Why the two-party system doesn't work
useful...@yahoo.com
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/twoparty.html
...beget these problems:
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
pba...@worldonline.nl
> These problems:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/twoparty.html
>
> ...beget these problems:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
The author seems a bit paranoid, but I do agree that a two party
system is not a good thing. In a true democracy people would get to
vote on issues instead of only getting one out of two possible package
deal.
Howerver the US system in itself is not a two party system. It is
basically a "winner" takes all system based on the presumption that
the winner needs to represent a specific state or county or town of
city-quarter or whatever kind of district can be involved.
However with modern media involved that system has the habit of
leading to two parties gettting all the votes, one party being in
charge, and one party being the opposition, Now and again the
president is of th smaller party, but a thrid party is almost totally
excluded.
The only way of changing that is reckognizing that senators and
members of the house nowadays have another purpose than representing
there own backyard. They have to vote of matters of national and even
international importance. Dividing the electorate up in districts is
depriving them of the possibility to rally on issues of national and
international importance.
I have and always will advice the citizens of the United States of
America, to change the system into a representative system, where 1%
of the overall vote in the union gets you 1% of the seats in the
house.
That would garentee the end of the two-party age you live in today.
===========================================================
I this digital era one could even conceive of giving proportional
votes to congressmen reflecting the number of votes that were received
on there name. So one member could cast 40 million votes whereas
another one could cast only 100.000. (the 400 or so canddates with
the most votes would get elected)
Speaking time could be limited to a maximum of ten or twenty speakers
on every issue decided by the speakers having got votes in advance so
the greater number of parties would not lead to an endless debate.
House-members could appoint there speakers for them in advance
depending on the issue at hand, again by casting milions of vote to
that speaker.
Senators should be appointed by the state congress using the same
system,
whereby the 3 to 6 candidates (a state four times as big could have
twice the number of senators) receiving the most votes would get into
the senate, where they would cast there votes in proportion to the
percentage they received at state-level. By this system small states
would still be mighty in the senate, but is would not be so easy to
gain an absolute majoirity and states with greater population would
have a greater impact. Again though the senate would be about twice as
big, by electing 10 to 20 speakers on each subject, endless debate can
be avoided.
Bill
not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
But these days with modern technology, we CAN count the votes of an entire
nation.
So we should switch to the "popular vote" as that which elects.
He (she) who gets the most total number of votes for everywhere wins.
It is 2007 folks. We have computers, phones, satellites, FAX machines,
etc.!!!!
Note that we also have the capability of voting on national issues. Imagine
that!
<useful...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Blash
Rod Speed
You wouldnt know what a real police state was if one bit you on your lard arse.
Rod Speed
> useful_in...@yahoo.com wrote
>> These problems:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/twoparty.html
>> ...beget these
>> problems:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
> The author seems a bit paranoid,
Just a bit.
> but I do agree that a two party system is not a good thing.
More fool you. The main problem with the alternative is MUCH less stable
govt and FAR too much mindless shit fighting behind the scenes. No thanks.
> In a true democracy people would get to vote on issues
> instead of only getting one out of two possible package deal.
No one gets a vote on every single issue, its just not practical.
And it just compounds the problem of how the political system is
funded, because much more needs to be spent on each issue in the
runup to the vote, and that produces a far higher risk of corruption.
> Howerver the US system in itself is not a two party
> system. It is basically a "winner" takes all system
No it isnt. There isnt currently a 'winner' when the
prez's party doesnt even have control of the congress.
Even the english system isnt winner takes all either.
> based on the presumption that the winner needs to represent a specific state
> or county or town of city-quarter or whatever kind of district can be involved.
The US system is MUCH more complicated than that. Any federal system is.
> However with modern media involved that system has the
> habit of leading to two parties gettting all the votes, one
> party being in charge, and one party being the opposition,
Doesnt happen that much, particularly at the state and
federal level, let alone the local and presidential level.
> Now and again the president is of th smaller
> party, but a thrid party is almost totally excluded.
Thats wrong too. There is a real sense in which the demoprats are more than one party.
> The only way of changing that is reckognizing that senators
> and members of the house nowadays have another purpose
> than representing there own backyard. They have to vote of
> matters of national and even international importance.
They always do.
> Dividing the electorate up in districts is depriving them of the
> possibility to rally on issues of national and international importance.
How odd that WW2 was handled fine.
> I have and always will advice the citizens of the United States of
> America, to change the system into a representative system, where 1%
> of the overall vote in the union gets you 1% of the seats in the house.
That produces very unstable govt. No thanks.
> That would garentee the end of the two-party age you live in today.
And produce MUCH more instability than is seen now.
You wont be able to list even a single country that has
made that work as well as the US political system.
> ===========================================================
> I this digital era one could even conceive of giving proportional votes
> to congressmen reflecting the number of votes that were received
> on there name. So one member could cast 40 million votes whereas
> another one could cast only 100.000. (the 400 or so canddates with
> the most votes would get elected)
Mindlessly silly when a particular voter would have voted on a number of issues.
> Speaking time could be limited to a maximum of ten or twenty speakers
> on every issue decided by the speakers having got votes in advance so
> the greater number of parties would not lead to an endless debate.
There's plenty of better ways of avoiding that.
That would just encourage very superficial sound bite 'debate'
> House-members could appoint there speakers for them in advance depending
> on the issue at hand, again by casting milions of vote to that speaker.
That assumes that its the debate in the congress chamber that matters. It isnt.
> Senators should be appointed by the state congress using the same
> system, whereby the 3 to 6 candidates (a state four times as big
> could have twice the number of senators) receiving the most votes
> would get into the senate, where they would cast there votes in
> proportion to the percentage they received at state-level. By this
> system small states would still be mighty in the senate,
No they wouldnt, they'd be reduced to irrelevancys. The populous
states would completely dominate the political system.
