TYPCIAL EURO-RACIST
R. Knauer
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I agree there should be a referendum on the Single Currency, and if there is
>>sufficient demand on membership. Doesn't however appear to be much in the
>>way of evidence to suggest people want a referendum on UK membership of the
>>EU as a whole.
>I wouldn't mind having a say though! Anyone else?
I am confused - I thought the UK *is* a member of the EU right now. I
realize that the UK is not a part of the EMU, but I thought that
Single Currency is separate from membership in the EU.
BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
Bob Knauer
Colin Rosenthal
R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
part?
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
R. Knauer
Rosenthal) wrote:
>>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>part?
No need to be such a twit. You don't seem to know much more than I do.
Bob Knauer
Colin Rosenthal
I know that there were two referenda. I know that they were both "yes"
votes. And I know that you're a moron. That's at least five pieces of
information I know that you don't.
Wolf
<rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu> writes
>On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:49:09 GMT,
>R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>
>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>part?
>
As I remember it, we were asked if we wanted to join a common market -
No, correct that, if we wanted to *stay* in a common market. We hadn't
been asked before they actually took us in.
The EU was just sort of sneaked past us. One minute it was a free trade
area, next they'd signed our sovereignty away.
Fenris
--
Wolf
FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
EU right now. I> realize that the UK is not a part of the EMU, but I
thought that> Single Currency is separate from membership in the EU.
The UK is a member of the EU, however this was achieved without any
mandate from the people which is why we are calling for a referendum on
Britains whole relationship with the EU.
At the last general election the main parties, who are all pro-EU, and
thus do not offer anything to those of us who think this is the wrong
direction for the UK, saw that our arguements were gathering speed and
decided to offer a referendum on a single currency, in the hope that
this would confuse the electorate. This worked in certain sections of
our society.
It is important to see that the single currency issue is not the be all
and end all of european intergration. It is a side issue.
The real issue is our loss of democratic control.
Best regards to you all
Angus Fraser
North Devon Referendum Movement
FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
EEC/EU - one before> Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were
clear yes votes. Perhaps> someone can provide the dates and clear up any
errors of recollection on my> part?
1. There has never been a referendum on European Union.
2. There was one referendum on the UKs continued membership of the EEC.
This was held on 5th June 1975. Turn out was 64.5%, of which the yes
vote amounted to 67.2 % (the NO vote equalled 32.8 % )
3. There was never a referendum on joining the EEC
4. There were two other referendums in the 1970s, on 8th March 1973,
(The Northern Ireland Boarder Poll) and on 1 March 1979 (Scottish and
Welsh Devolution)
R. Knauer
(Marc Living) wrote:
>On 3 Aug 1998 21:29:39 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
>(Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
>>>No need to be such a twit. You don't seem to know much more than I do.
>>I know that there were two referenda. I know that they were both "yes"
>>votes. And I know that you're a moron. That's at least five pieces of
>>information I know that you don't.
>Erm. Only one referendum was ever held.
You mean this blowhard piece of shit, Rosenthal, didn't even get
*that* right?
What a tosser, eh.
Bob Knauer
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and
not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.
There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no
hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
--Winston Churchill
R. Knauer
(Marc Living) wrote:
>On 3 Aug 1998 20:36:22 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
>(Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
>>>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>>>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>>>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>>part?
>No referendum was ever called to join the EEC. Nor were referendums
>called wrt British membership of the EC or the EU.
If there was no referendum for membership, how did the UK become a
member if not by govt fiat?
If the UK was placed in the EU by govt fiat, then my original
contention has merit - and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal, is
full of shit.
R. Knauer
LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Bob Knauer wrote > I am confused - I thought the UK *is* a member of the
>EU right now. I> realize that the UK is not a part of the EMU, but I
>thought that> Single Currency is separate from membership in the EU.
>The UK is a member of the EU, however this was achieved without any
>mandate from the people which is why we are calling for a referendum on
>Britains whole relationship with the EU.
Do you mean a referendum on possibly getting out of the EU altogether?
>At the last general election the main parties, who are all pro-EU, and
>thus do not offer anything to those of us who think this is the wrong
>direction for the UK, saw that our arguements were gathering speed and
>decided to offer a referendum on a single currency, in the hope that
>this would confuse the electorate. This worked in certain sections of
>our society.
I am sure they fired up the propaganda machine too - spreading Big
Lies such as how the "majority" of Brits want to be in the EU.
>It is important to see that the single currency issue is not the be all
>and end all of european intergration. It is a side issue.
Perhaps so - in terms of the broader issues, but I remind you that one
of the easiest ways to rob a country of its wealth is to devalue its
currency.
When the Single Currency is devalued below where the Pound Sterling
would have been, you will hear this big sucking sound as the
accumulated wealth of the UK is being siphoned off.
I understand that your considerable Pension Fund is the envy of the
Hun on the Continent, and that it will go a long way in ensuring that
people there will get a full 3 months off to go to the spa during
vacation.
>The real issue is our loss of democratic control.
Put another way, the real issue is your bloody sovereignty.
You are all about to turn over the UK to the Hun, who has tried for
1000 years to conquer you - and now you are just going to hand over
the UK without as much as a wimper.
But first your Fascist Rulers have to deliver you in a fully docile
condition - and that means complete gun confiscation. If you all do
not see just how ominous that last round of gun confiscation was, then
I suppose it is too late for you to react when the last round hits.
Without guns, you will be relegated to throwing rocks at your Fascist
Rulers when they deliver you to the Hun.
God help you when that happens.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>In article <6q5706$orf$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>, Colin Rosenthal
><rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu> writes
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:49:09 GMT,
>>R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>>>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>>>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>>part?
>As I remember it, we were asked if we wanted to join a common market -
>No, correct that, if we wanted to *stay* in a common market. We hadn't
>been asked before they actually took us in.
>The EU was just sort of sneaked past us. One minute it was a free trade
>area, next they'd signed our sovereignty away.
So, I was right and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal, is
completely full of shit.
Somebody pass the hat and get up enough money to send him back to AOL
where he belongs.
FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Go away. Grow up, then come back.
Best regards
Angus Fraser
R. Knauer
LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Bob Knauer = small child in a very big play ground.
>Go away. Grow up, then come back.
Fuck you, asshole.
You are gonna get the raping of a lifetime when the Hun gets ahold of
your wealth, and all you can do is make stupid childish statements
like that.
You are indeed a pathetic little tosser.
Cliff Morrison
ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net (Marc Living) wrote:
> On 3 Aug 1998 21:29:39 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
> (Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
>
> >>No need to be such a twit. You don't seem to know much more than I do.
>
> >I know that there were two referenda. I know that they were both "yes"
> >votes. And I know that you're a moron. That's at least five pieces of
> >information I know that you don't.
>
> Erm. Only one referendum was ever held.
unless you count as two:
1) the question the public thought they were voting on.
2) the one the politicians decided it really meant.
Colin Rosenthal
R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>So, I was right and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal, is
>completely full of shit.
So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
Knauer. I vote for Bob.
Colin Rosenthal
R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 10:33:21 GMT, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net
>(Marc Living) wrote:
>
>>On 3 Aug 1998 20:36:22 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
>>(Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
>>>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>>>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>>>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>>>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>>>part?
>
>>No referendum was ever called to join the EEC. Nor were referendums
>>called wrt British membership of the EC or the EU.
>
>If there was no referendum for membership, how did the UK become a
>member if not by govt fiat?
>
>If the UK was placed in the EU by govt fiat, then my original
>contention has merit - and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal, is
>full of shit.
Right, there was no referendum when it changed its name from EEC to EC
and then EU. Perhaps you think we should have referenda on every
decision taken by Brussels since any new decision would obviously not
have a mandate from the previous referendum? Of course your paranoid thesis
that our "national pension fund" (we keep it in the Nat West, you know) is
about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the mechanism of monetary union, takes
something of a beating from the simple fact that every political party in
Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union without
a referundum.
Cliff Morrison
Actually, most of the smaller parties *and* a very significant percentage
of the memberships of the big parties are *not at all* enamoured of the
monetary union/EUroCentral Bank idea....
Chris Raistrick
LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Bob Knauer = small child in a very big play ground.
Ah, you've met Bob before.
>Go away. Grow up, then come back.
To be fair, he can have a sensible conversation but he prefers
trolling.
--
Cheers,
Chris
R. Knauer
Once again, ShitForBrains Colin Rosenthal, screws up big time. You
would think that after getting it wrong so many times before, that
this pathetic tosser would just shut up, but not him. Nosiree, he is
gonna make a complete ass of himself before this is all over.
What I do not understand is how come most of you let him and idiots
like him get by with it. Can't you tell when you are being had? If it
hadn't been for a few knowledgeable posters, like Cliff Morrison here
and Marc Living, you all would have been off in the weeds again.
The only reason people like ShitForBrains Colin Rosenthal and his
equally moronic cousin, "FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED" (who
doesn't even know that it is bad form to use all capitals on the
Internet), hate me is because I caricature the absurdity of their
positions. They would much rather foist off their Big Lies in an
environment free from any dissent - like wolves in a sheep pen.
But the simple fact is that many people in the UK are very concerned
about the EU and especially the EMU - because they know the horrors
that can come from federalism. You need to get them equally concerned
over the gun confiscation agenda, because without guns any foes of the
EU/EMU are gonna be mere paper tigers.
Hell, all they have to do is look at the US to see what an unmitigated
disaster federalism is for the individual states - or how about Canada
for a complete disaster when federalism is mixed with rampant
Socialism.
And if you really want to see what the Hun has in store for you, just
read:
"European Parliament - An Appraisal of Technologies of Political
Control": http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.htm
Can you say "Political Control"? There, I knew you could.
Wolf
<rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu> writes
>On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 13:35:47 GMT,
>R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 10:33:21 GMT, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net
>>(Marc Living) wrote:
>>
>>>On 3 Aug 1998 20:36:22 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
>>>(Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
>
>>>>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>>>>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>>>>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>>>>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>>>>part?
>>
>>>No referendum was ever called to join the EEC. Nor were referendums
>>>called wrt British membership of the EC or the EU.
>>
>>If there was no referendum for membership, how did the UK become a
>>member if not by govt fiat?
>>
>>If the UK was placed in the EU by govt fiat, then my original
>>contention has merit - and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal, is
>>full of shit.
>
>and then EU. Perhaps you think we should have referenda on every
>decision taken by Brussels since any new decision would obviously not
>have a mandate from the previous referendum? Of course your paranoid thesis
>that our "national pension fund" (we keep it in the Nat West, you know) is
>about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the mechanism of monetary union, takes
>something of a beating from the simple fact that every political party in
>Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union without
>a referundum.
>
Brussels. Do you really prefer to have decisions foisted on us? Do you
prefer to have no input whatsoever?
The UK is being leached white by Europe, and the sooner we realise it
and get out, the better. If we are going to have a referedum on
monetary union, then we might just as well add a question on whether we
remain in the EU. But of course, we won't do that because the answer
couldn't be a guaranteed 'Yes'.
Fenris
--
Wolf
R. Knauer
Raistrick) wrote:
>Ah, you've met Bob before.
Funnnneee. Haha.
>To be fair, he can have a sensible conversation but he prefers
>trolling.
I have found by direct experience that "sensible conversation" is an
oxymoron on Usenet. Before very long someone comes along and tries to
disrupt any attempts at sensible conversation. So I decided to
pre-empt that by out-trolling the trolls.
A perfect example of having a sincere attempt at sensible conversation
disrupted by these little twits was when I posted a series of excerpts
about "The Right Of Englishmen To Keep And Bear Arms". I had just read
an excellent scholarly article which traced RKBA from the time of
Alfred The Great to the American Revolution, so I posted the excerpts
on the UK newsgroups to generate "sensible conversation". There was
nothing immflamitory about anything I posted.
It was no time at all before these little twits were carping and
bitching away because the underlying thesis of that article ran
counter to their hoplophobe agenda. But instead of debating with us in
a sensible manner, they began a barrage of utter crap which disrupted
the conversation.
It was right about that time that I decided that the only way to get
any kind of dialogue going on Usenet was to counter these pathetic
tossers immediately up front- IOW, fight fire with fire. Just as in
bridge where you preempt the auction with an opening bid of Three
Spades, you can preempt the twits with a strong opening.
Thus far it has been very effective because it forces these tossers to
take a strong opposite position initially, which can then be
dismantled systematically in a sensible manner. IOW, they don't get to
disrupt things with their little petty snipes - they have to go full
bore or shut up. When they go full bore they expose the absurdity of
their position for all to see.
Roderick MacDonald
from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
I vote for Bob as well.
Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
Rod
R. Knauer
wrote:
>The UK is being leached white by Europe, and the sooner we realise it
>and get out, the better. If we are going to have a referedum on
>monetary union, then we might just as well add a question on whether we
>remain in the EU. But of course, we won't do that because the answer
>couldn't be a guaranteed 'Yes'.
After your Fascist Rulers take the rest of your guns away, there will
be no further need to consult the people. And just think of all the
money you can save by not having to maintain the facade of
representative govt anymore. Why, I'll bet the Hun can afford yet one
more month vacation at the spa on the savings alone.
BTW, how many months do Europeans take off these days? Last I heard it
was 2 months paid vacation in the SWP of Germany. Somebody has to pay
for it, and since GB is just sitting there with all that national
wealth doing nobody in Europe any good, it is about time to raid it,
eh.
Wouldn't want the Huns to be overworked, would we?
Alan Smaill
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:49:09 GMT,
> R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
> >everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
> >anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>
> So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
> anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
> Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
> someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
> part?
No, there was only one referendum, after entry.
The 74-79 Labour government hadn't been able to work out if
it was pro or anti, and so held a referendum in early 75 (I think).
Of course, there had been votes beforehand in Parliament.
There was indeed a "yes" vote in the referendum.
(There was a referendum on British entry beforehand, in France,
but I doubt that's what you were referring to.)
> --
> Colin Rosenthal
> High Altitude Observatory
> Boulder, Colorado
> rose...@hao.ucar.edu
--
Alan Smaill, email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Department of AI tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University.
Colin Rosenthal
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6q796n$6a7$4...@ncar.ucar.edu>, rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu wrote:
>>...the simple fact that every political party in
>> Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union without
>> a referundum.
>
>Actually, most of the smaller parties *and* a very significant percentage
>of the memberships of the big parties are *not at all* enamoured of the
>monetary union/EUroCentral Bank idea....
There is no contradiction between these two statements.
Colin Rosenthal
R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 17:25:34 +0000, cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff
>Morrison) wrote:
>
>>In article <6q796n$6a7$4...@ncar.ucar.edu>, rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu wrote:
>
>>> and then EU. Perhaps you think we should have referenda on every
>>> decision taken by Brussels since any new decision would obviously not
>>> have a mandate from the previous referendum? Of course your paranoid thesis
>>> that our "national pension fund" (we keep it in the Nat West, you know) is
>>> about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the mechanism of monetary union, takes
>>> Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union without
>>> a referundum.
>
>>Actually, most of the smaller parties *and* a very significant percentage
>>of the memberships of the big parties are *not at all* enamoured of the
>>monetary union/EUroCentral Bank idea....
>
Of course nobody with two brain cells to rub together would see any
contradiction between Cliff Morrison's statement and the sentence of mine
which immediately precedes it.
Richard Gregory
>
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:49:09 GMT,
> R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
> >everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
> >anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>
> So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
> anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
> Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
> someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
> part?
Certainly - there has never been any UK referendum concerning the
European Union. Indeed, had the edifice been called this rather
than the nicer-sounding (if somewhat mislaeading) Common Market or
European Community I suggest the "Yes" would have been a little more
difficult to achieve.
Cliff Morrison
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 17:25:34 +0000,
> Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <6q796n$6a7$4...@ncar.ucar.edu>, rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu wrote:
>
> >>...the simple fact that every political party in
> >> Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union
without
> >> a referundum.
> >
> >Actually, most of the smaller parties *and* a very significant percentage
> >of the memberships of the big parties are *not at all* enamoured of the
> >monetary union/EUroCentral Bank idea....
>
> There is no contradiction between these two statements.
it was a comment in the passing, not an argument....
Colin Rosenthal
>In article <6q7jru$pmh$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>, rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 17:25:34 +0000,
>> Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote:
>> >In article <6q796n$6a7$4...@ncar.ucar.edu>, rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu wrote:
>>
>> >>...the simple fact that every political party in
>> >> Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union
>without
>> >> a referundum.
>> >
>> >Actually, most of the smaller parties *and* a very significant percentage
>> >of the memberships of the big parties are *not at all* enamoured of the
>> >monetary union/EUroCentral Bank idea....
>>
>> There is no contradiction between these two statements.
>it was a comment in the passing, not an argument....
_I_ know that, _you_ know that, but people with more testicles than brain
cells might not know that.
Stephen Copinger
> from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
>> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
>> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
>I vote for Bob as well.
On the basis we're talking time not size, I agree (based purely on his
over-compensating on powerful guns and cars).
Stephen
---R. Knauer in your killfile ---
---Remove off-topic thread from soc.culture.scottish---
PS Can we also enter him in soc.culture.celtic for the gobshite of the year
awards?
Steve Howie
: The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
: from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
:> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
:> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
: I vote for Bob as well.
: Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
Me too. At least Colin can string together a coherent sentence :) I
killfiled Knauer a week ago. Blessed relief
Scotty
--
Steve Howie ro...@127.0.0.1
Netnews and Listserv Admin 519 824-4120 x2556
University of Guelph
"If it's not Scottish it's CRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!"
Steve
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>So, I was right and this pathetic
>, Colin Rosenthal, is
>completely full of
>
Is there any chance of an intellectual debate? You're not in the
playground now try to post like an adult.
--
Steve Frazer
Colin Rosenthal
>Roderick MacDonald <r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>: The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
>: from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
>
>:> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
>:> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
>
>: I vote for Bob as well.
>
>: Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
>
>Me too. At least Colin can string together a coherent sentence :)
Will this flattery never cease?
Andy Bri H
wrote in article <35c70c09...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 10:33:23 GMT, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net
> (Marc Living) wrote:
> >On 3 Aug 1998 21:29:39 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
> >(Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
> >>>No need to be such a twit. You don't seem to know much more than I do.
> >>I know that there were two referenda. I know that they were both "yes"
> >>votes. And I know that you're a moron. That's at least five pieces of
> >>information I know that you don't.
> >Erm. Only one referendum was ever held.
> You mean this blowhard piece of shit, Rosenthal, didn't even get *that* right?
> What a tosser, eh.
Why, because you believe whatever is convenient, just to be rude?
Andy Bri H
wrote in article <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 14:04:42 GMT,
> R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >So, I was right and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal,
> >is completely full of shit.
> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker -
> me or Bob Knauer. I vote for Bob.
You really do like taking risks don't you, not!
Andy Bri H
wrote in article <35c714a6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Somebody pass the hat and get up enough money
> to send him back to AOL where he belongs.
Bob Knauer would know.
Anyone interested, rckt...@aol.com looks like him to me?
olivier Laurent
R. Knauer wrote:
> After your Fascist Rulers take the rest of your guns away,
I don't think that guns are so important in Europe that they seem to be in
the USA .And Fascist are the people who enjoy to use this kind of toys
against innocent people not the people who try to control the distribution
of this kind of toys .
> there will
> be no further need to consult the people.
You have a poor consideration for the democracy in the UK, don't you ?
> And just think of all the
> money you can save by not having to maintain the facade of
> representative govt anymore. Why, I'll bet the Hun can afford yet one
> more month vacation at the spa on the savings alone.
>
> BTW, how many months do Europeans take off these days?
A social right...Thanks to socialistsI will send you a postcard from the
provence :o)
> Last I heard it
> was 2 months paid vacation in the SWP of Germany. Somebody has to pay
> for it,
The taxes are far more important in the continental Europe than in the USA .
To stay 'easy to understand', workers and companies pay a % of their revenue
for this kind of right . This kind of system allows poor people to enjoy
hollidays that without it they shouldn't know . I don't say that the system
is better, it's just different .
> and since GB is just sitting there with all that national
> wealth doing nobody in Europe any good, it is about time to raid it,
> eh.
>
King of shortcuts ;-)
> Wouldn't want the Huns to be overworked, would we?
>
Who are you calling Huns ?
Mongols aren't yet in the EU .
Please check your map and you will find them near China .
A+
Olivier
hel...@western.wave.ca
Roderick MacDonald <r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
> from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
>
> > Knauer. I vote for Bob.
>
>
> Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
>
Me! me! I already commented on Colin's post, but don't mind doing it again;-)
Bob, the gate crasher, has been asked countless times to please take gun talk
back where it belongs, but obviously the man has a hide like an armadillo!
Helen
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Limestone Cowboy
The term fascist has certain connotations relating to unhappy events caused
by several groups of gun wielding far right wingers including those led by
the inimitable Mussolini and Hitler. Their ilk and their opposite numbers
within the USSR between them caused the deaths of millions of Europeans in
their wars. To compare the majority of modern politicians with these
villains might boost their egos, or one would hope sicken them. I honestly
don't consider any of the British politicians to be vaguely similar to the
old style fascists or communists. There is however a real danger that some
of these far right wing groups are going to become popular in certain places
in Europe and America, let us hope not.
As to the right of Europeans, Britons included to own firearms; I feel that
sporting gun ownership should be allowed with certain provisions for the
security and safekeeping of the weapons, I can't see the need for anyone to
own SMG's, LMG's or HMG's other than individual countries armed forces.
In Britain although there are areas of major cities where people may feel
threatened by villains with firearms, these people are in the minority, it
is the method and level of policing which should be reviewed to cope with,
and ameliorate these fears. We have had our fair share of violence with
numerous wars and reading a book such as "The Steel Bonnets" about the
border reiver raids (of up to 3,000 men) makes your average wild west shoot
out look like small fry in comparison.
Unfortunately we have to admit to having armed a fair proportion of the
world, with famous names such as Vickers (ships, aircraft, tanks and
artillery), Armstrong (something to do with breech loading cannon I seem to
recall), Enfield, Hawker, Supermarine, AV Roe, and many others, and we've
been doing it for some time too, although previously it was more take than
give. The Hawks armaments manufactory in Gateshead made cannon to fight the
French in the napoleonic wars, and in earlier times (much less peaceful
ones) every man of a certain rank was expected to keep practiced at the
longbow in case he had to defend his lord and master, or perhaps less often
his country.
The trouble with firearms is that if you really do end up having to use one
in "anger" defensively you have to live with the consequences, and perhaps
thinking "what if I had talked my way out of that". I know that in certain
circumstances it's a "him or me" situation, however I know that even so not
everyone can be happy with the outcome if someone dies because of their
actions, even in self defence. Many ex-servicemen and policemen will
understand that feeling. The other problem is that you may be carrying the
weapon because you lack confidence to cope with awkward situations without
the feeling of security that the firearm presents. So what happens if you
find yourself in that situation when you haven't got a gun, it jams, or in
those cases where people get stabbed, totally surprised in a bar fight or in
the street, when they weren't expecting it.
The gun is not a panacea, it's just a crutch in the majority of cases.
Gwen A Orel
Hear, hear.
This guy knows nothing, posts an assumption, resorts to
insult when anyone posts anything factual, even if mistakenly.
And foul mouthed insults, at that.
Looks like more anarchist propaganda...
Gwen
FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (ka...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: Bob Knauer = small child in a very big play ground.
: Go away. Grow up, then come back.
: Best regards
: Angus Fraser
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde
Gwen A Orel
Colin was mistaken, Bob was rude and offensive.
Gwen
Roderick MacDonald (r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
: from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
: > So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
: > Knauer. I vote for Bob.
: I vote for Bob as well.
: Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
: Rod
R. Knauer
<st...@andsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>So, I was right and this pathetic
>*snip*
>>, Colin Rosenthal, is
>>completely full of
>*snip*
>>
>Is there any chance of an intellectual debate? You're not in the
>playground now try to post like an adult.
Look, dipshit - get the whole story before you come tossing here.
My original post *WAS* meant to spur intellectual debate, but this
shithead came along attempting to disrupt it, and now you come along
like another shithead trying to amplify the disruption.
Both of you diskhead twits need to fuck one another somewhere else.
R. Knauer
<ou...@geocities.com> wrote:
>The gun is not a panacea, it's just a crutch in the majority of cases.
Tell that to the 2,500,000 armed citizens in the US who use guns every
year to stop violent aggression. Cf. Kleck, op. cit.
R. Knauer
(Marc Living) wrote:
>>Of course your paranoid thesis
>>that our "national pension fund" (we keep it in the Nat West, you know) is
>>about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the mechanism of monetary union, takes
>>something of a beating from the simple fact that every political party in
>>Britain is committed to the idea that there will be no monetary union without
>>a referundum.
>How would a "yes" vote in a referendum prevent the pensions funds from
>being "sold to the dreaded Hun"?
You just asked the burning question. Expect burnt answers.
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
<r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
> from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
>
>> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
>> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
>
>I vote for Bob as well.
>
>Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
>
>Rod
Add me - Knauer is definitely top wanker quality.
Měcheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig
"Faire faire dhuin' ňig
cia do bharantas mór?
'N i do bharail bhith
beň 's nach eug thu?"
Wolf
<ou...@geocities.com> writes
>Bob
>
>The term fascist has certain connotations relating to unhappy events caused
>by several groups of gun wielding far right wingers including those led by
>the inimitable Mussolini and Hitler. Their ilk and their opposite numbers
>within the USSR between them caused the deaths of millions of Europeans in
>their wars. To compare the majority of modern politicians with these
>villains might boost their egos, or one would hope sicken them. I honestly
>don't consider any of the British politicians to be vaguely similar to the
>old style fascists or communists. There is however a real danger that some
>of these far right wing groups are going to become popular in certain places
>in Europe and America, let us hope not.
I take the term fascist to indicate someone who supports a dictatorship.
Since our politicians are part of, and support, what is effectively an
elective dictatorship, the term fits.
>
>As to the right of Europeans, Britons included to own firearms; I feel that
>sporting gun ownership should be allowed with certain provisions for the
>security and safekeeping of the weapons, I can't see the need for anyone to
>own SMG's, LMG's or HMG's other than individual countries armed forces.
And who gives you the right to tell me what I can and cannot own? By
the time the 'provisions for the security and safekeeping' have been
enforced, along with license fees and the deliberate delays and
misinterpretations, and registrations, you are halfway to a ban anyway.
>
>In Britain although there are areas of major cities where people may feel
>threatened by villains with firearms, these people are in the minority, it
>is the method and level of policing which should be reviewed to cope with,
>and ameliorate these fears. We have had our fair share of violence with
>numerous wars and reading a book such as "The Steel Bonnets" about the
>border reiver raids (of up to 3,000 men) makes your average wild west shoot
>out look like small fry in comparison.
So. How will the method and level of policing help me, living in West
Wales, dealing with an intruder who turns violent? The police are about
an hour away. That is if it is possible to get to a phone.
We need to reduce the power of the police, not increase it, as you seem
to be suggesting above.
>
>Unfortunately we have to admit to having armed a fair proportion of the
>world, with famous names such as Vickers (ships, aircraft, tanks and
>artillery), Armstrong (something to do with breech loading cannon I seem to
>recall), Enfield, Hawker, Supermarine, AV Roe, and many others, and we've
>been doing it for some time too, although previously it was more take than
>give. The Hawks armaments manufactory in Gateshead made cannon to fight the
>French in the napoleonic wars, and in earlier times (much less peaceful
>ones) every man of a certain rank was expected to keep practiced at the
>longbow in case he had to defend his lord and master, or perhaps less often
>his country.
Back then we still had the rkba. That right has been whittled away. It
needs re-instating.
>
>The trouble with firearms is that if you really do end up having to use one
>in "anger" defensively you have to live with the consequences, and perhaps
>thinking "what if I had talked my way out of that". I know that in certain
>circumstances it's a "him or me" situation, however I know that even so not
>everyone can be happy with the outcome if someone dies because of their
>actions, even in self defence. Many ex-servicemen and policemen will
>understand that feeling. The other problem is that you may be carrying the
>weapon because you lack confidence to cope with awkward situations without
>the feeling of security that the firearm presents. So what happens if you
>find yourself in that situation when you haven't got a gun, it jams, or in
>those cases where people get stabbed, totally surprised in a bar fight or in
>the street, when they weren't expecting it.
Hmm. Now tell me how a woman is supposed to deal with the 'awkward
situation' of a much larger male attacker (or attackers)? Not
suggesting she 'lies back and thinks of England' are you?
>
>The gun is not a panacea, it's just a crutch in the majority of cases.
It's a crutch that makes up for lack of physical strength and enables
the weak to protect themselves against bullies who would otherwise prey
on them.
>
>
Fenris
--
Wolf
Bryn Fraser
LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Bob Knauer = small child in a very big play ground.
>
>Go away. Grow up, then come back.
>
>
>Best regards
>Angus Fraser
Bobby..now you've annoying the Frasers ... Oh Dear!
Bryn Fraser
glůinean geal
Christopher Bruce
>
> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 18:27:22 +0100, Roderick MacDonald
> <r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
> > from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
> >
> >> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
> >> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
> >
> >I vote for Bob as well.
> >
> >Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
> >
> >Rod
>
> Add me - Knauer is definitely top wanker quality.
And me, but if you really want to see how I try to bait him, (and you
don't), you will have to look in all the other ngs because I just trim
s.c.s. off.
It is tiring work for a doddery old bastard!
Chris
--
_/_/ mailto:br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de
_/ mailto:Christop...@compuserve.com
_/ Getting old is when everything hurts and
_/_/ what doesn't hurt, doesn't work!
R. Knauer
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35C717...@dial.pipex.com>, FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL
>LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Bobby..now you've annoying the Frasers ... Oh Dear!
>Bryn Fraser
I just hope for your sake that that sorry sack of shit asshole is one
of the dark sheep in your clan.
If he continues to pretend to be a international businessman with his
attitude, he will be on dole for the rest of his life.
Tossers like him never make it in the business world.
Colin Rosenthal
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig <mik...@whidbey.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 18:27:22 +0100, Roderick MacDonald
><r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
>> from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
>>
>>> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
>>> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
>>
>>I vote for Bob as well.
>>
>>Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
>Add me - Knauer is definitely top wanker quality.
Now that is touching!
hel...@western.wave.ca
Christopher Bruce <br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:
> Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 18:27:22 +0100, Roderick MacDonald
> > <r.mac...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >The message <6q78s4$6a7$3...@ncar.ucar.edu>
> > > from rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) contains these words:
> > >
> > >> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
> > >> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
> > >
> > >I vote for Bob as well.
> > >
> > >Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
> > >
> >
> > Add me - Knauer is definitely top wanker quality.
>
> don't), you will have to look in all the other ngs because I just trim
> s.c.s. off.
>
> It is tiring work for a doddery old bastard!
>
> Chris
Me too Chris;-0 You're right about the hard work, but it is also time
consuming, and unfortunately he eventually caught it and added s.c.s
back again :-( As I said before, the man has the hide of an armadillo!
>In article <35c70993...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>rckt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Then get Agent with its killfile capability. At least I don't change
> by header all the time to avoid being killfiled.
R. Knauer
<rgre...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
>> So if a Federal Europe goes horribly wrong, we could end up an economic
>> basketcase like, er, the USA. Not exactly a fate that's going to have
>> the population of Europe quaking in their boots, is it ?
>I point out that:
>A "Federal Europe" is not necessarily a prosperous one.
>The USA is not the same as a "Federal Europe".
>The USA has had it's economic woes just like everyone else.
>Sheer size is no guarantee of prosperity or economic success.
I remind you all that the general definition of Fascism (not the
historical reference to Italy or Germany) is:
From Websters Dictionary:
+++++
Fascism: 1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts
nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a
centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of
opposition.
+++++
That does not sound like what you all want in the UK, is it - with the
Hun in control?
Bob Knauer
"Compromise is the art of giving your opponent that which he is not
powerful enough to take. Those who will not fight for their rights
deserve to lose them."
--Harlon Carter
Andy Bri H
wrote in article <35cb9785...@news.clara.net>...
> On 4 Aug 1998 15:26:15 GMT, m'learned friend rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu
> (Colin Rosenthal) made the following submissions:
> >R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>If there was no referendum for membership, how did the UK become a
> >>member if not by govt fiat?
>
> Parliamentary fiat actually - although the decision to *enter* the Common
> Market was subsequently endorsed by the electorate, a couple of years later.
> >>If the UK was placed in the EU by govt fiat, then my original contention
> >>has merit - and this pathetic tosser, Colin Rosenthal, is full of shit.
> >Right, there was no referendum when it changed its name from EEC to EC
> >and then EU. Perhaps you think we should have referenda on every
> >decision taken by Brussels since any new decision would obviously not
> >have a mandate from the previous referendum?
> They were not mere name changes
I agree, but people should say what they mean, as you do below.
> there were changes to the Treaty of Rome.
Which should have been agreed by referendum, and is objectionable. It does not
entitle persons to claim we never voted for the EU. It does allow them to say, the
people of the UK were not asked if they agreed to the changes.
> The equivalent in the US would be amendments to the constitution.
I could be impolite, but why are we discussing the US all the time?
I am annoyed with myself for doing it.
> There is a difference between ordinary decisions taken under the
> Treaties, and amendments to the Treaties themselves.
We should have some sort of agreed policy on their implementation (or not),
stopping people being able to fight the old battles every time the EU is mentioned.
> >Of course your paranoid thesis that our "national pension fund" (we keep it in
> >the Nat West, you know) is about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the
> >mechanism of monetary union, takes something of a beating from the simple
> >fact that every political party in Britain is committed to the idea that there will
> >be no monetary union without a referundum.
> How would a "yes" vote in a referendum prevent the pensions funds from
> being "sold to the dreaded Hun"?
A contract does not have to be a good one, it just needs someone to sign it.
R. Knauer
<Andy....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Show me successful Federalism. Excepting Switzerland perhaps. But what
>>an abberration!
>The USA.
The USA is not an example of "successful federalism". It is an example
of "successful Fascism". Lest you immediately write off that as Texas
Libertarian rhetoric, keep in mind that one measure of "success" is
the extent to which a nation's politicians are accountable to the
citizens of that nation.
I can find numerous substantive examples where the Federal Govt is NOT
in the least bit accountable to the citizens of the US, but then you
should already know that, eh. Just the WACO Massacre alone, where your
own countrymen were gased, burned and imprisoned, should be sufficient
to cause you to sit up and take notice of just how true my statement
is.
BTW, the "federalism" we have today in the US bears little resemblance
to what the Founding Fathers had originally set up. Lincoln suspended
the US Constitution in 1861 and it has not been properly restored to
this day. There are so many unConstitutional "laws" on the books that
we would just about have to start the country over just to get off on
the right track again as the FF intended.
The current situation in the US is a Fascist Dictatorship, pure and
simple. The fact that most people do not recognize that, much less
care about it, does not change the truth. And if you let the Hun in
Europe strangle you with its own brand of "federalism", don't come
whining to us again - you are on your own this time.
Also, don't ever say we didn't warn you. My posts on this general
topic of "Liberty In The UK", with strong emphasis on gun rights, run
to nearly 10,000, as dejanews reveals. And all I get for it is the
venemous hatred of University Socialists in return - a sure sign I am
making my points, eh.
Just remember: "Three Strikes And You're Out!" Once the last of your
personal firearms are confiscated, you will know the time is near for
your enslavement. Oh, well - not to worry. Most of the UK behaves like
a nation of slaves anyway, so they will likely not fuss about it when
it becomes a reality.
R. Knauer
<Andy....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Who said the nation state was the worst model available. My premise to you
>is simply that federalism offers a better guarantee of peace than
>bilateralism.
But at what price?
Limestone Cowboy
You continue to talk a complete load of bollocks.
Is it true that Viz Comics are going to base a character on you?
r@n
wrote in article <35c740f7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 16:59:30 GMT, chris.r...@usa.net (Chris
> Raistrick) wrote:
> >Ah, you've met Bob before.
> Funnnneee. Haha.
> >To be fair, he can have a sensible conversation but he prefers
> >trolling.
> I decided to out-troll the trolls.
Is that why you changed News Readers, to kill file rollers?
I hope it was to attack me.
> A perfect example of having a sincere attempt at sensible conversation
> disrupted by these little twits was when I posted a series of excerpts
> about "The Right Of Englishmen To Keep And Bear Arms". I had just read
> an excellent scholarly article which traced RKBA from the time of
> Alfred The Great to the American Revolution, so I posted the excerpts
> on the UK newsgroups to generate "sensible conversation". There was
> nothing immflamitory about anything I posted.
In an of NG and of thread subject, no doubt.
> It was no time at all before these little twits were carping and bitching
> away because the underlying thesis of that article ran counter to their
> hoplophobe agenda. But instead of debating with us in a sensible
> manner, they began a barrage of crap which disrupted the conversation.
Not that you disrupt whole NGs by cross posting, on US and gun subjects?
> It was right about that time that I decided that the only way to get
> any kind of dialogue going on Usenet was to counter these pathetic
> tossers immediately up front- IOW, fight fire with fire. Just as in
> bridge where you preempt the auction with an opening bid of Three
> Spades, you can preempt the twits with a strong opening.
Please do not join me in the game zone for a game.
> Thus far it has been very effective because it forces these tossers to
> take a strong opposite position initially, which can then be dismantled
> systematically in a sensible manner. IOW, they don't get to disrupt
> things with their little petty snipes - they have to go full bore or shut up.
> When they go full bore they expose the absurdity of
> their position for all to see.
OH, I would so like to be dismantled!
Richard Buttrey
Rosenthal) wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 18:49:09 GMT,
>R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>
>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>part?
Sorry Colin, there was only one - after we were already in - in 1975
Rgds
Richard Buttrey - Grappenhall - Cheshire - UK
email: ric...@buttrey.u-net.com
________________________________________________________________
R. Knauer
<ou...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>Most of the UK behaves like a nation of slaves anyway
>You continue to talk a complete load of bollocks.
That's because you have lost your ability to think critically - a
known condition of enslavement. If you weren't a slave you would think
much differently.
>Is it true that Viz Comics are going to base a character on you?
I sure hope so. If they do, they need to check out the Texas
Republican Party and Texas Libertarian Party platforms to get the
correct reading on my political ideology. I wouldn't want them to
misrepresent me.
Hey, let me know when the first issue comes out. In the meantime, you
are a nation of slaves anyway.
R. Knauer
(Richard Buttrey) wrote:
>On 3 Aug 1998 20:36:22 GMT, rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin
>Rosenthal) wrote:
>>>BTW, what turncoat bastard sold the UK into bondage to the EU? Like
>>>everything else in the UK I am sure it just happened one day without
>>>anyone's approval, and the people be damned.
>>So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it happened
>>anyway? In fact, iirc, there were two referenda on the EEC/EU - one before
>>Britain joined and one again afterwards. Both were clear yes votes. Perhaps
>>someone can provide the dates and clear up any errors of recollection on my
>>part?
>Sorry Colin, there was only one - after we were already in - in 1975
You are wasting your time on this tosser. He doesn't have the
intellectual honesty to admit he is stupid.
"So you don't _know_ anything about it but you're "sure" of how it
happened anyway?"
Fucking Moron.
Christopher Bruce
time!
He must be improving :-)
> Fucking Moron.
>
> Bob Knauer
Colin Rosenthal
Marc Living <ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net> wrote:
>A change in the Treaty of Rome is (now) a change in our constitution.
>As such, they should be treated as constitutional bills, rather than
>ordinary measures. This would imply a referendum (unless it is only
>the Scots, Welsh and Irish who are to be entitled to referendums on
>constitutional changes).
It seems to me that you're inventing an entirely new principal of British
contitutional law here. In fact I have some sympathy with the idea. However
it's wrong to imply that this already exists. Currently Parliament is still
sovereign, and the fact that it has occasionally chosen to hold certain
referenda to be binding on itself does not alter that. For example, the
outcomes of those referenda are not binding on future Parliaments. In order
for the principal you suggest to become binding it would first be necessary
to have a clear definition of what constitutes a constitutional (as opposed
to legal) change and
a mechanism for deciding doubtful cases. In other words we would need, in
practice, a written constitution and a constitutional court to interpret it.
This might not be a bad thing, but there are clearly both good and bad
examples to be drawn from the countries which have gone down that route.
In any case, if you really hold that principal to be sacrosanct would you
also require a referendum to be held on the each of the constituional changes
proposed by the present government - such as the abolition of voting privileges
for hereditary peers?
I would also point out that the one could make a case that establishment of
a Scottish parliament was _not_ a constitutional change since sovereignty
remains in Westminster. If, on the contrary, you hold that this _is_ a
constitutional change then one might argue that every local-government
reorganisation or boundary change is "constitutional".
Cliff Morrison
> In any case, if you really hold that principal to be sacrosanct would you
> also require a referendum to be held on the each of the constituional changes
> proposed by the present government - such as the abolition of voting
privileges
> for hereditary peers?
To hold a referendum would be no bad thing, since the HoL plays a part in
ruling the population; and it could be reasonably enough argued that NuLab
with its HoC majority isn't impartial regarding this constitutional change
as reckons to have a vested interest in the outcome.
I think the HoL should be filled through a periodic lottery of everyone on
the voters roll (could argue whether country or region based later).
Coz the likes of Lords King and Melvin Bragg are every bit as much fatcat
imposed crap as any Lord Chinless of Geneticaberration....
r@n
wrote in article <35ca7e87...@news.clara.net>...
> On 5 Aug 1998 20:04:11 -0100, m'learned friend " Andy Bri H"
> <t.my.c...@hot.brain.hail.com> made the following submissions:
> >Which should have been agreed by referendum, and is objectionable. It does
> >not entitle persons to claim we never voted for the EU. It does allow them to
> >say, the people of the UK were not asked if they agreed to the changes.
> Particularly if the changed animal becomes a wholly different beast to the one
> which was voted on. To take just one example, when we were asked to vote on
> the EEC, one of its attributes was that no decision could be taken without
> British (and everybody else's) approval. Now we are in an organisation where
> (qualified) majority voting is commonplace.
Although the actual changes were not discussed, when we joined or held the
referendum, we were always aware the EU was not a stationary beast. It was
intended to change and grow.
> Colon Rosenthal - who I was replying to - was posting from the US.
To all European NGs. He wants to play in our ground, use our ball. I am
really annoyed with that Knauer and the fallout goes every where. Sorry.
> >> There is a difference between ordinary decisions taken under the
> >> Treaties, and amendments to the Treaties themselves.
> >We should have an agreed policy on their implementation, stopping
> >people being able to fight the old battles every time the EU is mentioned.
> A change in the Treaty of Rome is (now) a change in our constitution.
> As such, they should be treated as constitutional bills, rather than
> ordinary measures. This would imply a referendum.
I agree.
> >> >Of course your paranoid thesis that our "national pension fund" (we keep it
> >> >in the Nat West, you know) is about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the
> >> >mechanism of monetary union, takes something of a beating from the simple
> >> >fact that every political party in Britain is committed to the idea that there will
> >> >be no monetary union without a referundum.
> >> How would a "yes" vote in a referendum prevent the pensions funds from
> >> being "sold to the dreaded Hun"?
> >A contract does not have to be a good one, it just needs someone to sign it.
> Presumably only those who actually have money in pension funds?
No, I assume lots of unaware people will vote for or against
without really checking the future prospects of their finances.
Andy Mayer
>On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 01:05:24 +0100, "Andy Mayer"
><Andy....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>Show me successful Federalism. Excepting Switzerland perhaps. But what
>>>an abberration!
>
>>The USA.
>
>The USA is not an example of "successful federalism". It is an example
>of "successful Fascism". Lest you immediately write off that as Texas
>Libertarian rhetoric, keep in mind that one measure of "success" is
>the extent to which a nation's politicians are accountable to the
>citizens of that nation.
Sir, you are an idiot. If you ever have the misfortune to experience a real
facist government you may understand the difference. I've no time at all for
people who can't tell the difference between coercion to cause you harm and
coercion to stop you harming others.
P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do and
mostly do well.
>I can find numerous substantive examples where the Federal Govt is NOT
>in the least bit accountable to the citizens of the US, but then you
>should already know that, eh. Just the WACO Massacre alone, where your
>own countrymen were gased, burned and imprisoned, should be sufficient
>to cause you to sit up and take notice of just how true my statement
>is.
Have you ever asked yourself what federal agents would possibly have to gain
by deliberately setting a fire at WACO. Nothing, nothing at all. All the
evidence suggests the fire was an accident or started internally and frankly
if you guys weren't so sexually attracted to firearms you wouldn't get month
long seiges initiated by child abusers and your other friends on the far
right.
>BTW, the "federalism" we have today in the US bears little resemblance
>to what the Founding Fathers had originally set up.
So what. Are you trying to say the original US constitution is infalible.
>The current situation in the US is a Fascist Dictatorship, pure and
>simple. The fact that most people do not recognize that, much less
>care about it,
Just possibly, just possibly because most of them enjoy the sort of freedoms
their parents from Eastern Europe amongst other places could only dream of.
Odd dictatorship.
> does not change the truth. And if you let the Hun in
>Europe strangle you with its own brand of "federalism", don't come
>whining to us again - you are on your own this time.
And a racist too.
>Also, don't ever say we didn't warn you. My posts on this general
>topic of "Liberty In The UK", with strong emphasis on gun rights, run
>to nearly 10,000, as dejanews reveals. And all I get for it is the
>venemous hatred of University Socialists in return - a sure sign I am
>making my points, eh.
Probably because unlike the US guns are not a part of UK culture and have no
beneficial purpose whatsoever other than to satisfy the Rambo-fantasy
cravings of inadequate saddos who dress it up either as 'protecting our
liberties' or 'sport'.
>Just remember: "Three Strikes And You're Out!" Once the last of your
>personal firearms are confiscated, you will know the time is near for
>your enslavement. Oh, well - not to worry. Most of the UK behaves like
>a nation of slaves anyway, so they will likely not fuss about it when
>it becomes a reality.
blah, blah, blah
Andy Mayer
Chair YEM
Andy Mayer
>>Who said the nation state was the worst model available. My premise to you
>>is simply that federalism offers a better guarantee of peace than
>>bilateralism.
>
>But at what price?
Greater prosperity, employment, lower interest rates, greater freedom to
travel and conduct business etc.etc.etc. Tough choice.
Andy Mayer,
Chair YEM
peter
<Andy....@btinternet.com> writes
>R. Knauer wrote in message <35c8c7bf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>Who said the nation state was the worst model available. My premise to you
>>>is simply that federalism offers a better guarantee of peace than
>>>bilateralism.
>>
>>But at what price?
>
>
>Greater prosperity,
By what means will this be achieved.
>employment,
By what means will this be achieved?
> lower interest rates,
Gee, that will help cool down inflation in the UK won't it? Or do you
like Weimar?
> greater freedom to
>travel
For who? Romanians? North Africans?
How can I have greater freedom to travel than I already have Andy?
Explain please.
> and conduct business
Greater freedom to conduct business. C-rap. I have conducted business
all over the world - what extra "freedoms" will the introduction of the
Euro allow me?
> etc.etc.etc. Tough choice.
>
Now go explain the above!
>Andy Mayer,
>Chair YEM
>
>
>
>
--
peter
Wolf
<Andy....@btinternet.com> writes
>R. Knauer wrote in message <35c8c367...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 01:05:24 +0100, "Andy Mayer"
>><Andy....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Show me successful Federalism. Excepting Switzerland perhaps. But what
>>>>an abberration!
>>
>>>The USA.
>>
>>The USA is not an example of "successful federalism". It is an example
>>of "successful Fascism". Lest you immediately write off that as Texas
>>Libertarian rhetoric, keep in mind that one measure of "success" is
>>the extent to which a nation's politicians are accountable to the
>>citizens of that nation.
>
>
>Sir, you are an idiot. If you ever have the misfortune to experience a real
>facist government you may understand the difference. I've no time at all for
>people who can't tell the difference between coercion to cause you harm and
>coercion to stop you harming others.
All governments pretend that the laws and regulations they impose on us
are really to prevent us from harming others. In reality they are meant
to ultimately prevent our harming the government by getting us so used
to being unable to think for ourselves that we automatically obey
whatever orders we are given.
Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
>
>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do and
>mostly do well.
Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
existence.
>
>>I can find numerous substantive examples where the Federal Govt is NOT
>>in the least bit accountable to the citizens of the US, but then you
>>should already know that, eh. Just the WACO Massacre alone, where your
>>own countrymen were gased, burned and imprisoned, should be sufficient
>>to cause you to sit up and take notice of just how true my statement
>>is.
>
>
>
>Have you ever asked yourself what federal agents would possibly have to gain
>by deliberately setting a fire at WACO. Nothing, nothing at all. All the
>evidence suggests the fire was an accident or started internally and frankly
>if you guys weren't so sexually attracted to firearms you wouldn't get month
>long seiges initiated by child abusers and your other friends on the far
>right.
In the UK, the child abusers are usually found running childrens homes!
We seem to excel in stealing the children of those who are 'different'
and then destroying their lives. Is it different in the US or where you
are Andy?
>
>>BTW, the "federalism" we have today in the US bears little resemblance
>>to what the Founding Fathers had originally set up.
>
>So what. Are you trying to say the original US constitution is infalible.
>
>>The current situation in the US is a Fascist Dictatorship, pure and
>>simple. The fact that most people do not recognize that, much less
>>care about it,
>
>Just possibly, just possibly because most of them enjoy the sort of freedoms
>their parents from Eastern Europe amongst other places could only dream of.
>Odd dictatorship.
Now quite a few of my family are East European, and for that reason I
shudder every time I see our freedoms whittled away. How long before we
have less freedom than ever they had in communist Eastern Europe?
It seems from an article in the Daily Mail that the police in the UK are
to be able to intercept and read private e-mail without any warrant or
court order from now on. Someone mentioned rights to privacy? No?
Thought not.
>
>> does not change the truth. And if you let the Hun in
>>Europe strangle you with its own brand of "federalism", don't come
>>whining to us again - you are on your own this time.
>
>
>And a racist too.
It is not racism to form an opinion of history and use it to forcast a
possible future. It is racism to treat an individual badly *because*
they belong to a particular group.
>
>>Also, don't ever say we didn't warn you. My posts on this general
>>topic of "Liberty In The UK", with strong emphasis on gun rights, run
>>to nearly 10,000, as dejanews reveals. And all I get for it is the
>>venemous hatred of University Socialists in return - a sure sign I am
>>making my points, eh.
>
>
>Probably because unlike the US guns are not a part of UK culture and have no
>beneficial purpose whatsoever other than to satisfy the Rambo-fantasy
>cravings of inadequate saddos who dress it up either as 'protecting our
>liberties' or 'sport'.
Of course guns are not part of UK culture. They have been removed bit
by bit over many legislations and regulations. Those need reversing.
>
>>Just remember: "Three Strikes And You're Out!" Once the last of your
>>personal firearms are confiscated, you will know the time is near for
>>your enslavement. Oh, well - not to worry. Most of the UK behaves like
>>a nation of slaves anyway, so they will likely not fuss about it when
>>it becomes a reality.
>
>
>blah, blah, blah
Typical pro-Euro comment!
--
Fenris Wolf
http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/CAPACS.htm
http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/RSPCAhelp.htm
peter
<Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> writes
The same edition of the Mail carried a chiller article that detailed the
fact that the guvvmunt is also thinking of introducing chemicals into
our food to make us happy. Which company is funding it? Unilever. Which
CEO of which company has from time to time shown up at Bilderberg? Which
is involved with the CFR? Details details - the DEVIL IS in the
details.
Prospect:
1. EP reviewing ways of non - marking torture to enable "ever closer
union" of the peoples of Europe.
2. UK disarms everyone except the criminals and some Police.
3. UK Government puts happy chemicals into our cereal.
4. Happy people's e-mail is okay. Dissidents e-mail is checked
by EUROpol.....
4. EUropol say "Be happy or be interrogated - we won't leave a mark"
Is this the future of the EU ?
Is this the brave NEW world? Then count me out.
--
peter
r@n
wrote in article <35c8c367...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>Show me successful Federalism.
> >>Excepting Switzerland perhaps. But what an abberration!
> >The USA.
> The USA is not an example of "successful federalism".
> It is an example of "successful Fascism".
They are not mutually exclusive declarations, therefore the proof is irrelevant.
> Lest you immediately write off that as Texas Libertarian rhetoric
What, you think it might be off thread, sense forbid.
> "federalism" we have today in the US bears little resemblance
> to what the Founding Fathers had originally set up.
Which kind of federalism is irrelevant, so that proof is also snipped.
> Also, don't ever say we didn't warn you. My posts on this general topic
> of "Liberty In The UK", with strong emphasis on gun rights, run to nearly
> 10,000, as dejanews reveals. And all I get for it is the venemous hatred
> of University Socialists in return - a sure sign I am making my points, eh.
We had a TV program in the UK called never mind the quality feel the width.
I would say that applied well to Knauer's argument.
> UK behaves like a nation of slaves anyway, so they will likely not fuss
> about it when it becomes a reality.
It really does annoy you how satisfied with life UK is, compared to US.
r@n
wrote in article <35c8c7bf...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >Who said the nation state was the worst model available.
> >My premise to you is simply that federalism offers a better
> >guarantee of peace than bilateralism.
> But at what price?
At what price?
Paul Sammy
In-reply-to: Roderick MacDonald's message of Tue, 4 Aug 1998 18:27:22 +0100
>> So we'll take a vote on who people think is the bigger wanker - me or Bob
>> Knauer. I vote for Bob.
> I vote for Bob as well.
> Anyone else like to add their name to the list?
Who?
[search kill-file]
Ah, yes. Him. Agreed.
> Rod
Paul
--
World Shotokan Dojo List : http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/sps/Karate/
PlayStation Technical FAQ: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/sps/psxfaq/
Andy Mayer
>All governments pretend that the laws and regulations they impose on us
>are really to prevent us from harming others. In reality they are meant
>to ultimately prevent our harming the government by getting us so used
>to being unable to think for ourselves that we automatically obey
>whatever orders we are given.
In any liberal democracy the limits on your freedom are tiny.
>Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
>harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
>less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
Well thank goodness for that. Apart from the rather obvious point that 'the
right not to wear a seatbelt' can only harm you personally. There is the
free rider insurance problem. If there is no compulsion to wear seatbelts by
laws insurance companies have to assume you won't. This will explicitly
drive up insurance costs for everyone. So frankly don't be so selfish
>>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do
and
>>mostly do well.
>
>Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
>existence.
Can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a
>>Have you ever asked yourself what federal agents would possibly have to
gain
>>by deliberately setting a fire at WACO. Nothing, nothing at all. All the
>>evidence suggests the fire was an accident or started internally and
frankly
>>if you guys weren't so sexually attracted to firearms you wouldn't get
month
>>long seiges initiated by child abusers and your other friends on the far
>>right.
>
>In the UK, the child abusers are usually found running childrens homes!
Generally they don't end up shooting and burning their victims to death
though.
>We seem to excel in stealing the children of those who are 'different'
>and then destroying their lives. Is it different in the US or where you
>are Andy?
Every country in the world has such problems. Only the USA libertarians seem
to want to create an environment to actively protect such individuals
>>Just possibly, just possibly because most of them enjoy the sort of
freedoms
>>their parents from Eastern Europe amongst other places could only dream
of.
>>Odd dictatorship.
>
>Now quite a few of my family are East European, and for that reason I
>shudder every time I see our freedoms whittled away. How long before we
>have less freedom than ever they had in communist Eastern Europe?
Depends whether your gun-totting chums in Koresh-style militias and facistic
religious groups seize power or not doesn't it.
>It seems from an article in the Daily Mail that the police in the UK are
>to be able to intercept and read private e-mail without any warrant or
>court order from now on. Someone mentioned rights to privacy? No?
>Thought not.
So if you're not a criminal what's the worst that can happen.
>>> does not change the truth. And if you let the Hun in
>>>Europe strangle you with its own brand of "federalism", don't come
>>>whining to us again - you are on your own this time.
>>
>>
>>And a racist too.
>
>It is not racism to form an opinion of history and use it to forcast a
>possible future. It is racism to treat an individual badly *because*
>they belong to a particular group.
Like using the term 'Hun' for example
>>Probably because unlike the US guns are not a part of UK culture and have
no
>>beneficial purpose whatsoever other than to satisfy the Rambo-fantasy
>>cravings of inadequate saddos who dress it up either as 'protecting our
>>liberties' or 'sport'.
>
>Of course guns are not part of UK culture. They have been removed bit
>by bit over many legislations and regulations. Those need reversing.
I hope you meet the Dunblane parents one day you sad little man.
Andy mayer
Chair YEM
Patrick Bean
>
> At what price?
At the price of higher unemployment 10%+ like Germany, france, spain etc.
and higher taxes, labour costs etc.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / pdb...@argonet.co.uk (Patrick David Bean)
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ Web http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/pdbean
* Slow or fast, it will look the same.
Wolf
<Andy....@btinternet.com> writes
>Wolf wrote in message ...
>>are really to prevent us from harming others. In reality they are meant
>>to ultimately prevent our harming the government by getting us so used
>>to being unable to think for ourselves that we automatically obey
>>whatever orders we are given.
>
>
So tiny in fact that here (uk) when people I know start looking at
setting up a new business enterprise, the first thing they think of
doing is checking with the local council to see what regulations,
licenses, permissions are applicable, and even whether what they propose
will be allowed or not.
>
>>Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
>>harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
>>less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
>
>
>Well thank goodness for that. Apart from the rather obvious point that 'the
>right not to wear a seatbelt' can only harm you personally.
In many cases it is the wearing of the seatbelt that actually harms you.
>There is the
>free rider insurance problem. If there is no compulsion to wear seatbelts by
>laws insurance companies have to assume you won't. This will explicitly
>drive up insurance costs for everyone. So frankly don't be so selfish
Nonsense. All insurance companies have to do is put in a clause
refusing to pay if people are not wearing seatbelts. So tell me, why do
we not get compensation from the legislators when we are injured or
killed *because* we obeyed the law and wore a seatbelt?
>
>>>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do
>and
>>>mostly do well.
>>
>>Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
>>existence.
>
>
>Can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a
Yes. Can you spell r-e-a-l-i-s-t-i-c?
>
>>>Have you ever asked yourself what federal agents would possibly have to
>gain
>>>by deliberately setting a fire at WACO. Nothing, nothing at all. All the
>>>evidence suggests the fire was an accident or started internally and
>frankly
>>>if you guys weren't so sexually attracted to firearms you wouldn't get
>month
>>>long seiges initiated by child abusers and your other friends on the far
>>>right.
>>
>>In the UK, the child abusers are usually found running childrens homes!
>
>
>Generally they don't end up shooting and burning their victims to death
>though.
No, their victims frequently end up killing *themselves*. Those who are
not *missing* that is. We do not know what has happened to many who
abscond from the *hell* we laughingly refer to as the *care* system.
That is if they really did abscond, and were not simply killed when
their abusers tired of them.
>
>>We seem to excel in stealing the children of those who are 'different'
>>and then destroying their lives. Is it different in the US or where you
>>are Andy?
>
>
>Every country in the world has such problems. Only the USA libertarians seem
>to want to create an environment to actively protect such individuals
The best protection children can have is for the government and
regulators to leave them alone.
>
>
>>>Just possibly, just possibly because most of them enjoy the sort of
>freedoms
>>>their parents from Eastern Europe amongst other places could only dream
>of.
>>>Odd dictatorship.
>>
>>Now quite a few of my family are East European, and for that reason I
>>shudder every time I see our freedoms whittled away. How long before we
>>have less freedom than ever they had in communist Eastern Europe?
>
>
>Depends whether your gun-totting chums in Koresh-style militias and facistic
>religious groups seize power or not doesn't it.
I have no time for religious groups, but all are entitled to live how
they wish. It is governments which try to regulate us all into
spineless conformity so they can rule without fear of question.
>
>>It seems from an article in the Daily Mail that the police in the UK are
>>to be able to intercept and read private e-mail without any warrant or
>>court order from now on. Someone mentioned rights to privacy? No?
>>Thought not.
>
>
>So if you're not a criminal what's the worst that can happen.
Do you really have no concept of the meaning of the word 'private'?
There are many reasons why communications are sensitive, without
actually being illegal. Think of business secrets, friendships which
cross religious and racial divides, or even private opinions of others
which we would find embarrasing to have quoted publicly.
But that is not the worst that can happen. The worst is that our mail
is misquoted and we are made to look as if we have said or done
something we have not. I always tape officials, and on many occasions
have been able to prove them lying. While it has given me great
satisfaction to be able to do this, I have always been aware that if I
had not been in possession of absolute proof, my word would be
meaningless against theirs. This is the worst - that we give power to
those who abuse it and misuse it in order to preserve or improve their
own position, and they do not care who they hurt or destroy in the
process.
>
>>>> does not change the truth. And if you let the Hun in
>>>>Europe strangle you with its own brand of "federalism", don't come
>>>>whining to us again - you are on your own this time.
>>>
>>>
>>>And a racist too.
>>
>>It is not racism to form an opinion of history and use it to forcast a
>>possible future. It is racism to treat an individual badly *because*
>>they belong to a particular group.
>
>
>Like using the term 'Hun' for example
Like using such terms as 'gun-totting chums in Koresh-style militias and
fascistic religious groups'.
Do you have something against gun owners, militias, and religions?
>
>>>Probably because unlike the US guns are not a part of UK culture and have
>no
>>>beneficial purpose whatsoever other than to satisfy the Rambo-fantasy
>>>cravings of inadequate saddos who dress it up either as 'protecting our
>>>liberties' or 'sport'.
>>
>>Of course guns are not part of UK culture. They have been removed bit
>>by bit over many legislations and regulations. Those need reversing.
>
>
>I hope you meet the Dunblane parents one day you sad little man.
Woman actually. Now how would a gun ban have prevented Hamilton from
going into that classroom with a chainsaw? Or driving a stolen
bulldozer into the classroom? Or ploughing into a bus queue of children
in a van? Anyone who whishes to kill can do so easily.
The common sense approach is to find out why he killed. And when we
look, what do we find? A man who had made official complaints that had
been ignored and tossed in the bin. A man who had been the victim of
malicious uncorroborated gossip in a small community and effectively
ousted from that community. Seems to me some of the people who failed
in their duty to look at his complaints should answer for their
incompetency which directly contributed to his frustration and
subsequent actions.
Cliff Morrison
> In any liberal democracy the limits on your freedom are tiny.
Well if that's the case, what is the UK?
> Well thank goodness for that. Apart from the rather obvious point that 'the
> right not to wear a seatbelt' can only harm you personally. There is the
> free rider insurance problem. If there is no compulsion to wear seatbelts by
> laws insurance companies have to assume you won't. This will explicitly
> drive up insurance costs for everyone. So frankly don't be so selfish
With the deliberate destruction of the welfare state and health services
and "privatisation" of their collective security-providing functions, that
is a key argument that the fascistic axis of big-business and its bought
politicians will increasingly use to take away freedom and impose more and
more restrictive legislation upon the population "for your own good"....
Why not order the insurance companies to make the reverse asumption?
Oh no, much better to order the public. More profitable, too. And penalise
them if they do not obey; there is no escape....
Government by the big battalions, for the big battalions, and in the
interests of the big battalions -- and screw the poor public coz they are
comparatively fragmented, unrepresented and powerless; and will soon be
even more thus thanks to that power-centraliser's dream come true, the
"party list" system for elections.
It all stinks.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>In article <01bdc1dd$d4fc9c60$0100007f@clipper>, <r@n> wrote:
>> At what price?
I said that, not that tosser Hickman. He is not capable of asking
penetrating questions.
>At the price of higher unemployment 10%+ like Germany, france, spain etc.
>and higher taxes, labour costs etc.
And now that they have bled their national wealth dry, they look to
others to fund their profligate lifestyles. Get what UK- you are next.
I want to start the Vaseline concession in the UK - because you Limey
Wankers (tm) are sure gonna need all the lube you can get when the Hun
shoves the shaft up your backsides.
Seig Heil, Mein Tossers.
Bob Knauer
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or
a politician. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference."
-- Harry Truman
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>Sir, you are an idiot. If you ever have the misfortune to experience a real
>>facist government you may understand the difference. I've no time at all for
>>people who can't tell the difference between coercion to cause you harm and
>>coercion to stop you harming others.
>
>All governments pretend that the laws and regulations they impose on us
>are really to prevent us from harming others. In reality they are meant
>to ultimately prevent our harming the government by getting us so used
>to being unable to think for ourselves that we automatically obey
>whatever orders we are given.
>
>Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
>harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
>less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
That's not quite correct, we don't have the right to decide whether WE
want to take the risk of not wearing one. The likelihood of an accident
is not lessened by wearing one or not, only injury.
>
>>
>>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do and
>>mostly do well.
>
>Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
>existence.
>
there seem to be as many people with this kind of paranoia, as THEY
claim there are regulations!
>>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>Andy mayer
>Chair YEM
>
While I'm not particularly pro-European, I do share your views on the
paranoia of some anti-europeans/extreme libertarians!
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
><Andy....@btinternet.com> writes
>>Wolf wrote in message ...
>>>All governments pretend that the laws and regulations they impose on us
>>>are really to prevent us from harming others. In reality they are meant
>>>to ultimately prevent our harming the government by getting us so used
>>>to being unable to think for ourselves that we automatically obey
>>>whatever orders we are given.
>>
>>
>>In any liberal democracy the limits on your freedom are tiny.
>
>So tiny in fact that here (uk) when people I know start looking at
>setting up a new business enterprise, the first thing they think of
>doing is checking with the local council to see what regulations,
>licenses, permissions are applicable, and even whether what they propose
>will be allowed or not.
Which is a GOOD thing IMV, otherwise the country would be filled with
cowboys & conmen, destroying legitimate businesses!
>
>>>Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
>>>harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
>>>less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
>>
>>Well thank goodness for that. Apart from the rather obvious point that 'the
>>right not to wear a seatbelt' can only harm you personally.
>
>In many cases it is the wearing of the seatbelt that actually harms you.
Not as much as having your face smeared over the windscreen!
>
>>
>>>We seem to excel in stealing the children of those who are 'different'
>>>and then destroying their lives. Is it different in the US or where you
>>>are Andy?
>>
>>
>>Every country in the world has such problems. Only the USA libertarians seem
>>to want to create an environment to actively protect such individuals
>
>The best protection children can have is for the government and
>regulators to leave them alone.
And having a massive increase in dodgy child care agencies etc?
Richard Gregory
>
> Greater prosperity, employment, lower interest rates, greater freedom to
> travel and conduct business etc.etc.etc. Tough choice.
>
Heh. So "federalism" offers greater prosperity, employment, lower
interest rates, does it? ROTFL!
A federation doesn't necessarily make business easier either. not
if it drowns everything in a sea of red tape. And I might
say that a federal Switzerland isn't necessarily any easier to
move in than, for example, a Monarchial Switzerland. You are
using the idea of what are currently seperate entities joining
in a federation as an argument for federalism.
It could be said that if the EU states were all put into a
Monarchy, they would have the same things.
Wolf
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>>>
>>>In any liberal democracy the limits on your freedom are tiny.
>>
>>So tiny in fact that here (uk) when people I know start looking at
>>setting up a new business enterprise, the first thing they think of
>>doing is checking with the local council to see what regulations,
>>licenses, permissions are applicable, and even whether what they propose
>>will be allowed or not.
>
>Which is a GOOD thing IMV, otherwise the country would be filled with
>cowboys & conmen, destroying legitimate businesses!
No. It provides protection for large conglomerates. No-one can afford
to start up from nothing and build up a business. They lose the lessons
you learn along the way. Big business loses the competition and those
who can afford the huge costs of start up are at such a disadvantage
that they are more likely to fail.
>>
>>>>Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
>>>>harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
>>>>less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
>>>
>>>Well thank goodness for that. Apart from the rather obvious point that 'the
>>>right not to wear a seatbelt' can only harm you personally.
>>
>>In many cases it is the wearing of the seatbelt that actually harms you.
>
>Not as much as having your face smeared over the windscreen!
My cousin went through the windscreen of a car in Italy and came out of
it with barely a scratch. His cousin was burnt alive since he was
wearing a seatbelt which jammed.
How many crashes are actually head on? If you are hit from the side,
the seatbelt holds you in position as the side of the car caves in
towards you, when you would normally be shunted out of the way.
People have been trapped in cars under water thanks to their seatbelts.
If it was so much safer, there would not be exemptions for those
teaching learner drivers, and there would be a compensation scheme for
those injured by obeying the law and wearing the belt.
This is a decision which should be for the individual to make, not the
government or the EU.
>>>
>>>>We seem to excel in stealing the children of those who are 'different'
>>>>and then destroying their lives. Is it different in the US or where you
>>>>are Andy?
>>>
>>>
>>>Every country in the world has such problems. Only the USA libertarians seem
>>>to want to create an environment to actively protect such individuals
>>
>>The best protection children can have is for the government and
>>regulators to leave them alone.
>
>And having a massive increase in dodgy child care agencies etc?
It is for the parents to decide who they ask to look after their
children. Most cannot afford child care because government regulations
have priced it out of their reach.
Wolf
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Wolf at Wolf <Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> stated
>this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>>>facist government you may understand the difference. I've no time at all for
>>>people who can't tell the difference between coercion to cause you harm and
>>>coercion to stop you harming others.
>>
>>All governments pretend that the laws and regulations they impose on us
>>are really to prevent us from harming others. In reality they are meant
>>to ultimately prevent our harming the government by getting us so used
>>to being unable to think for ourselves that we automatically obey
>>whatever orders we are given.
>>
>>Many of the regulations are ostensibly designed to prevent us from
>>harming ourselves btw! We have no right to decide whether it is more or
>>less dangerous to wear a seatbelt!
>
>want to take the risk of not wearing one. The likelihood of an accident
>is not lessened by wearing one or not, only injury.
Actually, accident rates increased when seatbelts were made compulsory.
I suspect it has to do with both the limiting effects on free movement
of the driver, and the illusion of greater safety encouraging the driver
to take more risks.
>>
>>>
>>>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do and
>>>mostly do well.
>>
>>Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
>>existence.
>>
>there seem to be as many people with this kind of paranoia, as THEY
>claim there are regulations!
>>>
How is stating the facts paranoia? Or is that simply a way of trying to
devalue the viewpoint of those you disagree with?
FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
that reason I>shudder every time I see our freedoms whittled away. How
long before we>have less freedom than ever they had in communist
Eastern Europe?
Andy Mayer (Chair of the Young European Movement) replied <Depends
whether your gun-totting chums in Koresh-style militias and facistic
religious groups seize power or not doesn't it.>
Andy - what on earth are you talking about ? Your answer betrays the
fact that you do not have the first idea of what freedom means and I
therefore suggest that you make a serious effort to consider the
structure and management of the former soviet union before you ever
speak/write on the subject again.
Yours, in utter disgust, amazement and quietly fumming anger
Angus Fraser
R. Knauer
wrote:
>http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/CAPACS.htm
>http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/RSPCAhelp.htm
You all need to learn how ranchers in Nevada have dealt with
disgusting federal bullies like this.
They do it the old fashioned way - they shoot them.
R. Knauer
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>While I'm not particularly pro-European, I do share your views on the
>paranoia of some anti-europeans/extreme libertarians!
You do not know the horrors of any kind of federalism. It is tyranny
in disguise.
R. Knauer
LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Yours, in utter disgust, amazement and quietly fumming anger
>Angus Fraser
Can you lighten up, fer chrissakes? All you ever do is bitch at
someone else for expressing their opinion, like some kind of
pontifical authority.
You are gonna die an early death if you keep this up.
Patrick Bean
<Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> the illusion of greater safety encouraging the driver
> to take more risks.
Quite, Seatbelts don't make driving safer, they make crashing safer!
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / pdb...@argonet.co.uk (Patrick David Bean)
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ Web http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/pdbean
* They are entitled to there opinion, but why do they think we are entitled to it as well?
r@n
wrote in article <35c7af72...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 19:26:39 +0100, Steve
> <st...@andsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>So, I was right and this pathetic
> >*snip*
> >>, Colin Rosenthal, is
> >>completely full of
> >*snip*
> >Is there any chance of an intellectual debate? You're not in the
> >playground now try to post like an adult.
> Look, dipshit - get the whole story before you come tossing here.
> My original post *WAS* meant to spur intellectual debate, but this
> shithead came along attempting to disrupt it, and now you come
> along like another shithead trying to amplify the disruption.
> Both of you diskhead twits need to fuck one another somewhere else.
Poor babe Knauer, upset that the anarchy of the Usenet does not permit
him intelligent discussion. Get a track record, other than the example
immediately above, then came back and make the same request!
r@n
wrote in article <35c7b108...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 00:20:00 GMT, ma...@equity.BOUNCEBACK.clara.net
> (Marc Living) wrote:
> >>Of course your paranoid thesis that our "national pension fund" (we keep it
> >>in the Nat West, you know) is about to be sold to the dreaded Hun via the
> >>mechanism of monetary union, takes something of a beating from the
> >>simple fact that every political party in Britain is committed to the idea that
> >>there will be no monetary union without a referundum.
> >How would a "yes" vote in a referendum prevent the pensions funds from
> >being "sold to the dreaded Hun"?
> You just asked the burning question. Expect burnt answers.
Rather than snide answers, like ours?
r@n
wrote in article <35c84bf2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:45:18 +0100, Bryn Fraser
> <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <35C717...@dial.pipex.com>, FRASER TRADING INTERNATIONAL
> >LIMITED <ka...@dial.pipex.com> writes
> >Bobby..now you've annoying the Frasers ... Oh Dear!
> I just hope for your sake that that sorry sack of shit asshole is one
> of the dark sheep in your clan.
> If he continues to pretend to be a international businessman with his
> attitude, he will be on dole for the rest of his life.
> Tossers like him never make it in the business world.
Is this part of you campaign for intelligent discussion?
r@n
wrote in article <35c7b09d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:39:00 +0100, "Limestone Cowboy"
> <ou...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >The gun is not a panacea, it's just a crutch in the majority of cases.
> Tell that to the 2,500,000 armed citizens in the US who use guns
> every year to stop violent aggression. Cf. Kleck, op. cit.
What a truly awful place the US must be, given that without the gun
there would be that many more violent aggressions.
r@n
wrote in article <35cb93e1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> On Fri, 07 Aug 1998 19:04:14 BST, Patrick Bean <pdb...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <01bdc1dd$d4fc9c60$0100007f@clipper>, <r@n> wrote:
> >> At what price?
> I said that, not that tosser Hickman. He is not capable of asking
> penetrating questions.
Learn to read a thread. Oh you cannot do that, you kill filed me. So you
have no idea what I said, just by looking at someone else's snips. Shame.
> I want to start the Vaseline concession in the UK - because you
> Limey Wankers (tm) are sure gonna need all the lube you can get
> when the Hun shoves the shaft up your backsides.
We already have Vaseline, thank you.
> Seig Heil, Mein Tossers.
Play with your own fantasies.
Limestone Cowboy
being crashed into by someone else.
I don't wear a seatbelt because I worry about my driving, I watch other
people and then make sure it's fastened properly.
before you get all clever I don't think I'm a great driver....just lucky so
far considering the mileage I do.
Wolf
<pdb...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <MJkZ7sA+...@reality8.demon.co.uk>, Wolf
><Fen...@reality8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> the illusion of greater safety encouraging the driver
>> to take more risks.
>
>Quite, Seatbelts don't make driving safer, they make crashing safer!
No they don't. They make crashing more likely.
>
>
--
Fenris Wolf
http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/CAPACS.htm
http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/RSPCAhelp.htm
http://www.marketersworld.com/members/Fenris/
R. Knauer
The simple fact is that almost all the vehicle fatalities over the
last two holidays in Texas involved people who had not buckled up.
I buckle up not because Fascist Pricks tell me I have to. Fuck Fascist
Pricks!
I do what common sense tells me to do, in spite of Fascist Pricks.
If I am gonna advocate that people carry guns for self protection, I
have to advocate that people buckle up for the same reason - if I am
gonna be honest.
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving
us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the
ignorance of the community."
-- Oscar Wilde
R. Knauer
(Marc Living) wrote:
>>Nonsense. All insurance companies have to do is put in a clause
>>refusing to pay if people are not wearing seatbelts.
>Or, more likely, requiring people either to wear a seatbelt or pay a
>higher premium.
Unfortunately that would be impossible to enforce.
R. Knauer
(Marc Living) wrote:
>Can you think of (say) 5 human activities which are completely
>unregulated. Go on. Just five.
1) The belief in the Supreme Being.
2) The belief in Inalienable Rights.
3) The belief in the supremecy of the Individual.
4) The belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
5) The belief in liberty.
>And then, when you have come up with those five, ask yourself how long
>it took you to think of them.
About the time it took me to post it, crappy typo artist that I am.
Want more?
Just ask.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>Actually, accident rates increased when seatbelts were made compulsory.
Fatalities have decreased markedly since people began using seat
belts. Almost all the fatalities in Texas over the last two major
holidays (Memorial Day and Fourth of July) invloved people who were
not wearing seat belts.
Of course, that is not justification for the quthorities to force
people to wear seat belts - that is the proper role of the insurance
companies who can set benefits contingent on wearing a seat belt. You
want to drive without a seat belt - well, fine - go ahead, but don't
expect me to have to pay for it with higher insurance premiums or
increased social welfare costs.
As almost always is the case, there is a private sector solution that
better solves the problem and does not infringe on people's rights to
liberty.
>I suspect it has to do with both the limiting effects on free movement
>of the driver, and the illusion of greater safety encouraging the driver
>to take more risks.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do and
>>>>mostly do well.
>>>
>>>Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
>>>existence.
>>>
>>there seem to be as many people with this kind of paranoia, as THEY
>>claim there are regulations!
>>>>
>
>How is stating the facts paranoia? Or is that simply a way of trying to
>devalue the viewpoint of those you disagree with?
>
>
>
>--
>Fenris Wolf
>
>http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/CAPACS.htm
>http://members.xoom.com/Astraea/RSPCAhelp.htm
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving
peter
OUNCEBACK.clara.net> writes
>On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 09:22:17 +0100, m'learned friend Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>
>>>>P.S. the latter is what liberal-democratic governments are elected to do and
>>>>mostly do well.
>
>>>Oh yes. They mostly do very well in regulating our freedoms out of
>>>existence.
>
>>there seem to be as many people with this kind of paranoia, as THEY
>>claim there are regulations!
>
>
>Can you think of (say) 5 human activities which are completely
>unregulated. Go on. Just five.
>
reading billboards
sleeping
going to the toilet out in the woods
suicide
five seconds.
trouble is that is the end of the list. :(
>And then, when you have come up with those five, ask yourself how long
>it took you to think of them.
>
>
--
peter