Mainly for AUers

[Pierre]

From the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday (Little Honest Johnny Howard
received a 'gong' from his master, Dubya)

Loading Image...

It'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody serious.
--
Pierre
Worrigee NSW
,-._|\
/ Oz \
\_,--._/
v
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Pierre
It'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody serious.

I can pose a serious question: how did Howard rose to power? Military coup?
Was he installed by a foreign power? Appointed by Queen Elizabeth? Some
other Dark Overlord then?

You cannot possibly claim he won democratically legitimate elections.

[Michael Warner]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Pierre
It'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody serious.

I can pose a serious question: how did Howard rose to power?

Sheer patience, mostly. He was a running joke for many years
before becoming old and media-savvy enough to pull off the
statesman bit.

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Michael Warner
Sheer patience, mostly. He was a running joke for many years
before becoming old and media-savvy enough to pull off the
statesman bit.

Did he convince anybody? The guy is in a position of power, so what
happened? According to the cartoonist of the SMH, he /is/ still a running
joke. So, how come he runs an entire continent?

Don't tell me he won the elections. People cannot be that stupid, can they
not?

[Strong Bow]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Don't tell me he won the elections. People cannot be that stupid,
can they not?

Can't they ?

cf Current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

:-)
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Don't tell me he won the elections. People cannot be that stupid, can
they not?

Of course they can. Just think of those who elected Bush.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"I have read your book and much like it."
- Moses Hadas (1900-1966)

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Rudy Velthuis
Of course they can. Just think of those who elected Bush.

So people are stupid when they do not vote for the candidate of your
preference, Rudy? Is that how it works?

Or do you think that democracy is basically a bad idea, since it puts people
into power who are stupid or bad, or both?

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Or do you think that democracy is basically a bad idea, since it puts people
into power who are stupid or bad, or both?

It's probably the best system we've got, but it does sometimes put bad
and/or stupid people in power.

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
It's probably the best system we've got, but it does sometimes put bad
and/or stupid people in power.

Well that is sad. Even more so, now that we have learned from my esteemed
opponents here that this has happened in the US, in the UK, and in
Australia. And more democracies have forces in Iraq besides those three
countries mentioned.

Should we opt for a better system then?

[Deborah Pate]

<<Dave Fowler:
It's probably the best system we've got

Wilbert van Leijen:
Should we opt for a better system then?
Better glasses, perhaps?
--
Deborah Pate (TeamB)

TeamB don't see posts sent via Google or ISPs
Use the real Borland server: newsgroups.borland.com
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/genl_faqs.html

[Pierre]

Post by Dave Fowler
It's probably the best system we've got
Should we opt for a better system then?
Better glasses, perhaps?

Yea! Large ones and full at that. Make mine a Tooheys :-P
--
Pierre
Worrigee NSW
,-._|\
/ Oz \
\_,--._/
v
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Dave Fowler
It's probably the best system we've got, but it does sometimes put bad
and/or stupid people in power.

Should we opt for a better system then?

I said "It's probably the best system we've got"; that means there probably
isn't a better system :-)

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
I said "It's probably the best system we've got"; that means there probably
isn't a better system :-)

But any attempt to export this system to other countries must be rejected,
of course. It's too messy an affair. Look what happened to Japan, and they
had the Big Un dropped on them.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
But any attempt to export this system to other countries must be rejected,
of course.

If you say so, Wilbert. How is your remark related to this thread?.

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
If you say so, Wilbert. How is your remark related to this thread?.

A lot of people here are of the opinion that democracy leads to unfavorable
outcomes: stupid and bad people are put into power and then those stupid bad
people wage wars under the guise of spreading this same system. Case in
fact: the political leaders of the US, the UK and Australia. And a few
others.

So it is a system that favors warmongers, and it is inherently expansionist.
Hence, people who who want to work for International Peace and Mutual
Understanding should look for another political system.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
A lot of people here are of the opinion that democracy leads to unfavorable

I don't think many people think it *always* leads to unfavourable outcomes.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
stupid and bad people are put into power and then those stupid bad
people wage wars under the guise of spreading this same system. Case in
fact: the political leaders of the US, the UK and Australia. And a few
others.

Stupid and bad people sometimes achieve power in all political systems.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
So it is a system that favors warmongers, and it is inherently

expansionist.

You have provided little or no evidence to suggest that. Plenty of
democracies (probably most of them) are peaceful and non-expansionist.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Hence, people who who want to work for International Peace and Mutual
Understanding should look for another political system.

What do you suggest?

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
You have provided little or no evidence to suggest that. Plenty of
democracies (probably most of them) are peaceful and non-expansionist.

Sure, that is a luxury countries like Luxembourg and Liechenstein can
afford. They are peaceful, non-expansionist and also completely irrelevant.

Post by Dave Fowler
What do you suggest?

I suggest spreading democracy to other corners of the world.

