A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:

Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


are trying to export that what they call "democracy".

Wah. Democracy works. Socialism doesn't.


The irony is that you didn't even get what he said.

Alas, that's not an uncommon occurrance with him and my remarks. That's
why I've stopped bothering to respond to anything Scott spouts.

Disagreeing with you is rather different than not understanding what you
said.


So Americans are free and everyone else is oppressed? I guess you've never
read the Patriot Act of other gross abuses of freedom. American influence
is waning because of your arrogance and gradually declining economic status.
100 years ago, Britain was the world power; fifty years later it was broke
and losing influence. Why should anyone believe the yanks will last any
longer given that they pay almost no attention to the reality of what's
going on around them?

My guess is that within my lifetime that becomes very clear to everyone,
even to the portion of the U.S. population that seems to have little
idea about the existance of the world around them.

Or, do we know about the world but choose not to agree with the way things
are working elsewhere?


I wonder who's next in playing the world's most dominant economy and
military power. My bet is on Asia... Maybe our grandchildren will speak
fluent Mandarin (or some other fruit) or Spanish as their main language? ;-)

You'd better hope not.


To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive
and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts.

Today I got this sent to me by a Czech friend, who apologized because
she know I have friends from the U.S.. I thought it was funny and in a
way I think it's relevant to this discussion:

---------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to
govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other
territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime
minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who
have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders)
will appoint a minister for America without the need for further
elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

Snip

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to
ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

And that's WHY we have 270 million privately owned firearms in the US, to
prevent any such eventuality. That makes us free, unlike you.



Thank you for your cooperation.

We'll spank her just like we spanked King George.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

TnT says:
=========
I thought I just heard the Saudis had an election.
=============

Please acquaint yourself with the nature of that "election". Did they
have universal suffrage? Will the elected official have any "power?"

That was NOT an election as we know it.

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
=========
I thought I just heard the Saudis had an election.
=============

Please acquaint yourself with the nature of that "election". Did they
have universal suffrage? Will the elected official have any "power?"

That was NOT an election as we know it.

Cheers,
frtzw906

But it was a start, and a signal that they are sensitive to the opinion
of the rest of the world, and hopefully the needs of their own people.
TnT

Scott Weiser says:
=============
Still, people are clamoring to get here
and buy our products.
==================

On a per capita basis, there are several countries that have more
people "clamoring" to get in. Check the global refugee statistcs.
Determine where the refugees are going. Then, if the math is not too
difficult, divide the number of refugees by the population of the
country they're going to. You'll be surprised that the results don't
coincide with the oft-repeated mantra of "the world is clamoring to get
into the USA".

As to buying your products: I can only ask, "have you been in a Wal
Mart recently?" It looks like the world is clamoring to buy Chinese
products.

Cheers,
frtzw906
=====================

Scott Weiser says:
=======================
If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso
facto,
free
==============

OK. ROTFL

What a load of crap! This sort of nonsense is not worthy of a rational
reply.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT said:
==============
But I also know that some bearded warlord in Afganistan does affect us
as well. I suspect that was part of the biggest shock to many Americans
on 9/11. Our bubble burst. We all live in a world where we affect one
another.
=================

I don't mean to appear callous, but I think part of the problem lies
with a nation that has lived virtually untouched by the reast of the
world for 2 centuries. A nation that could afford to practice
isolationist policies. When your "bubble burst", you couldn't believe
it. And you likely over-reacted (see other posts putting the
casualities into perspective -- and I truly mean no disrespect to the
innocent victims of the bearded warlord).

I must agree here. After visiting Europe in the 80's, where terrorists have
been blowing people up for a long time, I concluded that we were abysmally
ignorant of the terrorist threat. I always knew that there would be some
horrific terrorist attack that would finally wake Americans up.


Other nations, not isolated from neighbors by a huge ocean, better
understand the interconnectedness. By all means, go after the warlord
(as you know, most other nations supported you in those efforts). But
don't try to con the world into believing that a secular dictator has
anything in common with a religious fundamentalist (in this case, I'm
referring to Osama) who despises secularism.

Except that Saddam did have a lot in common with Osama. The most important
thing they have in common is Islam. The next most important thing they have
in common is a hatred of America.

The proof of complicity between Osama and Saddam continues to pour in. The
UN Oil-for-Food program did little more than fund international terrorism
because Saddam diverted the funds into tens of thousands of secret bank
accounts across the world and gave terrorists access to those funds.

That, and WMD were thinly
veiled excuses to gain control of oil.

Not true, but even it it were true, so what? Oil is a strategic resource.
Every nation on the planet wants to secure strategic resources for its own
use. That's the nature of nations. That's the history of the planet. Why
should we apologize for deposing a brutal dictator (which was the prime
reason) who violated the cease-fire agreement (a secondary reason) and was
known, absolutely and without doubt to have had, and used WMD's (a secondary
reason) which will also result, we hope, in a nation friendly to us and our
strategic needs?


