For tolerating a situation where there is a need to carry around a
lethal
weapon as part of everyday life because an employer doesn't make
proper security arrangements, absolutely.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely. If your society
entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some milk,
then start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root
level. Aim for the best.

Again pointing out the different mind sets.

You are clearly barking mad

snip drivel

IOW, you can't find any fault with my conclusions.

I was referring to you as the idiot.
Why is it always =someone= else's duty to ensure =your= safety?
plonk

That is why you pay taxes. Notice, apart from the odd plantpot, all the
people from the UK on this thread are firmly against guns and the police
being armed. While the Americans are the opposite. Why? Because our
society doesn't need them for us to walk around safely. If your society
entails that you need a gun to safely go to the shops for some milk,
then
start looking at your society and aim to change it at the root level.
Aim
for the best.

Again pointing out the different mind sets. In the UK you want someone
to
take care of and protect you.


No I don't.

You dont'? From what you have written it seems as you expect it.


In the US we want to be able to take care of
and protect ourselves.

Of course, but there are many ways to do that.

True, but again I point out that you seem to expect the government to do it
for you.


In the UK mind set you have to have a nearly all powerful government.

We don't *have* to have that.

You do if you expect it to take care of you.


One
that watches you like big brother and has to power to tell you what you
need
and don't need. If you like that fine but don't be so pig headed to
realize
that some people don't want to live that way.

Very few people like to live like that. You are imagining a situation
which doesn't actually exist, although I agree that there should always be
less government.

Really? How many cities in the UK are covered by government controled CCTV?
If that isn't big brotherish then what is?


As for me, I'm an independent type.

Likewise.

I guess we have different views of being independent.

Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

If you live in Malibu or some of the other high dollar real estate
area...that may well be less than his 250K
rural house.
I have literally seen Doctors chose a cow pasture over a lot in a Country
Club addition.Do just that...
The doctor ended up with more house ,tennis courts,etc. and less tax
burden as well .

Yeah, the freaking taxes here are murder. I can't believe it; I knew I
was getting one of the nicest houses in the area, but DAMN! the tax bill
is ludicrous. Apparently, this is considered to be living high on the hog.
But it does have everything I could possibly want and it's right near the
grandkids! :-)

The house I'm trying to get sold is a 4 bdrm on 25 acres with three ponds, a
barn and three outbuildings and last year's tax bill was $635US.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just because
he was upset.
IIRC, Shirer and Churchill were both utterly baffled by this, and knew
Hitler was a loon.....

And once he attacked the USSR they also knew that they were going to win.
It would just take time, men and materials.

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of
interest.


Be glad of it too, orer du bist eine Deutschlander......
The Americans saved Europe's ass and they want to bitch about
it.....


Actually, they didn't. As far as Herr Hitler was concerned the
Russians won the European war. the only reason Churchill wanted you
involved, was to stop the REST of Europe becoming RUSSIAN. As it was
they got nearly half of it.

You might want to read a little more history.
At one point before the US tossed the Laws of Land Warfare in the trash
and started pumping supplies into it, the UK was down to, IIRC, about 6
months worth of food.

Nope. The UK had imported US wheat and other food before WW2. The US
thinking of stopping the supply. The UK could have grown its own food,
which it started to do. US wheat was convenient as the system was
geared up for it.

The biggest thing that saved the UK

Saved the UK. Here we go......another one....

was the fact that Hitler had gone totally nuts by the time the "Battle
for Britain" started.

...I told you all...

He could have crippled the RAF in a few weeks

He tried and lost it was called the Battle of Britain.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just because
he was upset.

You are clearly barking mad.

Nope. The reason he lost the Battle of Britain was the fact the RAF
fighters could wait on the ground and take off with full fuel tanks to shoot
the crap out of the Luftwaffe bombers. It could do that because their bases
and the radar stations on the coast were not bombed. If this had been done
in a matter of months Germany would have had control of the air. As the
Allies showed once you have air superiority you can grind down the enemy.

You don't have to take my word for it read some military history and do some
research.

If you have anything other than insults to back up your side please let me
know.

In message , Jim
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-10-31 15:11:43 +0000, Steve Cothran said:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:41:38 -0400, "Ron Purvis"
wrote:

S. According to
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita
you
can see that the UK is number 13 for rapes in the world, which is only 4
places down from the US. Doesn't seem like you are a whole safer than
the US
when you look at the number of rapes per capita.

Look at that same site burglaries per capita. UK is almost twice US.
Maybe the prospect of getting killed by a homeowner is a deterrent.

For that to have any meaning, one would need to look at demographics of
how many people to a dwelling, type of dwellig etc.

Since you are the one trying to gloss over it by referring to the
circumstances that prove your point, why not prove your point w/facts and
figures.
The UK is a mess; we're not stupid over here,

No,. stupid doesn't even begin to describe it



--
geoff

Arnold Walker wrote:

Noticed some of them uncivilized US gun guys just stopped pirates in
Somoli(misspelled).
Where was the civilized British Navy while this was happening......saving
the pirates from the horrors of bullet wounds

No, making sure they were out of range of any gung ho crack crazed US
grunt who thought it was all a video game.

We do get a BIT tired of being shot up by our so called 'alliea'

Owain wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The purpose of newspapers is to sell newspapers, not to give a
balanced view on anything.

The purpose of newspapers is to sell targeted circulation to advertisers.


Based on how many copies they shift....so my conclusions stands.

Hence why free newspapers work.

Owain

On 2007-10-31 20:05:39 +0000, "no spam" said:

Again pointing out the different mind sets. In the UK you want someone
to
take care of and protect you.


No I don't.

You dont'? From what you have written it seems as you expect it.

Wrong conclusion. You should not equate not wanting to walk around
with lethal weapons as an indication that the only alternative is to
abrogate responsibility to the goverment.




In the US we want to be able to take care of
and protect ourselves.

Of course, but there are many ways to do that.

True, but again I point out that you seem to expect the government to do it
for you.

I don't expect the government to do anything. Actually I would prefer
if it did the least necessary.




In the UK mind set you have to have a nearly all powerful government.

We don't *have* to have that.

You do if you expect it to take care of you.

That is not correct.



One
that watches you like big brother and has to power to tell you what you
need
and don't need. If you like that fine but don't be so pig headed to
realize
that some people don't want to live that way.

Very few people like to live like that. You are imagining a situation
which doesn't actually exist, although I agree that there should always be
less government.

Really? How many cities in the UK are covered by government controled CCTV?

Most are to some degree or another. Frankly so what. If you
capture a lot of data, you also have to analyse it.

If that isn't big brotherish then what is?

Peoples' imaginations.




As for me, I'm an independent type.

Likewise.

I guess we have different views of being independent.

Actually I'm very independent. I'm broadly opposed to socialised
medicine, much of public education and most of the other trappings of
government - essentially because the government should not be in the
delivery business of these, purely in some of the funding of them.
However, this does not preclude behaving towards others in a civilised way.

On 2007-10-31 20:05:40 +0000, "no spam" said:

Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

That is perhaps part of the story. The other parts are why did the
perpetrator do it in the first place? The easy answer is that he
didn't have the deterrent not to do so. The more difficult question
is why doesn't he treat others with the same respect that he would like
to be treated with himself? If the second of these is addressed, the
first becomes irrelevant.

In message , Arnold Walker
writes
And gave us the strongest and most stable economy in the world over the
past 10 years.
Noticed some of them uncivilized US gun guys just stopped pirates in
Somoli(misspelled).

Do you think that they were list and had as much of a clue as to where
they were as you seem to be ?

Did you mean Somali ? - its in Africa, not Asia

But then maybe Bristish shipping interest don't go to asia to
have pirate problems.

Do you have any idea where Asia is, or what it consistes of ?


--
geoff

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Arnold Walker wrote:

Noticed some of them uncivilized US gun guys just stopped pirates in
Somoli(misspelled).
Where was the civilized British Navy while this was
happening......saving the pirates from the horrors of bullet wounds

No, making sure they were out of range of any gung ho crack crazed US
grunt who thought it was all a video game.

We do get a BIT tired of being shot up by our so called 'alliea'

Weren't more of the "allies" killed by septics than by enemy fire in the
1st Gulf war ?

--
geoff

In message , no spam
writes

If you live in Malibu or some of the other high dollar real estate
area...that may well be less than his 250K
rural house.
I have literally seen Doctors chose a cow pasture over a lot in a Country
Club addition.Do just that...
The doctor ended up with more house ,tennis courts,etc. and less tax
burden as well .

Yeah, the freaking taxes here are murder. I can't believe it; I knew I
was getting one of the nicest houses in the area, but DAMN! the tax bill
is ludicrous. Apparently, this is considered to be living high on the hog.
But it does have everything I could possibly want and it's right near the
grandkids! :-)

The house I'm trying to get sold is a 4 bdrm on 25 acres with three ponds, a
barn and three outbuildings and last year's tax bill was $635US.

How much are you selling for ?

--
geoff

"no spam" wrote in message
news

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of
interest.


Be glad of it too, orer du bist eine Deutschlander......
The Americans saved Europe's ass and they want to bitch about
it.....


Actually, they didn't. As far as Herr Hitler was concerned the
Russians won the European war. the only reason Churchill wanted you
involved, was to stop the REST of Europe becoming RUSSIAN. As it was
they got nearly half of it.

You might want to read a little more history.
At one point before the US tossed the Laws of Land Warfare in the
trash and started pumping supplies into it, the UK was down to, IIRC,
about 6 months worth of food.

Nope. The UK had imported US wheat and other food before WW2. The US
thinking of stopping the supply. The UK could have grown its own food,
which it started to do. US wheat was convenient as the system was
geared up for it.

The biggest thing that saved the UK

Saved the UK. Here we go......another one....

was the fact that Hitler had gone totally nuts by the time the "Battle
for Britain" started.

...I told you all...

He could have crippled the RAF in a few weeks

He tried and lost it was called the Battle of Britain.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just because
he was upset.

You are clearly barking mad.

Nope. The reason he lost the Battle of Britain was the fact the RAF
fighters could wait on the ground and take off with full fuel tanks to
shoot the crap out of the Luftwaffe bombers. It could do that because
their bases and the radar stations on the coast were not bombed. If this
had been done in a matter of months Germany would have had control of the
air. As the Allies showed once you have air superiority you can grind
down the enemy.

You don't have to take my word for it read some military history and do
some research.

If you have anything other than insults to back up your side please let me
know.

Germany would have won if they had continued to attack the RAF.
However Churchill provoked the blitz by bombing Germany and Hitler in one of
his crazy moments diverted the attacks to London and allowed the RAF to
recover.

dennis@home wrote:


"no spam" wrote in message
news

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate
of interest.


Be glad of it too, orer du bist eine Deutschlander......
The Americans saved Europe's ass and they want to bitch
about it.....


Actually, they didn't. As far as Herr Hitler was concerned the
Russians won the European war. the only reason Churchill wanted
you involved, was to stop the REST of Europe becoming RUSSIAN. As
it was they got nearly half of it.

You might want to read a little more history.
At one point before the US tossed the Laws of Land Warfare in the
trash and started pumping supplies into it, the UK was down to,
IIRC, about 6 months worth of food.

Nope. The UK had imported US wheat and other food before WW2. The
US thinking of stopping the supply. The UK could have grown its
own food, which it started to do. US wheat was convenient as the
system was geared up for it.

The biggest thing that saved the UK

Saved the UK. Here we go......another one....

was the fact that Hitler had gone totally nuts by the time the
"Battle for Britain" started.

...I told you all...

He could have crippled the RAF in a few weeks

He tried and lost it was called the Battle of Britain.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound
tactics. His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London
just because he was upset.

You are clearly barking mad.

Nope. The reason he lost the Battle of Britain was the fact the RAF
fighters could wait on the ground and take off with full fuel tanks to
shoot the crap out of the Luftwaffe bombers. It could do that because
their bases and the radar stations on the coast were not bombed. If
this had been done in a matter of months Germany would have had
control of the air. As the Allies showed once you have air
superiority you can grind down the enemy.

You don't have to take my word for it read some military history and
do some research.

If you have anything other than insults to back up your side please
let me know.

Germany would have won if they had continued to attack the RAF.
However Churchill provoked the blitz by bombing Germany and Hitler in
one of his crazy moments diverted the attacks to London and allowed the
RAF to recover.

Not necessarily.
Most of the navy ws quiety basking out of bomber range and would have
created carnage on any force landing..even with german air superiority,
and likewise the supply lines to the UK would have beeb tenous at best
and prone to heavy attack by submarines etc.

Hitler never intended to invade england really - and he expected Britain
to sue for peace after Dunkirk, and settle with Germany ruling Europe,
and Britain most of the rest of the world. He WANTED to turn east and
mangle the commie jews in russia and then settle for that. It all went
horribly wrong, because no plan had really ever been put in place to
invade britain: it would have taken several years to get enough landing
craft and beat the RAF into *total* submission.

"no spam" wrote in message
news

If you live in Malibu or some of the other high dollar real estate
area...that may well be less than his 250K
rural house.
I have literally seen Doctors chose a cow pasture over a lot in a
Country Club addition.Do just that...
The doctor ended up with more house ,tennis courts,etc. and less tax
burden as well .

Yeah, the freaking taxes here are murder. I can't believe it; I knew I
was getting one of the nicest houses in the area, but DAMN! the tax bill
is ludicrous. Apparently, this is considered to be living high on the
hog. But it does have everything I could possibly want and it's right
near the grandkids! :-)

The house I'm trying to get sold is a 4 bdrm on 25 acres with three ponds,
a barn and three outbuildings and last year's tax bill was $635US.
Is it near my grandkids? LOL!
My county is a rural one near a huge metro area; my home is considered
to be pretty luxurious and high-dollar. Yours sounds very nice though; I'd
love to have that 25 acres.... and the ponds....
What area?

"no spam" wrote in message
news
Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

BINGO!
When we make criminals PAY and dearly, they will stop. Well, no,
actually, they won't because they are =evil=. But then, most folks don't
believe in evil anymore than the tooth fairy....

"no spam" wrote in message
news
Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just because
he was upset.
IIRC, Shirer and Churchill were both utterly baffled by this, and knew
Hitler was a loon.....

And once he attacked the USSR they also knew that they were going to win.
It would just take time, men and materials.
Yup; that was the biggie. He obviously never heard of Napoleon....

"dennis@home" wrote Germany would have won
if they had continued to attack the RAF.
However Churchill provoked the blitz by bombing Germany and Hitler in one
of his crazy moments

Those moments are known as the twenties, thirties and forties....



diverted the attacks to London and allowed the RAF to
recover.

On 2007-11-01 17:08:50 +0000, "Jim" said:


"no spam" wrote in message
news
Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

BINGO!
When we make criminals PAY and dearly, they will stop. Well, no,
actually, they won't because they are =evil=. But then, most folks don't
believe in evil anymore than the tooth fairy....

So please explain why it is that an increase in appointments for the
Magic Needle, Old Sparky and their cohorts from virtually zero in 1970
up to 100 by 2000 together with a climb from practically zero to over
3500 in the waiting room have not had the suggested deterrent effect.

Paying dearly or the prospect of paying dearly ought to make a
difference, but apparently not.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Arnold Walker
writes
And gave us the strongest and most stable economy in the world over the
past 10 years.
Noticed some of them uncivilized US gun guys just stopped pirates in
Somoli(misspelled).

Do you think that they were list and had as much of a clue as to where
they were as you seem to be ?

Did you mean Somali ? - its in Africa, not Asia

But then maybe Bristish shipping interest don't go to asia to
have pirate problems.

Do you have any idea where Asia is, or what it consistes of ?
Some brits seem not to know that you past Africa going to Southern Asia by
ship.
At least ,the US Navy knew....otherwise pirates would be unchecked still
while the brits figure out the Suez canal
and how to get to India or SE Asia from Europe by ship.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"no spam" wrote in message
news
Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just
because he was upset.
IIRC, Shirer and Churchill were both utterly baffled by this, and
knew

Hitler was a loon.....

And once he attacked the USSR they also knew that they were going to win.
It would just take time, men and materials.

Yup; that was the biggie. He obviously never heard of Napoleon....

And that the Brits with a large empire, larger industrial output, largest
navy in the world and large military where on the other flank as well.

In message , Arnold Walker
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Arnold Walker
writes
And gave us the strongest and most stable economy in the world over the
past 10 years.
Noticed some of them uncivilized US gun guys just stopped pirates in
Somoli(misspelled).

Do you think that they were list and had as much of a clue as to where
they were as you seem to be ?

Did you mean Somali ? - its in Africa, not Asia

But then maybe Bristish shipping interest don't go to asia to
have pirate problems.

Do you have any idea where Asia is, or what it consistes of ?
Some brits seem not to know that you past Africa going to Southern Asia by
ship.

A bit of emergency backtracking there, I see

At least ,the US Navy knew....otherwise pirates would be unchecked still
while the brits figure out the Suez canal
and how to get to India or SE Asia from Europe by ship.

Have you ever been to the Suez canal ?

I have

Have you ever lived in SE Asia ?

I have

Have you ever even been outside Septicstan ?



--
geoff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-11-01 17:08:50 +0000, "Jim" said:


"no spam" wrote in message
news
Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a
person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

BINGO!
When we make criminals PAY and dearly, they will stop. Well, no,
actually, they won't because they are =evil=. But then, most folks don't
believe in evil anymore than the tooth fairy....

So please explain why it is that an increase in appointments for the Magic
Needle, Old Sparky and their cohorts from virtually zero in 1970 up to 100
by 2000 together with a climb from practically zero to over 3500 in the
waiting room have not had the suggested deterrent effect.

Paying dearly or the prospect of paying dearly ought to make a difference,
but apparently not.
Your statement reminds me of an actual event in Texas.
A mass murderer was up for execution again after 35years of stays and other
legal action.
The lawyer steps up and claims that 35yrs in death row is cruel and unusual
punishment.
And that his client should be released with damages for his pain and
suffering.
The judge after much dialog ,notes the accused would have died 30years
earlier if the lawyer.
Had not come to court with an appeal......hence the 35years versus short and
sweet was the
lawyer's appeals .
Appeal was declined and inmate died two weeks later.....
Average cost for death row is 100,000 and up per year to house .....per
inmate.

We have now an equally odd plank coming from across the country on death
row.
The only difference between letal injection and surgery injection is the
poison versus the doctor's knife.
Sane folks can remember the knife hurts more in a C-section or ???? than
the poison.
Part of the reason some folks murder with poison.....
And that much of the pain in execution is mental ....you did not cheat time,
this time.
Heart transplants can tell you about phyical pain........you feel like you
got ran over by a truck.
And wondering if they threw it in reverve ,too.

Had an equally odd plank that mental retards can't understand murder being
wrong .........................have a halfway house next door with
retards at or below the IQ, the deathrow lawyers are supposed to
representing.Hard pressed to find a retard even mongolad that doesn't know
that murder is wrong.One other puzzling factor is the retards at the halfway
house can't get a drivers license because of retardation,but most
of the death immates filing mental retardation stays of execution drove to
the murder site.
And the immates IQ decreased shortly after he was caught.....







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"no spam" wrote in message
news
Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just
because he was upset.
IIRC, Shirer and Churchill were both utterly baffled by this, and
knew

Hitler was a loon.....

And once he attacked the USSR they also knew that they were going to
win. It would just take time, men and materials.

Yup; that was the biggie. He obviously never heard of Napoleon....

And that the Brits with a large empire, larger industrial output, largest
navy in the world and large military where on the other flank as well.
I don't know Mongemry had Patton stop so the powerful brits could catch up
and lead the way into Berlin.
They were doing too good of a job pushing across Africa and Europe.....



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:52:39 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


We are suffereing fom a well menaing bunch of incompetents who got elected
because they menat well.

And gave us the strongest and most stable economy in the world over the past
10 years.

Who told you that Drivel? it's all built on borrowed money.

You think it's "stronger and more stable" than Norway, Denmark,
Sweden, Ireland, and Iceland ?

And that's just your starter for 10, plenty more where they came from,
both in Europe and America, and the rest of the world.

Not the USA of course, that's a basket case like the UK was under
Wislon/Healey/Brown in 1967.

DG

"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"no spam" wrote in message
news Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound
tactics. His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London
just because he was upset.
IIRC, Shirer and Churchill were both utterly baffled by this, and
knew

Hitler was a loon.....

And once he attacked the USSR they also knew that they were going to
win. It would just take time, men and materials.

Yup; that was the biggie. He obviously never heard of Napoleon....

And that the Brits with a large empire, larger industrial output, largest
navy in the world and large military where on the other flank as well.

I don't know Mongemry had Patton stop so the powerful brits could catch up
and lead the way into Berlin.

Oh **** off!!!! Patton was as "ass hole" A poor general. Look at what he
did in Sicily. The US media needed a hero and egotistical Patton was the
man they chose. In Normandy the US had the lightly defended west. Patton
asked to take some Brittany ports. Bradley said yes, he took a third of his
force into territory with no enemy and took no port intact. All this while
the Allied were fighting toe to toe in Normandy. He as an IDIOT of the
highest.

They were doing too good of a job pushing across Africa and Europe.....

Who were? The Brits. They defeated the Germans in Africa. They also
defeated the bulk of the German army in their west at Normandy. Most of the
German army, full SS regiments (the US not once face one) was pitted
against the Brits. Once defeated the German in the west were all but
defeated. Once out of Normandy the fastest advance in British history was
from Normandy into Belgium.

Another **** was US general Mart Clark. The German had the Gothic line a
line across Italy. The British on one pincer and the US under Mart Clark on
the other
were 4 miles from cutting off the German army, and eliminating it in Italy.
This fool decided to peel off the Yanks and turn towards Rome for glory
reasons. Great on the newsreels. He disobeyed Alexander's direct orders in
breaking off and running for Rome. Echoes of Patton in Sicily.

The Germans army escaped and formed the Gothic line further north and they
had to be defeated all over again, with 1000s of lives needlessly lost and
further delay. If Clark was German he would have been shot.

Was this egotistical idiot general ever court marshalled for what he did in
Italy? No! The promoted him.

Again pointing out the different mind sets. In the UK you want someone
to
take care of and protect you.


No I don't.

You dont'? From what you have written it seems as you expect it.

Wrong conclusion. You should not equate not wanting to walk around with
lethal weapons as an indication that the only alternative is to abrogate
responsibility to the goverment.

Notice I didn't say government. You seem to expect your employer to provide
you with a guard the door of your job to your car. Note your response to my
sister's problem.

In general I will point out the fact that in the UK people think nothing of
having big brother watching them as they walk down the street. No problem
with big brother providing them with the medical care he/it thinks they
need. No problem with allowing the government to have a large hand on what
can be printed. I'm willing to bet there are thousands of things you can
not do there w/o big brother's OK that I can do here. All because the
government says it would, in some way, interfer with the public good.

Its getting the same here. I'll give a good example. I live out in the
boonies on several acres. I have to get goverment permission to put in a
well. I had to have a government approved installer to install my mobile
home. I had to have the government's approval before I could even get the
power company to come out and put power to my temp power pole so I could run
power tools. After that I had to get the government's approval to turn the
power on to the trailer. I DID NOT have to hire a government approved
electrician or plumber to do that work but I had to tell the goof ball at
the permit place this because they were not going to ok my work.

Now after jumping through all their hoops when it came time for them to do
the final approval to allow me to live in my own house, on my own property
the guy never got out of his truck and the only things we talked about was
my dog (an American Bulldog 120# long story how I would up with him) and
flying.


In the UK mind set you have to have a nearly all powerful government.

We don't *have* to have that.

You do if you expect it to take care of you.

That is not correct.

Sure it is. Do you agree with the government requiring people to wear
helmets when they ride motorcycles? If you do you are saying that people
are too stupid to take care of themselves and therefore the government must
do it for them. To do that you need government to be big enough to make
sure that people are wearing their helmets.

There are something that the goverment should require of people because not
doing it would clearly place others in physical danger or endanger some one
else's rights. But I can think of very few of these.



One
that watches you like big brother and has to power to tell you what you
need
and don't need. If you like that fine but don't be so pig headed to
realize
that some people don't want to live that way.

Very few people like to live like that. You are imagining a situation
which doesn't actually exist, although I agree that there should always
be
less government.

Really? How many cities in the UK are covered by government controled
CCTV?

Most are to some degree or another. Frankly so what. If you capture a
lot of data, you also have to analyse it.

You just proved my point twice. One, I think the government watching what
its citizens do w/o a reason to think a crime is or is about to be commited
is abhorrent. You think it is fine. This proves that you expect others to
watch out for you.

Two, the more data the government collects the more people it needs to go
through that data therefore bigger government. And once they find out that
the data they have is not enough they will feel the need to add more data
and more people to analyse that data.

I wish there was some way to know how much time and money has been spend on
your CCTV system per crime prevented and/or solved because of it.


If that isn't big brotherish then what is?

Peoples' imaginations.

You think being watched almost any time you are not in your home is not big
brotherish! And people call me barking mad!


As for me, I'm an independent type.

Likewise.

I guess we have different views of being independent.

Actually I'm very independent. I'm broadly opposed to socialised
medicine, much of public education and most of the other trappings of
government - essentially because the government should not be in the
delivery business of these, purely in some of the funding of them.

Good for you. Now all you have to do is to try and change the system. I
wish you luck.


However, this does not preclude behaving towards others in a civilised
way.


But you have no problem with the government watching your every move outside
you house?

Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a
person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

That is perhaps part of the story. The other parts are why did the
perpetrator do it in the first place? The easy answer is that he didn't
have the deterrent not to do so. The more difficult question

That's the only answer. Say we were still young and foolish (I long past
that stage of life) and we were out somewhere having a good time and you
upset me. I mean really made me angery. What is going to keep me from
trying to beat you to a bloody pulp? Is it going to be my respect for
myself? Not likely. Respect for you? I don't think so. Or knowing if I
did beat you I'd be spending 3-5 years of my life sitting in jail? It might
if I wasn't too far over the edge. Or maybe the fact that if I tried you
and/or a couple of your buddies would stomp me into the dirt if I tried?
This would be the one that would stop most people.

For the most part humans are much more deterrent oriented than reward
oriented. If you tell a kid that if he sits quitely for half an hour he'll
get a candy bar he might do. But if you tell a kid if he doesn't sit
quitely for half an hour he's going to get a spanking the odds of him
sitting there are much greater.


is why doesn't he treat others with the same respect that he would like to
be treated with himself?

This is just my opinion but its because he probably had been told all of his
life that he wasn't as good as others and couldn't do anything w/o the
government's help. The only problem is that once the government starts
"helping" you are stuck in their web.

In its attempt to help the US government has done more to harm the 'poor'
and 'minorities' in this country than the robber baron and racist could have
ever dreamed of.

If you live in Malibu or some of the other high dollar real estate
area...that may well be less than his 250K
rural house.
I have literally seen Doctors chose a cow pasture over a lot in a
Country
Club addition.Do just that...
The doctor ended up with more house ,tennis courts,etc. and less tax
burden as well .

Yeah, the freaking taxes here are murder. I can't believe it; I knew
I
was getting one of the nicest houses in the area, but DAMN! the tax bill
is ludicrous. Apparently, this is considered to be living high on the
hog.
But it does have everything I could possibly want and it's right near
the
grandkids! :-)

The house I'm trying to get sold is a 4 bdrm on 25 acres with three ponds,
a
barn and three outbuildings and last year's tax bill was $635US.

How much are you selling for ?

Started at $150K (US dollars of course) now asking $125K. The plan was to
finish up a remodel on the house before selling but had to move. Now the
house has new roof, new windows, new kitchen cabinets, new kitchen floor but
no carpet or central air unit and needs new siding. With it now 14 hrs
driving time away I can't do the work over the weekends. So I rather just
take the loss and get out from under the payments.

If you live in Malibu or some of the other high dollar real estate
area...that may well be less than his 250K
rural house.
I have literally seen Doctors chose a cow pasture over a lot in a
Country Club addition.Do just that...
The doctor ended up with more house ,tennis courts,etc. and less tax
burden as well .

Yeah, the freaking taxes here are murder. I can't believe it; I knew
I was getting one of the nicest houses in the area, but DAMN! the tax
bill is ludicrous. Apparently, this is considered to be living high on
the hog. But it does have everything I could possibly want and it's
right near the grandkids! :-)

The house I'm trying to get sold is a 4 bdrm on 25 acres with three
ponds, a barn and three outbuildings and last year's tax bill was $635US.
Is it near my grandkids? LOL!
My county is a rural one near a huge metro area; my home is considered
to be pretty luxurious and high-dollar. Yours sounds very nice though; I'd
love to have that 25 acres.... and the ponds....
What area?

North central TN (hills not mountains) Got it when I needed to be near Ft
Campbell.

Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a
person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

BINGO!
When we make criminals PAY and dearly, they will stop. Well, no,
actually, they won't because they are =evil=. But then, most folks don't
believe in evil anymore than the tooth fairy....

So please explain why it is that an increase in appointments for the Magic
Needle, Old Sparky and their cohorts from virtually zero in 1970 up to 100
by 2000 together with a climb from practically zero to over 3500 in the
waiting room have not had the suggested deterrent effect.

Could it be the fact that the time between the appointment and the actual
meeting is decades apart? For anything to be a true deterrent the
punishment must be swift and hard.


Paying dearly or the prospect of paying dearly ought to make a difference,
but apparently not.


How much of a deterrent is it if someone tells you if you punch them in the
face they will hit you back in 15 years? How much of a deterrent is it if
someone tells you if you punch them in the fact their buddies are going to
hold you while they spend the next 15 minutes alternating between kicking
you in the crotch and hitting you in the face?

Our current system is even worse than the first scenario. Our current
systems tells you the first time you punch me in the face I will tell you
that you did a bad thing and please don't do that again. The next time you
do it you are told the same thing AND if you do it again you will have to go
to bed early, if you want to go to bed early. The next time you will be
told you were a bad boy and you need to stop being a bad boy. Maybe after
you have hit me 30 or 40 times you will get sent to your room for an hour
but you'll get out in 10 minutes if you don't cry.

He could have crippled the RAF in a few weeks

He tried and lost it was called the Battle of Britain.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just
because he was upset.

You are clearly barking mad.

Nope. The reason he lost the Battle of Britain was the fact the RAF
fighters could wait on the ground and take off with full fuel tanks to
shoot the crap out of the Luftwaffe bombers. It could do that because
their bases and the radar stations on the coast were not bombed. If this
had been done in a matter of months Germany would have had control of the
air. As the Allies showed once you have air superiority you can grind
down the enemy.

You don't have to take my word for it read some military history and do
some research.

If you have anything other than insults to back up your side please let
me know.

Germany would have won if they had continued to attack the RAF.
However Churchill provoked the blitz by bombing Germany and Hitler in one
of his crazy moments diverted the attacks to London and allowed the RAF to
recover.

Which is just what I said. I think at this point in time Hitler falling off
the edge of sanity because he was suffering from advanced syphilis and the
"treatments" he was getting from his doctors. Up to this point he was
holding on just enough to be almost brilliant. Look at what he had done up
to that point. Both militarily and politically. I don't think he ever was
what most people would have called sane. I think he truely believed some of
the crap he spouted. I think the most of the people around him knew he was
a little off and didn't believe any of it but said they did because they
wanted the power he could give them. Then there were some that were just
thugs and sadist who liked hurting people.

Too bad that the people outside Germany didn't see how unstable he was
before 1936. Of course they were too busy stealing everything they could
from Germany using the Versailles to care.

Perhaps we shouldn't have given all those guns and bombs to
Britain when Churchill requested them.....

You didn't. You sold them to us on credit at a crippling rate of
interest.


Be glad of it too, orer du bist eine Deutschlander......
The Americans saved Europe's ass and they want to bitch about
it.....


Actually, they didn't. As far as Herr Hitler was concerned the
Russians won the European war. the only reason Churchill wanted you
involved, was to stop the REST of Europe becoming RUSSIAN. As it
was they got nearly half of it.

You might want to read a little more history.
At one point before the US tossed the Laws of Land Warfare in the
trash and started pumping supplies into it, the UK was down to,
IIRC, about 6 months worth of food.

Nope. The UK had imported US wheat and other food before WW2. The US
thinking of stopping the supply. The UK could have grown its own
food, which it started to do. US wheat was convenient as the system
was geared up for it.

The biggest thing that saved the UK

Saved the UK. Here we go......another one....

was the fact that Hitler had gone totally nuts by the time the
"Battle for Britain" started.

...I told you all...

He could have crippled the RAF in a few weeks

He tried and lost it was called the Battle of Britain.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just
because he was upset.

You are clearly barking mad.

Nope. The reason he lost the Battle of Britain was the fact the RAF
fighters could wait on the ground and take off with full fuel tanks to
shoot the crap out of the Luftwaffe bombers. It could do that because
their bases and the radar stations on the coast were not bombed. If
this had been done in a matter of months Germany would have had control
of the air. As the Allies showed once you have air superiority you can
grind down the enemy.

You don't have to take my word for it read some military history and do
some research.

If you have anything other than insults to back up your side please let
me know.

Germany would have won if they had continued to attack the RAF.
However Churchill provoked the blitz by bombing Germany and Hitler in one
of his crazy moments diverted the attacks to London and allowed the RAF
to recover.

Not necessarily.
Most of the navy ws quiety basking out of bomber range and would have
created carnage on any force landing..even with german air superiority,
and likewise the supply lines to the UK would have beeb tenous at best and
prone to heavy attack by submarines etc.

Ever noticed how well the Japanese navy faired against aircraft? If the
navy had tried to sail into the Channel to try to stop an invasion and the
Germans had air superiority it would have been a disaster making what
happened to the Spainish Armada look like a Spainish victory.


Hitler never intended to invade england really - and he expected Britain
to sue for peace after Dunkirk, and settle with Germany ruling Europe, and
Britain most of the rest of the world. He WANTED to turn east and

I've heard that before. As well as he didn't want to do it because he felt
the British were fellow Arians and thought they would 'come around' in time.
I don't buy any of it. He was a megalomanic and wanted nothing short of
being king of the world. If he had managed to take all of Europe it
wouldn't have been long before he went after Africa or the Japanese Empire.


mangle the commie jews in russia and then settle for that. It all went
horribly wrong, because no plan had really ever been put in place to
invade britain: it would have taken several years to get enough landing
craft and beat the RAF into *total* submission.

Not from what I've studied. If he had been able to focus all of his forces
on England, i.e. not spliting off some to the eastern front, it wouldn't
have taken more than a year to grind England down to the point they would
have had to sue for peace. Without the need to send all that material to
Russia he could have laid siege. The UK did not have the ability to be self
sufficient. Even if they could have built enough factories to replace the
aircraft and ships to fight w/o those factories from being bombed where
would they have gotten the steel, copper, oil and all the other stuff you
need to make and use aircraft and ships?

The only way was been by ship and as long as the US and Russia were neutral
nations they could not legally use their military to protect their ships
once they entered a decleared war zone. This means that the British would
have needed to not only protect from an invasion but also protect the supply
conveys.

Of course FDR didn't let a little thing like treaties or laws stand in his
way.

Lost only because he had gone nuts and failed to follow sound tactics.
His switching from bombing military bases to bombing London just
because he was upset.
IIRC, Shirer and Churchill were both utterly baffled by this, and
knew Hitler was a loon.....

And once he attacked the USSR they also knew that they were going to win.
It would just take time, men and materials.
Yup; that was the biggie. He obviously never heard of Napoleon....

He had. Which is why I say he had gone crazy. At one point he knew enough
history to know that trying to fight a two front war would lead to defeat.

On 2007-11-01 20:47:21 +0000, "no spam" said:


Again pointing out the different mind sets. In the UK you want someone
to
take care of and protect you.


No I don't.

You dont'? From what you have written it seems as you expect it.

Wrong conclusion. You should not equate not wanting to walk around with
lethal weapons as an indication that the only alternative is to abrogate
responsibility to the goverment.

Notice I didn't say government. You seem to expect your employer to provide
you with a guard the door of your job to your car. Note your response to my
sister's problem.

I don't expect my employer to provide anything of the sort. Actually,
I'm my employer anyway.
Moreover, I don't tend to work in places or at times of high personal risk.

However, for a nurse, who may be vulnerable, who by virtue of her job
is potentially exposed to personal risk, I think it's entirely
reasonable that the employer should do something to help with that even
if it's only a contribution towards the taxi fare home.


In general I will point out the fact that in the UK people think nothing of
having big brother watching them as they walk down the street.

Do you imagine that this alleged big brother has the time and staff
levels to do that comprehensively?


No problem
with big brother providing them with the medical care he/it thinks they
need.

Actually I think that there's a big problem with that. It's
reasonable that the government should contribute where needed to the
*funding*, but I don't think it needs to be in the service delivery
business.


No problem with allowing the government to have a large hand on what
can be printed. I'm willing to bet there are thousands of things you can
not do there w/o big brother's OK that I can do here. All because the
government says it would, in some way, interfer with the public good.

I think that you have a vivid imagination.



Its getting the same here. I'll give a good example. I live out in the
boonies on several acres. I have to get goverment permission to put in a
well. I had to have a government approved installer to install my mobile
home. I had to have the government's approval before I could even get the
power company to come out and put power to my temp power pole so I could run
power tools. After that I had to get the government's approval to turn the
power on to the trailer. I DID NOT have to hire a government approved
electrician or plumber to do that work but I had to tell the goof ball at
the permit place this because they were not going to ok my work.

Actually that is somewhat mor onerous than it is here.



Now after jumping through all their hoops when it came time for them to do
the final approval to allow me to live in my own house, on my own property
the guy never got out of his truck and the only things we talked about was
my dog (an American Bulldog 120# long story how I would up with him) and
flying.


In the UK mind set you have to have a nearly all powerful government.

We don't *have* to have that.

You do if you expect it to take care of you.

That is not correct.

Sure it is. Do you agree with the government requiring people to wear
helmets when they ride motorcycles?

That depends. If they don't expect to use government provided
healthcare and other services if they injure themselves then there
would be no need to have laws about helmets

Equally, there would be no need to have seatbelt laws either and I know
that many U.S. states have that, so your argument is a bit thin.


If you do you are saying that people
are too stupid to take care of themselves and therefore the government must
do it for them. To do that you need government to be big enough to make
sure that people are wearing their helmets.

That doesn't follow at all.



There are something that the goverment should require of people because not
doing it would clearly place others in physical danger or endanger some one
else's rights. But I can think of very few of these.

Seatbelts?




One
that watches you like big brother and has to power to tell you what you
need
and don't need. If you like that fine but don't be so pig headed to
realize
that some people don't want to live that way.

Very few people like to live like that. You are imagining a situation
which doesn't actually exist, although I agree that there should always
be
less government.

Really? How many cities in the UK are covered by government controled
CCTV?

Most are to some degree or another. Frankly so what. If you capture a
lot of data, you also have to analyse it.

You just proved my point twice. One, I think the government watching what
its citizens do w/o a reason to think a crime is or is about to be commited
is abhorrent. You think it is fine.

I wouldn't say that it's fine. I would say that it doesn't
particularly bother me because I don't do things that would cause them
to show any interest.


This proves that you expect others to
watch out for you.

It certainly doesn't.


Two, the more data the government collects the more people it needs to go
through that data therefore bigger government. And once they find out that
the data they have is not enough they will feel the need to add more data
and more people to analyse that data.

I wish there was some way to know how much time and money has been spend on
your CCTV system per crime prevented and/or solved because of it.

You may well be right. However, I don't think that it's a big enough
issue to care about that much. If I had my way, there would be a
minimal public sector and the hangers on would have to go and get real
jobs. However, that is not realistic





If that isn't big brotherish then what is?

Peoples' imaginations.

You think being watched almost any time you are not in your home is not big
brotherish! And people call me barking mad!

There is quite a difference between having the technology in place and its use.





As for me, I'm an independent type.

Likewise.

I guess we have different views of being independent.

Actually I'm very independent. I'm broadly opposed to socialised
medicine, much of public education and most of the other trappings of
government - essentially because the government should not be in the
delivery business of these, purely in some of the funding of them.

Good for you. Now all you have to do is to try and change the system. I
wish you luck.

Well... when I'm emperor.....



However, this does not preclude behaving towards others in a civilised
way.


But you have no problem with the government watching your every move outside
you house?

I'm not paranoid enough to believe that there is somebody sitting
explicitly watching what I'm doing. Secondly, even if they were, it
would not be very interesting for them.

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:52:39 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


We are suffereing fom a well
menaing bunch of incompetents
who got elected because they
menat well.

And gave us the strongest and
most stable economy in the world over the past
10 years.

Who told you that Drivel?

Have you been living on Mars?

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...


Not the USA of course, that's a
basket case like the UK was under
Wislon/Healey/Brown in 1967.

A most of all Thatcher when 1000s were living on the streets. Have you been
on Mars?

On 2007-11-01 20:47:22 +0000, "no spam" said:


Must be nice to have be a nurse there with a full time body guard
following
you around. That would be about the only way to make sure that a
person
was
never a victim of a violent crime.

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the violent
crime is happening in the first place.

Mostly its the lack of punishment of criminals. A few years ago Michel
Jordan's dad was killed. One of the people involved had be arrested
something like 151 times and yet was still on the street.

That is perhaps part of the story. The other parts are why did the
perpetrator do it in the first place? The easy answer is that he didn't
have the deterrent not to do so. The more difficult question

That's the only answer. Say we were still young and foolish (I long past
that stage of life) and we were out somewhere having a good time and you
upset me. I mean really made me angery. What is going to keep me from
trying to beat you to a bloody pulp? Is it going to be my respect for
myself? Not likely. Respect for you? I don't think so. Or knowing if I
did beat you I'd be spending 3-5 years of my life sitting in jail? It might
if I wasn't too far over the edge. Or maybe the fact that if I tried you
and/or a couple of your buddies would stomp me into the dirt if I tried?
This would be the one that would stop most people.

To be honest, it's quite unlikely that I will ever visit or even want
to visit rural Tennessee. Therefore the situation that you describe
is not likely to happen.




For the most part humans are much more deterrent oriented than reward
oriented.

I have a more optimistic view than that.


If you tell a kid that if he sits quitely for half an hour he'll
get a candy bar he might do. But if you tell a kid if he doesn't sit
quitely for half an hour he's going to get a spanking the odds of him
sitting there are much greater.

I don't think so.

A better solution would be to offer him something that he would like to
do, preferably involving your spending time with him (well not you
perhaps).




is why doesn't he treat others with the same respect that he would like to
be treated with himself?

This is just my opinion but its because he probably had been told all of his
life that he wasn't as good as others and couldn't do anything w/o the
government's help. The only problem is that once the government starts
"helping" you are stuck in their web.

That's somewhat fanciful. Even so, do you imagine that it will give
him a high sense of self esteem if you tell him that if he doesn't sit
still, that you are going to spank him?



In its attempt to help the US government has done more to harm the 'poor'
and 'minorities' in this country than the robber baron and racist could have
ever dreamed of.

That's almost certainly true.

In the real world, realities are somewhere between the two extremes
that you describe.