If user fees go into effect I'm done

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.

"Political class" means there's a bunch of people who do politics as a
way of earning money. That bunch of people exists in the the US too.

In the U.S., politicians are people who do politics for a living. They are
not part of a separate class. Anyone can undertake politics in the U.S., and
anyone can leave it. You don't have to be born into a certain family or
anything like that.

Shut up

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.

I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

I would say though amongst the 'professional' class in the US, there is
a much better 'can do' attitude though.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2007-02-10, Mxsmanic wrote:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:


What I say above true for the US as well.

Not unless the U.S. has changed very dramatically indeed. Last time I was
there, mediocrity, social stratification, and complacency/apathy were not the
watchwords that they are in Europe.


I've lived in both Europe and the US for a significant time. I would beg
to differ - the average European and American have more in common on
this count than not. Social stratification is rife in the US - mainly
caused by apathy! Just visit any trailer park.

Man you are clueless.

Matt

On 2007-02-10, Matt Whiting wrote:
Man you are clueless.

Touched a nerve there. Sounds like you're in denial.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Mxsmanic,

p

Freedom of speech is so irritating sometimes, eh?


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it can
be, yes.


There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans. People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

Sam Spade wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
can be, yes.



There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all the
more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Thomas Borchert writes:


When someone confuses it with freedom of incoherent blathering, it
can be, yes.




There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.

But the concept is difficult enough to get across to Americans.
People in
countries with a history of far less freedom of speech find it all
the more
difficult to understand.


Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st
Amendment) provides protected speech only from the government. It
does not apply between citizens, corporations (or similar entities),
or between citizens and corporations (or similar entities.


And you are like most Americans and don't understand either.

Matt
Ok, help me.

Sam Spade writes:

Most Americans do not understand that Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)
provides protected speech only from the government. It does not apply
between citizens, corporations (or similar entities), or between
citizens and corporations (or similar entities.

That's because only the government has enforcement power. Corporations and
individuals cannot enforce prior restraint; the government can. Therefore
freedom of speech restricts the ability of the government to do these things.
Other entities have only tort to resort to, or sometimes they can file
criminal complaints, but the government remains the agent of enforcement in
both cases.

It doesn't matter whether or not a corporation approves of what you say,
because the corporation does not control the whole of society. You can still
say what you want independently of the corporation. But government censorship
is different, because there are no alternative venues. Therefore freedom of
speech acts mainly to restrain governments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.