History of bulk electronic components suppliers

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:17:11 -0800, James Arthur wrote:

.... We dominate the country. ...

And that is just plain wrong. Anyone who can't see that is either blind
or a fool, and those who know it but won't admit it are just plain evil.

It's the quest for world domination that's taking America straight
to Hell in a handbasket.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:17:11 -0800, James Arthur wrote:

... We dominate the country. ...

And that is just plain wrong. Anyone who can't see that is either blind
or a fool, and those who know it but won't admit it are just plain evil.

It's the quest for world domination that's taking America straight
to Hell in a handbasket.

Silly. We have no colonies, not even in Europe where we had absolute
military domination not long ago. We pay market prices for everything.
We export aid, wealth, and jobs to places that, frankly, need them a
lot worse than we do. Puerto Rico and other affiliates can vote to
become fully independent if they want to. The US doesn't want to
dominate the world, we want to spread wealth and democracy. What's
wrong with that?

I suppose amoral is the new "moral."

John

 

[Eeyore]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:17:11 -0800, James Arthur wrote:

... We dominate the country. ...

And that is just plain wrong. Anyone who can't see that is either blind
or a fool, and those who know it but won't admit it are just plain evil.

It's the quest for world domination that's taking America straight
to Hell in a handbasket.

In nay case, the USA most certainly doesn't dominate Iraq in any useful way.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

In nay case, the USA most certainly doesn't dominate Iraq in any useful way.

The point is that the Iraqui people should dominate Iraq, creating the
novel idea of a democracy in the Middle East.

You (I assume) enjoy the benefits of representative government; why
should't everyone?

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The US doesn't want to
dominate the world, we want to spread wealth and democracy. What's
wrong with that?

Right. That's why you've bombed your way across chunks of Central and South
America not to mention the rest of the world.

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/victims.htm

Funny how you always wind up crushing democracies and shifting wealth to
yourselves.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

You (I assume) enjoy the benefits of representative government; why
should't everyone?

People have to want peace and democracy.

The Kurds do but the US denies it to them.

The Iraqis don't so the US tries to force it on them.

 

[John Larkin]

Right. That's why you've bombed your way across chunks of Central and South
America not to mention the rest of the world.

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/victims.htm

Funny how you always wind up crushing democracies and shifting wealth to
yourselves.

Describing Noam Chomsky as a "scholar" is enough to make a mockery of
that site. I bet you buy his books, with the money you don't spend on
actually helping people.

John

 

[James Arthur]

America's quest for world domination? By that you must mean fast-
food and the internet right?

Hell in a handbasket? Heck, the deficit's down another $50 billion,
despite all the money we're dumping into Iraq. The economy's been so
strong that revenues are outstripping even Congress' abilty to spend
them. (Don't expect that to last...neither the boom, nor Congress'
restraint.)

In nay case, the USA most certainly doesn't dominate Iraq in any useful way.

Graham

Certainly we do, if you consider what the murderous-types would do
once unleashed. We owe the Iraqis better than that.

Remember, by and large they're not attacking Americans, they're not
fighting another army representing a different political point of
view, they're attacking their own civilians. That's nasty.

Best,
James Arthur

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

In nay case, the USA most certainly doesn't dominate Iraq in any useful
way.

The point is that the Iraqui people should dominate Iraq, creating the
novel idea of a democracy in the Middle East.

You (I assume) enjoy the benefits of representative government; why
should't everyone?
[/QUOTE]

They've had THREE elections, and the invaders (Bush et al) don't like
the outcome, because it's always "Yankee Go Home".

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

Certainly we do, if you consider what the murderous-types would do
once unleashed. We owe the Iraqis better than that.

Remember, by and large they're not attacking Americans, they're not
fighting another army representing a different political point of
view, they're attacking their own civilians. That's nasty.

And how precisely does America think it can change that ? They weren't doing it
before you lot invaded !

Graham

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

Remember, by and large they're not attacking Americans, they're not
fighting another army representing a different political point of view,
they're attacking their own civilians. That's nasty.

And your idea to stop the killing is to go in and do some more killing?
That's either insane or evil.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Describing Noam Chomsky as a "scholar" is enough to make a mockery of
that site. I bet you buy his books, with the money you don't spend on
actually helping people.

Noam Chomsky. G W Bush. There's a contest -NOT!

I'll stick to Chomsky - at least he can chew and watch TV at the same time.


--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

 

[Eeyore]

The point is that the Iraqui people should dominate Iraq,

If you can call them a single people of course !

creating the novel idea of a democracy in the Middle East.

You (I assume) enjoy the benefits of representative government;

It claims to be representative. I'm not convinced any more. Hang on, I'm
convinced it's not.

why should't everyone?

Fine by me. It's not a crime to suggest that some countries may not be entirely
ready for it though ( I know an Indian businessman who thinks democracy in India
is a farce for example ).

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

Fine by me. It's not a crime to suggest that some countries may not be entirely
ready for it though ( I know an Indian businessman who thinks democracy in India
is a farce for example ).

As far as I know, democracy is always a farce. But it pretty much
works. Maybe that's *why* it works.

John

 

[John Larkin]

And how precisely does America think it can change that ? They weren't doing it
before you lot invaded !

Of course they were, as the skeletons in the trenches demonstrate. The
slaughter was just more organized, and now it's, well, more
democratic.

John

 

[Richard The Dreaded Libertarian]

As far as I know, democracy is always a farce. But it pretty much
works. Maybe that's *why* it works.

What was it somebody said? "It's the worst form of government except for
all of the others."?

Problem is, it gets out of hand, like: "Let's vote on what everybody's
favorite color is!"

Another thing the Constitution tries to prevent is mob rule, but
apparently the Constitution has fallen out of favor these days, more's
the pity.

Sigh.
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

As far as I know, democracy is always a farce. But it pretty much
works. Maybe that's *why* it works.

What do you think of the Swiss version with their regular referendums ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

What do you think of the Swiss version with their regular referendums ?

Graham

Never heard of that. The Swiss are awfully quiet from here.

The UK parliamentary thing has always confused me. Calling early
elections, forming a government, shadow ministries, dissolving
governments, all that. What if something important happens while there
is no government?

John

 

[Eeyore]

Never heard of that. The Swiss are awfully quiet from here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Politics

" Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and
through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland
a direct democracy. "

The UK parliamentary thing has always confused me. Calling early
elections

Fixed terms would be better I think. No possibility of holding a snap election to suit
events.

forming a government, shadow ministries,

Shadow Ministers not ministries.

dissolving governments, all that. What if something important happens while there
is no government?

The existing incumbents deal with it. I've always though it funny that your newly
elected president has to wait a couple of months to take office btw !

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Politics

" Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and
through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland
a direct democracy. "

California works like that, too. There have been a number of popular
referenda in recent years that ran contrary to what the Legislature
wanted, like Prop 13 (property tax reduction) and Prop 209 (forbidding
most state institutions from taking race into account.)

Fixed terms would be better I think. No possibility of holding a snap election to suit
events.



Shadow Ministers not ministries.



The existing incumbents deal with it. I've always though it funny that your newly
elected president has to wait a couple of months to take office btw !

It does give him a while to get organized, find some cabinet members,
stuff like that. Not to mention recover from the election. Seems like
a good idea to me.

And it gives the outgoing President and his wife time to steal
furniture and pardon a bunch of criminals before he leaves.

John