 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bushwacked - Seven
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Feb 01 - 10:11 PM Actually Troll, neither Skeptic nor yourself have any endearing qualities whatsoever which is what endears you to me. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: MAV Date: 26 Feb 01 - 10:11 PM Catspawl, "Mav speaks the same "bigotspeak" that has made racism, chauvinism, and jingoism, come back to the fore" No I don't, I speak plain English, I will tell you straight out exactly what I support and believe in and what I despise and oppose. This is the exact demonization I was referring to back in Conservative Cavalry. The real bigots are the left, who can't wait to divide and categorize people into ethnic, sex, religious, philosophical and social strata classifications. We encourage people to "get out of the box" which refers to the nosey questions on applications about the above information. DON'T CHECK ANY BOXES! "It is often subtle, sometimes even joking, but it is always there below the surface" Painting any group with the broad brush is bigotry, you are doing here what you accuse me of. This is a typical fascist tactic. "A desire for freedom for all and less government restriction can make strange bedfellows" So you, of course, must be against all those things. "Never mistake where these folks are coming from and never allow yourself to be drawn into using them to advance your own good hearted arguments" Yes, stay with the lefty Marxist line like your glorious leader algor, who won by a landslide, oh wait, the head of the DNC is BILL CLINTON. "In the end you will lose" I think you have a little experience with that. "They are insidious and growing in number and you have to fight it and expose it where you find it." You don't know me and to brand me as a White Supremecist is both disingenuous and patently unfair. You sir are not just a liar, but genuinely evil......JUST LIKE CLINTON! "Oh yeah......Mav? Bugger off..." (I think I'll take Skeptic's advice here) You, sir, are a MASTER DEBATER!
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Troll Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:55 PM Forgive me, one and all. I have been derelict in my duty. I shall now attempt to make up for it. Skeptic is NOT reasonable, logical, or rational.Ever. He IS however always and irrevocably right. This is one of his least endearing qualities. Actually, he doesn't seem to have any "most" endearing qualities. And Freddie thinks he's "a neat guy." Thats enough for me. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: kendall Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:49 PM Then I would have the advantage. You see, I remember how I thought back when I was very conservative. It's hard to believe I was that narrow minded, judgemental, anal and self centered! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:46 PM Beam me aboard, Data. This planet is far too primitive to even consider for direct contact at this time. However, they do show promise. We'll check back in a few decades and see how they're doing. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 26 Feb 01 - 09:34 PM Dear Kendall, "MAV, I would love to debate you in person! I would also love to switch sides, you liberal, me conservative! Put em up, put em up!" I did that once, trying to prep a candidate, I was a rotten liberal. It would be fun though. Maybe I'm better now. mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Jim the Bart Date: 26 Feb 01 - 06:23 PM More - If you grant that the "problem" is the nature of man (and I don't really consider it a problem as much as the conditions under which we are expected to work), does it matter which system is in place? Some would say "No; man's nature will subvert the best intentions of any system designer." I would disagree. I believe the key is to design a system that builds on the strengths of human nature and protects us from the failings. For example - If you feel that GREED is a problem, don't design a system which puts a strong emphasis on acquiring stuff for oneself. If COOPERATION is a strength, build a system that rewards the ability to work together. We are a species where each individual is born too weak and helpless to survive on our own. We do not possess the greatest strength or speed of all mobile creatures and we don't possess natural defense mechanisms like shells, tusks, claws or overwhelming stench (well, at least not all of us). How have we managed to survive at all? We learn. And we discard old, outmoded learning which no longer serves to benefit the species. We changed our view of our place in the universe when the physical evidence finally overcame our superstitious ethnocentrism. We changed our view of the makeup of the stuff of the universe. We have learned so much about STUFF in the few thousand years we've been around. But every change in thinking is fought every step of the way. And the willingness to entertain new modes of thought seems to shrink more every day. Certain topics cannot even be broached without risking enmity that can escalate to mayhem. Abortion. Euthenasia. Capital Punishment. Sexual Orientation. Equitable Redistribution of Global Resources. Heresy. How the H*ll did this happen? How the H*ll are we going to survive the next thousand years? I'm off to ponder the eternal mysteries. Or maybe I'll just watch some TV, have dinner and a glass of wine. Have a great night,all. Bart |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Jim the Bart Date: 26 Feb 01 - 01:22 PM Man, you don't log in for a coupla days and all kinds of stuff breaks loose. 'Spaw - you are the devil (or at least devilishly funny). You had me with that first post. I was ready to fire back an irate post pointing out how what you were advocating was the bleak post-apocolyptic vision of the "Mad Max" movies when I decided to read on. And I'm glad I did. It's remarkable how good bad ideas can look on the surface. Of all the posts (and there have been some great points made in most of them), the one idea that jumped out at me was Skeptic's statement about government mediating power within a group. And POWER is what it is all about. People form groups to begin with because "in unity there is strength". A group, properly applying the power that it's existence generates, can accomplish a lot more than individual's can on their own. If that is true, bigger should be better. Standing against the concept of the power-generating properties of groups is the nature of Genius. Genius (at least as I understnd it), is the capacity for truly original thought, and is a property of the individual mind. Groups (brain-storming sessions not withstanding) do not possess genius. But once formulated in the mind of the individual of genius, an original idea gains potency when it is backed by the power of a group. There is, at best, an uneasy relationship between the needs of the individual and the power of the group. How the conflicts in this relationship are to be resolved is, at the most basic level, what separates the right and left politically. All the rest is details (sic). There is nothing keeping big government from working theoretically. It all comes down to execution at the individual level. Greed leads to corruption, cooperation turns to coercion; the power of the group, when misdirected, can lead to no good end regardless of the system in place. Can we solve the problems generated by the dynamics at work? We like to think so. As rational beings, we assume that applying reason to our problems we can find solutions that are acceptable for everyone. In practice, we eventually discover answers that (for some reason or another) we will not accept. We as a species are reluctant to change and to try new things. I personally think that one of the greatest obstacles to our ability to rationally solve our problems is religious dogma. But that's just me. Where the hell is this rant going? I dunno. Maybe I'm tired of talking about symptoms and want to try to peel away a few layers to see the disease that's causing all of this dissension for what it is. It's not our politics that's the problem here - it's us. Someone cited Pogo once before in this thread; it still holds true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:42 PM You're quite right that we shouldn't be resting on our ancestors' laurels. If you want REAL change, I would recommend the following: 1. Abolish money 2. Abolish political parties and nation-states (as separate, armed entities) 3. A worldwide Bill of Rights for citizens and workers 4. Dismantle all offensive weapons of mass destruction and establish a worldwide security force 5. Employment, education, and medical care for all who want it...at no charge 6. Same basic level of material wealth available in all parts of the planet 7. World citizenship for all with the same privileges across the board How's that for a start? Oh, and lots of local autonomy under that umbrella, with plenty of encouragement of local culture and local unique qualities. Plenty of democracy, with elections for individual representatives, without political parties, on all levels, from local to regional to a world governing council. Star Trek Next Generation, in other words. I ain't holdin' my breath, though... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Skeptic Date: 26 Feb 01 - 01:24 AM Little Hawk, Sleep. With vital issues to discuss and me with insomnia. Or have you forgotten that yes, it really is all about me :-) The present society you and I live in is a mixed picture. In one sense it is an oligarchy (it's run by a rich elite). In another sense it is a democracy (we have many basic human rights which we are fortunate to have, and which were acquired only through long social struggle). And we shouldn't be resting on our ancestors' laurels. What we seem to have done is allow the locus of power to move up the hierarchy, rather than keeping it at the lowest possible level. Rather than base decisions on that basis, we let ourselves be swayed by arguments about security and necessity and the idea that things are too complex for any but the experts. But there was an earlier thread that got into all that. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:56 AM Boy, what a read! Kat, it appears you are correct about Spaw's post. "Fascinating", as Mr. Spock might have said... The really vital thing is...what intentions lie behind a bunch of words...or a law...or a government? And what intentions lie behind the enforcement of a law? Socialism can work very well if the people administering it are of good intention and high morality, and they administer it well. If not, it can become a monstrosity. Ditto for capitalism, which has definitely become a monstrosity of late. The present society you and I live in is a mixed picture. In one sense it is an oligarchy (it's run by a rich elite). In another sense it is a democracy (we have many basic human rights which we are fortunate to have, and which were acquired only through long social struggle). So, from a radical activist sense much of what was said in Spaw's post is right on...depending on the intention that lies behind it. From a more moderate perspective, it's suspect. Depends on what angle you're looking at it from. I personally do find that fascinating indeed. I liked many things about socialism in Cuba, while I didn't like some aspects. I detest the excesses of capitalism and consumerism here, but I like many other aspects of North American society. Everywhere is a mixed picture. Well, maybe not Afghanistan...but I haven't been there. As for the one race thing...yeah, there is only one human race. I don't see rabbits dividing up into brown ones, black ones, spotted ones, and gray ones and fighting wars over it. They are smart enough to know that a rabbit is simply a rabbit (regardless of color) and that's all there is to it. When we humans get that smart, the racial slurs and racial wars will be over. Spaw is one clever rabbit, boy! Bye for now. Gotta get some sleep. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Skeptic Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:54 AM A plea for Civility It is entirely possible to call each other leftwing femminazi ecofreaks or rightwing, racist, greedhead assholes without coming right out and saying it. Most here are performers, creative types and fairly literate. A little style would be appreciated. Its much more fun to use nice language to call someone names, as it usually takes them a few minutes to figure out they've been deeply insulted. I've found there's nothing more self-satisfying than a delayed action insult.
Mav ALL violent crimes are HATE CRIMES!!! Technically true. There are already varying degrees of intent used to persecute violent crimes. Adding the "Hate Crimes" category is an expansion and refining of intent. As a pragmatic matter, does it much matter if the violent crime was premeditated? If a murder was for financial gain, is that better or worse than a murder because someone was gay or a minority? Or a communist. Or a Rommani. Or a Jew? Evil they all are. Some have more widespread implications for society. The federal sentencing guidelines already gives plenty of lattitude to "throw the book" at violent criminals, but liberal judges get all touchy feely and end up letting criminals get away with murder. Those judges need to GET OUT! I would suggest you consider the fact that in this country, our justice system combines justice under the law with the idea of equity. There are abuses. If we throw out the judges who are to lenient, what about the other extreme? If "Hate Crimes" legislation is to be taken seriously, what happens to the argument when the new justice department starts prosecuting the black on white crimes as mandated by the non-sensical and convoluted legislation? Many more black on white crimes occur every year than the reverse. I believe that black on black crime is even more prevalent. But either way, that doesn't make them hate motivated. What happens when the new justice department continues what the old ones did, disparate prosecution based on race? Think they won't? My favorite is crack versus cocaine possession. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the DA's in question are liberal or conservative. Well then how did they get elected? At least one of them got elected by vote of the Supreme Court. Perhaps some got elected through the judicious use of fear tactics? Some because of their positions on various social issues. Very few because they had anything much to offer in the way of getting to the root of the problem....beyond building more jails. The GOP (which represents the private sector) should do everything it can to educate the public about all things financial, the dems (who represent the public sector) NEVER WILL What a curious statement. The GOP doesn't represent the public sector? I thought they claimed to represent all the people, which was one of the keystone principals of W's administration. So we're back to "What's good for General Bullmouse is good for the USA"? If Koreans and other Asian entrepreneurs can proliferate in the inner city areas, so can the blacks. Instead, there has been an attitude of "racial" hated and jealousy, no white devils involved!!! Clearly, a lot of minorities proliferate in the inner city. A lot of businesses do to, large numbers of them marked by outrageous price gouging, credit schemes and the like. Run by all races. Victimizing the poor. Blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class. As more and more professional atheletes, entertainers and other members of any high paying profession begin to see the government's unreasonable confiscation of half of their hard earned income, their thinking is going to shift. I doubt if professional athletes and entertainers could be considered middle class. And question your statistics. And if true, they are the fastest growing segment of a shrinking middle class. Given that the cycle of violent crime and welfare dependency is fueled by an unlimited supply of children who unfortunately grow out of these circumstances, and that Queasy's actions speak louder than his words.... Given? By who, pray tell. The last I saw (and it has been several years), the average number of children for a family (usually single parent) on welfare was 2.1. About the same for non-welfare families (that was 2.3). While a nice, neat simple answer that explains away a very complex problem might be comforting to some, it does nothing to address root causes or solve anything. It offers the solace of style over substance. he wants to perpetuate the black underclass just to guarantee the "sacred" (and corrupt) "black civil rights" industry, finding inequity where none exists, and creating phoney rhetoric to keep people divided. Do you feel there is truly equality of opportunity? Hopefully this insidious institution (the racebaiting NAACP) will fade away, it has served its purpose. What about the significant number of other civil rights groups? Is there truly no prejudice left. Just what is artificially created by The Rainbow Coalition and NAACP (who represent 10% or so of blacks). I do partially agree that the NAACP takes its self defined role as savior a little too seriously and it's agenda has become distant from the root problems. I would agree that the GOP and Infume are worlds apart on lots of issues (gimmee vs. responsibility) The people he "serves" are welcome to become educated and productive Americans and to join the party. To say they can't do it is to call them STUPID! To say there are still not structural (political, social and economic) obstacles to their becoming such is also stupid. We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?) No. We don't. You may wish it was so. It would be comforting if it was. It would mean that it could all go away an we wouldn't have to deal with it. Could happily declare that the symptom is a cause and fell very self-satisfied. By the way, there is only one race......HUMAN! For an alternate opinion on this try the usenet. I suggest alt.alien.abduction. :-) Or this thread on mudcat BS: We are not (well maybe Alone in another post, these choice tidbits. That is your right, but centuries of societies conducting experimentation with family arrangements have brought us to the current status of the desirability of the nuclear family. Actually, it was the extended family that proved desirable and most viable. S the study you later cite implies. Recent studies have shown most criminals and other whack jobs emerge from dysfunctional and broken households but largely from single parent "families" where no father is present to enforce dicipline and teach right from wrong. It's a little like the old marijuana-heroin link from the 60's. 90% of all heroin users reported that they began by smoking pot. However, only 8% of all marijuana users reported that they had used heroin, a very different thing. In my part of Florida, 85% of all serious juvenile crime (defined as crime that, for an adult, would be a felony) is committed by children from single parent homes. However, of all single parent families, 18% have juveniles that commit a felony (On average. Rates vary by socio-economic groups). Which would seem to indicate the existence of other factors. In logic, it would be the error of composition And then he said...... I think they were referring to torture and drawing an quartering here, not overcrowding. As they are long dead, it matters what the courts and society today define as such. I will not disagree, but the end result of releasing these violent anti-social predators back onto the streets is illogical because it is cruel and unusual punishment to the general public who deserve protection from them. I'd like to see them exported. (This is a Gene Burns concept) To bad for him that the Constitution doesn't seem to agree. ip violent repeat offenders and murders of their Constitutional rights, since they've proven that they don't wish to participate in civilized society, and "farm them out" with a one time payment (say $25,000) to penal systems of third world countries. This could defuse some of the controversy over capital punishment. You might think twice about raping someone if you knew you might be moving to SYRIA! Or not. The use of punishment as a deterrent seems to be be linked to the nature of the crime, having less impact of most violent crimes because they are generally acts of passion and deterrence assumes some level of rationality. So far, building more prisons, mandatory sentencing and the like hasn't seemed to stem the tide. Could it be that there are underlying causes that could be corrected to reduce the number of crimes? And in another post The study covers much of what we already knew and more. It shows the destructive effects of your philosophy on a class of people. If you want to talk about victims, READ IT! The study also drew no conclusions. It was a fairly straight forward statistical analysis. The reporter tossed in several other "studies" that theorized about causes. I stress the "theory". And refer back to the discussion on juvenile crime.
Next I think I covered that but just let me add......I HATE AUTHORITARIANISM and BIG GOVERNMENT!!! What about big business???? She not Reno, ordered the raid on WACO.....FOR THE CHILDREN!!! Huh. A new one? Where did that come from? And still doesn't justify the name calling. By the way, lots of New Yorkers are questioning their choice for Senate, I'd say she may well face 6 years of defending emerging details from her and bubba's (nothing big about him) reign of terror in the White House. This should be good. Unless of course they can un-elect her. But then a lot of high level Republican strategists are very worried about Jeb and Republicans in general in Florida next year. Neither statement having any great or profound meaning. Or signifying much of anything. Been busy, haven't you? Go to www.junkscience.com for a global warming update. There is a reason they call it "junkscience.com" Just not the reason you imply or they would like you to believe Strangely, the IPCC report that involved something on the order of 60 scientists (all well respected), think that (for some reason) the mtl is up. "JunkScience" quotes one scientist who says it isn't. And what about the 1000 year ice core samples taken from glaciers around the globe that show a warming trend? Which may be a natural cyclical variances, may be due to greenhouses gases. May be a short term blip. Time will tell. Fortunately I have land in the North Carolina mountains, just in case. Which isn't to say he's wrong. I'll prefer not to leap quite yet. The debate his highly technical and will be fought out in peer-reviewed journals. Journalists will mis-report it. Politicians will miss-interpret it and "junkscience.com will report it as proving....something. Regards John I am off to Tallahassee for a Block Grant meeting Monday afternoon. Usually, I can't get the office laptop to connect to the internet on the road so somehow, you'll have to survive without me. And I without you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Skeptic Date: 26 Feb 01 - 12:03 AM Spaw, No, no. Its too late. I'm on to you now. All of you. As soon as I find the a right (of left) wing conspiracy site thats sufficiently extreme, I'm exposing you all. (links to same would be appreciate and would be the least you could all do. Consider yourself warned.!! Regards John PS: On the whole, from my limited time on Mudcat, one of your better efforts. Many thanks for an enjoyable time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Feb 01 - 10:27 PM .....Applause sign lights up and the audience goes wild!!!! Well done John!........oops, sorry, I meant to say..Totally Unreasonable John! Is that better? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Skeptic Date: 25 Feb 01 - 10:20 PM Spaw, Been out at a gig and got back to find mudcat was down. Nonetheless, I responded to your posting as follows (just to stay in character) Spaw, you're doing it too. I am not reasonable and I deeply resent being labeled so. Even troll has failed to come forth to correct this demeaning misconception. First you, then Little Hawk. And even Mav. I have to assume some deep conspiracy, replete with passwords, secret handshakes, private chat rooms and your own blazers and rings. You've already got the endearing nicknames and misleading cult name. "Catters" indeed! To clarify things for the last time: I am not reasonable or rational or logical. I am simply and consistently right. You are all consistently deluded and wrong. Once you all acknowledge that, the quality of your lives will dramatically improve. Well, the quality of mine will, which is what counts, of course. Please conduct yourselves accordingly.
Spaw and others. Government denotes the perennial lie, "of the people" which is used to mislead those who should know better Lies?. Only if you assume "of the people", implies the dynamic and scope of your forth grade election for class president. It is the keystone of your utopian nonsense and is meaning is vital. It works if "of the people" is taken as a literal statement of practical government as opposed to a belief used to establish power flow/ All governments are oligarchies, which means rule by the few No they aren't. All governments are a means of mediating power within a group. And that means that voluntarily or not, some limited group are designated to run things within the defined rules. The issue is whether power is irrevocably concentrated in the hands of a defined few, or concentrated by structural definition. And whether the structure is open or closed. Some oligarchies have facades, such as the Congress and the Senate. Dictatorships are, in reality, oligarchies (rule by the few). The modern oligarchy, which refers to itself as a democracy, is the most deceptive. That is because democracy is a fraud today, just as it has been throughout history; remember, the Trojan Horse or the Great Oz. Which means very little unless you are deeply into paranoia. All oligarchies have facades. All forms of government have a facade. Any ongoing group of more than three has a facade, written or implied. That does not mean all governments are oligarchies. Democracy tends to abstract ownership of power more than most forms. In the West, capitalism provides a strong oligarchical overlay since its current logic requires an oligarchy to maximize profit. There are more elements to an oligarchy than those given. Even the best of states are a protection racket. For example, the state takes $1.00 in tax, and you are lucky to receive 20% of that in services. These services are then usually redirected A curious assertion. Say rather that "you are lucky to receive 20% in services that you approve of" and it comes closer to the truth. When you live in a group, the adult thing to do is look at the overall benefits. It really isn't all about you, personally. If you don't want the benefits, passive or active, of the group (government) you're in, then either leave or expect to be accused of Randite self interest, which wouldn't work in the ultimate fantasy proposed.. The hold-up man, on the street, takes all that you have at the time. The burglar carries off, all that he can, from your house. However, rarely do these men make regular demands upon you, such as the state does, by robbing you and always claiming to be doing it "for your own good" or "for your general welfare" No. That isn't the claim. And it might be noted that one of the reasons the bad guy doesn't keep coming back is the evil government. You may rob and kill, without worry of punishment, if you are licensed by the state. The state police kill quite regularly, as do the military, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A Sometimes with justification (in their minds) sometimes without. Methinks we approach the crux of the issue. (Spaw, are you in some sort of trouble? Would you like to talk about it? I need to tell you up front. I don't do bail or character references.) Most of us travel through life unlicenced, unless it is perhaps a license to drive or to run a business. Should we attempt to operate anything without the proper license, we are sent to jail Jail? Please. A fine maybe. I, personally, don't want an un-licensed driver on the road with me. Or some guy who claims to be a doctor performing surgery. As society grows complex, some form of assuring safety is needed. We use (and also over use) the idea of the license but it provides some assurance of a minimal level of competency in a field (as opposed to so called occupational licenses, which are, in fact, a form of tax). National states are gangs, no less, no more They are either oligarchies or gangs. The two aren't interchanable terms. The first implies an dinstyitutioonalized concentration of power with little means of "breaking in". The second implies the ability to rise to the top through personal effort, usually by beating your fellow gang member. Gangs, by their nature, strive to become larger by gobbling up smaller gangs (smaller states) Some do it. "By their nature" is an unproven assertion and not normally seen as "normal" to the dynamic of gangs. on their way to becoming syndicates (or as we know them to be now, transnational corporations). I missed the leap from government to transnationals. They really are different as one is a promary an economic entity. Remember, the goal of International Socialism and International Capitalism, was to destroy smaller states, or to absorb them into the "Super Gang" Well, technically the communsists believed that the "destruction" was inherent in capitalism and that all they had to do was wait for the historic imperative. Gobbling up is an inhereent implication of capitalism. It is not a good "steady state" system. Soviet Russia was a good example Of an oligarchy. No kidding. and the term "the West" as opposed to "the East", was another. The result, in that case, was the "Cold War". The "Cold War" gobbled up nations into the specter of the "one big fight". Using this as an excuse, the natural resources of the world were squandered, along with the death of millions. All in the name of peace, brotherhood and national defense You realize this is overgeneralized, grossly incomplete and silly? Street gangs are the lowest common denominator, and in reality, the most sensible of all gang activity Actually, the family is the lowest common denominator. But who am I to stand in the path of a tidal wave of nonsense? Most street gangs today are satisfied with control of a few blocks of turf, and a financial cut. What happened to the "natural tendency" of gangs outlined above? These gangs are somewhat beneficial since they, in some ways, erode the confidence in the "Big Gang." However, the "Big Gang" tries to use this as a method of gaining tighter control. These gangs are arbitrary, narcissistic to the extreme and parasitical by definition and intent. There enduring social value is questionable, except as it relates to providing a simplistic support structure for those alienated by or too dysfunctional for the large society. Hey, I may be on to something here. Enters: drunk driving, road blocks, helmet laws and seat belt enforcement, as an example of seemingly "good" plans. These so-called "good" plans guide the sheep (that's you), to a more total control, by the "Big Gang" in Washington D.C. Or keeps me from getting killed because you are too stupid not to drink and drive. Imposes a burden of care on others due to more extensive injuries. Although I suppose the sick and injured could just be abandoned. Or if their belief in the good of the group triumphed over the good for themselves, there's always voluntary euthanasia. The international style state is inefficient, to the maximum. The goal of the "international style state" doesn't generally have efficiency as a goal. Exceptions would include most dictatorships. Nazi Germany, for example, made efficiency a virtue. The gaol of most states is efficacy. Either for the few or the many, depending on the mediating structures. Perhaps we are moving towards a time of city states. City states would be desirable and efficient, plus they would be culturally strong Efficient versus efffacious. Culturally strong? Because Athens was? Or the Italian States (and that for a brief period of the renaissance)? Both were "culturally strong" only in comparison to some geographically close neighbors. They were also fairly bellicose and tried to dominate their fellow city states. In Athens, if you weren't a citizen, you were considered less than human. And treated accordingly. In Italy, the City States were usually at war, devoting considerable effort and expense to dominating their neighbors. And both had governments, with Italy being an example of a fairly typical oligarchy. Status was based on wealth and family. If you were a member of the right family, it wasn't too bad, otherwise, it was pretty miserable. As an example, the greatest time of culture and art, on the Italian Boot, were in the time of the city states. Italy has not since demonstrated anything that comes close. Greece, at its peak, was comprised of city states. Why not city states with satellite village states? By effective immigration, this is a reachable goal Because it doesn't answer any of the earlier objections. It doesn't get around the grave concerns about oligarchy and may, in fact, promote same, as political, social and economic power is more concentrated, hence easier to concentrate. It would encourage a lacl of diversity of viewpoint and type. Provincialism in the extreme. And would still have to have the dreaded "government" if for nothing else to settle inter city-state issues. I think "immigrations: is a key word. Absolutely. Each little group can have their own little city state and live in perfect agreement and splendid isolation. The saving grace is that in achieving commonality of viewpoint and belief, these states would achieve (ultimately) unrelenting blandness. It would be safe and secure and everyone would feel empowered and you'd be perfectly free to do whatever you wanted as long as everyone more or less agreed with you. And if not, well, there's always exile. All in all, I'd say that as a utopian ideal, it's as ill conceived, impractical and unviable as any I've come across. And not as well argued. Unless, of course, your agenda is to develop the commonality mentioned above. In which case it's a bigot's wet dream come true and would ultimately (as history as amply demonstrated) lead to the kind of "freedom" found in cloistered communities or any petty dictatorship. I would find the city state to be limiting in the extreme, but them I think life should be embraced, not constrained. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Feb 01 - 09:23 PM Hawk, I luvya.........And I know where your heart lies having read your views on the Cuban situation and the world in general for some time here at the 'Cat. You are many times a disillusioned optimist who would so much like to see the individual rights and freedoms of all upheld and defended by an honest government that you are able to look past the implications of some actions. If things were to go according to that other post I made, we would be returning to fiefdoms based on the collective prejudices of each and rather than freedom and respect for all and less war, there would be more. REad and think it through carefully and (as Troll so well picked up historically) you will see it is yet another form of bigotry and racism. Yeah, I do have a wicked sense of humor. I pulled that post from a White Supremacist website and deleted the "whites, niggers, Jews" lines. It is understandable how at first read it may sound sensible in the same way that MAV sounds sensible at times-----"There is only one race, the human race"------which makes us want to believe that he does see things as we do, only slightly skewed. This is not true. Mav speaks the same "bigotspeak" that has made racism, chauvinism, and jingoism, come back to the fore. It is often subtle, sometimes even joking, but it is always there below the surface. A desire for freedom for all and less government restriction can make strange bedfellows. Never mistake where these folks are coming from and never allow yourself to be drawn into using them to advance your own good hearted arguments. In the end you will lose. They are insidious and growing in number and you have to fight it and expose it where you find it. Spaw Oh yeah......Mav? Bugger off... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 01 - 04:59 PM Kendall and Mav- try it! I would love to follow that. And just maybe I'll learn something. I would like to be able to negotiate the tortured labyrinthe- "This happened and that means such and so and therefore, so and so is also true"- that MAV is trekking. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: kendall Date: 25 Feb 01 - 04:33 PM MAV, I would love to debate you in person! I would also love to switch sides, you liberal, me conservative! Put em up, put em up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 04:19 PM Hey Ebbie, "And don't tell me that Hillary Clinton "ordered" Waco!" You heard it here first. Film at 11. I also predicted the report on Dale Ernhart's safety harness, I still think there's more on that story, but then I'm not a big NASCAR fan. "Question: As for the attempted export business of Ms. Clinton's brothers- to Russia- in what way was it illegal? Was it because she allegedly abused her position in giving them an unfair edge?" That is a question for the new and exciting Department of Justice, something we haven't had in 8 years. It certainly calls into question her veracity. Doesn't it? "I'm going to have to think of a better sign-off. Neither of us wants to misuse the concept of love, do we?" No, but maybe something like; "10-4 good buddy, put the pedal to the metal and keep the greasy side down and the shiny side up, right back 'atcha. We clear, Ebbie" But then again, maybe that isn't you and it is a little lengthy. Oh well, you'll think of something. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 03:38 PM Dear Skeptic, "When the Democrats get over 90% of the African-American vote it's hard not to call that "lock-step" voting. The vote for Gore was certainly self-interest but Jackson and his demagogic brothers were out front telling them what their self-interest was and assuring them that they could make it happen only if the Democrats got in Lock Step, perhaps. . But then so was, according to the polls, the vote of the less tolerant Christians" That's a skewed poll. They didn't consider the "less tolerent Christians" who happen to be black Baptist algor voters. Did they? The so-called religious left. Guess I'll stick around after all. You guys are ok. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 01 - 03:21 PM mav (my opinion is still out on that one!), I'm not defending the Clinton's. I'm saying that neither of them is a HITLER. You are trivializing. And don't tell me that Hillary Clinton "ordered" Waco! Question: As for the attempted export business of Ms. Clinton's brothers- to Russia- in what way was it illegal? Was it because she allegedly abused her position in giving them an unfair edge? I'm going to have to think of a better sign-off. Neither of us wants to misuse the concept of love, do we? Cheers- but not a 'toast'... Ebbie
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 02:45 PM Hey Ebbie, This just in...... ======================================================== "Newsweek also reports that Hillary Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham and a third sibling, younger brother Tony Rodham, tried to set up a hazelnut-export business in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia -- until the State Department told them to stop. The brothers traveled to Taiwan and South Korea prospecting for business. During one visit, according to local press reports, they brought a gift and personal letter from Hillary to the Korean First Lady, Lee Hee-ho. (A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton says she does not recall the episode.)" ===================================================== I have no recollection of that, Sorry, I don't recall, I really don't remember that, I really don't know. I have no knowledge, You'll have to ask my husband about that......... Expect investigations and special council. Don't blame me, Don't blame Ashcroft. Blame the clintons.
Fondly, mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 02:26 PM Mister M, "Are you aware of a recent study that shows considerable evidence that the criminal brain is lacking in the stuff that makes us know the difference between right and wrong?" Yes, it's called morality. Just kidding, I'll take your word on it, but beware the junk scientists. Go to www.junkscience.com for a global warming update.
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 02:19 PM Dear Ebbie, "Naming no names I'd like to make a few guesses on a certain person's homelife" Well, since you named me in your last comment I'll just guess you're talking about me. "Your wife trots back and forth bringing you comestibles -and never doing it quite to your satisfaction-" She takes pretty good care of me and I try to do the same for her. I leave her a message daily on the answering machine thanking her for what she does for me, she also works. "or she is out there telling people how unhappy she is in her situation" We both find ourselves talking favorably to others about our better halves, both of us had prior relationships where we were treated badly so we love and appreciate each other (for 18 years). You? "Your children, sir, are either kowtowing to you and spouting the same rhetoric or they left home long ago and you haven't seen them in 10 years" We weren't blessed with children but we love the daylights out of our nieces and nephews. "You are an animal lover-" True. "and are fond of saying dogs are the only thing you can trust" Not true, I believe in people and their ability to exercise their freedom and accept their responsibilities. The thing about the Collie went right over you lil head. Didn't it? "Your daydreams are dark and scary" Not really, we just got control of the US government for the first time in 40 years, actually I'm quite optimistic. "Or NOT... Maybe this is just the venting of a mild little man who wishes someone would pay attention to him just once" I'm pretty mild mannered but I get plenty of attention. It's actually pretty amazing that I even have time to post on this forum. Maybe it's just the venting of someone with a different point of view than the Hollywood left. "Incidentally, where does mav (nothing big about him)" There he goes, not naming names. "get off taking offense at being placed in 'reich field'" I think I covered that but just let me add......I HATE AUTHORITARIANISM and BIG GOVERNMENT!!! "but feels justified in saying 'Hitlary'?" She not Reno, ordered the raid on WACO.....FOR THE CHILDREN!!! She's the smartest woman in the world, but she doesn't know anything. (Just like Sargeant Schultz) "I know NUTZING!......mmmmm......NUTZING!" I just watched the entire Hitlary press conference from Thursday, what a lying crock. Any one who believes a word she says is..........whatevr. Perhaps you should take a look at "Hell to Pay" by Barbara Olsen, or take a look at some of the observations of people who worked with her in the White House (they weren't allowed to look at her) Thank you for asking. By the way, lots of New Yorkers are questioning their choice for Senate, I'd say she may well face 6 years of defending emerging details from her and bubba's (nothing big about him) reign of terror in the White House. This should be good. Unless of course they can un-elect her. Fondly, mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: kendall Date: 25 Feb 01 - 01:41 PM MAV, there is a huge difference between forcing a man to live like a rat, and an immigrant living in a crowd. The immigrant is probably among friends and relatives, and, he does have a choice.Much more of a choice than the prisoner. Are you aware of a recent study that shows considerable evidence that the criminal brain is lacking in the stuff that makes us know the difference between right and wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 01 - 01:10 PM Naming no names I'd like to make a few guesses on a certain person's homelife: Your wife trots back and forth bringing you comestibles - and never doing it quite to your satisfaction- or she is out there telling people how unhappy she is in her situation. Your children, sir, are either kowtowing to you and spouting the same rhetoric or they left home long ago and you haven't seen them in 10 years. You are an animal lover- and are fond of saying dogs are the only thing you can trust. Your daydreams are dark and scary. Or NOT... Maybe this is just the venting of a mild little man who wishes someone would pay attention to him just once. Incidentally, where does mav (nothing big about him) get off taking offense at being placed in 'reich field' but feels justified in saying 'Hitlary'? Fondly, Ebbie
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:40 PM Ok Kat, "Oh, whip me, daddy, whip me! Of course you don't cite any studies, of any ilk, to prove any of your statements...but that doesn't surprise me...it is always easiest to turn it around and make out as the victim with a bunch of meaningless crap..." I assume you're talking to me. If you want to be that way, that's fine. Don't you pay attention to anything current? Any moron could have looked this up in 2 minutes so I (your favorite moron) DID! It's a study from the University of Minnesota, that obvious bastion of southern bible banging right wing extremist rednecks (Mondale, Humphery etc.) The study covers much of what we already knew and more. It shows the destructive effects of your philosophy on a class of people. If you want to talk about victims, READ IT! www.ipums.umn.edu/~ruggles/strib94.html It might be meaningless crap, but it's YOUR meaningless crap. "Yes, but, Kendall, if MAV et al got their way, all of the liberals, non-Christians, people of colour, homosexuals, bastards, etc would be put in concentration camps and/or eliminated and then they wouldn't have those problems at all! You know they just wouldn't have any crime amongst themselves!" Of course you don't cite any studies, of any ilk, to prove any of your statements...but that doesn't surprise me...it is always easiest to turn it around and make out as the victim with a bunch of meaningless crap... I have a Collie named Patty, unlike you she is very friendly and reasonable. mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:05 PM Hey Mister, "The main problem here is not so much the fact they are "Liberal" but, the constitution forbids Cruel and unusual punishment" I think they were referring to torture and drawing an quartering here, not overcrowding. "Jambing 3 men into a cell built for one is just that.Every prison in this country is overcrowded, and, just like rats or any other animal, when over crowding occurs, the result is quite predictable" Don't forget some immigrants live this crowded by choice, it only seems cruel by jaded American standards. I will not disagree, but the end result of releasing these violent anti-social predators back onto the streets is illogical because it is cruel and unusual punishment to the general public who deserve protection from them. I'd like to see them exported. (This is a Gene Burns concept) Strip violent repeat offenders and murders of their Constitutional rights, since they've proven that they don't wish to participate in civilized society, and "farm them out" with a one time payment (say $25,000) to penal systems of third world countries. This could defuse some of the controversy over capital punishment. You might think twice about raping someone if you knew you might be moving to SYRIA! Not my idea, your thoughts?
mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Metchosin Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:55 AM and not. Contradiction is not a bad thing just inevitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Metchosin Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:51 AM The one saving grace of all this is that we human beings are so incompetent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: katlaughing Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:46 AM Yes, but, Kendall, if MAV et al got their way, all of the liberals, non-Christians, people of colour, homosexuals, bastards, etc would be put in concentration camps and/or eliminated and then they wouldn't have those problems at all! You know they just wouldn't have any crime amongst themselves! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: kendall Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:38 AM The issue of liberal judges. The main problem here is not so much the fact they are "Liberal" but, the constitution forbids Cruel and unusual punishment. Jambing 3 men into a cell built for one is just that.Every prison in this country is overcrowded, and, just like rats or any other animal, when over crowding occurs, the result is quite predictable. Remember Attica? So. What happens when the voters are asked to foot the bill for a new or bigger prison? N.I.M.B.Y. thats what. (not in my back yard) The general public wants to throw them into prison and forget them. The constitution forbids it. Judges are bound by the constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: katlaughing Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:34 AM Oh, whip me, daddy, whip me! Of course you don't cite any studies, of any ilk, to prove any of your statements...but that doesn't surprise me...it is always easiest to turn it around and make out as the victim with a bunch of meaningless crap... again, LH, read Spaw very carefully... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:30 AM Dear Little Hawk, "Boy, am I sick of this term "love child". What does it mean, anyway? Seriously! It's a dumb term used by publications like National Enquirer to embarass celebrities" I think the Supremes (the singing group, not SCOTUS) created it in the 60s and probably helped make the destructive practice more acceptable. "How come they (celebrities) have "love children" while the rest of us simply have children?" Because they have the morals of alley cats and the "rest of us" presumably look out for the best interests of our children including giving them TWO parents. "Presumably it means a child conceived out of wedlock" Yes, it means illegitimate (illegal) or even nastier, BASTARD! Both of those terms can be viewed in a dictionary near you. "Big deal. I don't particularly care. If I thought marriages were "made in heaven" then I would, but I don't" That is your right, but centuries of societies conducting experimentation with family arrangements have brought us to the current status of the desirablilty of the nuclear family. Recent studies have shown most criminals and other whack jobs emerge from dysfunctional and broken households but largely from single parent "families" where no father is present to enforce dicipline and teach right from wrong. "They're (referring to marriages) made in churches and government offices generally. I mean, in the technical sense..." Yes, hence the term legitimate or legal applied to a new member of a family...not just spawn popped out like so many accidental puppies. Not being real friendly to political correctness, I think the term "love child" does have a certain consideration for the individual in question to it when contrasted to BASTARD! mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: katlaughing Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:23 AM Oh...Spaw....fess up, darlin'....? You might as well have left the racist crap in...would've pleased the insecure white guy to no end...Oh, didja know there are NO single parents our there in Whitey's World? That's right, no bastards at all! What a bunch of crap...LH, read, very carefully...our Spaw has outsmarted you this time... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:11 AM Amen to that, MAV. There is only one race...HUMAN! Now there's a simple truth that bears repeating now and then. I agree that individual right-wingers are more inclined toward small gangs and leftists toward big ones, but that does not necessarily follow with right-wing governments...who work happily with multinational corporations, generally speaking, to exploit the have-nots in the world. The multinationals are capitalists, but they are among the biggest gangs we've seen yet in this world. To me, they are like Communists with a new party line...which is...make money and lots of it by any means possible, regardless of consequences to nature, society, or human rights and moral decency. I've noticed that the city politics in my home town of Orillia are basically far more democratic than the Ontario provincial political system or the Canadian federal system, because the people involved in city politics are far better known to the public who votes for them, and accordingly are more responsive to that public. So Spaw may be onto a good idea here with his notion of city-states. More local control leads to better government. The ultimate horror is a state-centered authority like Stalinist Russia, which caused the deaths of millions of small farmers and their families in its efforts to collectivize agriculture. Such a government is utterly out of touch with the aspirations of its people, and is capable of atrocities that pass all understanding. It is the same catspaw49, MAV. He's a very smart guy, he just has a wicked sense of humour at times, that's all. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 10:05 AM "Mfume supposedly said some differences on key issues such as public education, affordable health care, hate crimes, and economic development. SOME differences...KEY issues?? Well, yeah...major ones" First of all it's bad enough that the federal government is addressing any of these issues at all, for anyone. These are just not supposed to be Constitutionally allowed of the federal government. These are the domain of the smaller gangs. ALL violent crimes are HATE CRIMES!!! The federal sentencing guidelines already gives plenty of lattitude to "throw the book" at violent criminals, but liberal judges get all touchy feely and end up letting criminals get away with murder. Those judges need to GET OUT! If "Hate Crimes" legislation is to be taken seriously, what happens to the argument when the new justice department starts prosecuting the black on white crimes as mandated by the non-sensical and convoluted legislation? Many more black on white crimes occur every year than the reverse. "if you ask me and there is a wide, wide gap betwixt the leadership of the GOP and where they think the rest of the country is on those issues" Well then how did they get elected? "Economic development" is definitely a function of the private sector. The GOP (which represents the private sector) should do everything it can to educate the public about all things financial, the dems (who represent the public sector) NEVER WILL! If Koreans and other Asian entrepreneurs can proliferate in the inner city areas, so can the blacks. Instead, there has been an attitude of "racial" hated and jealousy, no white devils involved!!! Blacks are the fastest growing segment of the middle class. As more and more professional atheletes, entertainers and other members of any high paying profession begin to see the government's unreasonable confiscation of half of their hard earned income, their thinking is going to shift. "Queasy" is a good looking black man with a nice smile and demeanor, likely the replacement for the disgraced (or should be) Jackson. Unfortunately he is, like Jackson, an unashamed racebaiter and father of a small village of "single parent" children (aka bastards). Given that the cycle of violent crime and welfare dependency is fueled by an unlimited supply of children who unfortunately grow out of these circumstances, and that Queasy's actions speak louder than his words.... he wants to perpetuate the black underclass just to guarantee the "sacred" (and corrupt) "black civil rights" industry, finding inequity where none exists, and creating phoney rhetoric to keep people divided. Hopefully this insidious institution (the racebaiting NAACP) will fade away, it has served its purpose. I would agree that the GOP and Infume are worlds apart on lots of issues (gimmee vs. responsibility) The people he "serves" are welcome to become educated and productive Americans and to join the party. To say they can't do it is to call them STUPID! We all know that's just not true. (Don't we?) By the way, there is only one race......HUMAN! mav out
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 25 Feb 01 - 08:50 AM Yes Catspaw, Except the left favors the BIG gangs and the right favors the smaller ones (state, city, family). Small gangs is a natural thing. Everyone knows "It takes a village". Hitlary told us so. The quote doesn't say "It takes a bloated self-serving bureaucracy to _____________" We have plenty of lefties in the GOP by the way, and there are probably some wayward conservatives in the democrat party (but not many at the top). It is more specific to refer to left and right than GOP and democrats. (except the dems stick together like glue on an issue regardless of their individual positions) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:56 AM I must say how happy I am to have brought both sides together with one post.....except for Skeptic of course. What he has to say generally makes perfect sense and therefore can be excluded from the rest of these arguments, which rarely do. Though Mav may not agree with me, I think there is very little difference between the extremes of left and right......since both sides seem to agree with the above post. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: katlaughing Date: 25 Feb 01 - 12:51 AM Mfume supposedly said some differences on key issues such as public education, affordable health care, hate crimes, and economic development. SOME differences...KEY issues?? Well, yeah...major ones, if you ask me and there is a wide, wide gap betwixt the leadership of the GOP and where they think the rest of the country is on those issues. Oh, Spaw darlin'...can I interest in you in a Home State in the Northwest? Land o' Plenty...big fences, big guns to keep everyone else out...Karen would have to go barefoot, though...same ol' Spaw, my arse! kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:35 PM Well, well, well, BLEEP! Jackson, take a look at this; ================================================== Kweisi Mfume, President & CEO, NAACP, said today that he looks forward to meeting with Rep. Dick Armey and other leading Republican Congressional leaders to turn down racial rhetoric and to lay "the groundwork for a different type of coexistence and cooperation between the NAACP and the Republican Party." Mfume, in a letter to Armey, a former colleague in the House of Representatives, said: "On the issue of race the American people have every right to expect that we will work together to achieve real and lasting progress. Under that rubric our mantra must read, "race baiters of either ilk need not apply." On February 17, 2001, Mfume called for meetings between himself and President Bush and leaders of Congress. He said that despite some differences on key issues such as public education, affordable health care, hate crimes, and economic development, "there is no reason for us to have permanent disengagement. ======================================================== Armey had agreed to meet with Infume if he would repudiate the "dragging ad" and other attacks accusing the GOP of racism. Maybe the NAACP sees the dems as fading and want to get while the gettin's good. IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:29 PM Hey cats, Thanks, I think. mav out |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:14 PM Oh I dunno' myself Mav......but somehow I have a feeling you have a lot to do with it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: GUEST,MAV Date: 24 Feb 01 - 10:38 PM I swear, "old" catspaw49 wrote that himself, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it. I'm innocent (well, at least not guilty) I tell you. I dunno either, mav out
PS HEY!! Is that the same guy as catspawl??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Troll Date: 24 Feb 01 - 10:22 PM "Spaw, the Italian city-states were constantly at war with one another and the Greek city-states were based on slave labor. Only male citizens could vote and to be a citizen you had to have been born of citizen parents. Otherwise I like what you said. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Feb 01 - 09:17 PM Spaw - That is the most gloriously true post I think I have ever read on Mudcat. I like you when you're funny, but when you're serious you are amazing. We are indeed all ruled by oligarchies, big gangs, masquerading as defenders of freedom. "Like Judas of old they lie and deceive..."
Now he worships at the altar Above quotes from Dylan. The woman might just as well be Mother Nature... The big gang that rules the USA cynically divides its people into following 2 official parties (tools of the oligarchy), then sets them at each others' throats every 2 to 4 years, then walks away with the riches, and throws the public a few crumbs. Divide and conquer. Democracy, indeed. Hah! Just give them enough TV and consumer goods and mindless entertainment to keep them pacified (like the Roman mob), and the game goes on and on...while Eden burns. Orwell only glimpsed the possibilities. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Feb 01 - 07:06 PM I dunno'........On a completely serious note, you do change as you age and I think ol' Mav may have some points. Government is the term for the modern state. Government denotes the perennial lie, "of the people" which is used to mislead those who should know better. All governments are oligarchies, which means rule by the few. Some oligarchies have facades, such as the Congress and the Senate. Dictatorships are, in reality, oligarchies (rule by the few). The modern oligarchy, which refers to itself as a democracy, is the most deceptive. That is because democracy is a fraud today, just as it has been throughout history; remember, the Trojan Horse or the Great Oz. Even the best of states are a protection racket. For example, the state takes $1.00 in tax, and you are lucky to receive 20% of that in services. These services are then usually redirected. The hold-up man, on the street, takes all that you have at the time. The burglar carries off, all that he can, from your house. However, rarely do these men make regular demands upon you, such as the state does, by robbing you and always claiming to be doing it "for your own good" or "for your general welfare". You may rob and kill, without worry of punishment, if you are licensed by the state. The state police kill quite regularly, as do the military, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. These people are allowed to. Most of us travel through life unlicensed, unless it is perhaps a license to drive or to run a business. Should we attempt to operate anything without the proper license, we are sent to jail. National states are gangs, no less, no more. Gangs, by their nature, strive to become larger by gobbling up smaller gangs (smaller states), on their way to becoming syndicates (or as we know them to be now, transnational corporations). Remember, the goal of International Socialism and International Capitalism, was to destroy smaller states, or to absorb them into the "Super Gang". Soviet Russia was a good example, and the term "the West" as opposed to "the East", was another. The result, in that case, was the "Cold War". The "Cold War" gobbled up nations into the specter of the "one big fight". Using this as an excuse, the natural resources of the world were squandered, along with the death of millions. All in the name of peace, brotherhood and national defense. Street gangs are the lowest common denominator, and in reality, the most sensible of all gang activity! Most street gangs today are satisfied with control of a few blocks of turf, and a financial cut. These gangs are somewhat beneficial since they, in some ways, erode the confidence in the "Big Gang." However, the "Big Gang" tries to use this as a method of gaining tighter control. Enters: drunk driving, road blocks, helmet laws and seat belt enforcement, as an example of seemingly "good" plans. These so-called "good" plans guide the sheep (that's you), to a more total control, by the "Big Gang" in Washington D.C. The international style state is inefficient, to the maximum. Perhaps we are moving towards a time of city states. City states would be desirable and efficient, plus they would be culturally strong. As an example, the greatest time of culture and art, on the Italian Boot, were in the time of the city states. Italy has not since demonstrated anything that comes close. Greece, at its peak, was comprised of city states. Why not city states with satellite village states? By effective immigration, this is a reachable goal. Like I say, I dunno'......... Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: kendall Date: 24 Feb 01 - 11:08 AM Red haired step child? I believe it means that the child in question is obviously not the off spring of the father. Remember Laugh In? the Farckle family,with all those red haired kids, and the neighbor, Furd Burffle with flaming red hair? Everytime I see a Volvo car I think of that old saying; "Ministers dont like bar sinisters." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: Troll Date: 24 Feb 01 - 10:45 AM "Love Child" is an old term as is "Woods Colt", "Byblow", and "Bantling". Bend or Bar Sinister is popularly thought to denote bastardy in heraldry (it doesn't), as does the term "red-haired step-child" in some circles. I never could figure the last one out myself. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bushwacked - Seven From: kendall Date: 24 Feb 01 - 08:13 AM Love Child..yuk! almost as bad a illegitimate! What a cruel narrow minded label to stick on an innocent child. |