On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:48:49 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:29:40 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:09:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>
>>>You act like this is something new and that no other politician since the
>>>beginning of time has ever done. You want something to tsk, tsk about?
>>>Look at Lyndon Johnson or Slick Willy just to name two, both Democrats.
>
>Joan has a point the Clintons in particular. They have a very dark
>history, there's a lot of B.S out there on the Clintons but do some
>impartial and objective research and you will form a very different
>view of them.
>
>>I don't know of anybody recent who's as unreliable as Trump. In the
>>western world, that is.
>
>At least he was elected, unlike many Australian Prime ministers.

Australian politics are cannibalistic.

>Would you say that Britain's Parliament is reliable?

I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
failing or so it seems.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:58:28 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:18:50 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:12:04 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:35:37 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 18:15:07 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:41:41 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I differ. Every politician tells people what they want to hear. Trump
>>>>>>> lies when there is no reason to lie, he lies about things that are
>>>>>>> easily disproved, and when he's caught out in a lie, he doubles down
>>>>>>> and tells it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most astonishing part is how many Americans swallow even his most
>>>>>>obvious lies, lock stock and barrel. Must be a gun thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Americans, British and Australians are exactly the same in that
>>>>>regard. Pick a team and then rely on confirmation bias to release
>>>>>those endorphins.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think the British or the Australians would have elected a
>>>>schmuck like Trump.
>>>
>>>Well, definitely not. But my point was how most people choose a side
>>>in politics and stick to it for no rational reason.
>>>
>>>>Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>
>>>I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>>EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>>about him.
>>>
>>>>The same for Abbott, for instance. He was bad, but not THAT bad.
>>>
>>>OMG, really?? He's a classic example of a sociopath. Literally.
>>> Do you know his history in detail?
>>
>>I said he's bad. The worst I know of in Australia, but I don't go
>>further back than Keating. But Trump's worse IMO. Maybe it's a close
>>call.
>
>Yeah. Different kinds of stupidity, really. Tough call IMO in terms of
>actual real-life impact on their citizens.
>
>Keating: Best PM in my lifetime and I have a massive amount of respect
>for the man. I only wish he could be our PM again.

He's from before my time in Australia, but I've only heard good things
about him.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:48:49 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:29:40 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:09:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You act like this is something new and that no other politician since the
>>>>beginning of time has ever done. You want something to tsk, tsk about?
>>>>Look at Lyndon Johnson or Slick Willy just to name two, both Democrats.
>>
>>Joan has a point the Clintons in particular. They have a very dark
>>history, there's a lot of B.S out there on the Clintons but do some
>>impartial and objective research and you will form a very different
>>view of them.
>>
>>>I don't know of anybody recent who's as unreliable as Trump. In the
>>>western world, that is.
>>
>>At least he was elected, unlike many Australian Prime ministers.
>
>Australian politics are cannibalistic.
>
>>Would you say that Britain's Parliament is reliable?
>
>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>failing or so it seems.

Never liked the man, but in all honesty I think he's doing *exactly*
what is required at the moment.

The public voted for Brexit. Whether some people like it or not. Since
then, there's been nothing but self-destruction in Britain. Just get
it DONE. Ride out the next few years of economic downturn (and the
WILL be a recession). Britain will eventually emerge stronger than
it's been in decades.

This is classic example of why I despair of western politics, we
always play the short game and don't want to take short-term pain for
the long term benefit of the country. We want instant results, which
compromises the long term future. This is why countries like China are
eating us alive - they play the long game.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:


>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>failing or so it seems.


One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:04:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 5:54:11 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> She said she has native American ancestry and she does.
>>>
>>Good grief. Probably 65% of Americans have native American ancestry but they
>>don't go around claiming it to get benefits. She put on _college admission_
>>forms that she was native American. The nearest American native she could
>>claim was not closer than six (6) generations back.
>
>If that was enough to get the benefit, what was so wrong about it
>then?


What's wrong? Do you think Warren has the SLIGHTEST interest in native
American culture away from the public spotlight? Do you think it's an
integral and fundamental part of her life? How is it ethically right
to cynically exploit a system put in place to support those genuinely
in need? It says a lot about a person who does that, IMO.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:12:02 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:48:49 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:29:40 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:09:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You act like this is something new and that no other politician since the
>>>>>beginning of time has ever done. You want something to tsk, tsk about?
>>>>>Look at Lyndon Johnson or Slick Willy just to name two, both Democrats.
>>>
>>>Joan has a point the Clintons in particular. They have a very dark
>>>history, there's a lot of B.S out there on the Clintons but do some
>>>impartial and objective research and you will form a very different
>>>view of them.
>>>
>>>>I don't know of anybody recent who's as unreliable as Trump. In the
>>>>western world, that is.
>>>
>>>At least he was elected, unlike many Australian Prime ministers.
>>
>>Australian politics are cannibalistic.
>>
>>>Would you say that Britain's Parliament is reliable?
>>
>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>failing or so it seems.
>
>Never liked the man, but in all honesty I think he's doing *exactly*
>what is required at the moment.
>
>The public voted for Brexit. Whether some people like it or not. Since
>then, there's been nothing but self-destruction in Britain. Just get
>it DONE. Ride out the next few years of economic downturn (and the
>WILL be a recession). Britain will eventually emerge stronger than
>it's been in decades.

Losing the internal EU market's going to hurt the UK economy until
forever. 100 companies have already moved from UK to NL. 320 more are
negotiating. And that's only the tinyl Netherlands.

Old people don't care. They don't need the jobs anymore. Young people
were too lazy to get off their asses and vote in the referendum.
They're paying for that now. They can thank the baby boomers.

I'm reading that they might have new elections after Johnson's current
defeat. The drama might stretch into next year.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:18:56 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>failing or so it seems.
>
>
>One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
>something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
>it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
>sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.

You have a point. On the other hand, what was the referendum question?
Do you want a Brexit? Do you want it at any price? Also if it's a
no-deal Brexit? Regardless of the damage?

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:46:14 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:42:39 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:07:00 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>>> ancestor
>>>>>
>>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>>
>>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>>
>>>Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>
>>Disagree. It's much more sinister in it's implications and long term
>>consequences, particularly in this age of political correctness, which
>>gets abused/exploited at every opportunity.
>>
>>Everything with DT is at least out front, in your face and you know
>>what you're dealing with.
>
>I bet he did a whole lot of nasty stuff that we all don't know about.

Of course. What he did in Scotland and years ago in NY as a landlord
was enough for me, anyway.


>All Pocahontas did wring was call herself native American when it was
>only a tiny portion. She never benefited from it. That's right-wing
>spin.

She didn't benefit financially? I'll have to do some of my own
checking if that's the case. I still have a big problem with people
claiming some racial background, especially when it's one that's
contemporarily politically sensitive. Why even say it when she's
clearly white and has no personal connection in her daily life to that
culture?

Should I claim to be black, because I have ~20% African American
background? I think not.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:24:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:04:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 5:54:11 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> She said she has native American ancestry and she does.
>>>>
>>>Good grief. Probably 65% of Americans have native American ancestry but they
>>>don't go around claiming it to get benefits. She put on _college admission_
>>>forms that she was native American. The nearest American native she could
>>>claim was not closer than six (6) generations back.
>>
>>If that was enough to get the benefit, what was so wrong about it
>>then?
>
>
>What's wrong? Do you think Warren has the SLIGHTEST interest in native
>American culture away from the public spotlight? Do you think it's an
>integral and fundamental part of her life? How is it ethically right
>to cynically exploit a system put in place to support those genuinely
>in need? It says a lot about a person who does that, IMO.

When I Google it and try to ignore spin, I keep reading that she
hasn't benefited in any financial or job related way. Besides, it's
true. She has some native American in her. That's more than I can say.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:02:29 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:58:28 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:18:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:12:04 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:35:37 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 18:15:07 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:41:41 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I differ. Every politician tells people what they want to hear. Trump
>>>>>>>> lies when there is no reason to lie, he lies about things that are
>>>>>>>> easily disproved, and when he's caught out in a lie, he doubles down
>>>>>>>> and tells it again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most astonishing part is how many Americans swallow even his most
>>>>>>>obvious lies, lock stock and barrel. Must be a gun thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Americans, British and Australians are exactly the same in that
>>>>>>regard. Pick a team and then rely on confirmation bias to release
>>>>>>those endorphins.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think the British or the Australians would have elected a
>>>>>schmuck like Trump.
>>>>
>>>>Well, definitely not. But my point was how most people choose a side
>>>>in politics and stick to it for no rational reason.
>>>>
>>>>>Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>>
>>>>I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>>>EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>>>about him.
>>>>
>>>>>The same for Abbott, for instance. He was bad, but not THAT bad.
>>>>
>>>>OMG, really?? He's a classic example of a sociopath. Literally.
>>>> Do you know his history in detail?
>>>
>>>I said he's bad. The worst I know of in Australia, but I don't go
>>>further back than Keating. But Trump's worse IMO. Maybe it's a close
>>>call.
>>
>>Yeah. Different kinds of stupidity, really. Tough call IMO in terms of
>>actual real-life impact on their citizens.
>>
>>Keating: Best PM in my lifetime and I have a massive amount of respect
>>for the man. I only wish he could be our PM again.
>
>He's from before my time in Australia, but I've only heard good things
>about him.

The funny thing is that he was very unpopular with many people at the
time. He'd say stuff that he knew would **** off a lot of the public -
but he said it because it was the truth (I could also tell he got a
kick out that to a degree, too. He was a bit of a troll

He was a straight shooter, 100%. Highly intelligent and understood
precisely what was needed to take Australia into the future,
especially economically. It was Keating who took Australia out of the
dark ages and changed our focus away from the U.S and UK and more
towards SE Asia.

He also had a wicked sense of humour, during his tenure as treasurer
and then PM, I'd watch question time regularly. He could destroy any
opposing argument with not only logic, but with sarcasm and humour.

Sadly, after Keating we got Howard, who systematically undid Keating's
good work (to benefit his corporate masters) and set Australia on a
path of slow decline ever since.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:32:58 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:46:14 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:42:39 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:07:00 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>>>> ancestor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>>>
>>>>Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>>
>>>Disagree. It's much more sinister in it's implications and long term
>>>consequences, particularly in this age of political correctness, which
>>>gets abused/exploited at every opportunity.
>>>
>>>Everything with DT is at least out front, in your face and you know
>>>what you're dealing with.
>>
>>I bet he did a whole lot of nasty stuff that we all don't know about.
>
>Of course. What he did in Scotland and years ago in NY as a landlord
>was enough for me, anyway.
>
>
>>All Pocahontas did wring was call herself native American when it was
>>only a tiny portion. She never benefited from it. That's right-wing
>>spin.
>
>She didn't benefit financially? I'll have to do some of my own
>checking if that's the case. I still have a big problem with people
>claiming some racial background, especially when it's one that's
>contemporarily politically sensitive. Why even say it when she's
>clearly white and has no personal connection in her daily life to that
>culture?
>
>Should I claim to be black, because I have ~20% African American
>background? I think not.

No, but there's nothing wrong with mentioning the 20%. I do believe
that she exaggerated, though. Or the family stories that she heard
growing up were exaggerated. But I don' think this is a big crime. Of
cource, the right-wing will make it look like the crime of the
century. Joan and Ed have bought the spin already.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:43:49 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:02:29 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>He's from before my time in Australia, but I've only heard good things
>>about him.
>
>The funny thing is that he was very unpopular with many people at the
>time. He'd say stuff that he knew would **** off a lot of the public -
>but he said it because it was the truth (I could also tell he got a
>kick out that to a degree, too. He was a bit of a troll
>
>He was a straight shooter, 100%. Highly intelligent and understood
>precisely what was needed to take Australia into the future,
>especially economically. It was Keating who took Australia out of the
>dark ages and changed our focus away from the U.S and UK and more
>towards SE Asia.
>
>He also had a wicked sense of humour, during his tenure as treasurer
>and then PM, I'd watch question time regularly. He could destroy any
>opposing argument with not only logic, but with sarcasm and humour.

Politicians with humour (when they're in public) are rare.

>Sadly, after Keating we got Howard, who systematically undid Keating's
>good work (to benefit his corporate masters) and set Australia on a
>path of slow decline ever since.

Yes, Howard's a conservative dweeb.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:12:02 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:48:49 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:29:40 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:09:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You act like this is something new and that no other politician since the
>>>>>>beginning of time has ever done. You want something to tsk, tsk about?
>>>>>>Look at Lyndon Johnson or Slick Willy just to name two, both Democrats.
>>>>
>>>>Joan has a point the Clintons in particular. They have a very dark
>>>>history, there's a lot of B.S out there on the Clintons but do some
>>>>impartial and objective research and you will form a very different
>>>>view of them.
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know of anybody recent who's as unreliable as Trump. In the
>>>>>western world, that is.
>>>>
>>>>At least he was elected, unlike many Australian Prime ministers.
>>>
>>>Australian politics are cannibalistic.
>>>
>>>>Would you say that Britain's Parliament is reliable?
>>>
>>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>>failing or so it seems.
>>
>>Never liked the man, but in all honesty I think he's doing *exactly*
>>what is required at the moment.
>>
>>The public voted for Brexit. Whether some people like it or not. Since
>>then, there's been nothing but self-destruction in Britain. Just get
>>it DONE. Ride out the next few years of economic downturn (and the
>>WILL be a recession). Britain will eventually emerge stronger than
>>it's been in decades.
>
>Losing the internal EU market's going to hurt the UK economy until
>forever.

Not forever.

>100 companies have already moved from UK to NL. 320 more are
>negotiating. And that's only the tinyl Netherlands.
>
>Old people don't care.

Thanks Bruce. I guess I don't care, assuming you think I'm old
I think perhaps it's more that older people prefer to take short term
pain for the greater good. It's a bit unfair to make such assumptions,
yes more younger people will be impacted in the shorter term but
that's not a legitimate reason to compromise their long term future.

>They don't need the jobs anymore.

You're assuming most older people are financially well off and don't
need to work. That's far from the truth.

>Young people
>were too lazy to get off their asses and vote in the referendum.
>They're paying for that now.

I do wonder about the future, what with a lot of younger people's
attitudes. They tend to think they're so entitled without any regard
to long term consequences. They don't want to do work they don't
like... if work at all. They want it all - NOW. And for free. I've had
two millennials say this to me too, they dislike their own generation.

And they dislike/blame older generations FAR more than would happen in
the past. ironically very narrow-minded and bigoted. That's the result
of a generation raised with no discipline legally permitted by
parents.

>They can thank the baby boomers.

Why do you like to classify and segregate so judgementally the older
generations? You have this 'us and them' thing when it comes to age.
I simply have never understood that about you. Younger people do not
automatically possess greater wisdom, particularly with less actual
life experience.

When I was in my late teens, I was the same. Blamed previous
generations for contemporary problems. But it's pointless and
misguided to do so. Because future generations will perpetrate the
similar 'misdeeds' too. Younger generations don't have some magic
monopoly on wisdom or intelligence simply because they're young.

>I'm reading that they might have new elections after Johnson's current
>defeat. The drama might stretch into next year.

Goddamn it. I'd be better off just switching off from the whole
subject. Britain is determined to destroy itself it seems. Just
insane.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:32:32 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:18:56 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>>failing or so it seems.
>>
>>
>>One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
>>something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
>>it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
>>sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.
>
>You have a point. On the other hand, what was the referendum question?
>Do you want a Brexit? Do you want it at any price? Also if it's a
>no-deal Brexit? Regardless of the damage?

Sure, but you could say the same about any referendum really. The
questions generally have to be simplified somewhat for a referendum to
function at all.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:34:25 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:24:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:04:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 5:54:11 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> She said she has native American ancestry and she does.
>>>>>
>>>>Good grief. Probably 65% of Americans have native American ancestry but they
>>>>don't go around claiming it to get benefits. She put on _college admission_
>>>>forms that she was native American. The nearest American native she could
>>>>claim was not closer than six (6) generations back.
>>>
>>>If that was enough to get the benefit, what was so wrong about it
>>>then?
>>
>>
>>What's wrong? Do you think Warren has the SLIGHTEST interest in native
>>American culture away from the public spotlight? Do you think it's an
>>integral and fundamental part of her life? How is it ethically right
>>to cynically exploit a system put in place to support those genuinely
>>in need? It says a lot about a person who does that, IMO.
>
>When I Google it and try to ignore spin, I keep reading that she
>hasn't benefited in any financial or job related way. Besides, it's
>true. She has some native American in her. That's more than I can say.

I'll try to do some research myself later if I get the time and
sufficient inclination.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:20:10 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:48:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>> >Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>
>>> I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>> EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>> about him.
>>
>>Absolutely none of your business too.
>
>Not everybody's as limited as you, Gary. Some people follow what's
>going on in other countries.

Years of reading his posts proves he hasn't a clue about the outside
world. He's the classic ugly American, especially when he gets
butthurt and double downs on his ignorance and bigotry.

>And then you automatically develop an
>opinion about that. In the meantime, you eat cheeseburgers.

And be hypocritical about other people using phones. Maybe it's
'absolutely none of his business too', hmm?

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:08:25 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>Losing the internal EU market's going to hurt the UK economy until
>>forever.
>
>Not forever.

The European market's important to the UK and they'll lose the
borderless trading.

>>100 companies have already moved from UK to NL. 320 more are
>>negotiating. And that's only the tinyl Netherlands.
>>
>>Old people don't care.
>
>Thanks Bruce. I guess I don't care, assuming you think I'm old

I didn't mean you. I meant UK people whose working lives are over, who
don't need jobs anymore.

>I think perhaps it's more that older people prefer to take short term
>pain for the greater good. It's a bit unfair to make such assumptions,
>yes more younger people will be impacted in the shorter term but
>that's not a legitimate reason to compromise their long term future.
>
>>They don't need the jobs anymore.
>
>You're assuming most older people are financially well off and don't
>need to work. That's far from the truth.

Most 65+/70+ people will be retired. They'll go fox hunting with a
skip in their step because they're free of the shackles of the EU

>>Young people
>>were too lazy to get off their asses and vote in the referendum.
>>They're paying for that now.
>
>I do wonder about the future, what with a lot of younger people's
>attitudes. They tend to think they're so entitled without any regard
>to long term consequences. They don't want to do work they don't
>like... if work at all. They want it all - NOW. And for free. I've had
>two millennials say this to me too, they dislike their own generation.
>
>And they dislike/blame older generations FAR more than would happen in
>the past. ironically very narrow-minded and bigoted. That's the result
>of a generation raised with no discipline legally permitted by
>parents.

I don't know. Baby boomers are being replaced more and more by
millennials and the world's still turning.

>>They can thank the baby boomers.
>
>Why do you like to classify and segregate so judgementally the older
>generations? You have this 'us and them' thing when it comes to age.
>I simply have never understood that about you. Younger people do not
>automatically possess greater wisdom, particularly with less actual
>life experience.

No, they don't. But I think in the case of the Brexit referendum, the
older generations decided the outcome, because they could be bothered
voting. Their reward for getting of their asses. Or is that arses.

And I'm a baby boomer myself, be it a late one.

>When I was in my late teens, I was the same. Blamed previous
>generations for contemporary problems. But it's pointless and
>misguided to do so. Because future generations will perpetrate the
>similar 'misdeeds' too. Younger generations don't have some magic
>monopoly on wisdom or intelligence simply because they're young.

No, of course not. By the way, I can't remember ever blaming older
generations. I don't see anything to blame them for. If they did smart
and stupid things, so will the younger generations.

>>I'm reading that they might have new elections after Johnson's current
>>defeat. The drama might stretch into next year.
>
>Goddamn it. I'd be better off just switching off from the whole
>subject. Britain is determined to destroy itself it seems. Just
>insane.

Yes, it seems never ending.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:09:54 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:32:32 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:18:56 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>>>failing or so it seems.
>>>
>>>
>>>One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
>>>something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
>>>it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
>>>sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.
>>
>>You have a point. On the other hand, what was the referendum question?
>>Do you want a Brexit? Do you want it at any price? Also if it's a
>>no-deal Brexit? Regardless of the damage?
>
>Sure, but you could say the same about any referendum really. The
>questions generally have to be simplified somewhat for a referendum to
>function at all.

At least, there seem to be not 2, but 3 options: remain, leave but
only with a deal, leave even without a deal.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:55:42 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:43:49 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:02:29 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>He's from before my time in Australia, but I've only heard good things
>>>about him.
>>
>>The funny thing is that he was very unpopular with many people at the
>>time. He'd say stuff that he knew would **** off a lot of the public -
>>but he said it because it was the truth (I could also tell he got a
>>kick out that to a degree, too. He was a bit of a troll
>>
>>He was a straight shooter, 100%. Highly intelligent and understood
>>precisely what was needed to take Australia into the future,
>>especially economically. It was Keating who took Australia out of the
>>dark ages and changed our focus away from the U.S and UK and more
>>towards SE Asia.
>>
>>He also had a wicked sense of humour, during his tenure as treasurer
>>and then PM, I'd watch question time regularly. He could destroy any
>>opposing argument with not only logic, but with sarcasm and humour.
>
>Politicians with humour (when they're in public) are rare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ivp-A413A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVuJLiuo5zc



>>Sadly, after Keating we got Howard, who systematically undid Keating's
>>good work (to benefit his corporate masters) and set Australia on a
>>path of slow decline ever since.
>
>Yes, Howard's a conservative dweeb.

I intensely dislike the man. Not just politically, but personally.

LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f6w5EFUK8w

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:11:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:20:10 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:48:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>> >Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>>
>>>> I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>>> EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>>> about him.
>>>
>>>Absolutely none of your business too.
>>
>>Not everybody's as limited as you, Gary. Some people follow what's
>>going on in other countries.
>
>Years of reading his posts proves he hasn't a clue about the outside
>world. He's the classic ugly American, especially when he gets
>butthurt and double downs on his ignorance and bigotry.
>
>>And then you automatically develop an
>>opinion about that. In the meantime, you eat cheeseburgers.
>
>And be hypocritical about other people using phones. Maybe it's
>'absolutely none of his business too', hmm?

He's the missing link between Beavis and Butt-head.

On 9/3/2019 6:54 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:52:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 9/3/2019 5:07 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>>> ancestor
>>>>>
>>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>>
>>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>>
>>> Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>
>> While that is true, I don't want a liar for President even if he/she
>> lies less than the present one. Of course, that eliminates a lot of
>> politicians.
>
> She said she has native American ancestry and she does.
>
Maybe she still lives in a teepee too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...?noredirect=on

It was previously reported that Warren called Bill John Baker, the
principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, and apologized for sharing the
results of a DNA test which showed she had a distant relative who was
Native American.

In October, Warren released the DNA results showing she had a Native
American ancestor six to 10 generations ago. The move backfired, with
Cherokee leaders outraged that she used the test to show any connection
to the tribe, a process they control. It also dredged up uncomfortable
issues about defining race via bloodlines

On 9/3/2019 7:46 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:42:39 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:07:00 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>>> ancestor
>>>>>
>>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>>
>>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>>
>>> Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>
>> Disagree. It's much more sinister in it's implications and long term
>> consequences, particularly in this age of political correctness, which
>> gets abused/exploited at every opportunity.
>>
>> Everything with DT is at least out front, in your face and you know
>> what you're dealing with.
>
> I bet he did a whole lot of nasty stuff that we all don't know about.
>
> All Pocahontas did wring was call herself native American when it was
> only a tiny portion. She never benefited from it. That's right-wing
> spin.
>
People will say things to curry favor or to make them stand out. While
no financial benefit is noted, it could help in an election. Ask a
Boston Irishman why he voted for Kennedy. Life is like that.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:49:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/3/2019 6:54 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:52:23 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/3/2019 5:07 PM, graham wrote:
>>>> On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>>>> ancestor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>>>
>>>> Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>>
>>> While that is true, I don't want a liar for President even if he/she
>>> lies less than the present one. Of course, that eliminates a lot of
>>> politicians.
>>
>> She said she has native American ancestry and she does.
>>
>Maybe she still lives in a teepee too.
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...?noredirect=on
>
>It was previously reported that Warren called Bill John Baker, the
>principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, and apologized for sharing the
>results of a DNA test which showed she had a distant relative who was
>Native American.
>
>In October, Warren released the DNA results showing she had a Native
>American ancestor six to 10 generations ago. The move backfired, with
>Cherokee leaders outraged that she used the test to show any connection
>to the tribe, a process they control. It also dredged up uncomfortable
>issues about defining race via bloodlines

So what? I had my DNA tested too. It's interesting. No uncomfortable
issues there.

You're just looking for a problem because she's too progressive for
you anyway. Same with Joan. You'll drag up and blow up anything that
suits your agenda.

On 9/3/2019 8:51 PM, Bruce wrote:

>
> I do believe
> that she exaggerated, though. Or the family stories that she heard
> growing up were exaggerated. But I don' think this is a big crime. Of
> cource, the right-wing will make it look like the crime of the
> century. Joan and Ed have bought the spin already.
>

That is really a tiny thing. There are other substantial reasons I'd
not vote for her.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:47:51 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:11:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:20:10 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:48:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>> >Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>>>> EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>>>> about him.
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely none of your business too.
>>>
>>>Not everybody's as limited as you, Gary. Some people follow what's
>>>going on in other countries.
>>
>>Years of reading his posts proves he hasn't a clue about the outside
>>world. He's the classic ugly American, especially when he gets
>>butthurt and double downs on his ignorance and bigotry.
>>
>>>And then you automatically develop an
>>>opinion about that. In the meantime, you eat cheeseburgers.
>>
>>And be hypocritical about other people using phones. Maybe it's
>>'absolutely none of his business too', hmm?
>
>He's the missing link between Beavis and Butt-head.

Only more childish.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 21:58:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/3/2019 7:46 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 06:42:39 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:07:00 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>>>> ancestor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>>>
>>>> Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>>
>>> Disagree. It's much more sinister in it's implications and long term
>>> consequences, particularly in this age of political correctness, which
>>> gets abused/exploited at every opportunity.
>>>
>>> Everything with DT is at least out front, in your face and you know
>>> what you're dealing with.
>>
>> I bet he did a whole lot of nasty stuff that we all don't know about.
>>
>> All Pocahontas did wring was call herself native American when it was
>> only a tiny portion. She never benefited from it. That's right-wing
>> spin.
>>
>People will say things to curry favor or to make them stand out. While
>no financial benefit is noted, it could help in an election.

By the way, it's possible that she thought she was more native
American than the DNA test showed her to be. Family stories can be
exaggerated.

Anyway, I think it's a detail.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:03:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/3/2019 8:51 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> I do believe
>> that she exaggerated, though. Or the family stories that she heard
>> growing up were exaggerated. But I don' think this is a big crime. Of
>> cource, the right-wing will make it look like the crime of the
>> century. Joan and Ed have bought the spin already.
>>
>
>That is really a tiny thing. There are other substantial reasons I'd
>not vote for her.

Yes, political reasons. That's real stuff.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:04:21 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:47:51 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:11:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:20:10 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:48:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> >Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>>>>> EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>>>>> about him.
>>>>>
>>>>>Absolutely none of your business too.
>>>>
>>>>Not everybody's as limited as you, Gary. Some people follow what's
>>>>going on in other countries.
>>>
>>>Years of reading his posts proves he hasn't a clue about the outside
>>>world. He's the classic ugly American, especially when he gets
>>>butthurt and double downs on his ignorance and bigotry.
>>>
>>>>And then you automatically develop an
>>>>opinion about that. In the meantime, you eat cheeseburgers.
>>>
>>>And be hypocritical about other people using phones. Maybe it's
>>>'absolutely none of his business too', hmm?
>>
>>He's the missing link between Beavis and Butt-head.
>
>Only more childish.

He has good days and bad days. More bad days lately

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:46:52 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:55:42 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>Politicians with humour (when they're in public) are rare.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ivp-A413A
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVuJLiuo5zc
>
>
>
>>>Sadly, after Keating we got Howard, who systematically undid Keating's
>>>good work (to benefit his corporate masters) and set Australia on a
>>>path of slow decline ever since.
>>
>>Yes, Howard's a conservative dweeb.
>
>I intensely dislike the man. Not just politically, but personally.
>
>LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f6w5EFUK8w

lol

On 9/3/2019 9:42 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:08:25 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Losing the internal EU market's going to hurt the UK economy until
>>> forever.
>>
>> Not forever.
>
> The European market's important to the UK and they'll lose the
> borderless trading.
>

Yeah, but they can put tariffs on everything. Trade wars are easy to
win. Or so we're told.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:23:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/3/2019 9:42 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:08:25 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Losing the internal EU market's going to hurt the UK economy until
>>>> forever.
>>>
>>> Not forever.
>>
>> The European market's important to the UK and they'll lose the
>> borderless trading.
>>
>
>Yeah, but they can put tariffs on everything. Trade wars are easy to
>win. Or so we're told.

Yes, they might even get their manufacturing back as a result And a
Channel wall!

On 2019-09-03 3:46 p.m., wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 4:07:01 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-09-03 2:59 p.m., wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 2:07:43 AM UTC-5, Jeßus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:21:50 +1000, Bruce >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think she was wrong by saying she has a native American
>>>>> ancestor
>>>>
>>>> What was her motive for divulging it? Why would you do that? How is it
>>>> relevent to anything?
>>>>
>>> She was able to receive aid to go to college by claiming false ancestry.
>>> She took a DNA test and her native ancestry was practically nil.
>>>
>> Trivial besides the immoral and amoral acts of DT.
>>
> It's only trivial to those of the same mindset who cheat to get benefits they
> do not qualify for.
>
Bunkum!!!!

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:22:10 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:46:52 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:55:42 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Politicians with humour (when they're in public) are rare.
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Ivp-A413A
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVuJLiuo5zc
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Sadly, after Keating we got Howard, who systematically undid Keating's
>>>>good work (to benefit his corporate masters) and set Australia on a
>>>>path of slow decline ever since.
>>>
>>>Yes, Howard's a conservative dweeb.
>>
>>I intensely dislike the man. Not just politically, but personally.
>>
>>LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f6w5EFUK8w
>
>lol

Wish he would return to politics, he would destroy the opposition AND
all the imbeciles now running the Labor party.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:08:49 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:04:21 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:47:51 +1000, Bruce >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:11:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:20:10 +1000, Bruce >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:48:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>> >Johnson's a clown, but he's not as bad as Trump.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always thought he was an imbecile, but I have to admit he's doing
>>>>>>> EXACTLY what I want to see Brexit. So for now I'm open-minded
>>>>>>> about him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely none of your business too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not everybody's as limited as you, Gary. Some people follow what's
>>>>>going on in other countries.
>>>>
>>>>Years of reading his posts proves he hasn't a clue about the outside
>>>>world. He's the classic ugly American, especially when he gets
>>>>butthurt and double downs on his ignorance and bigotry.
>>>>
>>>>>And then you automatically develop an
>>>>>opinion about that. In the meantime, you eat cheeseburgers.
>>>>
>>>>And be hypocritical about other people using phones. Maybe it's
>>>>'absolutely none of his business too', hmm?
>>>
>>>He's the missing link between Beavis and Butt-head.
>>
>>Only more childish.
>
>He has good days and bad days. More bad days lately

Cheeseburger-induced Menopause?

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 22:23:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/3/2019 9:42 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:08:25 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:30:51 +1000, Bruce >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Losing the internal EU market's going to hurt the UK economy until
>>>> forever.
>>>
>>> Not forever.
>>
>> The European market's important to the UK and they'll lose the
>> borderless trading.
>>
>
>Yeah, but they can put tariffs on everything. Trade wars are easy to
>win. Or so we're told.

Indeed:
https://sputniknews.com/us/201909031...ar-escalation/

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:39:00 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 12:08:49 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:04:21 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:47:51 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:11:35 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And be hypocritical about other people using phones. Maybe it's
>>>>>'absolutely none of his business too', hmm?
>>>>
>>>>He's the missing link between Beavis and Butt-head.
>>>
>>>Only more childish.
>>
>>He has good days and bad days. More bad days lately
>
>Cheeseburger-induced Menopause?

That could be it.

In article >, says...
>
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:29:40 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:09:35 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
> >
> >>You act like this is something new and that no other politician since the
> >>beginning of time has ever done. You want something to tsk, tsk about?
> >>Look at Lyndon Johnson or Slick Willy just to name two, both Democrats.
>
> Joan has a point the Clintons in particular. They have a very dark
> history, there's a lot of B.S out there on the Clintons but do some
> impartial and objective research and you will form a very different
> view of them.
>
> >I don't know of anybody recent who's as unreliable as Trump. In the
> >western world, that is.
>
> At least he was elected, unlike many Australian Prime ministers.

Of course you know the rank and power of a Prime Minister (in Aus or
UK) is in no way comparable to that of POTUS. PM is not a fixed contract
with secure tenure, at any moment they are vulnerable to
dismissal/forced resignation.
> Would you say that Britain's Parliament is reliable?

Not at the moment; but we have means to fix that.

At least when a UK PM proves unworthy or incompetent, there are several
back doors through which either Parliament or his/her own political
party or Cabinet can get rid of them/force them out PDQ. See Thatcher,
Cameron, May; and now Boris is teetering on the cliff edge, flapping his
arms and bawling "I can fly".

> I do play devils advocate a lot, so I'm not arguing with you.

Oh, damn :-)

Janet UK.

"Jeßus" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:


>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>failing or so it seems.


One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.

===

Exactly right!

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:18:56 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>failing or so it seems.
>
>
>One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
>something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
>it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
>sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.

You have a point. On the other hand, what was the referendum question?
Do you want a Brexit? Do you want it at any price? Also if it's a
no-deal Brexit? Regardless of the damage?

===

'In or Out'

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:09:54 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:32:32 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:18:56 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:01:07 +1000, Bruce >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know. What Johnson's trying to do seems undemocratic, but he's
>>>>failing or so it seems.
>>>
>>>
>>>One other point is the irony of claiming Johnson's trying to do
>>>something undemocratic. Brexit was democratically voted in... THEN
>>>it's opponents want to subvert the democratic process by
>>>sabotaging/stopping the transition. Hmm.
>>
>>You have a point. On the other hand, what was the referendum question?
>>Do you want a Brexit? Do you want it at any price? Also if it's a
>>no-deal Brexit? Regardless of the damage?
>
>Sure, but you could say the same about any referendum really. The
>questions generally have to be simplified somewhat for a referendum to
>function at all.

At least, there seem to be not 2, but 3 options: remain, leave but
only with a deal, leave even without a deal.

===

Only by those who are determined to keep us in the EU at any cost.