Date: 24 Mar 2006 21:26:04 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:13:38 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote: > in article 48itflFk7llkU1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net > wrote on 24/03/2006 18:52: > >> I'm gonna have to side with my ancestors on this one and say "time to >> leave". > Well, this stream of discussion has led me to understand the US as "the land > of the free", where the constitution has a real meaning. I know the US gets > knocked both internally and internationally, with some sense of irony over > the matter, but a constitution which enshrines the right to life without > oppression is truly enviable. It's not perfect by any means, but it's not as bad as people with political agendas would want you to believe. >> I'm trying very, very had not to point out what, to me, is blisteringly >> obvious. > Civil disobedience? National riot? Right to keep and bear arms. Honest citizens are allowed to have guns, which keeps criminals in fear and doubt, to an extent. That citizen doesn't need to have a gun, themselves, just that the guy thinking about breaking in the house knows that they legally can, and might. About the same thing with government abuses; I'm of the theory that civilians owning guns is a good reminder to our government how the country was founded, and by what mechanism that was reached. > Well, we had that in 1979 when our government (Labour, kind of Democrat > people) had made such a fuck up that we turned around and unanimously voted > them out. Well, if I had known what Margaret Thatcher was about to get up to > I would not have bothered being born! You had a say in the process? My, things _do_ work differently over there. And now you've got me wondering how old you are? > That continued to the point that we'd > had too much and gave them a unanimous "fuck off" in 1995. There were no > Tory (Republican kind of people) seats in Wales or Scotland .. Or Yorkshire > (Yay!) .. New Labour was born. Hmmm ... For the record, I find your party names and labels "liberal" and "conservative" to be very confusing as to how they're applied. > We seem to just get the same people in time and time again. We all know it > is because the government have no real power; that the power base is > unelected peers, but those peers actually stop the kind of draconian, nay, > Orwellian acts of Parliament that our (current and former) governments seem > so intent of passing into law. I don't think that, for instance, all the cameras you guys have over there would go over real well here. They've tried in places, from time to time, and things get very noisy. > I said, Britain is fucked! Hey, you French ... How's Normandy or Brittany? I > really get the impression I'd feel very much at home with you guys! Well, could be. Normady is, after all, full of Viking descendants. >> OK, so why specifically is taking a dog with you to hunt a problem? Is >> this some overreaction to the fox hunting thing? What about bird-dogs? >> What are you supposed to do, find a texas lawyer to go fetch the >> partridges that you shoot or something? (I've heard that can be >> hazardous depending on who you're hunting with). > > Yes, fox hunting is barbaric and should not be allowed. The traditional "get > pissed, mount a horse, get yer dogs and run down a fox" is barbaric ... And > not allowed. Therefore, you are no longer allowed to hunt a fox that way. OK, I don't know enough about fox hunting to comment one way or the other, but that sounds like _one_ situation, not call for a global ban. > Get pissed, grab yer dogs (and yer gun) and go and shoot a fox is okay! Well, except for the "get pissed" part. Decide if you're drinking, or shooting. If both, do them in the correct order. Anything else is irresponsible to say the least. >> But, that'd be a perfect example of a dog just tagging along with a >> hunting party. "Really, your honor, I have no idea who this dog is". > Yes, to the extreme, and no. The traditional "hunt" involves scores of > people whose livelihood is keeping the dogs for the hunt, or the horses, or > making the jackets, or ... It really is a hard question and the wishy-washy > "you can't hunt with dogs, but it's okay to socialise with them while _you_ > do so" legislation is just bollocks and soooo symptomatic of the way Britain > has gone recently. Does the phrase "feelgood legislation" translate? Lovely place, the old city of York. I suppose that you, living near there, never go there? Isn't that usually the way it works? Or you only go there when showing visitors around? > So, what's with this Guantanamo Bay business? :) Dunno. As I understand it, if you're not in a uniform and you're acting as a combatant, certain protections don't apply to you. I suppose it's like capturing a spy; they're not in uniform, so they are somewhat undefined. I can't imagine that, years in, these guys know anything useful that is (a) current, and (b) they aren't just making up to pull strings. I don't see a lot of value, if any, in the operation, but of course I'm not in on the details of what's really going on.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
