|
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have any practical "black and white" suggestions. Well. considering that *every single nation in the world* seems to be able to conserve more than we do, its a simple task to look at them and get some "black and white" suggestions from their examples. I owned an SUV in Latvia that got 30 mpg. The same model and make in the US gets 16. Whats wrong with this picture? Almost every major city in Europe has an effective and efficient mass transit system. Why not put more effort into that? Many countries place a high sales surcharge on vehicles that get poor mileage, or do not sell them at all. Danes have electric cars. The French ride bicycyles a lot. The Norwegians like to ski to work. The Dutch recycle their own glassware to buy milk and products wholesale, saving on manufacturing fuels. There are only about a trillion "black and white" suggestions all over the world....everywhere except the US. And all those countries I mentioned pay over $5 a gallon for fuel, and barely any of their citizens complain about it because they don't use so much for personal consumption. Oh, but if your meaning is "give me some black and white suggestions that don't actually involve me changing my lifestyle at all", then you may be out of luck. Buy one of the electric gizmos that help you lose weight while you eat pizza and watch TV. Let me know how it goes. To do all this while we have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil shale, or coal. How high is too high of a price? We are already debating drilling in pristine areas that we used to feel were deserving of protection. And just to get a supply of oil that will temporarily lessen our dependancy on foreign imports by 4%, based on today's consumption. There is more to the cost of oil than the price at the pump. With the current attitude of "I never go there, lets drill in it", we have already passed the limit that I'm willing to pay. So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. No it doesn't. It comes down to how much are you willing to sacrifice in order to avoid doing something that you are going to have to stop doing eventually anyway. The reserves won't last forever....even if the money does. If we want to keep driving, its not a matter of coming up with more money....its a matter of doing what everyone else is doing. Conserve, diversify, get a little less stupid about it. Maybe get out of the US a bit and see how easy everyone else makes it look. And then gaze back over the big pond and notice that you suddenly don't feel so entitled to a gas guzzler, and driving the 2 blocks to the store for a coke, or heating your entire factory day and night, or selling 'muscle cars', or having a highway full of cars with one person in them, or being 'too bothered' to take the bus. Or a million other "black and white" things. There's none so blind as those who refuse to see. --riverman |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in their group support meetings. ROFL --riverman (You DO see it, don't you?) |
Lord Monkey Fist wrote:
"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message ... Larry C wrote: Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is the fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's response to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is seen as strong and decisive by the voters. Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl, same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and gay marriage from the bench. Bush himself made moral issues a centerpiece in the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears of both religious conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's politics of fear that I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a criminal enterprise used to extort protection money from a fearful public. ??? Pot and kettle. Sounds like you voted for someone else because you were afraid of Bush. You don't know how right you are. -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in their group support meetings. ROFL --riverman (You DO see it, don't you?) Hehehe! Good point :-) |
riverman wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in their group support meetings. ROFL --riverman (You DO see it, don't you?) I thought I heard a plonk recently from your neighborhood, so I am surprised to find you ROFL. Must mean you are still listening a little, though it sounds to me like someone needs a group support meeting where they can commiserate their losses and lack of audience for their enlightened ideas. Now maybe I am wrong about this, but I would hope to hear a more enlightened response from you than ROFL. I guess I expected that you were a better communicator. But then there is no end to surprises, and always something new to learn, however I would hope for a clearer understanding of your continuing issues. Maybe you only feel comfortable to share in your recovery group! Though I would encourage you to continue to elucidate here! TnT |
