Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
the people's republic of china has outlawed time travel...
174 views
Skip to first unread message
ppint. at pplay
Nov 15, 2012, 7:43:28 PM11/15/12
to
- hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
also research into the theory of it, too.
- iirc, china accounts for ~20% of the human race; should
the tea party and the merkin republican political party it
controls follow suit, as seems to me not too unlikely, and
the holy, orthodox and catholic church[es] do likewise, as
would strike me as completely consistent with past practice,
would it take both of the two main branches of islam ruling
against time travel for a majority of humanity to formally
be opposed to both investigation into, & the practice of it?
- is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
- love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Earth occupies about one-half a degree in two dimensions."
- trde on rec.arts.sf.fandom, 10/5/2005 (5/10/2005 for merkins)
appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
also research into the theory of it, too.
- iirc, china accounts for ~20% of the human race; should
the tea party and the merkin republican political party it
controls follow suit, as seems to me not too unlikely, and
the holy, orthodox and catholic church[es] do likewise, as
would strike me as completely consistent with past practice,
would it take both of the two main branches of islam ruling
against time travel for a majority of humanity to formally
be opposed to both investigation into, & the practice of it?
- is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
- love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Earth occupies about one-half a degree in two dimensions."
- trde on rec.arts.sf.fandom, 10/5/2005 (5/10/2005 for merkins)
Butch Malahide
Nov 15, 2012, 8:40:12 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:56 pm, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay")
wrote:
stf stories about time travel, and it *never* ends well. Well, hardly
ever. OK, _The Door into Summer_, "By His Bootstraps", "The Will", a
handful of happy endings. Compare with: _The Time Machine_, "Brooklyn
Project", "A Sound of Thunder", _The Man Who Folded Himself_, "The Man
Who Came Early", "Flux", "Dominoes", "Let the Ants Try",
"Singularities Make Me Nervous", "When the Bough Breaks", etc.
wrote:
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
My God, who *wouldn't* want to ban time travel? I've read hundreds of
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
stf stories about time travel, and it *never* ends well. Well, hardly
ever. OK, _The Door into Summer_, "By His Bootstraps", "The Will", a
handful of happy endings. Compare with: _The Time Machine_, "Brooklyn
Project", "A Sound of Thunder", _The Man Who Folded Himself_, "The Man
Who Came Early", "Flux", "Dominoes", "Let the Ants Try",
"Singularities Make Me Nervous", "When the Bough Breaks", etc.
Howard Brazee
Nov 15, 2012, 9:40:51 PM11/15/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
the subject.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
the subject.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Carson Chittom
Nov 15, 2012, 10:05:35 PM11/15/12
to
v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") writes:
> - is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
> perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
I'm no expert on Buddhism, but my understanding is that Buddhists regard
> - is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
> perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
the material world as "maya," illusion. Since time is a function of
space (or however a physicist would correctly put it), time is equally
an illusion[1]. Presumably concern with time travel would therefore be
equally forbidden as a concern to devout Buddhists.
[1] Lunchtime doubly so, as noted.
Carson Chittom
Nov 15, 2012, 10:12:21 PM11/15/12
to
Butch Malahide
Nov 16, 2012, 12:42:18 AM11/16/12
to
On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>
> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
> > - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> > appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> > bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> > also research into the theory of it, too.
>
> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
> the subject.
It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>
> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
> > - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> > appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> > bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> > also research into the theory of it, too.
>
> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
> the subject.
gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
time to have a real president in the White House.
Philip Chee
Nov 16, 2012, 2:48:24 AM11/16/12
to
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Esa Perkio
Nov 16, 2012, 4:32:06 AM11/16/12
to
In rec.arts.sf.written Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
: >
: > It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
--
Esa Perki�
: >
: > It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
: > gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
: > time to have a real president in the White House.
: Preferably one with a TARDIS.
Harold Saxon was rather electable and had one...
: > time to have a real president in the White House.
: Preferably one with a TARDIS.
--
Esa Perki�
ppint. at pplay
Nov 16, 2012, 4:16:36 AM11/16/12
to
- hi; in article, <641glh....@news.alt.net>,
phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" opined timelily:
> Butch Malahide wrote:
- love, "hoc amabo (palin.)" ppint.
- with apologies to marshal pierre bosquet
observer of the charge of the light brigade at balaclava
phi...@aleytys.pc.my "Philip Chee" opined timelily:
> Butch Malahide wrote:
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> "ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively resear-
>>> "ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>ching the subject.
>>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a
>>good time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>Preferably one with a TARDIS.
- who, doctor ?
>>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a
>>good time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>Preferably one with a TARDIS.
- love, "hoc amabo (palin.)" ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"c'est magnifique - mais ce n'est pas l'heure."
--
- with apologies to marshal pierre bosquet
observer of the charge of the light brigade at balaclava
Anthony Nance
Nov 16, 2012, 8:30:40 AM11/16/12
to
In rec.arts.sf.written "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
SImilarly, I learned from my local newspaper yesterday[1] that
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
some Ohio legislators are trying (again) to pass legislation
banning the creation of a "human-animal hybrid".[2] From the
article, "...chances are slim that it will pass this year..."
Take *that* Cordwainer Smith![3]
- Tony
[1] http://tinyurl.com/cnxkdx9
[2] They're having a tough time defining what it is. From context,
I don't think it's a new type of energy-efficient vehicle.
[3] And others, of course.
Scott Dorsey
Nov 16, 2012, 9:34:55 AM11/16/12
to
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>time to have a real president in the White House.
A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>
>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>time to have a real president in the White House.
George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
Nov 16, 2012, 9:37:00 AM11/16/12
to
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:42:18 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>>>
>>> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>> > - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>> > appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>> > bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>> > also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>
>>> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
>>> the subject.
>>
>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>Preferably one with a TARDIS.
Older than 35... check.... born on US territory.... ummm... is Gallifrey ours?
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:42:18 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>>>
>>> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>> > - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>> > appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>> > bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>> > also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>
>>> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
>>> the subject.
>>
>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>Preferably one with a TARDIS.
jack....@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2012, 7:12:44 AM11/16/12
to
Anthony Nance wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.written "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>
>
>SImilarly, I learned from my local newspaper yesterday[1] that
>some Ohio legislators are trying (again) to pass legislation
>banning the creation of a "human-animal hybrid".[2]
Sounds like owners of exotic animals are brainstorming ways to get
>In rec.arts.sf.written "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>
>
>SImilarly, I learned from my local newspaper yesterday[1] that
>some Ohio legislators are trying (again) to pass legislation
>banning the creation of a "human-animal hybrid".[2]
around the new registration law.
>Take *that* Cordwainer Smith![3]
>- Tony
>[1] http://tinyurl.com/cnxkdx9
>[2] They're having a tough time defining what it is. From context,
> I don't think it's a new type of energy-efficient vehicle.
>[3] And others, of course.
--
-Jack
Dorothy J Heydt
Nov 16, 2012, 11:30:54 AM11/16/12
to
In article <641glh....@news.alt.net>,
born in the US.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:42:18 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>>>
>>> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>> > - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>> > appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>> > bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>> > also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>
>>> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
>>> the subject.
>>
>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>Preferably one with a TARDIS.
All the TARDIS owners we've met so far are ineligible, not being
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:42:18 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>>>
>>> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>> > - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>> > appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>> > bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>> > also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>
>>> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
>>> the subject.
>>
>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>Preferably one with a TARDIS.
born in the US.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Dorothy J Heydt
Nov 16, 2012, 11:32:34 AM11/16/12
to
In article <k85iuf$srg$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
FDR.
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>time to have a real president in the White House.
>
>A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
FDR.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 16, 2012, 12:27:45 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/12 11:32 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <k85iuf$srg$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>>
>> A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>> George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>> with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>
> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> FDR.
>
Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
> In article <k85iuf$srg$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>>
>> A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>> George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>> with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>
> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> FDR.
>
No, wait. Gene-splice us a combination of FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, and
Washington!
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Kurt Busiek
Nov 16, 2012, 12:34:44 PM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-16 17:27:45 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> On 11/16/12 11:32 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <k85iuf$srg$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>>>
>>> A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>>> George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>>> with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>>
>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>> FDR.
>
> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> No, wait. Gene-splice us a combination of FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, and Washington!
Trade FDR for Jefferson and the result could be PRESIDENT RUSHMORE!
> On 11/16/12 11:32 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <k85iuf$srg$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>>>
>>> A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>>> George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>>> with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>>
>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>> FDR.
>
> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> No, wait. Gene-splice us a combination of FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, and Washington!
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 16, 2012, 12:35:19 PM11/16/12
to
David Johnston
Nov 16, 2012, 1:24:27 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/15/2012 5:43 PM, ppint. at pplay wrote:
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel
Actually it's forbidden depictions of it on television.
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel
Paul Dormer
Nov 16, 2012, 1:53:00 PM11/16/12
to
In article <MDL9y...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:
>
> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> FDR.
I can now hear the Sondheim song How I Cloned Roosevelt.
wrote:
>
> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> FDR.
Butch Malahide
Nov 16, 2012, 2:16:31 PM11/16/12
to
Anyway, there's a loophole. The relevant provision actually says:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
United States.
With a TARDIS it would be easy to establish citizenship in 1789. The
residency requirement might be more of a hassle but doable. I'm not so
sure about the age requirement; it could be argued that the various
Doctors are different persons (they *have* been seen together). But I
suppose that having established citizenship in 1789 automatically
makes you over 200 years old today.
Jette Goldie
Nov 16, 2012, 2:27:09 PM11/16/12
to
Howard Brazee
Nov 16, 2012, 3:18:37 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:30:54 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:
>All the TARDIS owners we've met so far are ineligible, not being
>born in the US.
Which doesn't matter, as long as they were citizens when the
Heydt) wrote:
>All the TARDIS owners we've met so far are ineligible, not being
>born in the US.
Constitution was adopted. Which is doable.
Howard Brazee
Nov 16, 2012, 3:19:41 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:27:45 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>>> George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>>> with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>>
>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>> FDR.
>>
>
> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> No, wait. Gene-splice us a combination of FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, and
>Washington!
The only SF novel I have with a cloned president has Kennedy.
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>>> George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>>> with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>>
>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>> FDR.
>>
>
> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> No, wait. Gene-splice us a combination of FDR, Teddy, Lincoln, and
>Washington!
Scott Dorsey
Nov 16, 2012, 4:02:16 PM11/16/12
to
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>>time to have a real president in the White House.
>>
>>A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>>George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>>with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>
>Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>FDR.
Yeah, but what if the samples got switched somewhere in the basement
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>>time to have a real president in the White House.
>>
>>A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
>>George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
>>with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>
>Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>FDR.
laboratory and we wound up with _Teddy_ Roosevelt instead? Of course, by
that point Nixon has already cloned himself nine times and appointed himself
to the Supreme Court, so there's little that the Bureau of Clone Controls can
do...
Scott Dorsey
Nov 16, 2012, 4:04:19 PM11/16/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>The only SF novel I have with a cloned president has Kennedy.
http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Lives-Gregory-OBrien/dp/0812881389
>
>The only SF novel I have with a cloned president has Kennedy.
David Friedman
Nov 16, 2012, 4:17:11 PM11/16/12
to
In article <MDL9y...@kithrup.com>,
years? And you're counting on the Japanese to end it for us?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
> In article <k85iuf$srg$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
> >>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
> >>time to have a real president in the White House.
> >
> >A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
> >George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
> >with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>
> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> FDR.
You want to stretch out the current recession for another six or seven
> Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
> >>gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
> >>time to have a real president in the White House.
> >
> >A real president... like George Washington, or at the very least a clone of
> >George Washington made by a secret band of patriots at Ft. Detrick, working
> >with DNA extracted from hair taken from his hair brush in the Smithsonian....
>
> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> FDR.
years? And you're counting on the Japanese to end it for us?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
David Friedman
Nov 16, 2012, 4:17:57 PM11/16/12
to
In article <k85t2h$eod$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > FDR.
> >
>
> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
We haven't invaded enough countries already?
> > FDR.
> >
>
> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
jack....@gmail.com
Nov 16, 2012, 1:08:52 PM11/16/12
to
Canal" on ya!
--
-Jack
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 16, 2012, 4:43:26 PM11/16/12
to
On 11/16/12 4:17 PM, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <k85t2h$eod$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>>> FDR.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>
We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article saying that THEY
> In article <k85t2h$eod$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>>> FDR.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>
had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on Earth? We
gotta get crackin'!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Nov 16, 2012, 3:56:18 PM11/16/12
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:k86c1u$hvb$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 11/16/12 4:17 PM, David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <k85t2h$eod$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>>>> FDR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>>
>> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>>
>
> We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article
> saying that THEY
> had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on
> Earth? We gotta get crackin'!
>
Ah, but times have changed, as have methods. We have invaded pretty
much every country on earh, and space. We've just done it with Coca
Cola and Levis.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:k86c1u$hvb$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 11/16/12 4:17 PM, David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <k85t2h$eod$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>>>> FDR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>>
>> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>>
>
> We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article
> saying that THEY
> had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on
> Earth? We gotta get crackin'!
>
much every country on earh, and space. We've just done it with Coca
Cola and Levis.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Howard Brazee
Nov 16, 2012, 5:07:14 PM11/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:43:26 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>>
>> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>>
>
> We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article saying that THEY
>had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on Earth? We
>gotta get crackin'!
Or the Romans or Mongols for that matter.
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>>
>> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>>
>
> We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article saying that THEY
>had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on Earth? We
>gotta get crackin'!
David Friedman
Nov 16, 2012, 10:31:56 PM11/16/12
to
In article <v7eda8h8s0kuiruk2...@4ax.com>,
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:43:26 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
> >>
> >> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
> >>
> >
> > We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article saying that THEY
> >had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on Earth? We
> >gotta get crackin'!
>
> Or the Romans or Mongols for that matter.
The Romans had a pretty restricted range. Didn't even make it to India.
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:43:26 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
> >>
> >> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
> >>
> >
> > We're still WAAAAY behind the Brits! I saw an article saying that THEY
> >had managed to invade all but, what was it, 22 countries on Earth? We
> >gotta get crackin'!
>
> Or the Romans or Mongols for that matter.
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx
David DeLaney
Nov 16, 2012, 11:57:19 PM11/16/12
to
>> Or the Romans or Mongols for that matter.
>
>The Romans had a pretty restricted range. Didn't even make it to India.
So who was this Belisarius guy then? I understand we're discounting Alexandros
>
>The Romans had a pretty restricted range. Didn't even make it to India.
cuz he was Greek instead of Roman...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Friedman
Nov 17, 2012, 12:50:10 AM11/17/12
to
In article <slrnkae4b...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> Or the Romans or Mongols for that matter.
> >
> >The Romans had a pretty restricted range. Didn't even make it to India.
>
> So who was this Belisarius guy then? I understand we're discounting Alexandros
> cuz he was Greek instead of Roman...
Belisarius went the other direction.
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> Or the Romans or Mongols for that matter.
> >
> >The Romans had a pretty restricted range. Didn't even make it to India.
>
> So who was this Belisarius guy then? I understand we're discounting Alexandros
> cuz he was Greek instead of Roman...
Cryptoengineer
Nov 17, 2012, 1:32:35 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
and that's not counting embassy guards.
pt
wrote:
> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > > FDR.
>
> > Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
Define 'invasion'. The US has troops deployed in over 150 countries,
>
> > > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > > FDR.
>
> > Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
and that's not counting embassy guards.
pt
Scott Dorsey
Nov 17, 2012, 12:01:32 PM11/17/12
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>Ah, but times have changed, as have methods. We have invaded pretty
>much every country on earh, and space. We've just done it with Coca
>Cola and Levis.
There was a saying during the Cold War that the KGB trained their agents
>>
>Ah, but times have changed, as have methods. We have invaded pretty
>much every country on earh, and space. We've just done it with Coca
>Cola and Levis.
to live off the land and to survive with any kind of food, while the CIA
instead made sure to establish a McDonalds every fifty feet across the
face of the earth.
Mark Zenier
Nov 16, 2012, 1:55:20 PM11/16/12
to
In article <20121116.004...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,
> the tea party and the merkin republican political party it
> controls follow suit, as seems to me not too unlikely, and
> the holy, orthodox and catholic church[es] do likewise, as
> would strike me as completely consistent with past practice,
> would it take both of the two main branches of islam ruling
> against time travel for a majority of humanity to formally
> be opposed to both investigation into, & the practice of it?
>
> - is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
> perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
>
> - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
> copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
> past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
This side of the pond, Dr. Who is broadcast on non-commerical (PBS)
stations, so the Republicans wouldn't be familiar with it.
The literate Republican party operatives seem to be more familiar with
1984 and are busy doing the more mundane job of editing history using
the Ministry of Truth.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
>
> - iirc, china accounts for ~20% of the human race; should
> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
> also research into the theory of it, too.
>
> the tea party and the merkin republican political party it
> controls follow suit, as seems to me not too unlikely, and
> the holy, orthodox and catholic church[es] do likewise, as
> would strike me as completely consistent with past practice,
> would it take both of the two main branches of islam ruling
> against time travel for a majority of humanity to formally
> be opposed to both investigation into, & the practice of it?
>
> - is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
> perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
>
> - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
> copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
> past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
This side of the pond, Dr. Who is broadcast on non-commerical (PBS)
stations, so the Republicans wouldn't be familiar with it.
The literate Republican party operatives seem to be more familiar with
1984 and are busy doing the more mundane job of editing history using
the Ministry of Truth.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Nov 17, 2012, 2:16:36 PM11/17/12
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:30:54 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>All the TARDIS owners we've met so far are ineligible, not being
>>born in the US.
>
> Which doesn't matter, as long as they were citizens when the
> Constitution was adopted. Which is doable.
>
What about the inhabitants of Alaska at the time of purchase? (or when
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:30:54 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>All the TARDIS owners we've met so far are ineligible, not being
>>born in the US.
>
> Which doesn't matter, as long as they were citizens when the
> Constitution was adopted. Which is doable.
>
the statehood was granted)? When was the last time US obtained any
territory with (non Indian) people and granted them citizenship
automatically?
ObSpaceSF: What are the criteria for Foundation citizenship? Only
Terminus-born (and later "Foundation proper") people are eligible, or
children of citizens, or is the citizenship of just one parent enough?
What about children of non-citizen visitors born on Terminus?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Butch Malahide
Nov 17, 2012, 2:45:38 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16, 3:17 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
wrote:
> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > > FDR.
>
> > Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
TR was one of only 4 U.S. presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> > > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > > FDR.
>
> > Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
David Friedman
Nov 17, 2012, 3:28:32 PM11/17/12
to
In article <k88go...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
left--not surprising, given that the academy has been biased in that
direction for quite a long time.
I encountered one as a high school student. Our social studies class
used a prominent college textbook. It complained that presidents Harding
and Coolidge did nothing about the decline in farm income from (I'm
going by memory) 1920 to 1930. It failed to mention that farm income was
rising through both of their terms, aside from the first few months of
Harding's. The book had taken a graph that went sharply down at the
beginning and end, rose throughout the middle period, and given only the
end points.
Then there is the popular explanation of the Great Depression that
starts with Hoover cutting spending and taxes after the stock market
crash. And the neglect of the Great Depression that didn't happen a
decade earlier, when Harding responded to a sharp rise in unemployment
and drop in prices by doing exactly what it was claimed that Hoover
later did.
And the repeated bogus story of the Hall Carbine Affair, to take a more
obscure example that I read a book on long ago.
I expect each of us is more sensitive to bogus history done by the other
side--what would your examples be?
mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
> The literate Republican party operatives seem to be more familiar with
> 1984 and are busy doing the more mundane job of editing history using
> the Ministry of Truth.
I think it's easier to find examples of that being done by the center
> The literate Republican party operatives seem to be more familiar with
> 1984 and are busy doing the more mundane job of editing history using
> the Ministry of Truth.
left--not surprising, given that the academy has been biased in that
direction for quite a long time.
I encountered one as a high school student. Our social studies class
used a prominent college textbook. It complained that presidents Harding
and Coolidge did nothing about the decline in farm income from (I'm
going by memory) 1920 to 1930. It failed to mention that farm income was
rising through both of their terms, aside from the first few months of
Harding's. The book had taken a graph that went sharply down at the
beginning and end, rose throughout the middle period, and given only the
end points.
Then there is the popular explanation of the Great Depression that
starts with Hoover cutting spending and taxes after the stock market
crash. And the neglect of the Great Depression that didn't happen a
decade earlier, when Harding responded to a sharp rise in unemployment
and drop in prices by doing exactly what it was claimed that Hoover
later did.
And the repeated bogus story of the Hall Carbine Affair, to take a more
obscure example that I read a book on long ago.
I expect each of us is more sensitive to bogus history done by the other
side--what would your examples be?
David Johnston
Nov 17, 2012, 8:02:55 PM11/17/12
to
troops over the objections of the local government?
Dimensional Traveler
Nov 17, 2012, 8:55:37 PM11/17/12
to
On 11/16/2012 10:55 AM, Mark Zenier wrote:
> In article <20121116.004...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,
> ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>>
>> - iirc, china accounts for ~20% of the human race; should
>> the tea party and the merkin republican political party it
>> controls follow suit, as seems to me not too unlikely, and
>> the holy, orthodox and catholic church[es] do likewise, as
>> would strike me as completely consistent with past practice,
>> would it take both of the two main branches of islam ruling
>> against time travel for a majority of humanity to formally
>> be opposed to both investigation into, & the practice of it?
>>
>> - is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
>> perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
>>
>> - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
>> copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
>> past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
>
> This side of the pond, Dr. Who is broadcast on non-commerical (PBS)
> stations, so the Republicans wouldn't be familiar with it.
>
Used to be. Now its on BBC America.
> In article <20121116.004...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>,
> ppint. at pplay <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>>
>> - iirc, china accounts for ~20% of the human race; should
>> the tea party and the merkin republican political party it
>> controls follow suit, as seems to me not too unlikely, and
>> the holy, orthodox and catholic church[es] do likewise, as
>> would strike me as completely consistent with past practice,
>> would it take both of the two main branches of islam ruling
>> against time travel for a majority of humanity to formally
>> be opposed to both investigation into, & the practice of it?
>>
>> - is there any major world religion other than judaism (and
>> perhaps arguably buddhism), that would not also forbid it?
>>
>> - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
>> copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
>> past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
>
> This side of the pond, Dr. Who is broadcast on non-commerical (PBS)
> stations, so the Republicans wouldn't be familiar with it.
>
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Butch Malahide
Nov 17, 2012, 9:14:11 PM11/17/12
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
but the Wikipedians unfortunately omitted the names of the 120 or so
countries where the invading force was less than 100 U.S. personnel,
probably to avoid embarrassing the countries that were too feeble to
repel such a puny invasion. The article lists just 10 foreign
countries invaded by 1000 or more U.S. troops: Afghanistan, Germany,
Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Italy, United Kingdom, Bahrain, Turkey,
and Spain. Of those 10 countries, the only ones we actually invaded
(sent in troops over the objection of the local government) were
Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Kuwait, and Italy.
Scott Dorsey
Nov 17, 2012, 10:31:24 PM11/17/12
to
David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>Why do people need to tell you that it's an invasion when you send in
>troops over the objections of the local government?
You mean like sending in the National Guard to enforce school desegregation?
>
>Why do people need to tell you that it's an invasion when you send in
>troops over the objections of the local government?
Butch Malahide
Nov 17, 2012, 10:48:20 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 9:31 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >Why do people need to tell you that it's an invasion when you send in
> >troops over the objections of the local government?
>
> You mean like sending in the National Guard to enforce school desegregation?
Or the 101st Airborne, sent to Little Rock High School by President
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >Why do people need to tell you that it's an invasion when you send in
> >troops over the objections of the local government?
>
> You mean like sending in the National Guard to enforce school desegregation?
Eisenhower after the Democratic governor of Arkansas initially used
the National Guard to *block* integration.
David Johnston
Nov 17, 2012, 11:00:55 PM11/17/12
to
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 12:51:15 AM11/18/12
to
Democrat, he could hardly have gotten elected governor of Arkansas in
the fifties, could he? Amd the fact that the governor and the
president were of opposing political parties may have had some bearing
on how the situation played out. If they had both been Democrats, say
if Stevenson or Kefauver were in the White House, maybe they could
have worked out a compromise.
David Johnston
Nov 18, 2012, 1:08:22 AM11/18/12
to
On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 9:31 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>> Why do people need to tell you that it's an invasion when you send in
>>>>> troops over the objections of the local government?
>>
>>>> You mean like sending in the National Guard to enforce school desegregation?
>>
>>> Or the 101st Airborne, sent to Little Rock High School by President
>>> Eisenhower after the Democratic governor of Arkansas initially used
>>> the National Guard to *block* integration.
>>
>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>
> Beats me.
Then why'd you mention it?
> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 9:31 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>> Why do people need to tell you that it's an invasion when you send in
>>>>> troops over the objections of the local government?
>>
>>>> You mean like sending in the National Guard to enforce school desegregation?
>>
>>> Or the 101st Airborne, sent to Little Rock High School by President
>>> Eisenhower after the Democratic governor of Arkansas initially used
>>> the National Guard to *block* integration.
>>
>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>
> Beats me.
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 3:24:41 AM11/18/12
to
>
> Then why'd you mention it?
Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you don't think I
> Then why'd you mention it?
should have mentioned that the governor was a Democrat.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 18, 2012, 3:50:17 AM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:60270fc2-730c-4e47...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> On Nov 18, 12:08�am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
[...]
>>>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>>> Beats me. [SNIP]
>> Then why'd you mention it?
> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you
> don't think I should have mentioned that the governor was
> a Democrat.
It does seem rather pointless -- about on a par with
mentioning his height, or the color of his hair, or whether
he liked broccoli.
Brian
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:60270fc2-730c-4e47...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> On Nov 18, 12:08�am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>>> Beats me. [SNIP]
>> Then why'd you mention it?
> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you
> don't think I should have mentioned that the governor was
> a Democrat.
mentioning his height, or the color of his hair, or whether
he liked broccoli.
Brian
Scott Dorsey
Nov 18, 2012, 10:42:19 AM11/18/12
to
I don't know, but it is a sign of how times have changed that back then,
Republicans fought for civil rights and Dixie... err.. I mean Democrats
fought against them, whereas today it's the opposite.
Used to be that Democrats got us into was, many of them badly thought-out,
and Republicans got us out, too. Now that's also become reversed.
It's a pretty weird world we live in today.
Republicans fought for civil rights and Dixie... err.. I mean Democrats
fought against them, whereas today it's the opposite.
Used to be that Democrats got us into was, many of them badly thought-out,
and Republicans got us out, too. Now that's also become reversed.
It's a pretty weird world we live in today.
Dan Goodman
Nov 18, 2012, 11:46:39 AM11/18/12
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> > What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>
> I don't know, but it is a sign of how times have changed that back
> then, Republicans fought for civil rights and Dixie... err.. I mean
> Democrats fought against them, whereas today it's the opposite.
>
> Used to be that Democrats got us into was, many of them badly
> thought-out, and Republicans got us out, too. Now that's also become
> reversed.
>
> It's a pretty weird world we live in today.
> --scott
In 1909, Nevada outlawed gambling forever.
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> > What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>
> I don't know, but it is a sign of how times have changed that back
> then, Republicans fought for civil rights and Dixie... err.. I mean
> Democrats fought against them, whereas today it's the opposite.
>
> Used to be that Democrats got us into was, many of them badly
> thought-out, and Republicans got us out, too. Now that's also become
> reversed.
>
> It's a pretty weird world we live in today.
> --scott
Chicago used to be run by the Republican machine.
Things change.
--
Dan Goodman
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Jay E. Morris
Nov 18, 2012, 2:34:55 PM11/18/12
to
in facts totally irrelevant to the topic of the article. Ex-marine
shoots neighbor! Yeah, thirty years ago he served a two-year hitch.
Jay E. Morris
Nov 18, 2012, 2:37:07 PM11/18/12
to
On 11/16/2012 12:55 PM, Mark Zenier wrote:
...
...
> This side of the pond, Dr. Who is broadcast on non-commerical (PBS)
> stations, so the Republicans wouldn't be familiar with it.
>
Score -1 for you.
> stations, so the Republicans wouldn't be familiar with it.
>
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 3:17:35 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 2:50 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
his office in a public matter, in defiance of a President and a Chief
Justice of the opposing political party? And yet his political
affiliation is no more relevant than his taste in vegetables? Hmmm.
How much did *Ike's* politics (or his military background) have to do
with it? Would any other President have done the same? Alternate
history scenario: How would President Adlai E. Stevenson have handled
Little Rock? (We have to assume that Brown vs. Topeka Board of
Education still gets decided the same way, although Stevenson probably
wouldn't have appointed Earl Warren to the Court.) Another scenario
puts Estes Kefauver (D., Tenn.) in command, after beating Stevenson
for the nomination in 1952 and then beating Taft in the general
election. (The Minimum Necessary Change to get a Democrat in the White
House in 1957 would be to Taft beat out Ike for the Republican
nomination in 1952; alternatively, Ike could die of a heart attack in
his first term, and Nixon lose the reelection.)
David Friedman
Nov 18, 2012, 3:34:18 PM11/18/12
to
In article <k8avkr$alt$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Libya and Kosovo. Republicans got the U.S. into the Iraq war, but also
started the process of getting it out. And the current administration
has expanded the involvement in Afghanistan, although that may be
changing.
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>
> I don't know, but it is a sign of how times have changed that back then,
> Republicans fought for civil rights and Dixie... err.. I mean Democrats
> fought against them, whereas today it's the opposite.
>
> Used to be that Democrats got us into was, many of them badly thought-out,
> and Republicans got us out, too. Now that's also become reversed.
I don't think there is any clear pattern on the latter issue--consider
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>
> I don't know, but it is a sign of how times have changed that back then,
> Republicans fought for civil rights and Dixie... err.. I mean Democrats
> fought against them, whereas today it's the opposite.
>
> Used to be that Democrats got us into was, many of them badly thought-out,
> and Republicans got us out, too. Now that's also become reversed.
Libya and Kosovo. Republicans got the U.S. into the Iraq war, but also
started the process of getting it out. And the current administration
has expanded the involvement in Afghanistan, although that may be
changing.
David Johnston
Nov 18, 2012, 3:54:27 PM11/18/12
to
On 11/18/2012 1:17 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:50 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:60270fc2-730c-4e47...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 12:08 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>>>>> Beats me. [SNIP]
>>>> Then why'd you mention it?
>>> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you
>>> don't think I should have mentioned that the governor was
>>> a Democrat.
>>
>> It does seem rather pointless -- about on a par with
>> mentioning his height, or the color of his hair, or whether
>> he liked broccoli.
>
> We're talking about a partisan elected official using the powers of
> his office in a public matter,
Actually we're talking about the definition of "invasion".
> On Nov 18, 2:50 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:60270fc2-730c-4e47...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 12:08 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>>>>> Beats me. [SNIP]
>>>> Then why'd you mention it?
>>> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you
>>> don't think I should have mentioned that the governor was
>>> a Democrat.
>>
>> It does seem rather pointless -- about on a par with
>> mentioning his height, or the color of his hair, or whether
>> he liked broccoli.
>
> We're talking about a partisan elected official using the powers of
> his office in a public matter,
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 4:04:25 PM11/18/12
to
are you harping on one word when my whole post was off topic?
Kurt Busiek
Nov 18, 2012, 4:28:31 PM11/18/12
to
regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it. I thought
the bit where Obama wasn't a "real" President but TR was great because
he's one of a select few Presidents who've won the Nobel Peace Prize
was particularly goofy.
I'll see if he's calmed down any if a few months; in the meantime, I
figured his determination to argue about politics outweighs his
contributions to discussion of SF, so I killfiled him for a while.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Brian M. Scott
Nov 18, 2012, 5:47:28 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
He's an example of calling out the National Guard in a
military (as distinct from public service) rôle; his
political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
And even if it were relevant, 'Democrat' is misleading: he
was a Southern Democrat of that era, which is something
quite different from a non-Southern Democrat of that era,
let alone a present-day Democrat.
[...]
Brian
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
military (as distinct from public service) rôle; his
political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
And even if it were relevant, 'Democrat' is misleading: he
was a Southern Democrat of that era, which is something
quite different from a non-Southern Democrat of that era,
let alone a present-day Democrat.
[...]
Brian
William December Starr
Nov 18, 2012, 6:42:40 PM11/18/12
to
In article <5u7da8hh0dvv0pln4...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
> The only SF novel I have with a cloned president has Kennedy.
_Joshua Son of None_, by Nancy Freedman?
-- wds
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
> The only SF novel I have with a cloned president has Kennedy.
_Joshua Son of None_, by Nancy Freedman?
-- wds
Harri Tavaila
Nov 18, 2012, 7:06:31 PM11/18/12
to
16.11.2012 16:37, Scott Dorsey kirjoitti:
> Philip Chee<phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:42:18 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>>>> the subject.
>>>
>>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>>
>> Preferably one with a TARDIS.
>
> Older than 35... check.... born on US territory.... ummm... is Gallifrey ours?
> --scott
>
I believe your constitution allows a non-US-born person to become a
president of USA if he/she was present in 1776 or thereabouts...
H Tavaila
> Philip Chee<phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:42:18 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 8:41 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:43:28 -0000 gmt, v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
>>>>
>>>> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>>>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>>>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>>>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>>>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>>
>>>> I would infer then that the Chinese military is actively researching
>>>> ("ppint. at pplay") wrote:
>>>>> - hi; it sounded like it must be a hoax, but it doesn't
>>>>> appear to be one: the people's republic of china has for-
>>>>> bidden the practice of time travel and, by implication,
>>>>> also research into the theory of it, too.
>>>>
>>>> the subject.
>>>
>>> It's not enough we have to worry about Iran with nukes? Now we've
>>> gotta worry about Red Chinese with time machines? This would be a good
>>> time to have a real president in the White House.
>>
>> Preferably one with a TARDIS.
>
> Older than 35... check.... born on US territory.... ummm... is Gallifrey ours?
> --scott
>
I believe your constitution allows a non-US-born person to become a
president of USA if he/she was present in 1776 or thereabouts...
H Tavaila
Harri Tavaila
Nov 18, 2012, 7:18:28 PM11/18/12
to
H Tavaila
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 7:34:25 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 3:28 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-18 20:54:27 +0000, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> said:
> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it. I thought
> the bit where Obama wasn't a "real" President but TR was great because
> he's one of a select few Presidents who've won the Nobel Peace Prize
> was particularly goofy.
The goofy bit that Kurt is referring to is the last line here:
> On 2012-11-18 20:54:27 +0000, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> said:
> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it. I thought
> the bit where Obama wasn't a "real" President but TR was great because
> he's one of a select few Presidents who've won the Nobel Peace Prize
> was particularly goofy.
On Nov 16, 3:17 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > > FDR.
> > Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > > Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
> > > FDR.
> > Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
TR was one of only 4 U.S. presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Was that matter-of-fact statement an endorsement of TR (as Kurt seems
to think) or was it a comment on the selection of Nobel Peace
Laureates? Lots of dubious selections to choose from: all those
presidents, Kissinger & Le Duc Tho, and others.
Rod Speed
Nov 18, 2012, 7:41:10 PM11/18/12
to
"Harri Tavaila" <Harri....@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:k8btsd$1iv$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
Kurt Busiek
Nov 18, 2012, 7:44:09 PM11/18/12
to
Iraq as liberators, if that doesn't make the list of places that the
local government didn't want us there.
And surely Manuel Noriega wasn't happy with our visit there, which
involved over 25,000 troops.
Our adventures in the Philippines surely count as invading _someone_,
even if we call it "benevolent assimilation."
And the idea that there are less than 1000 US troops deployed in Cuba
now doesn't really mean that the Spanish-American War didn't involve an
invasion of more than that size, or that, say, Brigade 2506 and the Bay
of Pigs doesn't count. Heck, depending on how you count it, our Cuban
adventures may constitute an invasion of two countries, first Spain and
then Cuba.
Long story short, I think that article may not say what it's being read to say.
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 7:57:02 PM11/18/12
to
and Florida. Probably others. But I was only listing countries. Where
U.S. forces are currently deployed (which is what that "150 countries"
was about), not every country we've ever had to invade. Otherwise
France would have to be on the list.
Kay Shapero
Nov 18, 2012, 8:02:47 PM11/18/12
to
In article <k8bjtv$dte$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it.
Some contortion - neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of today are
the same as they were in the early '50s. Or in the '60s for that
matter.
--
Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.
> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it.
the same as they were in the early '50s. Or in the '60s for that
matter.
--
Kay Shapero
Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.
Kurt Busiek
Nov 18, 2012, 8:33:39 PM11/18/12
to
On 2012-11-19 01:02:47 +0000, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> said:
> In article <k8bjtv$dte$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
>
>> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
>> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it.
>
> Some contortion - neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of today are
> the same as they were in the early '50s. Or in the '60s for that
> matter.
If you're not really concerned with more than venting, shallow
> In article <k8bjtv$dte$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
>
>> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
>> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it.
>
> Some contortion - neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of today are
> the same as they were in the early '50s. Or in the '60s for that
> matter.
perception seems to be part of the game.
Of course, I may be wronging Butch utterly. I just think I can manage
without his posts for a while, and I don't expect either of us will be
gravely harmed by it.
David DeLaney
Nov 18, 2012, 9:54:38 PM11/18/12
to
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 3:28 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-18 20:54:27 +0000, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> said:
>> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
>> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it. I thought
>> the bit where Obama wasn't a "real" President but TR was great because
>> he's one of a select few Presidents who've won the Nobel Peace Prize
>> was particularly goofy.
>
>The goofy bit that Kurt is referring to is the last line here:
...
>On Nov 18, 3:28 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-18 20:54:27 +0000, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> said:
>> Butch seems to want to hate on Democrats and Obama these days,
>> regardless of what contortions he has to go through to do it. I thought
>> the bit where Obama wasn't a "real" President but TR was great because
>> he's one of a select few Presidents who've won the Nobel Peace Prize
>> was particularly goofy.
>
>The goofy bit that Kurt is referring to is the last line here:
>Was that matter-of-fact statement an endorsement of TR (as Kurt seems
>to think) or was it a comment on the selection of Nobel Peace
>Laureates? Lots of dubious selections to choose from: all those
>presidents, Kissinger & Le Duc Tho, and others.
I'm reading that as Butch thinking the getting of the prize was the dubious
>to think) or was it a comment on the selection of Nobel Peace
>Laureates? Lots of dubious selections to choose from: all those
>presidents, Kissinger & Le Duc Tho, and others.
part, not the person being President in the first place. Supported by the
last couple people there. Hey, if Tom Lehrer can speak out about Kissinger,
surely Butch can?
I'm not all that sure there wasn't someone else in the world that deserved
the prize that year over Obama, myself. I can see why they awarded him it,
but it was a weird thing.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Howard Brazee
Nov 18, 2012, 10:03:34 PM11/18/12
to
On 18 Nov 2012 18:42:40 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
Yeah, that's it.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Butch Malahide
Nov 18, 2012, 10:49:47 PM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 4:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> <news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> He's an example of calling out the National Guard in a
> military (as distinct from public service) r le; his
> political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
> so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
Horrors, I made an irrelevant post to Usenet. Note, however, that this
> so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
was a political thread from the get-go. The original post closed with
an obscure crack at Republicans:
- love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
It's not clear how the Republican party (I assume she means the U.S.
party by that name but who knows?) is relevant to time travel in
China, but nobody complained about that.
> And even if it were relevant, 'Democrat' is misleading: he
> was a Southern Democrat of that era, which is something
> quite different from a non-Southern Democrat of that era,
> let alone a present-day Democrat.
governor of Arkansas" but I was wrong; this is an international forum,
and one can't reasonably expect foreigners to be familiar with all 50
of our states.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 19, 2012, 12:26:34 AM11/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:49:47 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:ac7f5f18-2899-4fda...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> On Nov 18, 4:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>> He's an example of calling out the National Guard in a
>> military (as distinct from public service) r le; his
>> political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
>> so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
> Horrors, I made an irrelevant post to Usenet. Note,
> however, that this was a political thread from the
> get-go. The original post closed with an obscure crack at
> Republicans:
> - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
> copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
> past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
> It's not clear how the Republican party (I assume she means the U.S.
> party by that name but who knows?) is relevant to time travel in
> China, but nobody complained about that.
Of course the U.S. Republican party is meant: earlier in
that post you'll find mention of 'the tea party and the
merkin republican political party it controls'. And it's
perfectly clear: the Republican party has managed to
identify itself in many people's minds -- especially, I
think, in Western Europe -- with its lunatic fringe,
personified by such people as Michele Bachman, Jan Brewer,
Allen West, and Donald Trump, and with the religious right,
and as a result is seen as having more than its share of
authoritarian know-nothings.
>> And even if it were relevant, 'Democrat' is misleading: he
>> was a Southern Democrat of that era, which is something
>> quite different from a non-Southern Democrat of that era,
>> let alone a present-day Democrat.
> Good point. I thought it redundant to add "Southern" to
> "Democratic governor of Arkansas" but I was wrong; this
> is an international forum, and one can't reasonably
> expect foreigners to be familiar with all 50 of our
> states.
More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
that these days.
Brian
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:ac7f5f18-2899-4fda...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> On Nov 18, 4:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>> He's an example of calling out the National Guard in a
>> military (as distinct from public service) r le; his
>> political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
>> so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
> Horrors, I made an irrelevant post to Usenet. Note,
> however, that this was a political thread from the
> get-go. The original post closed with an obscure crack at
> Republicans:
> - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
> copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
> past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
> It's not clear how the Republican party (I assume she means the U.S.
> party by that name but who knows?) is relevant to time travel in
> China, but nobody complained about that.
that post you'll find mention of 'the tea party and the
merkin republican political party it controls'. And it's
perfectly clear: the Republican party has managed to
identify itself in many people's minds -- especially, I
think, in Western Europe -- with its lunatic fringe,
personified by such people as Michele Bachman, Jan Brewer,
Allen West, and Donald Trump, and with the religious right,
and as a result is seen as having more than its share of
authoritarian know-nothings.
>> And even if it were relevant, 'Democrat' is misleading: he
>> was a Southern Democrat of that era, which is something
>> quite different from a non-Southern Democrat of that era,
>> let alone a present-day Democrat.
> Good point. I thought it redundant to add "Southern" to
> "Democratic governor of Arkansas" but I was wrong; this
> is an international forum, and one can't reasonably
> expect foreigners to be familiar with all 50 of our
> states.
Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
that these days.
Brian
David Friedman
Nov 19, 2012, 3:27:26 AM11/19/12
to
In article <slrnkaj5t...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
should have.
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> I'm not all that sure there wasn't someone else in the world that deserved
> the prize that year over Obama, myself. I can see why they awarded him it,
> but it was a weird thing.
>
I can conjecture why they did, but can think of no good reason why they
> I'm not all that sure there wasn't someone else in the world that deserved
> the prize that year over Obama, myself. I can see why they awarded him it,
> but it was a weird thing.
>
should have.
Kip Williams
Nov 19, 2012, 9:03:31 AM11/19/12
to
Brian M. Scott wrote, On 11/19/12 12:26 AM:
the fact of the transition in its pretense of an unbroken line of moral
superiority from the administration of Lincoln (who many in the GOP
still seem to think was one of history's greatest monsters) to the present.
Kip W
rasfw
>> Good point. I thought it redundant to add "Southern" to
>> "Democratic governor of Arkansas" but I was wrong; this
>> is an international forum, and one can't reasonably
>> expect foreigners to be familiar with all 50 of our
>> states.
> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
> that these days.
Particularly as one party has such an active interest in papering over
>> "Democratic governor of Arkansas" but I was wrong; this
>> is an international forum, and one can't reasonably
>> expect foreigners to be familiar with all 50 of our
>> states.
> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
> that these days.
the fact of the transition in its pretense of an unbroken line of moral
superiority from the administration of Lincoln (who many in the GOP
still seem to think was one of history's greatest monsters) to the present.
Kip W
rasfw
Cryptoengineer
Nov 19, 2012, 12:52:24 PM11/19/12
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_invasions
It's pretty long, but includes various incursions on Indian land, and
a separate entry for each action against Spain in the Americas (there
are a lot of them).
Again, what counts as an invasion? A great part of the older listings
are raids from the 'gunboat diplomacy' era, with no apparent intention
to permanently displace the local government. The list includes almost
every Western Hemisphere country with a coastline, many Pacific
Islands, Indonesia, Turkey, Croatia, etc.
What about NATO activity? If we include Afghanistan, why not the
former Yugoslavian states? Libya?
pt
Kay Shapero
Nov 19, 2012, 3:11:49 PM11/19/12
to
In article <k8c29j$33k$1...@dont-email.me>, ku...@busiek.com says...
The mystery is solved by a comment by Butch - somewhere in the original
post there was a derrogatory comment about republicans. I missed it
because something, I'm not sure what, about the original poster's layout
style tends to cause my eyes to slide right off it, regardless of
content. So he was just retaliating. Shrug. I'm dropping this thread
- I was interested in the original premise, but not really this one.
post there was a derrogatory comment about republicans. I missed it
because something, I'm not sure what, about the original poster's layout
style tends to cause my eyes to slide right off it, regardless of
content. So he was just retaliating. Shrug. I'm dropping this thread
- I was interested in the original premise, but not really this one.
alie...@gmail.com
Nov 19, 2012, 3:57:29 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 9:26 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:49:47 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:49:47 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> <news:ac7f5f18-2899-4fda...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
> > On Nov 18, 4:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> >> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
> >> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> >> He's an example of calling out the National Guard in a
> >> military (as distinct from public service) r le; his
> >> political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
> >> so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
> > Horrors, I made an irrelevant post to Usenet. Note,
> > however, that this was a political thread from the
> > get-go. The original post closed with an obscure crack at
> > Republicans:
> > - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
> > copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
> > past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
Odd that the OP didn't also consider Democrats' possible motives in
> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
> > On Nov 18, 4:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:17:35 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> >> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <news:ad7d86a9-b401-46ed...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
> >> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> >> He's an example of calling out the National Guard in a
> >> military (as distinct from public service) r le; his
> >> political affiliation may well help to explain why he did
> >> so, but it is irrelevant to the example as such.
> > Horrors, I made an irrelevant post to Usenet. Note,
> > however, that this was a political thread from the
> > get-go. The original post closed with an obscure crack at
> > Republicans:
> > - love, a ppint. wondering whether the republican party will
> > copy the chinese communists, commencing a campaign to rid the
> > past, present and future of the threat from dr who's tardis
banning time travel bringing some of their back-room machinations to
light. Suppose a certain Kennedy had actually had to take a
breathalyzer test after an incident on a certain bridge, to take a
relatively recent example?
> > It's not clear how the Republican party (I assume she means the U.S.
> > party by that name but who knows?) is relevant to time travel in
> > China, but nobody complained about that.
>
> Of course the U.S. Republican party is meant: earlier in
> that post you'll find mention of 'the tea party and the
> merkin republican political party it controls'. And it's
> perfectly clear: the Republican party has managed to
> identify itself in many people's minds -- especially, I
> think, in Western Europe -- with its lunatic fringe,
> personified by such people as Michele Bachman, Jan Brewer,
> Allen West, and Donald Trump, and with the religious right,
> and as a result is seen as having more than its share of
> authoritarian know-nothings.
fringe, (cough) "Soros" (cough).
> >> And even if it were relevant, 'Democrat' is misleading: he
> >> was a Southern Democrat of that era, which is something
> >> quite different from a non-Southern Democrat of that era,
> >> let alone a present-day Democrat.
> > Good point. I thought it redundant to add "Southern" to
> > "Democratic governor of Arkansas" but I was wrong; this
> > is an international forum, and one can't reasonably
> > expect foreigners to be familiar with all 50 of our
> > states.
>
> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
> that these days.
I remember Northern-State Democrats taking umbrage at the "Solid
Democratic South" line used by Dixiecrats back in the day, claiming
the Southerners were hijacking the Democratic party to support the KKK
etc.
The more things change and all that.
Mark L. Fergerson
David Johnston
Nov 19, 2012, 5:23:11 PM11/19/12
to
history.
Butch Malahide
Nov 19, 2012, 8:07:05 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 11:26 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Of course the U.S. Republican party is meant: earlier in
> that post you'll find mention of 'the tea party and the
> merkin republican political party it controls'.
Oh, right, I'd forgotten that part. Yes, she thinks the "Tea Party" is
> Of course the U.S. Republican party is meant: earlier in
> that post you'll find mention of 'the tea party and the
> merkin republican political party it controls'.
a real organization, which controls the G.O.P. kind of like [ObSF] the
Inner Party controls Ingsoc. I was wondering about the adjective
"merkin" as used here. I don't think that's derogatory, is it? Not
really an ethnic slur on a par with wop, redneck, or limey? Didn't
think so. And I wonder how the younger of our two major parties got to
be called the Grand *Old* Party.
> And it's
> perfectly clear: the Republican party has managed to
> identify itself in many people's minds -- especially, I
> think, in Western Europe -- with its lunatic fringe,
> personified by such people as Michele Bachman, Jan Brewer,
> Allen West, and Donald Trump, and with the religious right,
> and as a result is seen as having more than its share of
> authoritarian know-nothings.
Faubus, Rod Blagojevich, and Shirley MacLaine. However, I didn't know
Donald Trump is a Republican. (I still don't know that.) The looniest
thing I know offhand about those three Republicans is that Michele
Bachmann (one L, two Ns) bought into some anti-vaccination theory,
something I would have thought was more of a granola left thing. As
for authoritarianism, I associate that more with the Democrats, but
then again Mayor Bloomberg was a part-time Republican.
Anyway it's clear that, if there are two parties on Earth that would
want to ban time travel, it's the Chinese Communists and the
Republicans.
Dimensional Traveler
Nov 19, 2012, 9:43:18 PM11/19/12
to
On 11/17/2012 6:14 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
> On Nov 17, 12:32 am, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>>>>> FDR.
>>
>>>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>>
>>> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>>
>> Define 'invasion'. The US has troops deployed in over 150 countries,
>> and that's not counting embassy guards.
>
> Looking for a list of those 150 countries, I checked out the article
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
>
> but the Wikipedians unfortunately omitted the names of the 120 or so
> countries where the invading force was less than 100 U.S. personnel,
> probably to avoid embarrassing the countries that were too feeble to
> repel such a puny invasion. The article lists just 10 foreign
> countries invaded by 1000 or more U.S. troops: Afghanistan, Germany,
> Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Italy, United Kingdom, Bahrain, Turkey,
> and Spain. Of those 10 countries, the only ones we actually invaded
> (sent in troops over the objection of the local government) were
> Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Kuwait, and Italy.
>
Kuwait??? I think you/they mean Iraq.
> On Nov 17, 12:32 am, Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 4:17 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <k85t2h$eo...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Hell's bells, man, if you're going to clone somebody, give us
>>>>> FDR.
>>
>>>> Wrong Roosevelt! Give us Teddy!
>>
>>> We haven't invaded enough countries already?
>>
>> Define 'invasion'. The US has troops deployed in over 150 countries,
>> and that's not counting embassy guards.
>
> Looking for a list of those 150 countries, I checked out the article
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
>
> but the Wikipedians unfortunately omitted the names of the 120 or so
> countries where the invading force was less than 100 U.S. personnel,
> probably to avoid embarrassing the countries that were too feeble to
> repel such a puny invasion. The article lists just 10 foreign
> countries invaded by 1000 or more U.S. troops: Afghanistan, Germany,
> Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Italy, United Kingdom, Bahrain, Turkey,
> and Spain. Of those 10 countries, the only ones we actually invaded
> (sent in troops over the objection of the local government) were
> Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Kuwait, and Italy.
>
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
Kevrob
Nov 19, 2012, 10:39:30 PM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 7:41 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Harri Tavaila" <Harri.Tava...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
Technically, the US invaded "British North America." Canada, as a
state, didn't exist in 1812. Same for the Phillippines: we invaded a
Spanish possession.
Now, if you want to carp about our promising the Filipinos
independence to get them to help fight the Spanish, then welshing on
the deal until after V-J Day, go right ahead.
Kevin
> "Harri Tavaila" <Harri.Tava...@helsinki.fi> wrote in message
state, didn't exist in 1812. Same for the Phillippines: we invaded a
Spanish possession.
Now, if you want to carp about our promising the Filipinos
independence to get them to help fight the Spanish, then welshing on
the deal until after V-J Day, go right ahead.
Kevin
Robert Carnegie
Nov 19, 2012, 10:58:20 PM11/19/12
to
On Monday, 19 November 2012 08:27:26 UTC, David Friedman wrote:
> In article <slrnkaj5t...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > I'm not all that sure there wasn't someone else in the world that deserve
> In article <slrnkaj5t...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > I'm not all that sure there wasn't someone else in the world that deserve
> > the prize that year over Obama, myself. I can see why they awarded him it,
> > but it was a weird thing.
>
> I can conjecture why they did, but can think of no good reason why they
> should have.
Either the other guy's intentions, or that only a living person can receive
> > but it was a weird thing.
>
> I can conjecture why they did, but can think of no good reason why they
> should have.
it and they figured better do it /now/ just in case.
Someone shot up the White House at least once this term, for instance.
Rod Speed
Nov 19, 2012, 11:07:44 PM11/19/12
to
"Kevrob" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:09d928b9-53a5-4eb9...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
and because its far from clear what the inhabitants apart from the
germans thought about them invading whatever you want to call it.
> Canada, as a state, didn't exist in 1812.
> Same for the Phillippines: we invaded a Spanish possession.
did with France on D Day etc.
Rod Speed
Nov 19, 2012, 11:13:37 PM11/19/12
to
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:70c36ea7-ae4a-4b58...@googlegroups.com...
Robert Bannister
Nov 19, 2012, 11:32:32 PM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/12 4:54 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 1:17 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2:50 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <news:60270fc2-730c-4e47...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 12:08 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>>>>>> Beats me. [SNIP]
>>>>> Then why'd you mention it?
>>>> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you
>>>> don't think I should have mentioned that the governor was
>>>> a Democrat.
>>>
>>> It does seem rather pointless -- about on a par with
>>> mentioning his height, or the color of his hair, or whether
>>> he liked broccoli.
>>
>> We're talking about a partisan elected official using the powers of
>> his office in a public matter,
>
> Actually we're talking about the definition of "invasion".
>
I'm sure broccoli is involved in that. It makes me irritable.
--
Robert Bannister
> On 11/18/2012 1:17 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2:50 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:24:41 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <news:60270fc2-730c-4e47...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 18, 12:08 am, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2012 10:51 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 17, 10:00 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:48 PM, Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> What does his party affiliation have to do with it?
>>>>>> Beats me. [SNIP]
>>>>> Then why'd you mention it?
>>>> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you
>>>> don't think I should have mentioned that the governor was
>>>> a Democrat.
>>>
>>> It does seem rather pointless -- about on a par with
>>> mentioning his height, or the color of his hair, or whether
>>> he liked broccoli.
>>
>> We're talking about a partisan elected official using the powers of
>> his office in a public matter,
>
> Actually we're talking about the definition of "invasion".
>
I'm sure broccoli is involved in that. It makes me irritable.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Nov 19, 2012, 11:40:32 PM11/19/12
to
On 19/11/12 1:26 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
> that these days.
I think those of us who actually know that the Democrats and the GOP are
> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
> that these days.
different parties remember that at one time there was a dichotomy
between the southern Democrats and other Democrats who were vaguely
left-leaning (by a US definition of "left"). We also remember very few
good Republican presidents in the last eighty years or so - not that LBJ
or even Kennedy were all that brilliant either.
--
Robert Bannister
Rod Speed
Nov 20, 2012, 12:06:49 AM11/20/12
to
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in message
news:ah0fu3...@mid.individual.net...
> On 19/11/12 1:26 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
>> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
>> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
>> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
>> that these days.
>
> I think those of us who actually know that the Democrats and the GOP are
> different parties remember that at one time there was a dichotomy between
> the southern Democrats and other Democrats who were vaguely left-leaning
> (by a US definition of "left"). We also remember very few good Republican
> presidents in the last eighty years or so
Eisenhower was pretty decent.
>
>> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
>> Southern Democrat then was different from both non-Southern
>> Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt that one can
>> reasonably expect a majority of Americans to be aware of
>> that these days.
>
> I think those of us who actually know that the Democrats and the GOP are
> different parties remember that at one time there was a dichotomy between
> the southern Democrats and other Democrats who were vaguely left-leaning
> (by a US definition of "left"). We also remember very few good Republican
> presidents in the last eighty years or so
> - not that LBJ or even Kennedy were all that brilliant either.
Joy Beeson
Nov 20, 2012, 12:08:24 AM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:27:26 -0800, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> I can conjecture why they did, but can think of no good reason why they
> should have.
At the time, I was disappointed that no cartoonist drew Obama,
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> I can conjecture why they did, but can think of no good reason why they
> should have.
half-way through lacing up his running shoes, looking up in puzzlement
at someone presenting him with a gold medal for the marathon.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Brian M. Scott
Nov 20, 2012, 3:56:12 PM11/20/12
to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:40:32 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
<news:ah0fu3...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
I never thought much of Kennedy, but Johnson's a tough call.
He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help), but
his record on civil rights is outstanding, and his domestic
record in general is very good (see also 'Great Society').
I'm inclined to rate him a very good president who made a
very bad mistake. (And I wasted two years of my life thanks
to that mistake.)
Brian
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
<news:ah0fu3...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help), but
his record on civil rights is outstanding, and his domestic
record in general is very good (see also 'Great Society').
I'm inclined to rate him a very good president who made a
very bad mistake. (And I wasted two years of my life thanks
to that mistake.)
Brian
Rod Speed
Nov 20, 2012, 4:14:36 PM11/20/12
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:da3vl9jagn9w$.1163hlxochz3p$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:40:32 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
> <news:ah0fu3...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
>> On 19/11/12 1:26 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>>> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
>>> Southern Democrat then was different from both
>>> non-Southern Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt
>>> that one can reasonably expect a majority of Americans
>>> to be aware of that these days.
>
>> I think those of us who actually know that the Democrats
>> and the GOP are different parties remember that at one
>> time there was a dichotomy between the southern Democrats
>> and other Democrats who were vaguely left-leaning (by a
>> US definition of "left"). We also remember very few good
>> Republican presidents in the last eighty years or so -
>> not that LBJ or even Kennedy were all that brilliant
>> either.
> I never thought much of Kennedy,
Me neither, tho that was quite a bit because he didn't
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
> <news:ah0fu3...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
>> On 19/11/12 1:26 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>>> More to the point, one can't expect them to know that
>>> Southern Democrat then was different from both
>>> non-Southern Democrat then and Democrat now. I doubt
>>> that one can reasonably expect a majority of Americans
>>> to be aware of that these days.
>
>> I think those of us who actually know that the Democrats
>> and the GOP are different parties remember that at one
>> time there was a dichotomy between the southern Democrats
>> and other Democrats who were vaguely left-leaning (by a
>> US definition of "left"). We also remember very few good
>> Republican presidents in the last eighty years or so -
>> not that LBJ or even Kennedy were all that brilliant
>> either.
> I never thought much of Kennedy,
actually get a lot done and what he did get done like
the involvement in Vietnam was incredibly stupid.
Corse the man on the moon stuff is very debatable with him.
> but Johnson's a tough call.
> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
> but his record on civil rights is outstanding, and his
> domestic record in general is very good (see also
> 'Great Society'). I'm inclined to rate him a very
> good president who made a very bad mistake.
have had a hell of a problem producing a decent result with.
His treatment of the surviving Kennedys wasn't exactly great tho.
> (And I wasted two years of my life thanks to that mistake.)
Howard Brazee
Nov 20, 2012, 4:31:15 PM11/20/12
to
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:14:36 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but Johnson's a tough call.
>
>Yep.
>
>> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
>
>Yeah, you can certainly claim that almost no one would have
>been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
Every president involved didn't want to lose that war "on my watch".
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but Johnson's a tough call.
>
>Yep.
>
>> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
>
>Yeah, you can certainly claim that almost no one would have
>been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
Ego rules.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 20, 2012, 4:54:54 PM11/20/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:07:05 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:3aaab7cf-2fde-4c78...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
[...]
>> And it's perfectly clear: the Republican party has
>> managed to identify itself in many people's minds --
>> especially, I think, in Western Europe -- with its
>> lunatic fringe, personified by such people as Michele
>> Bachman, Jan Brewer, Allen West, and Donald Trump, and
>> with the religious right, and as a result is seen as
>> having more than its share of authoritarian
>> know-nothings.
> As no doubt the Democratic party is identified with the
> likes of Orval Faubus, Rod Blagojevich, and Shirley
> MacLaine.
No. Faubus is ancient history at this point and was in any
case a Southern Democrat. Blagojevich's notoriety stems
from his personal failings, not his politics, and in any
case he wasn't especially popular in his own party. And
Shirley MacLaine's looniness, unlike the woman herself,
seems to be pretty apolitical and therefore irrelevant.
> However, I didn't know Donald Trump is a Republican. (I
> still don't know that.)
He's a registered Republican in New York. I was, however,
referring to his enthusiastic support of the 'birther'
idiocy.
> The looniest thing I know offhand about those three
> Republicans is that Michele Bachmann (one L, two Ns)
> bought into some anti-vaccination theory, something I
> would have thought was more of a granola left thing.
I was probably a bit unfair to Brewer: she's certainly not
as loony as the other two that I mentioned. E.g., she does
not, so far as I know, join Bachmann in having serious
doubts about one of the centrepieces of modern science
(evolutionary theory), and I've no reason to think that she
shares West's belief that 'there’s about 78 to 81 members of
the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party'.
She is, however, a bigot, and Arizona SB1070 is a lovely
example of authoritarian extremism, so she is, if not part
of the truly lunatic fringe, a contributor to the negative
impression of the Republican party in many places,
especially abroad.
[...]
Brian
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:3aaab7cf-2fde-4c78...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
[...]
>> And it's perfectly clear: the Republican party has
>> managed to identify itself in many people's minds --
>> especially, I think, in Western Europe -- with its
>> lunatic fringe, personified by such people as Michele
>> Bachman, Jan Brewer, Allen West, and Donald Trump, and
>> with the religious right, and as a result is seen as
>> having more than its share of authoritarian
>> know-nothings.
> As no doubt the Democratic party is identified with the
> likes of Orval Faubus, Rod Blagojevich, and Shirley
> MacLaine.
case a Southern Democrat. Blagojevich's notoriety stems
from his personal failings, not his politics, and in any
case he wasn't especially popular in his own party. And
Shirley MacLaine's looniness, unlike the woman herself,
seems to be pretty apolitical and therefore irrelevant.
> However, I didn't know Donald Trump is a Republican. (I
> still don't know that.)
referring to his enthusiastic support of the 'birther'
idiocy.
> The looniest thing I know offhand about those three
> Republicans is that Michele Bachmann (one L, two Ns)
> bought into some anti-vaccination theory, something I
> would have thought was more of a granola left thing.
as loony as the other two that I mentioned. E.g., she does
not, so far as I know, join Bachmann in having serious
doubts about one of the centrepieces of modern science
(evolutionary theory), and I've no reason to think that she
shares West's belief that 'there’s about 78 to 81 members of
the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party'.
She is, however, a bigot, and Arizona SB1070 is a lovely
example of authoritarian extremism, so she is, if not part
of the truly lunatic fringe, a contributor to the negative
impression of the Republican party in many places,
especially abroad.
[...]
Brian
David Johnston
Nov 20, 2012, 5:23:34 PM11/20/12
to
horde of troops in and above all don't reinstitute the draft.
Rod Speed
Nov 20, 2012, 5:44:25 PM11/20/12
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
was around.
And it clearly wasn't true of Tricky Dick either.
> Ego rules.
Not ego so much as once you have an immense number of
casualtys on your side, that makes it a hell of a lot harder to
accept that its unwinnable and to just give up on that place etc.
That's one thing about Obama, at least he does have the balls
to have decided that there isnt anything much more useful that
can be done in Afghanistan. NATO shouldn't have got involved
in the first place. The fucking over of the Talibums using airstrikes
was all that it ever warranted, to get rid of the terrorist training camps.
It was never going to be feasible to impose anything even
remotely resembling anything like a decent democracy there,
let alone stable govt like was feasible with Japan and Germany
after WW2 had ended.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> but Johnson's a tough call.
>> Yep.
>>> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
>> Yeah, you can certainly claim that almost no one would have
>> been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
> Every president involved didn't want to lose that war "on my watch".
That's not really true of Kennedy, there wasn't really a war to lose when he
>>> but Johnson's a tough call.
>> Yep.
>>> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
>> Yeah, you can certainly claim that almost no one would have
>> been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
> Every president involved didn't want to lose that war "on my watch".
was around.
And it clearly wasn't true of Tricky Dick either.
> Ego rules.
Not ego so much as once you have an immense number of
casualtys on your side, that makes it a hell of a lot harder to
accept that its unwinnable and to just give up on that place etc.
That's one thing about Obama, at least he does have the balls
to have decided that there isnt anything much more useful that
can be done in Afghanistan. NATO shouldn't have got involved
in the first place. The fucking over of the Talibums using airstrikes
was all that it ever warranted, to get rid of the terrorist training camps.
It was never going to be feasible to impose anything even
remotely resembling anything like a decent democracy there,
let alone stable govt like was feasible with Japan and Germany
after WW2 had ended.
David Johnston
Nov 20, 2012, 5:47:39 PM11/20/12
to
On 11/20/2012 3:44 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> but Johnson's a tough call.
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
>
>>> Yeah, you can certainly claim that almost no one would have
>>> been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
>
>> Every president involved didn't want to lose that war "on my watch".
>
> That's not really true of Kennedy, there wasn't really a war to lose
> when he was around.
>
There was, actually. The Vietnamese were fighting then and he was
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> but Johnson's a tough call.
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> He screwed up badly over Vietnam (with plenty of help),
>
>>> Yeah, you can certainly claim that almost no one would have
>>> been able to do any better with what he got landed with there.
>
>> Every president involved didn't want to lose that war "on my watch".
>
> That's not really true of Kennedy, there wasn't really a war to lose
> when he was around.
>
sending military advisers in to help the South. The Americans probably
should have left it at that.
Rod Speed
Nov 20, 2012, 5:56:08 PM11/20/12
to
"David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:k8gvt2$9gu$2...@dont-email.me...
> Just don't send a horde of troops in
> and above all don't reinstitute the draft.
Kevrob
Nov 20, 2012, 6:33:46 PM11/20/12
to
On Nov 20, 5:56 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
>
> news:k8gvt2$9gu$2...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/20/2012 2:14 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> >> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> "David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
>
> news:k8gvt2$9gu$2...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/20/2012 2:14 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
(they grabbed my Dad _before_ Pearl Harbor) until 1973. I graduated
high school, and turned 18, in 1974. We were the last cohort to have
a draft lottery, but we all were labeled "1-H" without benefit of an
induction physical and none of us were inducted, excepting volunteers.
One good thing to credit Nixon with, anyway.
> Not practical once the immense troop commitment was in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Cold_War
David Johnston
Nov 20, 2012, 6:36:23 PM11/20/12
to
>
>> Just don't send a horde of troops in
>
> Easier said than done once Kennedy had got the US involved there.
where the US was involved but didn't decide to send a million troops in.
>
>> and above all don't reinstitute the draft.
>
> Not practical once the immense troop commitment was in place.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages