Re: Asimov Site

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:

>
> > President Thieu was elected in a fair election. I wish his predecessor
> > had won - Primer Ky at least hated corruption.
>
> Adolf Hitler was elected in a fair election too, where he promised
> freedom and peace before he got elected.  Some dictators start like
> that, the do something quite different once they've gained power.

So, you are opposed to free elections since they might be a cover for dictators, but you
like dictators who achieve rule by force of arms. That's what you have been saying....

>
>
> >>> not one that was forced on them by more tanks than Hitler used against
> >>> France in 1940. Sadly, the war was so badly bungled that we really did
> >>> need to get out.
> >>
> >> So you think it's OK to fight a war as long as you don't use tanks but
> >> instead airplanes and napalm bombs?
> >
> > You are an idiot aren't you?
>
> No -- I'm merely drawing conclusions based on what you say....

Too bad you don't read very well then.

>
>
> > South Vietnam was reunited to North Vietnam, not because the South
> > wanted it, but because four Corps of Armor invaded and forced on
> > them a government that they didn't choose. The North Vietnamese
> > army was larger than Hitler's when he defeated France. Did France
> > choose to be ruled by the German's?
>
> Were France and Germany once the same country which then was split up
> by external forces into "North France-Germany" and "South
> France-Germany" ???  When Hitler invaded France, was that a reunion?

Vietnam was part of French Indo-china, and had been for about a century.... What about
the Anschluss? You approve of it?

>
>
> Also: the US army is far far larger than Hitler's army was when he
> defeated France.

Error! Error! Error! The US Army, as it stands today, has 10 under strength divisions,
and is much smaller than the Field Army that invaded France.

> Conclusions?
>

That you don't know what you are talking about.

>
> >> A US politician once said he wanted
> >> to "bomb Vietnam back to the stone age" --
> >
> > Name him. I suspect that that was one of those urban legends.
>
> I think it was Barry Goldwater.....

Think? I think you are wrong. Cite your sources. I do suspect that former Air Force
General Curtis LeMay might have said that though....

>
>
> >> is that your idea of freedom?
> >
> > I smell cheap propaganda techniques here.
>
> So perhaps you must admit that US actions haven't brought freedom
> everywhere...

We have brought freedom to more countries than Sweden has....

>
>
> >>>> Or those dictatorships in South America which the US actively
> >>> supported.....
> >>>
> >>> That was considered necessary in the face of a greater threat. I think
> >>> it was a cop out.
> >>
> >> It was a product of US fear of Communism,
> >
> > The Soviet Union had five times as many tanks as the United States, and
> > three times as many fighter aircraft. The Germans had tried to use Mexico
> > against us, and the legitimate fear was that if enough Latin American
> > countries came under Soviet control, we would be too bogged down
> > fighting in the Americas to defend Europe
>
> "defend Europe" -- didn't you "forget" a piece of Europe here?  Or didn't
> you think Poland, Hugary, etc were worth defending?

Our ally was charged with the liberation of eastern Europe. What can I say, FDR was a
socialist, and trusted Stalin.

>
>
> The US wasn't really that interested in "defending Europe" -- they
> wanted to maintain the power balance against the SU.  And the US and
> the SU made Europe their playground to show their muscles to one
> another....  of course they couldn't admit this, so the US said
> they were there to "defend Europe" against the SU, and the SU said
> there were there to "defend Europe" against the US....

LOL. Interesting fantasy life you have.

>
>
> > from Soviet aggression.
>
> See above.  BTW do you think the South Americans appreciated being
> subjected to US agression, just because the US wanted to "show their
> muscles" to the SU ????

Interesting how you jump from Europe to South America to Europe, just so you don't have
to face facts.

>
>
> >> which I think was less about the
> >> political systems themselves and more about fithting for world rulership.
> >
> > Now that we are the only Superpower, how are we ruling the world? Other
> > than throwing our weight around in Yugoslavia, with the approval and
> > support of the Brits, French, and Germans?
>
> How long do you think you'll remain a superpower?  And do you WANT the
> US to be a superpower?  In some earlier post you said you wanted the US
> to "bring their boys back home"....
>

I have no idea. Yes. (I like the idea that no nation on earth can really threaten our
lives, freedom, or property) Yes.

>
> >>> Yes, and it was done, again, against what was thought to be a greater threat.
> >>> I'm not so sure. How do you decided who was worse, Hitler, Mao, or Stalin?
> >>> The latter two killed more people each than Hitler. They killed people so
> >>> they could, so they said, make the world a better place. Hitler, in large part,
> >>> because he was a racist. Which one would you rather have murder you? Or your
> >>> family? Frankly, I think we'd have been better off destroying both, but I doubt
> >>> that we could have taken on Germany, USSR and Japan.
> >>
> >> The reason you (= not you personally, of course) fought Hitler but neither
> >> Stalin nor Mao was quite simple and had nothing to do with the number of
> >> people they killed:  Hitler wanted to occupy the whole world, while Stalin
> >> and Mao were content ruling their respective countries.
> >
> > LOL tell that to the people of eastern Europe. Once Stalin had them under his
> > thumb, he and his successors never let them go, until the empire's core
> > collapsed. And as for Mao - ask the Tibetans what good neighbors Mao was,
> > or the Indians, who have lost lives and territory to Mao's army. You are far
> > too naive, or far too uninformed. BTW, Hitler didn't want to try to rule
> > the Americas, so we could have stayed nice and save here with the Atlantic
> > between us. The same was true with the Japanese. We could have stayed out of
> > the war, and stayed safe. But we like and try to support democracy, and try
> > to fight tyranny.
>
> A nice but false rewrite of the history.

No it isn't.

> You DID stay out of the war, until
> you were forced to enter it by being attacked by the Japanese.

And why did they do that? We backed them into a corner so that they had no choice.
Further, we had been guarding convoys to the middle of the Atlantic against the Uboats.
Meanwhile, Swedes sat on their backsides making money off the war.

> And the major
> factor which determined the outcome of the war wasn't the participation of
> the US,

LOL - that's not what Hitler or Stalin thought. Stalin was constantly crying out for US
and British second front, even when they were fighting in North Africa and then Italy.
Beside, the real major factor was, as Churchill so aptly put it, was "Corporal Hitler."

> but that the Germans were defeated by the SU.

Strange, US troops had to sit and wait for the SU troops to reach the agreed upon
dividing rivers.

>
>
> > No, we aren't consistent in that, but we try. Where was Sweden when her
> > neighbors were in trouble? Making big bucks off the Nazis, who might well
> > have funded their purchases from the gold stolen from the Jews. Well, it's
> > easy to criticize others, when you stay on the sidelines and make money
> > from the deaths of millions.
>
> Remember when I brought up the slavery in the US and you responded that
> your family didn't participate in that?  Well, my family wasn't into the
> steel business, so they didn't make any money from the Germans....

Not in the coal, or iron ore business either huh? Didn't grow the food that was sold to
the Germans either, right? Or manufactor the optics that they bought from Sweden? Or
work in industries that supported any of the above?

>
>
>  The indian preserves in the US?
> >
> > As a matter of fact, the Native Americans are called Nations. And though
> > they were granted US citizenship some time ago, the states in which the
> > reservations exist have VERY limited authority in them.
>
> How big percentage of the area of US are in those "nations"?

Larger than Sweden. Probably larger than Norway and Denmark through in.

> Less than 10%
> I bet.  Now, if I entered your land, stole it using weapons and force,
> gave your family diseases

> so some 80% of them died,

Accidents do happen. And they gave diseases back again. I've read that some venereal
diseases came from the Americas. Of course, I've also read that they came from Asia.
Since it isn't my field, I really don't know.

> and then let you live
> in the worst 10% of your former land, giving you great control over
> that little piece -- would you then be content?

No. But the contentment or lack thereof is something new. Why would I respond to
something you had not yet said? Again, you like to argue, and you like to present a
moving target, so you don't have to deal with your errors and false conclusions.

>
>
> > But again, you don't deal with the issue, you try to divert from the fact
> > that the settlements on the eastern seaboard were self governing, and when
> > the Revolution came we had had a century and a half of democracy here, and
> > Sweden wasn't. We were the first democratic republic, and we are the oldest
> > democracy on the face of the earth. Top that.
>
> A "democracy" which allows slavery is an oxymoron.....  but of course
> you want to appear as an early democracy in your national propaganda.

No, it isn't an oxymoron. Athens was the first democracy, and it had slavery. The
problem is you want to define a democracy so it matches your own prejudices, so you can
claim a moral superiority over others, to compensate for your obvious moral lapses.
Politically mature peoples acknowledge the errors and failures of the past, and push on
without condemning people of the past for not having the sensibilities of the present.

>
>
> >>> Yes, 400 years ago, self governing democratic communities. And what was Sweden
> >>> 400 years ago?  You see Paul, in 1776, there was a tradition of free elections
> >>> and self government that was over 150 years old. That's one of the reasons our
> >>> founders weren't about to let the British run rough shod over their rights.
> >>
> >> Why didn't Canada do the same thing back then?  And Australia?  They must have
> >> known about this tradition too.
> >
> > Canada, and Australia benefited from the Revolution. After it was too late,
> > the British government offered the united States of America (no typos there)
> > what would be known as Dominion status. If they had offered it in 1775, we'd
> > still be subjects of the Crown.
>
> ...and then your gallon would have been about 30% larger than it is now.... :-)

I thought Great Britain was metric now. Isn't Canada?

>

>
>
> >>> Japan had a disagreement with the US - over a thousand American sailors are
> >>> entombed in the Battleship Arizona on the bottom of Pearl Harbor because of
> >>> that disagreement.
> >>
> >> Oh -- I though you meant the state of Arizona.  Anyway, isn't Perl Harbor
> >> on US territory?
> >
> > Pearl Harbor is in the state of Hawaii. Survivors of the Arizona have the
> > right to be buried with their shipmates. Every year or so there is a funeral
> > service and Navy frogmen take a body down into the hull.
> >
> >> If so, why don't you just go and pick up your men?
> >> (but now it's probably too late -- human bodies dissolve in water in just
> >> a decade or so.  No human remnants were found on the Titanic, for instance)
> >
> > The ship is their tomb, and an honored one.
>
> Somewhat like Estonia on the bottom of the Baltic sea then?
>
> > Though, my son-in-law informs me that when he and my daughter were on the
> > Memorial, Japanese tourists were laughing and joking. I'm surprised they
> > don't get thrown into the shark infested waters of the harbor.
>
> ...or asked to leave -- you ARE a civilized country, aren't you?

Neither happened. Too bad.

>
>
> >>> It's usually easy to find out who owns the land - they usually live on
> >>> or near it.
> >>
> >> If the piece of land is small, and you're staying there for awhile, it
> >> may be easy.  But if the piece of land is large, or if your just
> >> passing by, it may be more difficult.
> >
> > Depends. I was thinking of one farm of 320 acres that I hunted on,
> > and another of about 450 acres
>
> Well, if they aren't bigger than that, there's of course no problem.
> BTW on private land that small, entering it without permission
> almost counts as "getting too close to the living quarters".
>
> Anyway, there's a bootstrap problem here: unless their living quarters
> reside at the very edge of their land (unlikely), you must enter their
> land if you want to find them in their living quarters to ask for
> permission to enter their land -- but you're not allowed to do that
> unless you already have such a permission; and if you do have the
> permission, you have no need to ask for it.

Ever hear of a driveway? It is usually granted that someone can come to your house to
ask permission, but if denied, you must leave.

>
>
> If the typical size of a private land is some 500 acres

I wouldn't know what a typical size would be. There are farms in western Nebraska, or
Kansas, or in other parts of the "American Outback" that are measured in sq. miles. Then
there are the suburbs were land is measure in the sq. yard.

>
> >> Killing animals counts as destroying....
> >
> > No, it counts as herd management.
>
> Why do farmers get upset when the herds are managed?  Do they want
> these herds to grow until there are real problems, or what?

They don't. They get upset when people shoot their cows instead, or damage their fences,
or shoot deer that the farmers wish to shoot on their own property.

>
>
> > Wildlife are "owned" by the state. Deer are nothing more than giant field
> > mice who destroy crops and when there are too many of them, they die of
> > disease, hunger and getting hit by cars and trucks while they search for
> > food. Keeping the herds of a manageable size reduces such, and is
> > therefore humane.
>
> Of course it's humane because it benefits humans.

No, it's humane to prevent animals from dying by starvation, disease, and being killed
by motor vehicles.

> I suppose you also
> eat some of the deer you shoot, for instance.

You betcha - nice and tasty too.

>
>
> >>>>> With three semi automatic 7.62.39 mm rifles, two semi automatic .22
> >>>>> rifles, three bolt action 7.62x51 mm rifles, a 12 ga shotgun and a
> >>>>> 9 mm pistol, strange that I've never had a "chance" to shoot a fellow
> >>>>> human being....
> >>>>
> >>>> Others have though -- once or twice a year, some schoolkid gets pissed
> >>>> off at his fellows or teachers, then borrows his parents' gun and shoots
> >>>> them.  Never heard that in the news?
> >>>
> >>> Sure. And why aren't those guns or ammo locked up?
> >>
> >> Because there are some people who are irresponsible.  And just saying
> >> "Every gun owner should be responsble for how it's used" won't change
> >> that.
> >
> > That's there are laws for punishing irresponsible people.
>
> Unfortunately, these punishments cannot being back the victims to
> life.

Wow, that's a brilliant deduction.

> It's better to prevent it from happening than punishing the
> guity when innocent people already have been shot to death, don't you
> think so?

If the cure isn't worse than the disease.

>
>
> >>> My guns aren't locked up - but my ammo can't be gotten at, and a gun
> >>> without ammo is just a heavy club - a baseball bat is better as a club.
> >>
> >> So I can steal your gun and then get ammo elsewhere .....
> >
> > Not too likely. My shotgun is in my bedroom
>
> Thanks for informing me so I know where to find it... :-)
>
> > - and an ounce of birdshot from 15 feet will really ruin your evening.
> > My pistol is elsewhere - and a 9 mm doesn't tickle. Besides, my dogs
> > aren't THAT friendly.
>
> A piece of delicious meat, or a female dog willing to mate which I
> bring along, will probably change that....   Few dogs are completely
> un-negotiable....  :-))))

Well, they are bone headed Dutch dogs....  ;-) But one is female, and the other is male.

>
>
> >> Or I can steal your gun and sell it on the black market ....
> >
> > Since our president doesn't enforce those laws - yes, you could try that.
>
> That's why it's important to lock up the guns you have.

That's why it's important to enforce the laws - people who trade in guns don't make
enough money off of it if they are prosecuted relentlessly. Drugs is a different story.

>
>
> >> A gun without ammo isn't more harmless than a baseball bat, because
> >> you can get ammo elsewhere and then shoot people with the gun.  Even
> >> with ammo, you cannot shoot people with a baseball bat.
> >
> > ?
>
> If you have ammo, a gun will be more harmful than a baseball bat.
>
> >> So you lock up your ammo but not your gun.  Perhaps some other person
> >> locks up his gun but not his ammo, arguing "...but my gun can't be
> >> gotten at, and ammo without a gun cannot even be used as a heavy
> >> club...".  Now, suppose the both of you have kids who are friends,
> >> and that these kids get sooooo pissed off at someone in school they
> >> want to shoot him.  They both go home and see what they can find --
> >> your kid finds a gun, and his friend finds ammo, and then they meet.....
> >
> > In this country kids can't legally buy guns or ammo.
>
> They don't have to buy what they find at their parents'

And why don't the Swiss have this problem?

