Weasels insult Satan
Cuco del Norte
["Bashers believe Satan in White House"]:
>The kooky Bashers are hell bent on proving Clinton is son of
>Satan, etc., etc.
Nah. Traditionally Satan has been depicted as an evil but
rather elegant urban gentleman with some sense of honor; he
honors "pacts with the devil," for example. Clinton has the
evil part down, true, but otherwise is a redneck slime ball
with the honor and "elegance" of Henry Lee Lucas. As Lloyd
Bentsen might have said, "I know Satan, Satan is a friend of
mine, and you, Slick, are no Satan."
Breathnac
>As Lloyd
>Bentsen might have said, "I know Satan, Satan is a friend of
>mine, and you, Slick, are no Satan."
>
Yeah, but he's God. On average 300 people were getting blown to bits every year
in Northern Ireland - until Clinton came along. Lot of assholes passed by and
didn't do much about it - Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Major, Haughey - to name a
few.
I think it's time for all the sanctimonious hypocrits to shut up. We all lie
(it's natural), we are all scumbags and lowlifes. Peole are extremely naive and
innocent - or just plain sanctimonious bastards - if they don't realise the
President of the US is just like the rest of us.
Brendan
Brendan Heading
<brea...@aol.com> writes
>mmnoth wrote:
>
>>As Lloyd
>>Bentsen might have said, "I know Satan, Satan is a friend of
>>mine, and you, Slick, are no Satan."
>>
>Yeah, but he's God. On average 300 people were getting blown to bits every year
>in Northern Ireland - until Clinton came along. Lot of assholes passed by and
>didn't do much about it - Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Major, Haughey - to name a
>few.
Are you saying that the peace happened because of Clinton ?
--
Brendan Heading (brendan at heading dot demon dot co dot uk)
===Please remove the spamguard to reply====
NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement.
"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our
being, drive a spear into the land, and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers,
governments and corporations, 'Thus far and no farther'." - Edward Abbey
Breathnac
>
>Are you saying that the peace happened because of Clinton ?
>
up to his own state department, and go against Britain's wishes in Northern
Ireland (who believed it was an internal British problem). He took a lot of
stick over here for bringing Gerry Adams in from the cold and taking the IRA
off the state departments list of international terrorists. He took a gamble
and it paid off.
Would the "current peace" have happened without Clinton? There's lots of
people, I'm sure, who would just hate to give him the credit, but I don't think
it would have happened without Clinton.
Brendan
Paul
<brea...@aol.com> writes
>mmnoth wrote:
>
>>As Lloyd
>>Bentsen might have said, "I know Satan, Satan is a friend of
>>mine, and you, Slick, are no Satan."
>>
>Yeah, but he's God. On average 300 people were getting blown to bits every year
>in Northern Ireland - until Clinton came along. Lot of assholes passed by and
>didn't do much about it - Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Major, Haughey - to name a
>few.
>
>(it's natural), we are all scumbags and lowlifes. Peole are extremely naive and
>innocent - or just plain sanctimonious bastards - if they don't realise the
>President of the US is just like the rest of us.
>
>Brendan
Sing it loud Brendan!
That fantastic speech Bill delivered in Armagh was excellent, but I'm
sure Bill didn't write it. The Real IRA couldn't shut down Omagh, but
Bill Clinton did. His secret service are mere children compared to the
RUC when it comes to anti-terrorism. Nevertheless over came hundreds
of secret service agents telling us what to do!
Bill is using us to divert attention away from his private `affairs`,
but it is not working!
Paul.
ro...@my-dejanews.com
Let us pray that these efforts aren't in vain. And it will be up to the
people of Northern Ireland to see that it isn't.
Rose
PS - It's nice to see something good about Clinton for once.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Sheela na Gig
>Let us pray that these efforts aren't in vain. And it will be up to the
>people of Northern Ireland to see that it isn't.
>
>Rose
>
>PS - It's nice to see something good about Clinton for once.
>
Aw come on Rose Fr. Des is just after giving us Novenas.
Brendan Heading
<brea...@aol.com> writes
>Brendan Heading wrote:
>>
>>Are you saying that the peace happened because of Clinton ?
>>
>I'm saying that he was the first American president to have the balls to stand
>up to his own state department, and go against Britain's wishes in Northern
>Ireland (who believed it was an internal British problem).
I'm sure he was not the first president to listen to the Irish
Americans. However I would say that he did take a little more time. I am
suspicious of his sincerity though, but that's for another day. I
suspect the reason why other presidents didn't get involved was because
they either had more on their hands, or the chances of an agreement
seemed likely. Clinton was in the right place at the right time and he
seized the moment.
> He took a lot of
>stick over here for bringing Gerry Adams in from the cold and taking the IRA
>off the state departments list of international terrorists. He took a gamble
>and it paid off.
In what way did it pay off ?
>Would the "current peace" have happened without Clinton? There's lots of
>people, I'm sure, who would just hate to give him the credit, but I don't think
>it would have happened without Clinton.
The only substantive thing that Clinton did was grant Gerry Adams a
visa, which allowed him to tour the US and engage in fundraising and
mislead the American people on TV. That didn't have anything to do with
the peace effort, unless you count the first IRA ceasefire as a factor
in the peace settlement, which I don't (it came and went long before the
Agreement came about).
All Party Talks and the resulting agreement came about without Clinton's
intervention at all (though all of the parties here agree that George
Michell kicked ass and has a remarkable grasp of the situation; I was
fortunate to see him on an American news programme and he explained
things very well, in my opinion).
Having said that, Clinton was there whenever the British or Irish
governments phoned up, to ask him to speak to the parties - which they
did on the evening of the Agreement.
The people who made the Agreement were the parties who drafted it and
people of Northern Ireland who endorsed it by 71%.
Breathnac
>I'm sure he was not the first president to listen to the Irish
>Americans. However I would say that he did take a little more time. I am
>suspicious of his sincerity though, but that's for another day. I
>suspect the reason why other presidents didn't get involved was because
>they either had more on their hands, or the chances of an agreement
>seemed likely. Clinton was in the right place at the right time and he
>seized the moment.
>
>> He took a lot of
>>stick over here for bringing Gerry Adams in from the cold and taking the IRA
>>off the state departments list of international terrorists. He took a gamble
>>and it paid off.
>
>In what way did it pay off ?
Sinn Fein (who represent nearly half of the nationalist vote) entered
mainstream politics, and brought theIRA to a ceasefire.
>The only substantive thing that Clinton did was grant Gerry Adams a
>visa, which allowed him to tour the US and engage in fundraising and
>mislead the American people on TV. That didn't have anything to do with
>the peace effort, unless you count the first IRA ceasefire as a factor
>in the peace settlement, which I don't (it came and went long before the
>Agreement came about).
Depends where you consider the current process to have started and that's a
complex thing. But the visa for Adams was a key factor.
Other things Clinton did: As you mention, he sent George Mitchell. This was
quite radical because up to then, Northern Ireland was considered by the
British Government an internal British problem. Having Mitchell there added an
American dimension at an institutional level.
Thirdly - Clinton is a people person, and anyone could see that his visits to
Northern Ireland resulted in a feel good factor. No other President dared ever
venture into the six counties.
And what I consider one of the most amazing and unnoticed things he did - he
created a situation where Irish American politicians started to see things from
a Unionist perspective. Unionist politicians were given access to the White
House and high level meetings were set-up with Irish-American politicians who
up until then saw things in black and white. We had the amazing situation where
some unionist politicians got up at the annual bash Clinton throws at the White
House on St. Paddy's Day (another thing he did!!!) and started singing "The
Fields of Athenry".
Add to all this, the economic initiatives he set up for Ireland and Northern
Ireland.
>The people who made the Agreement were the parties who drafted it and
>people of Northern Ireland who endorsed it by 71%.
True. But we are all lucky that Clinton decided to grapple with this situation.
It's all very well saying he seized the opportunity - I believe he created the
opportunity before he seized it. He was there when things were not going well
and it's not all that long ago that Murdoch's papers over here were running a
campaign against him for his relationship with Gerry Adams - At the time of the
Oklahoma bombings, there were cartoons of Clinton in bed with Adams and a time
bomb.
Brendan
Breathnac
>Bill is using us to divert attention away from his private `affairs`,
>but it is not working!
>
>Paul
Except - his private affairs and his sex life should be private.
It's a sad day when people are more interested in a blow job he might have got
from an intern that his achievments in Northern Ireland.
Murdoch has got his wish - the world has become one great big tabloid and
everyone's ready to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Brendan
Modra Dubh
1. He took advantage of a twenty one year old female employee
2. He lied under oath about it
3. He lied on national TV about it
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Breathnac wrote in message
<199809072205...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Breathnac
>I think it's more than his private sex life:
>1. He took advantage of a twenty one year old female employee
>2. He lied under oath about it
>3. He lied on national TV about it
>-Conway
>
1. Monical Lewinsky was 21 years old at the time. That's an ADULT WOMAN. She
has always claimed that she had consentual sex with Clinton. Nothing illegal
happened there. To claim otherwise is an insult to women who are really
sexually harrassed in the workplace.
