Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: Al Klein on 28 Dec 2006 21:13 On 28 Dec 2006 14:09:46 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, usenet_trash2(a)yahoo.de wrote: >> >All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the >> >aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington. >> >Without Lincoln no civil war >> And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made >> them unnecessary. > >Better slavery than war Not for the slaves. >> >without Wilson no violent breakup of the >> >Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no >> >Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. >> Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire. >> > Without Roosevelt no WW2 >> Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt. >Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a >regime change in Germany. The "Polish" invasion of Germany was Hitler's doing. >> Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most >> people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have >> done the same. >This does not speak favourably about the US. One does what one can to weaken one's enemy, one doesn't act to strengthen him. >> >and Cold War. If >> >there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would >> >not have happened. >> If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were >> no people there would have been no wars. >I was speaking about the "evil empire" aka USA. No other state is that >aggressive and dangerous. States should be small and neutral, like >Switzerland. Sorry, but we don't agree with you, so you have 2 choices: Accept reality or move to a different planet. >> >Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not >> >supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from >> >governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against >> >a multitude of smaller competitors. >> Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than >> government support - favor the larger corporations. >Only until an optimal size is achieved. If they become larger they >become inefficient. If they become inefficient they become smaller. It's self-limiting. Inefficient companies don't expand. (Unless you redefine "efficiency", which no one is interested in.)
From: Al Klein on 28 Dec 2006 21:17 On 28 Dec 2006 14:10:29 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: >> >You think there are not enough fundies to get the majority in a county >> >assembly? >> That would depend on the county but, in most counties, probably not. >> The "Silent Majority" organizations don't have the money for a get out >> the vote push in every county in the country. > >They would probably move away from the more liberal counties to the >more conservative counties. Not unless the companies they worked for moved. People don't move away from their jobs. >The current centralistic system is wrong, oppressive, inefficient, and >contrary to human nature. For you. We prefer it. If you don't like it, stay in Germany, don't come here. >> And very few human beings are so altruistic that they'll deprive >> themselves for the benefit of some unknown and unnamed stranger. >What has this to do with the current political system? Everything. You're asking people to go against what they see as their best interests. They won't. >> >> > The central govt should >> >> >transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as >> >> >representative for foreign representatives. >> >> That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war >> >> with a lot more than 2 sides. >> >Why is this believe so widespread? >> Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature >> evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species. >I fail to see why this should have anything to do with the issue of >selfgovernment. Usenet's not the place to get 10 years of education in 5 minutes. When you understand how anthropoids work you may have a bit more understanding of the problem.
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Dec 2006 22:30 <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Ray Fischer wrote: >> James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >> >Ray Fischer >> >> > > You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended >> >> > > several monopolies and created competition in >> >> > > several businesses >> > >> >> > Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard >> >> > Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling >> >> > and falling radically, >> > >> >> When was that? >> > >> >The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906, >> >during which it reduced the price of petrol products to >> >about a quarter their previous price. >> >> It drove countless people into bankruptcy, > >That is no evil. That is what happens in a fiercely competitive market. It wasn't competitive, idiot. >> and whether the price of >> gas fell has nothing at all to do with whether people had to pay more >> because of the monopoly. > >It is prima facie evidence that the so-called Standard Oil "monopoly" No it is not. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Dec 2006 22:31 James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >> >The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to >> >1906, during which it reduced the price of petrol >> >products to about a quarter their previous price. > >> It drove countless people into bankruptcy, and whether >> the price of gas fell has nothing at all to do with >> whether people had to pay more because of the >> monopoly. > >It drove countless people into bankruptcy by repeated >and radically reducing the price of petroleum products. Where's your cites? Where's your evidence? You don't have a reputation for honesty. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Dec 2006 22:32
James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >On 27 Dec 2006 03:26:07 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray >Fischer) wrote: >> You don't knwo what a monopoly is, you don't know >> economics, and you don't even know how businesses are >> run. >> >> When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop >> elsewhere because there is only the one business. > >Yet according to you Standard Oil was monopoly, and >there were hundreds of alternative suppliers. Unless you're lying. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |