Thank you for this example of socialism as a failed ethos.
Lee Lofaso wrote to Daniel <=-
Hello Daniel,
The state of Louisiana offers free college tuition for its residents.
The state of Louisiana used to offer free medical care as well, until
the last Republican governor dismantled the hospital system that had
worked so well for decades.
Thank you for this example of socialism as a failed ethos.
Works great. A wealthy oil tycoon got it all started, decades ago.
The state legislature then expanded the program to what it is today.
The state of Louisiana offers free college tuition for its residents.
The state of Louisiana used to offer free medical care as well, until
the last Republican governor dismantled the hospital system that had
worked so well for decades.
Thank you for this example of socialism as a failed ethos.
Works great. A wealthy oil tycoon got it all started, decades ago.
The state legislature then expanded the program to what it is today.
I suppose a socialist considers all failures as success. I'm done with you, the deception has infiltrated your mind to the grain. Have a blast, wherever lyou ive and we're glad you're not a voter here.
Government provides, business denies.
That's OK. Just don't forget to inject your daily doses of bleach
and you'll be fine.
You're a funny guy. Didn't your mom teach you not to lie? I know we're
on a bbs echo, but let's get real here.
So that's how you Trumpsters explain what the world is laughing at now? No longer the obvious lie that it was "a sarcastic question"? I see...
Bj-rn Felten wrote to Daniel <=-
That's OK. Just don't forget to inject your daily doses of bleach
and you'll be fine.
Lee Lofaso wrote to Daniel <=-
Hello Daniel,
The state of Louisiana offers free college tuition for its residents.
The state of Louisiana used to offer free medical care as well, until
the last Republican governor dismantled the hospital system that had
worked so well for decades.
Thank you for this example of socialism as a failed ethos.
Works great. A wealthy oil tycoon got it all started, decades ago.
The state legislature then expanded the program to what it is today.
I suppose a socialist considers all failures as success. I'm done with you, the deception has infiltrated your mind to the grain. Have a blast, wherever lyou ive and we're glad you're not a voter here.
Government provides, business denies.
He's afraid of needles. Clorox Chewables are the way to go.
That's OK. Just don't forget to inject your daily doses of bleach
and you'll be fine.
He's afraid of needles. Clorox Chewables are the way to go.
businesses.Government provides, business denies.
In Daniel- and Nick-land tax payer money should go all away into
But you knew that already, yes?
The state of Louisiana offers free college tuition for its residents.
The state of Louisiana used to offer free medical care as well, until
the last Republican governor dismantled the hospital system that had
worked so well for decades.
Thank you for this example of socialism as a failed ethos.
Works great. A wealthy oil tycoon got it all started, decades ago.
The state legislature then expanded the program to what it is today.
I suppose a socialist considers all failures as success. I'm done EO>withyou, the deception has infiltrated your mind to the grain. EO>Have a blast, wherever lyou ive and we're glad you're not a voter EO>here.
Government provides, business denies.
History shows otherwise. Have you tried living in Cuba? You'd love it.
Been there. Done that. Best sand bar on the planet.
I didn't write what you are replying to, so I'm not sure why your reply is directed at me.
At the bottom of the page was a node number with your name on it ...
--Lee
--
Often Licked, Never Beaten
--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
well, look at that... this node number has Bj”rn Felten's node number
Amazing, isn't it? Sysops own node numbers! Who'd a thunk it?
; May I ask if you live in the US?
Wow, absolute rubbish. There's right and wrong. And then, there's 'not even wrong.' You fit in the 'not even wrong' category. Your simple sentence said quite a bit, believe it or not.
I'm so very glad you don't live here. It's bad enough that the liberals have
turned our education system into a joke. We have a growing population of kids
who think earth is flat. So we can live without people like you.
David Drummond wrote to Daniel <=-
On 27/04/2020 15:26, 1340/7 wrote:
politiciansBF>> are bribed.
Wow, absolute rubbish. There's right and wrong. And then, there's 'not even wrong.' You fit in the 'not even wrong' category. Your simple sentence said quite a bit, believe it or not.
