The politics of nature

"Hayduke" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Let me play on your words

When I see a small segment of the population, notably wealthy
conservatives who believe they compose a silent majority, willing to
cede the sovereignty of the US and liberty of the masses at the
expense and detriment of future generations, I must oppose them.

Wow.

Peace

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 03:12:06 GMT, Strider wrote:

What you say is true, however, when I see a small segment of the
population, notably liberals, willing to cede the sovereignty of the
US, I must oppose them.

Strider


"Silent majority" ??????????.

There is no such thing as a silent majority. It is a contradiction in
terms. Most political majorities, ( those who win), are around about
fifteen to twenty percent of the total possible, and are anything but
silent. "Vociferous" would be an understatement.

All you need is time and money, and a lot of dumb arseholes who are willing
to support you, even when you bull****.

What a terrible waste of resources, and not only in America.

It is quite immaterial which particular label your arsehole of choice
happens to be wearing at the time, ( this too is variable).

Thinking is going out of fashion it seems.

MC

Believe me, Mike. I do not believe in a silent majority. I was
playing on Strider's idiotic words.

Back in the Nixon days, he kept on referring to a "silent majority" to
further his legislative agenda. Frequently on American talk radio,
chiefly the Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reily show, and also in
conservative print media, the conservatives refer to a silent majority
to justify their policies.

So, I'm with you. I agree that it is a contradiction of terms. It is
something that the conservatives here in the US use, as "fact" to
continue to degrade our country and world.

Peace

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:08:54 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:



"Silent majority" ??????????.

There is no such thing as a silent majority. It is a contradiction in
terms. Most political majorities, ( those who win), are around about
fifteen to twenty percent of the total possible, and are anything but
silent. "Vociferous" would be an understatement.

All you need is time and money, and a lot of dumb arseholes who are willing
to support you, even when you bull****.

What a terrible waste of resources, and not only in America.

It is quite immaterial which particular label your arsehole of choice
happens to be wearing at the time, ( this too is variable).

Thinking is going out of fashion it seems.

MC

"Hayduke" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...


SNIP

Remarkably kind of you, nice that you are "with me", ( although it will do
neither you nor I any good), and I have nothing against your support.
Unfortunately, it is quite wasted, as I was quite serious when I said that I
did not give a ****. I really don´t. I know very little about American
politics, (at least in modern times), and my ambitions in this regard are
more than modest, in fact, non-existent.

I hope to have a reasonably happy life, with enough to eat and drink, a bit
of fishing now and again, maybe get to know a nice lady ( again, although I
consider it unlikely, no man can be so lucky more thn once in his life, but
hope still springs eternal), have a drink, go for a dance, touch someone I
love, enjoy myself, etc etc etc. Fill in the blanks as you please. I doubt
they will differ much from my wishes and hopes, certainly not in substance.

Who rules the world, is a matter of complete indifference to me. In fact, I
have nothing but contempt for anybody who wishes to. As long as they leave
me in peace. They can do or think as they like, It has very little bearing
on my existence, and in a remarkably short space of time, they will be just
as dead as I.

What "strider" or all these other silly buggers have to say, is of
absolutely no consequence. Anybody who gets that excited about ideology or
party politics, irrespective of which, or where, is to be pitied. Argument
or discussion is totally superfluous. You are not going to convince him. and
he is not going to convince you, so why waste the time and effort?

If you enjoy attempting to score points, or "scintillating" as a wit, then
go ahead. Why not? There are doubtless worse ways of spending time and
effort.

Basically, I am here ( wherever "here" happens to be) to discuss
fly-fishing. Eveything else is either a bonus, or a pain in the arse.

Not a big deal really.

It is of course nice when somebody agrees with you. However meaningless it
might be

TL
MC

Peace.

Some of us, here, like myself, are trying to do what we can to protect
those flyfishing places here in the US for you to come and enjoy. I
here partly to "give 'em hell", partly for entertainment, and mostly
to let those that would destroy our environment here and around the
world know that folks like me exist and will be fighting against them.

Good luck with your catch.



On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:27:56 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:

"Hayduke" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Peace.

Some of us, here, like myself, are trying to do what we can to protect
those flyfishing places here in the US for you to come and enjoy. I
here partly to "give 'em hell", partly for entertainment, and mostly
to let those that would destroy our environment here and around the
world know that folks like me exist and will be fighting against them.

Good luck with your catch.



On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:27:56 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:



Oh I appreciate your efforts, and applaud your motives, even though I will
never fish in any of those places. My only problem with the whole thing is
that arguing politics on a newsgroup like ROFF ( the group I subscribe to),
is unlikely to save anything at all. Although it may occasionally be
entertaining.

