On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote:
I guess you'd make a great Chinese citizen.
Frankly I do not have any idea what you mean or the relevance of the
comment. For your information, recognizing how a government operates
does not mean that I wish for this behavior to continue. However, I do
get testy when people complain and suggest cures without the slightest
idea what disease is being treated. If you were a doctor, your
patient would have died long ago.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 19:48
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
On Sep 26, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Remi Cornwall wrote:
Ed: what you say sounds cynical and jaded.
I suppose it does to someone who believes in the ideal function of
government. However, if you examine the actual behavior, you will find
that the number of laws always grow in number and complexity. The tax
laws are a good example. This may not be what people want to hear but
it is a fact. Some of this growth takes placed because conditions
change and new laws are required to control the technology. At the
same time, industry works very hard to protect and enlarge its self
interest. Most people have no idea what laws and rules exist until
they are subjected to the legal system. In addition, the government
works hard to hide many laws that benefit certain industries or
individuals. Personally, I would rather accept how the system actually
operates rather than be surprised because I have an "ideal"
understanding of what I wish were true.
Ed
Jed*: If you think they give back 'their' powers then I think you
are living
in cloud cuckoo land.
Leaking Pen: The government **IS** the biggest **corporation** bar-
none.
It's the biggest show in town for the old bloods since we won't
worship them
anymore in church or on thrones.
This democrat veto needs to be explored: replace society or
government with
Reich and capitalist with Jew and then you will see the scapegoating
going
on.
* In recent times: Patriot Act in UK RIPA (Regulatory and
Investigative
Powers Act - phone tapping and so forth) and many more I could find
if I was
a lawyer and constitutional expert.
-----Original Message-----
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 18:58
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
What is a government? You treat it like some seperate entity. It
shouldn't be. Government is society. It is US. A government should
be a tool of a society to set up its rules. If it becomes seperate
from that society, well, its no longer needed.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Remi Cornwall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do you regulate government then? Who governs the governors?
When do
governments vote themselves less power?
I'm in agreement about corporations.
-----Original Message-----
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 18:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
The American constitution was formed with the concept of freedom for
people, and that coorporations would do their best to oppress
people.
And they were right. They had the East Indies Trading Company, they
knew what evil could be done. If such large businesses are allowed
to
exist, they must be regulated. And before you give me free market
crap, a market in which such a large company exists is, by
definition,
no longer a free market, as those companies begin to provide
external
forces on the market themselves.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm not convinced about the need for more government.
It attracts the Machiavellian type who don't deal in facts and
distort
truth
(such as blaming the credit crunch on the free market when the
demos
vetoed
reform).
It attracts unproductive hangers-on to big public projects.
It has allowed the massive build up of a stifling science
establishment.
I just find it like a 16th century scientist supporting the church
or a
monarchy. It's the opposite of progress to me. Just looking at the
character
of the people on the left it is the-lesser-of-two-evils to favour
the
right.
The American constitution was forged in the light of the
Enlightenment.
-----Original Message-----
From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 17:27
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
Less government on the individual. MORE on the corporation. and
lets
remove this political fiction of coorp as person, please!
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A plague on both their houses!
The less government the better. Trust your constitution that's
why it
was
written.
New energy will empower people to self-reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 September 2008 16:08
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout
----- Original Message ----
... apparently Remi does not remember the infamous Keating Five -
... from the net, a little "refresher" lesson in how recent
political
history has this nagging tendency to repeat itself every new
generation:
John McCain & The Ghost of Keating Five
posted last week by Ari Berman
Back in the 1980s, when the US faced a major savings & loan
crisis,
John McCain intervened to protect S&L magnate Charles Keating - a
major McCain donor and friend--from federal regulators. McCain was
later rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for "poor judgement"
and
embarrassed by the $112,000 in campaign contributions, trips and
gifts
he accepted from Keating. Following the entanglement, McCain
became a
born-again reformer and tried to scrub the Keating episode from
his
resume.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/361711/john_mccain_the_ghost_
of_keating_five
In fact - it has been reported that Wiki was under intense
pressure from
McCain operatives when the "new" S&L Scandal become issue numeror
uno in
the
public's view - to have the pictures removed from the Wiki
entry ... IOW
even if they knew they could not rewrite the history of the
indent (but
were
able to tone down some of the rhetoric) they did not want the
actual
"picture" of McCain there - as apparently that was too
inflamatory !!!
... or else some of the expected McCain supporters don't read
much but
are
impressed with visual images?
