weiser says:
=========
Amphigory.
==========

did i miss a comma somewhere?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

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.

War is hell. It's hardly surprising that spending has increased, we're at
war.


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.

One of the best ways to fix deficits is to cut government spending. We'll do
that as soon as the cowards in the EU start helping out with the war on
terrorism and we can bring our troops home.

Until then, we'll do what we have to to secure peace and defeat the
terrorists...again...while the rest of the world sits by and enjoys the
fruits of our labor.

--
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

weiser says:
==============
The Euro is stronger than the
US dollar and is backed by more people.

And it's that way because the US created the economic engine that
drives the Euro by spending trillions of US dollars over decades to
provide for the
defense of Europe against Soviet aggression. I'd say that moves the
balance
point rather radically our way.
===========

amphigory!

frtzw906

weiser says:
===========
It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.
============

i'd say that pretty-much sums up welfare of all sorts. the occasional
"welfare queen" hardly negates the value of giving the underpriviliged
temporary assistance.

frtzw906

weiser says:
==========
It's sheik to call subsidies "corporate welfare," but
it's also factually incorrect.
=========

notwithstanding the current american obsession with arabs, i'm going to
assume you mean "chic" (or perhaps "sheik" is just one more american
way of getting under france's skin. in that case, you ought to know
that in german, sheiks are known as "pariser", but that's another story
completely).

but to the issue at hand: pedantic semantics! welfare is a "lifestyle
subsidy" and subsidies are "welfare for corporate shareholders".

no matter how many times you deconstruct it, it still amounts to "six
of one equals one half dozen of another",

welfare or subsidies: they both represent a government's decision to
redistribute a nation's wealth. welfare has -- in both cases --
positive short-term effects but can be, as you so eloquently point out
in your "what i'd do to wefare recipients" discourse, debilitating in
the long-term. if welfare serves to allow the individual time to
acquire skills necessary to become employable, or to permit a
corporation time to readjust to market conditions, it seems we're on
the same page on this one.

or would that be unbearable for you?

frtzw906

weiser says:
============
That's why they have a rampant drug problems that cost their citizens
enormous amounts of money to deal with.
==========

hmmmm.... i'd check those statistics before going on. where exactly are
rampant drug problems costing citizens enormous amounts of money? or
aren't you counting the money the usa spends keeping people in prison
for umpteen years for minor drug offenses.

the cost of treating drug issues as medical issues and, as in places
like amsterdam, permitting the open use of MJ, is minimal compared to
costs of enforcement and incarceration.

weiser again:
===========
Stop sucking at the US teat then. Let's close the Canadian border
entirely and see how long you last without imports from the US, not to
mention our
tourist money.
==================

and do you think that that trade goes one-way? when it comes to raw
materials, i think we trump you guys.

frtzw906

weiser said:
===========
Care to prove these remarkably idiotic assertions?
==========

check the oecd statistics historically. you'll note that they
currently do quite well. in math in science this was not the case
through the 50's, 60's and 70's.

frtzw906

weiser says:
===========
Ireland wouldn't have had ANY schools if it weren't for the Catholic
church.
===========

do you mean to suggest that without the catholic church, the
gowvernment of ireland would not have provided some level of universal
education? that's hard to believe!

what isn't hard to believe is that catholic propaganda convinced the
irish that the church was best able to handle the job of educating the
masses. the catholic church knew well the dictum of the jesuits: "give
me the boy..."

frtzw906

weiser says:
===========
Until then, we'll do what we have to to secure peace and defeat the
terrorists...again...while the rest of the world sits by and enjoys the
fruits of our labor.
=========

why bark if the dog will do it for you?

frtzw906

Wilko: thank you very much for your insight into what happened in
holland. horrible as it was, i audibly laughed when i read "People like
Theo van Gogh, who used openly hostile remarks towards muslims, like
calling them
"goat-****ers" ". while there is, of course, nothing to laugh at in the
statement i found myself thinking -- and i mean no offense to you --
that the dutch language does not lend itself well to subtlety and
nuance. dutch must be the most direct, honest language around.

like you say "which IMHO is more disturbing than the so called
anti-islamic violence rising, is that the openness of our society has
changed." this, too, is the impression i got. however, reports of these
things in the media tend to concentrate on the sensational rather than
the background.

You say: "Denmark is actually rather intolerant, with a considerable
list of
minority unfriendly and minority intolerant laws and regulations."

This reminds me of a visit we had in the late 80's from a danish
acquaintance. she was by every measure, the poster child/women for the
euro-left. she was a card-carrying member of the danish socialist
party. she went to every rally and march imaginable: peace, anti-nuke,
feminist... you name it. she was active in the teachers' union. she had
not a racist bone in her body (she was married to a greenland inuit).
yet, when we talked about the future of denmark, she expressed only
one concern: radical islam! she was not concerned about the fact that
they were either arabs or persians. even though she was an atheist, she
did not mind the islamic faith in moderation. but what she saw, and
what she abhorred was the growing militancy of the radical muslim
refugees/immigrants. i have lost touch with her, but it wouldn't
surprise me if, in spite of her tolerant tendencies, she would join
such a "right-wing" movement. she foresaw everything the socialists and
feminists had worked for being threatened. for her, that was not
negotiable.

wilko says:
===========
Because muslims are tolerated and left to do what they as long as they
bother no-one, we expect them to respect others and not try to force
their beliefs onto others as well. Alas, a few of them fail to
understand that.
===========

alas, i fear that is the problem with radical fundamentalists: they
don't know when they've pushed far enough. they fail to understand that
tolerance has it's limits. they fail to see that the line in the sand
is the very tolerance that gives them their liberty. by all mean, "do
your own thing", but don't think you can define what "my thing" is!

again, thanks for your insight.

frtzw906,