I'm so very glad you don't live here. It's bad enough that the liberals
have
turned our education system into a joke. We have a growing population of
kids
who think earth is flat. So we can live without people like you.
I'm sure that Bj.rn is absolutely heartbroken about your dismissal.
I know this may shock you but not everyone in the world wants to live
in USA.
; I'm so very glad you don't live here. It's bad enough that the liberals have
; turned our education system into a joke. We have a growing population of kids
; who think earth is flat. So we can live without people like you.
Interesting. Was this outlandish comment designed to hurt me or is this your
way of dismissing me? Both?
It's not shocking at all. That's your right, whereverthat is, and I'm delighted
you are living in a country that makes you happy. It's a sign of nationalism
and hate that drives someone to discuss personal disdain for other countries in
a public forum. It's mindblowing, especially when I hear it from those on the
left. You know, the side who falsely self-assigns values such as openmindedness, acceptance, unity, etc.
Nationalism is one of the great faults of the modern world. When the one world government comes into its own, when we're all pulling for humankind as a whole instead of competing on silly patriotic fronts, the world will be a better place for all.
By being glad that Björn doesn't live in USA shows how open minded and accepting you are?
BTW - I am not "on the left". I am right handed. I have no political affiliations what-so-ever. I do not support any political party. I do not even vote for any of them (as most Fidonetters already know, I am not actually entitled to vote).
--
Regards
David
Nationalism is one of the great faults of the modern world.
This sooner this foolish idea that it is in our destiny to form "one world",
the better.
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dennisk <=-
Hello Dennisk!
07 May 20 12:21, Dennisk wrote to David Drummond:
This sooner this foolish idea that it is in our destiny to form "one world",
the better.
We'll see how evolution works on this. Lately, "the world" is changing
so fast that it'll probably take some time to catch up. Running the
modern world with the mechanics of a stone-age society in our minds
won't work forever.
Meanwhile, can you come up with anything you like that nationalism has achieved for us (or just you) since, say, the French Revolution?
Regards,
Gerrit
... 8:23AM up 108 days, 22:20, 7 users, load averages: 0.38, 0.43,
0.41
--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: America, America the western dream is gone (2:240/12)
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to David Drummond <=-
07 May 20 08:12, David Drummond wrote to Daniel:
Nationalism is one of the great faults of the modern world.
A true statement, and truly understated.
Nationalism is one of the great faults of the modern world.
A true statement, and truly understated.
Modern?
Nationalism is one of the great faults of the modern world.
A true statement, and truly understated.
Modern?
Evolution works on groups, so if you don't work for your group, you
are out.
There is a conflict between ideals and the hard, physical reality of nature.
As for what has Nationalism done? Well, the assertion of national sovreignty
liberated many countries from their colonial masters, it helped drive
the break
up of Communist states and helped drive a political alternative to monarchy and
absolutism. I would also argue that Nation states based on heredity
are best
situated to offer people freedom, rather than "propositional" states, which
must impose their propositions on the population.
You may be under the impression that Nationalism is just Nazi Germany
and
Mussolini, but that position doesn't hold water. I take Nationalism
in its
literal sense, that is, the organisation of political and economic insitutions
around a nation of people, FOR a nation of people. That gives the institutions
and economic a locus, a focus, a definite people to which they must
serve.
country exists by the people, of the people, FOR the people, is the
best system
that we have. And that essentially is a Nationalistic position,
because it is
a recognition that we, the identifiable group of people, create the
state for
*our* posterity and wellbeing.
What is the alternative? Beaurocracies at the top, where the
instution, not a
people, is the focus of human enterprise? Where we exist to serve
some
abstract entity, rather than those entities serving us?
Lastly, in my lifetime, the number of nation states has increased, not decreased. Countries have broken apart, some have gained
independence. I
haven't seen any mergers, and experiments such as the EU, are looking
very
shaky indeed.
Nationalism is one of the great faults of the modern world.
A true statement, and truly understated.
Modern?
Depends on where you set the limit.
How about: when the apes *imagined* that they understood the difference between black and brown apes?
Gerrit Kuehn wrote to Dennisk <=-
Hello Dennisk!
07 May 20 22:50, Dennisk wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
Evolution works on groups, so if you don't work for your group, you
are out.
So where does it say how large this group has to be? In previous times
the typical group size people lived in was something like 100 people
(give or leave 50). That's the size where you can still know everybody personally. Beyond that size, the game is different. However, plenty of our mind is still working in this archaic mode, and the more crowded
and the more connected and entwined the world gets, the lesser this
fits reality and life.
There is a conflict between ideals and the hard, physical reality of nature.
An interesting note here might be that we all have ideals, we all have ethics, religion and so on. These are there to make large groups of
people work. Without them, our societies would fall apart into clans or tribes of around 100 people like it used to be.
As for what has Nationalism done? Well, the assertion of national sovreignty
liberated many countries from their colonial masters, it helped drive
the break
up of Communist states and helped drive a political alternative to
monarchy and
absolutism. I would also argue that Nation states based on heredity
are best
situated to offer people freedom, rather than "propositional" states,
which
must impose their propositions on the population.
That's one side of the coin, although I don't see how you are going to proof you last statement, but well.
You may be under the impression that Nationalism is just Nazi Germany
and
Mussolini, but that position doesn't hold water. I take Nationalism
in its
literal sense, that is, the organisation of political and economic insitutions
around a nation of people, FOR a nation of people. That gives the institutions
and economic a locus, a focus, a definite people to which they must
serve.
You're able to think like this because you live in a nation that hasn't been plagued by bloody wars for centuries. Wars that have primarily
been caused and fed by nationalism of one or the other colour. Even the colonialism you said above to be ended by nationalism is usually driven
by it.
country exists by the people, of the people, FOR the people, is the
best system
that we have. And that essentially is a Nationalistic position,
because it is
a recognition that we, the identifiable group of people, create the
state for
*our* posterity and wellbeing.
Limited to people living in that particular country and given their
share in wellbeing. Wellbeing for people in a system like that is essentially created by other people being not-so-well off. These can be outside your country, or even inside.
A nation is not an island, and it nowadays hardly can exist without the rest of the world around it. That's part of the game change I was
talking about earlier. The whole planet has become so "global" in the
20th and 21st century, why should we run it with concepts mainly
invented in the 18th/19th century? Concepts that /brought/ us wars, racism, colonialism, and slavery (to name just a few) in dimensions
never seen before.
Nationalism requires to divide people into more or less arbitrary
groups, you said it to be based on "heredity". What sense does that
make? I can look back in my ancestry, and just by going back 4
generations I'll find people from more or less all over Europe. So what sense does it make that I am "German", a nation mainly invented about
150 years ago by the warlords of that time on their recently conquered territory that used to consist of around 40 countries 200 years ago
(and hundreds of these before that)?
What is the alternative? Beaurocracies at the top, where the
instution, not a
people, is the focus of human enterprise? Where we exist to serve
some
abstract entity, rather than those entities serving us?
Nope, but that is just /how/ a country is run, not /why/.
Lastly, in my lifetime, the number of nation states has increased, not decreased. Countries have broken apart, some have gained
independence. I
haven't seen any mergers, and experiments such as the EU, are looking
very
shaky indeed.
How old are you? FRG and GDR merged in 1990. North and South Vietnam merged in 1976.
But "mergers" are usually driven by a powerful player (see my comment
on German history above), often under the claim of "forming a nation". Europe has seen plenty of it, and the EU has been formed to overcome exactly that. Up to now it worked out pretty well on that part.
Russia merging with Crimera, or China with with Tibet or HongKong (or maybe soon with Taiwan) are perfect examples of the road nationalism
goes.
