OT: Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case

[keith]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:41:26 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote (in <MPG.1cbcbcc87aecb2f89899a5@news.individual.net&gt about 'OT:
Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 5 Apr 2005:

Clearly a "democracy" was never intended by the FF. The United States
was quite intentionally set up to be a republic. Until Amendment XVII
(1913) "the people" didn't vote for senators.

That's quite normal for a bicameral parliament, in fact those that have
a popular suffrage for both chambers are rather rare. In UK, we still
don't vote for members of the upper chamber.

Sure. Even I knew that. ;-) The point is that neither countries are a
democracy. In the case of the United States, it was quite intentional.
Democracies were seen, rightly, as quite ugly things.

Of course, US actually has a soviet system for presidential elections.
(;-)

Not at all. The United States is just that. It's about the states
choosing the executive, not the people. See: amendment XXVII (above).
Without the Senate, and by extension the Electoral College the small
states would be totally forgotten.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:30:33 -0700, Robert Monsen wrote:

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence_A <no@No.com> wrote (in
CcA4e.9602$FN4.804@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 5 Apr 2005:

America is not and never has been a "Democracy."


What about 'government of/for/by the People'? 'By the People' is surely
'democracy'?

It's formally defined as a representative democracy. The people don't
vote, they vote for the people who vote. This leads to wierd anomalies,
such as George W Bush, who lost the 'popular' vote in 2000, but won the
election due to quirks in the law, and a few friends in high places.

Horse-shit! No "quirks in the law", nor "a few friends in high places".
The constitution was (finally) followed.

....but if you want to continue to slog on in your hate and stupor, please
don't let me stop you. You folks need someone to hate.

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
<pan.2005.04.06.02.40.57.775124@att.bizzzz&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 5 Apr 2005:

I wrote

Of course, US actually has a soviet system for presidential elections.
(;-)

Not at all. The United States is just that. It's about the states
choosing the executive, not the people. See: amendment XXVII (above).
Without the Senate, and by extension the Electoral College the small
states would be totally forgotten.

That's precisely a soviet system, which is a hierarchy of committees,
each electing representatives to the next senior committee:

People -> Electoral College
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <bU6SNKC3H4UCFwxc@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.04.06.02.40.57.775124@att.bizzzz&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 5 Apr 2005:

I wrote

Of course, US actually has a soviet system for presidential elections.
(;-)

Not at all. The United States is just that. It's about the states
choosing the executive, not the people. See: amendment XXVII (above).
Without the Senate, and by extension the Electoral College the small
states would be totally forgotten.

That's precisely a soviet system, which is a hierarchy of committees,
each electing representatives to the next senior committee:

In the Soviet system, do people elect the members of the Politburo?
Are there multiple choices for representatives?

People -> Electoral College

Huh? The Electoral College members are selected by the various states
according to *their* laws. The states could even allow the people to
vote for electors directly.

--
Keith

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:32:24 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:55:44 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

[snip]

and now are embarrassed and trying to weasel
out of responsibility for your collusion in ushering in the theocracy,
is not true.

Theocracy, my left nut. You simply haven't *one*.

Ignorant dupe.

Gore-the-bore fathead.

Keith, You sure have a way with flattery ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote (in <MPG.1cbdaf93b4ae60a49899a6@news.individual.net&gt about 'OT:
Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:

In article <bU6SNKC3H4UCFwxc@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.04.06.02.40.57.775124@att.bizzzz&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 5 Apr 2005:

I wrote

Of course, US actually has a soviet system for presidential elections.
(;-)

Not at all. The United States is just that. It's about the states
choosing the executive, not the people. See: amendment XXVII (above).
Without the Senate, and by extension the Electoral College the small
states would be totally forgotten.

That's precisely a soviet system, which is a hierarchy of committees,
each electing representatives to the next senior committee:

In the Soviet system, do people elect the members of the Politburo?

Please distinguish between 'soviet' and 'Soviet'. Yes, people elected
the Politburo. People from the next lower soviets.

Are there multiple choices for representatives?

In the Soviet system, of course, all the candidates were so excellently
qualified that to have more than one would have been an embarrasse de
richesse.

People -> Electoral College

Huh? The Electoral College members are selected by the various states
according to *their* laws. The states could even allow the people to
vote for electors directly.

But not for the actual candidates for office? That's what democracy is

about; direct elections (among other things).
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <otMOjXFrDAVCFw9G@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote (in <MPG.1cbdaf93b4ae60a49899a6@news.individual.net&gt about 'OT:
Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:
In article <bU6SNKC3H4UCFwxc@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote (in
pan.2005.04.06.02.40.57.775124@att.bizzzz&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Tue, 5 Apr 2005:

I wrote

Of course, US actually has a soviet system for presidential elections.
(;-)

Not at all. The United States is just that. It's about the states
choosing the executive, not the people. See: amendment XXVII (above).
Without the Senate, and by extension the Electoral College the small
states would be totally forgotten.

That's precisely a soviet system, which is a hierarchy of committees,
each electing representatives to the next senior committee:

In the Soviet system, do people elect the members of the Politburo?

Please distinguish between 'soviet' and 'Soviet'.

Ok.

Yes, people elected the Politburo. People from the next lower soviets.

The *federal* system doesn't rely on "lower" levels, other than the
states. The theory is that the *states* are supreme to the federal
government. Thre is no municipal government vote to elect state
legislators or precinct captains vote to elect city father, etc.

Are there multiple choices for representatives?

In the Soviet system, of course, all the candidates were so excellently
qualified that to have more than one would have been an embarrasse de
richesse.

Ok, so the answer is "no".

People -> Electoral College

Huh? The Electoral College members are selected by the various states
according to *their* laws. The states could even allow the people to
vote for electors directly.

But not for the actual candidates for office? That's what democracy is
about; direct elections (among other things).

No one (who has studied the issue for an instant) said the US *federal*
government was a democracy. It was specifically designed as a
constitutional republic - a federation of *states*. A direct democracy
was seen to be a dangerous thing.

Of course you know all this, but want to make some point. ...not sure
what it is though. Perhaps you just want to say what you mean?

--
Keith

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote (in <MPG.1cbdd04e2ab730269899a8@news.individual.net&gt about 'OT:
Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:

A direct democracy was seen to be a dangerous thing.

Of course you know all this, but want to make some point. ...not sure
what it is though. Perhaps you just want to say what you mean?

I want to challenge your view that democracy is dangerous. You don't say
why. And my remark about 'soviet' was a joke.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

In <suE$jZKL0AVCFwdL@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/06/05
at 05:23 PM, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> said:

I want to challenge your view that democracy is dangerous. You don't say
why.

Democracy is "rule by the majority" while a republic is founded upon a
Constitution, wherein the rules and rights of individuals are 'preset' and
unchangeable.

In a democracy, when the majority no longer wish to allow people to choose
their own religious beliefs, they can vote and create a law which forbids
free choice of religion. In a republic, the freedom of religion is
guaranteed, even if the majority disagree.

In a democracy, the right to free speech can be revoked by the agreeing
vote of the majority, while in the republic, freedom of speech is granted
to all, regardless of public opinion.

A democracy is a dangerous thing, in that the laws and rules can change
with the whims of society, and the dictates of a simple majority.

It is certainly preferred, when playing poker, to know the rules of the
game before you place your bet. In a republic, four of a kind beats two
pair. In a democracy, it is possible that after you take your last cards,
and place your bet, the majority can vote to make a full house a winner
over even a royal flush. No one would play poker under those conditions.

At the federal levels, it is very important that what is the law today,
remains the law tomorrow, and if we step back and view the destruction of
the United States from within, it is because the majority are attempting
to impose their own will on the minority. (and of course, vice versa)

The Constitution, once the ruling document in this land, provided a set of
rules for all to live by, and granted freedoms and rights to everyone, so
that we knew what was correct without having to ask GW or Hillary if it
was okay. The Constitutional government is controlled and limited, and so
that freedoms were guaranteed to all, equally. Citizens in a Republic know
the laws. Folks in a democracy have to keep up with all the changes and
alterations in order to know their freedoms, rights, and privileges, and
if they find themselves in the minority, they stand to loose all that they
felt was once theirs to enjoy.

Without those "preset rules" we are subject to the whims and fancy of
whomever is in power at the time. I would prefer to know up front which
hand beats which type of hand when playing poker, and when attempting to
live my life, and establish my standard of living.

In a republic, basic human rights and freedoms are granted by the
Constitution, or as many would testify, by God, through that Constitution.
In a democracy, freedoms and rights are granted by man, and as such, can
also be revoked by man. That is one reason why a democracy is dangerous,
and not the ideal form of government.

JB

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com wrote (in
<42541bd7$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'OT: Civil War Narrowly
Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:

In <suE$jZKL0AVCFwdL@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/06/05
at 05:23 PM, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> said:

I want to challenge your view that democracy is dangerous. You don't say
why.

Democracy is "rule by the majority" while a republic is founded upon a
Constitution, wherein the rules and rights of individuals are 'preset' and
unchangeable.

In a democracy, when the majority no longer wish to allow people to choose
their own religious beliefs, they can vote and create a law which forbids
free choice of religion. In a republic, the freedom of religion is
guaranteed, even if the majority disagree.

In a democracy, the right to free speech can be revoked by the agreeing
vote of the majority, while in the republic, freedom of speech is granted
to all, regardless of public opinion.

A democracy is a dangerous thing, in that the laws and rules can change
with the whims of society, and the dictates of a simple majority.

It is certainly preferred, when playing poker, to know the rules of the
game before you place your bet. In a republic, four of a kind beats two
pair. In a democracy, it is possible that after you take your last cards,
and place your bet, the majority can vote to make a full house a winner
over even a royal flush. No one would play poker under those conditions.

At the federal levels, it is very important that what is the law today,
remains the law tomorrow, and if we step back and view the destruction of
the United States from within, it is because the majority are attempting
to impose their own will on the minority. (and of course, vice versa)

The Constitution, once the ruling document in this land, provided a set of
rules for all to live by, and granted freedoms and rights to everyone, so
that we knew what was correct without having to ask GW or Hillary if it
was okay. The Constitutional government is controlled and limited, and so
that freedoms were guaranteed to all, equally. Citizens in a Republic know
the laws. Folks in a democracy have to keep up with all the changes and
alterations in order to know their freedoms, rights, and privileges, and
if they find themselves in the minority, they stand to loose all that they
felt was once theirs to enjoy.

Without those "preset rules" we are subject to the whims and fancy of
whomever is in power at the time. I would prefer to know up front which
hand beats which type of hand when playing poker, and when attempting to
live my life, and establish my standard of living.

In a republic, basic human rights and freedoms are granted by the
Constitution, or as many would testify, by God, through that Constitution.
In a democracy, freedoms and rights are granted by man, and as such, can
also be revoked by man. That is one reason why a democracy is dangerous,
and not the ideal form of government.

JB

So you don't know, eh? (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Clarence_A]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:JtaGDWPzCCVCFw5O@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com
wrote (in
42541bd7$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly
Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:
In <suE$jZKL0AVCFwdL@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/06/05
at 05:23 PM, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk
said:

I want to challenge your view that democracy is dangerous. You
don't say
why.

Democracy is "rule by the majority" while a republic is founded
upon a
Constitution, wherein the rules and rights of individuals are
'preset' and
unchangeable.

In a democracy, when the majority no longer wish to allow
people to choose
their own religious beliefs, they can vote and create a law
which forbids
free choice of religion. In a republic, the freedom of religion
is
guaranteed, even if the majority disagree.

In a democracy, the right to free speech can be revoked by the
agreeing
vote of the majority, while in the republic, freedom of speech
is granted
to all, regardless of public opinion.

A democracy is a dangerous thing, in that the laws and rules
can change
with the whims of society, and the dictates of a simple
majority.

It is certainly preferred, when playing poker, to know the
rules of the
game before you place your bet. In a republic, four of a kind
beats two
pair. In a democracy, it is possible that after you take your
last cards,
and place your bet, the majority can vote to make a full house
a winner
over even a royal flush. No one would play poker under those
conditions.

At the federal levels, it is very important that what is the
law today,
remains the law tomorrow, and if we step back and view the
destruction of
the United States from within, it is because the majority are
attempting
to impose their own will on the minority. (and of course, vice
versa)

The Constitution, once the ruling document in this land,
provided a set of
rules for all to live by, and granted freedoms and rights to
everyone, so
that we knew what was correct without having to ask GW or
Hillary if it
was okay. The Constitutional government is controlled and
limited, and so
that freedoms were guaranteed to all, equally. Citizens in a
Republic know
the laws. Folks in a democracy have to keep up with all the
changes and
alterations in order to know their freedoms, rights, and
privileges, and
if they find themselves in the minority, they stand to loose
all that they
felt was once theirs to enjoy.

Without those "preset rules" we are subject to the whims and
fancy of
whomever is in power at the time. I would prefer to know up
front which
hand beats which type of hand when playing poker, and when
attempting to
live my life, and establish my standard of living.

In a republic, basic human rights and freedoms are granted by
the
Constitution, or as many would testify, by God, through that
Constitution.
In a democracy, freedoms and rights are granted by man, and as
such, can
also be revoked by man. That is one reason why a democracy is
dangerous,
and not the ideal form of government.

JB

So you don't know, eh? (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

Sounds like HE does know,
you, on the other hand seem not to comprehend!

 

[Roger Johansson]

learning@learning.com wrote:

Democracy is "rule by the majority" while a republic is founded upon a
Constitution, wherein the rules and rights of individuals are
'preset' and unchangeable.

We have constitutions in all countries in Europe too.

The constitution cannot be changed by the sitting parliament, but it
can be changed by two consecutive elected parliaments.

I am sure there is a similar mechanism for changing the constitution in
USA too.

So the only difference is the almost religious belief in an eternal
constitution they have convinced the people of in USA.

The american people have been led to believe that democracy is
dangerous, and that a constitution written hundreds of years ago is the
wisest document ever written. That's the way the rich in USA can keep
the power and sabotage democracy. It is the basis for the corporate
state which is working more fore the big corporations than for the
people.

In a real democracy the ultimate power always comes from the will of
the people. That is true both for USA and all other modern countries.

The constitution is the mechanism which prevents the people from
changing important things on a whim, that is why the constitution can
only be changed by two elected parliaments, so the people have to say
twice through elections that they want a new constitution.


--
Roger J.

 

In <425429b1$0$43992$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, on 04/06/05
at 06:25 PM, "Roger Johansson" <no-email@no.invalid> said:

learning@learning.com wrote:

Democracy is "rule by the majority" while a republic is founded upon a
Constitution, wherein the rules and rights of individuals are
'preset' and unchangeable.

We have constitutions in all countries in Europe too.

Who wrote them? Who voted on them? How did they come to be the rule of
law? I don't know all that history, so I am sure some are legit, and
others are just paper hanging on the wall.

The constitution cannot be changed by the sitting parliament, but it can
be changed by two consecutive elected parliaments.
I am sure there is a similar mechanism for changing the constitution in
USA too.

The individual states can vote to alter the Constitution, but it is hardly
a simple majority effort. It has proven to be a fairly long, drawn out
process, which is in line with the idea of making sure a 50.1% majority
cannot alter it.

So the only difference is the almost religious belief in an eternal
constitution they have convinced the people of in USA.
The american people have been led to believe that democracy is
dangerous, and that a constitution written hundreds of years ago is the
wisest document ever written.

Well, you are most welcome to your position, but you will find that many
consider the Constitution to be inspired by God, so yes, even if it is
"old" I have not seen anything better come along.

Frankly, I think history shows that it IS the wisest document ever
written. I am open to learning of a more successful one.

I grew up studying the document, before the government took over the
schools and stopped allowing such study, and I think it is nearly as
perfect as man could be expected to have it be. I think that its existence
is the reason the US grew so fast to become arguably the greatest nation
the world has ever known. I also think that once we decided it was "old'
and not worthy of being followed, we find that there is nothing great
about the US, and that its future is not very bright if this path is
followed. With the Constitution, the US was an unbeatable force, and a
beacon of freedom and light to the world. Without it, the US is just
falling apart like every other nation in history which walks away from its
basic foundations, and creates rule and laws depending on which direction
the wind is blowing.

I do not know of any precepts in the Constitution that are "outdated" or
need to be removed due to its age. I am listening tho.

That's the way the rich in USA can keep the
power and sabotage democracy. It is the basis for the corporate state
which is working more fore the big corporations than for the people.

You are a bit confused, in that the powerful, and rich corportate entities
are the ones who have destroyed the US Constitution. They are NOT
sabotaging democracy, they are sabotaging the republic, and replacing it
with democracy, which is one reason why we are the sad nation we have
become, and why much of the rest of the world understandably despises the
US. Heck, I live here, and I am hardly thrilled with what I am seeing, so
for those who hate us, I understand that, and I wish I could fix it
myself.

The corporate state which you rightfully decry, is not based on the
precepts in the Constitution.

The upper levels of government are about protecting the basic rights of
individuals, so I am not sure why those would need to be changed over time
anyway. People should always have the right to freedom of speech,
religion, assembly, redress of grievances, etc. I would be concerned with
a country that wanted to do away with those basic tenets of society.

I know we will not agree, but I think its fine to repaint, get new
furniture, hang new pictures, and even add a new deck or a big garage,
but the foundation of the house ought not be altered, or we risk the
possibility of it collapsing. Now starting over, and building a whole new
house is a different thing, which is what the founders of the US actually
did, and it worked, until "wiser men" came along and threw away everything
that was originally intended.

The US is crumbling from within because we are ignoring the Constitution,
and the rules are changing about every four years, which is no way to run
a nation. I cannot defend what is going on here, I abhore it, but I know
of no way to slow or stop the eventual collapse.

In a real democracy the ultimate power always comes from the will of the
people.

That is true, and that is how dictatorships are born. The definition of
"people" in that scenario, is 'majority' and that means that the minority
always suffers under such a system. That is why I do not approve of
majority rules, in the highest levels of the government. That is called
tyranny, and I object to that.

"a democracy is two foxes and a chicken, talking about what to have for
lunch."

I prefer the basic rules to be known, and unchangeable. Anything less is a
dictatorship, or as I said, tyranny. When men make the rules, men can
change the rules.

That is true both for USA and all other modern countries.

Again, the USA, as defined in the Constitution, is NOT a democracy at the
federal levels.

The constitution is the mechanism which prevents the people from changing
important things on a whim, that is why the constitution can only be
changed by two elected parliaments, so the people have to say twice
through elections that they want a new constitution.

So we agree. A constitutional republic is a better form than a democracy.
In a democracy, the people in power can change the rules rather
dynamically. In the republic, the process is difficult, and does not
happen "over night." and it cannot be accomplished with just a simple
majority vote.

I am not gonna claim allknowing knowledge of the history of all the
world's nations but many of the Constitutions you refer to, are born
of the US Constitution, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. If followed,
men would be more free, and better able to take care of themselves.

A study of the history of the Constitution, or even a web search for
"republic versus democray" will provide more than ample amounts of
information on the formation of the US Constitution, and the mindset of
the framers who desperately wanted to avoid a democracy, having lived
through, and observed the history of such societies.

More than anything else, there is no need to get deep and into a war here,
because men will always screw things up, and no government is perfect, but
the ideal is what we need to be aiming for, and I think that is the
Constitutional Republic, not the democratic society.



JB

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com wrote (in
<42543883$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'OT: Civil War Narrowly
Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:

Well, you are most welcome to your position, but you will find that
many consider the Constitution to be inspired by God, so yes, even if
it is "old" I have not seen anything better come along.

Frankly, I think history shows that it IS the wisest document ever
written. I am open to learning of a more successful one.

Is this the original Constitution or do you include some or all of the
Amendments, the 18th for example?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.04.06.02.35.16.756961@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]

The DemonRats have shown that they can *always* waste more than we can
produce.

So have the republicans. Now you've got both houses and a pres. all from
the same party. There isn't the usual party bickering to restrain
spending.

Just on Tuesday Bush implied that the US government bonds backing the
social security system are not as good as piles of dollar bills, so not
only are they spending like they will bankrupt the country, they are
talking about actually declaring it.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <jTl4e.15979$1S4.1638054@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote:
[....]

Whats the difference between an ultra-orthodox Jew, a born-again
christian fundamentalist and a radical muslim?

Their hats.

Pork dinner on Sunday.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:21:29 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.04.06.02.35.16.756961@att.bizzzz>, keith
krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[....]
The DemonRats have shown that they can *always* waste more than we can
produce.

So have the republicans. Now you've got both houses and a pres. all from
the same party. There isn't the usual party bickering to restrain
spending.

Just on Tuesday Bush implied that the US government bonds backing the
social security system are not as good as piles of dollar bills, so not
only are they spending like they will bankrupt the country, they are
talking about actually declaring it.

I was kind of sickened when I learned that the so-called "401K 'retirement
plan'" is based on playing the f**king stock market.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:31:55 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz

In the Soviet system, do people elect the members of the Politburo?

Please distinguish between 'soviet' and 'Soviet'. Yes, people elected the
Politburo. People from the next lower soviets.

Are there multiple choices for representatives?

In the Soviet system, of course, all the candidates were so excellently
qualified that to have more than one would have been an embarrasse de
richesse.

But of Course. ;-)

People -> Electoral College

Huh? The Electoral College members are selected by the various states
according to *their* laws. The states could even allow the people to
vote for electors directly.

But not for the actual candidates for office? That's what democracy is
about; direct elections (among other things).

When's the last time you looked up "demos" and "kratos" in your Greek->
English dictionary? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:23:39 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote (in <MPG.1cbdd04e2ab730269899a8@news.individual.net&gt about 'OT:
Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:

A direct democracy was seen to be a dangerous thing.

Of course you know all this, but want to make some point. ...not sure
what it is though. Perhaps you just want to say what you mean?

I want to challenge your view that democracy is dangerous. You don't say
why. And my remark about 'soviet' was a joke.

It seems sometimes that the only humours some have are the aqueous and
vitreous kind.

I was trying to come up with a zinger on "vitreous," but I've already
started my tipple for the day, so am only firing on 13 cylinders. ;-)

Vicious?
Virtuous?
Vituperative?
Viridis?
Verifiable?
Veganeeze?

Wait - lemme hit the bowl again - that increases creativity from eight to
eleven times!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:41:53 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clarence_A <no@No.com> wrote (in
DNV4e.3050$qD2.1736@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Civil War
Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case', on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:
Sounds like HE does know,

You really are priceless!

http://www.funblaze.com/media/priceless/priceless.shtml

--
Pig Bladder on a Stick