Regarding 2 & 3 - every human being is liable to lie when questioned about
intimate sexual details. The original investigated that was set up to
investigate Clinton was regarding the Whitewater land deals. The investigation
should never have been allowed to stray to investigate his sex life. People may
chuckle because it's the President of the US that's been investigated, but,
hey, it could happen to us all and that's scary.
Brendan
McHamish
<m...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I think it's more than his private sex life:
>1. He took advantage of a twenty one year old female employee
>2. He lied under oath about it
>3. He lied on national TV about it
>-Conway
>
>--
And that's not even the half of it. This man is the most cynical opportunist
ever to hold political office in the US of A. He even tops Nixon. Hell, it's
no contest.
Starr's report is going to bring him to a bitter end. I have mixed emotions
about that. The US survived Nixon's resignation because Jerry Ford, a decent
and harmless human being, stepped into the breach. But, if and when Clinton
goes, we then get Al Gore, an enviromental wacko statist socialist who believes
in the total efficacy and right of government to meddle in every aspect of our
lives. Wouldn't surprise me if he sells us out to the UN in the name of One
World Government, trying to set himself up as Emperor of the Planet. Rocky
road ahead. Buy gold.
McHamish
Breathnac
> But, if and when Clinton
>goes, we then get Al Gore, an enviromental wacko statist socialist who
>believes
>in the total efficacy and right of government to meddle in every aspect of
>our
>lives.
I guess you see no contradiction in the fact that Clinton may have to leave
office due to a grotesque investigation into his private life conducted by a
fundamentalist bible thumper.
Well, if Clinton does go - at least he got this country out of the mess created
by the republicans and their reagan economics of greed. That's why Clinton -
despite all the scandals - would still get re-elected in the morning.
Brendan
Dr P Quirky
Breathnac wrote in message
<199809080325...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>McHamish wrote:
[snip - some Merkin came over last week]
>
>Brendan
Has the story about the dry cleaner's in Listowel made it back to America
yet?
Clement McGann
I'm glad to hear that, Brendan.
Why are 'mericans so obsessed with the man's private life
what happened since JFK 'got away' with it
In most european counties this would be ignored
ro...@my-dejanews.com
Well, I've never done a Novena (not being Catholic.) But a simple prayer
[make it short (about 5 seconds?), sweet and simple might be best. Let's not
swamp God with too much at one time.]
Rose
McHamish
(Breathnac) writes:
>> But, if and when Clinton
>>goes, we then get Al Gore, an enviromental wacko statist socialist who
>>believes
>>in the total efficacy and right of government to meddle in every aspect of
>>our
>>lives.
>
>I guess you see no contradiction in the fact that Clinton may have to leave
>office due to a grotesque investigation into his private life conducted by a
>fundamentalist bible thumper.
On the contrary. I see the investigation of Clinton as "politics as usual".
The office of the Special Prosecutor is supposed to be above the level of petty
politics, but in reality it has turned out to be politics at its worst, just
another tool of *government* for one party to use against another in the
on-going contest for power. In another post, you said that it's scary and
anyone could have their life turned upside down. That's very true, and it does
happen. Politics is a dirty business. It's all about power and influence.
All government is about force and coercion, and those being forced and coerced
(the "citizens") are made to pay for their own subjugation through the
imposition of ever higher taxes. It doesn't matter which party is in office.
They are all seeking the same thing: the right to use the monolithic power of
the State to their own advantage. There are no statesmen. There is no
altruism. There is only the relentless pursuit of power and its application.
>
>Well, if Clinton does go - at least he got this country out of the mess
>created
>by the republicans and their reagan economics of greed. That's why Clinton -
>despite all the scandals - would still get re-elected in the morning.
>
What specific policies of the Clinton regime "got this country out of the mess
created by the republicans"? If you are measuring the Clinton regime by the
yardstick of the markets, the *bubble* has been pricked and the air is rushing
out. The Japanese know a lot about bubbles and what happens when they are
pricked. We are now at the beginnings of a great *bear market*, and the
Clinton regime is still in power. Shall we blame his policies for it?
Clinton would get reelected (and did in 1996) because he is the greatest
demagogue ever to run for office. They don't call him Slick Willie for
nothin'.
McHamish
Paul Moloney
> The only substantive thing that Clinton did was grant Gerry Adams a
> visa
Don't forget he also granted Joe Cahill a visa;
the first ceasefire wouldn't have happened if
Cahill had not been allowed into the USA to
persuade Irish-American supporters to support it.
P.
Brendan Heading
<mcha...@aol.com> writes
>lives. Wouldn't surprise me if he sells us out to the UN in the name of One
>World Government,
Yeah - can't have those foreign bastards imposing their laws and messing
with our rock-solid perfect constitution!
Brendan Heading
<brea...@aol.com> writes
>>>stick over here for bringing Gerry Adams in from the cold and taking the IRA
>>>off the state departments list of international terrorists. He took a gamble
>>>and it paid off.
>>
>>In what way did it pay off ?
>
>Sinn Fein (who represent nearly half of the nationalist vote) entered
>mainstream politics,
They have been doing this since 1981.
>and brought theIRA to a ceasefire.
Which broke down again in 1996 - before any talks had happened.
>>The only substantive thing that Clinton did was grant Gerry Adams a
>>visa, which allowed him to tour the US and engage in fundraising and
>>mislead the American people on TV. That didn't have anything to do with
>>the peace effort, unless you count the first IRA ceasefire as a factor
>>in the peace settlement, which I don't (it came and went long before the
>>Agreement came about).
>
>Depends where you consider the current process to have started and that's a
>complex thing. But the visa for Adams was a key factor.
I know, it allowed him to raise a pile of cash. Adams' goal in the USA
was to heighten the presence of Sinn Fein internationally and at home
and he did so very successfully. However, Sinn Fein contributed
absolutely bugger all to the Agreement. SF enjoyed their time outside
the gates of Stormont more than they enjoyed their time inside.
>Other things Clinton did: As you mention, he sent George Mitchell. This was
>quite radical because up to then, Northern Ireland was considered by the
>British Government an internal British problem. Having Mitchell there added an
>American dimension at an institutional level.
I'd give you that.
>Thirdly - Clinton is a people person, and anyone could see that his visits to
>Northern Ireland resulted in a feel good factor.
It has to be said that the visit of any president to Northern Ireland
would have had this effect. The people here are so overwhelmingly
thrilled to see him that they forget about the other stuff he does. I
wonder what effect the "people person" would have on the people in Sudan
and Afghanistan who burn his effigy in the streets.
>>The people who made the Agreement were the parties who drafted it and
>>people of Northern Ireland who endorsed it by 71%.
>
>True. But we are all lucky that Clinton decided to grapple with this situation.
>It's all very well saying he seized the opportunity - I believe he created the
>opportunity before he seized it.
It is a matter of debate how much influence the US business had to do
with the IRA ceasefire. The IRA themselves would probably deny that
Clinton was a factor. I would say myself that the most important things
that went into that ceasefire were the Shankill bomb and the resulting
horror; the moves towards political roles that were in place before
Clinton came to office; and the fact that lots of people got demoralized
with their "struggle".
> He was there when things were not going well
>and it's not all that long ago that Murdoch's papers over here were running a
>campaign against him for his relationship with Gerry Adams
Murdoch's papers weren't the only ones. They were pretty much all
raising eyebrows, especially given that the IRA had very recently blown
up London's economic city centre at the time (untold billions of
damage).
Brendan Heading
<paul_m...@hotmail.com> writes
>Brendan Heading wrote:
>
>> The only substantive thing that Clinton did was grant Gerry Adams a
>
>Don't forget he also granted Joe Cahill a visa;
>the first ceasefire wouldn't have happened if
>Cahill had not been allowed into the USA to
>persuade Irish-American supporters to support it.
I wouldn't consider myself qualified to say for certain whether this is
true or not, but I personally don't believe it; the ceasefire happened
primarily because of pressure from people on the ground after the
Shankill bomb and the moves being made towards talks.
Breathnac
>What specific policies of the Clinton regime "got this country out of the
>mess
>created by the republicans"? If you are measuring the Clinton regime by the
>yardstick of the markets, the *bubble* has been pricked and the air is
>rushing
>out. The Japanese know a lot about bubbles and what happens when they are
>pricked. We are now at the beginnings of a great *bear market*, and the
>Clinton regime is still in power. Shall we blame his policies for it?
Well, to be honest, I don't know much about "bubbles" and "bear markets", but
Clinton's regime has been very pro-union, the unions are strong again (after
the Reagan/Thatcher policies of busting them), and this means higher wages for
us all (even for White Collar jobs). So there's a high standard of living here
at the moment - otherwise I'd be back home in Ireland.