This involves the toppling of brutal tyrannies and atrocious regimes.
Surely this will make islamofascists mad, for they have other plans. Plus
those who confuse their Righteous Indignation for analysis of a complex
political situation.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
I suggest spreading democracy to other corners of the world.
This involves the toppling of brutal tyrannies and atrocious regimes.
Surely this will make islamofascists mad, for they have other plans. Plus
those who confuse their Righteous Indignation for analysis of a complex
political situation.

What you are suggesting is starting a third world war.

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
What you are suggesting is starting a third world war.

Really? I don't think so and I didn't suggest all tyrannies should be taken
on all at once.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Really? I don't think so and I didn't suggest all tyrannies should be taken
on all at once.

Have you ever thought of consulting the people who live in these tyrannies,
to see if they would like a foreign army to come and bomb the living
daylights out of them interests of spreading democracy?

What will you do when things start heading for civli war, such as in Iraq?

Do you think that the populations of the enforcing countries will be happy
seeing so many of their youth coming home in body bags?

Are you ready to die for the cause?

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
Do you think that the populations of the enforcing countries will be happy
seeing so many of their youth coming home in body bags?

Hey, if the heart of the matter is: how to minimize casualties among
ourselves, then I have an idea about how to accomplish that. Just drop the
Big Un.

Post by Dave Fowler
Are you ready to die for the cause?

Ahhh, now it is Personal. It is about Me. Sorry, but I don't fall for
that.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
I suggest spreading democracy to other corners of the world.

The World is roughly spherical, it doesn't have any corners.

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Dave Fowler
You have provided little or no evidence to suggest that. Plenty of
democracies (probably most of them) are peaceful and non-expansionist.

Sure, that is a luxury countries like Luxembourg and Liechenstein can
afford.

And most other democracies in the world as well.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is,
of course, in a state of sin."
- John von Neumann (1903-1957)

[Strong Bow]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
A lot of people here are of the opinion that democracy leads to
unfavorable outcomes: stupid and bad people are put into power and
then those stupid bad people wage wars under the guise of spreading
this same system. Case in fact: the political leaders of the US, the
UK and Australia. And a few others.
So it is a system that favors warmongers, and it is inherently
expansionist. Hence, people who who want to work for International
Peace and Mutual Understanding should look for another political
system.

Oh dear ! Oh dear ! Oh dear !

<plonk !>
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Luk]

Post by Strong Bow
<plonk !>

You've no sense of fun.

:) (and the usual spotters fee of one pre-killed chicken goes to Pierre)

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Strong Bow
Oh dear ! Oh dear ! Oh dear !
<plonk !>

You've no sense of fun.

[Strong Bow]

You've no sense of fun.

I have a low boredom threshold. ;-)
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Well that is sad. Even more so, now that we have learned from my
esteemed opponents here

Opponents in what way?
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
-- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
So people are stupid when they do not vote for the candidate of your
preference, Rudy? Is that how it works?

Do you think it's intelligent to vote for a candidate who falsely links Iraq
to September 11th terrorism, who lied to the United States in his State of
the Union address, who dropped the ball on addressing the terrorist threat
by invading the wrong country (16 of the 9/11 18 terrorists were from Saudi
Arabia, led by a Saudi Arabian, financed with Saudi Arabian money, and the
remnants of Al Queda basically hid out in Pakistan) and thereby created a
hotbed of anti-western feeling and a training ground for field practice for
terrorists?

There are a lot of reasons why George W. Bush was not an intelligent choice.

There is only one reason I could see to vote for him - psychopathic self
interest. If you do business with the US military-industrial complex or
resources sectors, or stand to benefit from a 1 trillion dollar tax cut and
don't care what is left of the environment or the global geo-political
balance for future generations, W's your man.

Lauchlan M

[Wilbert van Leijen]

"Lauchlan M" <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message

Post by Lauchlan M
There are a lot of reasons why George W. Bush was not an intelligent choice.

Well, I thought John Howard was the topic here. A guy I know preciously
little about.

Post by Lauchlan M
There is only one reason I could see to vote for him - psychopathic self
interest. If you do business with the US military-industrial complex or
resources sectors, or stand to benefit from a 1 trillion dollar tax cut and
don't care what is left of the environment or the global geo-political
balance for future generations, W's your man.

Psychopathic, I see. Does that explain how he got 59 million votes? Let me
answer that myself: it doesn't. So maybe your reasoning is not valid, or
you think you are a lone beacon of reason in a barren wasteland. Then
congratulations are in order.

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Psychopathic, I see. Does that explain how he got 59 million votes?

Yep.

59 million people either thought that W was the most intillegent candidate
and the best leader, or they thought he'd represent their interests and did
not care what else got trampled in pursuing them.

You know what the word psychopathic means, right? eg
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/psychopathic+personality -

<<
Noun 1. psychopathic personality - a personality disorder characterized by
amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings
Do you see Bush choking with remorse or emotion about the tens of thousands
of Iraqis he's killed, the thousands of American soldiers he ordered in to
battle to die, or the dozens of individuals he had executed in Texas? No.
The most emotional I ever saw Bush was when it looked like he lost his first
election to Al Gore.

