Icono Clast wrote:

> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
>
>> The first few times I saw her name mentioned (on this newsgroup, as a
>> matter of fact), I thought they were talking about a Hilton
>> Hotel in Paris - he might share my misunderstanding!
>
>
> Me, too. It was quite some time before a subject included something
> about that being a person's name. Show me her picture and I won't know
> who she is. I think I've never seen her, not even the porn.

You didn't see the commerical from some fast food chain that
featured a scantily clad blonde writhing about holding a
hamburger in one hand? (That was Paris - just another of
the anorexic female cutouts who are the current American
"ideal" of feminine beauty!)

Els Bells wrote:

>
> On Jan 27, 1:35 pm, The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:56:12 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm not American, I'm European, like the NG
>>
>>>Yeah, but does our president know there's a difference?
>
>
>>does Tony Blair?
>
>
> you voted for him !

Whether you refer to Bush or Blair, I most certainly DID
NOT! (More than half of the American voters did not.)
Unfortunately some voted for alternative candidates instead
of Kerry, so the moron won the election. (That's the peril
of a "two party" system - anyone with less money to spend on
advertising than the "major" parties seldom if ever stands a
chance, even if he/she is the best qualified candidate.)

Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 27 Jan 2007 04:43:22 -0800, "Els Bells"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Jan 27, 1:35 pm, The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:56:12 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
> >>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> I'm not American, I'm European, like the NG
> >>
> >> >Yeah, but does our president know there's a difference?
> >
> >> does Tony Blair?
> >
> >you voted for him !
>
> Not unless Blair is the MP for Reid's district, or whatever they
> call them in the UK.

That's a distinction that a lot of people here don't find relevant.
(It's a constituency BTW.) If you voted Labour in the last election, you
voted for Blair, despite his being reponsible for taking the country
into an illegal war for which he really ought to be up on war crime
charges. Along with the cabinet who went along with it. And the
Conservatives who voted for it. In fact, just leave the Lib Dems in
Parliament. I'd be happier with that.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

No one cares who the mad granny voted for
No one cares about the USA
Vogtgamble (what a horrible name) go home and stay there !

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...
>
>
> Els Bells wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 27, 1:35 pm, The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:56:12 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I'm not American, I'm European, like the NG
>>>
>>>>Yeah, but does our president know there's a difference?
>>
>>
>>>does Tony Blair?
>>
>>
>> you voted for him !
>
> Whether you refer to Bush or Blair, I most certainly DID NOT! (More than
> half of the American voters did not.) Unfortunately some voted for
> alternative candidates instead of Kerry, so the moron won the election.
> (That's the peril of a "two party" system - anyone with less money to
> spend on advertising than the "major" parties seldom if ever stands a
> chance, even if he/she is the best qualified candidate.)

Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
> Icono Clast writted:

>> It was quite some time before a subject included something
>> about that being a person's name. Show me her picture and I won't
>> know who she is. I think I've never seen her, not even the porn.
>
> I'll confess to having seen some parts of her "porn" video. There's a
> hilarious part where she just stops halfway through to answer her
> mobile, and the guy's like WTF???

That's the moment when I'd've thrown her out . . . the window! What a
boor she must be! Glad I don't know her.


EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
> Icono Clast wrote:
>> Show me her picture and I won't know who she is. I think I've
>> never seen her, not even the porn.
>
> You didn't see the commerical from some fast food chain that
> featured a scantily clad blonde writhing about holding a hamburger
> in one hand?

Not that I recall. Considering your description, I probably didn't
see it. Too bad. It's likely I'd remember.

-- __________________________________________________ ______________
Thank God I'm an Atheist.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ -<->- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 -------> IClast at Gmail com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Let is be knownst that on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:55:28 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> writted:

>
>
>Els Bells wrote:

>> you voted for him !
>
>Whether you refer to Bush or Blair, I most certainly DID
>NOT! (More than half of the American voters did not.)
>Unfortunately some voted for alternative candidates instead
>of Kerry, so the moron won the election. (That's the peril
>of a "two party" system - anyone with less money to spend on
>advertising than the "major" parties seldom if ever stands a
>chance, even if he/she is the best qualified candidate.)

