BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
==========
All politicians love to collect money to spend
on their pet projects, and some are quite expensive.
==============

i'm guessing the war in iraq is one of those pet projects

frtzw906

Where is the line drawn? That is the problem, we all draw it just to
the left or right of where we are standing. Sort of justifies where we
are standing, and it probably depends on who we are talking to at the
time.

Probably also depends on who is holding out their hands to whom for the
dole. Whether its corporate welfare, or personal, and how hungry you
are at the time. And how hungry the politician is to get you fed and
happy and voting for them.

As far as pet projects, Tinker was my pet dog growing up. She was a
sweet spirited and loving companion. I loved her dearly, and she would
be very old now if alive. Probably she is buried in some forgotten
landfill someplace. I don't think that she would smell so nice or be
fun to pet now. So go pet projects!

I want you to know that despite the acrimony of our discussion, I think
Canada, Britain, and the EU countries are great world neighbors. We
have are differences, and various perspectives, but we have a history
also of being able to work them out. There is probably no perfect
government, just what works for you. And what works for us in USA. TnT

TnT says:
==========
Granted there
may be some oligarchs that profit hansomly, but always at the expense
of the masses, who eventually,
===========

now you're talking! that's exactly one of my points!

"some oligarchs that profit hansomly" -- does that sounf familiar? have
you been drinking the kool-aid to the point you can't tell what your
economy looks like.

TnT says:
=========
Have you been in the stinkhole of Socialism so long you can't smell the
difference any longer?
=========

you still haven't defined why canada, in your opinion, may be
classified as "socialist" and the usa not. please give me specifics
rather than throwing labels around indiscriminantly.

TnT says:
==========
"We in USA
deserved 9/11!" TnT
==========

i believe it was one of your own nutbar, FC leaders who said the usa
deserved it because of loose morals or some such tripe. c'mon TnT,
think these things through....

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
=============
Oh yeah, I forgot about the NAZI, that means National Capitalistic
party! No wait, I am wrong, that was National Socialist Party. Sorry
they don't fill the bill.
==============

you might want to tell that to the thousands of trade unionists
jailed
by the NAZIs.

i suspect you don't know why they were jailed do you? they were
jailed
for actively supporting the socialist party. and, also, for actively
campaigning against the nazi party.

do you have any idea why they opposed the nazi party? for starters,
because the nazi party supported the huge capitalist concerns (of
course, only for nation strategic purposes, to use komrad weiser's
paradigm). in many ways, the nazi party acted against the interests
of
the german proletariat in the same way the american government
ignored
the interests of ordinary latin american citizens while propping up
american corporate interests (of course, purely for national
strategic
reasons).

i'm telling you TnT, the founders of your once-proud republic must be
turning over in their graves... so much promise, and it has come to
this.

now do you get the problem with labels?

frtzw906

I am sure they have made a number of Acrobatic moves in the course of
history that would have scored very high in any Olympic competition.
They could not have forseen all the historic changes that occurred
since the founding. But they also put in place an amazing system that
has been able to adjust to the changes, albeit some times slowly, but
surely. Most Americans despite their differences, when offered a choice
to go elsewhere, stay here. This is our homeland now, even though most
of us have roots elsewhere. And as always the case, the homeland is
worth fighting for.

Luckily in most of our history, we have chosen to use ballots instead
of bullets, realizing that in four short years we get to do it all over
again. The victor can never get to comfortable, and the loser is never
vanquished. That again though is part of the beauty of what the
founders set up, and I expect they jump for joy as they see the system
working better than they could have hoped. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
==========
Granted there
may be some oligarchs that profit hansomly, but always at the expense
of the masses, who eventually,
===========

now you're talking! that's exactly one of my points!

"some oligarchs that profit hansomly" -- does that sounf familiar?
have
you been drinking the kool-aid to the point you can't tell what your
economy looks like.

TnT says:
=========
Have you been in the stinkhole of Socialism so long you can't smell
the
difference any longer?
=========

you still haven't defined why canada, in your opinion, may be
classified as "socialist" and the usa not. please give me specifics
rather than throwing labels around indiscriminantly.

