[OT] I hate being American

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:19:06 -0500, "Richards Noah \(IFR LIT MET\)"
<Noah.Richards@infineon.com> wrote:

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:33tj04F45hk79U4@individual.net...


John Larkin wrote:


Racism comes in many forms. In the US nowadays, it is contempt for the
working class

Excuse me. Is being a worker geneticially conditioned or determined?
Racism has to do with attitudes towards groups whose identity is
genetically defined. Plain garden variety bigotry applies to negative
attitudes toward other kinds of grous.

Bob Kolker


Or just "prejudice". Kinda like how John groups all "coastal, liberal
elites" as racists. Although I'm sure that's an observation based entirely
on evidence.

Hey, I live in San Francisco!

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <john@spamless.usa>
wrote (in <b6mmt0p9pe7gbgunp12g4huq2l6blp9glt@4ax.com&gt about '[OT] I
hate being American', on Tue, 4 Jan 2005:

30% of the employees in my company are foreign-born,

I suppose you mean 'ethnically-distinct' rather than just 'foreign-
born'.

and another
roughly 25% are second-generation. I wonder how would that play in
France or Germany.

I don't know the exact figures, and it varies from place to place, but
those numbers would apply in some parts of France and Germany.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Franz Heymann]

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.08.16.35.14.200313@att.bizzzz...

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:27:09 +0000, Franz Heymann wrote:


"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.07.16.07.06.281491@att.bizzzz...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:27:35 +0000, Franz Heymann wrote:

[snip]

Ok, by your (il)logic we're also paying for rape and pedophilia.

Effectively, yes.

Ah, so you openly admit to being an idiot.

You
are one sick EuroPeon, France.

Who might she be?

I can understand why you have no mirrors.

You are a bore. Go and play with your marbles.

Franz

 

[Franz Heymann]

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:34agdsF460kedU3@individual.net...

Franz Heymann wrote:

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:q4efYgBw0q3BFwgU@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Franz Heymann

notfranz.heymann@bt

openworld.com> wrote (in <crm7cq$4fm$1@hercules.btinternet.com&gt

about

'[OT] I hate being American', on Fri, 7 Jan 2005:


Not at all. The British government indeed had a lengthy period

during

which its welfare was fed essentially by imperial greed.

I think that 'imperial' a little inaccurate. The real greed period

was

largely ended when the government took over India from the East

India

Company. But much of the unethical practice of the EIC was learned

from

the people they enthralled. 'If they cheat and lie to us, we'll

cheat

and lie back.'


You forgot about the rape of Africa during the reign of the Great
White Queen.

Nothing compared to what happened after they got their
'independence'.

To true.

Franz

 

[Franz Heymann]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7sSdncC4BfhhRkLcRVn-gg@rcn.net...

In article <crm7cq$4fm$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:sefDd.51953$Cl3.2560@fed1read03...
Franz Heymann wrote:

This thread has been immense fun, but it is beginning to
pall.

Franz, I've never seen you get so incensed over anything,
including various exceptional perpetrators of willful
repetitive stupidity on sci.physics. I had no idea your
anti-American feelings ran so deep.

I assure you that they run extremely deep. I would not have let my
anger come out in public if I had not been goaded into it by the
writings of one or two American jingoistic contributors to this
thread.

My objections had nothing to do with jingoism but everything to do
with cheap psychological tricks whose sole purpose was to manipulate
the population of a country. It didn't matter what the USA
government
did or didn't do nor did it matter what the event was. The plan
was:
When Event A happens, wait a day to see which way the US government
acts or doesn't act. Then pick the opposite stance and make a
derogatory comment about the in/action.

Those who have already ceded emotionally to terrorism would agree.
Those who haven't couldn't disagree because they were set up. To
disagree would be to dismiss the needs of those affected by Event
A.

It was similar to the question of "When did you stop beating your
wife?"

Franz, I had not pegged you to be somebody who would stoop
to intellectual dishonesty. You had given a hint 8 months
ago that did this but I tried to think of scenarios that
would explain it because I couldn't believe that you could
pull such a cheap trick. I was wrong.

Too bad.

Franz

 

[Jim Yanik]

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in news:biyEd.10$bX4.4@fed1read03:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

snip

On a completely different tangent, I read a Sci-Fi story where Hitler
had beat England and was working on India. The Nazis were absolutely
ruthless, of course - under their regime, the punishment for passive
resistance was summary execution. By the officer on the scene, of
course.

"Take him out back and give him a noodle.". Right?

So given the (hypothetical) options, I'd rather be alive and eating
bangers and mash, thank you very much.

Or armed and free.

Concur. "Don't tread on me!"

Mark L. Fergerson

Most free peoples in today's world are free *because* of America.
Some people don't like that,though.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:X8DDd.52054$Cl3.34207@fed1read03...

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:2kZAd.24799$Cl3.6946@fed1read03...

Reg Edwards wrote:

The only terrorist attacks on the UK have been from the
IRA -
financed for
many years by the USA.

You mean "Irish-Americans". Not a penny of my taxes
ever
went to support the IRA.

Then you do not realise that the organisations collecting
for the IRA
in your country are recognised charities with the
usual tax
concessions for charities,

Yes, I know that.

so in fact you are contributing indirectly?

Does not follow. A tax not charged does not equal money
given. It equals a disbursement from their total budget not
made, not an increase in their total budget. Yes, I know it
tracks back to a tax deduction for the donors, but I'm not
giving them any money either. Ultimately, it amounts to a
smaller total tax collected,

Surely compensated for by tax rates which are ever so
slightly higher
than they might otherwise have been?

That would require a "proactive" taxation scheme where
tax rates are scaled to meet projected expenditures. We
don't have that kind of system; tax rates are tied to income
(which is why it's called "Income Tax") and expenditures
have to be taken from the total after it's collected. Hence
the Conservative philosophy; the more income individuals and
Corporations have, the greater the GNP, and the more taxes
can be collected while actually lowering tax rates overall.
The Extreme Liberal philosophy of tax the wealthy until
they're as poor as street people makes no sense to me at
all; that just minimizes your tax base to the point you
_have_ to Nationalize the entire economy.

Oh, now I get it. ;&gt

Of course overruns are common because politicians have to
promise to spend tax money on stupid things in order to get
elected, which is where "National Debt" comes in. Nobody but
politicians and other con artists can spend money they don't
have without believable credit, but then politicians get to
write and certify their own credit ratings...

I am constantly amused when anyone mentions "balanced
budget" and "congress" in the same breath.

not monies transferred from me
to anyone.

I'm not so sure of that.

You're essentially having politicians say "Since we can't
take from x to fill out our budget, we'll make up the
difference by taking it from y". That still transfers no
money from y to x.

Why am I reminded of the "Is zero even or odd" thread?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[keith]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:31:33 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <john@spamless.usa
wrote (in <24h5u0hlnqa38q2ovfmm4eb0orrmusm5cb@4ax.com&gt about '[OT] I
hate being American', on Mon, 10 Jan 2005:
Ireland, perhaps for a
similar reason, was the backup storage site for learning roughly a
thousand years before. Saviors aren't always appreciated.

For Europe, yes. For the 'known world', Arabia was the store. Omar
Khayyam etc.

Yep, ol' Omar wanted to keep the 'known world' out of the hands of the
orientals, so he bought the company. ...or something like that. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Reg Edwards]

Furthermore, 'nuking' N Korea and Iran would kill a great number of
people in neighbouring countries. Is that just unfortunate 'collateral'?

=========================

Since when have USA citizens cared about killing people. They kill many
thousands of themselves every year.

What has prevented them from nuking since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is fall-out
on USA towns, cities and prairies.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:05:59 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com> wrote:

Furthermore, 'nuking' N Korea and Iran would kill a great number of
people in neighbouring countries. Is that just unfortunate 'collateral'?

=========================

Since when have USA citizens cared about killing people. They kill many
thousands of themselves every year.

What has prevented them from nuking since Hiroshima and Nagasaki is fall-out
on USA towns, cities and prairies.

Same thing that's kept the UK from using its nukes?

John

 

[robert j. kolker]

John Larkin wrote:

Same thing that's kept the UK from using its nukes?

Mutual Assuree Destruction is what kept WWW3 from happening while the
Soviet Union still stood.

Bob Kolker

 

In article <357sc5F4guah4U2@individual.net>,
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:



Same thing that's kept the UK from using its nukes?

Mutual Assuree Destruction is what kept WWW3 from happening while the
Soviet Union still stood.

More importantly, the Russians believed that the West
would retaliate immediately with lots of nukes if they
ever tried it. The West tried to disspell this belief
in the late 70s with the philosophy that talking at
the Russians would keep them from attacking. This was
only 25 years ago and we're back to to bad philosophy
again.

/ BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rick Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 05 11:48:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <357sc5F4guah4U2@individual.net>,
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Same thing that's kept the UK from using its nukes?

Mutual Assuree Destruction is what kept WWW3 from happening while the
Soviet Union still stood.

More importantly, the Russians believed that the West
would retaliate immediately with lots of nukes if they
ever tried it. The West tried to disspell this belief
in the late 70s with the philosophy that talking at
the Russians would keep them from attacking. This was
only 25 years ago and we're back to to bad philosophy
again.

Can there really be people in 8 unrelated groups interested in reading
this stuff?

There are replies generated from all groups, so...

And do you have any evidence at all that the Russians wanted to nuke
anybody?

Yeah, sure; the Cuban missile crisis was all a misunderstanding; the
Soviets were merely giving some of their missile techs a nice vacation
in sunny Cuba, and the techs simply took some of their work with them,
right?

AFAIK, the only time in the last 55 years when this was seriously
considered was when MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese; and I don't
recall that he was a Russian.

You are either ignorant or were educated by revisionists. Krushchev
in particular would have been extremely pleased to nuke the US if he
thought he could have gotten away with a pre-emptive strike. But MAD won
out; he knew in his bones that if he struck first, World Communism would
have been permamently killed, and even at his table-pounding worst he
couldn't allow that.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rick Thompson]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:22:16 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote:

Rick Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 05 11:48:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

And do you have any evidence at all that the Russians wanted to nuke
anybody?

Yeah, sure; the Cuban missile crisis was all a misunderstanding; the
Soviets were merely giving some of their missile techs a nice vacation
in sunny Cuba, and the techs simply took some of their work with them,
right?

And I suppose US nukes in Turkey were a 'misunderstanding'? Why
exactly should the US have had the right to park nuclear missiles next
to the USSR, when the Soviets couldn't have the right to park theirs
next to the US? If your reasoning is that proximity proves the desire
to bomb, as it appears to be, then you would have to accept that the
US had already demonstrated a desire to nuke the USSR; the Soviets
were merely responding to that.

AFAIK, the only time in the last 55 years when this was seriously
considered was when MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese; and I don't
recall that he was a Russian.

You are either ignorant or were educated by revisionists. Krushchev
in particular would have been extremely pleased to nuke the US if he
thought he could have gotten away with a pre-emptive strike. But MAD won
out; he knew in his bones that if he struck first, World Communism would
have been permamently killed, and even at his table-pounding worst he
couldn't allow that.

You appear to be posting to a number of groups that should, in
principle, have well-educated readers. If you're aware of any evidence
that Krushchev 'would have been extremely pleased to nuke the US' then
I'm sure that those readers, and myself, would like to see it, rather
than being treated to a lecture on ideology. There's clear evidence
that MacArthur wanted to bomb the Chinese; is there clear evidence
that Krushchev wanted to bomb the US? You tell me.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:15:42 +0000, Rick Thompson <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:22:16 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:

Rick Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 05 11:48:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

And do you have any evidence at all that the Russians wanted to nuke
anybody?

Yeah, sure; the Cuban missile crisis was all a misunderstanding; the
Soviets were merely giving some of their missile techs a nice vacation
in sunny Cuba, and the techs simply took some of their work with them,
right?

And I suppose US nukes in Turkey were a 'misunderstanding'? Why
exactly should the US have had the right to park nuclear missiles next
to the USSR, when the Soviets couldn't have the right to park theirs
next to the US? If your reasoning is that proximity proves the desire
to bomb, as it appears to be, then you would have to accept that the
US had already demonstrated a desire to nuke the USSR; the Soviets
were merely responding to that.

Well, the Soviets did invade Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East
Germany. They did reject the US offer of total abolition of nuclear
weapons and free-skies. They did build hundreds of nukes and aim them
at Europe. They did pound on desks at the UN with shoes. None of that
was confidence-inspiring.

And it was Western Europe that those US nukes were protecting from the
million-man Soviet army. The French and the British built nukes of
their own, for the same reasons, and still have them. The French were
the last Western country to give up live nuclear weapons tests.

The US was an isolationist, poorly-armed country before WWII, and
would have cheerfully gone back to that state except for Soviet and
Chinese/Korean expansionism. But then we get all the blame for being
militaristic.

John

 

[Martin Frey]

Rick Thompson <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

AFAIK, the only time in the last 55 years when this was seriously
considered was when MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese; and I don't
recall that he was a Russian.

The French wanted to nuke Dien Bien Phu - but didn't, as I recall,
because they couldn't get flares of a colour that would show through
the cloud and mist before the (conventional) battle was lost. For want
of a nail the world was saved...

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

 

In article <0vkvu05020soe573e59pdg15kbpp96bqbg@4ax.com>,
Rick Thompson <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 05 11:48:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <357sc5F4guah4U2@individual.net>,
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:



Same thing that's kept the UK from using its nukes?

Mutual Assuree Destruction is what kept WWW3 from happening while the
Soviet Union still stood.

More importantly, the Russians believed that the West
would retaliate immediately with lots of nukes if they
ever tried it. The West tried to disspell this belief
in the late 70s with the philosophy that talking at
the Russians would keep them from attacking. This was
only 25 years ago and we're back to to bad philosophy
again.

Can there really be people in 8 unrelated groups interested in reading
this stuff?

I have no idea. I'd pare down the cross-post if I knew where everybody
was.

And do you have any evidence at all that the Russians wanted to nuke
anybody?

The Russians have a goal of ruling the world. They believed
that their political and economic philosophies were better than
the West's. From what I'm reading, it seems that every country
and/or group of people have to through the political growing pain
that is called colonialism. The Russians were still in this
phase during the 70s and 80s. I'm not sure about now.

If they thought that they could take over Europe with a token
nuke of a small city and threats of larger cities without
any retaliation, they would have done it in nanosecond.

AFAIK, the only time in the last 55 years when this was seriously
considered was when MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese; and I don't
recall that he was a Russian.

Right now I'm reading about the nuclear armaments of the Russians
aimed at Europe during the 70s and early 80s. At the same time,
Europe was trying to reduce research and armaments because
of the mistaken assumption that, if they dropped their weapons,
the Russians would drop theirs. They assumed that Russia
was a kind and gentle people who had no expansionist goals,
even though this country bred and followed viscious people
like Lenin and Stalin.

The reason atom bombs were getting installed in Cuba was because
the Russians believed that Kennedy wouldn't do anything
substantial about it, other than bleat.

I need to warn you that I've only just started learning about
all of this stuff. Beware of people who know just a little bit ;-).

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

In article <iST9CjLocC8BFw7b@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <2o50v0ltafpbl2riae7c7qp6f83n9ths7o@
4ax.com&gt about '[OT] I hate being American', on Thu, 20 Jan 2005:

Well, the Soviets did invade Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East
Germany.

During WW2, originally, in all our interests.

ermmm....No. The Russians had an agreement with Hitler which
gave some of Poland to the Russians.

<snip>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:49:34 +0100, "Laura" <laura@nospam.me> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:etrvu0lig5vq4q3ugereium25vdokaadh9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:22:16 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:

You are either ignorant or were educated by revisionists. Krushchev
in particular would have been extremely pleased to nuke the US if he
thought he could have gotten away with a pre-emptive strike. But MAD won
out; he knew in his bones that if he struck first, World Communism would
have been permamently killed, and even at his table-pounding worst he
couldn't allow that.

Mark L. Fergerson

The inventor of the machine gun and the inventor of dynamite both
thought that their gadget would make war so horrible that nobody would
dare start one. Oppenheimer and Teller finally pulled it off.

John


So now they start them anyway, betting that nobody dares open Pandora's box.

Right. But only little ones. Nukes have probably been a stabilizing
force in the world. The major powers, the kind that start big, world
wars, have mostly skirmished by proxy. The interesting case now is
India and Pakistan.

John

 

[vonroach]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:11:22 -0800, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

Oppenheimer and Teller finally pulled it off.

With the help of several thousand scientists and workers, all under
the direction of Gen. Groves. Heisenberg couldn't pull it off for
Hitler.

It was used selectively to end the Pacific bloodbath. The Rosenbergs
sold the secrets to the USSR. Gen. Marshall advised President Truman
against a war on the Asian mainland. He managed to get in anyway in
Korea. He had to enlist McArthur to prevent US defeat. Mac turned it
around and chased the N. Koreans to the Yalu River and confrontation
with hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops. Mac recommended the use
of tactical nuclear weapons. Truman fired him and got thousands of
marines and army troops trapped in midwinter at the reservoir. They
managed to escape to the sea with many causalities. Subsequently
after more war and causalities the US signed a truce with a
demilitarized zone. What would the world look like today if Mac had
got his weapons which were only available to the US Army at that time.
One result was that Truman was never elected to a second term.

If we had a quality military leader, no democrat political
intervention from Washington, and controlled the gutter traitors of
street protests, we could have defeated North Viets quickly. We
sometimes forget what a defeat we inflicted during their tet
offensive. Democrats seem to want war for an `issue', but are
reluctant to win one.