steve auvache wrote:

> What a blinkered outlook on life. No wonder your world is such a
> horrible place to live in. Why on earth not examine competing
> ideologies to see if they have any good points and clasp them to your
> bosom if they do?
>
> If there is a part of fascism that gets the trains running on time
> then we should be seeing of we can incorporate it into the everyday
> business of our Liberal Democracy and well done the brainless scum
> for thinking it up. A pity our creative thinkers couldn't have done
> the same.
>
> To knock a whole idea back simply because it does not come from a box
> with what you consider to be an acceptable colour label is frankly
> stupid.

Silly old sod, you can't even see my paradise from the layer of hell you
inhabit

--
Hog

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:53:06 +0100, Hog wrote:

>> So you'd like to ban research and discussion of anything that's not
>> within our current understanding and knowledge of life, the univers,
>> and everything? You sound just like the catholic church of a few
>> hundred years ago...
>
> No I just don't think that discussing how fascism or communism can be
> reformed into acceptable forms of government after last century is
> reasonable.

Communism worked fine on Star Trek for many years. Even through the USA's
serious commie hating years. The irony of it all.
--
davethedave

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:10:31 -0500, Mark Olson wrote:

>> Communism worked fine on Star Trek for many years. Even through the
>> USA's serious commie hating years. The irony of it all.
>
> When you've got limitless energy, and matter transmuting devices capable
> of creating any material goods you want, yes, I would say communism
> would work just fine.

But with food shortages.....

HUSBAND: What's for dinner tonight Свобода?
WIFE: It's cabbage Джим but not as we know it.
--
davethedave

R C Nesbit wrote:
> Hog spoke:
>>> At some level, everything you discuss is theory. More practically,
>>> constitutions and laws are theory. Less practically, theoretical
>>> concepts about social organization (e.g. the social contract) help
>>> us think about how to organize ourselves. So yes, there is a point
>>> in discussing the theory.
>>
>> I mentioned physics for a reason. There is no point in discussing
>> impossible theory, like how man can fly to Mars on wings of paper or
>> how totalitarian government can deliver freedom for all.
>
> There is a major flaw in your passion for freedom for all. Not
> everyone *wants* total freedom, not everyone can cope with total
> freedom. In fact I would go so far as to say that the majority feel
> comfort in being controlled, being told what they can and cannot do.
>
> Not everyone is equal - there are large physical, mental, and
> emotional variances, so any socio-political scheme which has a hope
> of success must allow for this.

You miss the obvious strategy. All those not wishing to be free will be
rounded up and exterminated.

A recent poll found most people in the UK thought our levels of taxation
were about right.. I would have said 3 times a reasonable level.

--
Hog

On Sep 15, 6:58*pm, steve auvache <dont_s...@thecow.me.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT), Thomas <keens...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We pick
> >and choose what aspects of each system seems appropriate.
>
> No we ****ing don't. *We should but we don't and if you think we do you
> are ****ing deluded and if you think we don't but we should you need to
> revisit your own world view before telling others what we do and don't do..

You missed the operative word there. "Seems."

> >We muddle on.
>
> We do that bit though, no ****ing argument from me there. *I wish we
> didn't but we do so there it is.

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Grimly
Curmudgeon <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Champ <(E-Mail Removed)> saying
>something like:
>
>>>I mentioned physics for a reason. There is no point in discussing impossible
>>>theory, like how man can fly to Mars on wings of paper or how totalitarian
>>>government can deliver freedom for all.
>>
>>String Theory, anyone?
>
>If only Icarus had used string...

He didn't have the branes

--
geoff

R C Nesbit wrote:
> Hog spoke:
>>> Not everyone is equal - there are large physical, mental, and
>>> emotional variances, so any socio-political scheme which has a hope
>>> of success must allow for this.
>>
>> You miss the obvious strategy. All those not wishing to be free will
>> be rounded up and exterminated.
>
> So you are a totalitarian libertarian?

I'm human and therefor imperfect

--
Hog

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, "TOG@Toil"
<(E-Mail Removed)> typed
>On 7 Sep, 13:45, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>> In the referenced article, "TOG@Toil"
>><totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >Also from the same site:
>>
>> >"the economics were appaling (reheat was required all the time from
>> >take-off to touchdown"
>>
>> The economics of Concorde were also appalling.
>
>Well, yeah, but there are degrees of appalling-ness :-) Christ knows
>how noisy it was, with the afterburners on for the entire flight....

I'm not sure I believe that. Reheat uses a phenomenal amount of fuel.

<Googles>

Ah. *Partial* reheat was required for the supercruise part of the
flight. Still not ideal, but not what the originally quoted article
claims.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

Contains moderate bullshit and simulated opinions.