= = = David wrote in message
= = = . ..
The last thing the corporations want is for the population to know
what the founding principles of this country are.

This country was started to provide a place where government and
commerce served the people. Not the other way around.

DAVID- You have it slighly distorted:

This country was started to provide a place where government
served the people. (For the People, By the People, Of the People)

This country was started to provide a place where the people
could participate in commerce freely. (Without unnecessary or
excessive government interference; be it regulation or taxes.)

~ RHF
..
..

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in Vietnam
since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed at
Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again), snivelling
liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered from
the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well economically
since we started trading with them but they do not enjoy the freedoms we
have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are not
doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their families that
only want to leave that country. It's a real shame we failed them and
Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to human
rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they wouldn't
be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like for persuading
them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving the price down below
production costs. And anyone could see that it's better to grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move to the
cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making shoes for export.
Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American constitution),
recalled their advisors, and told the French to come back in. They could
see that the Vietnamese were going to become commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in Vietnam
since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed at
Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again), snivelling
liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered from
the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well economically
since we started trading with them but they do not enjoy the freedoms we
have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are not
doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their families that
only want to leave that country. It's a real shame we failed them and
Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to human
rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they wouldn't
be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like for persuading
them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving the price down below
production costs. And anyone could see that it's better to grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move to the
cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making shoes for export.
Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American constitution),
recalled their advisors, and told the French to come back in. They could
see that the Vietnamese were going to become commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that. The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"m II" wrote in message
news:ZkI_c.67333$S55.61932@clgrps12...
Brian Hill wrote:

Hi I'm Brian's Mother. I'm sorry he has offended you. I've revoked his
computer privleges for a term of 1 min. He says your a pinko commie from
Canada and that's the reason for his behavior. Is this true?

Mrs.Hill

Thank God for parental supervision!

I can't tell you how I appreciate seeing an adult's supervision of their
offspring's internet activities. Now, to the nitty gritty. Please accept
this as an attempt to correct the lifestyle path that little Brian has
chosen for himself and NOT as a critique of your parenting skills. The
little asshole made his own evil choices, not you.

I detect an attitude in little Brian that can be explained only by
rampant drug abuse or a brain that has been thoroughly ravaged by
untreated Syphilis. Have you seen any signs of this unGodly behavior at
home? Are there people constantly visiting under the guise of
socializing? Is there an apparent overindulgence with loud music? Do
things that, from the outside, appear to be 'guitar cases'?

These are all too common traits of a youth hurtling down a very
dangerous and destructive path.

Your son needs help NOW! Thanks to our correct thinking Leader, there is
a GW Bush Detoxification Camp near you. Surely the offspring of your own
flesh and blood is worth the very modest six thousand(US$) a month.

They also offer an added 'No release until YOU say so' program for those
slightly more difficult problem children. It may well be to your
benefit to avail yourself this option. An individualized identification
number will be issued each participant at the time of entry and neatly
embossed in the epidermis of the upper arm with the finest quality
imported ink.


Thank you for your prompt reply.



With respect,


mike

****! Mike. You made Mom cry telling her all that stuff. Now shes on a plane
for Canada. She said at the top of her lungs- Quote: "I"M GONNA WASH THAT
LITTLE LONG WINDED COMMIES MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP". And it's that nasty Lava
soap too. If I were a little commie like you I'd high tail it. Good luck!

B.H.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in
Vietnam since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed at
Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again), snivelling
liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered
from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well economically
since we started trading with them but they do not enjoy the freedoms
we have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are not
doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their families that
only want to leave that country. It's a real shame we failed them and
Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to
human rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged
Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they
wouldn't be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like for
persuading them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving the price
down below production costs. And anyone could see that it's better to
grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move to the
cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making shoes for export.
Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Same deal made with coffee farmers all over the world. The US doesn't
really care about anything except the corporate bottom line and the balance
of trade.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American constitution),
recalled their advisors, and told the French to come back in. They could
see that the Vietnamese were going to become commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that.

You should! It's the basis for the 20th century history of the region.

The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

No that's not right: the US supported the French against the fledgeling
democratic movement, having previously promised the Vietnamese self gov't
for help against the Japanese and then reneged. (The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who also
lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone along with
having their country given back to the French. The excuse about not being
about to resist communist agression was concocted later, post hoc. In 1945,
The Chinese were not communist yet, that occurred in 1949, Russia was in no
condition to do anything and had no agents or advisors in the country. It
was up to the US, which could have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about Chile
and Guatemala?

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:11:23 -0600, uncle arnie
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM



No that's not right: the US supported the French against the fledgeling
democratic movement, having previously promised the Vietnamese self gov't
for help against the Japanese and then reneged. (The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who also
lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone along with
having their country given back to the French. The excuse about not being
about to resist communist agression was concocted later, post hoc. In 1945,
The Chinese were not communist yet, that occurred in 1949, Russia was in no
condition to do anything and had no agents or advisors in the country. It
was up to the US, which could have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about Chile
and Guatemala?


Uncle - can you please keep the topic on shortwave.

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in
Vietnam since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed at
Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again), snivelling
liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered
from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well economically
since we started trading with them but they do not enjoy the freedoms
we have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are not
doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their families that
only want to leave that country. It's a real shame we failed them and
Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to be
on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to
human rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged
Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they
wouldn't be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like for
persuading them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving the price
down below production costs. And anyone could see that it's better to
grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move to the
cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making shoes for export.
Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Same deal made with coffee farmers all over the world. The US doesn't
really care about anything except the corporate bottom line and the balance
of trade.

We are not supposed to care. It's called free trade. If the foreign
governments don't have the best interests of their people in mind what
are we supposed to do about it other than pass a bill to protect those
people by limiting trade unless human rights conditions improve in those
countries. You know a bill like the one Kerry spiked.

Otherwise armed intervention is the only other option.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American constitution),
recalled their advisors, and told the French to come back in. They could
see that the Vietnamese were going to become commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that.

You should! It's the basis for the 20th century history of the region.

The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

No that's not right: the US supported the French against the fledgeling
democratic movement, having previously promised the Vietnamese self gov't
for help against the Japanese and then reneged. (The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who also
lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone along with
having their country given back to the French. The excuse about not being
about to resist communist agression was concocted later, post hoc. In 1945,
The Chinese were not communist yet, that occurred in 1949, Russia was in no
condition to do anything and had no agents or advisors in the country. It
was up to the US, which could have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about Chile
and Guatemala?

You have the wrong take on this. The idea was to build up a modern
country and economy in the backward parts of the world. They were
supposed to become self sufficient thru trade.

It is not this countries policy to support colonization anymore.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Kameron Spesial wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:11:23 -0600, uncle arnie
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM



No that's not right: the US supported the French against the fledgeling
democratic movement, having previously promised the Vietnamese self gov't
for help against the Japanese and then reneged. (The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who also
lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone along with
having their country given back to the French. The excuse about not being
about to resist communist agression was concocted later, post hoc. In 1945,
The Chinese were not communist yet, that occurred in 1949, Russia was in no
condition to do anything and had no agents or advisors in the country. It
was up to the US, which could have rejected the French recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about Chile
and Guatemala?


Uncle - can you please keep the topic on shortwave.

Guatemala I have not heard. Chile "Voz Cristiana" normally puts in a
good signal here.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Brian Hill wrote:

****! Mike. You made Mom cry telling her all that stuff. Now shes on a plane
for Canada. She said at the top of her lungs- Quote: "I"M GONNA WASH THAT
LITTLE LONG WINDED COMMIES MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP". And it's that nasty Lava
soap too. If I were a little commie like you I'd high tail it. Good luck!


Is she foxy? I *NEED* a good talking to.





mike

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 03:35 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:09 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:16 pm -0600 UTC, Telamon
posted: %MM

In article ,
David wrote:

Published on Friday, June 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Scrooge & Marley, Inc. -- The True Conservative Agenda
by Thom Hartmann

Snip

What a bunch of communist claptrap. Things are much better in
Vietnam since the communists took over, just ask Kerry.


Wrong current enemy. The 5 minutes hate is supposed to directed at
Islamic terrorists, France (or maybe they are okay again),
snivelling liberal wieners.

They are the enemy within.

And have you been to Viet Nam recently? It is not fully recovered
from the
war, but it and its people are doing well. Beautiful country.

I have never been to Vietnam. Maybe some are doing well economically
since we started trading with them but they do not enjoy the
freedoms we have.

I know people that still have relatives in Vietnam and they are not
doing well. Many here in the US send money back to their families
that only want to leave that country. It's a real shame we failed
them and Kerry is one of the reasons we failed.

That ******* Kerry also managed to block a bill that tied trade with
Vietnam to a reduction in human right abuses. That SOB continues to
be on the wrong side of an issue.

Makes perfect sense that trade with the Saudis has never been tied to
human rights abuses. Too bad another 2.5 million of those danged
Vietnamese
couldn't have been killed. Clean the place up properly. Then they
wouldn't be whining about Starbucks, Folger's, Nabob and the like for
persuading them to grow coffee instead of food and then driving the
price down below production costs. And anyone could see that it's
better to grow the rice in
Texas and ship it back to them at profit. Get the farmers to move to
the cities, working in factories at 70 cents per day making shoes for
export. Their daughters can entertain the tourists.

What only kind of deal do you the communist bosses make are one that
benefits the party not the people. Thanks for making my point.

Same deal made with coffee farmers all over the world. The US doesn't
really care about anything except the corporate bottom line and the
balance of trade.

We are not supposed to care. It's called free trade. If the foreign
governments don't have the best interests of their people in mind what
are we supposed to do about it other than pass a bill to protect those
people by limiting trade unless human rights conditions improve in those
countries. You know a bill like the one Kerry spiked.

Otherwise armed intervention is the only other option.

Good thing that in 1945-46 the US rejected the proposed Vietnamese
constitution (taken almost word for work from the American
constitution), recalled their advisors, and told the French to come
back in. They could see that the Vietnamese were going to become
commies anyway and were too
stupid to run their own country. And look how those ungrateful French
turned out. Jeez, those winos are nearly commies today.

I wouldn't know about that.

You should! It's the basis for the 20th century history of the region.

The US position was that they could not
support themselves against communist aggression. Looks like we were
right.

No that's not right: the US supported the French against the fledgeling
democratic movement, having previously promised the Vietnamese self gov't
for help against the Japanese and then reneged. (The British reneged
similarly in India.) Drove them into the arms of the communists,who also
lied to them. I suppose the Vietnamese could have simply gone along with
having their country given back to the French. The excuse about not being
about to resist communist agression was concocted later, post hoc. In
1945, The Chinese were not communist yet, that occurred in 1949, Russia
was in no condition to do anything and had no agents or advisors in the
country. It was up to the US, which could have rejected the French
recolonization of
Vietnam and supported the democracy. But they wanted to restore their
trade with them in Europe. Trade = money, and that's more important than
any ideology or rights. And it continued merrily along. How about Chile
and Guatemala?

You have the wrong take on this. The idea was to build up a modern
country and economy in the backward parts of the world. They were
supposed to become self sufficient thru trade.

It is not this countries policy to support colonization anymore.

Yes it is. Economic colonization. Hence corporations forcing their way in
everywhere. Different methods, same outcome. Lots of money and materiel
for the homeland. Self sufficiency through trade means export the
countries' economic value to the controlling country. This has not worked
since the post-WW2 Marshall plan. Unfortunately. The gap between "donor"
and "receiving" countries continues to grow. And the best sort of gov't in
the recipient country is dictatorship apparently, be it military,
monarchist. But it increases the rich-poor gap in the country and
eventually leads to instability and disaster. Makes the decision making
easy though. I'm telling you what peoples in a series of countries feel.
Until their understanding and life conditions are understood, the dangerous
international situation will continue. Or we can plan some more wars.