Brendan
McHamish
<bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>lives. Wouldn't surprise me if he sells us out to the UN in the name of One
>>World Government,
>
>Yeah - can't have those foreign bastards imposing their laws and messing
>with our rock-solid perfect constitution!
>
I don't know about you, Brendan, but exactly what we don't need is one more
layer of government stealing the results of our productivity through another
level of taxation and imposing ever more regulations on our lives and
restrictions on our freedoms. The "foreign bastards" (your words, not mine)
have a fondness for socialism. Let them keep it over there. We've got more of
it than we need already.
McHamish
Modra Dubh
of sober reflection will lead you to the conclusion that something is
seriously amiss with our president.
-Conway
(Remember the British drum such scoundrels out)
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Breathnac wrote in message
>Conway wrote:
>
>>I think it's more than his private sex life:
>>1. He took advantage of a twenty one year old female employee
>>2. He lied under oath about it
>>3. He lied on national TV about it
>>-Conway
>>
McHamish
(Breathnac) writes:
>Well, to be honest, I don't know much about "bubbles" and "bear markets", but
>Clinton's regime has been very pro-union, the unions are strong again (after
>the Reagan/Thatcher policies of busting them),
Umm, I don't think so. Union membership is still on the decline. I'm trying
to think of a single policy put forth by Bill Clinton that has helped unions to
become stronger. FrankIy, I'm drawing a blank. Mind you, I'm not anti-union
myself. I think unions are a necessary anti-thesis to corporate management and
help to keep things in balance. However, the only union that has gained in
strength in recent years is the teachers' union, and that particular union is
in the process of destroying the public education system in the US of A.
> and this means higher wages
>for
>us all (even for White Collar jobs). So there's a high standard of living
>here
>at the moment - otherwise I'd be back home in Ireland.
Higher wages and standard of living are the result of increased productivity
largely brought on by those little silicon wafers that enable you to post to
sci. They do a lot more than that, as you well know. Apart from being a whole
industry unto themselves, they have a way of getting cost out of many
commercial processes and that makes for greater profitability and more money to
pay workers, grow companies, and create jobs. Also, I think we can give some
of the credit to capitalist entrepreneurs who invest their money in ventures
that create new products, services, and jobs. Wages and standard of living
tend to go up when there are more jobs than workers. If unions have gained
back a little of their former power, you can attribute it to that situation.
Bill Clinton has nothing to do with it, in spite of his unabashed taking of
credit. Neither does any other politician.
McHamish
Breathnac
>Brendan, I admire your spirited defense of Wee Willie. However, a moment
>of sober reflection will lead you to the conclusion that something is
>seriously amiss with our president.
>-Conway
For the record, I though the bombing of Sudan and Afganistan was a disgrace.
This is what Clinton should be censured for!
However, I will defend to the bitter end a person's right to a private sex life
(so long as no sexual abuse is commited).
Brendan
Breathnac
>Higher wages and standard of living are the result of increased productivity
>largely brought on by those little silicon wafers that enable you to post to
>sci. They do a lot more than that, as you well know. Apart from being a
>whole
>industry unto themselves, they have a way of getting cost out of many
>commercial processes and that makes for greater profitability and more money
>to
>pay workers, grow companies, and create jobs. Also, I think we can give some
>of the credit to capitalist entrepreneurs who invest their money in ventures
>that create new products, services, and jobs. Wages and standard of living
>tend to go up when there are more jobs than workers. If unions have gained
>back a little of their former power, you can attribute it to that situation.
>Bill Clinton has nothing to do with it, in spite of his unabashed taking of
>credit. Neither does any other politician.
I'm not going to argue on this one! Bill, btw, will be calling you abut a
position in the Dept. of Commerce...
Brendan
Neil McEwan
>In article <199809080234...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, McHamish
><mcha...@aol.com> writes
>
>>lives. Wouldn't surprise me if he sells us out to the UN in the name of One
>>World Government,
>
>Yeah - can't have those foreign bastards imposing their laws and messing
>with our rock-solid perfect constitution!
Here Brendan, are you suggesting that outsiders should be allowed
to "impose... laws" on the people of the US?
Neil
--
mce...@supercity.ns.ca
Breathnac
>Has the story about the dry cleaner's in Listowel made it back to America
>yet?
Where they press your finest wellingtons? No - we haven't heard that one yet.
Brendan
Gerard Cunningham
>I don't know about you, Brendan, but exactly what we don't need is one more
>layer of government stealing the results of our productivity through another
>level of taxation and imposing ever more regulations on our lives and
>restrictions on our freedoms. The "foreign bastards" (your words, not mine)
>have a fondness for socialism. Let them keep it over there. We've got more of
>it than we need already.
Repeat after me:
Americans are not over-taxed..
Americans are not over-taxed..
Americans are not over-taxed..
Americans are not over-taxed..
--
Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
"Let not the Old Glen be harmed,
The place of the slabs of heaven" ~Colmcille
McHamish
>Repeat after me:
>
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>
Repeat after me:
All taxes are theft..
All taxes are theft..
All taxes are theft..
All taxes are theft..
McHamish
McHamish
(Breathnac) writes:
>I'm not going to argue on this one! Bill, btw, will be calling you abut a
>position in the Dept. of Commerce...
He may not be in office long enough to place the call. And Al Gore will
certainly not be calling me. He thinks *government* is responsible for all
that's good in the world.
McHamish
Neil McEwan
On 09 Sep 1998 14:14:29 GMT, mcha...@aol.com (McHamish) wrote:
>Repeat after me:
>
>All taxes are theft..
>All taxes are theft..
>All taxes are theft..
>All taxes are theft..
How many thieves take your money to buy something to give back to
you?
Neil
--
mce...@supercity.ns.ca
McHamish
(Neil McEwan) writes:
>>Repeat after me:
>>
>>All taxes are theft..
>>All taxes are theft..
>>All taxes are theft..
>>All taxes are theft..
>
>
> How many thieves take your money to buy something to give back to
>you?
Too many, too much, too often.
McHamish
Brendan Heading
<brea...@aol.com> writes
>Well, to be honest, I don't know much about "bubbles" and "bear markets", but
>Clinton's regime has been very pro-union, the unions are strong again (after
>us all (even for White Collar jobs). So there's a high standard of living here
>at the moment - otherwise I'd be back home in Ireland.
Yes, I appreciate this myself. I've been watching closely Clinton's
handling of the recent Northwest Airlines strike. I noted with interest
that he opted not to intervene with the "cooling off" period that he
could have done by law.
Brendan Heading
<mcha...@aol.com> writes
>>>lives. Wouldn't surprise me if he sells us out to the UN in the name of One
>>>World Government,
>>
>>Yeah - can't have those foreign bastards imposing their laws and messing
>>with our rock-solid perfect constitution!
>>
>
>I don't know about you, Brendan, but exactly what we don't need is one more
>layer of government stealing the results of our productivity through another
>level of taxation and imposing ever more regulations on our lives and
>restrictions on our freedoms.
This is a problem with your political system. You have way too much
government.
> The "foreign bastards" (your words, not mine)
>have a fondness for socialism. Let them keep it over there.
Socialism ? What's that ?
Brendan Heading
<brea...@aol.com> writes
>Conway wrote:
>
>>Brendan, I admire your spirited defense of Wee Willie. However, a moment
>>of sober reflection will lead you to the conclusion that something is
>>seriously amiss with our president.
>>-Conway
>
>For the record, I though the bombing of Sudan and Afganistan was a disgrace.
>This is what Clinton should be censured for!
And pretty much all of your other presidents right back to 1945 and
beyond.
>However, I will defend to the bitter end a person's right to a private sex life
>(so long as no sexual abuse is commited).
I have to agree that it is pretty disgraceful that someone is being
judged on their sexual conduct and not their political achievements.
There was a chap over here called Sammy Wilson - a senior DUP politician
- who had taken photos of himself and a schoolteacher prancing about
naked somewhere in France. A newspaper somehow got hold of these
pictures and published them on the front page, embarassing Sammy Wilson
and his colleagues who had campaigned against nudist beaches in Ireland
and against a "school dinners" restaurant in Belfast (it was a kind of a
light hearted kinky restaurant with short skirted waitresses, etc).
Sammy wasn't disciplined and most people just laughed at him.
Brendan Heading
<nei...@supercity.ns.ca> writes
>>Yeah - can't have those foreign bastards imposing their laws and messing
>>with our rock-solid perfect constitution!
>
>to "impose... laws" on the people of the US?
Nope, I'm just interested in seeing that they are kept checked by
international law. The reason that they didn't sign the Vienna
convention (where nearly every other western country did) was because it
would make certain US national and international activities illegal.
Sweeney the Wanderer
>
> In article <35f5e256....@news.supercity.ns.ca>, Neil McEwan
> <nei...@supercity.ns.ca> writes
> >>Yeah - can't have those foreign bastards imposing their laws and messing
> >>with our rock-solid perfect constitution!
> >
> > Here Brendan, are you suggesting that outsiders should be allowed
> >to "impose... laws" on the people of the US?
>
> Nope, I'm just interested in seeing that they are kept checked by
> international law. The reason that they didn't sign the Vienna
> convention (where nearly every other western country did) was because it
> would make certain US national and international activities illegal.
Good point-would you care to elaborate?
Sweeney
Brendan Heading
<mcha...@aol.com> writes
>>I'm not going to argue on this one! Bill, btw, will be calling you abut a
>>position in the Dept. of Commerce...
>
>He may not be in office long enough to place the call. And Al Gore will
>certainly not be calling me. He thinks *government* is responsible for all
>that's good in the world.
Likewise, there are some people who think government is responsible for
all that's bad.
Brendan Heading
<syb...@potomac.com> writes
>> Nope, I'm just interested in seeing that they are kept checked by
>> international law. The reason that they didn't sign the Vienna
>> convention (where nearly every other western country did) was because it
>> would make certain US national and international activities illegal.
>
> Good point-would you care to elaborate?
The US basically ignores the UN when it comes to things like invading
countries in the far east.
Egroeg the Niffirg
}I think it's more than his private sex life:
}1. He took advantage of a twenty one year old female employee
}2. He lied under oath about it
}3. He lied on national TV about it
}-Conway
He's a politician, of course he's going to lie. What on earth would make you
think otherwise?
George
Trust = politician * Distance throw.
Modra Dubh
percentage. You can't win.
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Neil McEwan wrote in message <35f68f5a....@news.supercity.ns.ca>...
>
>On 09 Sep 1998 14:14:29 GMT, mcha...@aol.com (McHamish) wrote:
>
>>Repeat after me:
>>
>>All taxes are theft..
>>All taxes are theft..
>>All taxes are theft..
>>All taxes are theft..
>
>
> How many thieves take your money to buy something to give back to
>you?
>
>
>Neil
>--
>mce...@supercity.ns.ca
Modra Dubh
class liars.
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Egroeg the Niffirg wrote in message
<35f6c34a...@news.btinternet.com>...
Sheela na Gig
>
>Repeat after me:
>
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>Americans are not over-taxed..
>Americans are not over-taxed..
I'm chanting with you on this one Ger. You know I'd even pay more for
equal access to medical care. I love US highways, federal and state
parks, the freedom of information act, the accountability of our
government, and the fact that we have a strong and powerful defense
(those fecking Canadians are VERY close, don't even get me started on
the enemy to the North).
Sheela na Gig
>I don't know about you, Brendan, but exactly what we don't need is one more
>layer of government stealing the results of our productivity through another
>level of taxation and imposing ever more regulations on our lives and
>restrictions on our freedoms. The "foreign bastards" (your words, not mine)
>have a fondness for socialism. Let them keep it over there. We've got more of
>it than we need already.
>
I'm not sure which foreign bastards we're referring to here, but I
live in a socialist city and have a socialist US Congressman
representing my state.
Roger
>In article <35F53B1E...@hotmail.com>, Paul Moloney
><paul_m...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Brendan Heading wrote:
>>
>>> The only substantive thing that Clinton did was grant Gerry Adams a
>>> visa
>>
>>Don't forget he also granted Joe Cahill a visa;
>>the first ceasefire wouldn't have happened if
>>Cahill had not been allowed into the USA to
>>persuade Irish-American supporters to support it.
>I wouldn't consider myself qualified to say for certain whether this is
>true or not, but I personally don't believe it; the ceasefire happened
>primarily because of pressure from people on the ground after the
>Shankill bomb and the moves being made towards talks.
The Shankill slaughter combined with the Greysteel and Loghinisland
massacres, had a major influence on the 1994 SF/IRA ceasefire and
subsequently the 'loyalist' paramilitaries ceasefires. There is no
doubt in my mind about that.
People on the ground were weary of the whole thing and this was equal
on both sides due to the loyalists stepping up the pressure to levels
not seen in 20 years. The terrorists could not advance their cause due
to general lack of support within their respective communities. IMO
after 25 years of carnage if it had not been for the loyalists
matching and beating the republican atrocities there would not have
been the will for the ceasefires of that time.
(Btw I do not praise or condone the 'loyalist' terrorists and think of
both sides of the terrorist divide as absolute low-life filth)
Roger
Gerard Cunningham
>In article <199809082341...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, McHamish
><mcha...@aol.com> writes
>>I don't know about you, Brendan, but exactly what we don't need is one more
>>layer of government stealing the results of our productivity through another
>>level of taxation and imposing ever more regulations on our lives and
>>restrictions on our freedoms.
>
>This is a problem with your political system. You have way too much
>government.
No Brendan. The US has many layers of administrative bureaucracy, but
comparatively little Government. All those checks & balances ensure
that actually getting anything done is next to impossible.
Neil McEwan
On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 23:35:09 GMT, Sheela na Gig (Sheela na Gig) wrote:
>I'm chanting with you on this one Ger. You know I'd even pay more for
>equal access to medical care. I love US highways, federal and state
>parks, the freedom of information act, the accountability of our
>government, and the fact that we have a strong and powerful defense
>(those fecking Canadians are VERY close, don't even get me started on
>the enemy to the North).
You could increase your income tax by forty cents on the dollar
and you still wouldn't be able to keep us out. Our plans are all very
hush-hush but I can say that you should watch out for those bags of
ice at your local grocery store.
Neil
--
mce...@supercity.ns.ca
Gregory
----------
In article <NBQ7QWAM...@heading.demon.co.uk>, Brendan Heading
<bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35F6BE...@potomac.com>, Sweeney the Wanderer
><syb...@potomac.com> writes
>
>>> Nope, I'm just interested in seeing that they are kept checked by
>>> international law. The reason that they didn't sign the Vienna
>>> convention (where nearly every other western country did) was because it
>>> would make certain US national and international activities illegal.
>>
>> Good point-would you care to elaborate?
>
>The US basically ignores the UN when it comes to things like invading
>countries in the far east.
>
>--
>Brendan Heading
Ditto Britain.
Greig
Gerard Cunningham
>In article <199809082224...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Breathnac
><brea...@aol.com> writes
>>Well, to be honest, I don't know much about "bubbles" and "bear markets", but
>>Clinton's regime has been very pro-union, the unions are strong again (after
>>the Reagan/Thatcher policies of busting them), and this means higher wages for
>>us all (even for White Collar jobs). So there's a high standard of living here
>>at the moment - otherwise I'd be back home in Ireland.
>
>Yes, I appreciate this myself. I've been watching closely Clinton's
>handling of the recent Northwest Airlines strike. I noted with interest
>that he opted not to intervene with the "cooling off" period that he
>could have done by law.
I suspect that Clinton, like Ahern, has an instinctive sense of when
intervention will be of use. Ahern made much of his reputation as
Minister for Labour out of that skill, knowing which strikes were
solvable and which to walk away from. He still has the touch too.
Ask Gerry Lynch, I'm sure he can give you a few insights into his
behaviour during the talks last Spring.
Gerard Cunningham
>In article <35f5f7c9...@news.wwa.com>, Ger@r.d wrote:
>> Americans are not over-taxed..
>> Americans are not over-taxed..
>> Americans are not over-taxed..
>> Americans are not over-taxed..
>
>
>Ger, you're gonna have the bury-the-guns-in-the-backyard types thinking
>you're in on the massive governmental conspiracy.
How do you think I Know All & See All? The hotline to the Knights
Templar is invaluable.
McHamish
Gig) writes:
>I'm not sure which foreign bastards we're referring to here, but I
>live in a socialist city and have a socialist US Congressman
>representing my state.
>
That could be just about any city in the US of A. Does your congressman bill
himself as a Democrat? By any chance, do you live in Minnesota?
McHamish
McHamish
writes:
>>This is a problem with your political system. You have way too much
>>government.
>
>No Brendan. The US has many layers of administrative bureaucracy, but
>comparatively little Government. All those checks & balances ensure
>that actually getting anything done is next to impossible.
I agree with Brendan, but I would term it *quasi-government*.
The one administrative layer that gets lots of things done is the federal
agencies, and they have run amok in recent years promulgating regulations that
have the same effect and consequences as laws. They've even *regulated* the
amount of water I can have in the water closet of my toilet. If you've
installed a new toilet since 1994 when the regulation went into effect, you
know what I mean. I now have to flush the damn thing twice and take the
plunger to it about once every two weeks. (no jokes about being full of shit,
please :-) People are actually smuggling new toilets across the Canadian
border to avoid this regulation, and, yes, they can go to jail if they get
caught.
Agency positions are politcal sinecures. When a new presidential regime comes
in, the Pres and his advisors get to appoint new bureaucrats to run the myriad
agencies. The new bureaucrats then have the obligation to justify their
positions by enacting ever more regulations reflecting their own biases (and
those of the guy and party to which they owe their position). They rarely
cancel out the regulations of the previous regime. The just add to them.
Hence, we have this massive and ever growing volume of regulations, many of
which are idiotic, contradictory, and counter-productive. Again, regulations
have the same effect and consequences as laws, but they are not necessarily
voted on by elected representatives of the people in the Legislature.
The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches may check and balance
themselves into gridlock, but whom, or what, is checking and balancing the
agencies? Nobody. Nuthin'.
McHamish
Gregory
----------
In article <35ff26d5...@news.wwa.com>, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham)
wrote:
>How do you think I Know All & See All? The hotline to the Knights
>Templar is invaluable.
>
>--
>Gerard Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
>http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
>"Let not the Old Glen be harmed,
>The place of the slabs of heaven" ~Colmcille
They've reformed BTW.
Greig
Gregory
----------
In article <35fe2639...@news.wwa.com>, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham)
wrote:
>Brendan Heading wrote:
>
>>In article <199809082224...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Breathnac
>><brea...@aol.com> writes
>>>Well, to be honest, I don't know much about "bubbles" and "bear markets", but
>>>Clinton's regime has been very pro-union, the unions are strong again (after
>>>the Reagan/Thatcher policies of busting them), and this means higher wages for
>>>us all (even for White Collar jobs). So there's a high standard of living here
>>>at the moment - otherwise I'd be back home in Ireland.
>>
>>Yes, I appreciate this myself. I've been watching closely Clinton's
>>handling of the recent Northwest Airlines strike. I noted with interest
>>that he opted not to intervene with the "cooling off" period that he
>>could have done by law.
>
>I suspect that Clinton, like Ahern, has an instinctive sense of when
>intervention will be of use. Ahern made much of his reputation as
>Minister for Labour out of that skill, knowing which strikes were
>solvable and which to walk away from. He still has the touch too.
>Ask Gerry Lynch, I'm sure he can give you a few insights into his
>behaviour during the talks last Spring.
>
Is that why us taigs got sold out?
Greig
Sheela na Gig
No, and he's an independent.
Alan D Red
wrote:
>I have to agree that it is pretty disgraceful that someone is being
>judged on their sexual conduct and not their political achievements.
>There was a chap over here called Sammy Wilson - a senior DUP politician
>- who had taken photos of himself and a schoolteacher prancing about
>naked somewhere in France.
Ahem, be careful here Brendan, are you sure Sammy
took the pics? Im not
A newspaper somehow got hold of these
>pictures and published them on the front page, embarassing Sammy Wilson
>and his colleagues who had campaigned against nudist beaches in Ireland
>and against a "school dinners" restaurant in Belfast (it was a kind of a
>light hearted kinky restaurant with short skirted waitresses, etc).
>Sammy wasn't disciplined and most people just laughed at him.
And still are! The serious part of it all is that
he is a school teacher and what an example he
sets, eh?
>--
>Brendan Heading (brendan at heading dot demon dot co dot uk)
> ===Please remove the spamguard to reply====
>NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement.
>"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our
>being, drive a spear into the land, and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers,
>governments and corporations, 'Thus far and no farther'." - Edward Abbey
################
Goldenhole
#############
Gregory
----------
In article <35f7b...@royan.d-n-a.net>, fla...@dnet.co.uk (Alan D Red)
wrote:
>And still are! The serious part of it all is that
>he is a school teacher and what an example he
>sets, eh?
Tech College I thought?
Greig
Alan D Red
>Tech College I thought?
>Greig
Maybe now, but he did teach at Grosvenor for a
long time, geography I believe, among others.
################
Goldenhole
#############
fla...@dnet.co.uk
>>
>>
>>If you have the lights on, it's easier for the black helicopters to find
>>you. I thought that was *obvious*! ;)
>Well, yes, I thought about that, but it's common knowledge that black
>helicopters don't bother with Florida because of all the radiation
>fall-out from all the shuttle explosions and because we'll be
>underwater in about twenty years anyway.
Where ameoba belong! Even ones with brown noses?
8^}
~~~~~~~~~~~
Goldenhole
#############
Sweeney the Wanderer
anything done is next to impossible.
>
> I agree with Brendan, but I would term it *quasi-government*.
>
> The one administrative layer that gets lots of things done is the federal
> agencies, and they have run amok in recent years promulgating regulations that
> have the same effect and consequences as laws. They've even *regulated* the
> amount of water I can have in the water closet of my toilet. If you've
> installed a new toilet since 1994 when the regulation went into effect, you
> know what I mean. I now have to flush the damn thing twice and take the
> plunger to it about once every two weeks. (no jokes about being full of shit,
> please :-) People are actually smuggling new toilets across the Canadian
> border to avoid this regulation, and, yes, they can go to jail if they get
> caught.
Yes, the black market in toilets is a wonder to deal in. Anyone who is
remodeling can sell the old ones for a good price too.
Sweeney
Gavin Bailey
wrote:
>>How do you think I Know All & See All? The hotline to the Knights
>>Templar is invaluable.
>They've reformed BTW.
And of course they needed to reform, being a pogrom-commiting
sectarian mono-religioned sado-recreational murdergang.
Was Nogaret an ancestor of yours?
Gavin Bailey
--
Fochinell
"Ancient Scots warcry" painted on the side of a Spitfire Mk XIV in 1944
- presumably without Air Ministry approval.
Gavin Bailey
wrote:
>> How do you think I Know All & See All? The hotline to the Knights
>> Templar is invaluable.
>
>As Cardinal, I thought you ministered directly to the Knights Templar.
>Lots of juicy tidbits in the confessional and all.
They had their own priests and otherwise reported direct to the pope.
What colour are your gloves then, Gerard?
Brendan Heading
>I'm not sure which foreign bastards we're referring to here, but I
>live in a socialist city and have a socialist US Congressman
>representing my state.
I saw a leading member of the Democratic Party on TV yesterday calling
for the resignation of Clinton. One of the things he said that the
Democratic Party was about "family values"... that's always something
that's been associated with Conservative Party here (whose diehard free
market "greed is good" policies have done more to destroy "family
values" than anything else). In the US you definitely have a different
idea of what socialism is ;-)
Brendan Heading
writes
>>This is a problem with your political system. You have way too much
>>government.
>
>No Brendan. The US has many layers of administrative bureaucracy, but
>comparatively little Government. All those checks & balances ensure
That's actually what I meant (thanks for the correction).
I didn't expect there to be as much state intervention in the USA as I
saw when I arrived there. The first thing I noticed about Reno was the
heavily subsidised buses there. I was very surprised to see that Amtrak
was actually a government-funded setup too, to the tune of a cool $550m.
Modra Dubh
any political persuasion along those lines, rather it's fear my sainted
parents would hold true to their last promise to me, that they would rise
from the dead were I to register Republican. I guess a trip thru the
depression does that to folks. I will say this, Ms Rose, should the
Democrats put forth a candidate cut from the same cloth as Roosevelt and
Truman, I'd be right back in the fold. Wee Willy is cut from a different
cloth.
-Conway
(One does not have to be Republican to detest Willy, I would think)
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
ms_...@jardin.net wrote in message <35f92933...@news.mpinet.net>...
>
>
>Conway, did I tell you that I live near Orlando, Florida? The prezzie
>was here today and there was something that aired on the local news
>that didn't make it to the national airways. It was a very, very,
>small group of protesters that were waiting to deliver their scathing
>jeers at the pres if they had a chance. (They didn't) There was one
>man who was more vocal than the others. I don't remember what his
>sign said, but his words are still ringing in my ears. The camera is
>on him and he's yelling, "Will the last Democrat in Florida please
>turn out the lights!" Now, could you help me out and tell me if it's
>true that Republicans prefer sitting in the dark? I'm confused.
Roger
>"Gregory" <ta...@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>----------
>>In article <35f7b...@royan.d-n-a.net>, fla...@dnet.co.uk (Alan D Red)
>>wrote:
>>>And still are! The serious part of it all is that
>>>he is a school teacher and what an example he
>>>sets, eh?
>>Tech College I thought?
>>Greig
>Maybe now, but he did teach at Grosvenor for a
>long time, geography I believe, among others.
Nope, Economics. He was quite good too.
Roger
John Duane
>On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 04:00:10 GMT, Ger@r.d (Gerard Cunningham) wrote:
>>
>>Repeat after me:
>>
>>Americans are not over-taxed..
>>Americans are not over-taxed..
>>Americans are not over-taxed..
>>Americans are not over-taxed..
>
>I'm chanting with you on this one Ger. You know I'd even pay more for
>equal access to medical care. I love US highways, federal and state
>parks, the freedom of information act, the accountability of our
>government, and the fact that we have a strong and powerful defense
>(those fecking Canadians are VERY close, don't even get me started on
>the enemy to the North).
Your best defense is the cost of your dollar, but you can bet
your britches that come par, we'll be sweeping south across the
border to save the American North Woods for their true destiny.
Better keep an eye on those cold fronts. A well placed blizzard and
Drum won't know what hit it.
The Maple Leaf Forever,
JohnnyD.
Sheela na Gig
<bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35f710d5....@news.mindspring.com>, Sheela na Gig
><?@?.?> writes
>
>>I'm not sure which foreign bastards we're referring to here, but I
>>live in a socialist city and have a socialist US Congressman
>>representing my state.
>
>I saw a leading member of the Democratic Party on TV yesterday calling
>for the resignation of Clinton. One of the things he said that the
>Democratic Party was about "family values"... that's always something
>that's been associated with Conservative Party here (whose diehard free
>market "greed is good" policies have done more to destroy "family
>values" than anything else). In the US you definitely have a different
>idea of what socialism is ;-)
>
>--
I'm not actually talking about the democrats, and I believe anyone
going on about Family Values in this country is a conservative as
well. Family values is a pretty fucking ridiculous concept to me,
unless what they're after is beatings and alcoholics and visits to
jails and doing whatever kind of drug you could to keep you alive one
more day. Oh, that's not what they mean by family? Nevermind then.
Sheela na Gig
Norte) wrote:
>Nah. Traditionally Satan has been depicted as an evil but
>rather elegant urban gentleman with some sense of honor; he
>honors "pacts with the devil," for example. Clinton has the
>evil part down, true, but otherwise is a redneck slime ball
>with the honor and "elegance" of Henry Lee Lucas. As Lloyd
>Bentsen might have said, "I know Satan, Satan is a friend of
>mine, and you, Slick, are no Satan."
Or The Master in Master and Margerita there was a guy that was urbane
and a hell of a lot of fun to be around.
Sheela na Gig
tom_...@rocketmail.shoobedoobeydoowop.com (Thomas McVey) wrote:
>And McHamish thinks Gore's an extreme socialist/environmentalist. If only.
>Presumably on the basis that of the 4.2｢/gal gas tax increase in the 1993
>deficit-cutting budget (which, BTW, passed only with Gore's casting vote
>in the Senate, 'cos not a single Republican voted for it). Last time I was
>in Houston, gas was 91｢/gal. Lot cheaper than in Europe.
This administration has made no strides whatsoever in environmental
issues; Brownfields is a cheap avoidance of a program, no money at all
to back up turning hazardous waste sites over to corporate entities
and waiving any liabilities. Superfund is still not reauthorized as
far as I know; and the boiling of pits of toxic decay bubble away.
McHamish
<bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I saw a leading member of the Democratic Party on TV yesterday calling
>for the resignation of Clinton. One of the things he said that the
>Democratic Party was about "family values"...
Ever see a herd of Donkeys in full stampede? You are about to experience it.
The Donkey to which you refer was attempting to distance himself from Bill
Clinton by cloaking himself in the the demagogic cloak of the other party
(Pachyderms). He was trolling for votes for fear of losing his seat in the
halls of power. You're going to see a lot more of this in the days ahead.
> that's always something
>that's been associated with Conservative Party here (whose diehard free
>market "greed is good" policies have done more to destroy "family
>values" than anything else).
How long have you been over here? You've gotten it exactly backwards. The
decline of "family values" is directly attributable to the rise of the social
welfare state, a feeding trough for the Donkeys since the days of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. It has created a whole under-class of people who are dependent on
government transfer payments for their sustenance. This group is also a large
part of their constituency, by the way. Our liberal government actually pays
women more welfare dollars as they have more babies out of wedlock. What do
you suppose that has done to family values? And that's only one example of
this pernicious system.
You've obviously been tuned into Donkey propaganda in the time you've been in
the US. They love to use that old "greed is good" shibboleth against the other
major party. They fear nothing more than the revitalization of free market
economics. Poof, there goes their constituency as the voting public discovers
that the formation and investment of capital in free and open markets leads to
greater prosperity at all levels of society and in all areas of the world. The
problem is, the Pachyderms don't have any more political guts than their
adversaries. They should all be voted out of office as liars, thieves, and
charlatans.
>In the US you definitely have a different
>idea of what socialism is ;-)
Socialism is socialism. I call it "creeping socialism" since it crept over
here from Europe and keeps spreading like a bad weed.
McHamish
Gerard Cunningham
>> >Ger, you're gonna have the bury-the-guns-in-the-backyard types thinking
>> >you're in on the massive governmental conspiracy.
>>
>> How do you think I Know All & See All? The hotline to the Knights
>> Templar is invaluable.
>>
>As Cardinal, I thought you ministered directly to the Knights Templar.
>Lots of juicy tidbits in the confessional and all.
We're a hi-tech Kirk, sacraments are virtual in all senses.
Gerard Cunningham
>I didn't expect there to be as much state intervention in the USA as I
>saw when I arrived there. The first thing I noticed about Reno was the
>heavily subsidised buses there. I was very surprised to see that Amtrak
>was actually a government-funded setup too, to the tune of a cool $550m.
The middle classes do love their privileges.
And they vote...
fla...@dnet.co.uk
>>Even ones with brown noses?
>What you will find, Alan, is that I'm a happy brown noser to those
>people who are in their heart of hearts, kind.
Im one of the kindest, softest and sweetest men I
know. I do have a modesty problem its true! 8^}
~~~~~~~~~~~
Goldenhole
#############
fla...@dnet.co.uk
>Roger
Yep, checked that out last night, economics and
naturism!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Goldenhole
#############
McHamish
tom_...@rocketmail.shoobedoobeydoowop.com (Thomas McVey) writes:
>And McHamish thinks Gore's an extreme socialist/environmentalist. If only.
>Presumably on the basis that of the 4.2｢/gal gas tax increase in the 1993
>deficit-cutting budget (which, BTW, passed only with Gore's casting vote
>in the Senate, 'cos not a single Republican voted for it). Last time I was
>in Houston, gas was 91｢/gal. Lot cheaper than in Europe.
Maybe you should be checking commodity prices on a regular basis. They've
fallen through the floor, including crude oil. This is not a good sign for the
world economy. It means deflation. Things are slowing down. Asian contagion
and Russian revulsion, among other things. The much vaunted DOW in down almost
20%; the broader indexes are down about 40%, and it's not over yet. What is
Clinton going to do about it?
Have you ever read Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance"? It's a HOOT. More
bogus science and radical scare tactics in there than you can shake a spotted
owl at. This man is all about more government and more regulation of our daily
lives. If he happens to get elected President (heaven forbid), he'll be the
only man ever to do so on an unproven assumption -- that the icecaps are going
to melt and flood the coastal regions of the world. Doesn't that sound a bit
wacko to you? Not only that, he wants you and me to pay for the implementation
of his zany ideas. He'd have us all living in government designated areas zoned
for human habitation and pedalling bicycles to work.
The only right thing Congress has done recently is to shoot down the Kyoto
Treaty, Al's pet project.
McHamish
ro...@my-dejanews.com
Brendan Heading <bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I didn't expect there to be as much state intervention in the USA as I
> saw when I arrived there. The first thing I noticed about Reno was the
> heavily subsidised buses there. I was very surprised to see that Amtrak
> was actually a government-funded setup too, to the tune of a cool $550m.
I'm not sure about buses (I assume you mean interstate and not transpo
systems within cities) being government-funded all that much, but I know
Amtrak is. That makes it both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because we
still have a train system, a curse because many of the employees on Amtrak
know that they can get away with a lot more than they would if it were
privately owned.
Rose
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
ro...@my-dejanews.com
Brendan Heading <bre...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I saw a leading member of the Democratic Party on TV yesterday calling
> for the resignation of Clinton. One of the things he said that the
> Democratic Party was about "family values"... that's always something
> that's been associated with Conservative Party here (whose diehard free
> market "greed is good" policies have done more to destroy "family
> values" than anything else). In the US you definitely have a different
> idea of what socialism is ;-)
We're not supposed to be socialistic, we're supposed to be democratic. ;-)
However, the Democratic Party's line has always been about the little guy
while the Republicans were big business. Actually, it used to be (oh, maybe
between 75-100 years ago), the Republicans were for the little guy.
As for any political party anywhere, somewhere (maybe not intentionally) you
find your statement about "greed is good." I have yet to see any political
party that hasn't endorsed it in one form or another.
ro...@my-dejanews.com
she...@no.net wrote:
> I'm not actually talking about the democrats, and I believe anyone
> going on about Family Values in this country is a conservative as
> well. Family values is a pretty fucking ridiculous concept to me,
> unless what they're after is beatings and alcoholics and visits to
> jails and doing whatever kind of drug you could to keep you alive one
> more day. Oh, that's not what they mean by family? Nevermind then.
Family values have so many definitions that you can't just simply say, "Okay,
these are family values. Number 1... Number 2..."
My family does have its' version of family values and it doesn't include
"beatings and alcoholics and visits to jails and doing whatever kind of drug
you could to keep you alive one more day." (The part about drugs I assume
you're talking about illegal narcotics and not prescribed drugs such as
insulin.) We kids were taught to be there for one another, help each other as
needed, etc. And we don't consider ourselves to be conservatives. Family
values can be taught well within a liberal environment. The biggest problem
that I see is in the definition of "liberal." Too many people associate the
word with the 60's style hippie culture.
McHamish
>As for any political party anywhere, somewhere (maybe not intentionally) you
>find your statement about "greed is good." I have yet to see any political
>party that hasn't endorsed it in one form or another.
And indeed it is.
McHamish
McHamish
>The biggest problem
>that I see is in the definition of "liberal." Too many people associate the
>word with the 60's style hippie culture.
It's a word that has many meanings. In the political sphere, it has undergone
quite a transformation. The original liberals (classical liberals) were
anti-authoritarian and supporters of individual rights and freedom and free
market economics. More recently, it has come to mean almost the exact
opposite. Today's liberals espouse big government (authoritarian) and social
welfare programs supported by high taxes and transfer payments. In other words,
they generally believe in a leveling of social classes through governmental
intervention in the distribution of wealth.
McHamish
Brendan Heading
writes
>>Tech College I thought?
>
>Maybe now, but he did teach at Grosvenor for a
>long time, geography I believe, among others.
Economics actually, still at Grosvenor from what I know. He actually
wrote one of the economics textbooks that we used in school. It wasn't
bad actually.
Brendan Heading
<Ger@r.d> writes
>Brendan Heading wrote:
>
>>I didn't expect there to be as much state intervention in the USA as I
>>saw when I arrived there. The first thing I noticed about Reno was the
>>heavily subsidised buses there. I was very surprised to see that Amtrak
>>was actually a government-funded setup too, to the tune of a cool $550m.
>
>
>And they vote...
60% of an electorate which is 60% of the population, am I right ?
Brendan Heading
<mcha...@aol.com> writes
>>I saw a leading member of the Democratic Party on TV yesterday calling
>>for the resignation of Clinton. One of the things he said that the
>>Democratic Party was about "family values"...
>
>Ever see a herd of Donkeys in full stampede? You are about to experience it.
>The Donkey to which you refer was attempting to distance himself from Bill
>Clinton by cloaking himself in the the demagogic cloak of the other party
>(Pachyderms). He was trolling for votes for fear of losing his seat in the
>halls of power. You're going to see a lot more of this in the days ahead.
Politics eh ? Gotta love it.
>> that's always something
>>that's been associated with Conservative Party here (whose diehard free
>>market "greed is good" policies have done more to destroy "family
>>values" than anything else).
>
>How long have you been over here?
I was talking about the UK, not the USA. The Conservative Party is the
party in the UK which is traditionally associated with the Republican
Party. That means supporting the kind of stuff that you do - reducing
state intervention (even when state intervention worked fine), promoting
business (to the point of selling overseas arms breaking UN regulations,
and turning a blind eye to corrupt business practices) etc.
> You've gotten it exactly backwards. The
>decline of "family values" is directly attributable to the rise of the social
>welfare state,
<rest snipped> Big lad, I come from a working class background, and my
parents have had to draw welfare in the past (and still do to a small
extent) so I am not going to get into another silly, and frankly
offensive and snobbish debate about leeching social welfare. For every
working class/welfare dependent individual here who lacks the poorly-
defined "family values" maxim, I could name you two or three ultra-rich
people who are worse. The rich kids I know from the middle class areas
around here are the ones who you usually find are most disrespectful of
other people and their property.
>Roosevelt. It has created a whole under-class of people who are dependent on
>government transfer payments for their sustenance.
Who really created this ? Why, for example, was this not created by
employers refusing to pay proper rates of pay ? "wages are decided by
the market" I suppose.
> This group is also a large
>part of their constituency, by the way. Our liberal government actually pays
>women more welfare dollars as they have more babies out of wedlock.
Ah, the old "teenage girls dropping sprogs to get up the benefit
queues". I have heard it all before and it makes me sick. How many poor
people do you know ? Why do women always get the blame for things that
are not entirely their own doing ?
>You've obviously been tuned into Donkey propaganda
I regard my opinions as sound political views based on my upbringing,
experiences and reading. It's pathetic when people call it "propaganda"
as though it was all a big lie.
> in the time you've been in
>the US.
Nope, not at all. If I was in the US I wouldn't vote for the Democratic
party at all. It might surprise you to know that, shockingly, I actually
have my own political opinions. Or is it your opinion that people who
are left wing interventionists are "donkey propagandists" and people
like you are the only ones who are "realistic".
Nonetheless, you gotta admit that a donkey is a hell of a lot more
useful than an elephant. Easier to look after too.
> They love to use that old "greed is good" shibboleth against the other
>major party.
This is not the preserve of the Democratic Party. In the UK, the
Democratic Party would be viewed as semi Conservative. In the UK we have
a higher rate of state intervention and higher taxation than you people
do, and yet I've never heard any UK people whining quite so much about
taxation as you. People in the UK are proud of their national health
service and education system - because they WORK.
> They fear nothing more than the revitalization of free market
>economics.
The Democratic Party, unless I am much mistaken, espouses the same
trickle down methodology, "create investment, jobs and prosperity" as do
the Republicans. It's the way of bringing that about that differs. In
fact, everyone supports "free market economics" in some form or other.
Tell me, why do you think "socialist" governments (as you call them)
became popular in Europe ?
BTW I fear not the revitalization of market economics (happened here
already in 1979 onwards), but it's impending failure. There are problems
that the free market cannot and never can solve.
> Poof, there goes their constituency as the voting public discovers
>that the formation and investment of capital in free and open markets leads to
>greater prosperity at all levels of society and in all areas of the world.
I challenge you to prove that the above is true - ie show a few examples
where it has "worked". The idea that the most evil of men can conspire
for the most evil of ends to bring about the greater good is a fallicy,
to paraphrase Keynes.
What is it that makes a series of businessmen more responsible or
efficient than a state ? The will to make profit ?
>>In the US you definitely have a different
>>idea of what socialism is ;-)
>
>Socialism is socialism.
What does that mean exactly ? Define "socialism".
> I call it "creeping socialism" since it crept over
>here from Europe and keeps spreading like a bad weed.
You show an exemplary attitude to other people's politics.
Brendan Heading
writes
>>I have to agree that it is pretty disgraceful that someone is being
>>judged on their sexual conduct and not their political achievements.
>>There was a chap over here called Sammy Wilson - a senior DUP politician
>>- who had taken photos of himself and a schoolteacher prancing about
>>naked somewhere in France.
>
>Ahem, be careful here Brendan, are you sure Sammy
>took the pics? Im not
If he hadn't took the pics then he would have said so. Though, come to
think of it, someone hiding in the bushes could have done so.
>>pictures and published them on the front page, embarassing Sammy Wilson
>>and his colleagues who had campaigned against nudist beaches in Ireland
>>and against a "school dinners" restaurant in Belfast (it was a kind of a
>>light hearted kinky restaurant with short skirted waitresses, etc).
>>Sammy wasn't disciplined and most people just laughed at him.
>
>And still are! The serious part of it all is that
>he is a school teacher and what an example he
>sets, eh?
Yeah. I laughed a lot :)
Sweeney the Wanderer
>
> In article <35f7b...@royan.d-n-a.net>, Alan D Red <fla...@dnet.co.uk>
> writes
>
> >>I have to agree that it is pretty disgraceful that someone is being
> >>judged on their sexual conduct and not their political achievements.
> >>There was a chap over here called Sammy Wilson - a senior DUP politician
> >>- who had taken photos of himself and a schoolteacher prancing about
> >>naked somewhere in France.
> >
> >Ahem, be careful here Brendan, are you sure Sammy
> >took the pics? Im not
>
> If he hadn't took the pics then he would have said so. Though, come to
> think of it, someone hiding in the bushes could have done so.
Haven't you heard of long-range lens?
Sweeney
tm...@my-dejanews.com
mcha...@aol.com (McHamish) wrote:
> In article <tom_mcvey-100...@seoul-217.ppp.hooked.net>,
> tom_...@rocketmail.shoobedoobeydoowop.com (Thomas McVey) writes:
>
> >And McHamish thinks Gore's an extreme socialist/environmentalist. If only.
> >Presumably on the basis that of the 4.2｢/gal gas tax increase in the 1993
> >deficit-cutting budget (which, BTW, passed only with Gore's casting vote
> >in the Senate, 'cos not a single Republican voted for it). Last time I was
> >in Houston, gas was 91｢/gal. Lot cheaper than in Europe.
>
> Maybe you should be checking commodity prices on a regular basis. They've
> fallen through the floor, including crude oil.
I've notice this. I live in an area that pretty much lives and dies with the
energy industry. There have been layoffs in a number of oil field related
industries.
> This is not a good sign for the
> world economy. It means deflation. Things are slowing down. Asian contagion
> and Russian revulsion, among other things. The much vaunted DOW in down almost
> 20%; the broader indexes are down about 40%, and it's not over yet. What is
> Clinton going to do about it?
Now that you mention it, you business types should get out there and fix
these economies. I mean, my retirement was earning around 40% and now it's
below 10%. If you don't want a poor biologist shaking a tin cup and holding a
cardboard sign down at the intersection when she grows old, you money sorts
need to straighten this out.
>
> Have you ever read Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance"? It's a HOOT. More
> bogus science and radical scare tactics in there than you can shake a spotted
> owl at.
Bzzzt! Would you care to give specifics? I read it and found that he had a
surprisingly good grasp of current and potential problems. Especially
considering that he's got a political background. How's *your* science
background, Ham?
> This man is all about more government and more regulation of our daily
> lives.
Which is why he's been reducing the size of government, I imagine. I *knew*
that when the number of full time federal employees dropped off like that it *
really* had to mean that government was getting bigger! ;)
> If he happens to get elected President (heaven forbid), he'll be the
> only man ever to do so on an unproven assumption -- that the icecaps are going
> to melt and flood the coastal regions of the world. Doesn't that sound a bit
> wacko to you?
First, you are misrepresenting his comments. Second, carbon dioxide is being
introduced into the atmosphere at a rate higher than can be balanced by
natural systems (ie: uptake by the ocean, etc). Any chance of equilibrium
given the current rate of emission will occur over a geologic time scale, not
a human one. In other words, for as long as it'll be important to us this
carbon dioxide is going to continue to build up. Changing the balance of
gases in the atmosphere alters the physical properties of the atmosphere. By
increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide, the amount of heat retained
within the system increases. This change will not occur within one season or
even one year. We're talking a low, gradual increase in temperature over
decades or more. Why the heck should we care if it's not going to be a
massive jump in the near future? Because small changes can mean radical
differences in climate. Will the poles melt anytime soon? Probably not, but
the seemingly subtle climate changes could affect our ability to produce food
and alter which areas of the Earth are comfortable in which to live.
> Not only that, he wants you and me to pay for the implementation
> of his zany ideas. He'd have us all living in government designated areas zoned
> for human habitation and pedalling bicycles to work.
You're hyperventilating and the lack of oxygen is making you babble. Perhaps
you'd like to post some proof that Gore said he wants to move us all into
government designated zones.
Terry
McHamish
tom_...@rocketmail.shoobedoobeydoowop.com (Thomas McVey) writes:
>So, Terry, where'll we build the re-education camp for McHamish?
>
ROFL. Oh, please, Bre'r Tom, please, please, please don't build the camp on
the golf course at Portrush. There are no trees there for me to hug.
McHamish
Brendan Heading
>insulin.) We kids were taught to be there for one another, help each other as
>needed, etc. And we don't consider ourselves to be conservatives. Family
>values can be taught well within a liberal environment.
Yes, that is the same here; the difference is that it is the
Conservatives who use the "family values" gambit as an election issue,
to support their policies for more and bigger jails, tougher penalties
on crime, etc.
> The biggest problem
>that I see is in the definition of "liberal." Too many people associate the
>word with the 60's style hippie culture.
In America. In the UK it's associated with middle class people who ring
their hands.
Brendan Heading
<mcha...@aol.com> writes
>Have you ever read Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance"? It's a HOOT. More
>bogus science and radical scare tactics in there than you can shake a spotted
>owl at.
The real scare tactic is that environmentalists are scare tacticians.
The free market isn't anywhere nearer to proposing a solution to our
impending natural resource shortage than at any other time; nor is it
going anytime soon to deal with the environmental problem. Funny how
people like the scientists are relegated to being "scare tacticians"
whilst the pro-big business people are the realists and the ones who
know better.
> This man is all about more government and more regulation of our daily
>lives.
Why do you think he wants that (if it were true) ?
> If he happens to get elected President (heaven forbid), he'll be the
>only man ever to do so on an unproven assumption -- that the icecaps are going
>to melt and flood the coastal regions of the world.
Er, I hate to break it to you big lad, but there has been an increased
frequency of flooding in low-lying areas of England. All the reports I
have heard say that the icecaps are beginning to recede.
>of his zany ideas. He'd have us all living in government designated areas zoned
>for human habitation and pedalling bicycles to work.
What on earth is wrong with that (cycling to work) ?
Sheela na Gig
>In article <35f8765b....@news.mindspring.com>,
> she...@no.net wrote:
>
>Family values have so many definitions that you can't just simply say, "Okay,
>these are family values. Number 1... Number 2..."
The point being Rose, the government has no business defining my
morality. They can pass law which I am required to abide by, but they
have no business either defining or dictating that I live by someone's
opinion of what "values" they think I should have. If I lived by the
values taught to me by my family, I'd be a lot worse of a problem for
the government. Many people living here aren't even lucky enough (or
unlucky enough) to have a real family. I find the whole issue
moralistic, infantile, and insulting.
Brendan Heading
<tam...@usl.edu> writes
>> The free market isn't anywhere nearer to proposing a solution to our
>> impending natural resource shortage than at any other time; nor is it
>> going anytime soon to deal with the environmental problem.
>
>In both cases, we're going to be forced into changing by shortages or
>problems of other sorts. The shortages won't happen tomorrow (ie: won't
>affect the near future earnings), so the folks making all the money see no
>good reason to change.
The question is : when the time comes, what are we going to change *to*
?
The trouble with environmental problems is that we don't really know the
damaging extent of any particular activity until after the damage has
been done. It may be some years down the line before we have evidence to
suggest, for example, that the US heatwave this year is anything to do
with the record high levels of emissions. If there *really is* a serious
life threatening environmental problem some time in the future, how will
we know before people start dying ? Tree cutting (hence less carbon
dioxide absorption) combined with a growing world population, to me,
looks like a collision course that the market is powerless to stop. It
will always be profitable to cut down trees because there isn't any time
soon when we're going to stop using paper and wood.
>> whilst the pro-big business people are the realists and the ones who
>> know better.
>
>They are realists in that they know to keep doing what's making the most
>easy money until they are forced by adverse conditions to change.
I don't think this rather simplistic mechanism is adequate for
preventing problems in the future.
Breathnac
>The
>decline of "family values" is directly attributable to the rise of the social
>welfare state, a feeding trough for the Donkeys since the days of Franklin D.
>Roosevelt. It has created a whole under-class of people who are dependent on
>government transfer payments for their sustenance. This group is also a
>large
>part of their constituency, by the way. Our liberal government actually pays
>women more welfare dollars as they have more babies out of wedlock. What do
>you suppose that has done to family values?
Your example of family values strikes me as very Christian Coalition type of
family values.
And that's only one example of
>this pernicious system.
>
>You've obviously been tuned into Donkey propaganda in the time you've been in
>the US. They love to use that old "greed is good" shibboleth against the
>other
>major party. They fear nothing more than the revitalization of free market
>economics. Poof, there goes their constituency as the voting public
>discovers
>that the formation and investment of capital in free and open markets leads
>to
>greater prosperity at all levels of society and in all areas of the world.
Well in the 80's under Reagan, you had a lot of people who made a lot of money
and had nice suburban homes, while the inner cities rotted away. When people
refuse to pay taxes (al la Republican philosophy), streets get dirty, public
utilities and parks fall into decline. This is not the type of country I want
to live in.
Brendan
Modra Dubh
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
ms_...@jardin.net wrote in message <36065ff4...@news.mpinet.net>...
>On 10 Sep 1998 22:57:22 GMT, "Modra Dubh" <m...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>(One does not have to be Republican to detest Willy, I would think)
>
>(Or does not have to be Democrat to detest Kenneth Starr.)
>
Modra Dubh
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Thomas McVey wrote in message ...
>
>Nope. There's plenty of left/liberals who detest the DLC-type of thinking.
>
>I mean, why detest him for lying about adultery, when you can detest him
>for fluffing health-care reform, rolling over and playing dead while the
>republicans got their way on welfare reform, dropping excellent nominees
>like Lani Guinier (whose sole offence was suggesting a form of PR instead
>of the "ribbon" districts as a better way of ensuring minority
>representation)?
Modra Dubh
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Thomas McVey wrote in message ...
>You're just saying that because you're one of those jackbooted thug
>socialist facist guvmint federal regulators that wants to melt down
>McHamish's pickup truck into rebar to build a palace of people's
>tree-hugging culture. ;)
Modra Dubh
-Conway
--
Ni dheanfach an saol capall ras d'asal
Brendan Heading wrote in message ...