Scottish police get sweeping new powers to read every e-mail you ever sent.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
control how data is encrypted on the Net.
The powers of the police and security services to read private e-mail
are being increased enormously.
For instance, look at these provisions in the bill:
Currently, telephone taps require the signature of the Home Secretary.
This new law will only require the permission of a local police
inspector for the keys to all your present - and past - communications
to be released.
Under the present law, all those being monitored are informed after
the surveillance period has ended and/or enquiries have been
concluded.
Under the new law, you won't be told.
Indeed, it will be illegal to tell you that your email has been read.
If you use encryption, the police may demand your encryption key from
you. If you refuse, you must prove that you do not have the key, or
you can be put in jail for up to two years.
And, by the way, if you do release the key and you inform anyone else
that you did so - you can be put in jail for up to five years.
What has this to do with you and me?
Encryption is no longer the province of spies and criminals - the
internet is so transparent that it makes sense for everyone to
routinely encrypt their e-mails.
Businesses already do so. They need to be sure that they have a
secure chanel of communication. Many businesses now use internet
communications as an integral part of their computer network.
If they cannot be sure of security, will businesses invest in Britain?
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is a 'fast track' bill.
The first reading was on February 11th.
The second reading was on March 6th.
It will be law by October 4th.
A useful site that explains the problems clearly and suggests how you
can do something about it:
http://www.stand.org.uk/
~wedding-services~ UK
parliament get your men in blue to read this newsgroup every day for
counterrevolutionery incendary talk from the Peoples Democratic Republic of
the Kingdom of Fife.
Freedom of Speech
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
and Down with the UK non democratic Labour Party
--
d@vid @llis n
shewobbles
"~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote in message
news:955836442.11093.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Who do you vote for David?
~wedding-services~ UK
The Green Alliance of the Democratic Peoples Republic of the Kingdom of Fife
(North East Fife division).
(non aligned)
Known for short as TGAPDNETDPRKF ....etc.
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
http://www.wedding-service.co.uk
shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote in message news:AS5K4.195673
~wedding-services~ UK
Are you choosing what way to swing ????/
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
http://www.wedding-service.co.uk
~wedding-services~ UK <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote in message
news:955838328.29610.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
shewobbles
> And yourself young lady ?
The Wobblies, http://www.iww.org
> Are you choosing what way to swing ????/
You didn't answer my question. I asked, who do you vote for? As for me,
when it comes to voting, I'm trying to quit. Voting only encourages them.
Micheil
Back to Orwell's 1984.
Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy is
a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
- měcheil
- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg......
--------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
The Blessed Fr. Měcheil ŕ Talisker et Lagavulin, S.J.
--------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
Bryn Fraser
~wedding-services~ UK <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> writes
>I Was a Green Party member but now am a member of
>The Green Alliance of the Democratic Peoples Republic of the Kingdom of Fife
>(North East Fife division).
>(non aligned)
>
>Known for short as TGAPDNETDPRKF ....etc.
Not much political graffiti in Fife then?
Or do you use a stencil?
>--
Bryn Fraser
To the Phenomenologist, legend is an artifact.
Axel
> You didn't answer my question. I asked, who do you vote for? As for me,
> when it comes to voting, I'm trying to quit. Voting only encourages them.
Quite right. More people should stop wasting their time in voting.
shewobbles
news:8dcd0j$ave$2...@weber.a2000.nl...
>> shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote:
What if they held an election and nobody came?
~wedding-services~ UK
> > > You didn't answer my question. I asked, who do you vote for? As for
me,
> > > when it comes to voting, I'm trying to quit. Voting only encourages
> them.
>
C.I.A. stooge.
But I recon hes not intelligent enough for that.
d@vid
Bill Potter
Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
> is
> a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>
> - měcheil
>
> - innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg......
>
> --------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
> The Blessed Fr. Měcheil ŕ Talisker et Lagavulin, S.J.
> --------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
What's all this Lagavulin business young man. You're welcome to the Tally but
the
Old Lags are mine.
--
William Potter - bpo...@mediaone.net
~wedding-services~ UK
> >
> > Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy
>
> Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
>
> > is
> > a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
> >
Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit out of
Democratic protersers
I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
d@vid
Ian O. Morrison
"~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
> Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit
out of
> Democratic protersers
> I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
Ejsy yjr givl jsd yjod yp fp eoyj smuyjomh?
(contact me by e-mail for the encryption key)
--
Ian O. Morrison
http://homestead.deja.com/user.ian_o_morrison/index.html
Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Moses Lambert
> > > Back to Orwell's 1984.
> > >
> > > Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy
> >
> > Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
> >
> > > is a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>
> Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit out of
> Democratic protersers
> I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
>
D@vy, you're lying.
shewobbles
news:sfmg19...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy
> > >
> > > Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
> > >
> > > > is a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>
> > Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit
>>out of Democratic protersers
> > I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
> >
> D@vy, you're lying.
About what? I saw them too.
~wedding-services~ UK
>
Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their batons and
spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee Democratic
rights to freedom of expression.
Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l USofK
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
Moses Lambert <macb...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:sfmg19...@corp.supernews.com...
Moses Lambert
> > D@vy, you're lying.
>
> Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their batons and
> spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee Democratic
> rights to freedom of expression.
>
> Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l USofK
>
~wedding-services~ UK
say.
You are that type of person who belives what you read in newspapes (see last
sunday)
you sound the type of person that helps maintain the Status Quo because in
your select little existance everything is hunky dorry are all the poor
peoplke are only poor because they do not have education or degrees in art
history.
These people are poor because tyhe multinationals which control the media
EXCEPT for the WEB
control what they want you to believe.
LOOK what YOU said """""
>
> Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit out of
> Democratic protersers
> I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
>
D@vy, you're lying. """"
Everyone in the world except you saw Yankee freedomlovincops beat shit out
of women an young boys
cops spray mace on their faces.
USA land of the free -- I think not.
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
Moses Lambert <macb...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:sfmivfi...@corp.supernews.com...
James Silverton
Jim.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland.
~wedding-services~ UK
Your little bitty 2 bit country lives of the back of your downtrodden
neibours and others.
While I LIKE MOST aMERIKANS your nations politics stink.
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
James Silverton <jim.si...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:38FB8F6A...@erols.com...
Bill Potter
> > > > Back to Orwell's 1984.
> > > >
> > > > Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy
> > >
> > > Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
> > >
> > > > is a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>
> >
> > Democratic protersers
> > I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
> >
> D@vy, you're lying.
No, I believe it was the protesters that were lying. Down that is. Face down in
the gutter. Having experienced the care and compassion of D.C's finest.
New.Voice....@your.service.in.the.usa.edu
Hash: SHA1x
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:14:02 +0100, "~wedding-services~ UK"
<da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Back to Orwell's 1984.
>> >
>> > Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy
>>
>> Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
>>
>> > is
>> > a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>> >
>
>Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit out of
>Democratic protersers
>I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
MONKEYCOPS you mean, as it was mostly the black WDC cops doing the bulk of
the hardest white youth beatings.
Watch again carefully, if you doubt it.
Oh and there is Echelon in U.S., which means that anyone can be instantly
observed in all of their activities, for no particular reason.
Much like MI5 does. ;>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0iag
iQEVAwUBOPt9oxNFMNPCjv/zAQTHuwf9FLGjskjbkJqUPbdZ+D45FxORLjeGLtrp
2u1WpGYkP1O67IMrGOvf33hosQrfuQiQU8oXGGpMyDNE57Zcizacz3agcgzXP9vt
EWgRGYfAi/A73HQI0HIQe5uVgAXVxvEpxe+LWIkpnruCMhqpVDOve7QEQjLLzaqV
D8ORQo+YPdM3wOSOv1JMRNik2F3Sja/XK2LWMqVqPG2bVDrQV8+K6w8WWEQm98rg
HCEvYBfY9rU8ltJA29NFRp9fjrE+PvS7TjO/5R2Q+Mo8o63PyZdav4ewVv2/SpNJ
SiEHZJ4E+hMtOt1fhWlMbkISVRHyN2J48gi4B8aci/VXg4DFRCG2hg==
=LvZT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~wedding-services~ UK
> observed in all of their activities, for no particular reason.
>
> Much like MI5 does. ;>
yes and they are all a bunch of army reject nancy boy poofters (that enough)
Ian O. Morrison
"~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
> peoplke are only poor because they do not have education or degrees
in art
> history.
I know LOTS of poor people with degrees in Art History.....
~wedding-services~ UK
>
>
> --
> Ian O. Morrison
Ah, but art they educated ????
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
http://www.wedding-service.co.uk
Micheil
wrote:
>> Back to Orwell's 1984.
>>
>> Man, does this ever underline my contention that British democracy
>
>Now there's an oxymoron, if ever I saw one.
>
>> is
>> a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>>
>> - měcheil
>>
>> - innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg......
>>
>> --------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
>> The Blessed Fr. Měcheil ŕ Talisker et Lagavulin, S.J.
>> --------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
>
>What's all this Lagavulin business young man. You're welcome to the Tally but
>the
>Old Lags are mine.
>--
>William Potter - bpo...@mediaone.net
Nonsense, my son, the Lord's creations belong to everyone with the
price of Costa Rica's annual budget in their pocket. My title simply
reflects my original associations before being called to do the Lord's
work.
This includes watching my flock carefully for Heretical Deviation and
forwarding the names of those who place the souls of the innocent in
danger by straying from the True Path to the appropriate authorities
so they may be put to The Question.
Is that Potter with one T or two?
- měcheil
- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg......
-------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
The Blessed Fr. Měcheil ŕ Talisker et Lagavulin, S.J.
-------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
David A. Allan
> > Oh and there is Echelon in U.S., which means that anyone can be
instantly
> > observed in all of their activities, for no particular reason.
> >
> > Much like MI5 does. ;>
>
> yes and they are all a bunch of army reject nancy boy poofters (that
enough)
Hmmm...and this is the same d@ve who's eagerly awaiting the legalisation of
gay marriage in Scotland, so he'll have a whole new market segment to aim
for...?
David
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> > > D@vy, you're lying.
> >
> > Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their batons and
> > spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee
Democratic
> > rights to freedom of expression.
> >
> > Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l USofK
> >
> D@vy, what you see is rioters being suppressed. There is a BIG difference.
Ha Ha Ha Ho HO HO HO hee hee hee Ho Ho HO
Not true - those bastards were deliberatley trying to break the cops batons
with their heads - and they deserve all they get for trying to improve the
quality of life on this planet. Scum!!
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Séimí mac Liam
MacHamish <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:164pfsc95kj4dk9op...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:18:37 +0100, "~wedding-services~ UK"
> <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> D@vy, you're lying.
> >>
> >
> >Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their
batons and
> >spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee
Democratic
> >rights to freedom of expression.
> >
> >Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l
USofK
>
bollocks.
> The protestors have a right to demonstrate *peacefully*. They have
many
> freedoms of expression in this country. In fact, their right to
freedom of
> expression is virtually unlimited and guaranteed by the
Constitution.
> However, they do not have the right to disrupt others' freedom of
movement
> nor to force their way onto private property and destroy it. Those
things
> are rightfully against the law. That is what they did in Seattle
and what
> they are trying to do in Washington, DC. The police acted properly
to keep
> the streets open and to protect private and public property. These
people
> are not *protestors*; they are *rioters*.
>
Could it have something to do with the fact they were throwing rocks
and bottles at the police, as well?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
My eyes are hazel as well as my nuts"
Canonized December '99
Bryn Fraser
<glw...@dialstart.net> writes
>
>Moses Lambert <macb...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
>news:sfmivfi...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:955991906.3854.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> > Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their batons and
>> > spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee
>Democratic
>> > rights to freedom of expression.
>> >
>> > Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l USofK
>> >
>
>
>Ha Ha Ha Ho HO HO HO hee hee hee Ho Ho HO
>
>Not true - those bastards were deliberatley trying to break the cops batons
>with their heads - and they deserve all they get for trying to improve the
>quality of life on this planet. Scum!!
>
Did you see all those people *deliberately* inhaling all that tear-gas
and pepper-spray. That's all got to be paid for from taxes...
~wedding-services~ UK
services aswell.
As for all the self satisfied jerks in the above posts - its anmazing how
even the natzos show their character on the net.
