Re: ATTN LEAVERS: information required

[Pamela]

On 20:39 25 Mar 2019, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/03/2019 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 25/03/2019 13:55, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 13:32  25 Mar 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-03-25, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10:37  25 Mar 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019-03-23, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08:53  23 Mar 2019, Col <reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2019 23:46, kat wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Keema's Nan <fruity...@bungay.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Half the freight traffic clogging up our roads and motorways
>>>>>>>>>> are HGVs bringing imported stuff to satisfy the patriots.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The poor dears also might have to eat British Brie, oh dear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like no-deal Brexit is already kicking in here.
>>>>>>>> I've just had a Morrisons home delivery, the only missing item
>>>>>>>> was French Brie. No British Brie was offered as a substitute!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Day by day from now on it will get worse.  By the end of next
>>>>>>> month there will probably be noticable gaps in fulfilling your
>>>>>>> shopping list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Soon we will be able to eat only less-than-delightful British
>>>>>>> bulldog cuisine.  In recent decades we thought we had escaped the
>>>>>>> worst of uninspiring British produce when we got imports of cheap
>>>>>>> fresh produce.
>>>>>>> Now we're likely to revert towards that again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> British cuisine was world-renown for being bad.  Here we go
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't the cricitism of British food start during the Second World
>>>>>> War from visiting Americans when food was heavily rationed and many
>>>>>> staple items unavailable?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not post-war rationing but the actual cuisine that's to blame.
>>>>
>>>> I find that odd because when entertaining guests from overseas I have
>>>> observed that they seem to love traditional English food.  Perhaps
>>>> the idea that our food is bad is one of those stereotypes like
>>>> British workers being lazy and entitled; they get trotted out because
>>>> it serves an agenda to put all things British down.
>>>
>>> It's hardly a stereotype that British cuisine is so bad.  Ingredients
>>> are very cheap here which leads to poor quality supply
>
>
>>
>> Got any justification for that?
>>
>>> and our traditional
>>> cooking techniques belonmg to another age.
>>
>> You're not making any sense.  *All* traditions belong to another age.
>> It's how they've become traditions.
>>
>>> Stodgy British puddings, bland
>>> roast beef, overcooked vegetables and fat-soaked scones don't make for
>>> an impressive cuisine.
>>
>> What impresses you doesn't necessarily impress others.  It's entirely
>> subjective, you see.
>>
>> Some people (the sensible ones) don't find the undercooked meat that's
>> a staple on all food programmes at all impressive.
>
> I do, but, given how awful British cuisine is, or was in the 60s and 70s
> it is somewhat odd that was in England, back then, then I realised just
> how good a piece of rare steak is. Amnd although I realised some people
> liked it well done, it wasn't until I went to France that I found some
> people liked it burned to a cinder.
>
>
>>
>>> In addition, the average "housewife" is poorly skilled compared to
>>> many other countries and rather lazy.  You don't see the same shoddy
>>> approach even amongst poor people in, for example, a Spanish village
>>
>> You're full of unsupported generalisations, aren't you?
>>
>
> There are people lacking in cooking skills, for sure, problem is the
> schools got all gender conscious and dropped cookery classes for girls
> in favour of woodworking. But in my own experience the people I know
> who fed their kids properly, on homecooked food, carefully prepared,
> have grandchildren getting fed properly on hommecooked food. Very
> unfair to generalise.

Interesting points.

<rant on>

On 20:39 25 Mar 2019, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/03/2019 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 25/03/2019 13:55, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 13:32 25 Mar 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-03-25, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10:37 25 Mar 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019-03-23, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08:53 23 Mar 2019, Col <reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2019 23:46, kat wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Keema's Nan <fruity...@bungay.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Half the freight traffic clogging up our roads and motorways
>>>>>>>>>> are HGVs bringing imported stuff to satisfy the patriots.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The poor dears also might have to eat British Brie, oh dear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like no-deal Brexit is already kicking in here.
>>>>>>>> I've just had a Morrisons home delivery, the only missing item
>>>>>>>> was French Brie. No British Brie was offered as a substitute!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Day by day from now on it will get worse. By the end of next
>>>>>>> month there will probably be noticable gaps in fulfilling your
>>>>>>> shopping list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Soon we will be able to eat only less-than-delightful British
>>>>>>> bulldog cuisine. In recent decades we thought we had escaped the
>>>>>>> worst of uninspiring British produce when we got imports of cheap
>>>>>>> fresh produce.
>>>>>>> Now we're likely to revert towards that again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> British cuisine was world-renown for being bad. Here we go
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't the cricitism of British food start during the Second World
>>>>>> War from visiting Americans when food was heavily rationed and many
>>>>>> staple items unavailable?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not post-war rationing but the actual cuisine that's to blame.
>>>>
>>>> I find that odd because when entertaining guests from overseas I have
>>>> observed that they seem to love traditional English food. Perhaps
>>>> the idea that our food is bad is one of those stereotypes like
>>>> British workers being lazy and entitled; they get trotted out because
>>>> it serves an agenda to put all things British down.
>>>
>>> It's hardly a stereotype that British cuisine is so bad. Ingredients
>>> are very cheap here which leads to poor quality supply
>
>
>>
>> Got any justification for that?
>>
>>> and our traditional
>>> cooking techniques belonmg to another age.
>>
>> You're not making any sense. *All* traditions belong to another age.
>> It's how they've become traditions.
>>
>>> Stodgy British puddings, bland
>>> roast beef, overcooked vegetables and fat-soaked scones don't make for
>>> an impressive cuisine.
>>
>> What impresses you doesn't necessarily impress others. It's entirely
>> subjective, you see.
>>
>> Some people (the sensible ones) don't find the undercooked meat that's
>> a staple on all food programmes at all impressive.
>
> I do, but, given how awful British cuisine is, or was in the 60s and 70s
> it is somewhat odd that was in England, back then, then I realised just
> how good a piece of rare steak is. Amnd although I realised some people
> liked it well done, it wasn't until I went to France that I found some
> people liked it burned to a cinder.
>
>
>>
>>> In addition, the average "housewife" is poorly skilled compared to
>>> many other countries and rather lazy. You don't see the same shoddy
>>> approach even amongst poor people in, for example, a Spanish village
>>
>> You're full of unsupported generalisations, aren't you?
>>
>
> There are people lacking in cooking skills, for sure, problem is the
> schools got all gender conscious and dropped cookery classes for girls
> in favour of woodworking. But in my own experience the people I know
> who fed their kids properly, on homecooked food, carefully prepared,
> have grandchildren getting fed properly on hommecooked food. Very
> unfair to generalise.

Interesting points. Permit me to rant.

<rant on>

Cuisine is not quite the same thing as cooking.

British cuisine as a whole, historically and in the present, is dire
compared to many other countries. There are some British dishes which are
fine (fish and chips well made is a good combination) but there are not
many and, given the average standard of preparation, these potentially
good dishes are not always cooked well.

I'm surprised this is even slightly contentious. Perhaps some Brits are
in denial about what the whole world knows.

There are cooks, such as Gary Rhodes, who have tried hard to revive
British cuisine but too many British dishes are either inherently over
elaborate or just slapdash unappetising affairs. The use of flavourings
throughout is very uninspiring.

Luckily for the British diner this has encouraged foreign cuisine to take
hold and we have a wonderful selection of foreign cuisines to choose from
without having to resort to "fusion food" which can be a bit unfocussed.

For some reason, if I can over-generalise, British seem more agog watching
cookery programmes on the tv than people in countries with better cuisines

I'm off to cook some pasta. :)

<rant off>






--
xposted

[graham]

On 2019-03-25 3:09 p.m., Pamela wrote:
> On 20:39 25 Mar 2019, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2019 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2019 13:55, Pamela wrote:

>>>> On 13:32  25 Mar 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2019-03-25, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> On 10:37  25 Mar 2019, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2019-03-23, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 08:53  23 Mar 2019, Col <reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2019 23:46, kat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Keema's Nan <fruity...@bungay.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Half the freight traffic clogging up our roads and motorways
>>>>>>>>>>> are HGVs bringing imported stuff to satisfy the patriots.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The poor dears also might have to eat British Brie, oh dear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like no-deal Brexit is already kicking in here.
>>>>>>>>> I've just had a Morrisons home delivery, the only missing item
>>>>>>>>> was French Brie. No British Brie was offered as a substitute!
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Day by day from now on it will get worse.  By the end of next

>>>>>>>> month there will probably be noticable gaps in fulfilling your
>>>>>>>> shopping list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Soon we will be able to eat only less-than-delightful British

>>>>>>>> bulldog cuisine.  In recent decades we thought we had escaped the

>>>>>>>> worst of uninspiring British produce when we got imports of cheap
>>>>>>>> fresh produce.
>>>>>>>> Now we're likely to revert towards that again.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> British cuisine was world-renown for being bad.  Here we go

>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't the cricitism of British food start during the Second World
>>>>>>> War from visiting Americans when food was heavily rationed and many
>>>>>>> staple items unavailable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not post-war rationing but the actual cuisine that's to blame.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find that odd because when entertaining guests from overseas I have

>>>>> observed that they seem to love traditional English food.  Perhaps

>>>>> the idea that our food is bad is one of those stereotypes like
>>>>> British workers being lazy and entitled; they get trotted out because
>>>>> it serves an agenda to put all things British down.
>>>>

>>>> It's hardly a stereotype that British cuisine is so bad.  Ingredients

>>>> are very cheap here which leads to poor quality supply
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Got any justification for that?
>>>
>>>> and our traditional
>>>> cooking techniques belonmg to another age.
>>>

>>> You're not making any sense.  *All* traditions belong to another age.

>>> It's how they've become traditions.
>>>
>>>> Stodgy British puddings, bland
>>>> roast beef, overcooked vegetables and fat-soaked scones don't make for
>>>> an impressive cuisine.
>>>

>>> What impresses you doesn't necessarily impress others.  It's entirely

>>> subjective, you see.
>>>
>>> Some people (the sensible ones) don't find the undercooked meat that's
>>> a staple on all food programmes at all impressive.
>>
>> I do, but, given how awful British cuisine is, or was in the 60s and 70s
>> it is somewhat odd that was in England, back then, then I realised just
>> how good a piece of rare steak is. Amnd although I realised some people
>> liked it well done, it wasn't until I went to France that I found some
>> people liked it burned to a cinder.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> In addition, the average "housewife" is poorly skilled compared to

>>>> many other countries and rather lazy.  You don't see the same shoddy

I think you should read Jane Grigson on the subject. Then you will
realise what squit, twaddle and bunkum you have written.

[Bruce]

Man, I didn't bring lunch. I nearly starved on the way down here! Dave
Smith is going to tell you off badly. Wait for it!

[Pamela]

>>>>> many other countries and rather lazy.  You don't see the same
>>>>> shoddy approach even amongst poor people in, for example, a Spanish
>>>>> village
>>>>
>>>> You're full of unsupported generalisations, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are people lacking in cooking skills, for sure, problem is the
>>> schools got all gender conscious and dropped cookery classes for girls
>>> in favour of woodworking. But in my own experience the people I know
>>> who fed their kids properly, on homecooked food, carefully prepared,
>>> have grandchildren getting fed properly on hommecooked food. Very
>>> unfair to generalise.
>>
>> Interesting points.
>>

>> <rant on>

>>
>> British cuisine as a whole, historically and in the present, is dire
>> compared to many other countries.
>
> I think you should read Jane Grigson on the subject. Then you will
> realise what squit, twaddle and bunkum you have written.

Jane Grigson writes very well and often gives a piece of her mind but she
was hardly a champion of everything in British cuisine and she makes some
very sharp comments where she finds shortcomings. Perhaps you have only
read her book "English Food" but she also wrote several books on
mediterranean and European cooking.

At best she falls into the same category as Gary Rhodes who, for some
reason, you clipped out of the quoted text.

[Bruce]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:45:04 GMT, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Graham is a UK fanboi. Everything from the UK is fantastic. One
wonders why he doesn't live there, next door to Janet UK.

[Ophelia]

"Bruce" wrote in message news:hlni9e1bpdfn6opbe...@4ax.com...

==

Graham is British!

[Gary]

Ophelia wrote:

>
> "Bruce" wrote:
> Graham is a UK fanboi. Everything from the UK is fantastic. One
> wonders why he doesn't live there, next door to Janet UK.
>
> ==
>
> Graham is British!

Not at all. He's Canadian now.

[Ophelia]

"Gary" wrote in message news:5C9A2FC5...@att.net...

==

Is he?

[Bruce]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:01:40 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>It's perfectly okay to like a country a lot but another to do so blindly.

Yes.

>IMHO true British food as typically served is probably worse then many
>foreigners imagine and many already have a pretty poor opinion of it.
>
>That's not to say there is nothing to enjoy because that's untrue but you
>have to choose carefully.

Sounds like Dutch cuisine to me. Also because of the fact that a lot
has improved since WW2. Foreign influence can be a good thing. In
moderation, that is.

[Bruce]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:39:30 -0000, "Ophelia" <OphEl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, but you know what those expats do. They idealize the old country
:)

[Bruce]

Canada's still a colony.

[A Moose in Love]

how dare you! pistols or swords at dawn. if i'm not there, then continue without me.

[jmcquown]

He may *live* in Canada but he'll always be British. Unless he
renounces citizenship (can't think of a reason why he would).

Jill

[Bruce]

:)

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:41 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Nope, it's a member of the Commonwealth but our constitution was
returned to us years ago.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:06 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Do you idolize the Netherlands???

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:59:41 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I am sure he has Canadian Citizenship, which he can have and still
hold his British Citizenship if he so wishes. It's mainly Americans
who have to 'renounce' their citizenship if they like somewhere else
other than Trumpworld. I have my Canadian Citizenship and wasted no
time dropping the other, this is the country I have chosen.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Even if he lives in Canada and/or has Canadian citizenship,
he's still culturally British.

Cindy Hamilton

[graham]

"The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked
about!" O.W.

[Janet]

In article <7gik9elh024sa9i30...@4ax.com>,
br...@invalid.invalid says...

Wrong again

Janet UK

[dsi1]

UK fanboi? Count me in!

[lucreti...@fl.it]

Just depends what is being said though :)

[Ophelia]

"Bruce" wrote in message news:7eik9eptk5dbcoted...@4ax.com...

==

lol

[Ophelia]

"A Moose in Love" wrote in message
news:5f321f95-001d-47d9...@googlegroups.com...

==

Oooerrrrrr

[Ophelia]

"jmcquown" wrote in message news:N%rmE.160993$W44....@fx26.iad...

===

Of course, but I don't know what he has done.

[S Viemeister]

On 3/26/2019 4:23 PM, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:

> I am sure he has Canadian Citizenship, which he can have and still
> hold his British Citizenship if he so wishes. It's mainly Americans
> who have to 'renounce' their citizenship if they like somewhere else
> other than Trumpworld.

US law on citizenship has changed. My children and I are dual US/UK
citizens. That would have been difficult 30 or so years ago.

[Ophelia]

"dsi1" wrote in message
news:8711366d-4579-4ac7...@googlegroups.com...

====

Attaboy :))

[Bruce]

You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
country. Same goes for Australia.

[Bruce]

Sherlock.

[Bruce]

They make the best clogs in the world!

[Bruce]

UK, Hawaii, Google. You're a busy man!

[Dave Smith]

On 2019-03-26 12:23 p.m., lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:59:41 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>

>> He may *live* in Canada but he'll always be British. Unless he
>> renounces citizenship (can't think of a reason why he would).
>>
>> Jill
>
> I am sure he has Canadian Citizenship, which he can have and still
> hold his British Citizenship if he so wishes. It's mainly Americans
> who have to 'renounce' their citizenship if they like somewhere else
> other than Trumpworld. I have my Canadian Citizenship and wasted no
> time dropping the other, this is the country I have chosen.

