Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:46:33 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Ulrich Kruppa <root@pukruppa.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: "\"Marco Greene \(ML\)\"" <mweg@sympatico.ca> Subject: RE: Stupid ASCII loader prompt Message-ID: <20050318154357.Q1533@pukruppa.net> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEMLFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOEMLFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Jerry >> McAllister >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:53 AM >> To: "Marco Greene (ML)" >> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Stupid ASCII loader prompt >> >> >> Well, by now we are gleefully off topic for this list, so... >> > > Why not! ;-) > >> >> The USA system attempts/purports to _protect_ the minorities. This >> exists because supposedly the system tries to protect everyone, not >> specifically the minorities. It is only an artifact that sometimes >> minorities find themselves able to use the system to influence some >> outcome. They do not seize control. They wield whatever >> poser/influence >> they can muster, but they do not seize control. >> > > What control exists, they do seize. Certainly, much of the actual > control > of the US system resides lower down in the food chain among the > professional > bureaucrats who survive administration after administration, regardless > of > who happens to be at the top. But, there still is a lot of real power at > the top, and the people at the top are also able to make decisions that > have > implications that stretch far, far beyond their own brief period in > power. > > As for example the decision to invade Iraq. Long after the Republicans > are > out of power, the US is still going to be involved there. Because by > that > time there will have been such a great loss of American life that even > the strongest Democrat will not be able to pull out, because the hawks > will claim that if he does he's throwing away everything that that large > number of soldiers have given their lives for, and nobody will be able to > survive that kind of criticism. > > As a result we will have permanent military bases there. And as a result > we will have to keep going back in there year after year whenever the > population there (who really does not want bases) manages to get a strong > enough government in place that can threaten those bases existence. And > also, Saudi Arabia wants us in there because that way we will control oil > production, and thus not destroy OPEC's power. Iraq is the only country > in the world that has the oil reserves large enough to destroy OPEC if > they wished, and OPEC is Saudi Arabia's child. And independent Iraq with > it's own government has always been a threat to OPEC and now that is > gone. > > And because of all of this, our Energy policy has been permanently > altered > to be oil-based. We will never be able to return to conservation, solar, > geothermal and so on. The dial has been stuck on Oil and will remain > there > until all oil reserves in Saudia Arabia and Iraq have been completely > tapped > out. And because of that, American soldiers will continue to die over > there > until that happens in maybe a century or so. And this is -exactly- what > the ultraconservatives want. They wanted a US that is the world's > policeman > with an economy that supports a tremendous military-industrial complex, > and that is what they got. > >> Next, it was not exactly a failure. The use of alcohol went down >> very significantly. >> > > We don't really have any way of knowing that because none of this > stuff was tracked, as it was illegal. And you might consider too that > a still isn't practical in a densely populated area, it is likely > that out West where the population density was much lower, that > they were far more common than anyone would believe. > >> Sure, each 'ultra' group contains the seeds/tools of its own >> destruction. > > No, not true. The Amish for example are definitely an off-the-bend > "ultra" > group, but they have a consistent internal philosophy, and the way they > apply their philosophy is non hypocritical, thus they survive. The > Quakers, > the super-Mormons, even the survivalists, there are many of these > out-in-left-field > groups that are non-hypocritical in the application end. As a result > they > don't carry the seeds of their own destruction. Rather, there are other > reasons that they can never grow beyond a small minority. > > There's plenty of stuff that you can fault the ultraliberals for, > (stupidity, > no common sense) but hypocrisy is not one of them. That particular > problem > is a speciality of the ultraconservatives. > >> So, lets leave this topic at that. Either the >> ultra-anti-beastie or ultra-pro-beastie movements will destroy >> themselves. >> > > The ultra-pro-beastie movement is defined as the status quo, so it's > impossible for it to destroy itself (except perhaps by apathy) So beastie stands for freedom, democracy, pursuit of happiness and a great operating system for everyone? Just a question from Central Europe. Uli. ********************************************* * Peter Ulrich Kruppa - Wuppertal - Germany * *********************************************
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050318154357.Q1533>