TnT says:
===============
That does not mean that we should just go along with the other parts of
the world, but that we should attempt to influence them with what we
believe.
==================

That's a tad arrogant, don't you think?

No. It's beneficial to world peace.

When should I expect American
troops strolling down my boulevard and knocking on my door so as to
"influence" me to "believe" in the American dream?

Don't know. Where do you llive? I'll look it up on the invasion schedule.

Then again, I think that our agents-in-place, code-named "McDonalds,"
"Burger King," and "Wal-Mart" are doing a fine job of subverting your
regime.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

TnT says:
=======================
I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.
=====================

But clearly, from what you've said, you canNOT understand the
distinction. And it is not a fine line.

cheers,
frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

TnT says:
===============
You say though that we are out of step with the prevailing global
position. Can you share what you feel that opinion generally would
amount to. I have heard so much scuttlebut about left and right, red an
blue, that I am interested in your fresh insight. That way we could
discuss specifics.
==================

There is too much to comment on. Let's start by recalling polling done
in many (I can only assume all) western, developed nations. In not one
poll did the people of these nations prefer Bush over Kerry. In fact,
had the election been global, it would have been a clear landslide for
the Democrats.

Which is why I'm everlastingly grateful that we don't give a flying fart
about what they want.


As to specifics, there are too many to mention. Here's a few (comparing
Republican doctrine with prevailing western attitudes outside of the
USA): abortion, capital punishment, decriminalization of recreational
drugs, gay unions, possession of unnecessay firearms,

There's the important one. Those who are subject to governmental dictates
that firearms are "unnecessary" are slaves, and their governments need to be
overthrown.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
============
representative democracy and capitalism are the most effective way to
ensure liberty, freedom and justice for all.
================

Like the Queen of Hearts, you are free to define words anyway you
please. And, yes, I know that you Americans have your own specific
definition of "representative democracy". I'd like to suggest,
however, that you're playing fast and loose with the definition of
"representative".

How so?


You've had elections where a significant proportion of your electorate
(hundreds of thousands? millions? you're the American, you'll know the
exact data.) voted Green in the hope that their view of the world would
be represented in your Congress.

And they lost. That's the way it works. All they need to do is convince
enough people to vote their way and they get to enact their agenda. What's
unrepresentative about that?

But the system of government your hold
up as praiseworthy disrespects the ballots of Green voters. How is that
representative?

How are their ballots disrespected? They are allowed to vote for anyone they
choose, and their ballots are counted. Nothing could be more representative.
Just because they comprise a minority political party with an agenda not
attractive to a majority of voters, and thus they lost in the election
doesn't mean that they have not had their due process respected.


Or, even more dramatically, in recent history, how was your process
"representative" when it ignored the wishes of millions who cast
ballots for Ross Perot and the Reform Party.

Nobody ignored their wishes. They voted. They lost. That's the way democracy
works. Moreover, you mischaracterize our system by making the erroneous
presumption that it is impossible for minority political parties to be
represented in our government. It's not. Beyond the presidential election,
there are innumerable elections at every level of government in which
Greens, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and politicians of every
political persuasion are well represented.

Just take Boulder, CO as an example. While the vast majority of Colorado is
staunchly Republican and quite conservative, Boulder is a bastion of Green
Liberalism. So much so that it's asinine policies (such as its reverence for
prairie dogs) is actually destroying both the environment and the economy of
the area.

And there are independents in Congress, albeit few of them, but that's the
choice of the constitutients in their districts.


I accept your answer if you tell me that that's the American system,
that all candidates and parties are aware of the system, and that
everyone has to live with the consequences of that system. Fair enough!
It's YOUR system.

Indeed. That's precisely how it works.


But please don't hold it up as an ideal.

Why not? It's worked better than any other system on the planet, ever.

Please don't presume to
lecture, for example, the Germans, about "representatve" democracy.
You'll note that the voices of Greens and Perot-like politicians in
German are heard in their parliament.

To what effect?

Maybe, one day, when you bring
your system into the 20th century (never mind the 21st), others will
listen.

Or, maybe places like Germany will come to see that "inclusiveness" merely
for the purposes of political correctness does not serve the interests or
needs of the nation.


"Representative" indeed!

Indeed, and most exactly.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

TnT says:
=============
But it was a start, and a signal that they are sensitive to the opinion
of the rest of the world, and hopefully the needs of their own people.
======================

It was not a "start". It was bull****!

I would have thought that of all people, you, as an American, would be
able to tell the difference between a real election and a sham
election. I would have thought that you, of all people, would be
outraged by sham elections!

Whoops! I forgot: no outrage over hanging chads. Pity!

frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++++++