riverman wrote: "Larry Cable" wrote in message ... I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into the election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most voters, the economy was number one followed by national security issues. Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade Center and we all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was adequete, proper or justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring acts in just being reasonable and rational. 3000 people died in a country of 250,000,000. And this was an attack that was off the scales of impact. If its rational to be afraid that you will actually be harmed in a repeat terrorist attack, then you must live in absolute constant paralysis of being killed in a car wreck. The actual risk of being harmed in a terrorist attack is miniscule, but not the percieved risk. Bush milked that percieved risk for all he could get out it, which included a second term. Talk to me about actual vs percieved risk. I was a river guide for 15 years, and live in Kinshasa. People who voted their own personal safety WERE duped. --riverman I might agree if this had been the act of a single mad man. But this was the act of an organization that had lead multiple and increasingly deadly attacks against the US across the world, remember the USS Cole, the embassy in Kenya, and evidence suggests that Al Queda trained and masterminded the response in Somolia that you can read about in "Blackhawk Down". They have since been claimed responsiblity for a number of deadly attacks around the world. While I don't live in constant fear of terror attacks, it seems pretty obvious that it is something that we need to take damn serious. National Security and personal safety are two related, but seperate issues. While I am reasonably sure that I am personally safe from terrorist attacks, I believe that it is just a matter of time before the US suffers from such an attack again. If I lived and worked in New York, Chicago or Washington, I probably would be more concerned. Am event that caused the US entry into WWII caused less casualties than the World Trade Center. |
Bill Tuthill wrote: Larry C wrote: I'm not sure that I buy the arguement that the Native Americans were all that environmentally conscious. For example, the Iroquois Confederation was formed to expand the tribes territory for the Fur Trade and as a response to the encroachment of the Northern Tribes supported by the French. They needed more territory because they had decimated the furbearing populations in their original tribal areas. Hardly a conservation ethic. I'm not saying that Native Americans were environmentalists, just that modern Environmentalism had its roots in indigenous religion. In the Torah and classical Greco-Roman literature, you seldom or never encounter wonder of the natural world. Virgil's Bucolic (Eclogues) are mostly about farming. In European literature, nature worship reached its peak with German Romanticism, and even there, nature is largely tamed by man. Whereas in (many tribes') Native American religion, places are sacred in and of themselves. There might be a rock (present-day Devil's Tower), or a place on a river (Ishi Pishi Fall on the Klamath) considered sacred. It could be this respect for natural features that inspired Thoreau, Leopold Aldo, John Muir, Edward Abbey (etc.) to formulate the seminal ideas of Environmentalism. Unless you have a different theory. If one considers earlier Native cultures, there seem to have been several that suffered from environmental collapses, maybe due to climate change. The Adena in the East and the Cliff Dwellers in the west for an example. I don't know about the Adena, but the Anasazi cliff dwellers were either escaping severe drought, or pushed out by invading Navajo, or both. If I would compare Environmentalism to a religion, I would have to compare it to pre-christian Celtic religions (commonly referred to as Druids), which would qualify as nature worship. |
Larry C wrote:
If I would compare Environmentalism to a religion, I would have to compare it to pre-christian Celtic religions (commonly referred to as Druids), which would qualify as nature worship. Actually, the development of true environmental ethics is very recent. Holmes Rolston was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities in 2003; See: http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html Professor Rolston uses natural history examples to illustrate principles of environmental ethics that are intrinsic and independent from human value judgment. Most recently, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Wangari Maathai; See: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2004/press.html Mrs. Maathai is best known for helping to establish sustainable environmental practices in Africa, and her organizing poor communities and women by using an environmental impetus. -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
A Usenet persona calling itself Rick wrote:
Larry C wrote: ...stuff deleted I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968 and never has caught up. Even in this election, the percentage of "Christian" voters was nearly the same as in past elections. But it's easier to blame the "Christians" than to admit that the party supported unpopular social views while failing to articulate a clearly defined alternative to the present administration. I personally feel that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are all that seperate us from the animals, but blaming the "Christians" for the failure of the Democratic party and the percieved lack of environmental concern of the present administration is laughable. Larry, Sadly, this agenda is real. It was first expounded by James Watt about 20 years ago, Prove it. and there are individuals in Bush's cabinet who also hold this view. Prove it. Nobody said that this was a mainstream movement, nor that it was the agenda of all protestent religions, just that it exists. Sadly, these cultists are in positions of power in our government. Moyer is not the only individual who has stated this, he is just one of many competent journalists who have. Moyers is not a competent journalist, he's a leftist propagandist opinion columnist who repeated a blogger's lie about Watt. What Moyers claims Watt said never happened. -- 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 Michael Daly wrote:
On 6-Feb-2005, "Larry C" wrote: I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968 and never has caught up. And yet the anti-liberal stance is just the right blaming the left for all the ills of the country. Difference is, they're correct. -- 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 Larry C wrote:
The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent elections to the Republic/moderate/right. That's just simple math, look at the makeup of Congress, the Governorships of the states, and the trend in memberships in the state legislatures. I live in a state that is HEAVILY democratic, to the tune of 3 to 1, yet we now have a Republican legislature and governor. Manipulated the Media? The media I saw were all heavily in favor of Kerry. Want to know why this is happening, and will only continue to happen? It's because lefty liberals are (not) breeding themselves into extinction. When liberals resolve to not have kids in order to save the planet, where is the next generation of lefty liberal tree-huggers going to come from and who's going to inculcate them into socialist dogma so they can take over the world? Conservatives, on the other hand, view children as a positive benefit to society and they like making babies, who they then raise as conservatives, who then vote the increasingly endangered liberal/socialists out of office. It's the essence of "hoist on their own petard" for the liberals. But to blame this swing on "fundamentalist christians" is stereotyping and scapegoating, frankly it sounds like a bunch of Nazis blaming all their troubles on the Jews, or the Klan on the Blacks. Indeed. Particularly when they identify anyone who holds any sort of religious Christian belief as "The Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right" or "fundamentalist Christians." I'm none of the above, but even I know that, for example, the Catholic church (members of which comprise more than 20% of the US population...some 65 million citizens) is just about evenly split these days between liberals and conservatives when it comes to politics. Moyer stated that there is a anti environmental element in the Protestant Christian Religion, I say that it is absolute bull****. I agree. He's a hack. I don't see armies of Christans wacking down trees to hurry the END. I've had to sit through many a sermon in my day, from Catholic to Pentecostal, and I have never heard anything like that from any of the pulpits. Do the "Christians" vote a more conservative social value than espoused by the Democratic Party? Yes, but mainly on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But this is America and they do have the right to speak and vote for what they believe whether you agree with them or not. Well put. Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. It's a big country out there and people have a lot of different priorities on why they vote, many may not be yours. But it's pretty evident from recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to their liking than the Democrats. Yup. Democrats have radicalized their way right out of the public favor. -- 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 |
Tinkerntom wrote:
Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off, and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency preparedness planner. So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have been an oversight. Interstate commerce is a Constitutional right. The federal highway system is part and parcel to interstate commerce. Our right to utilize roads comes in large part from our being taxed, through fuel and vehicle taxes, to pay for highway construction and maintenance. The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration has an exhaustive history of highways; See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the "unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation" problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter! Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil shale, or coal. I'm extremely suspicious of "alternative" fuels, especially hydrogen. Hydrogen burns clean, but the production of hydrogen from natural gas and coal can generate considerable greenhouse carbon dioxide. Interestingly, the largest US reserves of natural gas and coal are in Texas and Wyoming. So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest! The real question must be asked by everyone of himself. How much of the earth's resources does it take to make and run and stock each one of our homes, and cars and places of work? Think of all the drilling and mining and manufacturing and energy required to do all of that. Then, look at all your neighbor has, and his neighbor... We have dug ourselves into a karmic and spiritual and environmental debt that is impossible to reconcile. But, the reconciliation begins with the development of an environmental consciousness, and continues into an expansion of that consciousness. -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
On 9-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Who, exactly, is the "Christian Right?" Care to name names? Can you identify a PAC or other organization called the "Christian Right?" How does one identify a member of the "Christian Right?" Do they have tattoos? Do they wear yellow stars on their clothes so that they can be easily identified by the socialist left? How many of them are there? Where do they live? What do they look like? Richard Viguerie was a guest on the Daily Show (Jon Stewart) Wed. night and he said that the liberals are many different special interest groups that aren't united or organized in a single entity. The right, OTOH, he said is organized and have been working together for decades. In his words, the current political situation is the result of lots of steady work and is not a flash in the pan. If he can identify them, why can't you? Mike |
Frederick Burroughs wrote: Tinkerntom wrote: Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off, and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency preparedness planner. So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have been an oversight. Interstate commerce is a Constitutional right. The federal highway system is part and parcel to interstate commerce. Our right to utilize roads comes in large part from our being taxed, through fuel and vehicle taxes, to pay for highway construction and maintenance. The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration has an exhaustive history of highways; See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the "unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation" problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter! Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil shale, or coal. I'm extremely suspicious of "alternative" fuels, especially hydrogen. Hydrogen burns clean, but the production of hydrogen from natural gas and coal can generate considerable greenhouse carbon dioxide. Interestingly, the largest US reserves of natural gas and coal are in Texas and Wyoming. So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest! The real question must be asked by everyone of himself. How much of the earth's resources does it take to make and run and stock each one of our homes, and cars and places of work? Think of all the drilling and mining and manufacturing and energy required to do all of that. Then, look at all your neighbor has, and his neighbor... We have dug ourselves into a karmic and spiritual and environmental debt that is impossible to reconcile. But, the reconciliation begins with the development of an environmental consciousness, and continues into an expansion of that consciousness. There in lies the problem. We each develope our environmental consciousness at different thresholds of awareness. Who is in the drivers seat saying we all have to have a certain level of awareness at a particular time. Usually the only point we have in common is when we hit crisis level, and then it may be to late. Maybe already if it is already impossible to reconcile. I was thinking of the little prairie dogs I saw setting by the side of the road earlier today. They sat there and watched the buffalo disappear, and the coming of horses and wagons and now cars. They may even watch the airplanes fly over. We have learned to coexist with them, and they to a greater extent, them with us. I see one every once in awhile run over on the road, and I hear of attempts to relocate colonies. But when all is said and done, and cars are a distant memory, and planes no longer fly because fuel cost to much. The little prairie dogs will still be setting out there eating grass seeds and enjoying the good life. TnT -- Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me - From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon |
Frank Bell wrote: I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in their group support meetings. ROFL --riverman (You DO see it, don't you?) Hehehe! Good point :-) It appears that riverman went fishing Frank, so it falls on you to enlighten us who do not see it. I would appreciate your vision of what is so funny. TnT |
Larry C says:
=============== The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent elections to the Republic/moderate/right. Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. But it's pretty evident from recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to their liking than the Democrats. ============== Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist cultures "red". frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote:
Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. Well said Wilf. It's funny to see people who are both politically almost off the far right side of the political scale complain about their differences. It's troubling to see the ones representing them not only try to carry out those ideas inside the U.S. but also try to force them onto the rest of the world. It's even more troubling to see that they are trying to export that what they call "democracy". I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist cultures "red". It's very simple: the vast majority of the U.S. population just don't care what anyone else outside the U.S. thinks. :-( Being that out of touch with the rest of the world and behaving like it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks has one drawback though: it does have its consequences when other people get it in their heads to make it painfully clear to you that they have a differing opinion. Still, nothing that can't be hidden (for a while) from the population through a thick layer of propaganda... -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 9-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Who, exactly, is the "Christian Right?" Care to name names? Can you identify a PAC or other organization called the "Christian Right?" How does one identify a member of the "Christian Right?" Do they have tattoos? Do they wear yellow stars on their clothes so that they can be easily identified by the socialist left? How many of them are there? Where do they live? What do they look like? Richard Viguerie was a guest on the Daily Show (Jon Stewart) Wed. night and he said that the liberals are many different special interest groups that aren't united or organized in a single entity. The right, OTOH, he said is organized and have been working together for decades. In his words, the current political situation is the result of lots of steady work and is not a flash in the pan. If he can identify them, why can't you? And how, exactly, is "lots of steady work" by "the right" which is "organized" a definition of the "Christian Right?" Are you stating that merely because conservatives of various political and religious persuasions work steadily and organize to achieve their common political objectives that this makes them all members of the "Christian Right?" Care to support that specious assertion with some facts? -- 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:
Larry C says: =============== The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent elections to the Republic/moderate/right. Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. But it's pretty evident from recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to their liking than the Democrats. ============== Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. And we like it that way...and intend to keep it that way. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. Tough noogies. We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda (or whatever dogma you prefer) merely because you don't like our system of government. I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. Well, it's because we are smart enough to learn the lessons of history that prove that socialism is an unworkable political concept and that representative democracy and capitalism are the most effective way to ensure liberty, freedom and justice for all. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". "Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein Hopefully the rest of the western world will come to their senses. There's a reason that we're the most powerful and influential nation on the face of the earth, and socialism is not it. -- 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 Wilko wrote:
BCITORGB wrote: Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. Well said Wilf. It's funny to see people who are both politically almost off the far right side of the political scale complain about their differences. It's troubling to see the ones representing them not only try to carry out those ideas inside the U.S. but also try to force them onto the rest of the world. It's even more troubling to see that they are trying to export that what they call "democracy". Wah. Democracy works. Socialism doesn't. Just ask Stalin's victims. I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist cultures "red". It's very simple: the vast majority of the U.S. population just don't care what anyone else outside the U.S. thinks. :-( We care deeply what you think. We just think you're deluded and oppressed, and we want to educate you about the benefits of representative democracy and capitalism, which is what makes the US the most powerful, influential and free nation on the planet. Caring about what you think does not mean that we have to accept your fallacious dogmas. Being that out of touch with the rest of the world and behaving like it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks has one drawback though: it does have its consequences when other people get it in their heads to make it painfully clear to you that they have a differing opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, even when it's wrong. What they're not entitled to do is to oppress, enslave, torture, abuse and murder others because their "opinion" is that they have some right to do so. When they actualize such "opinions" and oppress others, then the US can, and will step in to liberate the oppressed and destroy the tyrants. If you don't like that, then don't oppress others. Still, nothing that can't be hidden (for a while) from the population through a thick layer of propaganda... I hope you're right, because that way, sooner or later, the veil of socialist propaganda will be pierced and people will see that they can obtain security, freedom and happiness by embracing representative democracy and capitalism. -- 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 |
I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in their group support meetings. ROFL --riverman (You DO see it, don't you?) Hehehe! Good point :-) It appears that riverman went fishing Frank, so it falls on you to enlighten us who do not see it. I would appreciate your vision of what is so funny. TnT Well, it's just that you take Moyers to task for conveniently and simplistically stating that you're "all" wrong, then you turn right around and use Moyer's example to make a broad, sweeping statement about liberals and their "thinking" yourself! If you're going to accuse Moyers of simplistically lumping people into one pile, then you really ought to avoid doing the same thing yourself, at least in the very next sentence ;-) |
Scott Weiser says:
============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays). Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser? All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a favor; don't foist your notions on us. Cheers, frtzw906 |
Scott Weiser says:
============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays). Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser? All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a favor; don't foist your notions on us. Cheers, frtzw906 |
Scott Weiser says:
============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays). Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser? All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a favor; don't foist your notions on us. Cheers, frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says: ============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is. Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the U.S., or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably believes it as well. :-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
Frank Bell wrote: I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in their group support meetings. ROFL --riverman (You DO see it, don't you?) Hehehe! Good point :-) It appears that riverman went fishing Frank, so it falls on you to enlighten us who do not see it. I would appreciate your vision of what is so funny. TnT Well, it's just that you take Moyers to task for conveniently and simplistically stating that you're "all" wrong, then you turn right around and use Moyer's example to make a broad, sweeping statement about liberals and their "thinking" yourself! If you're going to accuse Moyers of simplistically lumping people into one pile, then you really ought to avoid doing the same thing yourself, at least in the very next sentence ;-) Reviewing what I said, was that " a lot of liberals" not "all liberals." Also I was refering to specific statements made by Moyer regarding fundementalist Christians, and heartily endorsed by the Hollywood left who have an apparent vitrolic hadred of the FC's. I personally doubt that all liberals would endorse this hadred, and actually would find it abhorent, if they trully understood what some of their spokesmen were advocating. I do appreciate your willingness to be open Frank, and to explain to me my foopahs. If it sounded to you like I was saying all, I would agree that brush is to wide. However it does appear that there are certain voices in this neighborhood who seem to find Moyers statement acceptable, and are also seemingly unwilling to repudiate them. This concerns me if it represnts a deepening divide between reasonble voices. I would on this point hope that I am totally wrong. I would also maintain that this very prevailing attitude is probably what the FC's sense from the liberal establishment, which causes the FC's to seek advocates on the Right, and resulted in the recent Nov vote outcome. Continuing hostility from the left, will not endear the FC's to the liberal cause. If the liberal trully desires to establish any inrodes into the FC camp, he might try an olive branch instead of ROFL. TnT |
Wilko wrote: BCITORGB wrote: Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. Well said Wilf. It's funny to see people who are both politically almost off the far right side of the political scale complain about their differences. It's troubling to see the ones representing them not only try to carry out those ideas inside the U.S. but also try to force them onto the rest of the world. It's even more troubling to see that they are trying to export that what they call "democracy". I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist cultures "red". It's very simple: the vast majority of the U.S. population just don't care what anyone else outside the U.S. thinks. :-( Being that out of touch with the rest of the world and behaving like it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks has one drawback though: it does have its consequences when other people get it in their heads to make it painfully clear to you that they have a differing opinion. Still, nothing that can't be hidden (for a while) from the population through a thick layer of propaganda... -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ Wilko, I have said on numerous ocassions, that I am very interested in what you have to say. You are one voice in Europe, and so I identified you as Euro, and got plonked for generalizing. And yet you just acknowledged that we here in US are out of touch with the rest of the world. That is a pretty big generalization for someone who is only one small voice in Europe. It sounded to me like you were speaking for a whole lot of Euro voices, and others. That is why I identified you as Euro, and why what you say is important, if in fact that what you say is true, we need to listen. There was no denigrating slur intended in refering to you as Euro. Now having said we need to listen, does not mean that we will accept your premise. We have our own concerns whch we have to address as best we can from our perspective. That does not mean that we are totally myopic, anymore than others around the world. We each look out first for number one. We have local concerns and worldwide concerns. I understand that what we do affects others around the world. Maybe not as well as you in your international travels. 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. This would be true whether our government was right or left, and there will always be some in the world, who are further right or left than ourselves. 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. Eventually we work out our differences one way or the other. Much like personal differences, just on a bigger scale. So am I unplonked? TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Larry C says: =============== The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent elections to the Republic/moderate/right. Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. But it's pretty evident from recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to their liking than the Democrats. ============== Clearly, for you Americans, it is YOUR election and your government. Unfortunately, as a nation, you are so powerful and influential that who you elect has an impact on virtually every other soul on this planet. YOU may have decided that the Bush right-wing agenda is right for America. Many (the vast majority) of us outside of the United States do not agree. I find it curious and disheartening that America can be so out of step with prevailing global opinions. The rest of the western world is clearly "blue". Likely we could color the prevailing anti-intellectualism of places like Afghanistan and other fundamentalist cultures "red". frtzw906 frtzw906, I appreciate your starting statement - it is our election, and our government. I would understand that you are not from the US, so you do not find any obligation to identify personally with the results. 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. Thankyou for your input, in advance. TnT |
Wilko wrote: BCITORGB wrote: Scott Weiser says: ============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is. Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the U.S., or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably believes it as well. :-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ Hey Wilko, I don't know about this socialism thing, that has been brought up. But I would be interested in knowing how your world view would define the various political systems if not capitalism and socialism. I am not so much interested at this time in the merits of the various systems, just what the basic definitions would be. TnT |
Scott Weiser wrote: A Usenet persona calling itself Larry C wrote: The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent elections to the Republic/moderate/right. That's just simple math, look at the makeup of Congress, the Governorships of the states, and the trend in memberships in the state legislatures. I live in a state that is HEAVILY democratic, to the tune of 3 to 1, yet we now have a Republican legislature and governor. Manipulated the Media? The media I saw were all heavily in favor of Kerry. Want to know why this is happening, and will only continue to happen? It's because lefty liberals are (not) breeding themselves into extinction. When liberals resolve to not have kids in order to save the planet, where is the next generation of lefty liberal tree-huggers going to come from and who's going to inculcate them into socialist dogma so they can take over the world? Conservatives, on the other hand, view children as a positive benefit to society and they like making babies, who they then raise as conservatives, who then vote the increasingly endangered liberal/socialists out of office. It's the essence of "hoist on their own petard" for the liberals. But to blame this swing on "fundamentalist christians" is stereotyping and scapegoating, frankly it sounds like a bunch of Nazis blaming all their troubles on the Jews, or the Klan on the Blacks. Indeed. Particularly when they identify anyone who holds any sort of religious Christian belief as "The Moral Majority" or the "Religious Right" or "fundamentalist Christians." I'm none of the above, but even I know that, for example, the Catholic church (members of which comprise more than 20% of the US population...some 65 million citizens) is just about evenly split these days between liberals and conservatives when it comes to politics. Moyer stated that there is a anti environmental element in the Protestant Christian Religion, I say that it is absolute bull****. I agree. He's a hack. I don't see armies of Christans wacking down trees to hurry the END. I've had to sit through many a sermon in my day, from Catholic to Pentecostal, and I have never heard anything like that from any of the pulpits. Do the "Christians" vote a more conservative social value than espoused by the Democratic Party? Yes, but mainly on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But this is America and they do have the right to speak and vote for what they believe whether you agree with them or not. Well put. Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. It's a big country out there and people have a lot of different priorities on why they vote, many may not be yours. But it's pretty evident from recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to their liking than the Democrats. Yup. Democrats have radicalized their way right out of the public favor. -- 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 =A9 2005 Scott Weiser Not only have they radicalized themselves right out of public favor, but ironically, if all the aborted babies had lived to vote, they probably would have pulled this last election away from the Right, and they also would not have antagonized all the FC's in their support of abortion over the last 30 years in the process. They probably did more to mobilize the FC's than any other single source to their own demise! TnT |
On 10-Feb-2005, Melissa wrote:
It's a small start, but here's a project I'm following with great interest: http://www.haveblue.com/ Small is the key word. The amount of hydrogen (and hence electricity) you can generate will always be less than the amount of sunlight/wind you can capture. Boats currently use batteries to save power from sun/wind and don't get much total power. Hydrogen + fuel cell is just an expensive version of a battery. Hydrogen technologies are mostly hype, unfortunately. Mike |
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. We care deeply what you think. We just think you're deluded and oppressed, and we want to educate you about the benefits of representative democracy and capitalism, which is what makes the US the most powerful, influential and free nation on the planet. 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? To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts. Mike |
On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
That is a pretty big generalization for someone who is only one small voice in Europe. It sounded to me like you were speaking for a whole lot of Euro voices, and others. Well, if you bother to listen to the rest of the world, you'll discover that Wilko's view is not uncommon in many other countries. I listen to English language radio broadcasts from many countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden, Czech Republic, South Africa etc. In fact, Radio Australia is on right now. There is a voice out there beyond America - you just have to listen. Mike |
On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Are you stating that merely because conservatives of various political and religious persuasions work steadily and organize to achieve their common political objectives that this makes them all members of the "Christian Right?" No but Viguerie includes the Christian Right in the groups that he lumps together. They exist as organized groups that are able to be represented when they whole mess work together. Are you claiming that there is no Christian Right? All Christians are left wingers? Mike |
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. 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. 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? ;-) 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. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect: 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise". You will learn that the suffix 'burgh is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often. 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize". 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire. 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness. 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through. 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs. 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "****". You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public. 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day". 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour. 10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers. 11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself. 12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer", and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager". The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be refered to as "Near-Frozen Knat's Urine", with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine". This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion. 13. From November 1st the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2001) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it). 14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun. 15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776). Thank you for your cooperation. --------------------------------------------------------------- -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
Michael Daly wrote: On 11-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: That is a pretty big generalization for someone who is only one small voice in Europe. It sounded to me like you were speaking for a whole lot of Euro voices, and others. Well, if you bother to listen to the rest of the world, you'll discover that Wilko's view is not uncommon in many other countries. I listen to English language radio broadcasts from many countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden, Czech Republic, South Africa etc. In fact, Radio Australia is on right now. There is a voice out there beyond America - you just have to listen. Mike Fact is when 10:00 news comes on I will often watch CH12 which is BBC, just for a different perspective. I use to really enjoy Dollywall (sp?) I currently try to review numerous internet news sites from the world. But it seems that mostly I find 1 or 2 min sound bites, all coming from the same wire service. Seems that Americans are not the only one with short attention span. An example is the tsunami. I told my wife that within two months you would have trouble finding an international news article about it. Same with so many other crisis type stories. On the other hand try finding a story that has to do with the everyday life of some unknown in some remote part of the world, like Canada. Also very difficult. That is why I find discussions with the NG enlightening, you all are real people. Not just some journalist figment of imagination. Sometimes the realness rubs the wrong way, but we can work around that. TnT |
Michael Daly wrote: On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Are you stating that merely because conservatives of various political and religious persuasions work steadily and organize to achieve their common political objectives that this makes them all members of the "Christian Right?" No but Viguerie includes the Christian Right in the groups that he lumps together. They exist as organized groups that are able to be represented when they whole mess work together. Are you claiming that there is no Christian Right? All Christians are left wingers? Mike Mike, I live here in Denver, only a short distance from Colorado Springs, and Focus on the Family. During the recent election, noone ever knocked on our door. I did receive a few calls, reminding me to vote. Not necessarily right or left, just vote. Nationally Colorado voted for Bush, but locally, we voted blue. The Statehouse was taken over in both the Senate and House by Dems, and we sent two new dems to the US Congress. If the FC's were such a powerful and overwhelming force in poitics, you would think they would have more sway here at home. But we are a really confused lot here in Colorado, must be the high altitude! Fact of the matter, there is a growing number of Christians involved in the political process but they are not all right wing conservatives, just willing to be active and involved, and can make alot of "noise". The media loves noise, gives them something to talk about. TnT |
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). 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. That, and WMD were thinly veiled excuses to gain control of oil. 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? 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? Cheers, frtzw906 |
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. 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, Kyoto,..... and on, and on, and on.... Cheers, frtzw906 ========== |
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". 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. But the system of government your hold up as praiseworthy disrespects the ballots of Green voters. How is that representative? 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. 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. But please don't hold it up as an ideal. 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. Maybe, one day, when you bring your system into the 20th century (never mind the 21st), others will listen. "Representative" indeed! Cheers, frtzw906 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com