Re: Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor

On 3 Dec 2003 08:57:00 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>      "R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> John S. Dyson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It is interesting where the 'socialist meccas' like France and
>>>> Germany  are also having problems with their budgets, and they
>>>> don't even do a competent job of providing for their own defense.
>>> ----------------------
>>> They have the industrial output, they simply prefer to spend it
>>> on luxuries as long as they can.
>>>
>> The cost of defense isn't really that great (very few defense
>> plants per-se in the US.)  It is that the LAZY-ASS socialist meccas
>> choose to suckle off the American teat.
> 
> American spending in defence is equal to the sum of the total defence
> spending of the next ten nations down the pecking order. This is an
> unprecedented high - the classical pattern is for the top nation to
> spend as much as the next two closest nations.
> 
> The paranoid reaction to this would be to assume that you plan to
> invade the lot of us at once.
> 
> The realistic reaction is probably that your politico-economic
> structure is in a mess, and your defence budget is a massive channel
> for corrupt pay-offs between politicians and people selling stuff to
> the military - the tax-payers are paying about twice as much as they
> should for the defence they are getting, and the rest is being creamed
> off as bribes and excess profits.
> 
> The rest of world would appear to have their military industrial
> complexes under better control, which may reflect better control
> electoral expenditures.
> 
> So it may be that we are not LAZY-ASS socialist meccas - which doesn't
> exactly fit South Korea - but rather that you are a bunch of
> over-taxed suckers.
> 
>>>> If they provided for their defense, it wouldn't really make that
>>>> much difference to their budgets, because it is the morally
>>>> destructive socialist programs that cost so very much!!!
>>> -------------------------
>>> Social programs are EVIDENCE or morality, they don't DESTROY 
>>> morality, except the stupid hidebound antisexual forms.
>>> 
>> Don't you understand anything about the psychological aspects
>> of enabling (or encouraging) stupid behavior?  Of course you
>> don't.  (It isn't really 'morality' or 'ethics' that are actually
>> destroyed, it is more that STUPID behavior is encouraged by
>> socalist programs.)
> 
> A famous right-wing claim, not supported by any objective evidence.
>  
>> Socialism is plain and clear evidence of social decay -- whereby
>> the basis of growth and encouraging productive behavior (and
>> discouraging stupidity) is long forgotten.  So, it is VERY CLEAR
>> that the regression in France (and somewhat Germany -- and
>> other wakko-leftist regimes) is progressing quite sadly.  (Geesh,
>> they obviously don't even learn from their mistakes WRT the
>> anti-Jew attitudes.)  The 'new' mistake of embracing the terrorists
>> (e.g. Saddam) seems to result from an overwhelming growing
>> stupidity.
> 
> On most evidences of social progress, including crude things like
> infant mortality and life expectancy, France and Germany are ahead of
> the U.S. rather than behind.
> 
> Will Hutton's "The World we're In" ISBN: 0349114714, available
> ex-stock from www.amazon.co.uk and with more difficulty (surprise,
> surprise!) from www.amazon.com, claims higher labour productivity and
> higher social mobility, both driven by better social welfare programs
> than those available in the U.S. which provide a better educated and
> more flexible work-force . I could dig out the relevant references
> from my copy - Will Hutton is largely a populariser of non-monetarist
> academic economics - but they'd be wasted on you.
> 
> And the French and German attitude to the invasion of Irak wasn't
> pro-terrorist, or even pro-Saddam, but merely aimed at getting an
> internationally acceptable intervention. In so far as such an
> intervention wouldn't have been as provocative to the Arab countries
> as your ham-fisted little military adventure, their stance should
> probably be counted as anti-terrorist.
> 
> As Win Hill has pointed out, Irak is now a terrorist's amusement
> arcade - the infidel invaders are the targets to be knocked down, and
> the rewards are instant promotion to heaven by being killed while
> pursuing a holy war (jihad) - and the customers are flocking in. A
> really effective anti-terrorist move on your part :-(
> 
> To accomodate the average right-wing nit-wit, I'll point out that the
> last sentence of the above paragraph is intended to be read
> ironically, not literally.
> 
> -------
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hmmm. "CAD" ?
let's see "Complain about democracy?"
          " Cast aspersions directly?"
          "Can't avoid digressing? "

Must be something along those lines ;-~