Ins't that quote from the Gettysburg Address?

Hardly a founding document.

Secure the blessings of liberty, blah, blah, blah...

On 5 Sep 2004 13:24:31 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

= = = David wrote in message
= = = . ..
The last thing the corporations want is for the population to know
what the founding principles of this country are.

This country was started to provide a place where government and
commerce served the people. Not the other way around.

DAVID- You have it slighly distorted:

This country was started to provide a place where government
served the people. (For the People, By the People, Of the People)

This country was started to provide a place where the people
could participate in commerce freely. (Without unnecessary or
excessive government interference; be it regulation or taxes.)

~ RHF
.
.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:12 pm, Telamon
posted to rec.radio.shortwave:
%MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in
Vietnam since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed
at Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again),
snivelling liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully
recovered from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well
economically since we started trading with them but they do not
enjoy the freedoms we have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are
not doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their
families that only want to leave that country. It's a real shame
we failed them and Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade
with Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB
continues to be on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied
to human rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged
Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they
wouldn't be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like
for persuading them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving
the price down below production costs. And anyone could see that
it's better to grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move
to the cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making
shoes for export. Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Same deal made with coffee farmers all over the world. The US doesn't
really care about anything except the corporate bottom line and the
balance of trade.

We are not supposed to care. It's called free trade. If the foreign
governments don't have the best interests of their people in mind what
are we supposed to do about it other than pass a bill to protect those
people by limiting trade unless human rights conditions improve in
those countries. You know a bill like the one Kerry spiked.

Otherwise armed intervention is the only other option.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American
constitution), recalled their advisors, and told the French to come
back in. They could see that the Vietnamese were going to become
commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful
French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that.

You should! It's the basis for the 20th century history of the
region.

The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

No that's not right: the US supported the French against the
fledgeling democratic movement, having previously promised the
Vietnamese self gov't for help against the Japanese and then reneged.
(The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who
also lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone
along with having their country given back to the French. The excuse
about not being about to resist communist agression was concocted
later, post hoc. In 1945, The Chinese were not communist yet, that
occurred in 1949, Russia was in no condition to do anything and had no
agents or advisors in the country. It was up to the US, which could
have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important
than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about
Chile and Guatemala?

You have the wrong take on this. The idea was to build up a modern
country and economy in the backward parts of the world. They were
supposed to become self sufficient thru trade.

It is not this countries policy to support colonization anymore.

Yes it is. Economic colonization. Hence corporations forcing their way
in
everywhere. Different methods, same outcome. Lots of money and materiel
for the homeland. Self sufficiency through trade means export the
countries' economic value to the controlling country. This has not
worked since the post-WW2 Marshall plan. Unfortunately. The gap between
"donor" and "receiving" countries continues to grow. And the best sort of
gov't in the recipient country is dictatorship apparently, be it
military,
monarchist. But it increases the rich-poor gap in the country and
eventually leads to instability and disaster. Makes the decision making
easy though. I'm telling you what peoples in a series of countries feel.
Until their understanding and life conditions are understood, the
dangerous
international situation will continue. Or we can plan some more wars.

This is what the leaders of the free world have worked out. I sure hope
you have not bought into the socialist communist dogma of the workers
paradise and if not that then what is your solution?

One that it is not is laissez faire capitalism. Another thing it is not is
communism. Both of these two systems have been exercized with great harm
on persons within countries. In the 20th century, we saw communism
exercized with great harm from one country to another. And in 20th century
into the start of the 21st century, we have seen the harm of unbridled
national self interest, business and profit do the same. Somewhere in the
middle there is the social contract of Thomas Hobbes and the classical
liberalism of Thomas Jefferson. Classical liberalism is not what is
perjoratively termed liberal by many today in the USA. It is what is
termed in by most of the world, conservative. Where government, and
international agreeements and regulations ensures that excessive self
interest, profit and greed does not harm others. National governments and
international bodies do not run enconomies, only regulate while balancing
the needs of all. On the international stage, this would be represented by
multilateralism versus unilateralism. Unilateralism can only be maintained
by force.

uncle arnie wrote:
And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

Goodness knows they've got enough slave labor to make it that way.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno

uncle arnie wrote:
Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to human
rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed.

Well, it's not like the communists didn't try. They got several hundred
thousand killed and another million and a half in "reeducation" camps,
but over two million managed to escape after the communists took over.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno

uncle arnie wrote:
posted:
Guatemala I have not heard. Chile "Voz Cristiana" normally puts in a
good signal here.

They broadcast MW signals that can be heard in rural Mexico quite well, but
not consistently. I've heard them from Guadalajara area and south.

Somehow I never manage to hear any MW from outside the country except
for Canada (and one reception of one of the megawatt-plus Mexican
stations some time ago). Must be a big shield around northern Illinois
or something. I get really jealous when I read about people picking up
Europe and South America.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno

m II wrote:
Telamon wrote:
That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Business over morals anyday, Eh?

Exactly! Kerry didn't want business to be curtailed by human rights
abuses in Viet Nam.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno

m II wrote:

Telamon wrote:

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Business over morals anyday, Eh?

Your reading comprehension skills were obviously AWOL when you answered this
one, right?

dxAce

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:12 pm, Telamon
posted to rec.radio.shortwave:
%MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in
Vietnam since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed
at Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again),
snivelling liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully
recovered from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well
economically since we started trading with them but they do not
enjoy the freedoms we have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are
not doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their
families that only want to leave that country. It's a real shame
we failed them and Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade
with Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB
continues to be on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied
to human rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged
Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they
wouldn't be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like
for persuading them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving
the price down below production costs. And anyone could see that
it's better to grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move
to the cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making
shoes for export. Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Same deal made with coffee farmers all over the world. The US doesn't
really care about anything except the corporate bottom line and the
balance of trade.

We are not supposed to care. It's called free trade. If the foreign
governments don't have the best interests of their people in mind what
are we supposed to do about it other than pass a bill to protect those
people by limiting trade unless human rights conditions improve in
those countries. You know a bill like the one Kerry spiked.

Otherwise armed intervention is the only other option.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American
constitution), recalled their advisors, and told the French to come
back in. They could see that the Vietnamese were going to become
commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful
French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that.

You should! It's the basis for the 20th century history of the
region.

The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

No that's not right: the US supported the French against the
fledgeling democratic movement, having previously promised the
Vietnamese self gov't for help against the Japanese and then reneged.
(The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who
also lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone
along with having their country given back to the French. The excuse
about not being about to resist communist agression was concocted
later, post hoc. In 1945, The Chinese were not communist yet, that
occurred in 1949, Russia was in no condition to do anything and had no
agents or advisors in the country. It was up to the US, which could
have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important
than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about
Chile and Guatemala?

You have the wrong take on this. The idea was to build up a modern
country and economy in the backward parts of the world. They were
supposed to become self sufficient thru trade.

It is not this countries policy to support colonization anymore.

Yes it is. Economic colonization. Hence corporations forcing their way
in
everywhere. Different methods, same outcome. Lots of money and materiel
for the homeland. Self sufficiency through trade means export the
countries' economic value to the controlling country. This has not
worked since the post-WW2 Marshall plan. Unfortunately. The gap between
"donor" and "receiving" countries continues to grow. And the best sort of
gov't in the recipient country is dictatorship apparently, be it
military,
monarchist. But it increases the rich-poor gap in the country and
eventually leads to instability and disaster. Makes the decision making
easy though. I'm telling you what peoples in a series of countries feel.
Until their understanding and life conditions are understood, the
dangerous
international situation will continue. Or we can plan some more wars.

This is what the leaders of the free world have worked out. I sure hope
you have not bought into the socialist communist dogma of the workers
paradise and if not that then what is your solution?

One that it is not is laissez faire capitalism. Another thing it is not is
communism. Both of these two systems have been exercized with great harm
on persons within countries. In the 20th century, we saw communism
exercized with great harm from one country to another. And in 20th century
into the start of the 21st century, we have seen the harm of unbridled
national self interest, business and profit do the same. Somewhere in the
middle there is the social contract of Thomas Hobbes and the classical
liberalism of Thomas Jefferson. Classical liberalism is not what is
perjoratively termed liberal by many today in the USA. It is what is
termed in by most of the world, conservative. Where government, and
international agreeements and regulations ensures that excessive self
interest, profit and greed does not harm others. National governments and
international bodies do not run enconomies, only regulate while balancing
the needs of all. On the international stage, this would be represented by
multilateralism versus unilateralism. Unilateralism can only be maintained
by force.

I'm well aware of the perversion of terms that has occurred over time.

So how you going to make that work, have the UN regulate all trade? How
do you get nations to negotiate trade agreements that are not in their
best interests?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
clifto wrote:

uncle arnie wrote:
posted:
Guatemala I have not heard. Chile "Voz Cristiana" normally puts in a
good signal here.

They broadcast MW signals that can be heard in rural Mexico quite well, but
not consistently. I've heard them from Guadalajara area and south.

Somehow I never manage to hear any MW from outside the country except
for Canada (and one reception of one of the megawatt-plus Mexican
stations some time ago). Must be a big shield around northern Illinois
or something. I get really jealous when I read about people picking up
Europe and South America.

You are not in the best spot for the off shore MW. You need a
specialized antenna like a Beverage or amplified loop.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"m II" wrote in message
news:syS_c.118714$X12.22683@edtnps84...
Brian Hill wrote:

Is she foxy? I *NEED* a good talking to.

She carrys a gun. Remember we're right wingers.

I understand gun ownership knows no political boundaries. The American
section of the lunatic zionist fringe is so well armed the ATF is
investigating them. One of them got hauled up a while back for plotting
to blow up American Mosques.

But, back to more pleasant talk...

What colour is the holster? Better still...is it stuck into the top of
one of the fishnet stockings? Is it a petite Beretta or a Buntline Colt?
Very unfeminine if it is a Buntline. Freud the Fraud woulda had a field
day with her.



mike


Excuse me! Fart!!!!