approves of their form of government is irrelevent to the discussion. It is instructive to note, however, that states left the Union and joined the Confederacy by VOTING to do so. Pretty democratic if you ask me. Well, that's a tricky point... does voting in and of itself define a democracy? Take a limiting case... How about three people getting together and voting on murdering someone? Does that make their group a democracy? The first sentence here is a working definition I suppose, but it also seems limited somehow... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy And no, I am NOT defending slavery, segregation, racism, separatism or anything of the kind. KLC Lewis I don't know anyone in Wisconson who defends slavery, segregation (perhaps related to cheese), racism, separatism (see cheese reference).... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
She's in the money
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
... snipped OT: Are you still getting out this way? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com