For many people who subscribe to specific newsgroups, the constant, (
arguably "off-topic"), cross-posting, is merely an expensive nuisance. They
are forced to download and pay for something they do not want. The noise to
signal ratio is sometimes very high indeed.

There are plenty of political forums, where those of like mind, and opposing
opinions, can batter away at each other to their heart´s content, without
bothering anybody else. Unfortunately, it seems to be in the nature of the
beast, that many feel called upon to foist their opinions on others,
irrespective of the other´s wishes. This is most unfortunate.

Lastly, environmental destruction is a result of our society. There is not
much anybody can do about it, without making sweeping changes to society,
and hardly anybody who is even remotely well situated ( read, practically
all of the western world),wants this.

Nevertheless, I wish you luck in your endeavours.

MC

If you're concerned about the environment then go lobby for it chum. Did it
ever dawn on your blinkered brain that folks in this NG already "care" about
the environment you dolt. But wait since you're so full of political
pollution you think you have something to tell us poor uninformed masses.
People like you are hopeless computer narcicons enamored with the though of
your own words reaching the "world" even if you make a total ass of
yourself.
Chris

"Hayduke" wrote in message
...
Peace.

Some of us, here, like myself, are trying to do what we can to protect
those flyfishing places here in the US for you to come and enjoy. I
here partly to "give 'em hell", partly for entertainment, and mostly
to let those that would destroy our environment here and around the
world know that folks like me exist and will be fighting against them.

Good luck with your catch.



On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:27:56 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:44:37 -0800, Hayduke wrote:

Believe me, Mike. I do not believe in a silent majority. I was
playing on Strider's idiotic words.

Back in the Nixon days, he kept on referring to a "silent majority" to
further his legislative agenda. Frequently on American talk radio,
chiefly the Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reily show, and also in
conservative print media, the conservatives refer to a silent majority
to justify their policies.

So, I'm with you. I agree that it is a contradiction of terms. It is
something that the conservatives here in the US use, as "fact" to
continue to degrade our country and world.

Peace

Well, if not a silent majority, certainly a ****ed off majority. Have
you noticed that the predominately leftwing Dems have lost control of
the Presidency, the House of Rep, the Senate, the Governorships?

Not too bad for what you consider a few rightwing fringers.

Strider


On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:08:54 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:



"Silent majority" ??????????.

There is no such thing as a silent majority. It is a contradiction in
terms. Most political majorities, ( those who win), are around about
fifteen to twenty percent of the total possible, and are anything but
silent. "Vociferous" would be an understatement.

All you need is time and money, and a lot of dumb arseholes who are willing
to support you, even when you bull****.

What a terrible waste of resources, and not only in America.

It is quite immaterial which particular label your arsehole of choice
happens to be wearing at the time, ( this too is variable).

Thinking is going out of fashion it seems.

MC

What a goof. Yeah, Bush won the popular vote (rolls eyes).

Strider, consider whoever is in office having won a PLURALITY of
votes, not a majority of the population eligible to vote.

I suppose, too, that you are one of those that believe that the
majority should always get what they want? Believe it or not, that is
anti-american and against our constitution. You see, this country was
set up to protect the minority, no matter who that may be - which is
not the "left" or progressive side of our society IHMO. Ever read
Federalist #10 written by Madison?

A representative democracy is what we are. Flawed, no doubt, as I
believe a parlamentary system would be much more democratic, but hey,
it is what we got.

Peace

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:56:52 GMT, Strider wrote:



Well, if not a silent majority, certainly a ****ed off majority. Have
you noticed that the predominately leftwing Dems have lost control of
the Presidency, the House of Rep, the Senate, the Governorships?

Not too bad for what you consider a few rightwing fringers.

Strider

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:05:15 -0800, Hayduke wrote:

What a goof. Yeah, Bush won the popular vote (rolls eyes).

Strider, consider whoever is in office having won a PLURALITY of
votes, not a majority of the population eligible to vote.

I didn't say otherwise. I do note that the last President elected by a
majority was Reagan.

I suppose, too, that you are one of those that believe that the
majority should always get what they want? Believe it or not, that is
anti-american and against our constitution. You see, this country was
set up to protect the minority, no matter who that may be - which is
not the "left" or progressive side of our society IHMO. Ever read
Federalist #10 written by Madison?

I'm quite familiar with our Constitutional Republic form of government
and the wisdom of protecting the minority. As you will note, I was
responding to certain jabs concerning the "silent majority".

Strider


A representative democracy is what we are. Flawed, no doubt, as I
believe a parlamentary system would be much more democratic, but hey,
it is what we got.

Peace

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:56:52 GMT, Strider wrote:



Well, if not a silent majority, certainly a ****ed off majority. Have
you noticed that the predominately leftwing Dems have lost control of
the Presidency, the House of Rep, the Senate, the Governorships?

Not too bad for what you consider a few rightwing fringers.

Strider