"Joshua B. Lilly" skrev i meddelandet
news:3f1eb1a7$1_4@newsfeed...
Well, no. Now you are back to your original misunderstanding of
what
"representative democracy" is all about. I thought we had already
gone
through this. :-)

This is not a misunderstanding. If the elected official does not go
along
with the will of the majority, those who set him to vote on laws in
their
place, he is no longer REPRESENTING his people, he is representing
something
else, whether it be a small interest group or his own goals and
ambitions or
whatever.



This could be a good reason for having more that two parties in the
parliament, like most european countries have. It is VERY rare for
anybody to control an absolute majority after an election.

If you look at Germany for example, the "prime minister" and the
"secretary of state" actually belong to different parties. I can see
good things coming from such an arrangement.

In my country, the government represents only about 35% of the seats
in the parliment. They need the support of several other parties to
have anything pass a vote. Any unreasonable suggestion, like starting
a new war, will promptly be voted down.



Bo Persson

From: "Tim Hanke"
Date: 24/07/03 17:15 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Fifiela" wrote om...
Graphic pictures of (apparently) Saddam's two dead sons are now on the Web
worldwide. I assume that they have also been shown on TV.

I thought that when pictures of dead US servicemen were shown on Arabic TV
and
web sites that the showing of dead bodies of combatants was condemned as
an
outrageous violation of the Geneva Convention.

Just wondering.

I can't speak to what you "thought" or what others "condemned," but it's my
understanding that these two bodies are being shown because some Arabs
believe Saddam's sons are not really dead and the U.S. is making it up. In
other words, the purpose is to clear up confusion. Surely you grasp this
point.

Tim Hanke


Timothy,

I am sure that the reason why the rate of your posting here has declined is
that you are not neglecting your new responsibilities with respect to the USCF.

Leaving aside the cheap shot that you abused these newsgroups again by
illegally crossposting these messages, which should have been confined to RGCP,
consider the following...

I note, with some interest, and, I must say, find it rather perplexing, that
you have found the time, today, to contribute *three* posts to this thread (two
replies to Mr. Lilly, and one to "Fifiela").

I have had neither the time nor the inclination to find out whether or not you
have made other posts in the interim...

It's perplexing because I would have thought that my having pointed out your
trolling behaviour, he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1D222165

"From: "Tim Hanke"
Date: 22/07/03 18:07 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: ZaeTa.118201$ye4.86886@sccrnsc01

"Mhoulsby" -remove- wrote ...

Once again, Bourbaki's true identity is clear to anyone with as much
intelligence as a smart six-year-old. "Anonumouse" he is not.

Why don't *you* use his real name, therefore?

Mark,

Errrm ... because I have less intelligence than a smart six-year-old?


It takes a big man to admit that he has a problem.

This, indeed, is the same problem which undermines your starting troll threads,
such as this one, attacking Bourbaki, he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2E963A55

which, incidentally, you crossposted to RGCM, against the rules of these
groups.

Your inclusion of descriptions like:

"The Internet Stalker "Nick" nickbourbaki@..."

Tim Hanke 2003-06-13 18:30:56 PST



....is *identical* to the behaviour of "Dr. Robert Faurisson" who, as pointed
out by Mr. John Macnab, he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W33A32A55

....may be a reincarnation of the notorious troll Jason Repa (apparently his
real name) who polluted these groups a little while ago.

Here is an example of Dr. Faurisson's exhibiting *exactly the same trolling
behaviour as you have* (that is, he uses the term "cyber stalking") in this
personal attack on me, posted in RGCC a couple of days ago:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N56A16A55

""Mhoulsby" -remove- wrote in message
...
From: "Dr. Robert Faurisson" eallyhatespam
Date: 21/07/03 13:17 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Mhoulsby" -remove- wrote in message
...
From: "Dr. Robert Faurisson" eallyhatespam
Date: 21/07/03 06:06 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:



Your behaviour is typical of psychopathic trolls who *project* their
*own*
shortcomings onto others...

Interestingly enough it is you that is projecting housby! How long have
you been diagnosed with psychotic schitzophrenia? I feel sorry for you
boy.
You were not blessed with intelligence, and you were not blessed with a
sane
mind either. You clearly have no life whatsoever outside of the internet.
I
suppose this is an idea place for you to hide. Better than use state
money
keeping you locked up in a facility. Good luck with your treatment
housby....you will need it!



Thanks for proving my point again.

Actually, you've proven my point kid! Good luck with the treatment!



Ok. Let's take a step back here. Let's do some research, gather some data,
and
analyse those data, shall we?

Now the idiot troll housby is resorting to cyber stalking. Go find a gay
chat room where you can be at home housby. This chatroom is for discussing
computer chess. And I like girls"

Posted by: Dr. Robert Faurisson

2003-07-21 06:05:07 PST

To me, Faurisson's behaviour is a little sad, since it indicates that he is
probably mentally ill. Whoever he is, I hope he recovers.

Now for the $1,000,000 question:

What is *your* justification for *your* trolling behaviour? Where is your
*evidence* of Bourbaki's "lies"?

So who is he? John Nunn? Bobby Fischer? Quite a lot of people here, well
maybe not "quite a lot" but some few at least, are wondering who "Nick
Bourbaki" is.

Tim Hanke


Here's a clue: Bourbaki is none of the above. Those of us who know who he is
have been greatly surprised by the gross stupidity exhibited not just by you,
but by your ardent adherents StanB and Briarroot, these past few months...

If you wish to continue to make fools of yourselves, be my guest...

If not, you should publicly apologise to Bourbaki and me for these numerous and
continuing unfounded personal attacks, and, once Bourbaki has replied to *every
post* in which either you, or your adherents StanB and Briarroot have attacked
him, completely unwarrantedly (a right which he reserved some time ago) we
would be able, I think, to consider the matter closed...

What will it be?

Will you make the dumb move, or the smart one?

Mark Houlsby

p.s. Take the webpages down, too, there's a good chap. I'm no Eric Idle (much
as I might wish to be) and Bourbaki is no Bob Hope (I have no idea whether or
not he wishes to be Mr. Hope)."

Posted by: Mark Houlsby

Date: 2003-07-22 10:53:26 PST

....together with the attendant request that you remove the offensive webpages:

www.timothyhanke.net/bwananick.htm

and

www.timothyhanke.net/youdecide.htm

leads me towards the conclusion that you tacitly *admit* that you *are* a troll
who abuses these groups, repeatedly and deliberately, at will.

Whatever the explanation (and I'm sure that there is one) at the moment you
look really bad.

Do you think that (your other commitments permitting) you could attend to these
matters, which, at least as far as your RGC* activities are concerned, would
appear to be rather more pressing than your posting *anything else* here
(whether or not those new posts, too, constitute *yet another* abuse of these
groups)?

Just wondering...

Mark

From: "Tim Hanke"
Date: 24/07/03 18:04 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote ...
Well, no. Now you are back to your original misunderstanding of what
"representative democracy" is all about. I thought we had already gone
through this. :-)

This is not a misunderstanding. If the elected official does not go along
with the will of the majority, those who set him to vote on laws in their
place, he is no longer REPRESENTING his people, he is representing
something
else, whether it be a small interest group or his own goals and ambitions
or
whatever.

Joshua,

Permit me to quote from the Constitution of the United States of America,
Article I, Section 1:

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."

Note the word "vested."

I searched for language in the Constitution to support your interpretation,
such as:

"The President and members of both houses of Congress shall, in all matters
whatsoever which shall come before them, act as mindless puppets who carry
out the will of the majority of the people."

But search as I might, I did not find this language.

Tim Hanke

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
...
"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote ...
You say they are better informed, but they don`t even recognise the
difference between a Democracy (mob rule) and a Republic. I`m
supposed
to
trust such people?

Joshua,

No one has said you are supposed to trust such people. In fact, it is
your
job as a citizen to keep your eye on them, complain if you don't like
what
they are doing, and vote against them if you oppose what they are doing.

Elected officials whose purpose is to draft law and policy are
specifically there to carry out what the majority of the citizens
desire.

Well, no. Now you are back to your original misunderstanding of what
"representative democracy" is all about. I thought we had already gone
through this. :-)

Representatives are elected to carry out the mechanics of enforcing
the
will
of the majority of the populace.

No. See above. This is Civics 101. If we can't reach agreement on this
point, we are not likely to reach agreement on any other subsequent
points
that depend on it.

I don`t want some corrupt idiot lawyer
with his soul in his wallet and an eye for power making decisions for
me.

Fair enough; neither do I. That's why we have elections, laws about
bribery,
free speech, recall provisions, etc., etc.

Tim Hanke











Make that "four times".

--

"Jurgen R." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:10:46 GMT, "Matt Nemmers"
wrote:

"Don Mihokovich" wrote in message
. com...
_______________________________________
We, the people of the USA certainly aren't perfect and have admittedly
made our share of mistakes from which we will continue to learn and
grow. The flag is not merely a "rag" (your term) but a strong and
powerful symbol of the freedoms for which many of our men and women
have given the ultimate sacrifice for well over 200 years. The core
values adopted by the US Air Force may very well summarize the core
values of our Country, and perhaps even aspirational goals for the
USCF:

Integrity First
Service Before Self
Excellence in All We Do

http://www.usafa.af.mil/core-value/cv-mastr.html

It's easy to be a critic, at least in the USA where you have the
freedom to be one.

KidDon

Well said, Don.

Though I think the Air Force's motto is:

Get the good stuff
Hand down crap to Navy
Ride bike to test physical readiness



Regards,

Matt

If you are too dumb to read, rite or do rithmetic, you can still learn
how to kill. And if really dumb you can feel exceedingly noble while
doing so.

Heil Dubya.


Of course you know, the 3 'Rs' have changed. They are now

'responsible,'
'reliable,' and
'really useful.'

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message ...
Make that "four times".

Fair enough; neither do I. That's why we have elections, laws about bribery,
free speech, recall provisions, etc., etc.

Fair enough; neither do I. That's why we have elections, laws about bribery,
free speech, recall provisions, etc., etc.

Fair enough; neither do I. That's why we have elections, laws about bribery,
free speech, recall provisions, etc., etc.

Fair enough; neither do I. That's why we have elections, laws about bribery,
free speech, recall provisions, etc., etc.

Dear Mr. Fifield,

Heil Dubya!

You are far off the point. Our rulers have condemned the sons of Saddam, our
paid assassins, therefore, have murdered them and our rullers merely are
letting the rest of the world know who's boss.

Others might say that the two victims should have been tried in open court, by
a jury of their peers, if they were accused of serious crimes. But, that, too,
is beside the point. The U. S. A. has no legal or moral right to be in control
of Iraq, so no court could legally supervise the drawing up of an indictment,
convene a jury or conduct a trial. This requires democratic process, which the
U. S. A. has given up -- not only internationally, but domestically (except for
purposes of show, where no significant decision in opposition to the desires of
its rulers can be made).

I look forward to the day -- in the not too distant future -- when our fuhrer
is tried for war crimes by an international tribunal. (We United Statesians
are incompetent to do that. Too many of us are complicit in his crimes.)

Graphic pictures of (apparently) Saddam's two dead sons are now on the Web
worldwide. I assume that they have also been shown on TV.

I thought that when pictures of dead US servicemen were shown on Arabic TV
and
web sites that the showing of dead bodies of combatants was condemned as an
outrageous violation of the Geneva Convention.

Just wondering.

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Heil Dubya!

I'm sorry. I thought the first message along these lines was lost, so I
rewrote it and sent it out again..

Dear Mr. Fifield,

Heil Dubya!

You are far off the point. Our rulers have condemned the sons of Saddam, our
paid assassins, therefore, have murdered them and our rullers merely are
letting the rest of the world know who's boss.

Others might say that the two victims should have been tried in open court,
by
a jury of their peers, if they were accused of serious crimes. But, that,
too,
is beside the point. The U. S. A. has no legal or moral right to be in
control
of Iraq, so no court could legally supervise the drawing up of an indictment,
convene a jury or conduct a trial. This requires democratic process, which
the
U. S. A. has given up -- not only internationally, but domestically (except
for
purposes of show, where no significant decision in opposition to the desires
of
its rulers can be made).

I look forward to the day -- in the not too distant future -- when our fuhrer
is tried for war crimes by an international tribunal. (We United Statesians
are incompetent to do that. Too many of us are complicit in his crimes.)

Graphic pictures of (apparently) Saddam's two dead sons are now on the Web
worldwide. I assume that they have also been shown on TV.

I thought that when pictures of dead US servicemen were shown on Arabic TV
and
web sites that the showing of dead bodies of combatants was condemned as an
outrageous violation of the Geneva Convention.

Just wondering.

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld


gens una sumus

(Mike Nolan) wrote in message ...
However, to quote Edmund Burke:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement;
and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your
opinion.

As somewhat over-dramatized in the musical '1776', if not for this
British parliamentarian's opinion, we might still be a British colony
instead of an independent nation.

I doubt that Americans today would still be the subjects of thirteen (or more)
British colonies. Canada has become an "independent nation", or at least one
with a government that can be more independent of London than of Washington.

"The founders of a new colony, whatever Utopia of human virtue and happiness
they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their
earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a
cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison."
--Nathaniel Hawthorne (The Scarlet Letter)

--Nick

Noah Roberts wrote in message ...
Don Mihokovich wrote:
We, the people of the USA certainly aren't perfect and have admittedly
made our share of mistakes from which we will continue to learn and
grow. The flag is not merely a "rag" (your term) but a strong and
powerful symbol of the freedoms for which many of our men and women
have given the ultimate sacrifice for well over 200 years.

On a historical note, from 1861 to 1865 many people also sacrificed their
lives while following the flags of the Confederate States of America in
armed conflict against the government under the "Stars and Stripes".

...
And it is a rag, it is a piece of cloth. Many people forget that all
too easily and some are so overcome by flag worship that they would
actually kill someone over it. It may be a symbol, but it is still just
a rag and is insignificant in importance when weighed against the
foundational ideals of this country - the very ideals that rag is
supposed to symbolize. Someone who really believes in those ideals
would celebrate that flag being burned because it means we live in a
country where the rights of the people outweigh the value of a piece of
cloth. Unfortunately this is NOT what happens and lawmakers and other
minions have been trying to take that right away for years; the latest
attempt an actual ammendment to the constitution....

"From afar, nothing seems sillier than the importance other people attach to
their national symbols. One American obsession guaranteed to put a smirk on
the face of an Englishman is America's touchiness about its flag. You have
to feel sorry, don't you, for a nation that is apparently so insecure, or
chauvinist, or both, that it has sometimes come close to making desecration of
the Stars and Stripes an offence against its constitution. Britain flatters
itself that it is wiser and calmer about nationhood and its emblems. Britain
may love its queen, but has no qualms about lampooning her. The Union flag
droops here and there over government buildings, boy-scout troops and village
fetes, but is conspicuous mainly by its absence. Many Britons like this state
of affairs and the relaxed absence of jingoism it implies."
--Bagehot ('The Economist', 20 May 2000, p. 70)

--Nick

"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message news:3f1e8b0b$1_2@newsfeed...
What really cracks me up is how the nations who behave like a Democracy and
follow the will of the MAJORITY (such as France and Germany) are criticised,
ridiculed, and hated. The nations who behave like DICTATORSHIPS and go
AGAINST the majority of the population, such as Great Britain, are praised.

I thought the USA was all pro-Democracy. If that`s so, why are they being
so hard on the nations who actually did what the majority wanted, and so
friendly with those who did the opposite?

- Joshua B. Lilly



"Bo Persson" wrote in message
...

And if you happen to live outside the US, like if you are a secretary
of state in France or Germany, you better shut up or your country will
be "punished" for not wanting to start a new war (for once).

Sigh!


Bo Persson

_______________________________________

France and Germany has the freedom to dissent, and we have the freedom
to not do business with France and Germany if we so choose. I see
nothing wrong with that.

don