BS: England's Evil Empire

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: kendall
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

Scrump, that sounds familiar...now let me see....Oh yes, the Muslims who over reacted to the cartoons of Muhammad.

I've traveled extensivly in the UK and I don't hear any "America bashing".

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM

I get the impression that some people are taking this book seriously. One question: why?

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:06 AM

Nobody's mentioned Enid Blyton books.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:12 AM

Great post, Kendall! (a couple back) You are so right that no one is responsible for what his ancestors did. Children do not inherit their parents' or grandparents' guilt, and no one is guilty merely by association.

I would have to agree with Teribus that the British Empire, as empires go, also did a lot of good in the sense that they were far better organized than most empires, had a better system of law and governance than most empires, and were less brutal in their treatment of colonized people than many empires have been. So it was a mixed picture. (Rome was like that too, and I'd say that the British to some extent consciously modelled their own empire on the classical Greco-Roman example. Note the names of many British warships, for instance, when it comes to that.)

There is a good deal of admiration still among modern day Indians and Pakistanis, for example, for the British, despite the fact that they certainly do not want the British to rule them. Yet they admire Great Britain, and the many of the wealthier still send their sons and daughters there for "a British education" if they can manage it. This indicates that they see value in the British system.

I guess you could call it a "love/hate" relationship? ;-) What I mean is, both emotions are certainly in play there not just one of them, among Britain's former colonial peoples. This indicates that when it came to running empires, the British didn't do a half-bad job as empires go.

I'd say they did a considerably better job than the Americans are presently doing.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:25 AM

Grab: "Who needs wire when you've got a few hundred miles of desert with no food or water...?"

That's still inaccurate. Blameable as the US reservation policy was it is more that the Indians were forcibly removed from their ancestral homes to another region - different climate, no ties to their ancestors, sometimes encroaching on other tribes' lands - than it was that the new region was unlivable.

There are people living in those regions to this day.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,Heed
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:34 AM

if so how do you explain this:

http://www.justiceforengland.com/news.htm

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM

Heard the author, I hesitate to use the word, on Richard and Judy last night and on the Today prog this morning. His arguements are falacious and quite frankly he couldn't argue his way out of a brown paper bag. I think Quinten Letts comment of last night that basically its a loo book is about right

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

Keith.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but you aren't that well informed if you are unaware of the suspicion and prejudice that really exists between "british" south africans and Afrikaaners.

The fact that you as a non south african have been able to socialize with Afrikaaners doesn't really have much to do with the reality of SA's cultural history.

As individuals and in their own context, Afrikaaners are of course warm frindly hospitable and generous. This is also true of every other "type" of human alive.

This fact is equally irrelevant to the historical fact of british/boer mistrust.

I am sure that you've never met a white south african who said he was pro Apartheid either. Yet it took a long bitter and bloody struggle to bury it once and for all and the majority of them were quite happy to benefit from it while it was there, just as they are quite blind to the continued disparity in wealth and privilege that exists today.

South Africa is a very complex and traumatised Nation and cannot be judged simplistically on the basis of pleasantaries exchanged at a social function.

I'll rely on the knowledge I have learned from reading and from my brother who lives in pretoria thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:43 AM

"I think Quinten Letts comment of last night that basically its a loo book is about right" -

Perhaps I'm a literary critic of the highest order, but I concluded that from the initial post in this thread - again, why is this silly book being given serious attention? (Couldn't have anything to do with the author's background in marketing, could it?)

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

OK Lox, what about the Boers who chose to fight for Britain against Germany who tried to persuade them to revolt against the British.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:20 PM

Kendall, I've travelled extensively in the UK too - especially in the 16 years I've lived here. Trust me on this one - there's a fair bit of it about at the moment. I'm not saying people's anger about Iraq and globalisation isn't justified, but the way they express their distaste for the actions of the US government by having a sneery pop at the whole culture is as inappropriate as it is ignorant.

And you sure as hell didn't want to be over here in the aftermath of 9/11, I'll tell you that for nowt.

"At the end, he asked why didn't Britain say thank you to the Americans for what they were doing in Iraq"

I don't think he was referring specifically to Iraq - I think he was referring to American interventionism in a wider context (though I was making my daughter's lunch at the time and only half listening). But when he said "What about a thank you once in a while?" I laughed out loud. He was clearly on the wind-up.

What's the matter with you lot - don't you get irony?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

I have not read the book but it sounds like a refreshing look at history. As I recall, most texts for students are glorified accounts of the nation's history (regardless of which nation we are talking about). I think every country should have a book written which shows their dark side and I think it should be written in language accessible to school kids. It would probably increase their reading skills and improve their comprehension but above all else, it would develop their critical thinking skills.

Why not?

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

Point of fact- England did NOT invent beer, They may have perfected it, but they did not invent it...

There was a thread here a while back... about the 4000+ year old brewery ( well, brewing vats) found. (No "beer" in the title, I checked)

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: kendall
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:04 PM

No doubt there are some in the UK who like Americans but hate our government. There are plenty of those right here!

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:17 PM

Keith

I think I have succesfully defended my points that A) The British invented the concentration camp and B) The boers and "british" south africans hold each other in suspicious regard.

Your subsequent point is a tangent and a diversion. But while we are on the subject, what about it?

The boers felt that they were the supreme race in their own land, and it was bad enough having to put up with the "british" south africans without having to suffer the arrogance of the German Nazi regime to boot.

They saw themselves as the only true white south africans, the "british" ones being "salt dicks" who had never moved inland from the coast (their dicks still being in the sea), while the true Afrikaaners were farmers who lived on the land and were a part of it.

But at least the "british" ones had a history there. Occupation by more meddling europeans was not their idea of national emancipation.

It's analagous to the true story of the Von Trapp family in the "sound of music". I wasn't that the real Baron Von Trapp himself abhorred Nazism, He was as right wing as they come. It was just that he saw Austrians as being superior to germans and couldn't abide being ruled by an inferior nation.

Though it should perhaps be pointed out, (as you are desperately willing me to do so that you can call it nonsense), that just as some boers saw the Brits as the lesser of two evils, so there were some who believed the opposite.

Hence there were plenty of boers who were willing and ready to support the germans for that reason in the event that such an opportunity might arise.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:21 PM

Indeed there are, Kendall. But that's not what I said. What I said is that there are others in the UK who do NOT differentiate between the American government and American people. And who will thoughtlessly have a go at Americans and American culture - even in the presence of an American - because somehow our govenment's transgressions make that acceptable.

I don't agree. That's why Grasse's diatribe this morning made me giggle - it was a bit of table-turning that I found rather amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: kendall
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:30 PM

Ok, but I've never had that experience. All of the Brits I know are mudcatters, and therefore higher on the IQ scale than the average citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:54 PM

Kendall

Your faith in the open mindedness of the average brit is to be applauded, but don't forget that every nation has it's equivalents and there are those here with the same mentality as those who voted for bush in the USA ( ... ie none at all ... ).

Of those, there is a subsection who "hate" America. It is a surprisingly large proportion of the population.
There are of course degrees of "hatred" just as there are degrees of what you might be prepared to tolerate from people in conversation.

The stereotype of the American tourist being mugged in the toilets of a pub in the film "trainspotting" is an exaggeration of how people are, but situations like ruth describes aren't uncommon.

The worst culprits are the "right on's" who spout jingoistic crap and call it liberal and open minded. The asssumption is that if you abhor everything american that therefore you represent everything "right on", like tolerance, respect, understanding, political and cultural intelligence and sensitivity.

These lazy "liberals" are happy and confident that their left wing trendy stance is fully and adequately supported by the proclamation that they "hate america".

However, interrogate people like this for over thirty seconds (ideally by appealing to their better nature) and they recoil and fall over themselves to explain what they "really meant" - "no offence mate - I didn't mean you" etc.

But again, there are degrees.

I used to live in a moslem Ghetto, and frequented a pub where those with lapsed faith would drown their sorrows from time to time. I overheard and took part in various arguments/discussions - and passionate at that - in which "Americans" were slated for their arrogance etc.

But when the day came that a loud spoken American did turn up in there, and please note he probably remains the only one to this day, the same people who slated him were gathered around like eager school kids, bright eyed with curiosity and questions, bursting to hear his perspective.

As the drink flowed the discussion did become more passionate and many people would have been intimidated by it, but to his credit (or was it his naivety - actually a bit of both I think) He held his ground and acquitted himself well.

I think there is anger with ordinary "Americans" in the world. The American president has influence in many countries other than his own, yet he was not chosen democratically by those other countries to have such influence.

The rest of the world relies on Americans to make the right choice of President therefore lest we all suffer the consequences.

We look at internal American cultural and political problems, we look at The current administration and we shake our heads and hope that somebody intelligent will do or say something that isn't reflective of trends that we fear may be dominating US politics.

We see a meat head presiding over a nation of meat heads, where intelligence is fringe and intellectuals are outcast. (sounds like Cambodia in the 70's or China in the 60's when I Put it like that)

Anyway, ... it's tricky ...

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 05:14 PM

'The worst culprits are the "right on's" who spout jingoistic crap and call it liberal and open minded. The asssumption is that if you abhor everything american that therefore you represent everything "right on", like tolerance, respect, understanding, political and cultural intelligence and sensitivity.

These lazy "liberals" are happy and confident that their left wing trendy stance is fully and adequately supported by the proclamation that they "hate america".'

Spot on, lox. And I speak, as I said earlier, as someone of very left-wing persuasions myself.

At the university where I used to teach we had an event as part of a festival that I ran a couple of years ago. Hosted by Ziauddin Sardar, it was called something like "Why Everyone Hates America". I expected an enlightened discussion about America's transgressons, which still managed to perhaps look at some of the wider issues around cultural imperialism (and let's not forget that cultural imperialism was Britain's stock in trade for centuries).

But instead, Dr Sardar presented a series of scenarios outlining why America was shit, and all the horrible things it had been responsible for in recent decades, to the delight of the "right on" liberal crowd. In the discussion that followed came statements like, "Well, Americans don't know anything about other cultures because they never travel," to murmurs of approval from the assembled throng. I found myself getting progressively angrier - for one thing, I'd cheerfully compare my nearly-full passport with that of the average British person. Bet I'd win.

In the end, it was a smug, self-congratulatory hour of people absolutely convinced of their own righteousness, who couldn't make the pretty basic conceptual leap of comparing their own country's chequered past with the transgressions of contemporary America...and they were certainly not making a distinction between the American government and its people.

I made reference to the climate here after 9/11 - I'm telling you, it wasn't nice. On the day itself, I became aware that my colleagues were watching the unfoldng events in the staff room on television. I was on my way there, and our Operations manager headed me off and took me somewhere else saying, "You don't want to go in there." See, even as the towers were falling, there were people I worked with sitting in that room, watching thousands of innocent people suffering and dying, saying, "They had it coming." In the subsequent weeks I heard that sentiment more than once - usually before people realised I was American.

I'm not saying that every British person feels this way. But some certainly do.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Grab
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:00 PM

Ruth, "they had it coming" is definitely wrong.

But after 60 years of US overseas intervention and manipulation through the Cold War and beyond, I think the general feeling from non-US people is that it's amazing that it took so long for the first terrorist attack on the mainland US. No-one hates Americans the people, but they may well hate America the political entity - and they may well be justified in that hate (in the same way the Irish certainly were justified in their hate of the British government in the 70s and 80s.) Not that any of this justifies the killing of innocent people in any way, but it explains attitudes to it. It's all too easy for "I hate your government" to be equated to "I hate your country". And then "I hate you" even though they've never met you.

The point is that there didn't seem to be any awareness from the US government that what they were doing abroad could have any effect back home - it was all a game somewhere else in the world, and they couldn't envisage the fight being taken to them. Most of Europe learnt that the hard way in the 60s and 70s, but the US government didn't learn.

And then they had to face the question of "why did it happen, and how can we stop it?". Perhaps by not buggering up every country they touch, and trying to restore people's faith in your government's good nature? Nah - let's send in the troops to make an example of someone Muslim, and crack down on civil liberties. So they've *still* not learnt the lesson.

That's where I hope the American people like you can make themselves heard. Whilst the civil service and the CIA and all the other unelected lot keep on keeping on, I truly hope that the American people will elect people who'll turn it around. They missed one chance, but the recent Congress looks like things might have turned the corner.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:08 PM

Mate, you're preaching to the converted and that's rather my point. I know what my country's done wrong. But when it comes to Britain, it's a case of pots and kettles.

Criticism is fine - in fact it's vitally important. But there is a smug, patronising sector of the liberal left in the UK who love a bit of American-bashing. Maybe it comes back to that whole thing about British guilt - they love it that the world has a villain that's seeingly worse than the Britsh Empire was.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:18 PM

Naw - it's pure jealousy.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:22 PM

"Grasse's hand or to punch him on the nose?"

Interesting turn of phrase, that. In North America I have always heard it as 'punch him in the nose'. Sorry for the thread drift. Rule Britannia! Carry on, chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:39 PM

Great Britain brought civilisation to many parts of the world in the name of Christianity......where however is the Christianity now?

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Lox
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:49 PM

"... on the nose ... "

usually to do with gambling on horses - eg "A fiver on the nose" - meaning a five pound bet for a win.

(a fiver being a banknote - otherwise known as a lady godiva)

"A fiver IN the nose" generally has more to do with venezuelan and colombian exports.

Though usually it would be unlikely to be a fiver as that would undermine the associated image of decadent excess.

A pony is slang for £25

Hence the possible confusion caused at a horse race when a young cockney announces he'll bet "a pony on the nose" to his bookmaker of choice.

For other similar nonsense click here

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Roughyed
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:53 PM

The Russians beat Nazi Germany and the second front was opened up as a resuit of the Yalta negotiations which split up Europe between the Superpowers. Probably a lousy bit of negotiation from Uncle Joe as he had Germany on the run from 1943. But then if he had taken a sensible positin in 1930-4 Hitler would never have taken power in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Lox
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:54 PM

correction - "I'll have a pony on the nose mate"

GS

Christianity was exported and thats where it stayed. We've got none left.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: kendall
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:56 PM

No country has a monopoly on stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:04 PM

I think the anti-americanism stems in part from the american things that have exported well, eg. McDonald's, coke, MTV. At the end of the day, if the american things people come into contact with on a day to day business are exploitative multi-nationals, greasy food, bush, gangsta rap, jackass etc, they're not going to have a great opinion of american culture etc. Whether these things would be a true representation of American culture is another question and not one I'm going to answer. All I'll say is the Americans I've met have been great but I met most of them in Europe. I assume that like anywhere else its got its share of bad people and good people. It's a big enough and diverse enough country that generalisations would be pretty useless I would have thought.

On the evil empire thing, Britain did do some pretty horrendous stuff, but I tend to the opinion that people in general can be quite nasty given the oportunity. Eg. a lot of tribes in Africa were only too happy to hand their enemies over to slavers. Doesn't make the slave trade any better mind, just proves that it wasn't just the British or the whites or the christians who behaved horribly. Empires tend to be built on war and a sense of superiority, neither of which are very good for the people being conquered. Having said that there must have been technological benefits and probably political, legal etc ones as well.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM

"I think the anti-americanism stems in part from the american things that have exported well, eg. McDonald's, coke, MTV."

Hmmm, reminds me of the Yogi Bera line: "Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded." I wonder WHY those american things have exported so well? Is it possible that they are being supported by a great many Brits with their pounds and/or euros?

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:50 PM

Obviously they're being consumed. Thing is though, things like McDonald's tend to be guilty secrets with a lot of people. Also, a lot of people might dissaprove of them for the very reason that they are being supported instead of local traditional equivalents. At the end of the day, people rarely stick to one level of 'culture' or 'refinement' or whatever. I have been known to eat fancy food and drink nice wine, single malt etc. Doesn't mean I don't sometimes just go 'sod it. I can't be bothered.' or 'don't have the money' and just go for a kebab and a pint. If I was asked which was better, I probably wouldn't opt for the kebab.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:32 AM

I was just thinking...imagine that things had been different and it had been Britain that was the superpower of the 20th century. Given its previous track record of cultural imperalism, I think we can assume that UK corporations would have exported cheap, portable, easily consumable aspects of British culture just as aggresively as America has done, and that the rest of the world would be complaining today about the threat that Anglicisation posed to global diversity.

So, as a bit of fun, what do you think those cultural signifiers would be? What would replace McDonalds, Coke and MTV?

Irn Bru, Marmite and Eastenders...?

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:48 AM

Harry Ramsdon's fish and chips on the fast food front.
Tizer, obviously for the carbonated drink.
Sigh.
The world would be so content that war would be history.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:18 AM

There was a chain of fish and chip shops in America, very briefly, when i was a kid. Arthur Treacher's Original Fish and Chips. Anyone else remember this?

I think this English attempt at world domination through fried food failed within a couple of years - but my family loved it. For no discernable reason they served hush puppies, which were not unfashionable brown brogues but rather a southern American corn fritter. Very nice they were, too...

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Stu
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 05:24 AM

I have to quibble with the use of the word 'liberal' to describe the left-wing with regards to British politics.

The American definition of liberalism, which basically means anybody opposed to the right-wing (it almost seems to be a term of abuse), invariably the Republicans (conservatives).

In British (and European) politics with their multi-party systems liberalism is more distinct, and often encompasses some sort of social democracy. It's not allied with socialism (although in my opionion it share many of it's values) but has had an identity of it's own since it's inception.

I would just stick to calling the left-wing of British politics just that - it's a broad church and has always been a vital and colourful part of out political landscape. Best not to try and dumb it down to the level of the US's rather uninspiring two-party capitalist system.

It also has sod-all to do with the current government who are not so much socialists but the bastard offspring of the shavings from Thatcher's dangleberries. In my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 05:50 AM

The idiot should be burned at the stake, after serving time down t'pit and being interned in a slum concentration camp

Apparently this was taken seriously because I omitted the smiley at the end - my fault. I'd just like to clarify the above was not a serious suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:08 AM

Well if Britain had had remained the Dominant power in the World up until now, there would be endless chains of overpriced tea bars marching across the USA, and beer wouldn't be as cold, and hopefully not as tasteless as alot of the mass produced stuff...

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:45 AM

Fish and Chips - English?

Sorry they were an Italian introduction to the UK like the Ice Cream Parlour and from around the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:52 AM

Do the Italians claim to have invented chips? The French seem to have a claim too, judging by the number of American restaurants offering "French Fries".

There's only one way to find out - France and Italy should declare war on one another, and the winner will be allowed to claim chips as their national potato dish.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: kendall
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM

Actually, "chips" were developed in Belgium.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Maybe then there should be a knockout competition between all nations who claim to have invented chips.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: The Walrus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM

stigweard,

"...It also has sod-all to do with the current government who are not so much socialists but the bastard offspring of the shavings from Thatcher's dangleberries. In my opinion... "

Don't you yhink thet your definition is rather an insult to the bastard offspring of the shavings from Thatcher's dangleberries?

W

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: The Walrus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

Teribus,

"...Fish and Chips - English?

Sorry they were an Italian introduction to the UK like the Ice Cream Parlour and from around the same time..."

That's fair enough! Wasn't it last year (or the year before) that it was discovered that the earliest receipe for Lasagne was English?

W

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:24 AM

The Belgians may have invented chips but we cooked them in far too much grease, covered then in salt and vinegar and served them up in newsprint...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Scrump
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:57 AM

Don't you yhink thet your definition is rather an insult to the bastard offspring of the shavings from Thatcher's dangleberries?

LOL - you beat me to it W.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:32 AM

Definitions of liberal on the Web:

broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

(Just in case there is any confusion about what the word means. See also this thread on the origins of liberal thought.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM

Amos,

"tolerant of his opponent's opinions"



Please don't make me laugh. Or will you state that the people here are NOT "liberal"?

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:33 PM

Bearded Bruce

ROFL

Yeah, at least a room full of fascists can be relied upon to agree with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: kendall
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:42 PM

To disagree with another's opinion is not intolerent. Trying to shut them up is.

Subject: RE: BS: England's Evil Empire
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM

kendall

"To disagree with another's opinion is not intolerent. Trying to shut them up is. "


Absolute agreement.