>
>
> > And while your scenario is possible, so is an invasion from Alpha
> > Centauri.
>
> You've read too much "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" !!! :-)

never finished it. My son loves Doug Adams, but he bores me.

>
>
> > Nearly all murders are crimes of passion. In fact, many, if not most
> > assaults are the same. And while the whole world has heard of the
> > shootings at schools, what is never mentioned are the nearly one
> > million times a year that a gun is used, but not fired to prevent
> > a crime.
>
> What kinds of crime?  Murder?  Shoplifting?  Or illegal parking?  :-)

You forgot burglary, and rape. And spitting on the sidewalk.

>
>
> BTW easy accessibility of guns also means the criminals will have
> more guns.

The fact is that criminals have easier access to guns than law abiding citizens. If you
don't care what the law says, you can have a fully automatic assault rifle anywhere
here,  whereas law abiding citizens need a special Federal permit, and even then, some
states don't allow it at all - like Kansas.

>
>
> > Nor is mentioned the millions of kids who have guns,
>
> How come?  A few paragraphs back you said they couldn't buy guns.
> Are they legally allowed to own something they legally cannot buy?

Yes. If gifted by parents or other close family members. However, no one under 18 can
buy ammunition of any sort, and no one under 21 may buy ammunition that can be used in a
pistol.

>
> Or do they possess these guns illegally?
>
> > and have never killed or threatened another human being. We have had
> > mass murder here, once, about ten years ago, by someone using a sword.
> > A few years before than the deliberate use of a car to run people down
> > on urban sidewalks.
>
> ..and you have school shootings with several victims once or twice
> a year...

In that last few years, yes. Why don't the Swiss?

>
>
> > Crowded sidewalks. How many murders do you hear of from Switzerland?
> > Where nearly every household has a fully automatic rifle and ammunition?
> > Hmmm? And though you do hear of killings in Israel, it isn't as bad as
> > one might expect when Israeli men and women walk through the streets
> > with fully automatic submachine guns on their shoulders.
>
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >
> >>>> Don't you think you'll have to be more careful in distinguishing
> >>>> Socialist states from Communist states?
> >
> > No.
>
> So to you there'snot much difference between e.g. Spain or the SU ???

Didn't say that.

>
> >>>>> This, BTW is what Mrs. Clinton had proposed in her health care plan
> >>>>> some 6 years ago. Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals
> >>>>> would all be privately owned, but they would have to do what the
> >>>>> government told them to do, in setting policies and prices. Both are
> >>>>> equally pernicious. Both rob people of power over their own lives.
> >>>>
> >>>> It would also increase the health of people and reduce your infant
> >>>> mortality, which currently is way above the infant mortality in
> >>>> Europe.  Doesn't that matter at all to you?
> >>>
> >>> No, in fact, it would probably worsen the situation. Mrs. Clinton
> >>> herself admitted that many doctors would have to go out of private
> >>> practice, and that many small businesses would go out of business.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> Oh yeah, I know: someone who is deadly ill from e.g. cancer will often
> >> be willing to pay everything he has to remain alive.  Which means if
> >> a doctor can get only rich patients, he can charge outrageous amounts
> >> of money.  With a public health system, he can no longer do that.
> >>
> >> I think you got it backwards: the health system should be there for >
> > the patients, not for the doctors....
> >
> > And why should someone work from age 18 until age 32, putting off having
> > a family, a home, and the nice things that a factory worker could have,
> > unless there is something that gives them a good reason for the sacrifice?
> > A doctor who works with cancer patients doesn't begin practice until age
> > 32 Paul. He or she deserves to be compensated for their sacrifice.
>
> Doesn't that apply to ANY PhD who sacrifices this until they're 32,
> and not just medical doctors?

No. If you don't quit school, you can have your Ph.D. by age 24-26. B.A. 4 years, M.A. 1
year, Ph.D. 2-3 years (depends of course on MANY factors.)

>
>
> > In addition to that, there is the high price of operating a medical practice,
> > like insurance, and personnel to fill out all the paperwork that the
> > insurance companies and the government require.
>
> > When you pay your medical bill here, you are paying for all that nonsense.
>
> If you're subjected to some malpractice by an incompetent doctor, I don't
> think you consider it "nonsense" anymore.

Perhaps. But if your doctor is subjected to malpractice suits that have judgments all
out of portion to damage done (keeping in mind that the lawyer could get between 25 and
75 % of the judgment) and YOU get to pay it by paying his insurance bill... well,
something's rotten, and it isn't Denmark.

>
>
> But there's another side of the coin too: if the doctors are to be
> that well paid, then a large part of the population cannot afford
> health care.

If they aren't, there will be far fewer doctors. And then there won't be any health care
either.


>
>
> > Your comment is filled with evil false witness, and envy, not too
> > surprising to me.
>
> Are you here trying to use the tactics "When you're out of arguments,
> attack your opponent!!!" ????  I can tell you one thing: I do NOT,
> repeat, NOT, envy you!

Envy of those who work hard, sacrifice and then gain from it.

> And regarding "evil false witness" -- I don't
> know what to say about that -- are you accusing me of deliberately
> lying, or what?

One need not "lie" to not tell the truth. One need only not tell all the truth. Or even
the choice of wording can obscure the truth. Emotion laden words like "lying" can mask
reality.

>
>
> Please refrain from such personal attacks in the future.

Please refrain from your personal attacks, and half truths.

>
>
> >>> How does putting people out of work improve health care?
> >>
> >> Will they REALLY do that?  Or are they just trying to scare the
> >> politicians?  As we all know, lobbying is big bu$ine$$ in your
> >> contry.
> >
> > Lobbying is big bu$ine$$ for Big Business and Big Labor, but small
> > businesses only have lobbyists if they can band together, and they often
> > are too busy trying to stay afloat to give attention to that. And it was
> > the small businesses that would have gone under.
>
> I'm sorry, but in my country (which from your point of view must
> appear as a nightmare) there are many doctors running their own
> practices,

And does the government pay them? Does the government tell them what procedures they may
or may not do, and how many of them per year, month, or week? The fact is that here,
doctors only get paid by the government for covered procedures if they are done at at
reduced fee, which then passes part of the cost off on to the rest. Of course, that is
what HMOs do too....

> year after year, without going under.  So your fear seems
> unjustified.  BTW even if it was the way you fear, it would still
> be a smaller problem than the current situation of many of your
> fellow contry men dying because they cannot afford health care!

In the United States, it is illegal to refuse life saving medical care regardless of the
patients ability to pay. So there is either an error in your statement, or you have
misinformed, or you are deliberately misstating the truth. Which is it?

>
> What do you think one should do about the latter problem?  Are
> you a subscriber of that "...it's their own fault they're poor.."
> philosophy?

I subscribe to the "it isn't compassionate to be compassionate with someone else's
money" philosophy. Yes, sometimes it is their own fault. And sometimes it isn't. And
sometimes, even when it is their fault, you render aid, like for the sake of children in
a home. I've done that plenty of times. It isn't a happy solution, but I haven't found a
better.

>
>
> > You know, you seem so intelligent, until you start describing our
> > economic and political life. Then you sound like a redneck.
>
> Is this your way of trying to avoid that I could be right in some
> things I say?

No, it means you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about at times.

>
>
> >>> The strange thing is that we have people coming down from Northernmost
> >>> American (like that Jeff?) to get medical care here that is rationed
> >>> up there, and people from here going north to get drugs that are too
> >>> expensive here. I would suggest that neither system is working as well
> >>> as they could, or should.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> So does a monopolistic capitalism, which is why I favor the breakup
> >>>>> of Microsoft, as I favored the breakup of AT&T.
> >>>>
> >>>> And how would one make Microsoft break up voluntarily, without having
> >>>> to involve the government?
> >>>
> >>> I believe that my sentence was active voice, not passive.
> >>
> >> You didn't say who you think should be active though...
> >
> > Picky, picky, picky. And dumb, dumb, dumb. Actually, I thought Disney
> > would break them up, or perhaps the Shriners. What a moron you are.
>
> Which means you don't want to suggest any solution to the problem of
> big monopolies?

No, it means that the obvious was implied. But since you still don't get it (I forget
sometimes that American English isn't your native language) it is the proper task of
government to inhibit evil, and punish wrong doers. Since Microsoft did violate our
monopoly laws, the government should try to break them up. That is what is happening.
Like most Americans I don't like monopolies, but I'm willing to put up with one that
plays by the rules, and M$ didn't.

>
>
> >>>>> Smaller companies who have a real opportunity to compete are better
> >>>>> for the general good. In this country most people are employed
> >>>>> by small businesses, not major corporations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Small businesses want to grow, and drive other competing businesses
> >>>> out of the market though
> >>>
> >>> Not necessarily. I know small businesses that don't want to grow above
> >>> a certain size - because then they come under tighter government control.
> >>
> >> Do they want to avoid that for economical reasons or for other reasons?
> >> If the latter, they aren't acting like genuine Capitalists, and most
> >> likely the profatibility from their business will suffer from that.
> >
> > Both. If you grow above a certain size, then government regulations are
> > applicable and that results in economic reasons. You obviously don't
> > understand how to run a business.
>
> I know -- that's why I'm not running a business.
>
> Anyway, that should mean businesses tend to cluster around two
> different sizes: the small ones where government regulations aren't
> applicable, and the large ones which are so large that they can
> easily take the cost of those govenment regulations.

And those above the one, and trying to reach the second. Not easy to do, even in a
entirely new market.

>
>
> >> And 90% of the men who wore gray during the War of Northern
> >>>>> Aggression never owned a single slave.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you call it "Northern Agression"?  Do you think it was wrong
> >>>> to fight slavery?
> >>>
> >>> I think it is wrong benefit from slavery - as the northern merchants did.
> >>> I also think it is wrong to be protectionist, as the northern merchants
> >>> were.
> >>> `Nuff said.
> >>
> >> ...hmmmm, so the northerners benefited from the slavery in the south
> >> and that was wrong, but the southerners who actually had the slaves
> >> didn't do anything wrong?
> >
> > I didn't say that.
>
> Right -- you didn't say that, or the opposite, so that's why I asked.

Then you still must have missed the following quote from above, "I think it is wrong
benefit from slavery"

>
>
> > I didn't imply that. In fact, I said the opposite. Only someone wishing
> > to use cheap propaganda techniques would write what you wrote.
>
> Only someone wishing to use cheap propaganda would call a question
> "cheap propaganda".

IF it was a question. When the answer to the question is five lines above the question
in your post? What then? Hmmm? When the question was answered before it was asked? Then
it seems perfectly clear that you ignored what was stated explicitly, and asked your
question for effect, not for fact finding.

>
>
> >> Anyway, if the northerners benefited so much from slavery, why did
> >> they go to war to stop it?
> >
> > They didn't. They went to war to force the southern states to stay in
> > the Federation.
> > You really know so little about us, and our history, no wonder you have
> > such distorted ideas.
>
> Well, that's what we were taught in school about your internal war.

Don't be too upset with your schools Paul - ours don't always teach the truth about our
past either.

A constitutional question was answered by force of arms. To this day the states of the
South are under Federal restrictions that the other states aren't under.
"Reconstruction" isn't over, and the South is still treated as conquored territory. The
flags of the Southern units are still held as war trophies by the Federal government and
not returned to the states from which they came.  And those are facts that our school
children aren't taught either.

>
>
> Anyway, if the northerners didn't mind slavery, as you here say, why
> wasn't it allowed to continue?  With enough propaganda, you could have
> made your citizens believe they lived in a democracy anyway, don't you
> think so?

Lincoln did what he did, in large part to keep Britain and France from recognizing the
Confederacy, and giving them aid. It was a political and military decision. Only after
the war was the form of slavery used in the South abolished.

>
>
> >> BUt I must admit
> >> Christians do their best to try to increase their numbers, so now they've
> >> become the worlds largest religion (if you include all the various sects
> >> like the East Roman Church and the West Roman Church... :-)
> >
> > And to think there were only 120 on the day of Pentecost. Not bad.
>
> Well, at one point the Roman Empire decided to make Christianity the
> official religion.  Obviously Christianity did, to them, offer some
> advantages over believing in Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn....  But
> without that support from the Roman Empire, Christianity would be
> nothing today.

It got to that position by growing so numerous, and spreading throughout the empire and
it's class system. It's legal position was changed not to help Christianity, but to help
the empire.

>
>
> >> But during those glory days of democracy before 1787, you did have a king
> >> and queen.
> >
> > Before 1787 we had the Articles of Confederation. Try before 1776. And we
> > were democratic colonies long before that date.
>
> At least you labelled yourself "democratic", however a society where
> slavery is supported isn't really democratic.

That is your opinion. It isn't historically accurate. Even if it does fit your political
prejudices.

>
>
> >> BTW, whenever the Swedish king and queen visit the US, very many people are
> >> interested in them, many more than when they visit e.g. Britain.  This must
> >> be because the british are used to a king/queen, while the americans aren't.
> >
> > I've never even heard that they have visited here. We do pay attention when
> > British royalty arrive however. I remember once hearing about the King of
> > Spain....
>
> Perhaps it's more city people who pay attention to this, and you seem to
> be a country person....

I was raised in the "mega-city", 45 miles from center city Philadelphia, 51 miles from
Manhattan Island. My home county has a population of over 600,000 people. I currently
live in a small city of about 250,000. But I can see farmer's fields from my front lawn.

>
>
> >>>>> and developed into full blown democracies. But Great Britain has been
> >>>>> ruled by Parliament since the English Civil War, long before the time
> >>>>> that you admit that Sweden gave up it's aggressor status.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I never argued against that --- I was talking about the state
> >>>> in the US.....
> >>>
> >>> Which was democratic even before it was independent.
> >>
> >> In principle but not completely in practice.  You "forgot" your period of
> >> slave trading.  Trading slaves is not compatible with democracy.
> >
> > Practice? How does one practice democracy? One has elections to determine
> > who will make laws and raise taxes.  Who will be judges etc.
>
> ...and in these elections, everybody should be allowed to participate.

Perhaps. Not all democracies would agree with you, or me for that matter.

>
> No group of people, like slaves, should be excluded.

There are good reasons to exclude people, good reasons that make good sense to the
culture. It is a bit arrogant for you or I to dictate how a free people rule themselves.

> The mere presence
> of elections isn't enough -- dictatorships too have elections, where
> selected groups of people are allowed to participate.

No argument there.

>
>
> > Now, granted, the Brits had some say, esp. on the executive branch, but
> > our colonial assemblies did rule, and were elected democratically by
> > those with the right to vote. While I don't approve of slavery, democracy
> > as the world knows it today was invented here, and slave owners had a
> > lot to do with that. So your last statement is historical nonsense, even
> > if it sounds politically correct.
>
> I guess you'll have to quibble with the Greeks about who invented
> democracy....

Seems to me that you are requiring the world to accept YOUR definition. Since the word
is a Greek word, invented by Greeks, as was the form of government, you and I don't have
the "right" to say that they didn't have democracy, just because it wasn't like the
democracy that you or I favor. Some humility here is in order.

Roy

>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
> Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
> e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
> WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch