On 31/12/2015 4:48 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Pipewrench Peterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/30/2015 3:59 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:08:47 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I keep hearing about them but have never seen them. Do they have a
>>>>> show on
>>>>> tv or somewhere, or are they famous just for being famous?
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much all of the above.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians>
>>>
>>> Thank you. Given the reports/reviews, it is hard to see why they are
>>> so popular.
>>
>> See if you can determine the circulation of People, Us, Entertainment
>> Weekly, In Touch, In Style, and all the other trashy celebrity-focus
>> rags. Then you'll begin to understand why the Kartrashians are so
>> popular.
>
> I have never even seen or heard of those 'rags' Do they sell here in
> Scotland?
>
> ;-)
>
The equivalent of "People" is your "Hello" I think.
Graham

"graham" > wrote in message
news
> On 31/12/2015 4:48 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Pipewrench Peterson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 12/30/2015 3:59 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:08:47 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep hearing about them but have never seen them. Do they have a
>>>>>> show on
>>>>>> tv or somewhere, or are they famous just for being famous?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much all of the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. Given the reports/reviews, it is hard to see why they are
>>>> so popular.
>>>
>>> See if you can determine the circulation of People, Us, Entertainment
>>> Weekly, In Touch, In Style, and all the other trashy celebrity-focus
>>> rags. Then you'll begin to understand why the Kartrashians are so
>>> popular.
>>
>> I have never even seen or heard of those 'rags' Do they sell here in
>> Scotland?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> The equivalent of "People" is your "Hello" I think.

Ok thanks. I just don't buy magazines so I guess I am missing all the
excitement ... thank goodness)


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> Well I wasn't around in the 17th century but...

Could have fooled me.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Well I wasn't around in the 17th century but...
>
> Could have fooled me.

*thwap*

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> No problem with that description at all. Google tells me that the term
>> redneck was also applied to the Scottish Covenanters in the mid-17th
>> century, before the Bishops War and the Cromwell era. Later, they were
>> just known as Presbyterians. About the same time in Northern England,
>> the Catholics were labeled rednecks. Have no idea *why* the term was
>> chosen for either group.
>
> Well I wasn't around in the 17th century but I am from the North of
> England and I had never heard of that term until I came here

Bit of a time/space distortion bubble then, innit?

>> Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>> ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>
> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?


Libitards _always_ insult.


--
http://culturacolectiva.com/wp-conte...e-affiche1.jpg

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:48:23 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Pipewrench Peterson" > wrote in message
...
>> On 12/30/2015 3:59 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:08:47 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I keep hearing about them but have never seen them. Do they have a
>>>>> show on
>>>>> tv or somewhere, or are they famous just for being famous?
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much all of the above.
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians>
>>>
>>> Thank you. Given the reports/reviews, it is hard to see why they are
>>> so popular.
>>
>> See if you can determine the circulation of People, Us, Entertainment
>> Weekly, In Touch, In Style, and all the other trashy celebrity-focus rags.
>> Then you'll begin to understand why the Kartrashians are so popular.
>
>I have never even seen or heard of those 'rags' Do they sell here in
>Scotland?
>
>;-)

The sad part is when People first started, maybe 30 years ago, it was
a great magazine, then it degenerated into a purveyor of celebrities,
haven't read one in years.

On 12/31/2015 03:50 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> No problem with that description at all. Google tells me that the term
>> redneck was also applied to the Scottish Covenanters in the mid-17th
>> century, before the Bishops War and the Cromwell era. Later, they were
>> just known as Presbyterians. About the same time in Northern England,
>> the Catholics were labeled rednecks. Have no idea *why* the term was
>> chosen for either group.
>
> Well I wasn't around in the 17th century but I am from the North of
> England and I had never heard of that term until I came here
>
>
>> Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>> ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>
> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>
That's a value judgment I'm unwilling to make in a public forum like
this. *Somebody* would object, no matter what.

On 2015-12-31 11:45 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:48:23 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Pipewrench Peterson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 12/30/2015 3:59 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 6:08:47 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep hearing about them but have never seen them. Do they have a
>>>>>> show on
>>>>>> tv or somewhere, or are they famous just for being famous?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much all of the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. Given the reports/reviews, it is hard to see why they are
>>>> so popular.
>>>
>>> See if you can determine the circulation of People, Us, Entertainment
>>> Weekly, In Touch, In Style, and all the other trashy celebrity-focus rags.
>>> Then you'll begin to understand why the Kartrashians are so popular.
>>
>> I have never even seen or heard of those 'rags' Do they sell here in
>> Scotland?
>>
>> ;-)
>
> The sad part is when People first started, maybe 30 years ago, it was
> a great magazine, then it degenerated into a purveyor of celebrities,
> haven't read one in years.
>

It was always primarily about celebrities.

"Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/31/2015 03:50 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> No problem with that description at all. Google tells me that the term
>>> redneck was also applied to the Scottish Covenanters in the mid-17th
>>> century, before the Bishops War and the Cromwell era. Later, they were
>>> just known as Presbyterians. About the same time in Northern England,
>>> the Catholics were labeled rednecks. Have no idea *why* the term was
>>> chosen for either group.
>>
>> Well I wasn't around in the 17th century but I am from the North of
>> England and I had never heard of that term until I came here
>>
>>
>>> Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>>> ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>>
>> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>>
> That's a value judgment I'm unwilling to make in a public forum like this.
> *Somebody* would object, no matter what.

Ain't that the truth)



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:
>
>
> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
> > ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>
> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?

Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
reactionary, conservative.

--

sf

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>>> ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>>
>> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>
> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> reactionary, conservative.
>

Since when is "conservative" an insult?

--
http://culturacolectiva.com/wp-conte...e-affiche1.jpg

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>> > Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>> > ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>>
>> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>
> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> reactionary, conservative.

Oh dear ... I give up!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> > Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>>> > ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>>>
>>> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>>
>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>> reactionary, conservative.
>
> Oh dear ... I give up!
>
>
Spoken like a typical redneck...

;-)

--
http://culturacolectiva.com/wp-conte...e-affiche1.jpg

On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message

>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>> reactionary, conservative.
>
> Oh dear ... I give up!
>
The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
>>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>>> reactionary, conservative.
>>
>> Oh dear ... I give up!
>>
> The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.

Ok. I have only heard it used by lowlanders to describe someone from the
Highlands or North East although it does seem to be used in a 'put down' but
in a friendly kind of way!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 12/31/2015 4:13 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "S Viemeister" > wrote
>> On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>>>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>>>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>>>> reactionary, conservative.
>>>
>>> Oh dear ... I give up!
>>>
>> The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.
>
> Ok. I have only heard it used by lowlanders to describe someone from the
> Highlands or North East although it does seem to be used in a 'put down'
> but in a friendly kind of way!
>
It IS frequently used as an insult - I've heard it more in Glasgow than
in Edinburgh - but it can also be used _by_ teuchters...

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/31/2015 4:13 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "S Viemeister" > wrote
>>> On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>>>>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>>>>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>>>>> reactionary, conservative.
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear ... I give up!
>>>>
>>> The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.
>>
>> Ok. I have only heard it used by lowlanders to describe someone from the
>> Highlands or North East although it does seem to be used in a 'put down'
>> but in a friendly kind of way!
>>
> It IS frequently used as an insult - I've heard it more in Glasgow than in
> Edinburgh - but it can also be used _by_ teuchters...

I haven't heard the weegies using it much but yes, I have heard it used up
north.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/31/2015 4:13 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> "S Viemeister" > wrote
>>>> On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>>>>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>>>>>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>>>>>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>>>>>> reactionary, conservative.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear ... I give up!
>>>>>
>>>> The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.
>>>
>>> Ok. I have only heard it used by lowlanders to describe someone from
>>> the
>>> Highlands or North East although it does seem to be used in a 'put down'
>>> but in a friendly kind of way!
>>>
>> It IS frequently used as an insult - I've heard it more in Glasgow than
>> in Edinburgh - but it can also be used _by_ teuchters...
>
> I haven't heard the weegies using it much but yes, I have heard it used up
> north.

I should clarify, I mean I have heard it used up north by lowlanders.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

S Viemeister wrote:
> On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>
>>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>>> reactionary, conservative.
>>
>> Oh dear ... I give up!
>>
> The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.
>
Sounds painful.

--
http://culturacolectiva.com/wp-conte...e-affiche1.jpg

On 2015-12-31 1:44 PM, sf wrote:

>> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>
> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> reactionary, conservative.
>

Maybe for you it is. A lot of the people you might label negatively as
redneck would probably be proud of it. My neighbour is very proud of
being a redneck.

On 12/31/2015 4:47 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message

>> I haven't heard the weegies using it much but yes, I have heard it
>> used up north.
>
> I should clarify, I mean I have heard it used up north by lowlanders.
>
I rather thought that was what you meant.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 12/31/2015 2:16 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> > "sf" > wrote in message
>
> >> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> >> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> >> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> >> reactionary, conservative.
> >
> > Oh dear ... I give up!
> >
> The Scottish version of 'hillbilly' would be 'teuchter'.

American "hillbilly" is supposed to came from the "billy boys" who
had emigrated from Scotland and Ireland to the Appalachians.

Janet UK

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:52:19 -0700, Lucha Libre! > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
> >>> ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
> >>
> >> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
> >
> > Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> > Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> > nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> > reactionary, conservative.
> >
>
> Since when is "conservative" an insult?

Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
perception of the past.

--

sf

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:33:47 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-12-31 1:44 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
> >
> > Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> > Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> > nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> > reactionary, conservative.
> >
>
> Maybe for you it is. A lot of the people you might label negatively as
> redneck would probably be proud of it. My neighbour is very proud of
> being a redneck.

Is he Canadian or American? If he's Canadian, he doesn't know what
he's talking about. If he's an American, he's living in Canada now.
Nuff said.

--

sf

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
> > > ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
> >
> > Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>
> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
> reactionary, conservative.

Not necessarily. Many rednecks embrace the term, and don't even
find it insulting when used by a non-redneck:

<http://www.countryhumor.com/redneck/mightbe.htm>

Cindy Hamilton

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:

> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
> perception of the past.

A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.

Cindy Hamilton

On 1/1/2016 23:06 Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>
>> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
>> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
>> perception of the past.
>
> A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
> to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.

Conservatives have a tendency to want to keep the parts that don't work.

--
Bruce

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> > > Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as
>> > > an
>> > > ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>> >
>> > Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>>
>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>> reactionary, conservative.
>
> Not necessarily. Many rednecks embrace the term, and don't even
> find it insulting when used by a non-redneck:
>
> <http://www.countryhumor.com/redneck/mightbe.htm>

lol

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 1/1/2016 3:53 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:52:19 -0700, Lucha Libre! > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:50:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Whirled Peas" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Recently, in the US, the term has taken on an additional meaning as an
>>>>> ultra-conservative, neocon or reactionary.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks So it isn't seen as in insult now?
>>>
>>> Redneck is definitely an insult. Much more so than calling someone a
>>> Hillbilly, because that stereotype isn't in fashion anymore - but the
>>> nuance is the same: uneducated (low information), easily manipulated,
>>> reactionary, conservative.
>>>
>>
>> Since when is "conservative" an insult?
>
> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
> perception of the past.
>
Why, oh *why*! does what started out as a post of a recipe (good, bad,
indifferent) and food always turn into a political debate?! There are
other newsgroups for that.

Jill

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 7:10:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> On 1/1/2016 23:06 Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> >
> >> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
> >> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
> >> perception of the past.
> >
> > A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
> > to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.
>
> Conservatives have a tendency to want to keep the parts that don't work.

Yes, they do. Liberals need to drag them kicking and screaming into the
21st Century, while conservatives prevent society from careening off the
rails. At the end of the tug-of-war, a moderate amount of progress is
made.

The U.S. has had a few decades of "too liberal", and now we seem to be
leaning "too conservative". I'm hoping it'll all balance out eventually.
However, systems controlled by positive feedback can oscillate wildly
rather than stabilize. We'll just have to see what happens.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>
> > Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
> > way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
> > perception of the past.
>
> A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
> to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.

I completely agree with you, Cindy. Both parties are a bit extreme.
Best to have a balance between the two in government. It's not good
when one party is President, House, and Senate. Same way with the
Supreme Court and their votes.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Why, oh *why*! does what started out as a post of a recipe (good, bad,
> indifferent) and food always turn into a political debate?! There are
> other newsgroups for that.

LOL! Not really, Jill. This is about the only ng where politics can
be discussed at least for a short time. You go to any political
newsgroup and see what's there. No discussions...only trolls yelling
back and forth and calling all stupid. There is NO political
discussion on any political newsgroup.

We are a fairly small group of regulars here. We all know each other
somewhat and we shouldn't be limited to food only. Let's talk as
friends...about anything that comes up. It's mostly about food here
(and how you are stupid for eating this or that). heheh

On 01/01/2016 5:36 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 7:10:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>> On 1/1/2016 23:06 Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
>>>> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
>>>> perception of the past.
>>>
>>> A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
>>> to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.
>>
>> Conservatives have a tendency to want to keep the parts that don't work.
>
> Yes, they do. Liberals need to drag them kicking and screaming into the
> 21st Century, while conservatives prevent society from careening off the
> rails. At the end of the tug-of-war, a moderate amount of progress is
> made.
>
> The U.S. has had a few decades of "too liberal", and now we seem to be
> leaning "too conservative". I'm hoping it'll all balance out eventually.
> However, systems controlled by positive feedback can oscillate wildly
> rather than stabilize. We'll just have to see what happens.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
I find it amusing that the RW keep questioning the POTUS' birth but not
the plain fact that one of their candidates was born in Calgary (with a
foreign father) and is therefore ineligible.
Graham

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> The U.S. has had a few decades of "too liberal", and now we seem to be
> leaning "too conservative". I'm hoping it'll all balance out eventually.

Well said, Cindy!

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:51:29 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 01/01/2016 5:36 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 7:10:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2016 23:06 Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
>>>>> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
>>>>> perception of the past.
>>>>
>>>> A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
>>>> to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.
>>>
>>> Conservatives have a tendency to want to keep the parts that don't work.
>>
>> Yes, they do. Liberals need to drag them kicking and screaming into the
>> 21st Century, while conservatives prevent society from careening off the
>> rails. At the end of the tug-of-war, a moderate amount of progress is
>> made.
>>
>> The U.S. has had a few decades of "too liberal", and now we seem to be
>> leaning "too conservative". I'm hoping it'll all balance out eventually.
>> However, systems controlled by positive feedback can oscillate wildly
>> rather than stabilize. We'll just have to see what happens.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>I find it amusing that the RW keep questioning the POTUS' birth but not
>the plain fact that one of their candidates was born in Calgary (with a
>foreign father) and is therefore ineligible.
>Graham

Before he joined the race he publicly renounced his Canadian
citizenship lol

On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:49:18 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Why, oh *why*! does what started out as a post of a recipe (good, bad,
>> indifferent) and food always turn into a political debate?! There are
>> other newsgroups for that.
>
>LOL! Not really, Jill. This is about the only ng where politics can
>be discussed at least for a short time. You go to any political
>newsgroup and see what's there. No discussions...only trolls yelling
>back and forth and calling all stupid. There is NO political
>discussion on any political newsgroup.
>
>We are a fairly small group of regulars here. We all know each other
>somewhat and we shouldn't be limited to food only. Let's talk as
>friends...about anything that comes up. It's mostly about food here
>(and how you are stupid for eating this or that). heheh

we have enough anger issues and dissension here; we don't need to add
politics to the mix.
Janet US

Janet B wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:49:18 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
> >jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >> Why, oh *why*! does what started out as a post of a recipe (good, bad,
> >> indifferent) and food always turn into a political debate?! There are
> >> other newsgroups for that.
> >
> >LOL! Not really, Jill. This is about the only ng where politics can
> >be discussed at least for a short time. You go to any political
> >newsgroup and see what's there. No discussions...only trolls yelling
> >back and forth and calling all stupid. There is NO political
> >discussion on any political newsgroup.
> >
> >We are a fairly small group of regulars here. We all know each other
> >somewhat and we shouldn't be limited to food only. Let's talk as
> >friends...about anything that comes up. It's mostly about food here
> >(and how you are stupid for eating this or that). heheh
>
> we have enough anger issues and dissension here; we don't need to add
> politics to the mix.
> Janet US

This is a big election year, be prepared to hear a bit of politics.
It's no big deal...so many less posts about politics than the 100+
current troll posts each and every day.

On 2016-01-01 10:51 AM, graham wrote:

> I find it amusing that the RW keep questioning the POTUS' birth but not
> the plain fact that one of their candidates was born in Calgary (with a
> foreign father) and is therefore ineligible.
>

That ranks up there the the Republican funded group of swift boat
veterans questioning Kerry's battle wounds and citations for bravery.
Kerry volunteered for service and volunteered for the swift boat duty.
He admits that the actions for which he got medals were no big deal and
that his wounds were minor. Meanwhile, Bush managed to find a place in
National Guard unit what was not going to see him in the war zone. I
would expect most rational people to see incredible irony in that, but
the people in the right bought into it.

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 04:06:25 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>
> > Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
> > way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
> > perception of the past.
>
> A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
> to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Agree, except the current bunch of yahoos don't subscribe to that and
IMO it's progressives who advocate real change.

--

sf

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 04:36:22 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 7:10:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> > On 1/1/2016 23:06 Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:53:27 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> > >
> > >> Conservatives are afraid of change. They want to revert back to the
> > >> way they think it was, not the reality of what it was - just their
> > >> perception of the past.
> > >
> > > A healthy society needs both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives
> > > to retain the parts that work, liberals to change the parts that don't.
> >
> > Conservatives have a tendency to want to keep the parts that don't work.
>
> Yes, they do. Liberals need to drag them kicking and screaming into the
> 21st Century, while conservatives prevent society from careening off the
> rails. At the end of the tug-of-war, a moderate amount of progress is
> made.
>
> The U.S. has had a few decades of "too liberal", and now we seem to be
> leaning "too conservative". I'm hoping it'll all balance out eventually.
> However, systems controlled by positive feedback can oscillate wildly
> rather than stabilize. We'll just have to see what happens.
>
What, pray tell, was too liberal?


--

sf