Regards,
Gerrit
... 8:57PM up 109 days, 10:54, 7 users, load averages: 0.31, 0.44,
0.44
--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: And the pastiche we've invented (2:240/12)
Depends on what you call "modern". I'd say over here in Europe
nationalism as we know it today started around the time of the French Revolution to have something to replace the king.
Do people really believe that a one world government is workable, or even desirable?
This kind of belief seems to be a peculiarly Western belief, which
arises with more decadent thinkers.
 There is no humanity pulling all together, this should be painfully obvious now, and if people still believe in
this,
they will be eaten alive by those with stronger group loyalties.
I would rather humanity in distinct nations, a patchwork world of seperate peoples with their own culture, their own home, with ownership over
their own nation, than the nightmare dystopia of a technocratic one-world mega-beaurocracy.
the better.
Depends on what you call "modern". I'd say over here in Europe
nationalism as we know it today started around the time of the French
Revolution to have something to replace the king.
I'm looking forward to the times when our royal household will be
declared useless.
"What? Work for money?"
I'm looking forward to the times when our royal household will be
declared useless.
I'm looking forward to the times when our royal household will be
declared useless.
The president alternative doesn't seem all that appealing nowadays. We
have a rather scary example across the pond...
But a monarchy? Our royals are related to a person who ranks very high
on the hitparade of greatest massmurderers ever and they now still bask
in the wealth reaped from the backs of 12 million or more murdered black people ...
Depends on what you call "modern". I'd say over here in Europe
nationalism as we know it today started around the time of the French
Revolution to have something to replace the king.
I'm looking forward to the times when our royal household will be declared useless.
I'm looking forward to the times when our royal household will be
declared useless.
The president alternative doesn't seem all that appealing nowadays. We have
a rather scary example across the pond...
I'm looking forward to the times when our royal household will be
declared useless.
The president alternative doesn't seem all that appealing nowadays. BF>Wehave a rather scary example across the pond...
That is an undisputable fact.
The person in that office overthere is granted too much power and can rule by decree in a political system which is not geared to change that.
There is a word for that.
When one thinks about it then the parallels between that country and North Korea are striking, they also have a supreme leader who rules without being
challenged.
But a monarchy? Our royals are related to a person who ranks very high on the hitparade of greatest massmurderers ever and they now still bask in the
wealth reaped from the backs of 12 million or more murdered black people ...
Up until Abraham Lincoln, almost all our presidents owned black
people as property.
Your royal household is somewhat special and was established after the French Revolution (and your king was /elected/ as 3rd choice after the others didn't accept). So I guess you wanted it this way, and you
certainly could decide to take a different route.
So I guess you wanted it this way, and
you certainly could decide to take a different route.
I hope you won't take any offence over this but the current
There is no majority in Belgium anymore among the commoners to
maintain the royal household, but there's no political majority and
it would be such a legalistic upset that no-one wants to eat that hot potato.
The presidency (in the US) is a very weak office. Had you bothered
to read the US Constitution, you would have known that.
I was under the impression that he had owned (black) slaves as well.
Up until Abraham Lincoln, almost all our presidents owned black
people as property.
I was under the impression that he had owned (black) slaves as well.
  Where did you get that impression?
I was under the impression that even his parents were strongly against slavery.
Honest "Babe" Lincoln was not the kind of person everybody thinks.
Perhaps it is Washington that I was thinking of...
Up until Abraham Lincoln, almost all our presidents owned black
people as property.
I was under the impression that he had owned (black) slaves as well.
Perhaps it is Washington that I was thinking of...
That may very well be it.
By then (almost a century earlier) it was mostly European misfits that managed to create the not so nice society of that time.
I was under the impression that he had owned (black) slaves DD>as well.
Where did you get that impression? I was under the impression that even his
parents were strongly against slavery.
Honest "Babe" Lincoln was not the kind of person everybody thinks.
The rest of this conspiracy shit of yours may very well be believed by a Trumpster group, but out here we are a wee bit more educated.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 39:16:58 |
| Calls: | 379 |
| Files: | 6,673 |
| Messages: | 240,723 |