Séimí mac Liam
Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DGW3VBAhuJ$4E...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
of the protestor had put their hands through the fence at the White
House, put pieces of pipe on their arms and handcuffed their hands
together inside the pipe(don't ask me how they did this), making it a
chore for police to take them off the premises. Toward the end of the
day, when the pepper gas started wafting through the air, they began
to stick out their tongues to indicate that they wished to go home
now. Heard this out of context on NPR's "All things considered", and
my initial reaction was "Gee, ain't that too bad." My second thought
was, "They got there on their own, let them figure out how to get out
of it."
shewobbles
> Damn right, Jim!! That, too. Most of those leftist dupes are the same
> characters who will put up a mighty howl about their tax bill when they go
> out into the real world and get a real job. If they ever do.
Well, unless you are some useless son of a Lord or Duke or some such
hogwash, if it weren't for leftism, you wouldn't be sitting at your
keyboard, typing out this nasty bile. You'd be stuck in some workhouse
somewhere. BTW, some people don't mind paying their fair share of taxes,
especially people on the left, so go do your own howling about your tax
bill, while you bark at the moon.
> I thought it was very telling that the crowds of rioters diminished
> considerably when the rains came on Monday.
Or, maybe, many of them had to go to work because it was Monday?
> Socialism doesn't extend to anti-capitalist demonstrations on bad weather
days.
That comment shows your ignorance of the subject.. BTW, I am not a
socialist, I simply think that broad sweeping generalizations like yours
indicate a lack of intelligence or reflection.
Séimí mac Liam
shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:BN5L4.211185$Hq3.5...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Yew wuz been ironical, wuzn't yez?
Séimí mac Liam
> "Liz McLean" lizm...@home.com> >
>
> >> That comment shows your ignorance of the subject.. BTW, I am not
a
> > > socialist, I simply think that broad sweeping generalizations
like yours
> > > indicate a lack of intelligence or reflection.
> >
> >
come from
> the
> > Undereducated Yankee contingent who have generally never been
anywhere
> >(cept V.N. and other subjugated areas) and have little knowlage of
"Real
> life"
> >
> > They live off their Hispanic proletarian workers
backs..................
>
> Actually D@vid, I disagree, right-wing condescension is wide spread,
which I
> find very ironic, because most adherents to such thinking would be
nowhere
> today, had not they or their antecedents benefitted from policies
and
> legislation brought about by left-wing agitation or mobilization.
And don't
> forget, while people were being cleared off land in Scotland, in the
US &
> Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up when I hear them
> espousing the value of hard work, when they and their families
benefitted
> from land grants years ago.
Suffice it to say that you don't know what you're taliking about.
Barnaby
Moses Lambert wrote:
> "~wedding-services~ UK" wrote
> > Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their batons and
> > spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee Democratic
> > rights to freedom of expression.
> >
> > Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l USofK
> >
> D@vy, what you see is rioters being suppressed. There is a BIG difference.
Just like in Tiananmen Square, eh? Pesky rioters.
~wedding-services~ UK
> That's very weak, Dave. Very weak, indeed. Do you stand or squat when
you
> void your bladder?
> MacHamish Mór
generally just let it run down my kilt - how about you, Redneck ?/////
--
d@vid @llis n L.R.P.S.
http://www.wedding-service.co.uk
MacHamish <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:91epfsch011f2su2m...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:50:55 +0100, "~wedding-services~ UK"
> <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >indeed yes any The MI5 and CIA girls will get married and use our
(secret)
> >services aswell.
> >
> >
> >As for all the self satisfied jerks in the above posts - its anmazing how
> >even the natzos show their character on the net.
>
> That's very weak, Dave. Very weak, indeed. Do you stand or squat when
you
> void your bladder?
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
~wedding-services~ UK
> That comment shows your ignorance of the subject.. BTW, I am not a
> socialist, I simply think that broad sweeping generalizations like yours
> indicate a lack of intelligence or reflection.
You will find Most of the igorant comments in this newsgroup, come from the
Undereducated Yankee contingent who have generally never been anywhere (cept
V.N. and other subjugated areas) and have little knowlage of "Real life"
They live off their Hispanic proletarean workers backs..................
............................
................................................
shewobbles
wrote in message
news:956103918.22258.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
"Liz McLean" lizm...@home.com> >
>> That comment shows your ignorance of the subject.. BTW, I am not a
> > socialist, I simply think that broad sweeping generalizations like yours
> > indicate a lack of intelligence or reflection.
>
>
> You will find Most of the ignorant comments in this newsgroup, come from
the
> Undereducated Yankee contingent who have generally never been anywhere
>(cept V.N. and other subjugated areas) and have little knowlage of "Real
life"
>
> They live off their Hispanic proletarian workers backs..................
Actually D@vid, I disagree, right-wing condescension is wide spread, which I
find very ironic, because most adherents to such thinking would be nowhere
today, had not they or their antecedents benefitted from policies and
legislation brought about by left-wing agitation or mobilization. And don't
forget, while people were being cleared off land in Scotland, in the US &
Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up when I hear them
espousing the value of hard work, when they and their families benefitted
from land grants years ago.
Women's rights, minority rights, religious rights, minority language rights,
gay rights, workplace health and safety, pensions, daycare, gay rights,
commoners rights, public education and public health are all left-wing
policies, to name but a few.
shewobbles
> >> characters who will put up a mighty howl about their tax bill when they
go
> >> out into the real world and get a real job. If they ever do.
> >
> >Well, unless you are some useless son of a Lord or Duke or some such
>
> >hogwash, if it weren't for leftism, you wouldn't be sitting at your
> >keyboard, typing out this nasty bile. You'd be stuck in some workhouse
> >somewhere.
>
> Workers of the World? I thought Marxist Syndicalism was long since
> defunct.
Guess that's just one more thing you were wrong about. There are even
Wobblies in the UK http://www.iww.org
> If it weren't for the inventive energy and investment of the capitalists,
we
> wouldn't have computers, nor any of the other wonders of modern life. Nor
> any good paying careers, come to think of it.
Excuse me? There would be all sorts of "wonders of modern life" but the hoi
polloi wouldn't be able to afford them, or survive their brutal unsafe
workplaces, if not for the left
> >BTW, some people don't mind paying their fair share of taxes,
> >especially people on the left, so go do your own howling about your tax
> >bill, while you bark at the moon.
>
> Fine. You go right on paying, and I'll go right on howling. It's very
> Hegelian, don't you think?
Actually, what I think, is that you must enjoy the feeling of your head
being jammed up your ass, or else you would have removed it by now.
shewobbles
news:ELaL4.159$pK4....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
> shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote :
> > "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote :
> > >"Liz McLean" lizm...@home.com> >
> >
> > >> That comment shows your ignorance of the subject.. BTW, I am not
>>>> a socialist, I simply think that broad sweeping generalizations
> >>>like yours indicate a lack of intelligence or reflection.
> > >
> > > You will find Most of the ignorant comments in this newsgroup,
>>> come from the Undereducated Yankee contingent who have generally
>>>never been anywhere (cept V.N. and other subjugated areas) and have
> > >
> > > They live off their Hispanic proletarian workers
> >>backs..................
> >
> > Actually D@vid, I disagree, right-wing condescension is wide spread,
> >which I find very ironic, because most adherents to such thinking would
be
> >nowhere today, had not they or their antecedents benefitted from
policies
> >and legislation brought about by left-wing agitation or mobilization.
> >And don't forget, while people were being cleared off land in Scotland,
in the
> >US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up when I hear
them
> > espousing the value of hard work, when they and their families
benefitted
> > from land grants years ago.
> Suffice it to say that you don't know what you're taliking about.
Well, actually, since you didn't manage to effectively rebut any of what I
said, no, it won't suffice, nice try tho'. Care to try again?
Christopher Bruce
>
> "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:955991906.3854.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > D@vy, you're lying.
> >
> > spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee Democratic
> > rights to freedom of expression.
> >
> > Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l USofK
> >
> D@vy, what you see is rioters being suppressed. There is a BIG difference.
Moses, the German press showed a young girl, perhaps 19 talking to a
policman who then lifted his baton, held it horizontally in both hands
and smashed it into her mouth. She just managed to turn her head as she
staggered backwards and so probably retained her teeth but her was
instantly upon her again with the same technique and he got her that
time.
That's a nice way to stop somebody talking!
She wasn't rioting, she was there. It seems it was a mistake to be
there.
Regards
Chris
--
_/_/ mailto:Christop...@ks.sel.alcatel.de
_/ mailto:Christop...@compuserve.com
_/ I started out with nothing
_/_/ and still have most of it left.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
. The police acted properly
> >to keep
> >> the streets open and to protect private and public property. These
> >people
> >> are not *protestors*; they are *rioters*.
> >>
> >Could it have something to do with the fact they were throwing rocks
> >and bottles at the police, as well?
>
> Damn right, Jim!! That, too. Most of those leftist dupes are the same
> characters who will put up a mighty howl about their tax bill when they go
> out into the real world and get a real job. If they ever do.
Does it never occur to any of you right wingers that if it wasn't for dozens
of generations of so-called left wing rioters you wouldn't HAVE freedom of
speech, or human rights, nor even a decent wage, nor would your average
ex-peasant family have any property to protect.
Possibly not even a job in your so-called 'real world' - which is about as
real as the 'confidence' and paper money that sustains it.
Do you think that over the last few centuries the people in power gave the
working class and peasantry these rights and other things out of the
kindness of their hearts? People had to demonstrate and 'riot' just in
order to get basic safety measures in the pits in Scotland - let alone
anything else.
Have you even bothered to check out what it is so many people are willing to
risk getting their heads stoved in for. It is you that need to learn what is
'real' in this world. Over a billion people going hungry is real. The fact
that the west has so much food that Britain actually spends £50 million per
year to dump the stuff - that's the real world that these people are
protesting - sorry - 'rioting' about.
While gullible, smug, gutless bastards stay safe at home and believe all
the crap they are fed via their corporate sponsored media.
regards
The adorable
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:20:37 +0100, "~wedding-services~ UK"
> <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> That's very weak, Dave. Very weak, indeed. Do you stand or squat when
> >you
> >> void your bladder?
> >> MacHamish Mór
> >
> >generally just let it run down my kilt - how about you, Redneck ?/////
>
> cleaners. You're starting to smell up the place.
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
You are wasting your breath Dave - this adolescent moron obviously hasn't
changed his opinions in his life. I am just curious as why such an obvious
redneck subscribes to a group that discusses subjects which are so so
clearly way above his head.
Regards
The adorable
Adam Whyte-Settlar.
Séimí mac Liam
How about this? Very little of the land was "free", cheap but not
free. Lots of the land were bought up bu speculators and sold at
exhorbitant prices to city dwellers ignorant of the hardships of
trying to live of the land in the frontier. If you think farming or
ranching on the frontier wasn't work, you are an idiot. That's how
most of the folks you say are "espousing the value of hard work, when
they and their families benefitted from land grants years ago.", got
their land and learned the value of hard work. Mac is right, you are
a wobbly.
Séimí mac Liam
Barnaby <bar...@voxar.com> wrote in message
news:38FC7698...@voxar.com...
>
>
> Moses Lambert wrote:
>
> > "~wedding-services~ UK" wrote
> > > Oh yes so the freedomlovingyankeecops were not smashing their
batons and
> > > spraying mace onto the faces of people exercising their Yankee
Democratic
> > > rights to freedom of expression.
> > >
> > > Russia is dead -- the next peoples battle zone is the Good o'l
USofK
> > >
> > D@vy, what you see is rioters being suppressed. There is a BIG
difference.
>
I didn't see any tanks. Were there tanks. I wanna see tanks.
Nick Durie
Micheil <Mic...@Ireland.com> wrote in message
news:38f90db1...@news.primus.ca...
> a farce compared to the US or even Canada.
>
At least people in Scotland vote before inflicting their politicians upon
the rest of the world - they certainly don't in the US!
Lachie Macquarie
<gwy...@aracnet.com> writes
>
>> > Suffice it to say that you don't know what you're taliking about.
>>
>> Well, actually, since you didn't manage to effectively rebut any of
>what I
>> said, no, it won't suffice, nice try tho'. Care to try again?
>
>How about this? Very little of the land was "free", cheap but not
>free. Lots of the land were bought up bu speculators and sold at
>exhorbitant prices to city dwellers ignorant of the hardships of
>
>trying to live of the land in the frontier. If you think farming or
>ranching on the frontier wasn't work, you are an idiot. That's how
>most of the folks you say are "espousing the value of hard work, when
>they and their families benefitted from land grants years ago.", got
>their land and learned the value of hard work. Mac is right, you are
>a wobbly.
