Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
> Sure, I bent the definition. I, as a US Citizen, have more right to > complain about my head of state than you, a foreigner does. Should we > begin discussing the Queen now? Sure, please do, I am a republican. > >Good heavens, if the leader of the free world can't have some crumpet > >on the side its a poor damn show. > > That wasn't at issue, publicizing it was, That was as I recall due to Ms Linda 'backstab' Tripp, shortly comming to a jail cell near you. > And what exactly has Clinton done for the economy, that wasn't set in place > by Reagan/Bush? He balanced the budget and began paying off the Reagan/Bush deficit. Phill
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
> Phill, why did you remove cypherpunks from the addresses? That's the only > list I see you on, where I respond to you from. I put it back, you put it > back or I will call this a dead discussion and move on. Because you are a total bore and I thought that the cypherpunks list had probably had enough of the argument. > No, you are the socialist, trying to bring America to it's knees, and/or > badmouthing Presidents who gained back lost ground on the socialism front. And you would never criticize Clinton eh? Reagan was a bad actor and then he was a bad president. He was an international laughing stock. If you don't like hearing the fact that most people outside the US hold that view then tough. It is quite obvious that for all your talk of freedom what you are really blabbling about is a totalitarian chauvanist state of your own liking. Anything else you describe as 'socialist'. Phill
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
At 10:19 PM -0700 4/7/00, Steve Schear wrote: >At 10:30 AM 4/7/00 -0700, Lizard wrote: >>International 'law' is as strong as the strongest nation that supports >>the law. The US will only obey such laws as it finds convenient. Deal >>with it, Euroeweenies. > >Yes, and one has only to look at the hand wringing at the Dept. of >State over the Internal Tribunal's recent decision to investigate >alleged U.S./NATO war crimes to see that a "heads I win tails you >lose" philosophy permeates our foreign policy. I believe it was either Stalin or Goering who, when told the Catholic Church disapproved of their latest genocide, replied "So how many divisions does the Pope have?" The same remains true even today. Without military force behind it, the disapproval of some 'World Court' is about as meaningful as, well, my disapproval. If every major first-world power teamed up, they could impose their will on the US, but at a devastating cost. Will they pay that cost over Bosnia? Not bloody likely. (Just as the US will make tut-tut noises if China invades Taiwan but will not commit a single soldier to defending it. I sincerely hope no one in Taiwan is stupid enough to entrust their freedom to American promises.) I still find it amazing people are shocked by this very basic bit of realpolitik. Law is a gun hiding behind a piece of paper. Without the gun, law is meaningless.
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
At 10:30 AM 4/7/00 -0700, Lizard wrote: >International 'law' is as strong as the strongest nation that supports >the law. The US will only obey such laws as it finds convenient. Deal >with it, Euroeweenies. Yes, and one has only to look at the hand wringing at the Dept. of State over the Internal Tribunal's recent decision to investigate alleged U.S./NATO war crimes to see that a "heads I win tails you lose" philosophy permeates our foreign policy. --Steve
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
> Expired three months ago? So What? Ever stop to think Castro's attempts > to kick us out by various and nefarious means might have altered the terms > of the original agreement? Like mounting an invasion at the bay of pigs? Oh sorry that was the US. Phill
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Reese wrote: > At 09:59 AM 07/04/00 -0700, Colin A. Reed wrote: > > >If you want to look at history, it shows that _all_ governments oppress > >their peoples, but some more than others. > > I know - some minor degree is necessary just to maintain the governance - > anything beyond that however, is what I referred to. > I'd like to see what you consider minor. To pick a topic popular among republicans, look at the current tax burden americans live under. Then remember that this country started in a bloody war fought over what would today be a minor excise tax. Many do consider that oppressive. Look at the current civil asset forfeiture laws, where proven innocence is not a defense. Look at the police forces of major cities and even some more rural areas that behave as if they were armies of occupation. No such oppression is necessary to maintain governance (okay, the taxes probably are to at least some extent). I didn't sign on for fascism. Much as I like it when the trains run on time.
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
International 'law' is as strong as the strongest nation that supports the law. The US will only obey such laws as it finds convenient. Deal with it, Euroeweenies.
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
As opposed to the US, which still hasn't ratified the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that it negotiated and shoved down the throats of the rest of the world. And still hasn't paid it's back UN dues. And is currently planning to violate the ABM treaty. I can't think of the last time a socialist, or even communist country violated treaty provisions. On the other hand, I'm an insular american, so I never bothered to pay attention, either. If you want to look at history, it shows that _all_ governments oppress their peoples, but some more than others. On 7 Apr 2000, Colin Rafferty wrote: > Reese writes: > > > History shows that socialist governments oppress their peoples, and renege > > on international deals with other nations. > > Sweden, Norway, and Finland. I would call them pretty socialist. > Most Scandanavian I know don't feel oppressed. And I can't remember > when any of them reneged on international deals. > > -- > Colin >
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
Britain has a socialist welfare state and health service and is certainly at least as trustworthy in fullfilling its international undertakings as any other. It is of course the US where the Republicans talk about unilaterally abrogating the ABM treaty, and also the US that has abrogated the lease agreement on Guantanamo bay which expired three months ago. History shows that blind fanatics regardless of ideology are the agents of oppression. I can guarantee that Reese will have a good reason for appeasement of every squalid dictator the US ever proped up and for every act of oppression as beeing necessary for the 'sake of liberty'. Phill - Original Message - From: Colin Rafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Matthew Gaylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:50 AM Subject: Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance > Reese writes: > > > History shows that socialist governments oppress their peoples, and renege > > on international deals with other nations. > > Sweden, Norway, and Finland. I would call them pretty socialist. > Most Scandanavian I know don't feel oppressed. And I can't remember > when any of them reneged on international deals. > > -- > Colin >
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
Reese writes: > History shows that socialist governments oppress their peoples, and renege > on international deals with other nations. Sweden, Norway, and Finland. I would call them pretty socialist. Most Scandanavian I know don't feel oppressed. And I can't remember when any of them reneged on international deals. -- Colin
Re: Microsoft: A Day Of Satisfaction As CorporateBullyGetsComeuppance
> But if you know of a better government to live under, might I humbly > inquire as to why you CHOSE to live here? If I knew of a government > which was more to my tastes, I'd make myself a citizen of it. Since the days of Empire it has been the British tradition to travel to far off and inhospitable lands in search of fortune and adventure. It is certainly a difficult decision to make since full appreciation of any sensation first requires that one experience its opposite. So to remain in Britain is to prevent a full appreciation whereas to venture abroad is to deny all but vicarious appreciation. Phill
