Mounties Electrocute Airline Passenger

C J Campbell wrote in
news:2007102118540175249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

On 2007-10-21 03:36:30 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip said:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
@news1.epix.net:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
C J Campbell wrote in
news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
anti-war extremists.

People who are anti war are extremeists?
That isn't even close to what he wrote.



I cut and paste it...


So it's exactly what he wrote.


Bertie


He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said
that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge
difference.


Has he no tongue?


Bertie

Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of Usenet.

I have only your word for that, of course.

We have been
traveling the last few days. For me, posting on Usenet is a very low
priority.



M, kay.


I did not say that all people who oppose the war are extremists. I
said
that some people who oppose the war are extremists. Some people who
support the war are extremists.

Personally, I favor peace and, as far as the war in Iraq goes, do not
have a strong view either way. It will not be the deciding issue for
me
in the coming election.

I am pro-business and, to be frank, the Republicans have been doing a
poor job lately of protecting their title as the party of business.

Ya think?


The
party seems to have been taken over by tax-and-spend Republicans and
populist social special interests which I find distracting. I have
difficulty supporting a party that promotes scientific ignorance, for
example.


Good for you. And here I was thinking you were all on the back side of
the bell curve.

Well, ya's did vote for bush,. can you blame me?


Bertie

On 2007-10-21 19:34:52 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip said:

C J Campbell wrote in
news:2007102118540175249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

On 2007-10-21 03:36:30 -0600, Bertie the Bunyip said:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in news:KqwSi.413$2n4.20122
@news1.epix.net:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
C J Campbell wrote in
news:200710181833568930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

The only people who have held that water-boarding is torture is
anti-war extremists.

People who are anti war are extremeists?
That isn't even close to what he wrote.



I cut and paste it...


So it's exactly what he wrote.


Bertie


He didn't say that people who are anti-war are extremists. He said
that people that hold a certain view are anti-war extremists. Huge
difference.


Has he no tongue?


Bertie

Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of Usenet.

I have only your word for that, of course.

We have been
traveling the last few days. For me, posting on Usenet is a very low
priority.



M, kay.


I did not say that all people who oppose the war are extremists. I
said
that some people who oppose the war are extremists. Some people who
support the war are extremists.

Personally, I favor peace and, as far as the war in Iraq goes, do not
have a strong view either way. It will not be the deciding issue for
me
in the coming election.

I am pro-business and, to be frank, the Republicans have been doing a
poor job lately of protecting their title as the party of business.

Ya think?

You really have to consider how much it would take to alienate Alan
Greenspan, but they managed it.



The
party seems to have been taken over by tax-and-spend Republicans and
populist social special interests which I find distracting. I have
difficulty supporting a party that promotes scientific ignorance, for
example.


Good for you. And here I was thinking you were all on the back side of
the bell curve.

Well, ya's did vote for bush,. can you blame me?

Yeah, I can as a matter of fact. My views should be well known by now.
Too many people want to pigeonhole people such as me with the Religious
Right, forgetting that the Religious Right historically has tried to
exterminate Mormons and shows every sign of being willing to try it
again. Mitt Romney might be a Mormon, but so is Harry Reid. Who is to
say which one better represents our values?

The trouble is, the Democrats are misreading the whole thing and
reverting to form. They think that disaffection with the Republicans
means an acceptance of traditional Democratic values: pro-labor, big
government, high taxes, etc., plus the Democrats have their own lunatic
fringe with its own special social interests.

If they think they are going to pick up a lot of disaffected
Republicans with an anti-business agenda while remaining soft on crime
and foreign policy they are grossly mistaken. Plus, business people do
not trust the rampant corruption in the Democratic party and the
absolute refusal of the party to police its own people.

One might support libertarianism, but the Libertarian party is anything
but libertarian. Besides, the libertarians that remain among the
Republicans are too often gold bugs who cannot admit that Ayn Rand
might have been wrong about a few things -- gold, for example.

So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.
Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
One might support libertarianism, but the Libertarian party is anything
but libertarian.

What, the aliens got to them too!?

"Well that's great, that's just ****in' great man. Now what the **** are we
supposed to do? We're in some real pretty **** now man... That's it man,
game over man, game over! What the **** are we gonna do now? What are we
gonna do?"

Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the
only way to be sure.
Hudson: ****ing A!
Burke: Hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar
value attached to it.
Ripley: They can bill me.
Burke: Okay, look. This is an emotional moment for all of us, okay? I know
that. But let's not make snap judgments, please. This is clearly,
clearly an important species we're dealing with and I don't think
you or I or anybody has the right to arbitrarily exterminate them.
Ripley: Wrong.
Vasquez:Yeah. Watch us.
Hudson: Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we
just got our asses kicked, pal!

So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.

I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of pro-
big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.

Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan said:



So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.

I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of pro-
big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.

Fine. Pro-free-enterprise it is, then.


Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan said:
Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing
away my vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

"Jim Logajan" wrote

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune
to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office
if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

So in other words, by voting for a candidate that has no choice of winning
office, you threw away your vote.

Sad, but that is the reality of it.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are
on the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears
immune to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given
office if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not
Republican.

So in other words, by voting for a candidate that has no choice of
winning office, you threw away your vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_and_Kodos
(Treehouse of Horror VII)

Sad, but that is the reality of it.

Aye.
' Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise
from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his
squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have
wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking
giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we
shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so
foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms.
Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but
windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when
they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."'

Morgans opined

"Jim Logajan" wrote

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune
to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office
if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

So in other words, by voting for a candidate that has no choice of winning
office, you threw away your vote.

Sad, but that is the reality of it.


The Progressives never won an election in the first part of the last century,
but by 1940 most of their platform had beenenacted.

Small parties can drive the big parties by "stealing" votes, so voting for
Nader, a Libertarian or a green is not wasted vote. Not in the long run.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

On 2007-10-22 11:54:47 -0700, Jim Logajan said:

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan said:
Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing
away my vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

Well, you know the Libertarians are far from 'powerless.' But there are
too many issues where they have their own special social interest
groups that are actually working for *more* government regulation, not
less. Particularly here in Washington State, the Libertarians can get a
little strange sometimes, like the French Anarchists who rioted when
the government proposed relaxing some union regulations. Those are some
bourgeois anarchists they got there in France... but I digress. We have
bourgeois Libertarians.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007102210364375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan said:



So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.

I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of
pro-
big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.

Fine. Pro-free-enterprise it is, then.

Using what basis?



Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the borders
to trade

Ummm, like Clinton's NAFTA?

is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and reduced to fretting
over stem cells and illegal aliens.

The north was already industrialized by 1860...they were using tariffs to
keep that advantage over south (i.e., forcing the south to "buy American"
even then).