PDA

View Full Version : justice for death of a fellow two wheeler


DH
December 9th 03, 10:09 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031209_223.html

FLANDREAU, S.D. Dec. 9 — Rep. Bill Janklow planned the official close of
his political career to coincide with his sentencing in the traffic death
of a motorcyclist, a decision that also means the special election to fill
his seat will be held during South Dakota's June 1 primary.
Janklow, a dominating force in South Dakota politics for 30 years,
appeared stunned as the verdict was read Monday: guilty of second-degree
manslaughter, reckless driving, running a stop sign and speeding for an
Aug. 16 crash that killed Hardwick, Minn., motorcyclist Randy Scott, 55.

Within two hours, Janklow announced his resignation.

"I wish to inform you that because of present circumstances, I will be
unable to perform the duties incumbent on me in representing the people of
South Dakota as their U.S. representative," Janklow, 64, wrote in a letter
to be delivered Tuesday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

"Therefore I wish to inform you that I will resign from the House of
Representatives, effective Jan. 20, 2004."

That's the same day he's scheduled to be sentenced.

Second-degree manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison
and a $10,000 fine. The conviction would have prompted an investigation
from the U.S. House ethics committee without the resignation.

Monday's events put pressure on former U.S. Rep. John Thune, considered
the GOP's most formidable potential candidate, to decide whether to run
for the Senate or House, analysts said.

The timing of Janklow's resignation means the special election to fill the
House vacancy will be held in conjunction with South Dakota's June 1
primary. Both parties must nominate candidates by April 6.

Democrat Stephanie Herseth, who lost to Janklow in 2002, said in October
she intends to run for the House again but won't make a formal
announcement until after the first of the year.

Some Republicans want Thune to run for Janklow's seat instead of the U.S.
Senate because they believe he stands a better chance against Herseth than
against Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, whose seat is up for
election in 2004.

After Monday's verdict, Janklow hurried out of the courthouse to a waiting
vehicle and refused to answer questions. None of the lawyers would
comment, nor would Janklow's son, Russ, who has served as the family's
spokesman.

The defense has about a month to appeal.

Outside the courtroom, Marcella Scott, the victim's mother, said she was
satisfied with the verdict.

A statement released by the Scott family said, in part, "We are satisfied
that the correct verdict was reached. The cause of Randy's death is no
longer in dispute. ... We will continue the difficult process of coming to
terms with Randy's death."

Janklow won statewide office six times and lost just one election, a 1986
U.S. Senate primary. He served as South Dakota's governor for 16 years
before being elected to the House in 2002.

Janklow's lawyer wanted jurors to convict his client of two minor traffic
charges and acquit him of second-degree manslaughter and reckless driving.
The defense said at the time of the crash, Janklow was having a diabetic
episode.

But prosecutors Roger Ellyson said Janklow's driving was like "a deadly
game of Russian roulette. On August 16, Randy Scott took the bullet."

Jim and Dorothy Anderson of Miller said Janklow did the right thing in
resigning. They, like many others who reacted to Janklow's convictions,
doubt he will spend any time in prison.

Dorothy Anderson said she thinks Gov. Mike Rounds should pardon Janklow
because he has been publicly disgraced and that is punishment enough.

"I think Governor Rounds should pardon him because he didn't go out and
deliberately do this," she said. "Things can happen. That's why they're
called accidents."

When asked, Rounds said late Monday night that he has a policy of refusing
to consider pardon requests within the first year of a conviction because
the courts retain jurisdiction during that time. A circuit judge could
modify the sentence, he said.

Edward Dolan
December 9th 03, 07:22 PM
"DH" > wrote in message >...

> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031209_223.html
>
> FLANDREAU, S.D. Dec. 9 ? Rep. Bill Janklow planned the official close of
> his political career to coincide with his sentencing in the traffic death
> of a motorcyclist,...

DH, are you from this neck of the woods? Flandreau is right down the
road from where I am at here in SW Minnesota.

The main thing to get from the conviction is that we have a democracy
that works in this country where folks can get justice. Janklow was a
4 term governor of the state of South Dakota and one of the most
popular governors ever. And yet a jury of his peers from his home town
found him guilty. It is events like this that make me proud to be an
American.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

jhuskey
December 9th 03, 08:47 PM
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "DH" > wrote in message
> >...
> > http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031209_223.htmlhttp://abcnews-
> > .go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031209_223.html
> >
> > FLANDREAU, S.D. Dec. 9 ? Rep. Bill Janklow planned the official close
> > of his political career to coincide with his sentencing in the traffic
> > death of a motorcyclist,...
> DH, are you from this neck of the woods? Flandreau is right down the
> road from where I am at here in SW Minnesota.
> The main thing to get from the conviction is that we have a democracy
> that works in this country where folks can get justice. Janklow was a 4
> term governor of the state of South Dakota and one of the most popular
> governors ever. And yet a jury of his peers from his home town found him
> guilty. It is events like this that make me proud to be an American.
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota



Well at least this time it appears to have worked. Let us hope it sends
a message to all negligent drivers.If it saves just one life it is worth
it. I guess he is receiving his sentence today. I will reserve further
comment until I see want he is given as punishment.



--

Lewis Campbell
December 10th 03, 12:16 AM
Personally, I hope Janklow gets a MAX sentence.

He seems to be WELL deserving of it.

--
Lewis.

..........................

*******************************

"DH" > wrote in message
...
> http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031209_223.html
>
> FLANDREAU, S.D. Dec. 9 - Rep. Bill Janklow planned the official close of
> his political career to coincide with his sentencing in the traffic death
> of a motorcyclist, a decision that also means the special election to fill
> his seat will be held during South Dakota's June 1 primary.
> Janklow, a dominating force in South Dakota politics for 30 years,
> appeared stunned as the verdict was read Monday: guilty of second-degree
> manslaughter, reckless driving, running a stop sign and speeding for an
> Aug. 16 crash that killed Hardwick, Minn., motorcyclist Randy Scott, 55.
>
> Within two hours, Janklow announced his resignation.
>
> "I wish to inform you that because of present circumstances, I will be
> unable to perform the duties incumbent on me in representing the people of
> South Dakota as their U.S. representative," Janklow, 64, wrote in a letter
> to be delivered Tuesday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
>
> "Therefore I wish to inform you that I will resign from the House of
> Representatives, effective Jan. 20, 2004."
>
> That's the same day he's scheduled to be sentenced.
>
> Second-degree manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison
> and a $10,000 fine. The conviction would have prompted an investigation
> from the U.S. House ethics committee without the resignation.
>
> Monday's events put pressure on former U.S. Rep. John Thune, considered
> the GOP's most formidable potential candidate, to decide whether to run
> for the Senate or House, analysts said.
>
> The timing of Janklow's resignation means the special election to fill the
> House vacancy will be held in conjunction with South Dakota's June 1
> primary. Both parties must nominate candidates by April 6.
>
> Democrat Stephanie Herseth, who lost to Janklow in 2002, said in October
> she intends to run for the House again but won't make a formal
> announcement until after the first of the year.
>
> Some Republicans want Thune to run for Janklow's seat instead of the U.S.
> Senate because they believe he stands a better chance against Herseth than
> against Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, whose seat is up for
> election in 2004.
>
> After Monday's verdict, Janklow hurried out of the courthouse to a waiting
> vehicle and refused to answer questions. None of the lawyers would
> comment, nor would Janklow's son, Russ, who has served as the family's
> spokesman.
>
> The defense has about a month to appeal.
>
> Outside the courtroom, Marcella Scott, the victim's mother, said she was
> satisfied with the verdict.
>
> A statement released by the Scott family said, in part, "We are satisfied
> that the correct verdict was reached. The cause of Randy's death is no
> longer in dispute. ... We will continue the difficult process of coming to
> terms with Randy's death."
>
> Janklow won statewide office six times and lost just one election, a 1986
> U.S. Senate primary. He served as South Dakota's governor for 16 years
> before being elected to the House in 2002.
>
> Janklow's lawyer wanted jurors to convict his client of two minor traffic
> charges and acquit him of second-degree manslaughter and reckless driving.
> The defense said at the time of the crash, Janklow was having a diabetic
> episode.
>
> But prosecutors Roger Ellyson said Janklow's driving was like "a deadly
> game of Russian roulette. On August 16, Randy Scott took the bullet."
>
> Jim and Dorothy Anderson of Miller said Janklow did the right thing in
> resigning. They, like many others who reacted to Janklow's convictions,
> doubt he will spend any time in prison.
>
> Dorothy Anderson said she thinks Gov. Mike Rounds should pardon Janklow
> because he has been publicly disgraced and that is punishment enough.
>
> "I think Governor Rounds should pardon him because he didn't go out and
> deliberately do this," she said. "Things can happen. That's why they're
> called accidents."
>
> When asked, Rounds said late Monday night that he has a policy of refusing
> to consider pardon requests within the first year of a conviction because
> the courts retain jurisdiction during that time. A circuit judge could
> modify the sentence, he said.
>
>
>
>
>

Rocketman
December 10th 03, 08:16 AM
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" > wrote in
message m...
> you should have heard those idiots from his state saying how they felt
> sorry for him. the sucker he manslaughter on the bike may have voted
> for him if he was a member of abate.

Unbelievable.

> Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on the street,
> make poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison the air, land
> and water and kill millions of American kids with your imperialist
> wars.

They don't just *want* to do it, they *are* doing it! It's much worse than
anybody dreamed possible back in those prosperous and carefree days before
Election 2000, the end of democracy as we knew it in the US.

> HAIL to the THIEF! Not my president. IMPEACH HE SUPREME COURT!

Right there with ya, brother.

> "If the goal of President Bush's foreign policy was to make America
> weaker, more vulnerable and more hated, mission accomplished."

Great quote. Is it yours? Can I borrow it?

Rocketman

skip
December 10th 03, 04:05 PM
"Rocketman" > wrote in message
news:ZKzBb.73952$_M.371857@attbi_s54...
> "Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" > wrote in
> message m...
> > you should have heard those idiots from his state saying how they felt
> > sorry for him. the sucker he manslaughter on the bike may have voted
> > for him if he was a member of abate.
>
> Unbelievable.
>
> > Republicans want to starve kids, kick old people out on the street,
> > make poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poison the air, land
> > and water and kill millions of American kids with your imperialist
> > wars.
>
> They don't just *want* to do it, they *are* doing it! It's much worse
than
> anybody dreamed possible back in those prosperous and carefree days before
> Election 2000, the end of democracy as we knew it in the US.
>
> > HAIL to the THIEF! Not my president. IMPEACH HE SUPREME COURT!
>
> Right there with ya, brother.
>
> > "If the goal of President Bush's foreign policy was to make America
> > weaker, more vulnerable and more hated, mission accomplished."
>
> Great quote. Is it yours? Can I borrow it?
>
> Rocketman
>
>

Oh my. Here we go again.

skip

DH
December 10th 03, 04:11 PM
> Oh my. Here we go again.

My thoughts exactly. Please start an OT post if you are going take the
bait.

skip
December 10th 03, 06:43 PM
"skip" > wrote in message
...

> Oh my. Here we go again.

To those of you who pleasure yourselves by blaming Ed Dolan for the off
topic political threads please take notice. Mr. Dolan started an on topic
thread whereupon Rocketman and the Nutty Professor immediately changed it to
an Off Topic Hate Bush love in.

skip

DH
December 10th 03, 07:17 PM
> To those of you who pleasure yourselves by blaming Ed Dolan for the off
> topic political threads please take notice. Mr. Dolan started an on
topic
> thread whereupon Rocketman and the Nutty Professor immediately changed
it to
> an Off Topic Hate Bush love in.

Skip, there are some who will automatically respond when someone makes an
'I'm proud to be a/an [fill in the nationality of you choice]'.
Nationalism is the bait. I am not defending the two replies to Ed, but
that is exactly how it works. Ed will now be forced to respond and this
thread for further **** off more people.

This will be my final post in this thread.

Chuck Davis
December 10th 03, 08:10 PM
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" > wrote in
message m...
>......
> make poor people have to eat dog food to survive.....

If you know any of these people eating dog food, you might want to educate
them a little on grocery shopping. The price of a can of Alpo can buy some
reasonable human food.

Chuck Davis

brian hughes
December 11th 03, 02:43 AM
"Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" > wrote in
message m...
> you should have heard those idiots from his state saying how they felt
> sorry for him. the sucker he manslaughter on the bike may have voted
> for him if he was a member of abate.
>

Kind of remind me how the idiots from Massachusetts keep voting for this guy
who gets drunk, grabs his date (not his wife), takes a drive off a
bridge--drowning his date/passenger. Then waits until he sobers up the next
day to report his crime of manslaughter (after consulting with various
political advisors and attorneys first, of course). But unlike this case in
South Dakota, what do you think the punishment is for this drunk from
Massachusetts? Well the Democrats almost nominate him as their presidential
nominee and the people of Massachusetts have repeatedly elected him as their
Senator for decades. I guess it could have been worse, he could have ran
down and killed a bike rider before driving off the bridge. I wonder, maybe
the people from Massachusetts would have only elected this Democrat as a
House of Congress Representative instead of Senator if that had been the
case.

Dean Arthur
December 12th 03, 07:59 AM
> The main thing to get from the conviction is that we have a democracy
> that works in this country where folks can get justice.

Last time I checked, in June, 2003, we were still under the auspices of
a constitution and are a republic.

How did you get sidetracked into thinking that this is a democracy?

Dean Arthur
December 12th 03, 08:02 AM
>...eat dog food to survive

I'll have you know that regulations concerning the quality of dog food
are stronger than those controlling the swill sold as ?human? food
elswhere in this country.

Dean Arthur
December 12th 03, 08:05 AM
Rocketman wrote:

> It's much worse than
> anybody dreamed possible back in those prosperous and carefree days before
> Election 2000, the end of democracy as we knew it in the US.

The ignorance of some teachers...this country started as a
constitutional republic. Can you give me the date, time and location
when & where it degraded into a unlawful but "legal" demo[n]cracy?

Dean Arthur
December 12th 03, 08:06 AM
Chuck Davis wrote:

> The price of a can of Alpo can buy some
> reasonable human food.
>
Just not SAFE human food!

Pat
December 12th 03, 03:23 PM
> > The main thing to get from the conviction is that we have a democracy
> > that works in this country where folks can get justice.
>
> Last time I checked, in June, 2003, we were still under the auspices of
> a constitution and are a republic.
>
> How did you get sidetracked into thinking that this is a democracy?


This country IS a democracy. We are also a Republic. The two terms are not
antagonistic.


DEMOCRACY:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

REPUBLIC:

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who
in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation)
having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power
resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected
officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to
law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c
: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French
Fourth Republic>

If you'll study these two dictionary definitions, you'll see that the U.S.A.
is both a democracy and a republic. The democracy is our form of
government: the republic is how this government functions.

Pat in TX

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 12th 03, 11:28 PM
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:23:12 -0600, "Pat" > wrote:

>This country IS a democracy

News to me. I thought it was an oiligarchy ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Edward Dolan
December 13th 03, 06:26 AM
"DH" > wrote in message >...

> > To those of you who pleasure yourselves by blaming Ed Dolan for the off
> > topic political threads please take notice. Mr. Dolan started an on
> topic
> > thread whereupon Rocketman and the Nutty Professor immediately changed
> it to
> > an Off Topic Hate Bush love in.
>
> Skip, there are some who will automatically respond when someone makes an
> 'I'm proud to be a/an [fill in the nationality of you choice]'.
> Nationalism is the bait. I am not defending the two replies to Ed, but
> that is exactly how it works. Ed will now be forced to respond and this
> thread for further **** off more people.
>
> This will be my final post in this thread.

DH, you have got that right about the nationalism bit. The America
haters and the Bush haters just can't stand it. I did not respond to
the Nutty Professor and to the equally Nutty Rocketman because I was
mainly busy on other OT threads and could not imagine that I had said
anything controversial that would set off the mad dog liberals. I am
constantly underestimating their venom and their spite. At least now
you know why I treat them all with the contempt they so richly
deserve. They are not rational and don't even pretend to be.

By the way, this is why the Dems are going to lose big time in 2004 if
Dean is their man. Americans will not vote for angry haters like Dean
and the liberal mad dogs that he represents. No way!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
December 13th 03, 10:15 AM
"brian hughes" > wrote in message et>...

> "Leland Milton Goldblatt PhD" > wrote in
> message m...

> > you should have heard those idiots from his state saying how they felt
> > sorry for him. the sucker he manslaughter on the bike may have voted
> > for him if he was a member of abate.
> >
>
> Kind of remind me how the idiots from Massachusetts keep voting for this guy
> who gets drunk, grabs his date (not his wife), takes a drive off a
> bridge--drowning his date/passenger. Then waits until he sobers up the next
> day to report his crime of manslaughter (after consulting with various
> political advisors and attorneys first, of course). But unlike this case in
> South Dakota, what do you think the punishment is for this drunk from
> Massachusetts? Well the Democrats almost nominate him as their presidential
> nominee and the people of Massachusetts have repeatedly elected him as their
> Senator for decades. I guess it could have been worse, he could have ran
> down and killed a bike rider before driving off the bridge. I wonder, maybe
> the people from Massachusetts would have only elected this Democrat as a
> House of Congress Representative instead of Senator if that had been the
> case.

Hey, Brian, I could not have said it better myself! Mass. and Minn.
are the most doltish states in the entire country. We regularly elect
liberals just because they are liberals. It wouldn't matter if they
were mass murderers - we would still elect them to high office as long
as they are liberals and say the right incantations.

But can you believe this Nutty Professor Goldblatt, Ph.D.? I have
known many professors in my day, but he sure takes the cake. I do not
believe of course that he is a professor at all and he surely has no
Ph.D., unless it is from a bogus institution, you know, the kind where
you buy your degrees.

Well, this is why I do not get too excited about Usenet. Just anyone
at all can come on here and be as crazy as they want. But note how
Rocketman fell for him hook, line and sinker. One nut always
recognizes another nut! I think Rocketman even wanted some of his
lines for his own usage. You have to see this stuff in order to
believe it!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

skip
December 13th 03, 04:09 PM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...
> "brian hughes" > wrote in message
et>...
>
> But can you believe this Nutty Professor Goldblatt, Ph.D.? I have
> known many professors in my day, but he sure takes the cake. I do not
> believe of course that he is a professor at all and he surely has no
> Ph.D., unless it is from a bogus institution, you know, the kind where
> you buy your degrees.
>
> Well, this is why I do not get too excited about Usenet. Just anyone
> at all can come on here and be as crazy as they want. But note how
> Rocketman fell for him hook, line and sinker. One nut always
> recognizes another nut! I think Rocketman even wanted some of his
> lines for his own usage. You have to see this stuff in order to
> believe it!
>

The Goldblatt thing is a joke. A PhD from Toe U. That's good. Better yet
check out the website of his current wife. She's the one with two cherries
tattooed on her ass and a PhD from a university that doesn't exist. If you
are married you might not want to have your wife looking over your shoulder
if you go to her site. It ain't bicycles that are recumbent there.

skip

Edward Dolan
December 14th 03, 06:43 AM
"skip" > wrote in message >...
[...]
> The Goldblatt thing is a joke. A PhD from Toe U. That's good. Better yet
> check out the website of his current wife. She's the one with two cherries
> tattooed on her ass and a PhD from a university that doesn't exist. If you
> are married you might not want to have your wife looking over your shoulder
> if you go to her site. It ain't bicycles that are recumbent there.
>
> skip

Man skip! I have got to lighten up. I fall for every jokester that
comes down the pike. No, I do not have any wife to be looking over my
shoulder. Maybe if I did I wouldn't be so gullible all the time. We
hermits are trusting souls and always take everyone at their word. As
I would not lie to anyone, I cannot imagine anyone lying to me. It is
a failure of the imagination for sure!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

skip
December 15th 03, 03:27 AM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...

<snip>

We
> hermits are trusting souls and always take everyone at their word. As
> I would not lie to anyone, I cannot imagine anyone lying to me. It is
> a failure of the imagination for sure!
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

I would be better person if I had more of your innocence and less of my
cynicism / skepticism.

skip

stratrider
December 15th 03, 09:31 PM
(Edward Dolan) wrote in message
> DH, you have got that right about the nationalism bit. The America
> haters and the Bush haters just can't stand it. I did not respond to
> the Nutty Professor and to the equally Nutty Rocketman because I was
> mainly busy on other OT threads and could not imagine that I had said
> anything controversial that would set off the mad dog liberals. I am
> constantly underestimating their venom and their spite. At least now
> you know why I treat them all with the contempt they so richly
> deserve. They are not rational and don't even pretend to be.
>
Ed, isn't ironic how the left can change the subject to a political OT
thread without being accused of ruining the arbr! I am losing my
composure! There is NO rational thought behind the nutty professor's
comments! Worse, still, he is probably filly the minds of young
people with his version of social justice and political correctness!
It's BULL****! And for those of you who have been around long enough,
it's this PC BULL**** that long preceded Ed's response to it! That is
a fact!

> By the way, this is why the Dems are going to lose big time in 2004 if
> Dean is their man. Americans will not vote for angry haters like Dean
> and the liberal mad dogs that he represents. No way!
>
And while I have many issues with some of the President's policies, I
have not heard anthing for Dean that would move me to vote for the
good doctor!

> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Pat
December 15th 03, 09:49 PM
> Ed, isn't ironic how the left can change the subject to a political OT
> thread without being accused of ruining the arbr! I am losing my
> composure! There is NO rational thought behind the nutty professor's
> comments! Worse, still, he is probably filly the minds of young
> people with his version of social justice and political correctness!
> It's BULL****! And for those of you who have been around long enough,
> it's this PC BULL**** that long preceded Ed's response to it! That is
> a fact!

<plonk>

Pat
December 15th 03, 09:51 PM
>
> The ignorance of some teachers...this country started as a
> constitutional republic. Can you give me the date, time and location
> when & where it degraded into a unlawful but "legal" demo[n]cracy?

This country has ALWAYS been a democracy. You are showing your own
ignorance. Before you go yelling at others, you should correct your own
ignorance.

Pat in TX

Howard
December 16th 03, 12:53 AM
"Pat" > wrote in -
berlin.de:

>
> This country has ALWAYS been a democracy. You are showing your own
> ignorance. Before you go yelling at others, you should correct your own
> ignorance.
>
> Pat in TX
>
Not to nitpick, but...what is commonly called a democracy is almost never
a democracy, but an adaptation of it. A pure democracy is really nothing
but "mob rule" and affords no protections to anyone not in the majority.
For example, a true democracy could legally elect to execute anyone who
wore yellow shirts on Wednesdays.

Thus Texas never was a democracy, nor has it yet been governed by one.

Under Spain it was governed by a Monarchy, likewise under France.

Mexico during the period of interest did have a weak federal government,
but its collapse into a dictatorship led to the appropriately named
Republic of Texas which was a republic, as were the confederate states of
America.

The USA was founded as a republic (unnerving though it is to agree
publicly with D*l*n), and in spite of some claims to the contrary, has
remained so to date.

Or perhaps you wrote of a country other than Spain, France, Mexico,
Texas, the csa, or the USA?

Anyway, where's the bent content?

Howard (not yelling, just remembering some pleasant days and really nice
people he once knew near Midlothian, Odessa, and Twitty, Texas)

bit shift etc. to respond.

Pat
December 16th 03, 05:07 AM
I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that a
democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK, always
exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
political threads off of the newsgroup.

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek
dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
involving periodically held free elections.

Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America.

bandjhughes
December 16th 03, 08:09 PM
"Pat" > wrote in message >...
> I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that a
> democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK, always
> exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
> political threads off of the newsgroup.
>
> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
> Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek
> dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
> Date: 1576
> 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
> government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
> by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
> involving periodically held free elections.
>
> Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America.
>

Or this one:

de·moc·ra·cy n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political
power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual
within a community.


re·pub·lic n.

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern
times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.

So which type is the USA? Personally, I would lean with the republic
definition.

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 16th 03, 08:49 PM
On 16 Dec 2003 11:09:34 -0800, (bandjhughes)
wrote:

>Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
>representatives.

As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
the USA to a T ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

jhuskey
December 16th 03, 08:56 PM
Pat wrote:
> I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that
> a democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK,
> always exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep
> the political threads off of the newsgroup.
> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -cies Etymology: Middle French democratie,
> from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia
> -cracy Date: 1576 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of
> the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in
> the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system
> of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
> Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America.



This is way off the original subject but here my "two cents worth". I am
by no means a student of govermental history or a political science
major but I do not believe that the US system cannot be accurately
defined out of a dictionary, since there has never been such a complex
establishment. It is refered to as "The Great Experiment" and seems to
be constantly evolving and adapting. For better or worse I don't know!
Just my opinion!



--

Edward Dolan
December 16th 03, 10:08 PM
"Pat" > wrote in message >...

> I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that a
> democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK, always
> exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
> political threads off of the newsgroup.
>
> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
> Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek
> dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
> Date: 1576
> 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
> government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
> by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
> involving periodically held free elections.
>
> Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America.

Both Pat and Howard are correct, but Pat is more correct. It is mostly
a problem of semantics. The great English philosopher Bertrand Russell
started off as a philosopher and ended up as linguist (where he was
never heard from again) as he came to the conclusion that all the
problems of philosophy were due to semantics. In other words, what the
heck do words mean anyway?

To see a direct democracy in action is very humbling. I once attended
a Vermont Town Hall meeting for our little village where I was living
at the time and it was a revelation to me. Every kook in the town came
out of the woodwork and pontificated at great length and drove us all
to distraction. I vowed I would never go to another Town Meeting as
long as I lived.

Direct democracies simply don't work. They have to be indirect, hence
the republican form of government. I think perhaps the best examples
of a direct democracy were the city states of ancient Greece. But
those were very small societies and of course the many slaves never
had anything to say about anything ever. Any large society will always
have to be an indirect democracy, i.e., a representative form of
government. As long as those representatives are freely elected by the
popular vote I think we can fairly call it a democracy. If we get too
technical (semantic) we will end up where Bertrand Russell ended up,
talking to himself with no one listening.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Howard
December 16th 03, 10:55 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
:

> On 16 Dec 2003 11:09:34 -0800, (bandjhughes)
> wrote:
>
>>Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
>>representatives.
>
> As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
> the USA to a T ;-)
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Zaphod,

You forgot overweight. :-)


H

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 16th 03, 11:19 PM
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:55:22 GMT, Howard >
wrote:

>> As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
>> the USA to a T ;-)

>You forgot overweight. :-)

Hell no. The President is not allowed to be overweight. This could
be an emerging problem, though - we have already seen the results of
the national shortage of thin people, with Hollywood and California
being forced to share one.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

bandjhughes
December 16th 03, 11:33 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message >...
> On 16 Dec 2003 11:09:34 -0800, (bandjhughes)
> wrote:
>
> >Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
> >representatives.
>
> As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
> the USA to a T ;-)
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk


??? Curious, a statement like that coming from a Brit. With a royal
monarchy that consists of a very rich white inbred dysfunctional
family, I personally wouldn't throw any stones ;-)

skip
December 17th 03, 01:06 AM
"Pat" > wrote in message
...
> I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that a
> democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK,
always
> exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
> political threads off of the newsgroup.
>
> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
> Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
> Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from
Greek
> dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
> Date: 1576
> 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a
> government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and
exercised
> by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
> involving periodically held free elections.
>
> Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America.
>
>
>
The differences between a democracy and a republic are subtle, but legally
those differences can be significant. Al Gore would be president if the
U.S. had a government based on the dictionary definition of a democracy that
Pat posted.

The U.S. was formed as a Republic (this much should be clear to anyone who
didn't plonk their high school civics teacher) with The People having God
given natural rights (common law). Later the country added some aspects of
a democracy when citizenship was established and civil rights were granted
to citizens by the consenting majority (democratic aspect) through
statutory law.

skip

Howard
December 17th 03, 01:40 AM
"skip" > wrote in
:

>
> "Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know

<snip>
"Democracy" (the word) is too imprecise for the task being asked of it.
"Republic" is the more precise, thus better definition. I trust you have
consulted a dictionary.

>>
> The differences between a democracy and a republic are subtle, but
> legally those differences can be significant. Al Gore would be
> president if the U.S. had a government based on the dictionary
> definition of a democracy that Pat posted.

Maybe... One of the distinctions is the republic (per dictionary
definition) deems power to rest with a majority of the electorate, that
is, those who may vote. The electorate may then choose persons to govern
them. This (the electorate) is quite a different thing than a simple
majority of the population, or even a simple majority of the citizenry.

Since there isn't any practical value in wondering what non-voters think,
it is really unknown and probably unknowable whom a simple majority would
have chosen in 2000, or 1960 for that matter.

Respectfully,

Howard

brian hughes
December 17th 03, 02:21 AM
"skip" > wrote in message
...
>
> The differences between a democracy and a republic are subtle, but legally
> those differences can be significant. Al Gore would be president if the
> U.S. had a government based on the dictionary definition of a democracy
that
> Pat posted.
>
> The U.S. was formed as a Republic (this much should be clear to anyone who
> didn't plonk their high school civics teacher) with The People having God
> given natural rights (common law). Later the country added some aspects
of
> a democracy when citizenship was established and civil rights were granted
> to citizens by the consenting majority (democratic aspect) through
> statutory law.
>
> skip

True, and just for kicks if you want to know what the US government lists as
the type of government for most countries (including itself), go to this
website. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html
If you scroll down to USA you will see the US government (at least the
central intelligence agency) considers itself a "Constitution-based federal
republic; strong democratic tradition".

Brian

skip
December 17th 03, 03:20 AM
"Howard" > wrote in message
...
> "skip" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >>
> > The differences between a democracy and a republic are subtle, but
> > legally those differences can be significant. Al Gore would be
> > president if the U.S. had a government based on the dictionary
> > definition of a democracy that Pat posted.
>
> Maybe... One of the distinctions is the republic (per dictionary
> definition) deems power to rest with a majority of the electorate, that
> is, those who may vote. The electorate may then choose persons to govern
> them. This (the electorate) is quite a different thing than a simple
> majority of the population, or even a simple majority of the citizenry.
>
> Since there isn't any practical value in wondering what non-voters think,
> it is really unknown and probably unknowable whom a simple majority would
> have chosen in 2000, or 1960 for that matter.
>

Good point. I was going on the thought that a system in which the "supreme
power is vested in the people ........" wouldn't permit an electoral college
and thus Gore would have won by popular vote.

skip

Pat
December 17th 03, 04:11 AM
>
> de·moc·ra·cy n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
> Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
> representatives.
> A political or social unit that has such a government.
> The common people, considered as the primary source of political
> power.
> Majority rule.
> The principles of social equality and respect for the individual
> within a community.
>
>
> re·pub·lic n.
>
> A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern
> times is usually a president.
> A nation that has such a political order.
> A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
> citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
> responsible to them.
> A nation that has such a political order.
>
> So which type is the USA? Personally, I would lean with the republic
> definition.

The USA is BOTH. Both at the same time! That's the whole point. The two can
exist and do exist at the same time.

Pat in TX

Pat
December 17th 03, 04:12 AM
> This is way off the original subject but here my "two cents worth". I am
> by no means a student of govermental history or a political science
> major but I do not believe that the US system cannot be accurately
> defined out of a dictionary, since there has never been such a complex
> establishment. It is refered to as "The Great Experiment" and seems to
> be constantly evolving and adapting. For better or worse I don't know!
> Just my opinion!

My point is that the US is both a democracy AND a republic at the same time.
All you have to do is read the dictionary definitions to see the truth in
that.

Pat in TX
>
>
>
> --
>

Dave Larrington
December 17th 03, 10:05 AM
bandjhughes wrote:

> ??? Curious, a statement like that coming from a Brit. With a royal
> monarchy that consists of a very rich white inbred dysfunctional
> family, I personally wouldn't throw any stones ;-)

Well, /I/ didn't vote for them...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

brian hughes
December 17th 03, 02:11 PM
"Dave Larrington" > wrote in message
...
> bandjhughes wrote:
>
> > ??? Curious, a statement like that coming from a Brit. With a royal
> > monarchy that consists of a very rich white inbred dysfunctional
> > family, I personally wouldn't throw any stones ;-)
>
> Well, /I/ didn't vote for them...
>
> --
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> ================================================== =========
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ================================================== =========


Touché .... ....But I'm curious, even if those people had to be
elected--wouldn't they win? If I recall correctly, when I was in the UK, it
seemed as if there was a very loyal admiration for those people--no matter
what they did--from the majority of the citizens. Although I met a few that
thought a royal monarchy was rather silly.

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 17th 03, 07:30 PM
On 16 Dec 2003 14:33:26 -0800, (bandjhughes)
wrote:

>> >Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
>> >representatives.

>> As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
>> the USA to a T ;-)

>??? Curious, a statement like that coming from a Brit. With a royal
>monarchy that consists of a very rich white inbred dysfunctional
>family, I personally wouldn't throw any stones ;-)

But we make no pretence otherwise. The USA is ruled by a de facto
ruling caste of rich white guys, with occasional token exceptions.
British MPs are also becoming disappointingly homogeneous - law or
politics graduates, looking to politics as a career rather than as a
public service obligation. In france the Enarques rule. Nobody is
perfect.

I like the idea of democracy and can't wait to see what happens when
someone tries it...

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 17th 03, 07:31 PM
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:55:40 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>If a head of state is necessary, I think I prefer the scenario scripted by
>Arthur C. Clarke in "Songs of Distant Earth" - the President is chosen at
>random.

And undoubtedly following Douglas Adams' dictum that anybody who wants
to wield power should under no circumstances be allowed to.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

skip
December 17th 03, 08:29 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Dec 2003 11:09:34 -0800, (bandjhughes)
> wrote:
>
> >Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
> >representatives.
>
> As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
> the USA to a T ;-)
>
And what's the skin color and economic class of those in your parliment? I
would like to know to a T. ;)

skip

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 17th 03, 08:52 PM
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:29:14 -0600, "skip" > wrote:

>And what's the skin color and economic class of those in your parliment? I
>would like to know to a T. ;)

Since running for Parliament is now becoming expensive, they are
increasingly white and middle class. Sad but true.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Zippy the Pinhead
December 18th 03, 01:44 AM
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:05:57 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>> ??? Curious, a statement like that coming from a Brit. With a royal
>> monarchy that consists of a very rich white inbred dysfunctional
>> family, I personally wouldn't throw any stones ;-)
>
>Well, /I/ didn't vote for them...

Yeah, but what have you done to discourage them?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

skip
December 18th 03, 05:39 PM
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 16 Dec 2003 11:09:34 -0800, (bandjhughes)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
> > >representatives.
> >
> > As long as by "people" you mean "rich white male people" then that's
> > the USA to a T ;-)
> >
>>Guy

> And what's the skin color and economic class of those in your parliment?
I
> would like to know to a T. ;-)
>
> skip
>
>>Since running for Parliament is now becoming >>expensive, they are
>>increasingly white and middle class. Sad but true.

>>Guy

Is this another case of the Brittish pot calling the USA kettle black?

Perhaps you guys should work on making your own middle class more
"inclusive".

skip

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 19th 03, 12:26 PM
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:39:13 -0600, "skip" > wrote:

>Is this another case of the Brittish pot calling the USA kettle black?
>Perhaps you guys should work on making your own middle class more
>"inclusive".

Our electoral system has serious flaws. They are different flaws, of
course, but I certainly wouldn't characterise our system as being any
better. Bad in a different way, is all.

Quite how you make the middle class "inclusive" is not apparent to me.
People are or are not middle class according to their income and
aspirations, ISTM.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

skip
December 19th 03, 05:13 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

> Quite how you make the middle class "inclusive" is not apparent to me.

> People are or are not middle class according to their income and
> aspirations, ISTM.
>

This relates back to your statement that running for Parliament is so
expensive that only the white middle class seem to be getting elected.

As I see it you can correct this, as you put it, sad, but true situation,
in several ways. One would be to have the government subsidize the cost of
a person of color getting elected. Another would be to increase the
non-white representation of your middle class so persons of color could
afford the cost of getting elected the same as your white middle class. You
would do this through an aggressive affirmative action hiring and promoting
those of color into jobs paying middle class incomes. In the USA we would
call that making your middle class more inclusive.

Twenty-five percent of those running for the USA Democratic party's
presidential nomination are African- Americans.

skip

P.S. What does ISTM mean. I can't figure it out and I'm too lazy to
search for it.

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 19th 03, 10:30 PM
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:13:00 -0600, "skip" > wrote:

>As I see it you can correct this, as you put it, sad, but true situation,
>in several ways. One would be to have the government subsidize the cost of
>a person of color getting elected. Another would be to increase the
>non-white representation of your middle class so persons of color could
>afford the cost of getting elected the same as your white middle class. You
>would do this through an aggressive affirmative action hiring and promoting
>those of color into jobs paying middle class incomes. In the USA we would
>call that making your middle class more inclusive.

I see what you're getting at now. Almost all the MPs in Parliament
are there not at their own expense, but sponsored by one of the
parties. Fund-raising is not on the American model (as it is
portrayed to us). The chances of an independent getting in are very
small indeed.

The main parties have agendas in place to try to make Parliament more
inclusive. These include all-women shortlists, for example. The Tory
party has historically had trouble recruiting candidates from ethnic
minorities because of its image of institiutional conservatism (small
c), Labour had trouble recruiting women for a long time because it was
seen as being dominated by blokey trade unionists.

The worst problem with the current breed of MPs is that they are so
homogeneous. You look around the chamber and wonder where the future
Tony Benns and Enoch Powells are going to come from. My MP is not too
bad, in that she is a keen cyclist and head of the All Party Cycling
Group, so at least she's representing my interests in one way, but our
electoral system is such that many poeple feel their views are not
represented. This is especially true of black and asian people, who
are under-represented in Parliament. But there are some notable ones.
We also have a blind Home Secretary (one of the three or four most
important jobs in the country).

So there is diversity, just not enough of it. Too many of the MPs
have similar backgrounds, similar experiences, similar views (or they
wouldn't be selected).

The middle class in Britain itself is very diverse, I should say. The
number of successful Asian small businesses is such that it couldn't
be any other way. There is racism in the UK, if you are black or
Bangladeshi you are more likely to be poor and unemployed. It's not
as bad as in some European countries, despite the efforts of the press
to stir up xenophobia in recent years, and it's better in some places
than in others. We have a disgraceful party called the British
National Party who have overtly racist policies, who have had several
councillors elected. That appalls me.

I seem to be rambling. I have completely lost the thread of where
this was going, I'm afraid. I think my point was just that in both
the US and the UK you are more likely to be in office if you fit a
certain mould. In the US it mainly seems to be old rich white guys.
In the UK there are a lot of lawyers and politics graduates with no
experience of industry. There are no characters. We Brits like our
eccentrics, and there are disappointingly few in Parliament at
present.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Tom Sherman
December 20th 03, 06:15 AM
Pat wrote:
>
> My point is that the US is both a democracy AND a republic at the same time.
> All you have to do is read the dictionary definitions to see the truth in
> that.

"I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune." - Dennis

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 27th 03, 02:47 PM
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 13:20:01 GMT, Beach Runner
> wrote:

>Remember that much of Sadaam's power came from Ronald Reagon. Read a
>little history.

Ed doesn't "do" history. It has an annoying habit of contradicting
his preconceptions, thereby indicating that history is wrong.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 27th 03, 02:47 PM
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 13:20:01 GMT, Beach Runner
> wrote:

>Remember that much of Sadaam's power came from Ronald Reagon. Read a
>little history.

Ed doesn't "do" history. It has an annoying habit of contradicting
his preconceptions, thereby indicating that history is wrong.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Tom Sherman
December 28th 03, 06:49 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:

> ... extremist wacko nuts... weak-kneed cowards and scoundrels... weak-kneed
> coward and not a scoundrel....
Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]

Tom Sherman – Close to 41½ ?N, 90½ W

Tom Sherman
December 28th 03, 06:49 AM
Edward Dolan wrote:

> ... extremist wacko nuts... weak-kneed cowards and scoundrels... weak-kneed
> coward and not a scoundrel....
Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]

Tom Sherman – Close to 41½ ?N, 90½ W

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 28th 03, 12:17 PM
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:49:34 -0600, Tom Sherman
> wrote:

>Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
>of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]

Ed lives in my kf, so I don't know the context, but the idea that
those who are not enthusiastic about war are cowards is easily
rebutted by studying the history of the Friends' Ambulance Service.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Just zis Guy, you know?
December 28th 03, 12:17 PM
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:49:34 -0600, Tom Sherman
> wrote:

>Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
>of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]

Ed lives in my kf, so I don't know the context, but the idea that
those who are not enthusiastic about war are cowards is easily
rebutted by studying the history of the Friends' Ambulance Service.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Edward Dolan
December 28th 03, 02:52 PM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > ... extremist wacko nuts... weak-kneed cowards and scoundrels... weak-kneed
> > coward and not a scoundrel....
> Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
> of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]

What you consider insulting and derogatory I merely consider
descriptive - and very accurate description at that. Guy is a coward
for instance. He can only read me second hand because I am in his kill
file. Why he even bothers to respond when he can't know what I am
saying fully beggars the mind. But he is an ostrich too. I cannot
respect anyone who kill files and I am surely not ever going to waste
much time on him.

I always repeat my descriptive terms so that they will sink into the
dunderheaded liberal brains. Repetition is of the essence when it
comes to education, from kindergarten right through Graduate School.
Besides, there is a certain poetry in driving a point home with
beautiful sounding descriptive adjectives. I don't know about you, but
I always feel rather good after I have accurately described the
viewpoints and the persons who hold those viewpoints as the peace
mongering, weak kneed cowards, and scoundrels that they are for not
defending this country in a time of war. I surely am not going to
expend any intellectual effort in arguing with manifest idiots. I
mean, I am just not that stupid!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
December 28th 03, 02:52 PM
Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > ... extremist wacko nuts... weak-kneed cowards and scoundrels... weak-kneed
> > coward and not a scoundrel....
> Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
> of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]

What you consider insulting and derogatory I merely consider
descriptive - and very accurate description at that. Guy is a coward
for instance. He can only read me second hand because I am in his kill
file. Why he even bothers to respond when he can't know what I am
saying fully beggars the mind. But he is an ostrich too. I cannot
respect anyone who kill files and I am surely not ever going to waste
much time on him.

I always repeat my descriptive terms so that they will sink into the
dunderheaded liberal brains. Repetition is of the essence when it
comes to education, from kindergarten right through Graduate School.
Besides, there is a certain poetry in driving a point home with
beautiful sounding descriptive adjectives. I don't know about you, but
I always feel rather good after I have accurately described the
viewpoints and the persons who hold those viewpoints as the peace
mongering, weak kneed cowards, and scoundrels that they are for not
defending this country in a time of war. I surely am not going to
expend any intellectual effort in arguing with manifest idiots. I
mean, I am just not that stupid!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
December 28th 03, 03:05 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message >...

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:49:34 -0600, Tom Sherman
> > wrote:
>
> >Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
> >of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]
>
> Ed lives in my kf, so I don't know the context, but the idea that
> those who are not enthusiastic about war are cowards is easily
> rebutted by studying the history of the Friends' Ambulance Service.

I am not going to waste my time on someone who has kill filed me and
yet sees fit to respond to something I have posted second hand, other
than to say that running an ambulance service for the purpose of
picking up the dead and wounded is about all that liberals are good
for these days. They can do that in New York City or they can do it in
Baghdad. In the meantime, those of us with a more serious purpose in
life, like defending the country, will get on with the job at hand and
only ask that you get the hell out of our way.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
December 28th 03, 03:05 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message >...

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:49:34 -0600, Tom Sherman
> > wrote:
>
> >Time for some new insulting adjectives, Mr. Dolan. Your repetitive use
> >of the same derogatory terms is getting boring. [YAWN]
>
> Ed lives in my kf, so I don't know the context, but the idea that
> those who are not enthusiastic about war are cowards is easily
> rebutted by studying the history of the Friends' Ambulance Service.

I am not going to waste my time on someone who has kill filed me and
yet sees fit to respond to something I have posted second hand, other
than to say that running an ambulance service for the purpose of
picking up the dead and wounded is about all that liberals are good
for these days. They can do that in New York City or they can do it in
Baghdad. In the meantime, those of us with a more serious purpose in
life, like defending the country, will get on with the job at hand and
only ask that you get the hell out of our way.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman
December 28th 03, 05:46 PM
Edward Dolan wrote:

> ...
> I am not going to waste my time on someone who has kill filed me and
> yet sees fit to respond to something I have posted second hand, other
> than to say that running an ambulance service for the purpose of
> picking up the dead and wounded is about all that liberals are good
> for these days. They can do that in New York City or they can do it in
> Baghdad. In the meantime, those of us with a more serious purpose in
> life, like defending the country, will get on with the job at hand and
> only ask that you get the hell out of our way.

And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.

[1] Riding the only red Sunset with "T-bars" and a Flip-It ® hinge tends
to give away my identity.

Tom Sherman – Close to 41.5 N, 90.5 W

Tom Sherman
December 28th 03, 05:46 PM
Edward Dolan wrote:

> ...
> I am not going to waste my time on someone who has kill filed me and
> yet sees fit to respond to something I have posted second hand, other
> than to say that running an ambulance service for the purpose of
> picking up the dead and wounded is about all that liberals are good
> for these days. They can do that in New York City or they can do it in
> Baghdad. In the meantime, those of us with a more serious purpose in
> life, like defending the country, will get on with the job at hand and
> only ask that you get the hell out of our way.

And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.

[1] Riding the only red Sunset with "T-bars" and a Flip-It ® hinge tends
to give away my identity.

Tom Sherman – Close to 41.5 N, 90.5 W

Zippy the Pinhead
December 29th 03, 07:41 PM
On 27 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>Iran is probably going to become our number one enemy again if
>and when it acquires nuclear weapons.

I'm afraid you're right. They'd have to ignore the good that the US
is doing right now as we speak in an Iranian town called Bam, but
that's not unprecedented. The good that the US has done in countless
disasters, natural and man-made, is cheerfully overlooked by the
resentful cowards and bullies, foreign and domestic, who hate the U.S.

Zippy the Pinhead
December 29th 03, 07:41 PM
On 27 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

>Iran is probably going to become our number one enemy again if
>and when it acquires nuclear weapons.

I'm afraid you're right. They'd have to ignore the good that the US
is doing right now as we speak in an Iranian town called Bam, but
that's not unprecedented. The good that the US has done in countless
disasters, natural and man-made, is cheerfully overlooked by the
resentful cowards and bullies, foreign and domestic, who hate the U.S.

Edward Dolan
December 30th 03, 01:22 AM
Zippy the Pinhead > wrote in message >...

> On 27 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >Iran is probably going to become our number one enemy again if
> >and when it acquires nuclear weapons.
>
> I'm afraid you're right. They'd have to ignore the good that the US
> is doing right now as we speak in an Iranian town called Bam, but
> that's not unprecedented. The good that the US has done in countless
> disasters, natural and man-made, is cheerfully overlooked by the
> resentful cowards and bullies, foreign and domestic, who hate the U.S.

Yes, nations hardly ever create any such thing as good will, at least
not for long. Interests are all that ever matter in the end.

Keep your eyes on Pakistan. It could quickly become our number one
concern if the present ruler is assassinated or overthrown by the
Islamic extremists which are rampant in that country. No doubt the
military would step in to take over the reigns of power, but even the
military are not be trusted as many of them are sympathetic to the
extremists. I think if the Islamic extremists ever came to power in
Pakistan we would have to do something about it as Pakistan has
nuclear weapons and India would then be in extremis.

What is badly needed in the world is an enforceable nuclear
non-proliferation agreement among nations. Even the liberal Dems see
the necessity for this.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
December 30th 03, 01:22 AM
Zippy the Pinhead > wrote in message >...

> On 27 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >Iran is probably going to become our number one enemy again if
> >and when it acquires nuclear weapons.
>
> I'm afraid you're right. They'd have to ignore the good that the US
> is doing right now as we speak in an Iranian town called Bam, but
> that's not unprecedented. The good that the US has done in countless
> disasters, natural and man-made, is cheerfully overlooked by the
> resentful cowards and bullies, foreign and domestic, who hate the U.S.

Yes, nations hardly ever create any such thing as good will, at least
not for long. Interests are all that ever matter in the end.

Keep your eyes on Pakistan. It could quickly become our number one
concern if the present ruler is assassinated or overthrown by the
Islamic extremists which are rampant in that country. No doubt the
military would step in to take over the reigns of power, but even the
military are not be trusted as many of them are sympathetic to the
extremists. I think if the Islamic extremists ever came to power in
Pakistan we would have to do something about it as Pakistan has
nuclear weapons and India would then be in extremis.

What is badly needed in the world is an enforceable nuclear
non-proliferation agreement among nations. Even the liberal Dems see
the necessity for this.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

stratrider
December 30th 03, 02:52 PM
(Edward Dolan) wrote in message
>
> Keep your eyes on Pakistan. It could quickly become our number one
> concern if the present ruler is assassinated or overthrown by the
> Islamic extremists which are rampant in that country. No doubt the
> military would step in to take over the reigns of power, but even the
> military are not be trusted as many of them are sympathetic to the
> extremists. I think if the Islamic extremists ever came to power in
> Pakistan we would have to do something about it as Pakistan has
> nuclear weapons and India would then be in extremis.
>
Ed, what you are describing is a very serious concern. I could see an
Islamic extremist run Pakistan embroiled in a war with predominantly
Hindu India that would drag the rest of the world in! Could that get
ugly!

Jim

stratrider
December 30th 03, 02:52 PM
(Edward Dolan) wrote in message
>
> Keep your eyes on Pakistan. It could quickly become our number one
> concern if the present ruler is assassinated or overthrown by the
> Islamic extremists which are rampant in that country. No doubt the
> military would step in to take over the reigns of power, but even the
> military are not be trusted as many of them are sympathetic to the
> extremists. I think if the Islamic extremists ever came to power in
> Pakistan we would have to do something about it as Pakistan has
> nuclear weapons and India would then be in extremis.
>
Ed, what you are describing is a very serious concern. I could see an
Islamic extremist run Pakistan embroiled in a war with predominantly
Hindu India that would drag the rest of the world in! Could that get
ugly!

Jim

Pat
December 31st 03, 11:06 PM
> And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
> him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
> who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.
> Tom Sherman –

I, too, have him in the kill file so I don't get his nitwit stuff. But I do
not understand his rantings at all. If he were trying to influence people to
believe as he does---or to change their way of thinking and join
him---writing the way he writes will not achieve that objective. All he does
is alienate people. It is obvious he is not any kind of a leader, nor does
he know anything about leading others. It's a pity.

Pat in TX

Pat
December 31st 03, 11:06 PM
> And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
> him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
> who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.
> Tom Sherman –

I, too, have him in the kill file so I don't get his nitwit stuff. But I do
not understand his rantings at all. If he were trying to influence people to
believe as he does---or to change their way of thinking and join
him---writing the way he writes will not achieve that objective. All he does
is alienate people. It is obvious he is not any kind of a leader, nor does
he know anything about leading others. It's a pity.

Pat in TX

brian hughes
January 1st 04, 12:53 AM
"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>
> > And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
> > him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
> > who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.
> > Tom Sherman -
>
> I, too, have him in the kill file so I don't get his nitwit stuff. But I
do
> not understand his rantings at all. If he were trying to influence people
to
> believe as he does---or to change their way of thinking and join
> him---writing the way he writes will not achieve that objective. All he
does
> is alienate people. It is obvious he is not any kind of a leader, nor
does
> he know anything about leading others. It's a pity.
>
> Pat in TX
>
>

Hey Pat ... when you wrote those things earlier in this string where you a
different person? Or did you recently have a change of heart? Or do you
actually think your writing style is not alienating people, but Ed's is?
I've snipped them and included them below in case you forgot.

"This country has ALWAYS been a democracy. You are showing your own
ignorance. Before you go yelling at others, you should correct your own
ignorance.

Pat in TX"

"I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that a
democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK, always
exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
political threads off of the newsgroup.

/Snip/

Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America."

Sounds like a pot calling a kettle black to me.

brian hughes
January 1st 04, 12:53 AM
"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>
> > And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
> > him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
> > who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.
> > Tom Sherman -
>
> I, too, have him in the kill file so I don't get his nitwit stuff. But I
do
> not understand his rantings at all. If he were trying to influence people
to
> believe as he does---or to change their way of thinking and join
> him---writing the way he writes will not achieve that objective. All he
does
> is alienate people. It is obvious he is not any kind of a leader, nor
does
> he know anything about leading others. It's a pity.
>
> Pat in TX
>
>

Hey Pat ... when you wrote those things earlier in this string where you a
different person? Or did you recently have a change of heart? Or do you
actually think your writing style is not alienating people, but Ed's is?
I've snipped them and included them below in case you forgot.

"This country has ALWAYS been a democracy. You are showing your own
ignorance. Before you go yelling at others, you should correct your own
ignorance.

Pat in TX"

"I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that a
democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK, always
exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
political threads off of the newsgroup.

/Snip/

Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America."

Sounds like a pot calling a kettle black to me.

Pat
January 1st 04, 03:48 PM
>
> Hey Pat ... when you wrote those things earlier in this string where you a
> different person? Or did you recently have a change of heart? Or do you
> actually think your writing style is not alienating people, but Ed's is?
> I've snipped them and included them below in case you forgot.
>
> "This country has ALWAYS been a democracy. You are showing your own
> ignorance. Before you go yelling at others, you should correct your own
> ignorance.
>
> Pat in TX"
>
> "I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that
a
> democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK,
always
> exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
> political threads off of the newsgroup.
>
> /Snip/
>
> Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America."
>
> Sounds like a pot calling a kettle black to me.

Let's see, Brian...Dolan has been degrading and deriding people who say that
this country is a democracy, but when somebody points out that he is grossly
mistaken, that's bad????? Or is the problem that you were enjoying his
belittling of other people who were CORRECT when they said this country is a
democracy? Even President Bush says the country is a democracy, so joining
him must be bad and put us in the same "kettle." Dolan was wrong and I got
tired of his rants based on his stated beliefs that the US is not a
democracy, so I pointed out the truth. For that, you put us in the same
category? Oh wait, I get it: you ARE Dolan and you've changed your sig.
Okay.

Pat in TX
>
>
>

Pat
January 1st 04, 03:48 PM
>
> Hey Pat ... when you wrote those things earlier in this string where you a
> different person? Or did you recently have a change of heart? Or do you
> actually think your writing style is not alienating people, but Ed's is?
> I've snipped them and included them below in case you forgot.
>
> "This country has ALWAYS been a democracy. You are showing your own
> ignorance. Before you go yelling at others, you should correct your own
> ignorance.
>
> Pat in TX"
>
> "I see you still haven't consulted a dictionary and STILL don't know that
a
> democracy and a republic CAN exist at the same time--in fact, AFAIK,
always
> exist at the same time. So, read a dictionary and weep and keep the
> political threads off of the newsgroup.
>
> /Snip/
>
> Pat in TX which is a democracy as is the United States of America."
>
> Sounds like a pot calling a kettle black to me.

Let's see, Brian...Dolan has been degrading and deriding people who say that
this country is a democracy, but when somebody points out that he is grossly
mistaken, that's bad????? Or is the problem that you were enjoying his
belittling of other people who were CORRECT when they said this country is a
democracy? Even President Bush says the country is a democracy, so joining
him must be bad and put us in the same "kettle." Dolan was wrong and I got
tired of his rants based on his stated beliefs that the US is not a
democracy, so I pointed out the truth. For that, you put us in the same
category? Oh wait, I get it: you ARE Dolan and you've changed your sig.
Okay.

Pat in TX
>
>
>

Edward Dolan
January 1st 04, 04:06 PM
"brian hughes" > wrote in message . net>...

> "Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
> > > him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
> > > who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.
> > > Tom Sherman -
> >
> > I, too, have him in the kill file so I don't get his nitwit stuff. But I
> do
> > not understand his rantings at all. If he were trying to influence people
> to
> > believe as he does---or to change their way of thinking and join
> > him---writing the way he writes will not achieve that objective. All he
> does
> > is alienate people. It is obvious he is not any kind of a leader, nor
> does
> > he know anything about leading others. It's a pity.
> >
> > Pat in TX

This message of Pat's slipped by me. Apparently not everything that
gets posted ends up on the Google ARBR web page.

I have stated repeatedly in many posts that I am not into persuading
anyone of anything. If I were I would have to adopt totally different
tactics. Rather, I am only into refuting liberal comments with as much
prejudice as I can muster. To attempt to change a liberal's opinion
about anything is an exercise in futility. I am not that stupid to
even think about doing that. No, I am here only to refute - and to
refute - and to do nothing but refute! Get used to it.

As for being a leader, as far as I know all our leaders are
politicians. All the rest of us our followers despite whatever
delusions we might have about it. The best we can ever hope to do in a
democracy is to periodically exercise some good judgement about who we
want our leaders to be.

The truth of the matter is that most of us could not get ourselves
elected to the post of municipal dog catcher. I had to laugh once when
William F. Buckley ran for the office of Mayor of New York City. He
self destructed almost immediately, and so would we all. Politicians
are a special breed and are far more intelligent than the journalists
who ask them questions and the rest of us who follow them.

I do not care a hoot whether I am alienating anyone or not. And I am
not ever going to be any kind of a leader either. What I do care about
is refuting liberals, especially with respect to the war we are now
engaged in. So far I am modestly pleased with my humble efforts in
this direction.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
January 1st 04, 04:06 PM
"brian hughes" > wrote in message . net>...

> "Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > And Mr. Dolan is doing his part by alienating many people who agree with
> > > him due to his online personality. On invitational rides, I meet people
> > > who read a.r.b.r. [1] who say just that on a fairly frequent basis.
> > > Tom Sherman -
> >
> > I, too, have him in the kill file so I don't get his nitwit stuff. But I
> do
> > not understand his rantings at all. If he were trying to influence people
> to
> > believe as he does---or to change their way of thinking and join
> > him---writing the way he writes will not achieve that objective. All he
> does
> > is alienate people. It is obvious he is not any kind of a leader, nor
> does
> > he know anything about leading others. It's a pity.
> >
> > Pat in TX

This message of Pat's slipped by me. Apparently not everything that
gets posted ends up on the Google ARBR web page.

I have stated repeatedly in many posts that I am not into persuading
anyone of anything. If I were I would have to adopt totally different
tactics. Rather, I am only into refuting liberal comments with as much
prejudice as I can muster. To attempt to change a liberal's opinion
about anything is an exercise in futility. I am not that stupid to
even think about doing that. No, I am here only to refute - and to
refute - and to do nothing but refute! Get used to it.

As for being a leader, as far as I know all our leaders are
politicians. All the rest of us our followers despite whatever
delusions we might have about it. The best we can ever hope to do in a
democracy is to periodically exercise some good judgement about who we
want our leaders to be.

The truth of the matter is that most of us could not get ourselves
elected to the post of municipal dog catcher. I had to laugh once when
William F. Buckley ran for the office of Mayor of New York City. He
self destructed almost immediately, and so would we all. Politicians
are a special breed and are far more intelligent than the journalists
who ask them questions and the rest of us who follow them.

I do not care a hoot whether I am alienating anyone or not. And I am
not ever going to be any kind of a leader either. What I do care about
is refuting liberals, especially with respect to the war we are now
engaged in. So far I am modestly pleased with my humble efforts in
this direction.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

brian hughes
January 1st 04, 05:23 PM
> Let's see, Brian...Dolan has been degrading and deriding people who say
that
> this country is a democracy, but when somebody points out that he is
grossly
> mistaken, that's bad????? Or is the problem that you were enjoying his
> belittling of other people who were CORRECT when they said this country is
a
> democracy? Even President Bush says the country is a democracy, so
joining
> him must be bad and put us in the same "kettle." Dolan was wrong and I
got
> tired of his rants based on his stated beliefs that the US is not a
> democracy, so I pointed out the truth. For that, you put us in the same
> category? Oh wait, I get it: you ARE Dolan and you've changed your sig.
> Okay.
>
> Pat in TX

No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished that
you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
belittling of other people you are now objecting to. By the way, none of
these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed Dolan-they
were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to do
it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?) Don't you even notice your
hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category, you
are in a category all to yourself. By the way, for you to say anyone is
grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic; strong
democratic tradition" ref
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html

brian hughes
January 1st 04, 05:23 PM
> Let's see, Brian...Dolan has been degrading and deriding people who say
that
> this country is a democracy, but when somebody points out that he is
grossly
> mistaken, that's bad????? Or is the problem that you were enjoying his
> belittling of other people who were CORRECT when they said this country is
a
> democracy? Even President Bush says the country is a democracy, so
joining
> him must be bad and put us in the same "kettle." Dolan was wrong and I
got
> tired of his rants based on his stated beliefs that the US is not a
> democracy, so I pointed out the truth. For that, you put us in the same
> category? Oh wait, I get it: you ARE Dolan and you've changed your sig.
> Okay.
>
> Pat in TX

No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished that
you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
belittling of other people you are now objecting to. By the way, none of
these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed Dolan-they
were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to do
it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?) Don't you even notice your
hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category, you
are in a category all to yourself. By the way, for you to say anyone is
grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic; strong
democratic tradition" ref
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html

Pat
January 1st 04, 06:26 PM
>
> No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished that
> you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
> throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
> their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
> they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
> belittling of other people you are now objecting to.

I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and yet
when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same
language he uses, that is enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now. He
should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever
attempt to bring him up short because that would be rude? If you will
re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't "belittling" a normal
person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without someone
calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want
everybody to bear his rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone is
actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike
manner so as not to offend you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not only
defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say
"enough!"


By the way, none of
> these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
Dolan-they
> were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
do
> it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)

See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to
the bully or they will be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it won't
wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not
his own private website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stupid
means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be
you.

Don't you even notice your
> hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category, you
> are in a category all to yourself.

It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to a
bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a category
all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.

By the way, for you to say anyone is
> grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
> government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
strong
> democratic tradition" ref
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html

yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is NOT
a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.

Pat in TX

Pat
January 1st 04, 06:26 PM
>
> No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished that
> you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
> throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
> their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
> they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
> belittling of other people you are now objecting to.

I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and yet
when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same
language he uses, that is enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now. He
should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever
attempt to bring him up short because that would be rude? If you will
re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't "belittling" a normal
person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without someone
calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want
everybody to bear his rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone is
actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike
manner so as not to offend you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not only
defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say
"enough!"


By the way, none of
> these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
Dolan-they
> were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
do
> it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)

See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to
the bully or they will be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it won't
wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not
his own private website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stupid
means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be
you.

Don't you even notice your
> hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category, you
> are in a category all to yourself.

It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to a
bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a category
all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.

By the way, for you to say anyone is
> grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
> government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
strong
> democratic tradition" ref
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html

yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is NOT
a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.

Pat in TX

brian hughes
January 1st 04, 07:35 PM
"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished
that
> > you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
> > throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
> > their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
> > they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
> > belittling of other people you are now objecting to.
>
> I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and
yet
> when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same
> language he uses, that is enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now.
He
> should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever
> attempt to bring him up short because that would be rude? If you will
> re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't "belittling" a normal
> person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without
someone
> calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want
> everybody to bear his rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone
is
> actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike
> manner so as not to offend you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not
only
> defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say
> "enough!"
>
>
> By the way, none of
> > these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
> Dolan-they
> > were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
> do
> > it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)
>
> See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to
> the bully or they will be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it
won't
> wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not
> his own private website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stup
id
> means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be
> you.
>
> Don't you even notice your
> > hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category,
you
> > are in a category all to yourself.
>
> It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to
a
> bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a
category
> all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.
>
> By the way, for you to say anyone is
> > grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
> > government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
> strong
> > democratic tradition" ref
> > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html
>
> yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is
NOT
> a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.
>
> Pat in TX

So Pat, in your mind being a total hypocrite and belittling other people not
related to Ed Dolan is okay and is somehow standing up to Ed Dolan, which
that takes guts like yours...Wow, you must really impress yourself. You're
a real superhero of cyberspace. Also pointing out how the US government
classifies itself is now wrong too since it doesn't match what you
believe....and you're the ultimate authority on that, not the US government.
The US government is in fact defined by whatever YOU decide it is. Thanks
for that clarification.

Brian

brian hughes
January 1st 04, 07:35 PM
"Pat" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished
that
> > you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
> > throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
> > their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
> > they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
> > belittling of other people you are now objecting to.
>
> I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and
yet
> when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same
> language he uses, that is enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now.
He
> should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever
> attempt to bring him up short because that would be rude? If you will
> re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't "belittling" a normal
> person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without
someone
> calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want
> everybody to bear his rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone
is
> actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike
> manner so as not to offend you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not
only
> defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say
> "enough!"
>
>
> By the way, none of
> > these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
> Dolan-they
> > were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
> do
> > it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)
>
> See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to
> the bully or they will be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it
won't
> wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not
> his own private website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stup
id
> means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be
> you.
>
> Don't you even notice your
> > hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category,
you
> > are in a category all to yourself.
>
> It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to
a
> bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a
category
> all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.
>
> By the way, for you to say anyone is
> > grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
> > government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
> strong
> > democratic tradition" ref
> > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html
>
> yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is
NOT
> a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.
>
> Pat in TX

So Pat, in your mind being a total hypocrite and belittling other people not
related to Ed Dolan is okay and is somehow standing up to Ed Dolan, which
that takes guts like yours...Wow, you must really impress yourself. You're
a real superhero of cyberspace. Also pointing out how the US government
classifies itself is now wrong too since it doesn't match what you
believe....and you're the ultimate authority on that, not the US government.
The US government is in fact defined by whatever YOU decide it is. Thanks
for that clarification.

Brian

skip
January 1st 04, 08:15 PM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...

<snip>
> William F. Buckley ran for the office of Mayor of New York City. He
> self destructed almost immediately, and so would we all.

If I recollect correctly Mr. Buckley strongly advocated elevated bikeways
for NYC. Pretty radical idea for an arch-conservative, eh?

skip

skip
January 1st 04, 08:15 PM
"Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
om...

<snip>
> William F. Buckley ran for the office of Mayor of New York City. He
> self destructed almost immediately, and so would we all.

If I recollect correctly Mr. Buckley strongly advocated elevated bikeways
for NYC. Pretty radical idea for an arch-conservative, eh?

skip

Edward Dolan
January 2nd 04, 12:26 PM
"brian hughes" > wrote in message .net>...

> "Pat" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > No Pat, I'm not Mr. Dolan. I'm just someone who is totally astonished
> that
> > > you can write something so incredibly hypocritical when you yourself are
> > > throwing spitballs. For example, when you tell someone they are showing
> > > their ignorance and need to fix their ignorance or when you tell someone
> > > they need to read a dictionary and weep, that is exactly the kind of
> > > belittling of other people you are now objecting to.
> >
> > I see. So, Ed Dolan says these things countless times to MANY people and
> yet
> > when one single person dares to tell him that he is wrong in the same
> > language he uses, that is enough to "totally astonish" you? I get it now.
> He
> > should be allowed to rant and rave untrue things and no one should ever
> > attempt to bring him up short because that would be rude? If you will
> > re-read the posts, you will see that I wasn't "belittling" a normal
> > person--just one who has been running roughshod over people without
> someone
> > calling him to account for it. From your post, I am seeing that you want
> > everybody to bear his rantings without so much as a peep, and, if someone
> is
> > actually bold enough to reply, that reply should be done in a sheeplike
> > manner so as not to offend you. That is what "astonishes" me. You not
> only
> > defer to the bully but you then defend him should someone finally say
> > "enough!"

Who is this Pat jerk from Texas? For some strange reason I am not
seeing his posts on the Google ARBR web page. I am only getting his
posts second hand from Mr. Brian Hughes.

So here is a jerk (Pat) who has killed filed me and yet continues to
discuss me and my posts and I do not even see his posts on the Google
ARBR web page. Maybe he should un-kill file me if he wants to discuss
me so I can get in on it. As much as I disagree with Mr. Sherman on
almost everything under the sun, I do respect him for not taking the
coward's way out and kill filing me like Pat of Texas does (can this
guy really be from Texas?).

But worse than being a coward is just the plain bad manners of
discussing someone you have kill filed and therefore not making
yourself available for a response. Congratulations Pat, you are the
first one to ever do this, the mark of a true scoundrel.

Tell me Pat, are you seeing your posts to me or about me on the Google
web page? I am not seeing them so I do not know what the hell you are
talking about. I can not take you on if I am not seeing your posts. In
effect, you are having a one way conversation with yourself and with
Mr. Hughes. I strongly suggest you un-kill file me and make sure your
posts get on the Google web page if you would like to have a
conversation with me instead of with just yourself.

> > By the way, none of
> > > these derogatory statements of you made were even directed at Ed
> Dolan-they
> > > were against other posters. So why do you believe it is okay for you to
> do
> > > it, but not anyone else (and then blame Ed?)
> >
> > See my remarks above. Evidently you believe everyone should not face up to
> > the bully or they will be called the same as the bully. Sorry, but it
> won't
> > wash. Yes, I noticed he was aiming them at other posters. But, this is not
> > his own private website and I got tired of him highjacking it for his stup
> id
> > means. Someone has to stand up against the bully. I see it will never be
> > you.
> >
> > Don't you even notice your
> > > hypocrisy (or are you a politician)? No you are not in Ed's category,
> you
> > > are in a category all to yourself.
> >
> > It is amazing to me that you would bash somebody merely for standing up to
> a
> > bully. Don't you notice your own lack of guts? Yes, you are in a
> category
> > all to yourself---a category of one person who likes and supports bullies.
> >
> > By the way, for you to say anyone is
> > > grossly mistaken is also incorrect. As I noted in another post, the US
> > > government classifies itself as "Constitution-based federal republic;
> strong
> > > democratic tradition" ref
> > > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2128.html
> >
> > yeah, and that is a democracy. He absolutely said that this country is
> NOT
> > a democracy in any way shape or from. So, he is wrong. S0 are you.

I don't believe I ever said that this country is not a democracy. On
the other hand, this country is not run like a Vermont Town Hall
meeting either or like the early city states of ancient Greece. I
strongly suggest if you want to argue with me about any of this that
you get online and get your head out of the sand where you have put it
when you kill filed me. Either that, or stop discussing me behind my
back where I cannot defend myself. Better to be a "bully" like me than
a "coward" like you!

> >
> > Pat in TX
>
> So Pat, in your mind being a total hypocrite and belittling other people not
> related to Ed Dolan is okay and is somehow standing up to Ed Dolan, which
> that takes guts like yours...Wow, you must really impress yourself. You're
> a real superhero of cyberspace. Also pointing out how the US government
> classifies itself is now wrong too since it doesn't match what you
> believe....and you're the ultimate authority on that, not the US government.
> The US government is in fact defined by whatever YOU decide it is. Thanks
> for that clarification.
>
> Brian


Great job Brian! You are almost up to my own high standards minus the
foul language and the invective. I can't believe I am missing out on
all this good repartee, but the fact is that I am not seeing his posts
on the Google web page. If it weren't for you, I would not be seeing
any of this. I wonder what is going on here?

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan
January 2nd 04, 12:39 PM
"skip" > wrote in message >...

> "Edward Dolan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> <snip>
> > William F. Buckley ran for the office of Mayor of New York City. He
> > self destructed almost immediately, and so would we all.
>
> If I recollect correctly Mr. Buckley strongly advocated elevated bikeways
> for NYC. Pretty radical idea for an arch-conservative, eh?
>
> skip

Skip, I think Gore Vidal was also running along with Buckley too.
Vidal is the world's champion liberal jackass of all time, but even he
self destructed. We are way to quick to put politicians down in this
country. They are highly intelligent as a class and as long as they
are not corrupt I am willing to listen to them.

I lived in NYC for several years in my long lost youth and I do not
know how I would ever get around in that city on a bicycle. At the
time I was a prolific user of the subways (where it was a 10 cent fare
to go anywhere in the city) and I was also a walker, one of the few
cities in this country where you can walk and never suffer a dull
moment.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

DH
January 6th 04, 10:15 AM
> To think that the Soviets would ever have spent anything on their
> people to make their lives better as opposed to armaments is naive in
> the extreme and marks you as a Soviet and Communist sympathizer. But
> almost all liberals and socialists have this red tinge. I think it
> (this red tinge) springs mostly from their hatred of capitalism and
> their great resentment at its success in the Western World.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Ed, you are consistent, I'll give you that.

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde

Edward Dolan
January 6th 04, 04:55 PM
"DH" > wrote in message >...

> > To think that the Soviets would ever have spent anything on their
> > people to make their lives better as opposed to armaments is naive in
> > the extreme and marks you as a Soviet and Communist sympathizer. But
> > almost all liberals and socialists have this red tinge. I think it
> > (this red tinge) springs mostly from their hatred of capitalism and
> > their great resentment at its success in the Western World.
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> Ed, you are consistent, I'll give you that.
>
> Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde

Now that the cold war is over and the Soviet Union has fallen like a
rotten apple, I am unaccustomed to hearing any more excuses ever being
made for them. When I do hear one, as you made in your previous post
in this thread, I am taken aback and hardly know what to say. My cold
war rhetoric has grown rusty from lack of use.

I do not confuse the social welfare state with socialism and
communism. They are two different birds altogether. But thorough going
socialists really ought to know better by now. The fact is that that
scheme of organizing a society just doesn't work. It goes against
human nature and so is forever doomed. We need to learn to hate all
utopian schemes as they invariably lead to nothing but tragedy for
mankind. Liberals are not as bad as socialists but there is a
strongly family resemblance nonetheless.

I suspect the US is headed in the direction of the European welfare
states. But that is not socialism. It probably is liberalism though.
But it will not extend beyond seeing to the general welfare.
Socialism, like communism, is as dead as a door nail for all eternity.
The example of the Soviets has seen to that. That is why it is so
hilarious whenever I spot the "red tinge". Only American university
professors still believe any of that kind of crap!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home