How about "capable of violent acts without guilt feelings" - invading the
wrong country with no substantive reason or motive is a violent act,
resulting in many tens of thousands of un-necessary deaths, and increasing
the risk of terrorism for Americans. Aggressive posturing when he came into
office that China is not a trading partner, but the enemy.

Really, it's not too difficult to work it out.

Lauchlan M

[Wilbert van Leijen]

"Lauchlan M" <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message

Post by Lauchlan M
Do you see Bush choking with remorse or emotion about the tens of thousands
of Iraqis he's killed, the thousands of American soldiers he ordered in to
battle to die, or the dozens of individuals he had executed in Texas? No.

I am confused now. Are John Howard and George W. Bush the same person? Or
is it that you know nothing about the Prime Minister of Australia, and
therefore want to change the subject?

Indeed, I have met a few people who cannot identify any Justice serving on
the Dutch Supreme Court - but at the same time have no trouble, none at all,
naming the nominee for its American counterpart.

Post by Lauchlan M
The most emotional I ever saw Bush was when it looked like he lost his first
election to Al Gore.

You and I must live in parallel universes. One wherein Bush was a judge, or
perhaps a warden - and not a governor during his tenure in Texas. Tell me:
in your universe, do governors pass verdicts and send people to the death
chamber?

Post by Lauchlan M
Really, it's not too difficult to work it out.

It isn't. Once we have our universes synchronized.

Sad fact is that I cannot go back in time, though, so I want to know: what
should we do now? Reinstate Saddam and compensate him for the loss of his
palaces and his sons? After we have tried and sentenced POTUS, of course.

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
I am confused now. Are John Howard and George W. Bush the same person?

Or

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
is it that you know nothing about the Prime Minister of Australia, and
therefore want to change the subject?

Sorry, I assumed you were up to date and conversant with your own posts in
this thread.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Of course they can. Just think of those who elected Bush.

You replied

<<
So people are stupid when they do not vote for the candidate of your
preference, Rudy? Is that how it works?
The conversation had moved from Howard to Bush, and I replied in relation to
Bush.

[Luk]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Sad fact is that I cannot go back in time, though, so I want to know: what
should we do now? Reinstate Saddam and compensate him for the loss of his
palaces and his sons? After we have tried and sentenced POTUS, of course.

This is the kind of annoyingly twisted reasoning that complete dullards
excel at.

Now that we have (predictably) got to the point where there is general
agreement that Iraq is (predictably) completely screwed, the COW regime
apologists are attacking critics of their ill-considered politics using the
"spilt milk" argument.

Of course, it is actually useful to cry out about how wrong you were because
it prevents people from trusting you to embark on similar misadventures in
the future.

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Luk
Now that we have (predictably) got to the point where there is general
agreement that Iraq is (predictably) completely screwed, the COW regime
apologists are attacking critics of their ill-considered politics using the
"spilt milk" argument.

I happen to disagree. I do not think Iraq is completely screwed. In fact,
I think that the Iraqi people have the opportunity now to shape their own
future - an opportunity that the so-called insurgents desperately want to
deny them.

You can be of the opinion that the Iraqi people would be better off under
Saddam's benign rule, but I do not think much of you as an advocate of the
Iraqi's then.

[Luk]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
You can be of the opinion that the Iraqi people would be better off under
Saddam's benign rule, but I do not think much of you as an advocate of the
Iraqi's then.

More twisted reasoning, this time in the more familiar "With us or against
us" vein.

Yes, the relative stability under Saddam's tyranny may well have been better
than the terrifying anarchy of the moment and (hopefully not) of the next
few decades. However it need not have degenerated into such chaos if those
cheerleaders of American might had paused for a moment to reflect on how
very many times in the past century they had underestimated or picked the
wrong enemy, underestimated all political complexity and undervalued the
power of concensus, instead of arrogantly pushing ahead with the mantras of
their simplistic dogma pasted to their foreheads.

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Luk
Yes, the relative stability under Saddam's tyranny may well have been better
than the terrifying anarchy of the moment and (hopefully not) of the next
few decades.

And it had the benefit of providing us with cheap oil. Relative stability
is the best one can hope for - and Saddam gave the world stability, did he
not?

Post by Luk
However it need not have degenerated into such chaos if those
cheerleaders of American might had paused for a moment to reflect on how
very many times in the past century they had underestimated or picked the
wrong enemy, underestimated all political complexity and undervalued the
power of concensus, instead of arrogantly pushing ahead with the mantras of
their simplistic dogma pasted to their foreheads.

Yes, it is a long established fact that American leaders are stupid
warmongers. And George W. Bush follows in the tradition of B-actor Ronald
Reagan (note the similarities: both were stupid, lazy, and took long
vacations) who spoke of an Evil Empire "whose last pages are now being
written". What did he know!