??? The US allows dual citizenship. It does not currently require
citizens to renounce other citizenship. It does require that all
citizens entering the country have an American passport, similar to
Canada's requirement. If a dual American-Canadian citizen is travelling
between the US and Canada he/she would have to have both a US and a
Canadian passport.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

Interesting - I didn't know it had changed, we were looking at it all
50 years ago now :)

[Dave Smith]

Really? English is the majority language. We have one province which
is primarily French speaking and another that is officially bilingual.
Only about 18% of Canadians are culturally English and if you want to
lump them in with the Irish and Scots it is still only about 40%. I
would have to say that rural Canada is pretty white, but the major
cities are very diverse. The majority of Toronto residents claim to be
visible minorities. More than 50% of Toronto residents were born outside
of Canada.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:34 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:20:38 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:41 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:57:25 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce" wrote:
>>>>> Graham is a UK fanboi. Everything from the UK is fantastic. One
>>>>> wonders why he doesn't live there, next door to Janet UK.
>>>>>
>>>>> ==
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham is British!
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. He's Canadian now.
>>>
>>>Canada's still a colony.
>>
>>Nope, it's a member of the Commonwealth but our constitution was
>>returned to us years ago.
>
>You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
>head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
>country. Same goes for Australia.

I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:27:40 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

I thought you said 'clots' for a moment...

[Dave Smith]

Maybe it should have read "clods".

[Bruce]

I'd rather have Trump. Nothing against the Queen, but Trump was
democratically elected. Position based on birth has no place in the
21st century.

[Dave Smith]

On 2019-03-26 5:47 p.m., lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:34 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

>> You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
>> head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
>> country. Same goes for Australia.
>
> I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
> us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!

It is a figure head position. In the US court cases are "the state
vs.." or "The People vs... " and up her it is "Regina vs. ....."

[Bruce]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:48:42 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:27:40 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:21:20 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:06 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:39:30 -0000, "Ophelia" <OphEl...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Bruce" wrote in message news:hlni9e1bpdfn6opbe...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:45:04 GMT, Pamela <pamela....@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>Jane Grigson writes very well and often gives a piece of her mind but she
>>>>>>was hardly a champion of everything in British cuisine and she makes some
>>>>>>very sharp comments where she finds shortcomings. Perhaps you have only
>>>>>>read her book "English Food" but she also wrote several books on
>>>>>>mediterranean and European cooking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At best she falls into the same category as Gary Rhodes who, for some
>>>>>>reason, you clipped out of the quoted text.
>>>>>
>>>>>Graham is a UK fanboi. Everything from the UK is fantastic. One
>>>>>
>>>>>wonders why he doesn't live there, next door to Janet UK.
>>>>>
>>>>>==
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham is British!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but you know what those expats do. They idealize the old country
>>>>:)
>>
>>>Do you idolize the Netherlands???
>>
>>They make the best clogs in the world!
>
>I thought you said 'clots' for a moment...

Oh yes, the things they can do with dairy!

[Bruce]

Careful, your wife might clobber you!

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:53:42 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

But dignity for my country is everything!

[Bruce]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 20:00:37 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:53:42 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:47:59 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:34 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:20:38 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:41 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>Canada's still a colony.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, it's a member of the Commonwealth but our constitution was
>>>>>returned to us years ago.
>>>>
>>>>You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
>>>>head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
>>>>country. Same goes for Australia.
>>>
>>>I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
>>>us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!
>>
>>I'd rather have Trump. Nothing against the Queen, but Trump was
>>democratically elected. Position based on birth has no place in the
>>21st century.
>
>But dignity for my country is everything!

Dignity is when your country stands on its own feet, without holding
the hand of another country's head of state.

[graham]

Carry a second passport into the US and you'll be subject to arrest!!!!!

[Bruce]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:27:36 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 21:53 26 Mar 2019, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:47:59 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:34 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:20:38 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:41 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>Canada's still a colony.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, it's a member of the Commonwealth but our constitution was
>>>>>returned to us years ago.
>>>>
>>>>You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
>>>>head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
>>>>country. Same goes for Australia.
>>>
>>>I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
>>>us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!
>>
>> I'd rather have Trump. Nothing against the Queen, but Trump was
>> democratically elected.
>

>Helped by Russians. Not in the case of the Queen though.

In a few years, Americans will have the opportunity to choose another
president if they want. Trump's not glued to the position, just
because he's his parents' son.

[Dave Smith]

That runs contrary to what I read about it.


https://internationalliving.com/is-it-legal-for-a-u-s-citizen-to-hold-two-passports/


and ..
"U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to
enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required
by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that
country. Use of the foreign passport to travel to or from a country
other than the United States is not inconsistent with U.S. law. "

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html

[S Viemeister]

Yes, it's very different now. Years ago, simply voting in a foreign
election, or taking a job with an agency of a foreign government, would
get your US government pulled. Now, it is not easy to give up US
citizenship, even if you _want_ to (ask Boris Johnson about that!).

[S Viemeister]

Really? The last time I entered the US (using my US passport) the
immigration officer asked to see my UK passport too, checked it, then
chatted with me about Brexit...

[S Viemeister]

On 3/27/2019 7:35 AM, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 3/26/2019 9:46 PM, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:17:53 +0000, S Viemeister
>> <firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2019 4:23 PM, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>>> I am sure he has Canadian Citizenship, which he can have and still
>>>> hold his British Citizenship if he so wishes. It's mainly Americans
>>>> who have to 'renounce' their citizenship if they like somewhere else
>>>> other than Trumpworld.
>>> US law on citizenship has changed. My children and I are dual US/UK
>>> citizens. That would have been difficult 30 or so years ago.
>>>
>> Interesting - I didn't know it had changed, we were looking at it all
>> 50 years ago now :)
>>
> Yes, it's very different now. Years ago, simply voting in a foreign
> election, or taking a job with an agency of a foreign government, would
> get your US government

Ack. Should read 'US citizenship'

[Cindy Hamilton]

I was speaking of Graham, not all Canadians. He grew up in British
culture, and remains part of the culture in which he was raised. He
constantly speaks of foods that are specifically British.

If I moved to Italy and took Italian citizenship, I'd still be basically
an American.

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

You'd go and watch a baseball game between the Turin Tigers and the
Bologna Buffalos.

[GM]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/26/assume_the_left_lies_and_you_will_discover_the_truth_reflections_on_the_trump-russia_collusion_lie_139859.html

Assume the Left Lies and You Will Discover the Truth: Reflections on the Trump-Russia Collusion Lie

By Dennis Prager

"From the beginning, I repeatedly said the charge that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election was a lie. The president's description of it as a "witch hunt" was accurate.

I regularly acknowledged that I was putting my credibility on the line by stating that it was all a hoax. But how did I know that? After all, I wasn't privy to any confidential intelligence.

One answer is I used common sense. The Trump-Russia collusion charge and the Donald-Trump-is-an-agent-of-the-Kremlin charge struck me -- and tens of millions of other Americans -- as absurd. Vladimir Putin's influence on the 2016 election was negligible, and as president, Trump has been harder on Russia -- in supporting Ukraine's anti-Russian government, in fighting Syria's pro-Russian government and in confronting Iran's pro-Russian regime -- than Barack Obama was.

But the biggest reason I never believed the Russian collusion charge was that the charge emanated from the left. And the left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it.

The left wanted to undo the 2016 presidential election from the day Trump won. So they made up the Russian collusion story. This was obvious to every conservative -- except for "Never Trumpers," who, with regard to Trump, have been indistinguishable from the left and were therefore as prepared as any leftist to believe the Trump-Russia collusion tale. We conservatives knew that a) the left wanted to invalidate the election and b) the left lies when it is in their interest to do so. So we knew the collusion charge was a fabrication.

We also suspected that the collusion hoax may well have been an effort to divert attention from the real crimes here: American intelligence agencies' being used to spy on a presidential candidate for the first time in American history; getting Clinton off the hook for her illegal use of a private server while secretary of state; her use of that office to enrich herself and her husband; and her destruction of the evidence once her hidden emails were subpoenaed.

If you always doubt a leftist claim, you will almost always be closer to the truth. I employed that rule in concluding the collusion story was a fraud, and it served me well.

Name the issue and you will likely find a left-wing lie. The left claims our universities are saturated by a "culture of rape." Not only is that a lie, but deep down, leftists know it's a lie. The proof? Every left-wing parent who speaks about the "culture of rape" on college campuses sends his or her daughter to college. As no parents would ever send their daughter to an actual rape culture, left-wing parents who send their daughters to college know it is not really a rape culture. They say it is a rape culture solely to buttress the feminist argument that American males are misogynists and to provide young women with the highest status in the left-wing value system: victim.

Although I haven't been a student or taught at a college in many decades, that's how I knew American colleges were not rape cultures. I knew it because the left said they were. Again, just assume the left is lying and you will be close to arriving at the truth.

How do I know there are only two sexes? The most obvious reason is, again, common sense. But the second most powerful reason is the left denies there are only two sexes and claims there is no such thing as sex, only subjective "gender." Last week, a writer for the left-wing magazine The Nation defended the victory of two high school male-bodied trans women who defeated all the female-bodied women in a Connecticut track competition -- because, in his words, "trans women are in fact women."

Now, we all know trans women are not in fact women, that they are biologically men who regard themselves as women. And in private life, I have no problem treating trans women as women if they look and dress female and take on a female name. But it is completely unjust to have them compete against born females in sports. They are not in fact women; they consider themselves women despite the facts. Again, assuming the left is lying to advance its agenda leads one to truth.

When the left tells us the Earth has 12 years left because of global warming, I assume they are not telling the truth. One bit of proof is that almost no one on the global-warming-will-destroy-life left advocates the safest, cheapest and most practical non-fossil-based source of energy: nuclear power. If they really believed life was existentially threatened by fossil-based fuel, they would be building nuclear reactors as fast they could make them. One reason I haven't believed man-made global warming will destroy the Earth is that the left does.

So, while the latest left-wing lie -- Trump-Russia collusion -- is now exposed, there is little to cheer about. Without missing a beat, the left -- the Democratic Party, the media and academia -- will move on to another lie.

And there will be no soul-searching on the part of the media or the rest of the left.

Why won't there be? Because no leftist acknowledges the collusion story was a lie.

Truth has never been a left-wing value. Like "gender," it is whatever you want it to be..."

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Related Topics: Progressivism, Robert Mueller

[Cindy Hamilton]

Heh. Good one. The last baseball game I attended was ca. 1966.

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:24:32 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton

lol, ok

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:35:14 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

If you're so adamant how come you chose to live in Australia? You
moved from one monarchy to another.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 10:37:00 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:27:36 GMT, Pamela <pamela...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 21:53 26 Mar 2019, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:47:59 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:34 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:20:38 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:41 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Canada's still a colony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope, it's a member of the Commonwealth but our constitution was
>>>>>>returned to us years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
>>>>>head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
>>>>>country. Same goes for Australia.
>>>>
>>>>I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
>>>>us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!
>>>
>>> I'd rather have Trump. Nothing against the Queen, but Trump was
>>> democratically elected.
>>
>>Helped by Russians. Not in the case of the Queen though.
>
>In a few years, Americans will have the opportunity to choose another
>president if they want. Trump's not glued to the position, just
>because he's his parents' son.

Four years of humiliation and ridicule would not seem attractive to
me.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:35:32 +0000, S Viemeister

I didn't know that! Might explain why he is as obnoxious as Trump,
perhaps Trumps daddy had a little romp long ago :)

[Bruce]

It doesn't exactly affect my daily life that Australia has someone
else's head of state as its head of state. I don't hang out in those
circles much. And there rare lots of benefits to living here :)

[Bruce]

It's who the people voted for. Maybe they'll do better -in your and my
view- next time. But at least it's democratic, not based on birth. I'm
surprised that you're in favour of such an obsolete system.

[Bruce]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:02:38 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:35:32 +0000, S Viemeister
><firs...@lastname.oc.ku> wrote:
>
>>On 3/26/2019 9:46 PM, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:17:53 +0000, S Viemeister
>>>>

>>> Interesting - I didn't know it had changed, we were looking at it all
>>> 50 years ago now :)
>>>
>>Yes, it's very different now. Years ago, simply voting in a foreign
>>election, or taking a job with an agency of a foreign government, would
>>get your US government pulled. Now, it is not easy to give up US
>>citizenship, even if you _want_ to (ask Boris Johnson about that!).
>
>I didn't know that! Might explain why he is as obnoxious as Trump,
>perhaps Trumps daddy had a little romp long ago :)

Boris Johnson in "Who Do You Think You Are":
"My ancestors have carte blanche to commit any kind of fornication."

At least he has a sense of humour.

[graham]

There was an item on CBC a couple of years ago about carrying 2
passports into the US. That was where I learned of it.

[S Viemeister]

Both of my passports are legitimate.
Perhaps the passports the person in the CBC story had, were a bit iffy?

[Dave Smith]

Yes, because you would be in Italy. Canada, like the US, is a land of
immigrants. There are lots of Italians here who, while living in Canada,
are in Italian enclaves where they can shop, talk and socialize in a
very Italian environment. The same goes for Chinese and south Asians.

[Dave Smith]

Always take reports from our national propaganda source with a grain of
salt. They don't like Trump or the people who voted him and probably
tried to hold a public pity party for someone who got hassled at the
border. The person may have faced some other problem that the CBC
glossed over to push their own agenda. Sorry, but their journalistic
integrity went out the window a while ago.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 22:07:12 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>

I would say the same about Canada so I don't understand why you are
getting your knickers knotted over the Queen.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

You're as boring as Scheer, his smear campaign isn't working for him
very well.

Look at what CBC has just done re. Hyundai/Kia vehicles, I can't see
one of the other money mad channels ever embarking on anything like
that.

[Bruce]

I still disagree with it. That doesn't mean I'm about to leave the
country or anything. Colonial life under the sun :)

[Janet]

In article <dp7l9e16pu0hec7kh...@4ax.com>,
br...@invalid.invalid says...

>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:47:59 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:26:34 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:20:38 -0300, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 02:49:41 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>

> >>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:57:25 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Ophelia wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Bruce" wrote:
> >>>>>> Graham is a UK fanboi. Everything from the UK is fantastic. One
> >>>>>> wonders why he doesn't live there, next door to Janet UK.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ==
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Graham is British!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Not at all. He's Canadian now.
> >>>>

> >>>>Canada's still a colony.
> >>>
> >>>Nope, it's a member of the Commonwealth but our constitution was
> >>>returned to us years ago.
> >>
> >>You're not a real colony, of course, but when your head of state's the
> >>head of state of another country, you're also not an independent
> >>country. Same goes for Australia.
> >
> >I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
> >us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!
>
> I'd rather have Trump. Nothing against the Queen, but Trump was
> democratically elected. Position based on birth has no place in the
> 21st century.

tell that to Trumps' son,daughter and son in law

Janet UK

[Leonard Blaisdell]

In article <te7l9epvn9vpra7rk...@4ax.com>,

<lucreti...@fl.it> wrote:

> I am not particularly a monarchist, but I am glad the Queen represents
> us, she is dignified - I would far rather the Queen than Trump!

I'm trump and you're no-trump. Are we bridge?

leo

[lucreti...@fl.it]

Lol ! A friend went to the bridge tournament in Atlanta and brought
me back a badge, it says, 'Pull Trump ASAP'

[GM]

Lol...I'm on Leo's side...

;-)

--
Best
Greg

[Bruce]

You'd be on the side of a right wing serial killer.

[Leonard Blaisdell]

In article <1l4q9e5n3c0h68msb...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<br...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 05:19:17 -0700 (PDT), GM
> <gregorymorr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Lol...I'm on Leo's side...

> You'd be on the side of a right wing serial killer.

I might even be a cannibal. Come visit!

leo

[Bruce]

You're right wing, that's your business. GM, however, is a nut.