>
>
>--
>Saint Séimí mac Liam
>Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
>My eyes are hazel as well as my nuts"
>Canonized December '99
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Lachie Macquarie, Bod an Deamhain I wish.
shewobbles
> >shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote i
> > > > "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote :
> > > > >"Liz McLean" lizm...@home.com> >
> > > >
> >>>spread, which I find very ironic, because most adherents to such
> >>> thinking would be nowhere today, had not they or their antecedents
>>>>benefitted from policies and legislation brought about by left-wing
>>>> agitation or mobilization. And don't forget, while people were being
>>>>cleared off land in Scotland, in the US & Canada they were giving land
work, >>>>when they and their families benefitted from land grants years
ago.
> >
> >
> > Well, actually, since you didn't manage to effectively rebut any of
> >what I said, no, it won't suffice, nice try tho'. Care to try again?
>
> How about this? Very little of the land was "free", cheap but not
> free. Lots of the land were bought up bu speculators and sold at
Wrong, many may people, especially in the prairies got thier land allotments
*free* simply by staking their claim.
> exhorbitant prices to city dwellers ignorant of the hardships of
> trying to live of the land in the frontier. If you think farming or
> ranching on the frontier wasn't work, you are an idiot.
I didn't say that it wasn't hard work, but so was slaving away in
sweatshops, and going down mines
> That's how most of the folks you say are "espousing the value of hard
work,
> when they and their families benefitted from land grants years ago.", got
> their land and learned the value of hard work.
I spoke too quickly there and didn't manage to convey all of what I meant.
I was referring to people (some of whom I know well) who would deny any form
of assistance, either legislatively, or in kind, to people who work hard in
shitty jobs, or are without work. When I said that they espouse the value
of hard work, I should have added, that while such people may indeed work
hard, it is fallacious, while living on land you inherited from your
ancestor who got it for free, to claim that your success is due to totally
to your own hard work. Just as it is always fallacious when the
benificiaries of privilege claim that their comfort is solely a result of
their own efforts.
>Mac is right, you are a wobbly.
Well duh! When did you get your first clue? I am a dues paying card
carrying wobbly.
Séimí mac Liam
Where are you talking about. Where did these people get thier land
for free. Before Ohio was officially opened, people may have
squatted. But, they had to take the land from the Natives and hold
it. Most places west of their were either sold by the US government,
after 1776, or made available under the Homestead Act. The Homestead
Act provides that you file and pay 25 cents per acre to prove that you
can put the land to beneficial use. You have five years to make
proof. If at the end of the five years you have made such proof you
then pay an additional 1 dollar per acre. Do you know how much a
dollar would buy in the late 1800's? During colonial days in the
north east there were grants made by the Crown. If you know of
grants made after 1776 to US citizens, tell me about it. I don't.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
My eyes are hazel as well as my nuts"
Canonized December '99
>
shewobbles
> How utterly unoriginal, but I'm not surprised. Leftists often go for the
ad
> hominem insult in lieu of rational discourse.
Well the above statement wasn't too original either, in fact, it's a bit if
a usenet cliche. See below for some of your non-insulting "rational
discourse"-hypocrite
MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:oc4pfssg8326i3vh7...@4ax.com...
> What you are smelling is your own bile blowing back in your face.
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:pbdpfs89odc9h50aj...@4ax.com...
> Aye, they should have left 'em there untill they all pissed their pants
and
> then cut 'em all loose with an acetelene torch. Har.
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:6idpfsoeu9rlsdu50...@4ax.com...
Christopher Bruce
>
> lots of snips
>
> . The police acted properly
> > >to keep
> > >> the streets open and to protect private and public property. These
> > >people
> > >> are not *protestors*; they are *rioters*.
> > >>
> > >Could it have something to do with the fact they were throwing rocks
> > >and bottles at the police, as well?
> >
> > characters who will put up a mighty howl about their tax bill when they go
> > out into the real world and get a real job. If they ever do.
>
> of generations of so-called left wing rioters you wouldn't HAVE freedom of
> speech, or human rights, nor even a decent wage, nor would your average
> ex-peasant family have any property to protect.
> Possibly not even a job in your so-called 'real world' - which is about as
> real as the 'confidence' and paper money that sustains it.
>
> Do you think that over the last few centuries the people in power gave the
> working class and peasantry these rights and other things out of the
> kindness of their hearts? People had to demonstrate and 'riot' just in
> order to get basic safety measures in the pits in Scotland - let alone
> anything else.
> Have you even bothered to check out what it is so many people are willing to
> risk getting their heads stoved in for. It is you that need to learn what is
> 'real' in this world. Over a billion people going hungry is real. The fact
> that the west has so much food that Britain actually spends £50 million per
> year to dump the stuff - that's the real world that these people are
> protesting - sorry - 'rioting' about.
> While gullible, smug, gutless bastards stay safe at home and believe all
> the crap they are fed via their corporate sponsored media.
> Adam Whyte-Settlar
You ought to know that I don't find you at all adorable but I'm with you
on this one.
btw, I'm adorable too!
Does that make us two dorables?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
dozens
> >of generations of so-called left wing rioters you wouldn't HAVE freedom
of
> >speech, or human rights, nor even a decent wage, nor would your average
> >ex-peasant family have any property to protect.
>
> Carnegie's steel mills in Homestead, Pennsylvania. My father was a member
> of the United Steel Workers and suffered through many strikes and layoffs.
> I'm the product of what you would call a "working class" background.
>
> But somehow, I don't see the connection between the ideology of the left
and
> the colonials who rose up to kick the Brits out of the original 13
colonies.
> That's where my freedoms and rights stem from. I'm guessing you mean that
> the rebel colonials were to the left of the British oligarchs.
No - I wan't refering to the Empire at all. And to be honest the term 'left'
is pretty meaningless these days, but I was struggling to think of another
succinct label for these people who are fighting against the injustices that
are the inevitable by-product of a global finance system that is built on a
foundation of greed and fear.
There is no collective noun so far as I know.
> > Do you think that over the last few centuries the people in power gave
the
> >working class and peasantry these rights and other things out of the
> >kindness of their hearts? People had to demonstrate and 'riot' just in
> >order to get basic safety measures in the pits in Scotland - let alone
> >anything else.
> We had that sort of thing here in the U.S., also. What does it have to do
> with the demonstrations -- riots -- against the IMF/World Bank and the
WTO?
You seemed to be against protest per se and I was trying to point out that
the reason we have better laws than in medievel times ( well marginaly)
is because people protested and 'rioted' against the bad laws. If you stop
demonstrations with government backed force ( ie the pigs) then it is a
dictatorship just as much as it was in Russia and Britain in the eighties
and still is in China.
Those organizations exist for the express purpose of making things better
> economically in developing countries. The IMF/World Bank provides seed
> capital for investment and defends weak currencies in times of crisis (see
> the Mexico bail-out).
If that is so they could have afforded to write off some of the debts
without waiting for mass demonstrations to bring it to the attention of the
world before they did so. Another example of protest bringing about change
for the better.
The WTO exists to bring down trade barriers.
Now this really slayes me - you seem like a fairly intelligent sort of chap
and I find it hard to beleive that so many suckers fall for this line. For a
start they are a 'World' trade organistaion - they are overwhelmingly from
the USA and other highly developed countries.
The only trade barriers they are interested in removing are the ones that
stop their companies making even more profits at the expence of already
struggling people.
The
> left doesn't like these organizations because their solutions are based in
> capitalism. When they succeed, as they do,
that depends on your definition of success - millions starving while the
west dumps food is a failure by definition. And I have heard all the crap
about not having roads to transport it etc and it wont wash. If the US can
shift millions of tons of hardware to Iraq in about 6 weeks they could help
to shift food in times of emergency too.
the left loses credibility.
> Therefore, it behooves the leftists to trash those organizations at every
> opportunity.
I am not a left winger and I am not trashing Capitalism as such. I ran my
own company for 12 years before becoming a consultant so I have a basic idea
of how the system works, but as in any system left or right - to use an old
cliche - power corrupts. And the megalomaniacs who are trying to use a front
organisation of the so called WTO to further their own ends are as mad and
corrupt as Stalin and Thatcher.
> But the left is fighting a losing battle. The left is being discredited.
By the right wing controlled media - of course it is.
> It's not surprising that hardcore leftists are becoming more violent.
It's
> a death rattle, really.
Excuse me?- the footage I saw was of police smashing their truncheons into a
girls face and other similar incidents. I wasn't aware that your police were
hard core leftists.
> >While gullible, smug, gutless bastards stay safe at home and believe all
> >the crap they are fed via their corporate sponsored media.
>
> So I take it you favor government sponsored media, like they have in the
few
> remaining enclaves of communism? I'll take my chances with the "corporate
> sponsored media", thank you. At least they don't have armies.
They are contolled by the people in power at the time, wether it be business
tycoons, shoguns or dictators - it was ever thus.
The corporate sponsered media - (most of which is owned by a handfull of
individuals who - surprise, surprise, just happen to be members of the WTO)
are no better or worse than government controlled media - its just that
perhaps they are 'better' or more slick at protecting their and their
cronies vested interests.
I mean this is nothing new or clever - it has always been like this. I am
amazed that more people dont see it. I mean I dont have a solution or a
better alternative but for heavens sake - at least I can see the obvious
reality.
And they DO have armies - check that footage again - the police are very
like an army and they seemed to know which side was paying their wages.
The adorable
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
Micheil
<ian_o_m...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <955955624.28646.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit
>out of
>> Democratic protersers
>> I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
>
>Ejsy yjr givl jsd yjod yp fp eoyj smuyjomh?
>
>(contact me by e-mail for the encryption key)
>
That's easy!
Thwp mig flov hut ziop gw df thob glubvlop
(Nothing to it when you've tackled a Revenue Canada tax form.
Congratulations on your superb command of Inuktituk code!)
Teninimine does boggle the mind a bit, doesn't it, but at least d@ve
gave it his best shot! It's like Tennessee or Mississippi - one never
knows how many letters to throw in. I work on the old tried and true
"that looks about right" principle myself.
- měcheil
- innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg......
-------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
The Blessed Fr. Měcheil ŕ Talisker et Lagavulin, S.J.
-------------------------------------o0o--------------------------------------
Micheil
<br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:
>Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
>> =
>
>> lots of snips
>> =
>
>> . The police acted properly
>> > >to keep
>> > >> the streets open and to protect private and public property. Thes=
>e
>> > >people
>> > >> are not *protestors*; they are *rioters*.
>> > >>
>> > >Could it have something to do with the fact they were throwing rocks=
>
>> > >and bottles at the police, as well?
>> >
>> > Damn right, Jim!! That, too. Most of those leftist dupes are the sa=
>me
>> > characters who will put up a mighty howl about their tax bill when th=
>ey go
>> > out into the real world and get a real job. If they ever do.
>> =
>
>> Does it never occur to any of you right wingers that if it wasn't for d=
>ozens
>> of generations of so-called left wing rioters you wouldn't HAVE freedo=
>m of
>> speech, or human rights, nor even a decent wage, nor would your average=
>
>> ex-peasant family have any property to protect.
>> Possibly not even a job in your so-called 'real world' - which is about=
> as
>> real as the 'confidence' and paper money that sustains it.
>> =
>
>> Do you think that over the last few centuries the people in power gave=
> the
>> working class and peasantry these rights and other things out of the
>> kindness of their hearts? People had to demonstrate and 'riot' just in=
>
>> order to get basic safety measures in the pits in Scotland - let alone
>> anything else.
>> Have you even bothered to check out what it is so many people are willi=
>ng to
>> risk getting their heads stoved in for. It is you that need to learn wh=
>at is
>> 'real' in this world. Over a billion people going hungry is real. The f=
>act
>> that the west has so much food that Britain actually spends =A350 milli=
>on per
>> year to dump the stuff - that's the real world that these people are
>> protesting - sorry - 'rioting' about.
>> While gullible, smug, gutless bastards stay safe at home and believe a=
>ll
>> the crap they are fed via their corporate sponsored media.
>> The adorable
>> Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
>You ought to know that I don't find you at all adorable but I'm with you
>on this one.
>
>Chris
Me too. I've seen children dying from starvation. When I first came to
North America I was genuinely shocked by the casual wasting of food
and other resources by the ordinary citizen and the mindset which said
that if people starved, it was their own fault.
When a dictator seizes a country at gunpoint, grabs several million
dollars of US government-sponsored loans and moves to Switzerland,
leaving the people to pay the debt off, how is it their fault?