[Luk]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
And it had the benefit of providing us with cheap oil. Relative stability
is the best one can hope for - and Saddam gave the world stability, did he
not?

If you say so.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Yes, it is a long established fact that American leaders are stupid
warmongers. And George W. Bush follows in the tradition of B-actor Ronald
Reagan (note the similarities: both were stupid, lazy, and took long
vacations) who spoke of an Evil Empire "whose last pages are now being
written". What did he know!

Thanks goodness we are in such capable hands! Obviously I was worrying for
nothing and it will all be alright quite soon now!

And how especially lucky that I live in England where there are no contras
or mujahedin, and until quite recently no al quaeda. And how lucky also that
our democracy was never toppled by a foreign goverment like Iran's or that
our leader was never installed and propped up by one like Iraq. And how very
lucky that all of these entities that have been so expediently exploited at
convenient times throughout the last 50 years have gone peacefully to rest
with no intention of biting us on the bum!

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Luk
And how especially lucky that I live in England where there are no contras
or mujahedin, and until quite recently no al quaeda.

Yes, you Brits were simply lucky. The Aussies had an encounter with Al
Qaeda as early as October 2002, when a disco was blown up in Bali, killing
200. That was before the stupid lapdog John Howard was voted into power
again, and also before the invasion of Iraq with Aussie assistance - but it
must have been punishment, nevertheless.

About what, we prolly differ.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
The Aussies had an encounter with Al
Qaeda as early as October 2002, when a disco was blown up in Bali, killing
200.

In which province of Australia is Bali?

[Mart [TeamD]]

Post by Dave Fowler
In which province of Australia is Bali?

Manitoba
--
Mart

I'm soundtracking my life
To email me, remove clothes

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
In which province of Australia is Bali?

Ah, the condescending come-back. Two can play, Dave: Australia has states.
Canada has provinces.

But other than that, I am confident you know what happened there.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
But other than that, I am confident you know what happened there.

AFAIK the attack wasn't specifically aimed at Australians. Perhaps you know
different?

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dave Fowler
AFAIK the attack wasn't specifically aimed at Australians. Perhaps you know
different?

Exactly. Four of my countrymen were among the dead.

The attack on Bali was to punish us for our wicked, wanton ways. No
different than the attacks on 911; no different than the daily attacks that
take place in Iraq, to prevent that the seeds of democracy take root.

[Jim McKay]

Wilbert van Leijen said...

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

AFAIK the attack wasn't specifically aimed at Australians. Perhaps you know
different?

Exactly. Four of my countrymen were among the dead.
The attack on Bali was to punish us for our wicked, wanton ways. No different than the attacks on 911; no different than the daily attacks that take place in Iraq, to prevent that the seeds of democracy take root.

And invading Iraq addresses this threat(OBL) how?

If our Pretzledent was in FDR's position, he probably would've
invaded Spain. :(
--
Regards:
Jim McKay

"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's
good enough for us."

- Miriam Amanda "Ma" Ferguson (1875-1961),
Governor of Texas (1925-1927, 1933-1935)

From speech advocating barring foreign language teaching

Posted with XanaNews: Ver: 1.17.5.9

[Strong Bow]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Does that explain how he got 59 million votes?

From a total population of 295 million...

...that means only one in five voted for him.
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Strong Bow
From a total population of 295 million...
...that means only one in five voted for him.

Yes, that is true. Not everybody has the vote. I believe one has to be 18
years of age. Sad, isn't it?

Elsewhere it was maintained that a system of compulsory voting - like
Australia has - turned out to be the great enabler of Warmonger John Howard.

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Well, I thought John Howard was the topic here. A guy I know
preciously little about.

Then why did you jump into the discussion at all? <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"In the begining there was nothing and God said 'Let there be light',
and there was still nothing but everybody could see it."
-- Dave Thomas.

[Strong Bow]

Post by Lauchlan M
There is only one reason I could see to vote for him - psychopathic
self interest. If you do business with the US military-industrial
complex or resources sectors, or stand to benefit from a 1 trillion
dollar tax cut and don't care what is left of the environment or the
global geo-political balance for future generations, W's your man.

You forgot the American Taliban. :-(
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Strong Bow
You forgot the American Taliban. :-(

You must mean John Walker aka Lindh. He's behind bars.

That is just one sad lone soldier, not a great force to begin with.

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Strong Bow
You forgot the American Taliban. :-(

You must mean John Walker aka Lindh. He's behind bars.

He must mean the American religious right.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted." -- Albert Einstein

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Rudy Velthuis
He must mean the American religious right.

Ah, is that so. And since you can speak for him, can you also enlighten us:
why did he not mean John Walker Lindh? He is the card carrying member of
the Taliban. The Real McCoy.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
why did he not mean John Walker Lindh?

Because he finds gardening dull.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
He is the card carrying member of the Taliban.

Was he carrying the card at the time of his arrest? What does the card look
like? Is it really a card, or is it made of plastic or perhaps a
cardboard/plastic laminate?