> but is would not be so easy to gain an absolute majoirity
So the result would be very unstable.
> and states with greater population would have a greater impact.
And states with low populations being completely irrelevant.
> Again though the senate would be about twice as big,
Its much too big already.
> by electing 10 to 20 speakers on each subject, endless debate can be avoided.
There's plenty of better ways of avoiding that.
Denis Loubet
"Bill" <bill19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5jdjt5F...@mid.individual.net...
> The current election system is in place, because way back when, they could
> not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
>
> But these days with modern technology, we CAN count the votes of an entire
> nation.
>
> So we should switch to the "popular vote" as that which elects.
>
> He (she) who gets the most total number of votes for everywhere wins.
>
> It is 2007 folks. We have computers, phones, satellites, FAX machines,
> etc.!!!!
>
> Note that we also have the capability of voting on national issues.
> Imagine that!
Argh! That would be a major disaster! That would be mob rule.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
BrunoR
Doesn't the mob rule already via polls being taken for any occasion? ;-)
Imaging the mob voting on national issues of which they don't have
the least understanding; Just like our elected Schlemiels do, perhaps.
Makes one really wonder who's behind the whole Geschmier?!
CJT
When the Republicans are in charge, it's already mob rule.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
William Wingstedt
wrote:
The benefit would be that at least we'd know what the mob actually
thinks about an issue instead of having to assume that the mobs helmet
haired representatives actually represent their constituent mob. I
know that my representatives don't represent my positions on national
issues. Increasing the granularity of representation would allow for
more accuracy in determining the direction of national policies.
Budikka666
Roughrider50
wrote:
>The current election system is in place, because way back when, they could
>not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
I was taught(way back when) the reason for the current method was to
prevent a population center from controlling the country. The major
metro centers would have everything their way. This way Wyoming has at
least a fighting chance against say.....California. Puts rural on
somewhat of an equal footing as urban.
>
>But these days with modern technology, we CAN count the votes of an entire
>nation.
>
>So we should switch to the "popular vote" as that which elects.
>
>He (she) who gets the most total number of votes for everywhere wins.
See above
>
>It is 2007 folks. We have computers, phones, satellites, FAX machines,
>etc.!!!!
>
>Note that we also have the capability of voting on national issues. Imagine
>that!
>
I agree with the technology part, but the security angle is a whole
new ballgame. The thought of a hacker in Belarus tampering with our
election system is frightening.
Roughrider50
>Denis Loubet wrote:
>
>> "Bill" <bill19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5jdjt5F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>The current election system is in place, because way back when, they could
>>>not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
>>>
>>>But these days with modern technology, we CAN count the votes of an entire
>>>nation.
>>>
>>>So we should switch to the "popular vote" as that which elects.
>>>
>>>He (she) who gets the most total number of votes for everywhere wins.
>>>
>>>It is 2007 folks. We have computers, phones, satellites, FAX machines,
>>>etc.!!!!
>>>
>>>Note that we also have the capability of voting on national issues.
>>>Imagine that!
>>
>>
>> Argh! That would be a major disaster! That would be mob rule.
>>
>>
>When the Republicans are in charge, it's already mob rule.
Maybe we should go all Dem this time and have political equivalent of
the "Keystone cops"
CJT
It couldn't get any worse than we had with all Republican.
Roughrider50
>Roughrider50 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:48:40 -0500, CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Denis Loubet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bill" <bill19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:5jdjt5F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The current election system is in place, because way back when, they could
>>>>>not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>>But these days with modern technology, we CAN count the votes of an entire
>>>>>nation.
>>>>>
>>>>>So we should switch to the "popular vote" as that which elects.
>>>>>
>>>>>He (she) who gets the most total number of votes for everywhere wins.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is 2007 folks. We have computers, phones, satellites, FAX machines,
>>>>>etc.!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that we also have the capability of voting on national issues.
>>>>>Imagine that!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Argh! That would be a major disaster! That would be mob rule.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>When the Republicans are in charge, it's already mob rule.
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should go all Dem this time and have political equivalent of
>> the "Keystone cops"
>
>It couldn't get any worse than we had with all Republican.
LOL.......remember Jimmy? If you think its bad now what do you think
it'll be with likes of an "ambulance chaser", "a wannabe", or god
forbid, a HILLARY? Even if GW did nothing at all he has to be given
kudos for not turning this country over to the likes of Ketchup Boy or
AlGore
CJT
Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the Democratic
candidates in recent history could have done better.
onionhead
And if someone's going to accept a big corporate bribe to change their
vote, I'd rather it be me. :-)
pba...@worldonline.nl
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:56:32 -0700, "pba...@worldonline.nl"
>
> <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >On 26 aug, 14:26, useful_in...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> These problems:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/twoparty.html
>
> >> ...beget these problems:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
>
> >The author seems a bit paranoid, but I do agree that a two party
> >system is not a good thing. In a true democracy people
>
> it never has been, it is a republic.
>
> [balance of your ideas snipped]
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
There is such a thing as a democratic republic.
There is no reason why one could only have democracy in a kingdom.
Or is there:)
pba...@worldonline.nl
I disagree with your assumption that the Netherlands are unstable!
Mind you, we have had proportional representation for as long as I
live,
and it has never hurted us much.
Peter van Velzen
August 5, 1950 - August 2007
Amsterdam-Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Al Klein
<cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Maybe we should go all Dem this time and have political equivalent of
>the "Keystone cops"
Like 1961-1963? Except the title wasn't "Keystone Kops" it was
"Camelot." The US *WAS* the leader of the free world then, not just
claiming to be.
Al Klein
>Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the Democratic
>candidates in recent history could have done better.
Any of the other chimpanzees in the zoo could have. Largest debt in
history. Two unwinnable wars. (Giving hundreds of millions in
"foreign aid" to heroin producers, while spending more hundreds of
millions on "the war on drugs" to keep the heroin out.) The
Constitution, and international agreements, trashed. Most of the
world against us. Lowest actual stock market figures in many decades.
Economy in shambles. Thousands of homeless caused by federal action.
Putting Putin in charge of destroying the US wouldn't have been much
worse.
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
No. It only thought it was, even then.
The free world does not like to be arrogantly told who its leader is,
no matter how many Americans think they are.
I remember Eagleton (or was it Eagleburger, I always confused the two)
saying that the US was the leader of the free world, and it was about
time the free world did what the US told it to.
He couldn't see the irony in that.
Or how offensive it was to Western Europe and other places.
Al Klein
<cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:17:52 -0700, "Bill" <bill19...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The current election system is in place, because way back when, they could
>>not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
>
>
>I was taught(way back when) the reason for the current method was to
>prevent a population center from controlling the country. The major
>metro centers would have everything their way. This way Wyoming has at
>least a fighting chance against say.....California. Puts rural on
>somewhat of an equal footing as urban.
That splits the country into at least 3 parts, rather than encouraging
everyone to pull for the good of the nation, rather than for selfish
local goals.
>I agree with the technology part, but the security angle is a whole
>new ballgame. The thought of a hacker in Belarus tampering with our
>election system is frightening.
The thought of allowing election to be done via an international
network is stupid. We have better technology than that already.
Matt Silberstein
useful...@yahoo.com in
<1188131199.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>These problems:
>http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/twoparty.html
(Quotes from article)
>Reason 1
>It is really one party, playing "good cop, bad cop".
If so, and it really is not, that is a result, not a cause.
>Reason 2
>The two parties act together to keep third parties
>out of the system except at the local level.
The parties may try to do this, but it is really a result of our
primary/election first past the post system. Since we have on each
level winner take all there is no room for a third+ party. Imagine we
have a conservative party with 40%, and two liberal parties each with
30% support. The conservative party would win everything.
>Reason 3
>The rise of punditry on both conservative and liberal sides means
>people are making money off of over-dramatizing fringe issues and
>ignoring common issues
That does not come close to making sense. This implies that the
pundits somehow run the system. Issues like abortion and the war are
polarizing on their own. And something like gay marriage was used by
the Republican Party, not by some independent pundits. Finally, there
are pundits and more in places with multiple parties, it is not a
feature of a two party system.
>Reason 4
>The emphasis on "fair and balanced" jouralism has meant that the only
>issues that are covered are ones that "both sides" approve of. The
>implication is that no other viewpoint exists and that the two-party
>system is genuinely two independent parties, which it is not.
I can't tell if they mean to conflate issues and viewpoints but
regardless that makes the above incoherent at best. Having two parties
does mean that two sides get pushed rather than more, of course. It is
not obviously better to have 10 sides present though. If it does not
coalesce to a few then you get chaos. But, again, the "fair and
balanced", or even actual journalistic ethics, has nothing to do with
this. It is what it means to have political parties: they exist to
promote their issues and people.
>...beget these problems:
>http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Oh, he thinks that Shrub did 9/11. I thought this was something
serious. Have seen a diminution of civil rights? Yep. But that has
nothing to do with a two-party system. Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia,
Argentina, all had multi-party systems and ended up with a police
state. It is really kind of foolish to try to discuss this subject
unless you have some knowledge of other countries and of history.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Rod Speed
Never made any such 'assumption' !!!
> Mind you, we have had proportional representation for
> as long as I live, and it has never hurted us much.
Your govt is much less stable than the US govt.
Plenty of other govts like Italy, Isreal etc etc etc in spades.
Rod Speed
> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>> Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the
>> Democratic candidates in recent history could have done better.
> Any of the other chimpanzees in the zoo could have.
> Largest debt in history.
There's been plenty of other presidents that have got that result.
> Two unwinnable wars.
Afghanistan isnt unwinnable.
> (Giving hundreds of millions in "foreign aid" to heroin producers,
Bare faced lie.
> while spending more hundreds of millions on
> "the war on drugs" to keep the heroin out.)
That happens anyway.
> The Constitution, and international agreements, trashed.
Bare faced lie.
> Most of the world against us.
Bare faced lie.
> Lowest actual stock market figures in many decades.
Bare faced lie.
> Economy in shambles.
Bare faced lie.
> Thousands of homeless caused by federal action.
Bare faced lie.
> Putting Putin in charge of destroying the US wouldn't have been much worse.
Bare faced lie.
Rod Speed
> Roughrider50 <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Maybe we should go all Dem this time and
>> have political equivalent of the "Keystone cops"
> Like 1961-1963? Except the title wasn't "Keystone Kops" it was "Camelot."
> The US *WAS* the leader of the free world then,
Nope, pity about Vietnam.
> not just claiming to be.
The french wouldnt agree that the US ever was leader of the free
world, even after they bailed the stupid frogs out in two world wars.
pba...@worldonline.nl
Yes I know once you've got the wrong man in the whitehouse
you elect him again:)
Sorry,
I am of course only speaking for 40-50 % of the people.
Rod Speed
Not always.
> Sorry,
> I am of course only speaking for 40-50 % of the people.
You arent speaking for anyone at all.
pba...@worldonline.nl
You didn't count the votes I gather:)-
dog
What two parties? In America there is only one party, the US
Government. When the Demopublicans took the senate and the house in
2007 what changed? Zip.
CJT
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:51:14 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:50:26 -0500, Roughrider50
>><cork...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe we should go all Dem this time and have political equivalent of
>>>the "Keystone cops"
>>
>>Like 1961-1963? Except the title wasn't "Keystone Kops" it was
>>"Camelot." The US *WAS* the leader of the free world then, not just
>>claiming to be.
>
>
> No. It only thought it was, even then.
Even if it wasn't (and it's unclear whether your assertion to that
effect is correct), it was in a lot better position than post-Dubya.
>
> The free world does not like to be arrogantly told who its leader is,
> no matter how many Americans think they are.
>
> I remember Eagleton (or was it Eagleburger, I always confused the two)
> saying that the US was the leader of the free world, and it was about
> time the free world did what the US told it to.
>
> He couldn't see the irony in that.
>
> Or how offensive it was to Western Europe and other places.
>
CJT
Unfortunately, the win wasn't enough to be veto-proof.
com...@webtv.net
LEAST four parties a month !
A Liberal is "just a Communist in a Free Country" !
com...@webtv.net
hahahhahahhahhahaha luxemburg ? hahhahahhahahhahaha
stupid ass liberals never fail to amaze me.
Rod Speed
The vote wasnt about that.
Al Klein
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
>> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>
>>> Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the
>>> Democratic candidates in recent history could have done better.
>
>> Any of the other chimpanzees in the zoo could have.
>
>> Largest debt in history.
>
>There's been plenty of other presidents that have got that result.
The debt has never been as great as it is now.
>
>> Two unwinnable wars.
>
>Afghanistan isnt unwinnable.
Not if we don't fight, which we aren't.
>
>> (Giving hundreds of millions in "foreign aid" to heroin producers,
>
>Bare faced lie.
$200 million so far this year in "agricultural aid" that's gone to
provide irrigation and fertilizer for poppy fields. And they're not
growing flowers for Veteran's Day.
>> while spending more hundreds of millions on
>> "the war on drugs" to keep the heroin out.)
>That happens anyway.
Spending to cause something that you're spending to stop? What is
this, a Charles Atlas workout session?
>
>> The Constitution, and international agreements, trashed.
>
>Bare faced lie.
Bush called the Constitution "just a piece of paper". His words, not
mine.
>
>> Most of the world against us.
>
>Bare faced lie.
Name 20 countries (out of the couple of hundred that exist) who we can
count on as solid allies.
>
>> Lowest actual stock market figures in many decades.
>
>Bare faced lie.
Look at the numbers. In real money (Euros), the market has been
dropping for a long time.
>
>> Economy in shambles.
>
>Bare faced lie.
The dollar is becoming more worthless every day. Check the currency
exchange rate.
>
>> Thousands of homeless caused by federal action.
>
>Bare faced lie.
How many New Orleneans are still living in trailers - or not in
Louisiana at all?
Next White House press release, please?
Steve
parties, at best...
--
We do what we must, and call it by the best names.
...Ralph Waldo Emerson
GoForward
> >Bare faced lie.
> >Bare faced lie.
> >Bare faced lie.
> >Bare faced lie.
> >Bare faced lie.
> >Bare faced lie.
That's what Rush tells us, so we just *know* that it's all true.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
>>> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>>>> Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the
>>>> Democratic candidates in recent history could have done better.
>>> Any of the other chimpanzees in the zoo could have.
>>> Largest debt in history.
>> There's been plenty of other presidents that have got that result.
> The debt has never been as great as it is now.
Yes, but plenty of others have had the same thing true
about them, only to be replaced on that by later prezs.
>>> Two unwinnable wars.
>> Afghanistan isnt unwinnable.
> Not if we don't fight, which we aren't.
Mindlessly silly.
>>> (Giving hundreds of millions in "foreign aid" to heroin producers,
>> Bare faced lie.
> $200 million so far this year in "agricultural aid"
Yes.
> that's gone to provide irrigation and fertilizer for poppy fields.
Bare faced lie.
> And they're not growing flowers for Veteran's Day.
That money wasnt spent on growing flowers.
It was spent on an attempt at alternatives to growing opium poppys.
Just like with any third world country, they dont JUST grow drugs.
>>> while spending more hundreds of millions on
>>> "the war on drugs" to keep the heroin out.)
>> That happens anyway.
> Spending to cause something that you're spending to stop?
That isnt what is being done.
> What is this, a Charles Atlas workout session?
Nope, just your lies being exposed.
>>> The Constitution, and international agreements, trashed.
>> Bare faced lie.
> Bush called the Constitution "just a piece of paper". His words, not mine.
Doesnt mean its been trashed, and he didnt even say that about international agreements either.
>>> Most of the world against us.
>> Bare faced lie.
> Name 20 countries (out of the couple of hundred that exist) who we can count on as solid allies.
Different matter entirely. Plenty dont believe that Iraq makes sense,
but that does not mean that they are necessarily against the US.
Quite a few of them did at one time support getting rid
of Saddam and now have realised that those fools are
only interested in a full civil war now that that has been
done. Thats not the same thing as being against the US.
There's plenty of other countrys involved in Afghanistan.
>>> Lowest actual stock market figures in many decades.
>> Bare faced lie.
> Look at the numbers.
I do that ever day thanks.
> In real money (Euros),
Mindlessly silly.
> the market has been dropping for a long time.
Thats just due to the USD dropping relative to the Euro due to the massive cost of Iraq.
>>> Economy in shambles.
>> Bare faced lie.
> The dollar is becoming more worthless every day.
An unemployment rate of 4.x% is nothing even remotely resembling anything like a shambles.
> Check the currency exchange rate.
Nothing even remotely resembling anything like the economy a shambles.
And since the chinese rembuyan is locked to the USD, the currency
relativitys to other currencys like the Euro doesnt matter a damn.
>>> Thousands of homeless caused by federal action.
>> Bare faced lie.
> How many New Orleneans are still living in trailers
Those arent homeless, they have trailers for homes.
> - or not in Louisiana at all?
Doesnt make them homeless, their homes just arent in Louisiana.
And even if they were stupid enough to have their homes below sea level,
and not ensure that they can be flooded, that's hardly the fed's responsibility.
> Next White House press release, please?
Next rabid bigotted lie, no please.
Rod Speed
> Maybe because we actually have a one-party system.
Mindlessly silly. You wouldnt know what a one party system was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> Or possibly 1.07 parties, at best...
See above.
dog
> dog wrote:
> Unfortunately, the win wasn't enough to be veto-proof.
Yeah, and that's kinda in concert with the statement I made ..
that USA has a one party system, the American Government.
The guy with the veto pen wins. So much for two parties.
Trailer Trash
Al Klein
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
>>>> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>
>>>>> Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the
>>>>> Democratic candidates in recent history could have done better.
>
>>>> Any of the other chimpanzees in the zoo could have.
>
>>>> Largest debt in history.
>
>>> There's been plenty of other presidents that have got that result.
>
>> The debt has never been as great as it is now.
>
>Yes, but plenty of others have had the same thing true
>about them
No, no others had the debt as great as it is now.
And what's even worse, no others raised the debt this high starting
with a surplus as great as the one Clinton left Bush. If you figure
the spread between the surplus and the debt (the ACTUAL amount of debt
Bush piled on), we'll probably have to wait at least 4 or 5
administrations to see anything like it - and money won't be worth as
much then.
>>>> Two unwinnable wars.
>
>>> Afghanistan isnt unwinnable.
>
>> Not if we don't fight, which we aren't.
>
>Mindlessly silly.
Ask the guys who are actually there.
>
>>>> (Giving hundreds of millions in "foreign aid" to heroin producers,
>
>>> Bare faced lie.
>
>> $200 million so far this year in "agricultural aid"
>
>Yes.
>
>> that's gone to provide irrigation and fertilizer for poppy fields.
>
>Bare faced lie.
Proof?
>
>> And they're not growing flowers for Veteran's Day.
>
>That money wasnt spent on growing flowers.
Poppies are flowers.
>
>It was spent on an attempt at alternatives to growing opium poppys.
And, surprise, no matter what they did, poppies "popped" up.
>
>Just like with any third world country, they dont JUST grow drugs.
In that one province, that's all they grow, except for the food they
need to live. They've converted ALL their cash crops to opium
poppies. Even the commanders in the province admit it - they just
claim that it's an autonomous region, so they have no control over it.
they DO have control over the foreign aid (or, at least, the US does),
but giving them money keeps them from killing more of our troops than
they kill now.
Leaving Afghanistan would save even more of our troops. It's not like
we're keeping the Taliban out of power or anything.
>
>>>> while spending more hundreds of millions on
>>>> "the war on drugs" to keep the heroin out.)
>
>>> That happens anyway.
>
>> Spending to cause something that you're spending to stop?
>
>That isnt what is being done.
We're spending money to keep out the heroin that we're providing the
money for fertilization and irrigation to produce. (The SINGLE
LARGEST producer of heroin today - close to 90% of the heroin reaching
this country - is Afghanistan. And they're doing it with OUR money.)
>
>> What is this, a Charles Atlas workout session?
>
>Nope, just your lies being exposed.
To your stupidity.
>
>>>> The Constitution, and international agreements, trashed.
>
>>> Bare faced lie.
>
>> Bush called the Constitution "just a piece of paper". His words, not mine.
>
>Doesnt mean its been trashed
Only if you agree with him.
> and he didnt even say that about international agreements either.
He didn't have to *say* anything - his administration ordered our
people to violate the Geneva Conventions. The GC are PART OF US LAW!
>
>>>> Most of the world against us.
>
>>> Bare faced lie.
>
>> Name 20 countries (out of the couple of hundred that exist) who we can count on as solid allies.
>
>Different matter entirely.
Same matter. The majority of the world's nations are against us.
> Plenty dont believe that Iraq makes sense,
>but that does not mean that they are necessarily against the US.
Ask anyone posting here from outside the US how their country eels
about the US. You won't like the answers.
>There's plenty of other countrys involved in Afghanistan.
Such as? (Leave out Bush's British Commonwealth puppets.)
>>>> Lowest actual stock market figures in many decades.
>>> Bare faced lie.
>> Look at the numbers.
>I do that ever day thanks.
In Euros? If you did you'd be out of the dollar market do fast your
money would burn.
>
>> In real money (Euros),
>
>Mindlessly silly.
Okay - hold your constantly-worth-less dollars. Smart money is
holding Euros now.
>
>> the market has been dropping for a long time.
>
>Thats just due to the USD dropping relative to the Euro
Which is making the dollar worth less and less. You see it but you
just don't understand what it means.
> due to the massive cost of Iraq.
The reason doesn't matter. When it costs 5 pounds of dollar bills to
buy a loaf of bread (think it can't happen? Weimar Marks were worth
much less than that. I have a billion Mark note - that couldn't buy
anything because a single cigarette cost a few billion), but only a
quarter of a Euro, you'll realize that you made the wrong choice.
>>>> Economy in shambles.
>>> Bare faced lie.
>> The dollar is becoming more worthless every day.
>An unemployment rate of 4.x% is nothing even remotely resembling anything like a shambles.
Those who have been unemployed more than 26 weeks aren't counted,
since they no longer draw unemployment insurance. 4.5% of the
workforce has been unemployed for 26 weeks or less. That doesn't tell
you how many people are out of work.
>
>> Check the currency exchange rate.
>
>Nothing even remotely resembling anything like the economy a shambles.
>And since the chinese rembuyan is locked to the USD, the currency
>relativitys to other currencys like the Euro doesnt matter a damn.
Locked? Who told you that? Go to
<http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory> and look at the exchange rate
for the last few months. It varies every day. (I deal in
international exchange every day, so don't tell me fairy tales about
exchange rates. I'll catch the slightest mistake you make.)
>>>> Thousands of homeless caused by federal action.
>>> Bare faced lie.
>
>> How many New Orleneans are still living in trailers
>
>Those arent homeless, they have trailers for homes.
They're not in their homes. The ones living in Texas aren't in their
homes. The ones living in California aren't living in their homes.
Why? Federal action NOT releasing FEMA money (not that the Republican
Congress allocated even a tenth of the amount needed, but FEMA hasn't
released even a tenth of THAT.)
>> - or not in Louisiana at all?
>Doesnt make them homeless, their homes just arent in Louisiana.
Their HOMES are in New Orleans. They currently reside in other
places, because the money that COULD have been used to fix New Orleans
up is being used to play war in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of it NOT
going to support our troops.
>And even if they were stupid enough to have their homes below sea level,
>and not ensure that they can be flooded, that's hardly the fed's responsibility.
It WAS the fed's responsibility. It was the responsibility of the
Army to maintain the levees and flood channels. They didn't. They
KNEW the channel was going to give way 48 hours before it did, but
didn't say anything, because that would have made the government
directly responsible for all damage and deaths.
And that's all a matter of public record now.
>> Next White House press release, please?
>Next rabid bigotted lie, no please.
Public records aren't lies - they're admissions FORCED out of the
government, or lies your Mama didn't tell you. (The Yuan locked to
the dollar? Is that supposed to be a joke, or did you think I didn't
know what I was talking about, and I wouldn't catch the lie?)
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote
>>>>> CJT <abuj...@prodigy.net> wrote
>>>>>> Nonsense. Dubya has done far worse than nothing. ANY of the
>>>>>> Democratic candidates in recent history could have done better.
>>>>> Any of the other chimpanzees in the zoo could have.
>>>>> Largest debt in history.
>>>> There's been plenty of other presidents that have got that result.
>>> The debt has never been as great as it is now.
>> Yes, but plenty of others have had the same thing true about them
> No,
Yep.
> no others had the debt as great as it is now.
Plenty of others had the highest debt up till that time,
and got replaced by an even higher debt with a later prez.
> And what's even worse, no others raised the debt this high
> starting with a surplus as great as the one Clinton left Bush.
There was no surplus that Clinton left.
> If you figure the spread between the surplus and the debt
> (the ACTUAL amount of debt Bush piled on), we'll probably
> have to wait at least 4 or 5 administrations to see anything like it
Only because no one is likely going to be stupid
enough to have another Iraq any time soon.
Same thing happened with Vietnam too.
> - and money won't be worth as much then.
Thats the reason quite a few prezs have had the highest debt up till that time.
>>>>> Two unwinnable wars.
>>>> Afghanistan isnt unwinnable.
>>> Not if we don't fight, which we aren't.
>> Mindlessly silly.
> Ask the guys who are actually there.
They dont all say that. And its a lie when some say that too.
>>>>> (Giving hundreds of millions in "foreign aid" to heroin producers,
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> $200 million so far this year in "agricultural aid"
>> Yes.
>>> that's gone to provide irrigation and fertilizer for poppy fields.
>> Bare faced lie.
> Proof?
YOU made the original claim.
YOU get to provide the proof.
THATS how it works.
>>> And they're not growing flowers for Veteran's Day.
>> That money wasnt spent on growing flowers.
> Poppies are flowers.
That money wasnt spent on growing poppies.
>> It was spent on an attempt at alternatives to growing opium poppys.
> And, surprise, no matter what they did, poppies "popped" up.
Another bare faced lie.
>> Just like with any third world country, they dont JUST grow drugs.
> In that one province, that's all they grow, except for the food they need to live.
Thats all anyone grows anywhere.
> They've converted ALL their cash crops to opium poppies.
They never had any cash crops. Those just arent feasible in that province.
> Even the commanders in the province admit it - they just claim
> that it's an autonomous region, so they have no control over it.
Another lie as far as the US aid being used to grow the poppies there.
> they DO have control over the foreign aid (or, at least, the US does), but giving
> them money keeps them from killing more of our troops than they kill now.
Another pig ignorant lie. What is spent on aid has no effect
what so ever on the number of US troops being killed.
> Leaving Afghanistan would save even more of our troops.
Yes, but it would also see the Talibums take over again and
even someone as stupid as you should have noticed what
happened when they were left to their own devices by Clinton.
> It's not like we're keeping the Taliban out of power or anything.
Corse thats whats happening, they have arent in power now.
>>>>> while spending more hundreds of millions on
>>>>> "the war on drugs" to keep the heroin out.)
>>>> That happens anyway.
>>> Spending to cause something that you're spending to stop?
>> That isnt what is being done.
> We're spending money to keep out the heroin that we're
> providing the money for fertilization and irrigation to produce.
That last is a lie.
> (The SINGLE LARGEST producer of heroin today - close
> to 90% of the heroin reaching this country - is Afghanistan.
Yes.
> And they're doing it with OUR money.)
Lie. They're doing it with the money they get from flogging the heroin.
>>> What is this, a Charles Atlas workout session?
>> Nope, just your lies being exposed.
> To your stupidity.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>>>>> The Constitution, and international agreements, trashed.
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> Bush called the Constitution "just a piece of paper". His words, not mine.
>> Doesnt mean its been trashed
> Only if you agree with him.
Nope, the word trashed has a meaning. That isnt what it means.
>> and he didnt even say that about international agreements either.
> He didn't have to *say* anything - his administration
> ordered our people to violate the Geneva Conventions.
Those werent even signatorys to the geneva conventions.
> The GC are PART OF US LAW!
Another pig ignorant lie.
>>>>> Most of the world against us.
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> Name 20 countries (out of the couple of hundred
>>> that exist) who we can count on as solid allies.
>> Different matter entirely.
> Same matter.
Nope, solid allies isnt the only alternative to being against the US.
Neutrality is an obvious alternative.
> The majority of the world's nations are against us.
Bare faced lie. And it aint the number of tin pot little 'nations' that
matter anyway, the vast bulk of them wouldnt even know what a
decent democracy was if it bit them on their collective lard arses.
Who cares what armpits of the world like that are against anyway ?
>> Plenty dont believe that Iraq makes sense, but that does
>> not mean that they are necessarily against the US.
> Ask anyone posting here from outside the
> US how their country eels about the US.
Pathetically inadequate sample of those countrys.
Have a look at how many countrys choose to get involved in Afghanistan.
> You won't like the answers.
Wrong again.
>> There's plenty of other countrys involved in Afghanistan.
> Such as? (Leave out Bush's British Commonwealth puppets.)
There's plenty more than just those. Even with Iraq.
And they arent puppets either.
>>>>> Lowest actual stock market figures in many decades.
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> Look at the numbers.
>> I do that ever day thanks.
> In Euros?
Yep. And Euros are completely irrelevant anyway.
> If you did you'd be out of the dollar market do fast your money would burn.
Currency relativitys are an entirely separate matter to the state of the stock market.
>>> In real money (Euros),
>> Mindlessly silly.
> Okay - hold your constantly-worth-less dollars.
All currencys are like that.
> Smart money is holding Euros now.
We'll see...
>>> the market has been dropping for a long time.
>> Thats just due to the USD dropping relative to the Euro
> Which is making the dollar worth less and less.
All currencys are worth less and less. Thats what inflation means.
> You see it but you just don't understand what it means.
I've understood what it means since before you were even born thanks.
>> due to the massive cost of Iraq.
> The reason doesn't matter.
Corse it does. The US wont continue to piss that much money
against the wall in Iraq forever, just like it didnt with Vietnam either.
> When it costs 5 pounds of dollar bills to buy a loaf of bread
Taint gunna happen.
> (think it can't happen?
Yep, it cant.
> Weimar Marks were worth much less than that.
For a different reason entirely. That was done because they had
reparations imposed and it made sense to make the currency
worthless so the reparations were paid in worthless currency.
Hitler revived the kraut economy after that doing precisely what
Roosevelt did, deficit spending. The problem was that he was
stupid enough to move on from that to try conquering europe
militarily. And came within an ace of succeeding too.
> I have a billion Mark note - that couldn't buy anything
> because a single cigarette cost a few billion),
Taint gunna happen with the USD, you watch.
> but only a quarter of a Euro, you'll realize that you made the wrong choice.
No I havent, and you dont even know what choice I have made.
>>>>> Economy in shambles.
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> The dollar is becoming more worthless every day.
>> An unemployment rate of 4.x% is nothing even
>> remotely resembling anything like a shambles.
> Those who have been unemployed more than 26 weeks aren't
> counted, since they no longer draw unemployment insurance.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> 4.5% of the workforce has been unemployed for 26 weeks or less.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
> That doesn't tell you how many people are out of work.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
It actually tell you how many are seeking work, a different matter entirely.
>>> Check the currency exchange rate.
>> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like the economy a shambles.
>> And since the chinese rembuyan is locked to the USD, the currency
>> relativitys to other currencys like the Euro doesnt matter a damn.
> Locked? Who told you that?
It obvious to anyone who knows anything about it.
> Go to <http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory> and look at the
> exchange rate for the last few months. It varies every day.
Only in a quite narrow band.
> (I deal in international exchange every day,
But are so stupid that you dont even realise how that works.
> so don't tell me fairy tales about exchange rates.
It isnt a fairy tale.
> I'll catch the slightest mistake you make.)
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.
>>>>> Thousands of homeless caused by federal action.
>>>> Bare faced lie.
>>> How many New Orleneans are still living in trailers
>> Those arent homeless, they have trailers for homes.
> They're not in their homes.
Thats not what homeless means.
http://onelook.com/?w=homeless
> The ones living in Texas aren't in their homes.
They arent homeless.
http://onelook.com/?w=homeless
> The ones living in California aren't living in their homes.
They arent homeless.
http://onelook.com/?w=homeless
> Why?
There was a problem with a hurricane and fools
choosing to build houses below sea level.
> Federal action NOT releasing FEMA money (not that the
> Republican Congress allocated even a tenth of the amount
> needed, but FEMA hasn't released even a tenth of THAT.)
Why should anyone bail out fools stupid enough to want to rebuild houses below sea level ?
Makes more sense to move them to somewhere else instead.
Where they arent homeless.
>>> - or not in Louisiana at all?
>> Doesnt make them homeless, their homes just arent in Louisiana.
> Their HOMES are in New Orleans. They currently reside in other places,
So they arent homeless.
> because the money that COULD have been used to fix New Orleans up
Only fools would rebuild houses below sea level.
> is being used to play war in Iraq and Afghanistan,
> most of it NOT going to support our troops.
That last is another pig ignorant bare faced lie.
>> And even if they were stupid enough to have their homes below sea level,
>> and not ensure that they can be flooded, that's hardly the fed's responsibility.
> It WAS the fed's responsibility.
Nope.
> It was the responsibility of the Army to maintain the levees and flood channels.
Nope.
> They didn't. They KNEW the channel was going to give way 48 hours before it did,
Too late to do anything by then.
> but didn't say anything, because that would have made the
> government directly responsible for all damage and deaths.
Nope, because it was too late to do anything by then.
> And that's all a matter of public record now.
Pity its nothing like your lies.
>>> Next White House press release, please?
>> Next rabid bigotted lie, no please.
> Public records aren't lies
Your claims about what the public record shows is lies.
> - they're admissions FORCED out of the government, or lies your Mama didn't tell you.
Pity about your lies.
> (The Yuan locked to the dollar? Is that supposed to be a joke,
> or did you think I didn't know what I was talking about,
I know you dont. And that is the completely superfluous proof that you dont.
> and I wouldn't catch the lie?)
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=china+US+OR+USA+locked+OR+tied+dollar
Rod Speed
>> Unfortunately, the win wasn't enough to be veto-proof.
> Yeah, and that's kinda in concert with the statement I made ..
Nope.
> that USA has a one party system, the American Government.
> The guy with the veto pen wins. So much for two parties.
Pity that the veto isnt used much at all.
Nice theory, pity about the reality.
dog
> >> Unfortunately, the win wasn't enough to be veto-proof.
> > Yeah, and that's kinda in concert with the statement I made ..
>
> Nope.
?
>
> > that USA has a one party system, the American Government.
> > The guy with the veto pen wins. So much for two parties.
>
> Pity that the veto isnt used much at all.
That's the point, Demopubs have let Dubya off his dogchain.
>
> Nice theory, pity about the reality.
??
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> dog <effa...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Unfortunately, the win wasn't enough to be veto-proof.
>>> Yeah, and that's kinda in concert with the statement I made ..
>> Nope.
> ?
??
>>> that USA has a one party system, the American Government.
>>> The guy with the veto pen wins. So much for two parties.
>> Pity that the veto isnt used much at all.
> That's the point,
Nope.
> Demopubs have let Dubya off his dogchain.
Nope, the congress has forced a number of changes on him.
>> Nice theory, pity about the reality.
> ??
???
dog
> Nope, the congress has forced a number of changes on him.
Nothing major like troop reduction.
Al Klein
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (The Yuan locked to the dollar? Is that supposed to be a joke,
>> or did you think I didn't know what I was talking about,
>
>I know you dont. And that is the completely superfluous proof that you dont.
>
>> and I wouldn't catch the lie?)
>
>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=china+US+OR+USA+locked+OR+tied+dollar
So the fact that the Yuan is worth a different number of dollars every
day (it actually moves all day, but I'm only interested in one point
per day) means that it's locked to the dollar?
Keep posting proof that what you know about reality is exceeded only
by what you know about Deja Thoris' underwear.
<plonk>
The Chief Instigator
It was amusing to watch him deem China's currency the "rembuyan"...too bad
it's actually the yuan renminbi (which is trading at just under 13ผข this
morning, up a bit from the 12ฝ it's been hanging around in the last few
years).
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
Rod Speed
>> Nope, the congress has forced a number of changes on him.
> Nothing major like troop reduction.
Just because they cant agree that that is what should be done.
wlloow
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> (The Yuan locked to the dollar? Is that supposed to be a
>>> joke, or did you think I didn't know what I was talking about,
>> I know you dont. And that is the completely superfluous proof that you dont.
>>> and I wouldn't catch the lie?)
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=china+US+OR+USA+locked+OR+tied+dollar
> So the fact that the Yuan is worth a different number of dollars
> every day (it actually moves all day, but I'm only interested in
> one point per day) means that it's locked to the dollar?
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
actually have a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
tsi-yu
> The current election system is in place, because way back when, they could
> not "count" the votes of an entire nation! (Pony express, etc.)
>
> But these days with modern technology, we CAN count the votes of an entire
> nation.
>
> So we should switch to the "popular vote" as that which elects.
>
> He (she) who gets the most total number of votes for everywhere wins.
>
> It is 2007 folks. We have computers, phones, satellites, FAX machines,
> etc.!!!!
>
> Note that we also have the capability of voting on national issues. Imagine
> that!
>
>
> <useful...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> These problems:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/twoparty.html
>>
>> ...beget these problems:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
>>
>
>
large urban areas would get all the representation. Small communities
and low density areas would be left out in the cold.
Liberals seem to be in control of most of the large urban areas so
everyone else would not have a voice. The entire country would end up
serving the wishes of the largest concentration of voters but little of
the land area.
It doesn't seem to matter anyway. The Globalists are corporatist and
they are in control on both sides of the aisle, regardless of "party"
affiliation. They regard our Constitution as just a god damned piece of
paper and an obstacle to global rule and their profits.
Al Klein
<pat...@io.com> wrote:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> writes:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:39:09 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>><rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> (The Yuan locked to the dollar? Is that supposed to be a joke,
>>>> or did you think I didn't know what I was talking about,
>
>>>I know you dont. And that is the completely superfluous proof that you dont.
>
>>>> and I wouldn't catch the lie?)
>
>>>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>>>http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=china+US+OR+USA+locked+OR+tied+dollar
>>So the fact that the Yuan is worth a different number of dollars every
>>day (it actually moves all day, but I'm only interested in one point
>>per day) means that it's locked to the dollar?
>
>>Keep posting proof that what you know about reality is exceeded only
>>by what you know about Deja Thoris' underwear.
>><plonk>
>
>It was amusing to watch him deem China's currency the "rembuyan"...too bad
>it's actually the yuan renminbi (which is trading at just under 13ผข this
>morning, up a bit from the 12ฝ it's been hanging around in the last few
>years).
It changed? How could that be? It's locked to the dollar. Rod's ...
gasp! ... wrong?