TnT says:
==========
"We in USA
deserved 9/11!" TnT
==========

i believe it was one of your own nutbar, FC leaders who said the usa
deserved it because of loose morals or some such tripe. c'mon TnT,
think these things through....

frtzw906

I agree labels leave alot to be desired, as they are not very
descriptive, and probably are more like fog than anything. I am not
personally familiar with Canada, so I do not claim to apply the label
from my own experience, but others more in the know have applied the
label. You tell me why you think it may or may not apply. TnT

TnT quotes someone else:
========
"We in USA
deserved 9/11!"
==============

The original topic included mention of christian fundamentalists. it
might be useful to turn the focus back on CF's and, for that matter
jewish fundamentists, islamic fundamentalists (and fundamentalists of
all and sundry "isms"). they are all, quite simply put, nutbars.

ok, i've got the name-calling out of the way. let's examine the facts.
an islamic fundamentalist nutbar causes planes to be flown into
buildings. is it because he hates american freedoms? yea, likely that's
one of a myriad of reasons. that's fundamental to all fundamentalists:
they hate freedom. they want to squeeze everyone into the same damned
mold. their mold.

a christian fundamentalist nutbar then opines that the planes flying
into buildings can be accounted for by the wrasth of god. god
apparently is angry at people because they've refused to adhere to the
mold prescribed by CF nutbars.

islamic fundamentalists (IF) insist that women cover up in public. how
ansurd! CF's support the notion that a female breast on a super bowl
half-time show be pixelated. stupid!

IF's stone women who speak to males other than family members. how
right out of the dark ages. CF's make spectacles of themselves at the
funeral of a gay man who, obviously, had liaisons with other men. how
medieval! [and i haven't even mentioned the nature of the young man's
death -- too much like stoning from my perspective].

IFs don't permit girls to go to school. backward! CFs demand that very
ordinary books (but clearly ones that don't fit their mold) used as
part of very ordinary high school english literature curricula be
banned. very backward!

how long should i go on for? and i haven't even touched jewish, sihk,
hindu, etc fundamentalists. dangerous nutbars, all of them.

these are simple people who for some reason can't cope with modernity.
rather than reason out issues using the best information available at
any point in time, they prefer the ancient writings of who knows who.

these are simple people who cannot handle diversity, ambiguity, and the
give-and-take of modern life. and because they are simple people
(simpletons?) they resort to the means of simple people -- violence.
whether CF or IF, "spare the rod and spoil the child" seems to be the
operative paradigm. for these simple people, use of the rod seems to
be the only outlet when faced with phenomena outside their ken.

it is odd, imho, that CFs can't see how very taliban-like their dogma
is.

frtzw906

TnT says:
===========
I am not
personally familiar with Canada, so I do not claim to apply the label
from my own experience, but others more in the know have applied the
label. You tell me why you think it may or may not apply.
=============

you say "others more in the know have applied the
label. " . who might that be? komrad weiser? please define "more in the
know"

i have been in the usa, and while there clearly are differences between
canada and the usa, i'm not sure i want to apply the label "socialist"
to canada and then not to the usa.

these people in the "know", why do they deem canada to be "socialist"?

frtzw906

TnT, have you conveniently chosen to ignore my trade unionist versus
the nazi party history lesson? what say you of that? are you still
insisting the nazi's were "socialists"?

frtzw906
=

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT, have you conveniently chosen to ignore my trade unionist versus
the nazi party history lesson? what say you of that? are you still
insisting the nazi's were "socialists"?

frtzw906
=

Not conviently ignored, just that my SO "suggested" early today that I
should help her finish moving in from boxes piled since two weeks ago,
and we have visitors in a week. Maybe can get back to you later today,
or Monday PM. TnT

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

There are some that want more federal involvement, hence more
taxes, and there are some who want less. Less fed, and less taxes. The
first are social liberals, and the second is capitalist conservatives.

Then ther's the current US administration, that has increased government
at a much faster rate than Clinton, but reduces taxes.

In fact, you can't reduce taxes when you run deficits and carry debt;
you can only _defer_ taxes. Someone's going to have to pay the bill,
but the current generations of voters are hoping it won't be them.
Ditto environmental damage - they are "sure" someone will fix the
problem someday.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Rick wrote:

When you invent your time
machine and make those observations, please send us a report

We have something of a time machine - the observable universe.
Since information takes time to travel, the farther away we
look, the further back in time we see. Hence, what we see
close by happened recently and what we observe far away happened
in the distant past.

Mike