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
The Real McCoy.

I thought his name was John Walker Lindh.

[Deborah Pate]

<<Wilbert van Leijen:
So people are stupid when they do not vote for the
candidate of your preference, Rudy? Is that how it works?
People tend to apply the word 'stupid' to people who do
things they consider, at best, stupid. (Of course there are
less charitable explanations.)

<<Wilbert:
Or do you think that democracy is basically a bad idea
Or do you find gardening dull?
--
Deborah Pate (TeamB)

TeamB don't see posts sent via Google or ISPs
Use the real Borland server: newsgroups.borland.com
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/genl_faqs.html

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
So people are stupid when they do not vote for the candidate of your
preference, Rudy?

No, they are obviously stupid if they vote for dishonest idiots like
Howard or Bush. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation."
- H. H. Munro (Saki) (1870-1916)

[Luk]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Did he convince anybody? The guy is in a position of power, so what
happened? According to the cartoonist of the SMH, he /is/ still a running
joke.

Ah, so are you one of these people who thinks politicians should be treated
with respect merely because they hold office and not because they do
anything worthy of that respect?

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
So, how come he runs an entire continent?

It's only 20 million people - don't get too excited.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Don't tell me he won the elections. People cannot be that stupid, can they
not?

They can however fail to consider the problems. Especially in Australia
where they have compulsory voting which forces people to polling booths who
would never ordinarily bother with politics.

There's also the small problem of there being no credible opposition. :(

[Pierre]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Pierre
It'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody serious.

You cannot possibly claim he won democratically legitimate elections.

The mystery deepens- I know only one person (NOT ME!!) who admits voting
for the little runt.
--
Pierre
Worrigee NSW
,-._|\
/ Oz \
\_,--._/
v
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Pierre
The mystery deepens- I know only one person (NOT ME!!) who admits voting
for the little runt.

What if this statement is merely a reflection on the environment you're in?

I am going to ask you again: how did Howard acquire power? You suggest he
was voted into office but also claim that based on your observations, this
is impossible.

[Pierre]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
I am going to ask you again: how did Howard acquire power? You suggest he
was voted into office but also claim that based on your observations, this
is impossible.

No good asking me. I'm an avowed Howard Hater since I first spotted it
back in the 70's. Nothing rational about that, but I feel much better.
--
Pierre
Worrigee NSW
,-._|\
/ Oz \
\_,--._/
v
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Pierre
No good asking me. I'm an avowed Howard Hater since I first spotted it
back in the 70's. Nothing rational about that, but I feel much better.

Some people need strong medicine to cope with reality - you have your
righteous indignation. And if helps you in your daily life, go for it man,
by all means. It works for you, apparently.

There is nothing rational about it and you admit to that, but hey - logic
should not stifle creativity.

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
There is nothing rational about it and you admit to that, but hey -
logic should not stifle creativity.

I think there are enough rational reasons to dislike the guy.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

[Dave Fowler]

Don't you know he is stupid, lazy, takes long vacations and is a

warmonger?

And being stupid as he is, he also stole the 2000 elections. And yet,

four

years later, he was voted into power again - that must be greatest insult

of

them all.
No wonder people are hopping mad when upon hearing his name.

Well, now we have established that you agree with Pierre, Rudy et al on the
subject of John Howard. Good. What's the next topic for discussion?

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Rudy Velthuis
I think there are enough rational reasons to dislike the guy.

You just "think" there are?

Don't you know he is stupid, lazy, takes long vacations and is a warmonger?
And being stupid as he is, he also stole the 2000 elections. And yet, four
years later, he was voted into power again - that must be greatest insult of
them all.

No wonder people are hopping mad when upon hearing his name.

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Rudy Velthuis
I think there are enough rational reasons to dislike the guy.

You just "think" there are?

"I think" is a way of expressing an opinion.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Imitation is the sincerest form of television."
- Fred Allen (1894-1956)

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Pierre

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
You cannot possibly claim he won democratically legitimate elections.

The mystery deepens- I know only one person (NOT ME!!) who admits voting
for the little runt.

Apparently it was mostly swinging aspirational voters from what used to be
the lower classes over to believing that Howard was going to give them lower
interest rates for their houses, protection from terrorists invading
Australia in refugee boats, and a stable and growing economic climate with
lots of jobs.

Of course, Australian interest rates are basically US interest plus a few
percentage points, the refugees turned out to be refugees fleeing
Afghanistan and Iraq, and they stopped all by themselves when the US invaded
their countries and changed their governments, and the Australian economy is
primarily driven by world markets for resources and agricultural products,
which the Australian government has very little it can do about either way.
And the Howard government is leading a shift from real jobs where people
spent most of their careers to making everyone into a contractor for hire or
temp worker, except for a few exceptions like CEOs who can negotiate good
deals for themselves, and even what is left of that is under threat with the
new but poorly articulated IR legislation.

Howard sold the image or illusion he would provide what people wanted, and
there was little or no opposition for people to call him on it.

Lauchlan M

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
I can pose a serious question: how did Howard rose to power? Military coup?
Was he installed by a foreign power? Appointed by Queen Elizabeth? Some
other Dark Overlord then?
You cannot possibly claim he won democratically legitimate elections.

He proved the politcal addage you can fool more than 50% of the people for 4
elections in the row by preying on people's fears - eg: the immigrants are
taking over the country, terrorists will get us unless we help the US invade
Iraq, etc.

He won democratic elections, but whether he won them _legitmately_ is
another question. If it were a sports game rather than a political event,
you'd say Howard won it not by playing as a sportsman and gentleman, but by
using nastier tricks than the other team, in many cases crossing the line
and breaking the rules (eg lying to the Australian people re: WMD in Iraq
and the motivations for the Iraq invasion), but getting away with it.

Lauchlan M

[Strong Bow]

He won democratic elections, but whether he won them legitmately is
another question. If it were a sports game rather than a political
event, you'd say Howard won it not by playing as a sportsman and
gentleman, but by using nastier tricks than the other team, in many
cases crossing the line and breaking the rules (eg lying to the
Australian people re: WMD in Iraq and the motivations for the Iraq
invasion), but getting away with it.

So that would make him a Tony Blur clone. :-)
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Strong Bow

He won democratic elections, but whether he won them legitmately is
another question. If it were a sports game rather than a political
event, you'd say Howard won it not by playing as a sportsman and
gentleman, but by using nastier tricks than the other team, in many
cases crossing the line and breaking the rules (eg lying to the
Australian people re: WMD in Iraq and the motivations for the Iraq
invasion), but getting away with it.

So that would make him a Tony Blur clone. :-)

No, I don't think that that analogy holds . . . Blair came in by having a
vision of sorts, that trod a centrist path trying to appease the right and
the left and hold the middle ground. Howard got in basically because the
Australian public was sick of Keating at the time, and then pursued a path
as far to the right as possible, taking extreme positions on various issues.
The Australian left responded by trying to tell the Australian public that
they'd go as far to the right as needed to match Howard, and rather
unsurprisingly lost a sizeable voting base that would have stuck with them
had they just stuck to basic moral principles that the party was meant to
stand for. The left of politics in Australia, apart fromt he Greens, have
completely lost the plot, IMO.

I think the better analogy for Howard on the world scene would be Bush in
the US. Bush came in on the coat-tails of dissatisfaction with Clinton, then
proceeded to use his incumbency to drive the country as far right as he
could, and use American power/hegemony as aggressively as he could.

Lauchlan M

[Deborah Pate]

<<Lauchlan M:
Blair came in by having a vision of sorts
No. He got in because the previous Tory government had been
in too long and become hopelessly damaged by sleaze
scandals, economic embarrassments and so on. The Labour
vote in 1997 was pitifully low, lower than the Tories had
barely won a majority with the election before.
--
Deborah Pate (TeamB)

TeamB don't see posts sent via Google or ISPs
Use the real Borland server: newsgroups.borland.com
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/genl_faqs.html

[Pierre]

Post by Deborah Pate
Blair came in by having a vision of sorts
No. He got in because the previous Tory government had been
in too long and become hopelessly damaged by sleaze
scandals, economic embarrassments and so on. The Labour
vote in 1997 was pitifully low, lower than the Tories had
barely won a majority with the election before.

So Blair was not voted in. Rather, the other mob was voted out, right?

Sounds familiar.
--
Pierre
Worrigee NSW
,-._|\
/ Oz \
\_,--._/
v
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Deborah Pate
No. He got in because the previous Tory government had been
in too long and become hopelessly damaged by sleaze
scandals, economic embarrassments and so on. The Labour
vote in 1997 was pitifully low, lower than the Tories had
barely won a majority with the election before.

But at least he had some sort of vision of a 'third way' and sat down with
Anthony Giddens to nut out and articulate his social and political
philosophy. It's a lot more than Howard did, IMO.

Lauchlan M

[Deborah Pate]

<<Lauchlan M:
But at least he had some sort of vision of a 'third way'
and sat down with Anthony Giddens
He had a catch phrase or two, and he likes hobnobbing with
famous people. Never saw much more to it than that myself,
but YMMV.
--
Deborah Pate (TeamB)

TeamB don't see posts sent via Google or ISPs
Use the real Borland server: newsgroups.borland.com
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/genl_faqs.html

[Jim McKay]

Lauchlan M said...

Post by Lauchlan M
Bush came in on the coat-tails of dissatisfaction with Clinton,

Clinton had high approval when he left.

Post by Lauchlan M
then proceeded to use his incumbency to drive the country as far right as he
could, and use American power/hegemony as aggressively as he could.