This is a particular flaw of democracy I'd like to see addressed.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:16:13 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>Let is be knownst that on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:55:28 -0700,
>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> writted:
>
>>
>>
>>Els Bells wrote:
>
>>> you voted for him !
>>
>>Whether you refer to Bush or Blair, I most certainly DID
>>NOT! (More than half of the American voters did not.)
>>Unfortunately some voted for alternative candidates instead
>>of Kerry, so the moron won the election. (That's the peril
>>of a "two party" system - anyone with less money to spend on
>>advertising than the "major" parties seldom if ever stands a
>>chance, even if he/she is the best qualified candidate.)
>
>This is a particular flaw of democracy I'd like to see addressed.

Which flaw?

That post seems to conatin an inconsistency: on the one hand the
claim is that the candidate with more money will win and this is
a consequence of the two party system, and on the other hand that
"alternative" (i.e., candidates not of one of the two main
parties) can cause one of the main candidtes to lose.

So which part seems to be the flaw: the two party,
winner-take-all system or the fact that there are in reality more
than two parties and they can act as spoilers for one of the main
parties?

In any case, these seem to present "problems" in the American
electoral system, but you seem to see a flaw with democracy.
Please elaborate.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Let is be knownst that on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:17:03 -0700, Hatunen
<[email protected]> writted:

>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:16:13 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
>>Let is be knownst that on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:55:28 -0700,
>>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Els Bells wrote:
>>
>>>> you voted for him !
>>>
>>>Whether you refer to Bush or Blair, I most certainly DID
>>>NOT! (More than half of the American voters did not.)
>>>Unfortunately some voted for alternative candidates instead
>>>of Kerry, so the moron won the election. (That's the peril
>>>of a "two party" system - anyone with less money to spend on
>>>advertising than the "major" parties seldom if ever stands a
>>>chance, even if he/she is the best qualified candidate.)
>>
>>This is a particular flaw of democracy I'd like to see addressed.
>
>Which flaw?
>
>That post seems to conatin an inconsistency: on the one hand the
>claim is that the candidate with more money will win and this is
>a consequence of the two party system, and on the other hand that
>"alternative" (i.e., candidates not of one of the two main
>parties) can cause one of the main candidtes to lose.
>
>So which part seems to be the flaw: the two party,
>winner-take-all system or the fact that there are in reality more
>than two parties and they can act as spoilers for one of the main
>parties?
>
>In any case, these seem to present "problems" in the American
>electoral system, but you seem to see a flaw with democracy.
>Please elaborate.

The current flaw is that you end up with two parties that have
virtually the same policies, except for a few passion provoking
issues. It means you get very close elections, and you cannot vote for
a major change, even if you think it's needed. Sure, you can vote for
a minority party, but that is generally a waste of time unless they
can fluke a balance of power. Even when that happens, it's rarely
functional, as the minority party (which represents an extremity of
the electorate) will quickly be ripped apart by internal ideological
struggles as to who they should align with etc.

That is the flaw as I see it, and yes I acknowledge that democracy is
the best thing we have seen to date, but I don't think it's beyond
being further refined.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:32:12 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>Let is be knownst that on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:17:03 -0700, Hatunen
><[email protected]> writted:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:16:13 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
>><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>>
>>>Let is be knownst that on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:55:28 -0700,
>>>"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> writted:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Els Bells wrote:
>>>
>>>>> you voted for him !
>>>>
>>>>Whether you refer to Bush or Blair, I most certainly DID
>>>>NOT! (More than half of the American voters did not.)
>>>>Unfortunately some voted for alternative candidates instead
>>>>of Kerry, so the moron won the election. (That's the peril
>>>>of a "two party" system - anyone with less money to spend on
>>>>advertising than the "major" parties seldom if ever stands a
>>>>chance, even if he/she is the best qualified candidate.)
>>>
>>>This is a particular flaw of democracy I'd like to see addressed.
>>
>>Which flaw?
>>
>>That post seems to conatin an inconsistency: on the one hand the
>>claim is that the candidate with more money will win and this is
>>a consequence of the two party system, and on the other hand that
>>"alternative" (i.e., candidates not of one of the two main
>>parties) can cause one of the main candidtes to lose.
>>
>>So which part seems to be the flaw: the two party,
>>winner-take-all system or the fact that there are in reality more
>>than two parties and they can act as spoilers for one of the main
>>parties?
>>
>>In any case, these seem to present "problems" in the American
>>electoral system, but you seem to see a flaw with democracy.
>>Please elaborate.
>
>The current flaw is that you end up with two parties that have
>virtually the same policies, except for a few passion provoking
>issues.

I could argue that was a feature, not a bug. It means the naiton
has developed a broad consensus and the two parties, with some
difference, are appealing to the desires of the citizenry.

>It means you get very close elections, and you cannot vote for
>a major change, even if you think it's needed. Sure, you can vote for
>a minority party, but that is generally a waste of time unless they
>can fluke a balance of power. Even when that happens, it's rarely
>functional, as the minority party (which represents an extremity of
>the electorate)

Huh? didn't you say above that the two parties are essentially
alike?

>will quickly be ripped apart by internal ideological
>struggles as to who they should align with etc.

But shouldn't that be good by your lights? Anyway, the internal
politicala differences wiyhin a party simply repreent what might
be distinct parties were it not for the two-party system. As
individual parties they could probably never muster the required
majority; as internal factions they get a say in the poicies of
the majority party.

>That is the flaw as I see it, and yes I acknowledge that democracy is
>the best thing we have seen to date, but I don't think it's beyond
>being further refined.

Those appear to me to be flaws ofthe American political system
(if they ineed be flaws), not flaws 0f democracy, which you seem
to be espousing.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:

[]
> I would just like to see more parties, and more opportunities to have
> a say than once every few years.

Plenty of European countries have lots of parties. I'm not convinced
that system works much better.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Let is be knownst that on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:11:42 -0700, Hatunen
<[email protected]> writted:

>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:32:12 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>>The current flaw is that you end up with two parties that have
>>virtually the same policies, except for a few passion provoking
>>issues.
>
>I could argue that was a feature, not a bug. It means the naiton
>has developed a broad consensus and the two parties, with some
>difference, are appealing to the desires of the citizenry.

I would argue that one only needs to divert the populace to these
emotive issues, and one's party can do whatever it likes.

>>It means you get very close elections, and you cannot vote for
>>a major change, even if you think it's needed. Sure, you can vote for
>>a minority party, but that is generally a waste of time unless they
>>can fluke a balance of power. Even when that happens, it's rarely
>>functional, as the minority party (which represents an extremity of
>>the electorate)
>
>Huh? didn't you say above that the two parties are essentially
>alike?

I wasn't just referring to US politics btw, but quite a number of
democracies.

>>will quickly be ripped apart by internal ideological
>>struggles as to who they should align with etc.
>
>But shouldn't that be good by your lights? Anyway, the internal
>politicala differences wiyhin a party simply repreent what might
>be distinct parties were it not for the two-party system. As
>individual parties they could probably never muster the required
>majority; as internal factions they get a say in the poicies of
>the majority party.

That 'getting a say' is frowned upon as infighting usually.

>>That is the flaw as I see it, and yes I acknowledge that democracy is
>>the best thing we have seen to date, but I don't think it's beyond
>>being further refined.
>
>Those appear to me to be flaws ofthe American political system
>(if they ineed be flaws), not flaws 0f democracy, which you seem
>to be espousing.

Not just the American system. The precise definition of democracy is
of course impossible to nail down anyway. The basic idea I believe is
good, but it hasn't been looked at objectively for a long time,
probably because people prefer the devil they know.

I would just like to see more parties, and more opportunities to have
a say than once every few years.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:11:46 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> >Yeah, but does our president know there's a difference?
>>
>>> does Tony Blair?
>>
>>you voted for him !
>
>Not unless Blair is the MP for Reid's district, or whatever they
>call them in the UK.

constituency, (we returned a tory as usual) Sidcup and Old Bexley,
used to be the PM, Ted Heath, till he retired, used to see him in the
pub (once every four years).
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:04:20 -0800, "[email protected]" <Beatrice>
wrote:

>Sorry you had to waste your time responding to a forgery.

what difference does a name make? It sparks debate or it doesn't.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:17:03 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

>That post seems to conatin an inconsistency: on the one hand the
>claim is that the candidate with more money will win and this is
>a consequence of the two party system, and on the other hand that
>"alternative" (i.e., candidates not of one of the two main
>parties) can cause one of the main candidtes to lose.

lots of people are influenced by advertising by major parties.
A lesser number are influenced by an alternative candidate.

Two different forces at work.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Let is be knownst that on Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:39:05 +0000,
[email protected] (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) writted:

>Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
>wrote:
>
>[]
>> I would just like to see more parties, and more opportunities to have
>> a say than once every few years.
>
>Plenty of European countries have lots of parties. I'm not convinced
>that system works much better.

Then more say by the public would stir them up a bit.

Actually I like the idea of governance by opinion poll. Politicians
sure don't, and that's a good sign.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--