Text 3579, 284 rader
Skriven 2004-10-16 09:31:26 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Kommentar till en text av Howie Coombe
Ärende: CHRIS_SOC: IF I WERE AMERICAN I WO
==========================================
15 Oct 04 19:16, Howie Coombe wrote to John Hull:
HC> Dear John, in regards to this message to Me.
>> 11 Oct 04 18:46, Howie Coombe wrote to John Hull:
>> HC> Dear John, in regards to this message to me.
>>>> 08 Oct 04 16:18, Howie Coombe wrote to John Hull:
>>>>>> HC> Because Americans cant, as a rule, and sometimes dont want
>>>>>> HC> to, as a
>>>>>> I have always answered civil questions about our political
>>>>>> system from
>>>> HC> I will give credit where it is due, you have always seemed to
>>>> HC> answer
>>>> That's because conservative works better than liberal in general.
>> HC> I Certainly think a lot of residents of Scandinavia would have
>> I submit that you haven't been keeping up with what's going on
>> there.
HC> That is possible, i have been known to not pay too much attention
HC> to the policy's of countrys that, IMO Sadly, do not have as much
HC> effect on Australia as America's does.
>> The scandinavian governments that were famous for their cradle to
>> grave liberalism have been forced to cut back and eliminate a lot of the
>> > programs > they touted for years.
HC> Yes they were but, both socially and politically, Scandinavia,
HC> which is to say Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, still are far more
HC> liberal then "The Land of the free and the home of the brave", or
HC> Australia for that matter.
The point, however, is that socialism (aka liberalism) as practiced in
Scandinavia was and is a total failure. That's why they've been steadily
moving away from it for 20 years. That they are still more liberal than the US
is immaterial considering where they started from. They have still moved
decidedly toward the right.
>> The people got tired of giving more than half their earnings to the
>>
>> > government to pay for programs that paid the freight for those who
>> > sat on
>> > > their butts and drew the dole.
HC> Aha, spoken like a true conservative, see above.
The definition of a conservative is someone who learns from his mistakes and
doesn't repeat them. A liberal is someone who keeps making the same mistakes
over and over and expects a different outcome THIS time. That is precisely why
Democrats haven't come up with any truly new ideas politically since Lyndon
Johnson was in office.
>>>> My personal political feelings do not interfere with my ability to
>> HC> Yes they do, mind you to give credit where it is due, so does
>> HC> mine, so
HC> No Comment?, i will take that as an agreement.
Some things are simply too ridiculous to comment on.
>>>>>> What I take exception to are those who preface their questions
>>>>>> with
>>>> HC> Which is perfect?.
>>>> Never said that.
>> HC> Maybe not in so many words but you did indicate as much by
>> HC> admitting
admitting what?
HC> No comment?, i willtake that as an agreement.
See comment above.
>>>> Our internal politics have no bearing on your life in any
>>>> substantial
>> HC> Your internal politics have a bearing on your Economy and your
>> If that's true,
HC> If?.
>> that isn't MY fault.
HC> Yours personally?, no, but it is your countrys.
Again, you aren't American. You (the collective you) control your own borders.
If you think things in Australia are too Americanized, you have it in your
power to change that. The fact that you don't scuttles your complaint.
>> Nobody is holding a gun to your collective heads and forcing you to
>>
>> > buy/use/watch American.
HC> No you do not use guns, you use FTA's, Mass Marketing, Strategic
HC> market flooding and franchising techniques, although i will
HC> concede you also do use the occasional superior product.
Different names for the same idea. You aren't being forced to accept anything.
>> That is a choice that your countrymen have made in preference to
>> local stuff.
HC> Exept that your countryment have in a lot of cases convinced my
HC> countrymen to market your stuff as our "local stuff" by giving it
HC> a local host or some other form of local spin.
So what? Couldn't have done it without complicity on your part, could we now?
>> You want to place blame,
HC> I do not want to place blame, i simply want to state facts.
>> look in the mirror.
Like I said up above, you keep doing the same thing and expecting different
results this time.
HC> You first.
>>>>>> or on those running for office.
>>>> HC> Which again are perfect?.
>>>> Certainly never said that.
>> HC> Your Parlimentry Candidates have a bearing on your Economy and
>> HC> your
>> We don't have a parliament.
HC> You have 2 elected levels of government, we have 2 elected levels
HC> of government, The only differences are you directly elect your
HC> head of government, and your dog catchers.
There are accepted definitions for types of governments. We have a
representative republic form, you have a parliamentary form. Look it up.
>>>>>> First,
>>>> HC> Yes?.
>>>>>> your interest in the inner workings of our system is fine to the
>>>>>> extent
>>>> HC> I am glad you think that.
>>>>>> Ultimately,
>>>> HC> Yes?.
>>>>>> however,
>>>> HC> Yes?.
>>>>>> your opinions on those inner workings are meaningless in that
>>>>>> they
>>>> HC> I Disagree, they are meaningfull in that they can affect the
>>>> HC> people,
>>>> Your opinions are not going to cause somebody to change their mind
>>>> in
>> HC> Yes?.
HC> No argument?, i willtake that as an agreement.
You gotta stop trying to put words in my mouth.
>>>> Joe Average Citizen is not a participant here,
>> HC> So everybody here is extraordinary how?.
>> To the extent that we participate on a regular basis in the
>> process, yes.
HC> And how?.
>>>> so will never hear your opinion;
>> HC> Aha, unless somebody here talks to them about it, and they
>> HC> might.
HC> No Argument?, i willtake that as an agreement.
And you would be wrong.
>>>> and second,
>> HC> Yes?.
HC> No argument?, i willtake that as an agreement.
>>>> the people in this echo will have already formed an opinion that
>>>> is
>> HC> In otherwords the people of this echo are too stuck in there
>> HC> ways.
>> No,
HC> No?.
>> not at all.
HC> Of course not, how silly of me to think otherwise.
>> Nobody has presented any cogent arguments to cause us to change our
>> minds.
HC> "cogent argument", so that is what you call what you folks do in
HC> here?.
Howie, WE are having a cogent argument. You have not convinced me to embrace
liberalism.
>>>> and will probably be ticked off that somebody who doesn't even
>>>> live here
>> HC> Constructive comment is constructive comment and where it comes
>> HC> from
>>>> But,
>> HC> Yes?.
HC> No Argument?, i will take that as an agreement.
>>>> let's assume that you do change a couple of minds to your way of
>> HC> OK, And?.
HC> No Argument?, i will take that as an agreement. more later maybe.
You have a rather annoying habit of only including part of quotes you are
commenting on. If I don't comment on something, its because of one of the
following: 1. It isn't worth a comment, 2. I missed it, or 3. I don't care
what you think about it.
You don't help things, however, when you chop up the quoted text to the point
that one can no longer follow the context in any way approaching clarity. So,
if you expect me (or anybody else) to answer, just stick your comments in at
the appropriate place and leave ALL of the quotes material there so we can
follow along without having to backtrack and find old messages to see what the
original context was.
John
America: First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.
--- Msged/386 TE 05
* Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)
|