Junior's manipulation of that election was good indicator of things
to come: his "drive to far right" began before he took office.
His campaign positions were moderate...
- guarantee Soc Sec solvency
- balance budget
- non-interventionist ("no nation building")
- "Environmental president"
and other than statements about his judicial preferances, his
actions have gone way beyond his campaign pledges... way beyond.

I'd remind of his jingle:
I'm a uniter, not a divider.
I wonder if they'd even dare try that one now.

And BTW,
<stern look>
he didn't win 2k election, he stole it.
</stern look>

The depth of W's deceit, and how far his believability has fallen, well
captured by pic in this link from his speach to veterans group the other
night.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=581719e6-4f85-48bb-a52c-615ef31355e7
or http://shorl.com/fumilohenibro
--
Regards:
Jim McKay

"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's
good enough for us."

- Miriam Amanda "Ma" Ferguson (1875-1961),
Governor of Texas (1925-1927, 1933-1935)

From speech advocating barring foreign language teaching

Posted with XanaNews: Ver: 1.17.5.9

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Jim McKay
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=581719e6-
4f85-48bb-a52c-615ef31355e7 or http://shorl.com/fumilohenibro

LOL!
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims."
- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

[Wilbert van Leijen]

"Lauchlan M" <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message

Post by Lauchlan M
If it were a sports game rather than a political event,
you'd say Howard won it not by playing as a sportsman and gentleman, but by
using nastier tricks than the other team, in many cases crossing the line
and breaking the rules (eg lying to the Australian people re: WMD in Iraq
and the motivations for the Iraq invasion), but getting away with it.

So he did not play fair, and that is how he won.

How come that somebody who is stupid (acc. to the cartoonist of the SMH) can
also be fiendishly clever and manipulative?

I mean, I know jack about Aussie politics, but I can assume that Aussie
logic is the same as ours - can I not?

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
I mean, I know jack about Aussie politics

Do you know Bruce?

[Strong Bow]

Post by Dave Fowler
Do you know Bruce?

Yeah, he's over there at the bar with Bruce, Bruce and, er, Bruce.
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
So he did not play fair, and that is how he won.
How come that somebody who is stupid (acc. to the cartoonist of the SMH) can
also be fiendishly clever and manipulative?
I mean, I know jack about Aussie politics, but I can assume that Aussie
logic is the same as ours - can I not?

I believe Bush summed it up very elegantly - "they mis-underestimated me".

And Bush is proud of it. Basically if people think he's a jackass, he gets
away with murder. Literally.

At the moment it's somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 innocent Iraqis
dead, depending on whose estimates you accept.

Lauchlan M

[Wilbert van Leijen]

"Lauchlan M" <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message

Post by Lauchlan M
I believe Bush summed it up very elegantly - "they mis-underestimated me".

But you didn't, because you are smart. You should run for office, your
country needs you!

Post by Lauchlan M
At the moment it's somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 innocent Iraqis
dead, depending on whose estimates you accept.

If the estimates vary by a factor of 5, they are useless. I can see this
much.

[Luk]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Lauchlan M
At the moment it's somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 innocent Iraqis
dead, depending on whose estimates you accept.

If the estimates vary by a factor of 5, they are useless. I can see this
much.

yippee! they must all be alive then! They will be most pleased to hear that.
Will the injured also be getting the missing bits of their bodies back?

[Lauchlan M]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by Lauchlan M
At the moment it's somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 innocent Iraqis
dead, depending on whose estimates you accept.

If the estimates vary by a factor of 5, they are useless. I can see this
much.

Of course they're inaccurate, because the US military has done everything
they can to obfuscate this information. It's very difficult to get reliable
estimates when the people on the ground are basically ordered not to help
collect that information.

Estimates also vary because of the different interests at work in collecting
them. That even the most conservative, self-interested numbers of Iraqi
civilian deaths estimated by pro-Republican groups are over 20,000 tells you
something.

Let's put it another way - even the most conservative estimates put the
innocent Iraqi civilian deaths at more than 20,000.

Just to refresh your memory:

* something like 3000 people from all over the world but mostly from the US
died in September 11th 2001.

* something approaching 2000 US citizens have already died in Iraq during US
operations there, and the numbers are still rising.

* somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died in
Iraq as a result of US operations trying to 'spread democracy' to advance
their geopolitical interests int he middle east.

Lauchlan M

[Wilbert van Leijen]

"Lauchlan M" <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message

Post by Lauchlan M
* something like 3000 people from all over the world but mostly from the US
died in September 11th 2001.

So is this what it amounts to? It is all in the accounting? By the same
logic, the invasion of Iraq is justified if one can maintain that less than
3,000 people were killed. But when it exceeds that number, it becomes
unjustified. It somehow tips the balance then.

Post by Lauchlan M
* something approaching 2000 US citizens have already died in Iraq during US
operations there, and the numbers are still rising.

Really? I thought they were GI's. Not citizens. (Nick Berg was a
citizen.) Those in VA hospitals, they enlisted by their own accord.

Post by Lauchlan M
* somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died in
Iraq as a result of US operations trying to 'spread democracy' to advance
their geopolitical interests int he middle east.

One should always put that between sneer quotes. Democracy is not going to
work there, is it not?

[liz]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
Really? I thought they were GI's. Not citizens.

While it's possible to enlist in the US armed forces when you're not a
citizen, most CI's are not, in fact, foreign nationals.

[liz]

CI's

GI's
and god damn but I need more coffee

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by liz
GI's
and god damn but I need more coffee

One can be a citizen (US national or permanent resident), or one can be in
the armed forces - but those who are in the armed forces are not citizens.
They're military.

Some people are trying to blur that distinction here, as if they want to
argue that those soldiers were sent to Iraq against their will.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
One can be a citizen (US national or permanent resident), or one can be in
the armed forces - but those who are in the armed forces are not citizens.
They're military.

You are confusing "citizen" with "civilian". Judging by some of your posts I
think you are having trouble with "arse" and "elbow" too.

[Strong Bow]

Post by Dave Fowler
Judging by some of your
posts I think you are having
trouble with "arse" and "elbow" too.

ROTFL !!!
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Dave Fowler

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
One can be a citizen (US national or permanent resident), or one can
be in the armed forces - but those who are in the armed forces are
not citizens. They're military.

You are confusing "citizen" with "civilian". Judging by some of your
posts I think you are having trouble with "arse" and "elbow" too.

LOL!
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Computers are useless; they can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso

[liz]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
One can be a citizen (US national or permanent resident),

Foreign nationals who are permanent residents are /not/ citizens.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
or one can be in the armed forces - but those who are in the armed
forces are not citizens. They're military.

Serving in the armed forces does not revoke citizenship. You may be
confusing "citizen" with "civilan".

[Dominic Willems]

Post by liz
You may be
confusing "citizen" with "civilan".

Yes, but in an ever so eloquent and patronizing fashion.

[liz]

Post by Dominic Willems
Yes, but in an ever so eloquent and patronizing fashion.

If he's eloquent I'm Marie of Roumania.

[Dave Fowler]

Post by liz
If he's eloquent I'm Marie of Roumania.

We never see you together ...

[Strong Bow]

Post by liz
If he's eloquent I'm Marie of Roumania.

Hi Marie ! <g,d & r...>
--
Strong Bo














































Falling into the abyss Borland rather stupidly said:

[Dominic Willems]

Post by liz
I'm Marie of Roumania.

Aw, okay. :)

[Wilbert van Leijen]

Post by Dominic Willems

Post by liz
I'm Marie of Roumania.

Aw, okay. :)

Now bow for her and pay tribute.

In het Nederlands maak ik inderdaad minder fouten - maar hebben we slechts
een gesprek tussen Rudy, jij en ik.

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
One can be a citizen (US national or permanent resident),

Foreign nationals who are permanent residents are not citizens.

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
or one can be in the armed forces - but those who are in the armed
forces are not citizens. They're military.

Serving in the armed forces does not revoke citizenship. You may be
confusing "citizen" with "civilan".

<remark mode="pedantic">
"civilian"
</remark>
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you, but
when you take him in a car he sticks his head out the window?"
-- George Carlin

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen

Post by liz
GI's
and god damn but I need more coffee

One can be a citizen (US national or permanent resident), or one can be
in the armed forces - but those who are in the armed forces are not
citizens. They're military.

The US Americans in the US forces are of course citizens. They are just
not civilians.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."
- Auric Goldfinger, in "Goldfinger" by Ian L. Fleming (1908-1964)

[Rudy Velthuis]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
"Lauchlan M" <LMackinnonAT_NoSpam_ozemailDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message

Post by Lauchlan M
* something like 3000 people from all over the world but mostly from
the US died in September 11th 2001.

So is this what it amounts to? It is all in the accounting? By the
same logic, the invasion of Iraq is justified if one can maintain that
less than 3,000 people were killed.

The invasion of Iraq was not justified by anything, and most definitely
not by the deaths of 9/11, even if Bush (or actually the people behind
him, like the members of the PNAC) pretended there was a connection.
--
Rudy Velthuis http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de

"Humor is just another defense against the universe."
-- Mel Brooks (1926- )

[Luk]

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
How come that somebody who is stupid (acc. to the cartoonist of the SMH)

No, the cartoonist is not portraying somebody stupid; the cartoonist is
portraying a sycophantic little lapdog desperately seeking affirmation from
somebody he admires.

[Pierre]

Post by Luk

Post by Wilbert van Leijen
How come that somebody who is stupid (acc. to the cartoonist of the SMH)

No, the cartoonist is not portraying somebody stupid; the cartoonist is
portraying a sycophantic little lapdog desperately seeking affirmation from
somebody he admires.

Oh, sorry, perhaps we should have made Wilbert aware earlier that the
one eyed dog is a depiction of Howard and the Hand you know who.
--
Pierre
Worrigee NSW
,-._|\
/ Oz \
\_,--._/
v
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin