OT: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Re: OT: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Ed wrote:
>
>
>
Great stuff Ed!

But I am sure NoEd will disprove it at a stroke with his usual
intellectual argument that "It is all false".

Re: OT: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Ed wrote:
>

Adolph Hitler or his dumb cokehead son, Adolph W. Hitler?

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational debate
can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who pushes little
old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a guy who pushes old
lady into traffic since they are both push little old ladies around.

Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.



"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler?

Did you bother to read the title of the post, see the subject line.
Only you could get David and Ed out of "Here's someone".
If you went to the link you would find out who "someone" is.

If you are wondering if I am happy with the performance of the president the
answer is no, I side with the majority of Americans that think he's doing a
rotten job. As a matter of fact, I sided with the majority of Americans when
he was elected. I didn't vote for him.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

hello, noted. do you know the sales of bumper-stcker remover has
skyrocketed.?areyou aware of a fund that is heavy in colgate/palomolive
or is it now apart of american home products? as far as comparing
smeone to adolph hitler i think we should be careful in this regard-
its really not playing fair.. the number one thing i admire about bush
is that he is sober- being an adict in my past i sincerley admire him
for that. but how could the american public vote for a president's son
when that son could not run a baseball team and screwed up an oil
buisiness with his father's connections? its an easy answer; its
because we watch tv which has nothing to do with reality. neutron

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational debate
> can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who pushes little
> old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a guy who pushes old
> lady into traffic since they are both push little old ladies around.
>
That's a new slant on both Hitler and Bush. One of them pushes little
old ladies into traffic and one out, or presumably used to in AH's case
since he allegedly snuffed it in 1945. What a coincidence that they
should both have the same inclination but with a pleasing anti-symmetry.
I guess you learn something new every day!

> Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.

You seem to be the one losing touch with reality and the views of the
majority of US and UK observers. Go easier on the tablets for a while, OK?
>
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dirkvt$t9l$
> NoEd wrote:
>> So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational
>> debate can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who pushes
>> little old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a guy who
>> pushes old lady into traffic since they are both push little old ladies
>> around.
>>
> That's a new slant on both Hitler and Bush. One of them pushes little old
> ladies into traffic and one out, or presumably used to in AH's case since
> he allegedly snuffed it in 1945. What a coincidence that they should both
> have the same inclination but with a pleasing anti-symmetry. I guess you
> learn something new every day!

I hope you really don't get it.

>
>> Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.
>
> You seem to be the one losing touch with reality and the views of the
> majority of US and UK observers. Go easier on the tablets for a while, OK?

Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls? Clinton
tried.






>>
>>
>>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: OT: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

In article <>,
"Ed" <> wrote:

>

ah, well, geez, Ed, you know that every enemy of the US from the civil
war to Hitler to Castro, to some other geek has been a syphillitic. lots
of that going around, huh?

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dirkvt$t9l$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>>So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational
>>>debate can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who pushes
>>>little old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a guy who
>>>pushes old lady into traffic since they are both push little old ladies
>>>around.
>>>
>>
>>That's a new slant on both Hitler and Bush. One of them pushes little old
>>ladies into traffic and one out, or presumably used to in AH's case since
>>he allegedly snuffed it in 1945. What a coincidence that they should both
>>have the same inclination but with a pleasing anti-symmetry. I guess you
>>learn something new every day!
>
>
> I hope you really don't get it.
>
>
>>>Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.
>>
>>You seem to be the one losing touch with reality and the views of the
>>majority of US and UK observers. Go easier on the tablets for a while, OK?
>
>
> Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls? Clinton
> tried.
>
>

It works in Switzerland where they have a referendum before every major
decision. As a result they are not in the EU, never attack other
countries or get attacked by them, missed World War 2, and are peaceful
and prosperous in spite of having no natural resources. No one hates the
Swiss or tries to blow them up.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

David Wilkinson wrote:
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>> message news:dirkvt$t9l$
>>
>>> NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational
>>>> debate can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who
>>>> pushes little old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a
>>>> guy who pushes old lady into traffic since they are both push little
>>>> old ladies around.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a new slant on both Hitler and Bush. One of them pushes little
>>> old ladies into traffic and one out, or presumably used to in AH's
>>> case since he allegedly snuffed it in 1945. What a coincidence that
>>> they should both have the same inclination but with a pleasing
>>> anti-symmetry. I guess you learn something new every day!
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope you really don't get it.
>>
>>
>>>> Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to be the one losing touch with reality and the views of the
>>> majority of US and UK observers. Go easier on the tablets for a
>>> while, OK?
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls?
>> Clinton tried.
>>
>>
>
> It works in Switzerland where they have a referendum before every major
> decision. As a result they are not in the EU, never attack other
> countries or get attacked by them, missed World War 2, and are peaceful
> and prosperous in spite of having no natural resources. No one hates the
> Swiss or tries to blow them up.

The Swiss have a Democracy. What America has is a poor travesty of the
Democracy it keeps proclaiming, probably best described as a Plutocracy.
Government by the rich, for the rich, and the devil take the hindmost.

The only decision the US voter is allowed is which of two billionaire
groups of rich men will rule for the next four years. After that he has
no say in anything or on any issue. This may have been necessary in the
18th century when communications were no faster than the speed of a
horse but technology has moved on while politics have stood still.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"neutron" <> wrote

> hello, noted. do you know the sales of bumper-stcker remover has
> skyrocketed.?areyou aware of a fund that is heavy in colgate/palomolive
> or is it now apart of american home products? as far as comparing
> smeone to adolph hitler i think we should be careful in this regard-
> its really not playing fair.. the number one thing i admire about bush
> is that he is sober- being an adict in my past i sincerley admire him
> for that. but how could the american public vote for a president's son
> when that son could not run a baseball team and screwed up an oil
> buisiness with his father's connections? its an easy answer; its
> because we watch tv which has nothing to do with reality. neutron

You might be on to something with television. Television, today's music,
video games, all seem to have the wrong influence on young people. I grew
up in a city where there were a few gangs, they'd be the occassional fist
fights, today kids are shooting each other. It's really sad.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls?

I think leaders should represent the people who put them in office.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 04:00:01 -0400, "Ed" <> wrote:

>
>"NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls?
>
>I think leaders should represent the people who put them in office.

Oh, they do. Unfortunately, the reality is that the people who put them in
office are mostly corporations, unions, and various other special-interest
groups. Elections are merely the last step in the process. <grin>

--
Thomas

"Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice
liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortu-
nately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty." Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dist6s$sj0$
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>> NoEd wrote:
>>
>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>> news:dirkvt$t9l$
>>>
>>>> NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational
>>>>> debate can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who
>>>>> pushes little old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a
>>>>> guy who pushes old lady into traffic since they are both push little
>>>>> old ladies around.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's a new slant on both Hitler and Bush. One of them pushes little
>>>> old ladies into traffic and one out, or presumably used to in AH's case
>>>> since he allegedly snuffed it in 1945. What a coincidence that they
>>>> should both have the same inclination but with a pleasing
>>>> anti-symmetry. I guess you learn something new every day!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope you really don't get it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be the one losing touch with reality and the views of the
>>>> majority of US and UK observers. Go easier on the tablets for a while,
>>>> OK?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls?
>>> Clinton tried.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It works in Switzerland where they have a referendum before every major
>> decision. As a result they are not in the EU, never attack other
>> countries or get attacked by them, missed World War 2, and are peaceful
>> and prosperous in spite of having no natural resources. No one hates the
>> Swiss or tries to blow them up.
>
> The Swiss have a Democracy. What America has is a poor travesty of the
> Democracy it keeps proclaiming, probably best described as a Plutocracy.
> Government by the rich, for the rich, and the devil take the hindmost.
>
> The only decision the US voter is allowed is which of two billionaire
> groups of rich men will rule for the next four years. After that he has no
> say in anything or on any issue. This may have been necessary in the 18th
> century when communications were no faster than the speed of a horse but
> technology has moved on while politics have stood still.

Why don't you move to Switzerland given this you your model of democracy?
Like I have been saying, there is not much I can say or debate with you. You
viscerally dislike the US far to much.

By the way, the Swiss democracy you tout may not be as great you claim:

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
That is not how a leader leads. Your statement, as always, makes no sense.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls?
>
> I think leaders should represent the people who put them in office.
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dist6s$sj0$
>
>>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:dirkvt$t9l$
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So you think Bush is the moral equivalent to Hitler? What rational
>>>>>>debate can occur given your view. You two believe that a guy who
>>>>>>pushes little old ladies out of traffic is the moral equivalent to a
>>>>>>guy who pushes old lady into traffic since they are both push little
>>>>>>old ladies around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a new slant on both Hitler and Bush. One of them pushes little
>>>>>old ladies into traffic and one out, or presumably used to in AH's case
>>>>>since he allegedly snuffed it in 1945. What a coincidence that they
>>>>>should both have the same inclination but with a pleasing
>>>>>anti-symmetry. I guess you learn something new every day!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I hope you really don't get it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Right now you are both hysterical. Take a couple of days off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be the one losing touch with reality and the views of the
>>>>>majority of US and UK observers. Go easier on the tablets for a while,
>>>>>OK?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you think leaders should make decisions solely based on polls?
>>>>Clinton tried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It works in Switzerland where they have a referendum before every major
>>>decision. As a result they are not in the EU, never attack other
>>>countries or get attacked by them, missed World War 2, and are peaceful
>>>and prosperous in spite of having no natural resources. No one hates the
>>>Swiss or tries to blow them up.
>>
>>The Swiss have a Democracy. What America has is a poor travesty of the
>>Democracy it keeps proclaiming, probably best described as a Plutocracy.
>>Government by the rich, for the rich, and the devil take the hindmost.
>>
>>The only decision the US voter is allowed is which of two billionaire
>>groups of rich men will rule for the next four years. After that he has no
>>say in anything or on any issue. This may have been necessary in the 18th
>>century when communications were no faster than the speed of a horse but
>>technology has moved on while politics have stood still.
>
>
> Why don't you move to Switzerland given this you your model of democracy?
> Like I have been saying, there is not much I can say or debate with you. You
> viscerally dislike the US far to much.
>
> By the way, the Swiss democracy you tout may not be as great you claim:
>
>
>
>
It looks fair enough to me. What is your problem with it? I am sure the
majority in the UK would welcome this instead of the daily flood of
legal and illegal immigrants to Britain. The problem with the UK
government on this issue is that it takes no account at all of the views
of its citizens. This leads to foreign Ghettos and schools being set up
and inter-racial strife. I would have thought you would have seen enough
of this in America not to wish it on other countries.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
> That is not how a leader leads. Your statement, as always, makes no
> sense.

I had this wierd idea that the government belonged to the people, not the
other way around.
It seems the other way around is most obvious under the current
administration. If you're happy with that then so be it.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
> That is not how a leader leads. Your statement, as always, makes no sense.

>
>
Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
stop him.

The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.

To see how limited, ignorant and plain stupid and misguided one man on
his own can be you only have to look at Bush or Blair. Yet the tendency
is for power to get up their noses and for them to think they are
infallible wonder-men, "Who have to take the tough decisions" when they
insist on making wrong decisions in spite of millions of their fellow
citizens pointing out they are wrong.

Which is most likely to get the right answer on almost any issue, one
man deciding it himself or a hundred or a thousand people or more
debating it and voting? The first is dictatorship, the second democracy.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:diu602$qn2$
> NoEd wrote:
>> You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
>> That is not how a leader leads. Your statement, as always, makes no
>> sense.
>
>>
>>
> Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
> office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They were
> strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
> direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
> is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to stop
> him.

Both were dictators. If the body politic in the US wants a change, it will
make that decision come November 2006.


>
> The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
> the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
> President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.

The point of a democracy is to allow the people to govern themselves.

>
> To see how limited, ignorant and plain stupid and misguided one man on his
> own can be you only have to look at Bush or Blair. Yet the tendency is for
> power to get up their noses and for them to think they are infallible
> wonder-men, "Who have to take the tough decisions" when they insist on
> making wrong decisions in spite of millions of their fellow citizens
> pointing out they are wrong.



>
> Which is most likely to get the right answer on almost any issue, one man
> deciding it himself or a hundred or a thousand people or more debating it
> and voting? The first is dictatorship, the second democracy.

We have a separation of powers. Neither the UK or US is a dictatorship.
Generally, the people get the government they want.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> The point of a democracy is to allow the people to govern themselves.

I'm all for it, when do you think it'll start?

> We have a separation of powers. Neither the UK or US is a dictatorship.
> Generally, the people get the government they want.

Which people? It seems to me, at least the last few elections, that we get
to vote for the people offered up even if we don't want either of them.

We generally start with 4 people that have an agenda, it is narrowed to two
people by the primary, now we have two people with an agenda. They represent
the strength in their party and not the people. It's been this way for a
while now. Ralph Nader was excluded from the public political process even
though he was on the ballot. People are rarely offered the government they
want.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

David Wilkinson wrote:

> NoEd wrote:
>
>> You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political
>> winds. That is not how a leader leads. Your statement, as always,
>> makes no sense.
>
>
>>
>>
> Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
> office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
> were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
> direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
> is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
> stop him.
>
> The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
> the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
> President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.

The point of leadership is to make decisions on the direction to lead
the country even when the people can't decide by consensus yet.
Otherwise you wouldn't need a leader at all. You could simply have
direct democracy--instant polls on every issue on a daily basis and run
the country that way. The "value added" of a leader is that he projects
a vision for the country that the people might not come up with by
consensus in any reasonable time.


An ex-senator, a Democrat, Bill Bradley, once put it this way:
"Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."

And a British philosopher, Edmund Burke, once put it this way:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Ed wrote:

> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
>>That is not how a leader leads. Your statement, as always, makes no
>>sense.
>
>
> I had this wierd idea that the government belonged to the people, not the
> other way around.

The Federal Government is a government of the union of the 50 states. I
guess you could say that the Federal Government belongs to the states.
Certainly the President is elected by the states via the Electoral
College, not by the people directly.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
> That is not how a leader leads.

Therefore Baby Bush is not a leader because his administration spends
more money on polling than any other has, far more than Clinton ever
did.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:DRB4f.2441$
> David Wilkinson wrote:
> > Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
> > office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
> > were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
> > direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
> > is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
> > stop him.
> >
> > The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
> > the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
> > President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.
>
> The point of leadership is to make decisions on the direction to lead
> the country even when the people can't decide by consensus yet.
> Otherwise you wouldn't need a leader at all. You could simply have
> direct democracy--instant polls on every issue on a daily basis and run
> the country that way. The "value added" of a leader is that he projects
> a vision for the country that the people might not come up with by
> consensus in any reasonable time.
>
>
> An ex-senator, a Democrat, Bill Bradley, once put it this way:
> "Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."
>
> And a British philosopher, Edmund Burke, once put it this way:
> "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
> and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your
opinion."

Hear, hear.

I think David has democracy confused with mob rule. He would have loved the
French Revolution.

-herb

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

hello, ed. yes, democracy. this country is led by corporate powers who
decide things like our kids listening to music demeaning to women and
gloryfying crime and drugs, to starting a war ( did WE THE PEOPLE vote
for the war?)that kills thousands of these same kids plus reservists
with familes
.. they decide what foods we eat and how much rat excrement is an
acceptable standard while selling us bottled water because the other
stuff has too much pesticide residue resulting from treating the food
they produced .
they create stressor levels to be controlled by psychotropic drugs sold
at obscene profits to help create even more mind altering drugs and
then jail other people because the drug they choose is illegal. and
speaking of drugs, white peopel arested with 7 grams of powder cocaine
receive a mandatory 3 year sentence while blacks, who prefer the rock,
get seven years under the astounishing reason "cocaine harms blacks
more than whites). of course the chance of a black man (or poor white
or hispanic)doing time is much higher than caucasians.
black adolescents (shame on them for falling for this- the new
slavery) see no hope in education, jobs- because there isn't any so
join the "gangsta" mentality where a brother gets his juice (respect)
for doing prison time.
what has this got to do with voting? because no politian will take
these issues which are very important to, at least some of us, and
instead rant about abortion (which i don't believe in) but don't give a
flying fu at people living under bridges starving children, the
elderly. no, ed. voting; it just doesn't matter any more. welcome to
the corporate kingdom. neutron

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Herb wrote:
> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> news:DRB4f.2441$
>
>>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>>Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
>>>office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
>>>were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
>>>direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
>>>is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
>>>stop him.
>>>
>>>The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
>>>the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
>>>President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.
>>
>>The point of leadership is to make decisions on the direction to lead
>>the country even when the people can't decide by consensus yet.
>>Otherwise you wouldn't need a leader at all. You could simply have
>>direct democracy--instant polls on every issue on a daily basis and run
>>the country that way. The "value added" of a leader is that he projects
>>a vision for the country that the people might not come up with by
>>consensus in any reasonable time.
>>
>>
>>An ex-senator, a Democrat, Bill Bradley, once put it this way:
>>"Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."
>>
>>And a British philosopher, Edmund Burke, once put it this way:
>>"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
>>and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your
>
> opinion."
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> I think David has democracy confused with mob rule. He would have loved the
> French Revolution.
>
> -herb
>
>
Edmund Burke(1729-1797) was Irish, not British. However, this did not
stop him going to London and becoming an MP for Wendover in 1765, which
was 240 years ago. This was an era of travel by horse or galleon,
candlelight when darkness fell, an uneducated illiterate people working
largely on the land, slavery, votes only for a few rich men, rule by
Kings and Aristocrats with the English Parliament being one of the few
exceptions. By today's standards he was an ignorant uneducated man,
knowing nothing of science or engineering, or even economics, or of
politics, literature, the arts, etc. since most of it had yet to be
invented or discovered or written or to happen.

Burke bitterly opposed the French Revolution (1789-1795) and so
presumably preferred the hereditary rule of Louis XIV and the French
aristocracy to the republic that followed it. I don't think many
Americans would support monarchy against democracy. Why then take one of
his other writings and endow it with some mystic authority? I would
attach as little importance to his views on any subject as to those of
the venerable Bede or Aristotle as being an opinion held in his time but
probably of no relevance today and possibly not then.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:divi7q$ou0$
> Herb wrote:
>> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
>> news:DRB4f.2441$
>>
>>>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
>>>>office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
>>>>were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
>>>>direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
>>>>is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
>>>>stop him.
>>>>
>>>>The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
>>>>the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
>>>>President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.
>>>
>>>The point of leadership is to make decisions on the direction to lead
>>>the country even when the people can't decide by consensus yet.
>>>Otherwise you wouldn't need a leader at all. You could simply have
>>>direct democracy--instant polls on every issue on a daily basis and run
>>>the country that way. The "value added" of a leader is that he projects
>>>a vision for the country that the people might not come up with by
>>>consensus in any reasonable time.
>>>
>>>
>>>An ex-senator, a Democrat, Bill Bradley, once put it this way:
>>>"Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."
>>>
>>>And a British philosopher, Edmund Burke, once put it this way:
>>>"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
>>>and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your
>>
>> opinion."
>>
>> Hear, hear.
>>
>> I think David has democracy confused with mob rule. He would have loved
>> the
>> French Revolution.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>>
> Edmund Burke(1729-1797) was Irish, not British. However, this did not stop
> him going to London and becoming an MP for Wendover in 1765, which was 240
> years ago. This was an era of travel by horse or galleon, candlelight when
> darkness fell, an uneducated illiterate people working largely on the
> land, slavery, votes only for a few rich men, rule by Kings and
> Aristocrats with the English Parliament being one of the few exceptions.
> By today's standards he was an ignorant uneducated man, knowing nothing of
> science or engineering, or even economics, or of politics, literature, the
> arts, etc. since most of it had yet to be invented or discovered or
> written or to happen.
>
> Burke bitterly opposed the French Revolution (1789-1795) and so presumably
> preferred the hereditary rule of Louis XIV and the French aristocracy to
> the republic that followed it. I don't think many Americans would support
> monarchy against democracy. Why then take one of his other writings and
> endow it with some mystic authority? I would attach as little importance
> to his views on any subject as to those of the venerable Bede or Aristotle
> as being an opinion held in his time but probably of no relevance today
> and possibly not then.

This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?

Are "YOUR" English skills the best YOU can come up with?

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:divi7q$ou0$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"Steven L." <> wrote in message
>>>news:DRB4f.2441$
>>>
>>>
>>>>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim to
>>>>>office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
>>>>>were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the wrong
>>>>>direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good king
>>>>>is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
>>>>>stop him.
>>>>>
>>>>>The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of all
>>>>>the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
>>>>>President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.
>>>>
>>>>The point of leadership is to make decisions on the direction to lead
>>>>the country even when the people can't decide by consensus yet.
>>>>Otherwise you wouldn't need a leader at all. You could simply have
>>>>direct democracy--instant polls on every issue on a daily basis and run
>>>>the country that way. The "value added" of a leader is that he projects
>>>>a vision for the country that the people might not come up with by
>>>>consensus in any reasonable time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>An ex-senator, a Democrat, Bill Bradley, once put it this way:
>>>>"Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."
>>>>
>>>>And a British philosopher, Edmund Burke, once put it this way:
>>>>"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
>>>>and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your
>>>
>>>opinion."
>>>
>>>Hear, hear.
>>>
>>>I think David has democracy confused with mob rule. He would have loved
>>>the
>>>French Revolution.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Edmund Burke(1729-1797) was Irish, not British. However, this did not stop
>>him going to London and becoming an MP for Wendover in 1765, which was 240
>>years ago. This was an era of travel by horse or galleon, candlelight when
>>darkness fell, an uneducated illiterate people working largely on the
>>land, slavery, votes only for a few rich men, rule by Kings and
>>Aristocrats with the English Parliament being one of the few exceptions.
>>By today's standards he was an ignorant uneducated man, knowing nothing of
>>science or engineering, or even economics, or of politics, literature, the
>>arts, etc. since most of it had yet to be invented or discovered or
>>written or to happen.
>>
>>Burke bitterly opposed the French Revolution (1789-1795) and so presumably
>>preferred the hereditary rule of Louis XIV and the French aristocracy to
>>the republic that followed it. I don't think many Americans would support
>>monarchy against democracy. Why then take one of his other writings and
>>endow it with some mystic authority? I would attach as little importance
>>to his views on any subject as to those of the venerable Bede or Aristotle
>>as being an opinion held in his time but probably of no relevance today
>>and possibly not then.
>
>
> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
>
>
I am sure he did the best he could with what that age provided, a
Classics education at Trinity College Dublin. I daresay he could
translate Latin and possibly ancient Greek and had read Ovid, Homer,
Sophocles and Plato, probably Shakespeare too. He probably knew more
divinity and theology than Bush but then who doesn't?

But he would have known nothing of the modern world of trains, cars,
planes, electricity, telephones, radio, TV, the Internet, mass literacy
and suffrage, freedom from slavery and racism (er, still working on that
last one!) newspapers, mobile phones, computers, etc. He would have
missed all the wars from the Napoleonic onwards, and the development of
modern armies, navies and air forces, the atomic and hydrogen bombs,
cruise missiles, smart bombs. aircraft carriers, helicopters, machine
guns, satellites etc. He would have missed the demise of most
monarchies, in Europe at least, the rise and fall of the Dictators and
Communism and the spread of democracy.

Lacking all that experience, what could he say that was relevant to
modern times? Little except by accidental coincidence that what might
have been good then was good today. One might as well ask Isaac Newton
how to repair a TV set. Even in his own time Burke could not even
convince his fellows. He ran a major disagreement with Charles James Fox
on the French Revolution, presumably the Iraq of its time. I notice you
don't quote Fox on Leadership! If you rake through the historical
utterances of politicians for the last 250 years then I suppose you are
bound to find at least one to back any view you now hold and just as
many to oppose it.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> NoEd wrote:
>
>>You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political winds.
>>That is not how a leader leads.
>
>
> Therefore Baby Bush is not a leader because his administration spends
> more money on polling than any other has, far more than Clinton ever
> did.
>

His administration spends more money on everything!

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

SD wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>
>> NoEd wrote:
>>
>>> You can't govern with your finger in the air judging the political
>>> winds.
>>> That is not how a leader leads.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore Baby Bush is not a leader because his administration spends
>> more money on polling than any other has, far more than Clinton ever
>> did.
>>
>
> His administration spends more money on everything!

And whose money is it? The US tax-payers!

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dj0f70$opi$
> NoEd wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:divi7q$ou0$
> >
> >>Herb wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Steven L." <> wrote in message
> >>>news:DRB4f.2441$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>David Wilkinson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Again you have got it all wrong. Strong leadership was the main claim
to
> >>>>>office of those well-known former leaders Hitler and Mussolini. They
> >>>>>were strong leaders alright, but they led their countries in the
wrong
> >>>>>direction, to disaster. It's the good king/bad king problem. A good
king
> >>>>>is fine but a bad one is awful and there is very little you can do to
> >>>>>stop him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The point of democracy is to mobilise the abilities and knowledge of
all
> >>>>>the people to make the right decisions, not to pick a bad, egomaniac
> >>>>>President instead of a bad, egomaniac King.
> >>>>
> >>>>The point of leadership is to make decisions on the direction to lead
> >>>>the country even when the people can't decide by consensus yet.
> >>>>Otherwise you wouldn't need a leader at all. You could simply have
> >>>>direct democracy--instant polls on every issue on a daily basis and
run
> >>>>the country that way. The "value added" of a leader is that he
projects
> >>>>a vision for the country that the people might not come up with by
> >>>>consensus in any reasonable time.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>An ex-senator, a Democrat, Bill Bradley, once put it this way:
> >>>>"Leadership means telling the people what they do not want to hear."
> >>>>
> >>>>And a British philosopher, Edmund Burke, once put it this way:
> >>>>"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his
judgement;
> >>>>and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your
> >>>
> >>>opinion."
> >>>
> >>>Hear, hear.
> >>>
> >>>I think David has democracy confused with mob rule. He would have
loved
> >>>the
> >>>French Revolution.
> >>>
> >>>-herb
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Edmund Burke(1729-1797) was Irish, not British. However, this did not
stop
> >>him going to London and becoming an MP for Wendover in 1765, which was
240
> >>years ago. This was an era of travel by horse or galleon, candlelight
when
> >>darkness fell, an uneducated illiterate people working largely on the
> >>land, slavery, votes only for a few rich men, rule by Kings and
> >>Aristocrats with the English Parliament being one of the few exceptions.
> >>By today's standards he was an ignorant uneducated man, knowing nothing
of
> >>science or engineering, or even economics, or of politics, literature,
the
> >>arts, etc. since most of it had yet to be invented or discovered or
> >>written or to happen.
> >>
> >>Burke bitterly opposed the French Revolution (1789-1795) and so
presumably
> >>preferred the hereditary rule of Louis XIV and the French aristocracy to
> >>the republic that followed it. I don't think many Americans would
support
> >>monarchy against democracy. Why then take one of his other writings and
> >>endow it with some mystic authority? I would attach as little importance
> >>to his views on any subject as to those of the venerable Bede or
Aristotle
> >>as being an opinion held in his time but probably of no relevance today
> >>and possibly not then.
> >
> >
> > This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong
again,
> > i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
> >
> >
> I am sure he did the best he could with what that age provided, a
> Classics education at Trinity College Dublin. I daresay he could
> translate Latin and possibly ancient Greek and had read Ovid, Homer,
> Sophocles and Plato, probably Shakespeare too. He probably knew more
> divinity and theology than Bush but then who doesn't?
>
> But he would have known nothing of the modern world of trains, cars,
> planes, electricity, telephones, radio, TV, the Internet, mass literacy
> and suffrage, freedom from slavery and racism (er, still working on that
> last one!) newspapers, mobile phones, computers, etc. He would have
> missed all the wars from the Napoleonic onwards, and the development of
> modern armies, navies and air forces, the atomic and hydrogen bombs,
> cruise missiles, smart bombs. aircraft carriers, helicopters, machine
> guns, satellites etc. He would have missed the demise of most
> monarchies, in Europe at least, the rise and fall of the Dictators and
> Communism and the spread of democracy.
>
> Lacking all that experience, what could he say that was relevant to
> modern times? Little except by accidental coincidence that what might
> have been good then was good today. One might as well ask Isaac Newton
> how to repair a TV set. Even in his own time Burke could not even
> convince his fellows. He ran a major disagreement with Charles James Fox
> on the French Revolution, presumably the Iraq of its time. I notice you
> don't quote Fox on Leadership! If you rake through the historical
> utterances of politicians for the last 250 years then I suppose you are
> bound to find at least one to back any view you now hold and just as
> many to oppose it.

What is your point? Are you saying that technology has made the world safe
for mob rule?

Which of the republics that followed the French monarchy (Louis XVI, BTW)
did you prefer? They all quickly passed to be followed by the Empire which
was well supported by the mob as it wreaked war and destruction across
Europe.

-herb

PS: In Burke's time, Ireland was part of Britain. Some of it still is.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dj0f70$opi$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
[Snip]
>>
>>I am sure he did the best he could with what that age provided, a
>>Classics education at Trinity College Dublin. I daresay he could
>>translate Latin and possibly ancient Greek and had read Ovid, Homer,
>>Sophocles and Plato, probably Shakespeare too. He probably knew more
>>divinity and theology than Bush but then who doesn't?
>>
>>But he would have known nothing of the modern world of trains, cars,
>>planes, electricity, telephones, radio, TV, the Internet, mass literacy
>>and suffrage, freedom from slavery and racism (er, still working on that
>>last one!) newspapers, mobile phones, computers, etc. He would have
>>missed all the wars from the Napoleonic onwards, and the development of
>>modern armies, navies and air forces, the atomic and hydrogen bombs,
>>cruise missiles, smart bombs. aircraft carriers, helicopters, machine
>>guns, satellites etc. He would have missed the demise of most
>>monarchies, in Europe at least, the rise and fall of the Dictators and
>>Communism and the spread of democracy.
>>
>>Lacking all that experience, what could he say that was relevant to
>>modern times? Little except by accidental coincidence that what might
>>have been good then was good today. One might as well ask Isaac Newton
>>how to repair a TV set. Even in his own time Burke could not even
>>convince his fellows. He ran a major disagreement with Charles James Fox
>>on the French Revolution, presumably the Iraq of its time. I notice you
>>don't quote Fox on Leadership! If you rake through the historical
>>utterances of politicians for the last 250 years then I suppose you are
>>bound to find at least one to back any view you now hold and just as
>>many to oppose it.
>
>
> What is your point? Are you saying that technology has made the world safe
> for mob rule?
>
I am sure you know a loaded question when you ask one. Is democracy a
formalised mob rule?

As always you have missed the point, which is that what was appropriate
in Burke's time may not be in ours so his views carry no weight, or not
with me anyway. I can't speak for everyone else. There may be Burke fan
clubs for all I know :-)

Incidentally your "mob rule" works very well in Switzerland, a country
whose policies the US would do well to emulate if it wants to avoid its
present abrasive interactions with the rest of the world.

> Which of the republics that followed the French monarchy (Louis XVI, BTW)
> did you prefer? They all quickly passed to be followed by the Empire which
> was well supported by the mob as it wreaked war and destruction across
> Europe.
>
> -herb
>
> PS: In Burke's time, Ireland was part of Britain. Some of it still is.
>
>
I don't think the Irish have ever accepted this to the present day,
although it is true that the English conquered Ireland in Cromwell's
time. In 1782 Ireland was given its own legislature, but only for
protestants to sit in and vote. In 1800 the Irish parliament was
abolished and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland. So Ireland was part of the UK but not of Great Britain.
Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dj0smj$qd8$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:dj0f70$opi$
> >
> >>NoEd wrote:
> >>
> [Snip]
> >>
> >>I am sure he did the best he could with what that age provided, a
> >>Classics education at Trinity College Dublin. I daresay he could
> >>translate Latin and possibly ancient Greek and had read Ovid, Homer,
> >>Sophocles and Plato, probably Shakespeare too. He probably knew more
> >>divinity and theology than Bush but then who doesn't?
> >>
> >>But he would have known nothing of the modern world of trains, cars,
> >>planes, electricity, telephones, radio, TV, the Internet, mass literacy
> >>and suffrage, freedom from slavery and racism (er, still working on that
> >>last one!) newspapers, mobile phones, computers, etc. He would have
> >>missed all the wars from the Napoleonic onwards, and the development of
> >>modern armies, navies and air forces, the atomic and hydrogen bombs,
> >>cruise missiles, smart bombs. aircraft carriers, helicopters, machine
> >>guns, satellites etc. He would have missed the demise of most
> >>monarchies, in Europe at least, the rise and fall of the Dictators and
> >>Communism and the spread of democracy.
> >>
> >>Lacking all that experience, what could he say that was relevant to
> >>modern times? Little except by accidental coincidence that what might
> >>have been good then was good today. One might as well ask Isaac Newton
> >>how to repair a TV set. Even in his own time Burke could not even
> >>convince his fellows. He ran a major disagreement with Charles James Fox
> >>on the French Revolution, presumably the Iraq of its time. I notice you
> >>don't quote Fox on Leadership! If you rake through the historical
> >>utterances of politicians for the last 250 years then I suppose you are
> >>bound to find at least one to back any view you now hold and just as
> >>many to oppose it.
> >
> >
> > What is your point? Are you saying that technology has made the world
safe
> > for mob rule?
> >
> I am sure you know a loaded question when you ask one. Is democracy a
> formalised mob rule?
>
> As always you have missed the point, which is that what was appropriate
> in Burke's time may not be in ours so his views carry no weight, or not
> with me anyway. I can't speak for everyone else. There may be Burke fan
> clubs for all I know :-)
>
> Incidentally your "mob rule" works very well in Switzerland, a country
> whose policies the US would do well to emulate if it wants to avoid its
> present abrasive interactions with the rest of the world.
>
> > Which of the republics that followed the French monarchy (Louis XVI,
BTW)
> > did you prefer? They all quickly passed to be followed by the Empire
which
> > was well supported by the mob as it wreaked war and destruction across
> > Europe.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> > PS: In Burke's time, Ireland was part of Britain. Some of it still is.
> >
> >
> I don't think the Irish have ever accepted this to the present day,
> although it is true that the English conquered Ireland in Cromwell's
> time. In 1782 Ireland was given its own legislature, but only for
> protestants to sit in and vote. In 1800 the Irish parliament was
> abolished and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
> and Ireland. So Ireland was part of the UK but not of Great Britain.
> Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales.

David:

I do understand that Great Britain is an island. I'm sure you understand
that Northern Ireland is British. The UK is just a euphemism for England's
European empire.

I find your admiration for Switzerland ironic. This is just a haven where
criminals and fascists can hide their assets and multi-national corporations
can avoid taxes and regulations. Did they hold a democratic vote when they
decided to collaborate with the Nazi holocaust?

-herb

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dj0smj$qd8$
>
>>Herb wrote:

[Snip]
>>>
>>>PS: In Burke's time, Ireland was part of Britain. Some of it still is.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't think the Irish have ever accepted this to the present day,
>>although it is true that the English conquered Ireland in Cromwell's
>>time. In 1782 Ireland was given its own legislature, but only for
>>protestants to sit in and vote. In 1800 the Irish parliament was
>>abolished and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
>>and Ireland. So Ireland was part of the UK but not of Great Britain.
>>Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales.
>
>
> David:
>
> I do understand that Great Britain is an island. I'm sure you understand
> that Northern Ireland is British. The UK is just a euphemism for England's
> European empire.
>
Herb

Your grasp of history and geography is weaker than I thought. In the
treaty of 1921 the 6 counties of Ulster were formed into Northern
Ireland as part of the UK and the rest, the Southern part, became the
Irish Free State which in 1949 became the Republic of Ireland.

The UK is now Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In Burke's time the UK
was Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland was never part of Britain, but it
was part of the UK. The Republic of Ireland is now neither; it is an
independent State and is part of the EU.

England does not have a European Empire, unless you count the Channel
Isles, Scilly Isles, etc. as that. Do I detect some anti-British
sentiment creeping in here? Boston Irish perhaps?

> I find your admiration for Switzerland ironic. This is just a haven where
> criminals and fascists can hide their assets and multi-national corporations
> can avoid taxes and regulations. Did they hold a democratic vote when they
> decided to collaborate with the Nazi holocaust?
>
> -herb
>
Are you thinking of Monte Carlo? I thought Switzerland was full of jolly
people in leather trousers making cuckoo clocks in picturesque alpine
chalets and blowing alpenhorns to summon the cattle home. You have seen
their documentary "The Sound of Music" haven't you? I guess there must
be a darker side too!
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dj115f$qf6$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:dj0smj$qd8$
> >
> >>Herb wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >>>
> >>>PS: In Burke's time, Ireland was part of Britain. Some of it still is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't think the Irish have ever accepted this to the present day,
> >>although it is true that the English conquered Ireland in Cromwell's
> >>time. In 1782 Ireland was given its own legislature, but only for
> >>protestants to sit in and vote. In 1800 the Irish parliament was
> >>abolished and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
> >>and Ireland. So Ireland was part of the UK but not of Great Britain.
> >>Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales.
> >
> >
> > David:
> >
> > I do understand that Great Britain is an island. I'm sure you
understand
> > that Northern Ireland is British. The UK is just a euphemism for
England's
> > European empire.
> >
> Herb
>
> Your grasp of history and geography is weaker than I thought. In the
> treaty of 1921 the 6 counties of Ulster were formed into Northern
> Ireland as part of the UK and the rest, the Southern part, became the
> Irish Free State which in 1949 became the Republic of Ireland.
>
> The UK is now Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In Burke's time the UK
> was Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland was never part of Britain, but it
> was part of the UK. The Republic of Ireland is now neither; it is an
> independent State and is part of the EU.
>
> England does not have a European Empire, unless you count the Channel
> Isles, Scilly Isles, etc. as that. Do I detect some anti-British
> sentiment creeping in here? Boston Irish perhaps?
>
> > I find your admiration for Switzerland ironic. This is just a haven
where
> > criminals and fascists can hide their assets and multi-national
corporations
> > can avoid taxes and regulations. Did they hold a democratic vote when
they
> > decided to collaborate with the Nazi holocaust?
> >
> > -herb
> >
> Are you thinking of Monte Carlo? I thought Switzerland was full of jolly
> people in leather trousers making cuckoo clocks in picturesque alpine
> chalets and blowing alpenhorns to summon the cattle home. You have seen
> their documentary "The Sound of Music" haven't you? I guess there must
> be a darker side too!

Your grasp of cliche movies is weaker than I thought. The Von Trapps were
from Austria. Are you unaware that Swiss banks are currently paying
reparations for the profits they made buying up Jewish assets to help fund
the Third Reich? Do you really not know that every rapacious Third-Wold
dictator has stashed his stolen loot in Switzerland?

I'm well aware of history but not in agreement on the double-speak
nomenclature. Tell the Ulster Unionists that they are not British.

FWIW I am an New England Yankee though there may have been an Irishwoman
back there somewhere. I'm just jerking your chain because you talk about
the US sending in troops then never leaving. Many might make this assertion
but it is particularly hypocritical coming from a Brit (or do you call
yourselves UKers now ;-).

-herb
> >

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dj115f$qf6$
> Herb wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:dj0smj$qd8$
>>
>>>Herb wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>>>>
>>>>PS: In Burke's time, Ireland was part of Britain. Some of it still is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think the Irish have ever accepted this to the present day,
>>>although it is true that the English conquered Ireland in Cromwell's
>>>time. In 1782 Ireland was given its own legislature, but only for
>>>protestants to sit in and vote. In 1800 the Irish parliament was
>>>abolished and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
>>>and Ireland. So Ireland was part of the UK but not of Great Britain.
>>>Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales.
>>
>>
>> David:
>>
>> I do understand that Great Britain is an island. I'm sure you understand
>> that Northern Ireland is British. The UK is just a euphemism for
>> England's
>> European empire.
>>
> Herb
>
> Your grasp of history and geography is weaker than I thought. In the
> treaty of 1921 the 6 counties of Ulster were formed into Northern Ireland
> as part of the UK and the rest, the Southern part, became the Irish Free
> State which in 1949 became the Republic of Ireland.
>
> The UK is now Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In Burke's time the UK
> was Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland was never part of Britain, but it
> was part of the UK. The Republic of Ireland is now neither; it is an
> independent State and is part of the EU.
>
> England does not have a European Empire, unless you count the Channel
> Isles, Scilly Isles, etc. as that. Do I detect some anti-British sentiment
> creeping in here? Boston Irish perhaps?
>
>> I find your admiration for Switzerland ironic. This is just a haven
>> where
>> criminals and fascists can hide their assets and multi-national
>> corporations
>> can avoid taxes and regulations. Did they hold a democratic vote when
>> they
>> decided to collaborate with the Nazi holocaust?
>>
>> -herb
>>
> Are you thinking of Monte Carlo? I thought Switzerland was full of jolly
> people in leather trousers making cuckoo clocks in picturesque alpine
> chalets and blowing alpenhorns to summon the cattle home. You have seen
> their documentary "The Sound of Music" haven't you? I guess there must be
> a darker side too!
>>

The writers of the US constitution feared direct democracy because they
feared the passion of the moment. It was not a "flaw" but a built in
safeguard. I'm right and my grasp of UK history is even weaker than Herb's.
You are still wrong about Bush lying and wrong about your hatred of the US
(I suspect cause by an inferiority complex). And finally, broke is your
moral compass, which prevents any meaningful debate with you.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"Herb" <> wrote
> I'm just jerking your chain because you talk about
> the US sending in troops then never leaving. Many might make this
assertion
> but it is particularly hypocritical coming from a Brit (or do you call
> yourselves UKers now ;-).

Herb, as you have begged me and others, I beg you to desist from trying to
have a rational discussion with a person who clearly is a chair sort of a
breakfast room set.

Or quit begging others to do what you do not.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:

> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?

Do you want to take back your claim about YOUR two master's degrees,
especially now that YOU'RE looking uneducated?

It's a trivial mistake when _you_ make it but not when somebody else
does, right? ;)

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
>> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
>
> Do you want to take back your claim about YOUR two master's degrees,
> especially now that YOU'RE looking uneducated?
>
> It's a trivial mistake when _you_ make it but not when somebody else
> does, right? ;)
>

Don't forget the mensa BULLSHIT, too!

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

I never point others typos. Only drunks do.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
>> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
>
> Do you want to take back your claim about YOUR two master's degrees,
> especially now that YOU'RE looking uneducated?
>
> It's a trivial mistake when _you_ make it but not when somebody else
> does, right? ;)
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

By the way, I have a masters in CS and a MBA. And yes, for the drunk truck
driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the early 90's. And Bush didn't lie.
He was given bad intelligence.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
>> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
>
> Do you want to take back your claim about YOUR two master's degrees,
> especially now that YOU'RE looking uneducated?
>
> It's a trivial mistake when _you_ make it but not when somebody else
> does, right? ;)
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:
> By the way, I have a masters in CS and a MBA. And yes, for the drunk truck
> driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the early 90's. And Bush didn't lie.
> He was given bad intelligence.
>
And what is CS, apart from a disabling gas that is?

How do you know Bush was given bad intelligence? Were you there at the
discussions between Bush, the CIA, Pentagon and the officials concerned?
Obviously you were not. You have no way of knowing what Bush knew and
didn't know, any more than I have.

But, as the man who makes the decisions, it was Bush's job to establish
the facts before committing his country to what turned out to be a
disastrous war. Since he got it all wrong about WMDs, threats to the USA
and links to Al Qaeda then he was either a fool or a liar. Which do you
choose? The men behind Bush are very bright and must have known the
truth. Did they lie to him and he was unable to see through it?

>
> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
>>>i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
>>
>>Do you want to take back your claim about YOUR two master's degrees,
>>especially now that YOU'RE looking uneducated?
>>
>>It's a trivial mistake when _you_ make it but not when somebody else
>>does, right? ;)
>>
>
>
>

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

> By the way, I have a masters in CS

Christian Science? Or *COCK SUCKING*???

> and a MBA.

Mortgage Bankers Association or Marine Biological Association member.
Whoopee-Doo!

>
> And yes, for the drunk truck driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the early
> 90's.

Fucking A, right on!

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> news:

> This is the best you can come up with after being shown your wrong again,
> i.e. impugning poor Mr. Burke?
> >
> > Do you want to take back your claim about YOUR two master's degrees,
> > especially now that YOU'RE looking uneducated?
> >
> > It's a trivial mistake when _you_ make it but not when somebody else
> > does, right? ;)

> By the way, I have a masters in CS and a MBA.

No, you don't, unless you got them from diploma mills. The people I've
known who had advanced degrees all seemed a lot smarter and better
educated than you.

> I was in Mensa in the early 90's.

Then write something smart to prove it, genius.

> And Bush didn't lie. He was given bad intelligence.

By laziness, genetic defects, and years of substance abuse, just like
the people who voted for him.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> And yes, for the drunk truck driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the early
> 90's.

How would knowing that benefit anyone?

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>And yes, for the drunk truck driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the early
>>90's.
>
>
> How would knowing that benefit anyone?
>
>
He was probably in the CIA, the Masons, the Klu Klux Klan and Opus Dei too!

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

NoEd wrote:

> I never point others typos. Only drunks do.

It takes sober people to find mistakes and drunks to make them.

Why can't you provide a more credible defense of your stands?

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>And yes, for the drunk truck driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the
>>>early 90's.
>>
>>
>> How would knowing that benefit anyone?
> He was probably in the CIA, the Masons, the Klu Klux Klan and Opus Dei
> too!

You might be on to something.

Re: Here's someone that doesn't like George.

I love you guys!!


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>> Ed wrote:
>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>And yes, for the drunk truck driver's benefit, I was in Mensa in the
>>>>early 90's.
>>>
>>>
>>> How would knowing that benefit anyone?
>> He was probably in the CIA, the Masons, the Klu Klux Klan and Opus Dei
>> too!
>
> You might be on to something.
>