This is the reason for African poverty, which I didn't bother
explaining to Akins because he hates blacks so bitterly that nothing
can humanize them in his eyes.
Ghana was so raped by its dictators that today it has $2 a year to
spend on health care for each man, woman and child, but each man,
woman and child owes various US bank $6 a year. And Akins says the
rampaging AIDS in Africa is the fault of the African people. God's
punishment for being black, I suppose.
Africa is America's monument to rapacious exploitation. Where else can
you buy American cigarettes with five times the domestic US legal
limit of tar in them?
I am not attacking American taxpayers on this matter, because they can
have little idea of what is done in their name in Africa and many
other less advanced countries, but American business could give
lessons to the Swiss when it comes to sheer disinterest in what
happens to the ordinary person. The spectacular 20th century increase
in cancers among the non-elderly and many other evils underlines that
point. (Cancer was essentially a disease of the aging in the 19th
century.)
Micheil
>
>So I take it you favor government sponsored media, like they have in the few
>remaining enclaves of communism? I'll take my chances with the "corporate
>sponsored media", thank you. At least they don't have armies.
>
>
>MacHamish Mór
Wrong. They do. Armies of publicists and spin doctors. The tobacco
industry alone has made corporate lying an American art form. And I
write as someone who smokes far too much for good health. You
obviously don't remember Reagan telling the Canadian government that
acid rain didn't exist because he had been assured of that by the
people who were being blamed for producing it.
In any case, there is an old Roman legal tag that says when you
neighbour's house catches fire, it becomes your business. Nato and the
US have latched onto that thought militarily without any moral
difficulties. Well, in my opinion, starvation anywhere in our "global
village" is our business. I thought it was instructive to see The
(London) Times note that during the Mozambique crisis, the ordinary
British person's financial response "_as usual_" moved at lightning
speed while the British government dragged its feet.
Ordinary people usually know what is the morally right thing to do.
People are not demonstrating in Washington against capitalist
businesses per se; they are demonstrating against what capitalist
businesses do in other countries where poor government has failed to
put sufficient safeguards in place.
Even with the safeguards of modern industrialized states, we still
have endless scandals about matters concerning health and diet. From
Mad Cow disease to genetically altered crops to the ozone layer,
business thrashes around like an epileptic, desperately trying to get
that bottom line raised for the annual report, regardless of the human
cost. I speak as a businessman when I say that many businessmen have
lower morals than the staff at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.
To me it isn't a political question; it's a moral question, and it's
one that we'll have to address, because if we don't, eventually it
will become our problem. In some cases it already has, but still we
are assured by the spin doctor armies that "everything is under
control".
Like hell it is.
shewobbles
<part of excellent post snipped>
> Ordinary people usually know what is the morally right thing to do.
> People are not demonstrating in Washington against capitalist
> businesses per se; they are demonstrating against what capitalist
> businesses do in other countries where poor government has failed to
> put sufficient safeguards in place.
>
> Even with the safeguards of modern industrialized states, we still
> have endless scandals about matters concerning health and diet. From
> Mad Cow disease to genetically altered crops to the ozone layer,
> business thrashes around like an epileptic, desperately trying to get
> that bottom line raised for the annual report, regardless of the human
> cost. I speak as a businessman when I say that many businessmen have
> lower morals than the staff at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.
When working in the private sector, I have occasionaly been flabbersgasted
at some of the things I have seen my "piilar of the community" boss do. I
have a friend who recently returned to uni as an adult student to become an
overseas relief worker because she was so appalled at some of the things she
saw in her workplace. She was a secretary in a real estate office, and
often had to physically (bodily) protect her bosses desk drawers when he was
out of the office. Colleagues would steal each others leads. She said what
really galled her was the fact that they not only socialized together
outside of work, but supported one another at the funerals of their parents,
stood up for one another at their weddings, and grandparented each others
children, yet would steal from each other all in a days work. I'm not sure
if this is typical of that industry or not, but I can certainly empathize
with her disenchantment.
shewobbles
>Ian O. Morrison <ian_o_m...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit
> >>out of Democratic protersers
> >> I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
> >
> >Ejsy yjr givl jsd yjod yp fp eoyj smuyjomh?
> >
> >(contact me by e-mail for the encryption key)
> >
> That's easy!
>
> Thwp mig flov hut ziop gw df thob glubvlop
>
> (Nothing to it when you've tackled a Revenue Canada tax form.
> Congratulations on your superb command of Inuktituk code!)
>
> Teninimine does boggle the mind a bit, doesn't it, but at least d@ve
> gave it his best shot! It's like Tennessee or Mississippi - one never
> knows how many letters to throw in. I work on the old tried and true
> "that looks about right" principle myself.
>
real fast, it doesn't sound too bad <g>
shewobbles
the
> >>ad hominem insult in lieu of rational discourse.
> >
> >Well the above statement wasn't too original either, in fact, it's a bit
if
> >a usenet cliche. See below for some of your non-insulting "rational
> >discourse"-hypocrite
> >
> >MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:oc4pfssg8326i3vh7...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> What you are smelling is your own bile blowing back in your face.
> >
> >"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:pbdpfs89odc9h50aj...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Aye, they should have left 'em there untill they all pissed their pants
> >>and then cut 'em all loose with an acetelene torch. Har.
> >
> >"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:6idpfsoeu9rlsdu50...@4ax.com...
> >> characters who will put up a mighty howl about their tax bill when they
go
> >> out into the real world and get a real job. If they ever do.
>
as
> wind-ups. That's part of Usenet, too. However, the difference between
> yours and mine is that none of mine were directed at you personally
(unless
> you consider yourself a bile-filled leftist dupe who whines about paying
> taxes to support world welfare). No matter though. I can take as well as
> give.
Well, just because you were insulting d@ve and not me doesn't mean you're
not being insulting. What a strange defense. Anyway, I'm pretty much done
with this. It's not why I come to scs. And if I want a flame war, or a
political debate, quite frankly I can do better, so go "give and take" with
someone else.
Séimí mac Liam
Nick Durie <Nick_...@bun.com> wrote in message
news:38ff9...@news2.cluster1.telinco.net...
>
> Séimí mac Liam <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:NolL4.179$pK4....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
> >
> > news:gEbL4.213217$Hq3.5...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...> > > news:ELaL4.159$pK4....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
> > > > shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote :
> > > > > "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote
:
> > > > > >"Liz McLean" lizm...@home.com> >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> That comment shows your ignorance of the subject.. BTW,
I am
> > not
> > > >>>> a socialist, I simply think that broad sweeping
> > generalizations
> > > > >>>like yours indicate a lack of intelligence or reflection.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You will find Most of the ignorant comments in this
newsgroup,
> > > >>> come from the Undereducated Yankee contingent who have
generally
> > > >>>never been anywhere (cept V.N. and other subjugated areas)
and
> > have
> > > >>> little knowledge of "Real life"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They live off their Hispanic proletarian workers
> > > > >>backs..................
> > > > >
> > trying to live of the land in the frontier. If you think farming
or
how
> > most of the folks you say are "espousing the value of hard work,
when
> > they and their families benefitted from land grants years ago.",
got
are
> > a wobbly.
> >
>
> No they got their land because the natives had smaller guns
>
No argument here. Now, what's it got to do with what was being said?
Séimí mac Liam
No. You just want to spout your wobbly nonsense and not have anyone
challenge you. You come on knowing all about land in the U.S. but
when challenged, you are going to go away, because you didn't come
here for political debate.
Annika Ennok
> village" is our business. I thought it was instructive to see The
> (London) Times note that during the Mozambique crisis, the ordinary
> British person's financial response "_as usual_" moved at lightning
> speed while the British government dragged its feet.
with it. Mostly people don't help others the way they should. If you send
money and clothes and food there, you will have to watch out to whom you
send it and what do they exactly need. Also I have read about some nations
in North-Canada(?) who almost died out because of wrong kind of help. If
they have to work for this help, it will be better for them - they won't
get lazy and wait for the next help but will try to do something
themselves. People who don't work are often agressive.
Annika
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:32:22 +0100, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
> <glw...@dialstart.net> wrote:
> >> But somehow, I don't see the connection between the ideology of the
left
> >and
> >> the colonials who rose up to kick the Brits out of the original 13
> >colonies.
> >> That's where my freedoms and rights stem from. I'm guessing you mean
that
> >> the rebel colonials were to the left of the British oligarchs.
> >
>
> Well, what was I to think? You referred to leftists being responsible for
> my freedom of speech and human rights. That is patently wrong, at least
for
> a citizen of the U.S., and certainly for the U.K and many other nations,
as
> well.
I was speaking in more general terms, although the same principles apply. I
just meant that any reform in the law is usually brought about by street
protests and 'riots' by ordinary citizens who feel strongly enough about a
righteous cause to risk getting stomped upon by the paid lackies of those
who hold the reigns of power at the time. This might equally apply to the
British rule over the original 13 colonies or to the rule of the elite of
the large international conglomerates that effectively dictate government
policies throughout the world in this century.
Or in some cases they ARE the government.
>>I was struggling to think of another
> >succinct label for these people who are fighting against the injustices
that
> >are the inevitable by-product of a global finance system that is built on
a
> >foundation of greed and fear.
> >There is no collective noun so far as I know.
>
> I agree with you. A freedom fighter trying to throw off a tyrannical
> government is not necessarily a leftist, but might be. Same goes for a
> demonstrator against deplorable working conditions.
> >You seemed to be against protest per se and I was trying to point out
that
> >the reason we have better laws than in medieval times ( well marginally)
> >is because people protested and 'rioted' against the bad laws. If you
stop
> >demonstrations with government backed force ( i.e. the pigs) then it is a
> >dictatorship just as much as it was in Russia and Britain in the eighties
> >and still is in China.
> I'm not opposed to the free expression of their point of view. I am
opposed
> when it reaches riot stage and results in others' freedom of movement
being
> curtailed and the destruction of public and private property. Laws
> protecting freedom of movement and private property rights are among those
> laws that are better nowadays than in medieval times.
I don't know if you have the same law in the States but in Britain we have a
law called 'Lawful Excuse' which very basically means that if a company or
individual carries out an action that is 'technically legal' but is so
beyond the pale that people break the law to stop it happening, they can
then plead 'Lawful Excuse' as a defence in court.
As an example some
companies in Britain are releasing genetically 'improved' organisms into the
open environment and calling it ' scientific trials'. It is patently obvious
to any dickhead that releasing organisms into the open environment in no way
constitutes a proper scientific trial and therefore the protesters have
(quite rightly) destroyed the crops before they have had a chance to flower
and thus to contaminate every other crop within a 7 mile radius. These
people are claiming 'Lawful Excuse' at their trials.
They are being accused of damaging private property. The protesters claim
that the issue is so important that they are justified in their illegal
actions because they are protecting the human species from the folly of a
few blinkered, greedy, individuals who have only their own personal gain at
heart.
I tell this little story because I think it is very much the same kind of
moral dilemma we face with regard to the WTO's attempt to consolidate their
power. The fact that a few buildings get damaged is indeed regrettable but
when viewed in context of what is at stake then it is not quite so
important.
> > Those organizations exist for the express purpose of making things
better
> >> economically in developing countries. The IMF/World Bank provides seed
> >> capital for investment and defends weak currencies in times of crisis
(see
> >> the Mexico bail-out).
> >
> >If that is so they could have afforded to write off some of the debts
> >without waiting for mass demonstrations to bring it to the attention of
the
> >world before they did so. Another example of protest bringing about
change
> >for the better.
>
> As a matter of fact, forgiving some of the debts of developing countries
was
> on the table before the riots in Seattle and Washington, DC.
I know that - I wasn't inferring that the Seattle 'riots' were responsible -
there have been huge demonstrations in Britain calling for debt write offs
long before that and they have been going on for years.
>
> Besides, I don't think the debts should be written off so easily. This is
a
> very complicated issue. In some cases, IMF/World Bank funds have gone to
> line the pockets of corrupt local officials rather than to the intended
> purpose of helping development. In those cases, why should the average
> citizen of that country be made to suffer a burden created by the
corruption
> of his own government, especially if he has no say in the make up of that
> government?
Well that is exactly my point. Also you have to remember that a lot of these
'loans' were made on the condition that certain British ( and probably
American though I don't know for sure) companies were 'awarded' the
contracts to build new palaces and totally over-the-top international
airports
etc with the money loaned. This was a kind of primitive forerunner of the
WTO tactics perhaps.
>On the other hand, why should the World Bank, which is
> comprised of its member nations, suffer the loss? It is, after all, a
> *bank* (in the quasi sense, at least), and there's nothing unusual about a
> bank wanting to be repaid or investors expecting a return on their
capital.
Quite right. But each case needs to be judged on its own merits and I
personally believe that the west has a certain (whisper it) moral
responsibility that goes beyond pure economics. Also if the loan were made
to an individual company that company could declare itself bankrupt and be
protected by law from harassment by the bank. Doesn't seem to work like that
with poor countries.
> >
> >The WTO exists to bring down trade barriers.
>
> >Now this really slays me
> >The only trade barriers they are interested in removing are the ones that
> >stop their companies making even more profits at the expense of already
> >struggling people.
>
> Clearly, you've bought into the leftist propaganda. There are 136 member
> nations in the WTO, from Angola to Zimbabwe. In addition, there are 37
> observer nations, nearly all of which have applied for full membership.
And
> in addition to that, there are several "observer organizations", including
> the U.N., UNCTAD, FAO, WIPO, OECD. You can find the meaning of all
> these acronyms, and a full list of members and observers at:
And who has the most influence? And what are the motives? Who stands to
gain? That is always the question I tend to ask - maybe that makes me a
lefty
or a cynic , but I think the most revealing question is always that - Who
gains?
The people that I see gaining with my own eyes (forget what the media
says for the moment) are not the people living in mud corrugated iron shacks
and picking
bananas - they are the people who are complaining.
On a more local level for me personally - one of the 'reforms' the WTO wants
to make is the 'removal of barriers to trade' one of which is the
'Woodland Grant Scheme' a grant paid to farmers in Britain to plant amenity
trees for wildlife on their farms. Apparently this is a 'barrier to trade'
because it is only available to farmers who grown a crop on that land for a
minimum
of 3 years. Outside companies from the US buying up the land as the farmers
go bust ( which they are doing in large numbers) do not qualify and thus
this is ' a barrier to trade' and needs to be stamped out.
You couldn't make it up.
I could go on (and on) but this isn't really the place for detailed
argument.
One other point about the number of member countries in the WTO:
The British Commonwealth has over100 member countries ( I think! - a lot
anyway) but I don't remember Monseurat having much influence over who got a
share of the disaster relief fund for example.
> http://www.wto.org/wto/about/organsn6.htm
>
> See also this page, which is a listing of the 29 WTO members out of 48
> nations recognized by the U.N. as "least developed nations":
>
> http://www.wto.org/wto/about/devgroups.htm
>
> While I seem to be defending the WTO and the IMF/World Bank, I am a bit
> leery of their ultimate aims, IF, as some critics have claimed, these
> organizations represent the first stage of One World Government. I'm not
> yet convinced it's true, but there is an idea I would demonstrate against
> most vociferously, albeit hopefully without harming anyone or destroying
> property.
Oh Jeez - there we go again! **** property! - there are more important
things than property!
Thats the problem with materialists. The powers that be are quite content to
let us murder each other in the streets for drugs or even just for fun. but
just let any of us filthy peasants try to dare touch their sacred *******
'property' and its all hell breaks loose. Call out the national guard - Kill
those ******* property destroying hippies!
And it is not the 'first stage' of One World Government - wake up - this is
really happening. We are in the middle stage at least and most people
haven't
even noticed what is going on yet!
>
> >
> >The
> >> left doesn't like these organizations because their solutions are based
in
> >> capitalism. When they succeed, as they do,
> >
> >that depends on your definition of success - millions starving while the
> >west dumps food is a failure by definition. And I have heard all the crap
> >about not having roads to transport it etc and it wont wash. If the US
can
> >shift millions of tons of hardware to Iraq in about 6 weeks they could
help
> >to shift food in times of emergency too.
>
> Indeed the U.S., UK, and other nations of the Free World have shipped many
> tons of food aid to starving areas of the world. Remember Ethiopia, the
> Sudan, Somalia?
What do you mean remember? It is happening right now - today! Don't you
watch any TV? Or don't your leaders allow you to see the pictures we saw
tonight of starving kids in northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia. They are
at least two hours flight from Europe right enough.
And just to remind you it was the likes of Bob Geldof and the property
destroying hippies that raised Ł28 million to send food to them and not the
******* governments or the WTO.
The ordinary people were forced to by-pass the political process and take
matters into their own hands.
And you what - Thatcher had the absolute gall to go on TV and say 'This is a
splendid lesson TO the young people of this country'!
The cow couldn't even see that it was a lesson to her and her government
FROM the young people.
Those are the ones that come to mind. I'm sure there are
> others if I put more thought into it.
You're not wrong there pal - what about Bangladesh in the late 60's just for
one - that
was those hippies like 'The Beatles' and their ilk that raised the cash that
time too.
The problems of distributing the aid
> in the absence of good infrastructure is one very real challenge,
Yeah - it was a real problem getting thousands of tanks across the Iraqi
desert - not a road for 100 miles.
but even
> worse is the resistance that often comes in violent forms from the local
> power structure.
Once - not 'often'. I don't think the kids in Kenya that are dying as you
read this would seriously resist a few tons of powdered milk dropped from a
B52.
Maybe I am wrong - but if they shoot it down I will concede this part of the
discussion.
> Again, the leftists don't like to acknowledge that the capitalist world
has
> engaged in any humanitarian acts. It's nonsense. And it frequently
results
> in only more criticism. Look at what happened when troops went into
Somalia
> on a humanitarian mission. The local warlords doomed it to failure and
even
> killed some of those who were there to help their people, not only
soldiers
> but also members of humanitarian agencies. They preferred the anarchy
that
> gave them power. See also Haiti. It's not that uncommon.
This is a very complicated issue - I was as sorry as anyone that the US
soldiers got killed in Somalia but what happened that day would fill a book
( in fact it did fill a Sunday magazine - I read it )
and I haven't the time right now.
But it was an isolated case in bizarre circumstances and I reiterate that
you cannot use that instance to justify
the conspiracy of neglect in all the other cases.
>
> >the left loses credibility.
> >> Therefore, it behooves the leftists to trash those organizations at
every
> >> opportunity.
> >
> >I am not a left winger and I am not trashing Capitalism as such. I ran my
> >own company for 12 years before becoming a consultant so I have a basic
idea
> >of how the system works, but as in any system left or right - to use an
old
> >cliché - power corrupts. And the megalomaniacs who are trying to use a
front
> >organisation of the so called WTO to further their own ends are as mad
and
> >corrupt as Stalin and Thatcher.
>
> Oh, do come on, Adam. I hope this is just hyperbole. No matter how much
> you hated Thatcher, equating her with Stalin is a bit over the top.
The only reason it is not possible to equate Thatcher with Stalin is that
she did not manage to reach her full potential and she did not have so many
resources at her disposal.
She deliberately and cynically scuppered any chance of a negotiated
settlement in the Falklands because she was being slaughtered in the polls
in the run-up to her second election and she knew her only chance was a
so-called 'Khaki election' victory.
I forget the exact figures ( despite having read several books on the
subject) that died in the Belgrano ( I think it was 1,800) but from the
point that she sank that ship it would have been political suicide for
Galtieri to attempt a truce and she knew it.
So in effect, although the numbers killed to preserve their respective grips
on power were vastly different the principle of killing to maintain that
power was exactly the same in the case of both Stalin and Thatcher.
I seriously believe that she was genuinely evil and the world was just very
fortunate
that she came to power in a country like Britain and not Russia, China, or
even the US.
How
> many British citizens did she send to the gulags or to the firing squad.
> I'm surprised you didn't put Reagan in that sentence, also.
Oh yes - that senile puppet, Who could forget Ronnie at the Waldorf
Astoria saying 'I am so pleased to be here at the Airotsa Frodlaw'? ( Damn
those stupid mirrors )
What was the saying at the time about Reagan and Thatcher? Oh yes - 'She
promised to follow him to the end of the earth - and he promised to organise
it'
Damn near did too.
Well we all survived somehow and its something to tell our grandchildren
about. I don't think Reagan was evil in the way Thatcher was - but he was a
very dangerous guy to have in charge of a nuclear arsenal.- or a pen.
> >> It's not surprising that hardcore leftists are becoming more violent.
> >It's
> >> a death rattle, really.
> >
> >Excuse me?- the footage I saw was of police smashing their truncheons
into a
> >girls face and other similar incidents. I wasn't aware that your police
were
> >hard core leftists.
>
> If anything, they're tools of the hard core rightists. I don't like that
> idea either.
>
> Frankly, while I saw some of the action on the TV news, I didn't see any
> girl being hit in the face with a truncheon. Therefore, I'm tempted to
deny
> it ever happened.
Well of course - if you didn't see it - it didn't happen - nobody would
dispute that.
But, supposing it did happen, did the camera catch the
> conversation between the policeman and the girl? Did they show what she
was
> doing immediately before the alleged incident?
Well if you mean was it like the girl in Chicago in '67 ( or was it 68?) who
was putting a flower in the national guardsman's gun barrel when she got
smacked in the
face with it - then no - it wasn't like that. Oh - you didn't see that
either? My mistake.
Did you happen to catch the mounted police clubbing a pregnant woman at
Olgreave in the 87 miners strike - She must have constituted a real threat.
What cracks me up however is when people DO see it and still deny it can be
happening in our wonderful democracies.
The miners were set up by Thatcher in revenge for the 73 strike that toppled
the Heath government. It was well planned out years in advance and she used
the police as her private army. (They got a 17% rise in the first weeks
after she was elected - nurses got 2.4%)
Do we know for sure that she
> didn't threaten the copper with a gun or mace? The media can use footage
to
> show whatever they want,
Well we agree on that at least.
and, believe it or not, certain segments of the
> media tend to favor the left in these cases.
The Thatcher government consistently accused the BBC of left wing bias
throughout the miners strike too.
They kept showing things like the police charging their horses into the
miners families which was considered very left wing for the BBC.
My understanding is that,
for
> the most part, the demonstrations were peaceful, EXCEPT for a small group
of
> hard core fanatics who *wanted* the media to show police brutality for
> propaganda purposes.
I get it - the girl volunteered to have all her teeth smashed in - that is
pretty brave for a 18 - 19 year old.
But real sneaky too - guess she got what was coming to her huh?
Females can be hard core agitators, too, you know.
> Ask any survivor of the "domestic wars".
Too right - the women are just brilliant. I am in total awe of them. .
>
> >> >While gullible, smug, gutless bastards stay safe at home and believe
all
> >> >the crap they are fed via their corporate sponsored media.
> >>
> >
> >> So I take it you favor government sponsored media, like they have in
the
> >few
> >> remaining enclaves of communism? I'll take my chances with the
"corporate
> >> sponsored media", thank you. At least they don't have armies.
> >
> >They are controlled by the people in power at the time, whether it be
business
> >tycoons, shoguns or dictators - it was ever thus.
>
> Well, I will admit that corporate owned media presents the news with a
> slant. One needs only watch Ted Turner's CNN to see how that works.
Turner
> and his (soon to be) ex-wife (the former Hanoi Jane Fonda) are flaming
> leftists and the news his staff chooses to show reflects it. Did you
happen
> to see the CNN series near the end of the year called "Millennium"? The
> credits at the end of each show trumpeted the fact that Ted Turner was
> responsible for the series concept. Every show was a catalog of the evils
> man has perpetrated on his fellow man and the environment for the past
1000
> years. Hardly a single positive accomplishment of humankind merited a
> mention. So you see, just because a media empire happens to be controlled
> by a capitalistic corporation doesn't mean that it will favor the
capitalist
> point of view. Turner has his millions and always will. He lives at the
> center of a certain power structure which favors the enslavement of the
> masses through One World Government, all under the guise of protecting our
> fragile environment. Watch out for this guy. He and his cronies are a
> serious threat to your freedoms.
Hmmm. No I don't know this guy but thanks for the tip. I think the last
Millennium has seen fantastic improvements in some areas but it will all be
in vain if we turn the planet into a desert in the process.
I think this coming Millennium is make or break time for the human race so
its
such a privilege to be alive to watch it all unfold.
Sure would like to see a lot more happiness in other countries though.
>
> >The corporate sponsored media - (most of which is owned by a handful of
> >individuals who - surprise, surprise, just happen to be members of the
WTO)
>
> Wrong, Adam. More propaganda from the left. See the URL's above. The
WTO
> is a governmental organization (or quasi, if you prefer).
I definitely prefer 'quasi' and even that is being generous.
Representatives
> are members of their respective governments.
Hmmm. You mean like Heseltine was. He was deputy prime minister in the 80s
and just happened to be the most powerful businessman in Britain too.
He was the third richest guy in the country then ( or thereabouts)
The WTO was an outgrowth of
> the GATT trade negotiations. Do some of the representatives look out for
> the interests of corporations based in their countries? Certainly.
That's
> the way these organizations operate. Everyone is there to make sure their
> own interests are represented.
Agreed.
Would you prefer that there be no forum
for
> the expression and negotiation of issues? That would lead to chaos in
world
> markets and quite possibly open warfare.
There is no real forum for global debate - that is one of my points - any
resistance to what these faceless bastards 'decide' on 'our behalf' is
crushed by force if need be. Or ignored if the protest is peaceful. The way
the planet is shaping up at the moment the consequences of unrestrained
exploitation of resources ( sorry - I mean the removal of barriers to trade)
is going to be just as destructive as a war anyway. Same result - ravaged
land - millions dead.
> >are no better or worse than government controlled media - its just that
> >perhaps they are 'better' or more slick at protecting their and their
> >cronies vested interests.
> >I mean this is nothing new or clever - it has always been like this. I am
> >amazed that more people don't see it.
>
> See what? That people, companies, and governments will pursue their own
> self interests? It was ever thus and ever will be. There is absolutely
> nothing wrong with it as long as it is contained within the bounds of law
But they MAKE the laws, or at the very least are very influential in
maintaining the status quo if the law favours their own ends.
Thats why we have that clause 'Lawful Excuse'.
> and reasonable compromise. Negotiation is the road to compromise. The
WTO
> is the forum where negotiation takes place.
Well nobody asked me for my opinion - did they invite you? If all they are
doing is so much for our own good how about a referendum on some of the
issues so it really is open to negotiation and public debate. What are they
scared of?
>
> >I mean I don't have a solution or a
> >better alternative but for heavens sake - at least I can see the obvious
> >reality.
> >And they DO have armies - check that footage again - the police are very
> >like an army and they seemed to know which side was paying their wages.
>
> Nonsense. An army attacks nations, the police protect private property
and
> individual safety and enforce the rule of law.
Armies are also used to crush internal revolts - and you can rest assured
that if the police had been outnumbered to the point that they couldn't
control the crowd then the army would most definitely have been used as they
have been used throughout history to crush protest.
Those are necessary
> functions in any society. I imagine you would feel a bit different about
> the police if you had been the owner of the coffee shop or one of the
other
> businesses that were destroyed in Seattle, or if you happened to have your
> personal schedule disrupted by a rampaging mob of rightwing activists.
As I have already mentioned there are some issues that are so important that
a shop owner having to make an insurance claim is not in the same league.
It is very visible damage - of course it is - I bet the same clip was shown
ad nauseum on TV - what you don't see is the massive damage being caused by
the insidious spread of the diseases of poverty and exploitation in the
silent, hidden parts of the world. Thats where the real damage is being
done.
With kind regards
shewobbles
>No. You just want to spout your wobbly nonsense and not have anyone
> challenge you. You come on knowing all about land in the U.S. but
> when challenged, you are going to go away, because you didn't come
> here for political debate.
Geez guy, who spit in your beer? That is both unfair and untrue. First of
all, I do not come *here* to scs to "spout my wobbly nonsense", as you so
call it. I have only been posting here a few months, but I think if you
check, you will see that for the most part, I have tried to blend in with
the people here, and not attempted to proselytize my views in any way.
Secondly, I don't think that the previous poster "chaallenged" me in any
way. I think he engaged in some pretty formulaic Usenet stuff you read
everywhere, for example line about "typical of your side to engage in ad
hominem attacks when you are losing" which is seen on a daily basis on most
political NG's, as if one side or the other has a monopoly on that. Also
typical of Usenet is the fact that the person who says it has invariably
been the first person in the thread to do so, although much earlier in the
thread, but resorts to this comment when they feel that they have been
insulted. I didn't feel my conversation with that particular person was in
any way productive, so I let him know that I was checking out, just so that
he wouldn't perhaps wait around for a reply, or think that I hadn't seen his
post. In regards to yourself, I did not "come on knowing all about land in
the US". I have read a little about the US, and a little more about Canada,
and hadn't replied to *you* yet, because I actually wanted to take some time
and go through my books, and give you a thoughtful factual reply. I had
thought you were genuinely interested in the answer. However, I am
beginning (I'm slow, I know) to sense some nastiness in your tone, and am
uncertain as to why this is directed at me, and equally uncertain about
proceeding in this discussion now, if is going to based around an attitude
of spitefullness, which quite frankly mystifies me.
Séimí mac Liam
And of course there is no spitefulness in the following:
"Actually D@vid, I disagree, right-wing condescension is wide spread,
which I
find very ironic, because most adherents to such thinking would be
nowhere
today, had not they or their antecedents benefitted from policies and
legislation brought about by left-wing agitation or mobilization. And
don't
forget, while people were being cleared off land in Scotland, in the
US &
Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up when I hear them
espousing the value of hard work, when they and their families
benefitted
from land grants years ago."
What, besides spite, could motivate such socialist rhetoric? Not only
is it a sweeping generalization, it is patently untrue in most cases.
If you can show me where most of the adherents of conservative thought
have ancestors benefitting from land grants in the US, I'll admit that
the above statement was not a cheap effort at marginalization of
people whose political beliefs run counter to yours. I don't know
were you live or where you grew up, but your perception of who it is
that makes up adherents of "such thinking" in the US and how they got
what they have is skewed way to the socialist propagandist's side of
the scale. I don't know why it is convienent for you to hold these
views, but if you espouse them in my presence, expect to have
everything that I know to be unfactual about them challenged. I am
perfectly willing to admit that there is evidence that can support
your point of view. I do, however, reserve the right to vett your
arguments.
--
James C. Woodard
"Too many laws make scofflaws of all"
http://www.aracnet.com/~gwyddon/
gwy...@aracnet.com
>
Micheil
wrote:
>"Micheil" <Mic...@Ireland.com> wrote in message
>news:38ffc5fe...@news.primus.ca...
>>Ian O. Morrison <ian_o_m...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > "~wedding-services~ UK" <da...@wedding-service.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Last night on TV I saw the FREEDOMLOVINGYANKEECOPS beating the shit
>> >>out of Democratic protersers
>> >> I think the place was called Teninimine Square, USA
>> >
>> >Ejsy yjr givl jsd yjod yp fp eoyj smuyjomh?
>> >
>> >(contact me by e-mail for the encryption key)
>> >
>> That's easy!
>>
>> Thwp mig flov hut ziop gw df thob glubvlop
>>
>> (Nothing to it when you've tackled a Revenue Canada tax form.
>> Congratulations on your superb command of Inuktituk code!)
>>
>> Teninimine does boggle the mind a bit, doesn't it, but at least d@ve
>> gave it his best shot! It's like Tennessee or Mississippi - one never
>> knows how many letters to throw in. I work on the old tried and true
>> "that looks about right" principle myself.
>>
>Actually, while d@ve's version may not "look about right", if you say it
>real fast, it doesn't sound too bad <g>
>
That's how d@ve does it - it's a phonetic/musical rendering of the
sound.
Micheil
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:50:22 GMT, Mic...@Ireland.com (Micheil) wrote:
>
>>Africa is America's monument to rapacious exploitation. Where else can
>>you buy American cigarettes with five times the domestic US legal
>>limit of tar in them?
>
>You'll have to explain that one to me, Micheil. Virtually all of Africa was
>carved up and exploited by the European powers during the colonial period.
>Some of the pseudo-nations from that time are still part of the British
>Commonwealth of Nations. Some of Africas' problems are traceable to
>policies put in place by the white colonial governments. Some are traceable
>to the backward and corrupt native based governments that took over when the
>European governments washed their hands of the continent. No, Africa
>EUROPE'S monument to rapacious exploitation.
Wake up and pay attention. The British Empire at least did its best to
give their colonies some semblance of law and order and to leave
behind the makings of western-style parliamentary systems, working
civil services and the trappings of a modern society. They pulled out
with some reluctance because they knew that trouble would erupt once
they left. However, America applauded Britain for taking a democratic
view towards the freedom of peoples to control their own affairs.
By contrast, the American Empire has an evil reputation for tampering
with other countries' affairs and often devastating them. Whether in
Central and South America or Southeast Asia, there are many ravaged
regions which can testify to American "helpfulness". Most Central
Americans think of American aid as "the Marines wading ashore".
When the British left Hong Kong, it was at a solemn ceremony where
power was formally handed over and a written promise of no reprisals
against Britain's local supporters asked for and obtained.
When the Americans left Vietnam, it was from the roof of the American
Embassy by helicopter, while those local Vietnamese who had supported
the Americans were abandoned at the Embassy gates to their fate.
I once had a conversation with Habib Bourguiba, then President of
Tunisia, who said he wished that Tunisia had been a British colony
instead of a French one and pointed to the peaceful handing over of
power in most former colonies. Look at the membership of the British
Commonwealth, former colonies which joined of their own independent
free will so as to retain the links with Britain. Why, even the
Republic of Ireland, perhaps the bitterest enemy Britain has ever had,
has been considering joining.
>>I am not attacking American taxpayers on this matter, because they can
>>have little idea of what is done in their name in Africa and many
>>other less advanced countries, but American business could give
>>lessons to the Swiss when it comes to sheer disinterest in what
>>happens to the ordinary person. The spectacular 20th century increase
>>in cancers among the non-elderly and many other evils underlines that
>>point. (Cancer was essentially a disease of the aging in the 19th
>>century.)
>
>I smell a red herring.
Then blow your nose and get the stench of personal agenda out of our
nostrils.
This may come as a shock to you, but there are people who genuinely
care about what happens in Africa. This includes people like myself
who have been there to see for themselves and don't rely on wildly
biased White House press releases for their information.
I think this is an international problem which concerns us all. Your
attempts to hijack the discussion by introducing nationalism and past
rights and wrongs do the oppressed and starving, and your own
credibility no service.
Micheil
I think you'll find that corruption is a way of life in almost any
country in the world and most people in the business of giving aid are
very alert to that it.
People dying of starvation are generally not too lazy to help
themselves. More usually they haven't the physical strength to help
themselves.
I will NEVER forget seeing crying chldren with swollen bellies from
eating vegetation which their systems could not process and being told
that they were essentially the walking dead as far as any further help
was concerned. Their leaders, who deliberately let situations like
theirs develop, should be hanged slowly over roasting fires. People
like the warlords of Africa and the greedy dictators should be hunted
down and exterminated publicly, so that all may absorb the lesson - do
this to your people and we guarantee you will die in hideous agony.
Yet there are always those who figure they can beat the system. You
cannot conceive of the sheer cruelty which exists in this world unless
you have seen it - even then, it's difficult to believe that people
could actually do to each other what they do as a matter of course.
There is a book called "The Torturers" which describes the lives of
those who officially torture on behalf of a state for a living. Can
you imagine that they spend all day causing excruciating agony to
their victims, often killing them, then leave work at 5 o'clock and go
home to eat supper, watch television and play with their kids.
Read Fania Fenelon's "Playing for Time" for an insight into their
minds - the SS at Auschwitz recreating a little line of German style
cottages for their wives and children to enjoy the summers in their
gardens, while the smell of burning Jews hung over everything like a
permanent roast in the oven.
Or the Natinal Geographic's coverage of the Gulag system after the
collapse of the Soviet Empire. The same men are still in charge,
talking worriedly of their pensions and their retirement now that the
political order has changed, but still smirking into the camera for
the benefit of their international audience, men who had no problems
torturing and even killing those imprisoned for, as an example, their
religious beliefs, if they stepped out of line.
Nobody who lives in a western democracy and hasn't travelled to a
non-democratic country seems to grasp his or her incredible luck in
having what the average western citizen takes for granted - freedom of
speech, protection against unjust imprisonment, torture and murder by
the police, the army. or even the bodyguards of someone they have
offended.
Jim Stewart
> Nobody who lives in a western democracy and hasn't travelled to a
> non-democratic country seems to grasp his or her incredible luck in
> having what the average western citizen takes for granted - freedom of
> speech, protection against unjust imprisonment, torture and murder by
> the police, the army. or even the bodyguards of someone they have
> offended.
Incredible luck, I have felt that often. You realize that if you keep your
mouth shut,
things will go on. If you speak out, things will go on without you. The road
from
a few rich and many poor to middle class is a difficult one. And there is no
long term
proof that anything we have will last more than a century or two. We have
already
spent one of these centuries. Things are so much more complicated than
giving the
millions fishing rods.
Jim (aggie) Stewart
Rob...@your.beckon.org
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Micheil wrote:
>> village" is our business. I thought it was instructive to see The
>> (London) Times note that during the Mozambique crisis, the ordinary
>> British person's financial response "_as usual_" moved at lightning
>> speed while the British government dragged its feet.
>I just read about helping African countries. There is a problem connected
>with it. Mostly people don't help others the way they should. If you send
>money and clothes and food there, you will have to watch out to whom you
>send it and what do they exactly need. Also I have read about some nations
>in North-Canada(?) who almost died out because of wrong kind of help. If
>they have to work for this help, it will be better for them - they won't
>get lazy and wait for the next help but will try to do something
>themselves. People who don't work are often agressive.
> Annika
Ah, but the minority supremacists will never have that, especially the Brits.
They all savour the next opportunity (which are constantly abundant) to gather
massive amounts of public funds and throw them to the wind, in the hope that
it will help to spawn the next generation, which will serve to perpetually
support the process.
--
Illicit drugs: transshipment point for opiates and cannabis from Southwest
Asia and the Caucasus via Russia, and cocaine
from Latin America to Western Europe and Scandinavia; possible precursor
manufacturing and/or trafficking
--
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/en.html
Rob...@your.beckon.org
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:50:22 GMT, Mic...@Ireland.com (Micheil) wrote:
>
>>Africa is America's monument to rapacious exploitation. Where else can
>>you buy American cigarettes with five times the domestic US legal
>>limit of tar in them?
>
>You'll have to explain that one to me, Micheil. Virtually all of Africa was
>carved up and exploited by the European powers during the colonial period.
>Some of the pseudo-nations from that time are still part of the British
>Commonwealth of Nations. Some of Africas' problems are traceable to
>policies put in place by the white colonial governments. Some are traceable
>to the backward and corrupt native based governments that took over when the
>European governments washed their hands of the continent. No, Africa
>EUROPE'S monument to rapacious exploitation.
>
>>I am not attacking American taxpayers on this matter, because they can
>>have little idea of what is done in their name in Africa and many
>>other less advanced countries, but American business could give
>>lessons to the Swiss when it comes to sheer disinterest in what
>>happens to the ordinary person. The spectacular 20th century increase
>>in cancers among the non-elderly and many other evils underlines that
>>point. (Cancer was essentially a disease of the aging in the 19th
>>century.)
>
>I smell a red herring.
>
>MacHamish Mór
Nay, that would be thawing moose dung, or possibly seepage of rotting
brain cells.
[ LOL ;]
Micheil
If you are suggesting that the British state supports the illicit drug
market, then you are even more deranged than I first thought.
Akins of that Ilk
Liz McLean wrote in message ...
>"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
> news:R6wL4.215$pK4....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
>>>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they and
>>>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
>
>
>about pioneer settlers racing to claim free land and John Wayne's movie
"the
>New Frontier" on the same theme, then removing duplicate hits and dead
>links. I came up with the following. The links below refer to people who
>got free land in the US (and a few in Canada). Some pages are personal,
some
>academic, some governmental.
My family received a number of land grants. In 1827 a "Land Lottery" was
held, in which my 4th great grandfather won 202 1/2 acres of land in
Carrollton, Carroll Co., Georgia. His brother, John, also won the same
amount, but sold his shortly thereafter. My 4th great grandfather evidently
did not sell his right away, though he never lived on it. My great, great
grandfather was born there in 1832 and the family lived there until 1836
when my 3d great grandfather got his own bounty land grant for 160 acres in
what is now Polk Co., Georgia, where the family moved to and lived until
1855 when they moved to Whitesville, in Marshall Co., Alabama, and entered
more government land, stayed there until 1862 ans then moved to Walker Co.,
Alabama, and entered government land again. I still live on a part of the
160 acres that my great grandfather Akins purchased in 1900, which adjoined
his father's property which had been traded in the 1880's between my great,
great grandfather and his brother. I think it boils down to that auld Scots
saying: "If it's free, it's for me!"
>http://www.camdencounty.org/book1.html
>http://www.cruising-america.com/aline/history.html
>http://www.optonline.com/comptons/ceo/00161_A.html
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/sd/andreas/biography/bonhomme.html
>http://www.americanwest.com/pages/wexpansi.htm
>http://globalgazette.net/gazbm/gazbm049.htm
>http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/davidburket.htm
>http://www.finearts.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/Clark/detente.html
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7934/thewest.html
>http://www.softadventure.net/eden_ravished.htm
>http://www.ringofamilyhistory.com/d0/i0000138.htm
>http://www.peak.org/~mransom/a2m.html
>http://www.nisto.com/cree/lubicon/1996/19960620.html
>http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/blakbios.html
>http://pslab11.polsci.wvu.edu/wv/history.html
>http://www.kshs.org/places/marker.htm
>http://www.leadershipconference.org/lectures/lecture5.htm
>http://www.northstarnet.org/hpkhome/consoc/newsletters/newsfa97.html
>http://www.genealogy-books.com/books/gpcrw.html
>http://www.doi.gov/bia/houmabib.htm
>http://www.discovernelson.com/history/index.html
>http://www.sfsu.edu/~hsa/ex-post-facto/mead.html
>http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/TURNER/chapter6.html
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~bonjourf/neuchatel-Bonjour.html
>http://www.intranet.ca/~mmackay/chignecto.html
>http://sailor.gutenberg.org/etext95/swest10.txt
>http://media.esd112.wednet.edu/cat/wwwnam.htx
>http://www.global2000.net/fortklock/second
>http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/INCORP/TEXT/ch01.html
>http://flash.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cowley/Oldnews/Papers/DEMOCRAT.HTM
>http://www.alhambralibrary.org/alh2hist.html
>http://www.zoomnet.net/~blogan/v01n12.html
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8754/padhist.htm
>http://www.ezl.com/~pfrazier/edward.txt
>http://frontpage.inficad.com/~genelea/gerhist/1d.htm
>http://genweb.net/~blackwell/ma/groveland1950/groveland1950.html
>http://www.lusaweb.com/gen/azores/sacps_s.htm
>http://www.familysearch.net/sg/North_Dakota.html
>http://frontpage.inficad.com/~genelea/gerhist/1oo.htm
>http://www.tngennet.org/tnland/dov4.htm
>http://www.lm.com/~urichard/glasshi1.htm
>http://www.ausbcomp.com/~bbott/cowley/OLDNEWS/FLYERS/BIOG.HTM
>http://docsouth.dsi.internet2.edu/taylor/taylor.html
>http://www.comptons.com/encyclopedia/ARTICLES/0000/00067584_A.html
>http://www.hamcomm.com/ancestry/narrative.html
>http://www.westga.edu/~cscott/history/antebell.html
>http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/Feedback.htm
>http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~grace2/jeff/plainstatement.html
>http://www-ibt.tamu.edu/ibt/ccbn/mckeehan/dewitt/Feedback.htm
>http://www.genweb.net/~leesue/UnPIch1.htm
>http://www.destinationmaine.com/insiders/history.htm
>http://newadvent.org/cathen/15156a.htm
>http://www.50megs.com/dorsmygen/smyfam.html
>http://www.inwave.com/Milton/MiltonHouse/npsnom.html
>http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/library/towns/link/beulah89.txt
>http://canadianheritage.ca/books/canada5.htm
>http://www.ls.net/~newriver/nc/wnc4.htm
>http://www.pa-roots.com/armstrong/beersproject/chapter2/chap2.html
>http://www.channel1.com/users/hemlock/MakersHistorical.htm
>http://www.50megs.com/dorsmygen/dorfam.html
>http://members.aol.com/jeff560/wv-hist.html
>http://www.familysearch.org/sg/North_Dakota.html
>http://www.wvnet.edu/~gsa00350/wvinfo.htm
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~mohenry/biography/hcbioD.htm
>http://genweb.net/~raven/html/d107.htm
>http://www.lostintime.com/catalog/books/bookst/bo15000.htm
>http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/library/towns/link/bowdl61.txt
>http://gen.1starnet.com/civilwar/skidletr.htm
>http://pixel.cs.vt.edu/library/towns/link/ipsw58.txt
>
>
Liz McLean
news:R6wL4.215$pK4....@typhoon.aracnet.com...
> shewobbles <lizm...@home.com> wrote in message
>> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up
>>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they and
>>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
>Suffice it to say that you don't know what you're taliking about
This took me for ages, between wading through references to romance novels
about pioneer settlers racing to claim free land and John Wayne's movie "the
New Frontier" on the same theme, then removing duplicate hits and dead
links. I came up with the following. The links below refer to people who
got free land in the US (and a few in Canada). Some pages are personal, some
academic, some governmental.
http://www.camdencounty.org/book1.html
Rick Gall
Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message news:nS%
. . . . . .
> >> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up
> >>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they and
> >>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
>
. . . . .
I'm not clear who wrote that bit, but it implies an incompatability between
getting land grants and working hard, which is silly.
Land grants were issued because the people/government wanted the land to be
developed. i.e. a quid pro quo, for getting the land, you developed it. If
you didn't (and that was real, I mean real, hard work) you didn't get to
keep it.
Micheil
wrote:
You still can get free land in the North and you have to clear X
number of acres per years.
So many people abandoned farms in Montana and went to north to
Calgary, Alberta to find work in the stockyards that today their
grandchildren, who are American citizens by US law (but usually don't
know it), are estimated to comprise over 30% of Calgary's population.
Liz McLean
news:8hjddg$618$1...@news.igs.net...
> Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote
> . . . . . .
> > >> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up
> > >>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they and
> > >>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
> >
> . . . . .
> I'm not clear who wrote that bit, but it implies an incompatability
between
> getting land grants and working hard, which is silly.
Sorry if you read it that way. I was referring to people whom I have met,
(who have inherited land from their ancestors, who got it for free in the
place), who claim some superiority over people who have less, but also work
hard.
> Land grants were issued because the people/government wanted the land to
be
> developed. i.e. a quid pro quo, for getting the land, you developed it.
If
> you didn't (and that was real, I mean real, hard work) you didn't get to
> keep it.
----------------------
Building community with My eCom
http://myecom.net/?shewobbles
Séimí mac Liam
Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
> "Rick Gall" <rick...@igs.net> wrote in message
> news:8hjddg$618$1...@news.igs.net...
> > Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote
> > . . . . . .
> > > >> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me
up
> > > >>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they
and
> > > >>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
> > >
> > . . . . .
> > I'm not clear who wrote that bit, but it implies an
incompatability
> between
> > getting land grants and working hard, which is silly.
>
> Sorry if you read it that way. I was referring to people whom I
have met,
> (who have inherited land from their ancestors, who got it for free
in the
> place
I still have the same question about this. Who are these people who
got this land for free and where? Vague generalities used to trash
people who disagree with your political philosophies don't get it.
Liz McLean
"Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:0fv05.428$ru5.1...@typhoon.aracnet.com...
>
> Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
> news:B7v05.189367$55.40...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > "Rick Gall" <rick...@igs.net> wrote in message
> > news:8hjddg$618$1...@news.igs.net...
> > > Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote
> > > . . . . . .
> > > > >> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me
> up
> > > > >>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they
> and
> > > > >>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
> > > >
> > > . . . . .
> > > I'm not clear who wrote that bit, but it implies an
> incompatability
> > between
> > > getting land grants and working hard, which is silly.
> >
> > Sorry if you read it that way. I was referring to people whom I
> have met,
> > (who have inherited land from their ancestors, who got it for free
> in the
> > place
>
> I still have the same question about this. Who are these people who
> got this land for free and where? Vague generalities used to trash
> people who disagree with your political philosophies don't get it.
>
I already posted it, I guess Rick snipped it, I just checked my sent file,
but I empty it once a week. Anyway, I posted a long list of references to
settlers receiving free land in US. Also, I was not referring to "people
who disagree with my political philosophies". I was referring to people who
benefitted from a good start by receiving an inheritance, who have not the
humility to acknowledge their both their own good fortune, and the industry
of their antecedents, but wish to claim all credit for themselves, whilst
simultaneously impugning the character of those not so fortunate. I was
born in the slums of Glasgow, never have I seen such hardworking people, all
around me & up close, and yet they had nothing. I don't think lazy idlers
get anywhere no matter what, but I don't think hard work, in and of itself
guarantees anything, if it did, the slaves would have owned the south. Do
you believe that everyone who is quite well off earned it all by themselves,
totaly through hard work? Do you believe that everyone who is poor is lazy?
______________________________
Leo B.
>
<snippity, snippity, snap>
>
> Good God, I thought things were bad enough with a congenital punnist,
> but now we have an anagramist!!
>
> <speaking as a tautologist...>
>
> - měcheil
>
> - innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
Anagramist?? Congenital anagramist??? Well.............
Anagramist =
as a migrant
gains a tram
saga in tram
smart again
stag airman
tsarina gam
trams again
Congenital anagramist = Managing Altercations
McLeo of Portpatrick [Rapport of Celtic Mom, Celtic Fart: Mom or Pop]
:-)))))))))
Séimí mac Liam
Leo B. <le...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39451C...@erols.com...
I think he may have used the wrong word. Compulsive comes to mind.
Never could do those letter scramble thingies.
Liz McLean
"Holly" <HOLLY...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote in message
news:8hubv1$14t6$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Rick Gall <rick...@igs.net> wrote in message
> news:8hjddg$618$1...@news.igs.net...
> >
> > Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message news:nS%
> >
> > . . . . . .
> > > >> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It cracks me up
> > > >>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when they and
> > > >>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
> > >
> > . . . . .
> > I'm not clear who wrote that bit, but it implies an incompatability
> between
> > getting land grants and working hard, which is silly.
> >
> > Land grants were issued because the people/government wanted the land to
> be
> > developed. i.e. a quid pro quo, for getting the land, you developed it.
> If
> > you didn't (and that was real, I mean real, hard work) you didn't get to
> > keep it.
>
> Same here. I couldn't find the original comment but I agree with you.
> Homesteader were given virgin land that needed to be cleared, plowed,
water
> to be found and a home to be built. They went to the land with nothing but
a
> dream. In may cases there was no wood so the houses were built partially
> underground and out of sod. They would burn cow or buffalo chips for fuel.
> The settlers diets were not balanced. There were no doctors. Many died of
> disease (some died of disease they had no immunity for because they had
not
> been exposed to it in their native land) or loneliness, but they still
> thought The American Dream was worth a try. Many of the immigrants were
> Scottish, Irish etc. and a very tough breed of individual, men and women.
> The women made candles, soap, spun yarn, cooked over an open fire, and
> buried many of their babies (from the looks of the grave yard in Cripple
> Creek, Colorado.) How many men and women now could sheer sheep, boil the
> wool, dye it, card it, spin it and weave it? The life expectancy I believe
> was around the age of 40. So, the "benefited from land grants" had a high
> price attached to it, I would say.
First of all, I was mainly bitching about people I have heard. I agree with
much of what you say. Working land is hard, whether you a) buy it b) get it
for free c) are a tenant d) are an employee e) are a slave. Many people
lived exactly as you described. Some prospered, others failed, some were
good workers and managers, some blew it all away, some were con men and
speculators, most were people just like us. I am sorry if it seemed like I
was maligning homesteaders, I was making a comment about arrogant,
ungrateful boastful people of today.
_________________________________________________________________________
Liz McLean
> Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
> > > > > . . . . . .
> > > > > > >> in the US & Canada they were giving land away. It
> cracks me
> > > up
> > > > > > >>when I hear them espousing the value of hard work, when
> they
> > > and
> > > > > > >>their families benefitted from land grants years ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > . . . . .
> > > > > I'm not clear who wrote that bit, but it implies an
> > > incompatability
> > > > between
> > > > > getting land grants and working hard, which is silly.
> > > >
> > > have met,
> > > > (who have inherited land from their ancestors, who got it for
> free
> > > in the
> > > > place
> > >
> > > I still have the same question about this. Who are these people
> who
> > > got this land for free and where? Vague generalities used to
> trash
> > > people who disagree with your political philosophies don't get it.
> > >
> >
> > I already posted it, I guess Rick snipped it, I just checked my sent
> file,
> > but I empty it once a week. Anyway, I posted a long list of
> references to
> > settlers receiving free land in US.
>
> instance, The Outline of History(1954) makes the following
> statement.:
>
> "Yet a quarter of a century later, virtually all the country had been
> carved into states and territories. Settlement was spurred by the
> Homestead Act of 1862 which granted free farms of 160 acres to
> citizens who would occupy and improve the land."
>
> This statement is almost true. Under the Homestead Act, there was a
> small filing fee of 25 cents per acre. One then had five years in
> which to make neccessary improvements on the land and show "beneficial
> use". When one had done this, one assembled one's documentation and
> filed "final proof" and paid an additional $1 per acre. Thus making
> the "free land" cost the very same $1.25 per acre which it was sold by
> the federal government for between 1820 and 1862. Now you might argue
> that this is cheap land but you can't argue that it is free. And, I
> would argue that it wasn't even cheap. Check and see what $1.25 would
> buy in the period 1820-1900. Some of your other sources mention
> "grants of land to ex-soldiers. This land was granted for services
> rendered. Again, not free but a fee for services. There was some
> land taken by force on the edge of the frontier as it moved west.
> Some of the claims to this land were honored by the government and
> some were not. This land was held by right of conquest. One can
> argue the morality of obtaining land in this manner but I don't think
> that land bought with blood is either cheap or free.
Yes the Homestead Act was passed in 1862. There was a US for 85 years
before that, and settlers living on the land long before that. Look guy, I
really don't know what crawled up your ass and died, I don't understand why
anyone would care to insist that no-one got free land. I notice that other
people concurred that some land was given freely, yet you jump all over me.
Could this be an example of you attempting to "trash someone with whose
political philosophies you disagree."? BTW, if I 'conquer' you and take your
land, it would be *your* shed blood. I'd need some gall to be talking about
the land being paid with blood, when it wasn't my blood.
> >Also, I was not referring to "people
> > who disagree with my political philosophies". I was referring to
> people who
> > benefitted from a good start by receiving an inheritance, who have
> not the
> > humility to acknowledge their both their own good fortune, and the
> industry
> > of their antecedents, but wish to claim all credit for themselves,
> whilst
> > simultaneously impugning the character of those not so fortunate. I
> was
> > born in the slums of Glasgow, never have I seen such hardworking
> people, all
> > around me & up close, and yet they had nothing. I don't think lazy
> idlers
> > get anywhere no matter what, but I don't think hard work, in and of
> itself
> > guarantees anything, if it did, the slaves would have owned the
> south. Do
> > you believe that everyone who is quite well off earned it all by
> themselves,
> > totaly through hard work? Do you believe that everyone who is poor
> is lazy?
>
> Do you also wish to know when I stopped beating my wife and children?
Bad example, even the sophomoric trap of asking someone if he stopped
beating his wife only works if you set the precondition that the only
answers to the forthcoming questions may be a yes or a no.
> Those are just stupid questions. Of course hard work is not enough.
> You have to be willing to risk everything you have on your ability to
> succeed in you chosen endeavor. If you are not willing to do that
> then there is a much higher likely hood that you and your offspring
> will remain wage slaves.
And you have to be willing to make wage slaves of others, so that they and
their offspring can be wage slaves instead of you and yours.
>As wage slaves you are susceptible to being
> at the mercy of the same type of person who would deprive people of
> the wealth gained by them and their anscestors through hard work,
> thrift, ingenuity and perserverance in the name of economic justice.
> Where lies the justice in bringing down the successful to better the
> lot of the unfortunate, unsuccessful or lazy? Have all people who are
> well off obtained their position by illegal or immoral means? In any
> system there will be those at the top those in the middle and those at
> the bottom. Should we strive to structure the system to minimize the
> numbers at the to and bottom and maximize the number in the middle?
> By all means. In an effort to eliminate having anyone at the bottom,
> should we destroy any incentive for hard work and thrift and turn all
> into the grasshopper of fable? I leave it to you to answer. But on
> the issue of free land in the United States, I maintain that your
> wobbly friends have blown you full of smoke.
3 of my 4 oldest friends, whom I have known for *at least* 18 years are
descendants of families who were given their land. I knew these women long
before I ever heard of the Wobs.
> > Building community with My eCom
> > http://myecom.net/?shewobbles
>
> BTW, you seem to be doing your very best on this web page to get money
> without working, is this a case of cognative dissonance?
LOL, worse yet I'm participating in capitalism. But to answer your
question, no matter how much I had of anything, money or anything else, I
wouldn't think it made me any better than someone who had less. That is
what I was objecting to, when I said what I did.
Holly
Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:2FC15.1911$7o1....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> First of all, I was mainly bitching about people I have heard. I agree
with
> much of what you say. Working land is hard, whether you a) buy it b) get
it
> for free c) are a tenant d) are an employee e) are a slave. Many people
> lived exactly as you described. Some prospered, others failed, some were
> good workers and managers, some blew it all away, some were con men and
> speculators, most were people just like us. I am sorry if it seemed like
I
> was maligning homesteaders, I was making a comment about arrogant,
> ungrateful boastful people of today.
Oh, I apologize if I misunderstood or was rude. :)
Regards,
Holly
Séimí mac Liam
Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
And were your friends ancestors given their land in the US or in
Canada?
>
> > > Building community with My eCom
> > > http://myecom.net/?shewobbles
> >
> > BTW, you seem to be doing your very best on this web page to get
money
> > without working, is this a case of cognative dissonance?
>
> LOL, worse yet I'm participating in capitalism. But to answer your
> question, no matter how much I had of anything, money or anything
else, I
> wouldn't think it made me any better than someone who had less.
That is
> what I was objecting to, when I said what I did.
Well, I certainly apologise for misunderstanding. I thought you were
casting broad and sweeping generalities about to cast aspersions on
people whose affluence and position you envy in an effort to justify
your belief that it should be taken from them and given to someone who
hasn't earned it. I must have been wrong.
Micheil
>Micheil wrote:
>>
>
><snippity, snippity, snap>
>
>>
>> Good God, I thought things were bad enough with a congenital punnist,
>> but now we have an anagramist!!
>>
>> <speaking as a tautologist...>
>>
>> - měcheil
>>
>> - innis dhomh sgéile mu 'n Thěr nan Ňg...
>
>Anagramist?? Congenital anagramist??? Well.............
>
>Anagramist =
>as a migrant
>gains a tram
>saga in tram
>smart again
>stag airman
>tsarina gam
>trams again
>
>Congenital anagramist = Managing Altercations
>
>McLeo of Portpatrick [Rapport of Celtic Mom, Celtic Fart: Mom or Pop]
>:-)))))))))
Ye Gods - I've unleashed a monster!
Leo B.
Monster?!? Monster!?! No, not a monster, but:
rem snot [what you get during rem sleep]
me snort [me snort, me happy]
set norm [the posters on s.c.s. set the norm for all other newsgroups]
McLeo of Portpatrick
SkunkDML
land for free and where? >
My ancestors got land grants in then what was North Carolina, now it is East
Tennessee. They were payment for service in the American Revolution. One was
a prisoner of war in Charleston, for much of the war. I have visited that
jail. It was not a pleasant place.
Four others, my seventh great grandfather and his three other sons, got land
grants for fighting at the Battle of Kings Mountain in North Carolina.
They each received 649 acres. There are thousands of descendants of these men,
and the last one living on a portion of the original land grant died a little
over a year ago. He had no heirs and no will. It is still in probate as the
genealogy is traced to determine who will inherit.
It isn't me. He was not my direct ancestor, but a collateral line.
DEBORAH
Conway Caine
"SkunkDML" <skun...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000617015314...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> > I still have the same question about this. Who are these people who got
this
> land for free and where? >
>
East
> Tennessee. They were payment for service in the American Revolution. One
was
> a prisoner of war in Charleston, for much of the war. I have visited that
> jail. It was not a pleasant place.
>
> Four others, my seventh great grandfather and his three other sons, got
land
> grants for fighting at the Battle of Kings Mountain in North Carolina.
>
> They each received 649 acres. There are thousands of descendants of these
men,
> and the last one living on a portion of the original land grant died a
little
> over a year ago. He had no heirs and no will. It is still in probate as
the
> genealogy is traced to determine who will inherit.
>
> It isn't me. He was not my direct ancestor, but a collateral line.
>
County.
-Conway
(I'll bet we are kin, I'll bet)
SkunkDML
>County.
>-Conway
>(I'll bet we are kin, I'll bet)
I am from a little community in Knox County, north of Knoxville called Halls
Cross Roads. My ancestors from this area are Halls (yes, my family settled the
area), and McMillans. My husband is a Ledgerwood. And, part of his family was
the surname Scott from Southwest Virginia.
DEBORAH