|
|
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
In message , Kurt Hamster
writes On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:59:08 -0000, Peter Sammon used to say... Nope, a World Health Organisation report from a few years ago (What else has all that Coca-Pepsi-Cola rotted?) A UN organization extolling the virtues of British teeth? Hmmm, why do you consider a denigration of America to be extolling the virtues of the UK? There is irony here. There sure is, but I really don't think you understand what it really is. It's something that my dentist found amusing when he told me about the report! -- Chris Morriss |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
snip Not at all. I use their forum for many reviews, much like Amazon.com's customer reviews. If you like Amazon's reviews I suggest you take a look at this one I think you may like it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/..._music_1_1/202 -8013819-8291058 |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Steve Batt said: Of course, "we" means "The USA and the Brits right behind us". Didn't see any americans while I was there .... So you were the cook on HMS's battleship. Not quite, no Steve |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Steve Batt said: Sienfeld is ****. You didn't see any, remember? I thought that was 'supposed' to be a tv show, and i did say "is" Steve |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Well.....it worked .........he screwed up a very good news group
Imp leaving for a while and hoping Mr Sammon.turns his attention to another group soon. Sad git that he is . And when its so obvious what he's up to .why do the rest of you just keep throwing petrol on the fire? Oh well .............thanks to all those here who have been helpful in the past and see you some time in the future when the ******s have moved on to their next target Barry "Westy" wrote in message ... snip Not at all. I use their forum for many reviews, much like Amazon.com's customer reviews. If you like Amazon's reviews I suggest you take a look at this one I think you may like it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/..._music_1_1/202 -8013819-8291058 |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Peter Sammon wrote:
Von Braun lived his last few years as an American citizen. Perhaps one of the advantages of being 'Merkin is that it is an easily acquired "condition" as we are all immigrants or descendents of them. For example it would be more difficult to immigrate to Germany and become German, as the condition of thousands of Turks there would illustrate. Not impossible maybe, but more difficult certainly. I suspect the same is true for France (Algerians), Italy (Albanians) and Britain. Actually, since it is by region/nation in most cases, it can be quite easy as an American to become a citizen elsewhere. Some places like the U.K. and Ireland have more applicants than spaces, but for someplace like Mexico or Japan - if you can speak the language and have a job lined up, you can get in pretty easily. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message ... On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:15:00 -0500, George M. Middius used to say... Keith G said: (We *lost* a war? - When did that happen? Why wasn't I told? - Actually, forget that, the French actually *won* a war??? What's that all about then?)) It's all nonsense. Napoleon was actually English. Now I must admit that my history skills are very poor, so could someone just remind me of any war where the US won all on their own? And started on time. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Peter Sammon wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote in hlink.net: Peter Sammon wrote: Von Braun lived his last few years as an American citizen. Perhaps one of the advantages of being 'Merkin is that it is an easily acquired "condition" as we are all immigrants or descendents of them. For example it would be more difficult to immigrate to Germany and become German, as the condition of thousands of Turks there would illustrate. Not impossible maybe, but more difficult certainly. I suspect the same is true for France (Algerians), Italy (Albanians) and Britain. Actually, since it is by region/nation in most cases, it can be quite easy as an American to become a citizen elsewhere. Some places like the U.K. and Ireland have more applicants than spaces, but for someplace like Mexico or Japan - if you can speak the language and have a job lined up, you can get in pretty easily. Interesting. That wasn't what I was trying to say though. I meant in a social/cultural sense; It's easier to immigrate to the US and assimilate into the culture- generally- than the aforementioned countries. Oh. Yeah, that's largely correct as the U.S. has no real culture other than what it smooshes together from all the oddballs inhabiting it ;) |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:07:28 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote: Don Pearce wrote in : On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:56:05 -0000, Peter Sammon wrote: Look out! France and "California" are creeping up behind you! California? Last I heard they were bankrupt. But the thought of the French creeping up behind me gives me the creeps. The state government of California has a budget deficit but isn't quite bankrupt (yet). A much different story of course is the state economy which is huge (see below), had a rough year in 2003 but still managed to grow (slightly): 1. United States $9,963 billion 2. Japan $4,614B 3. Germany $1,867B 4. Britain $1,415B 5. France $1,281B (Look out Britain!) 6. China $1,104B 7. Italy $1,054B 8. Canada $701B 9. Brazil $606B 10. Mexico $578B California's GDP is $1,330B which surpassed France in 2000. I think the one we all have to look out for there is China. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:40:54 -0000
Peter Sammon wrote: It's easier to immigrate to the US and assimilate into the culture What culture? ;-) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
"Ian Molton" wrote in message ... On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:40:54 -0000 Peter Sammon wrote: It's easier to immigrate to the US and assimilate into the culture What culture? ;-) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. Can't remember where I heard it said, but, it was said by an american.. 'If you ain't american, you ain't ****' Steve |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:43:29 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote: In message , Peter Sammon writes Now we've got 22,721,252 drunken' Irish who all hate the Brits. Good God, there's only four and a half million of them in the whole of Ireland. Yes, and this stems from a time when "God" definitely was not good! Given that the peak of imigration into the US was only about 140 years ago, what have they been doing to get to 22 Million) Given that that amounts to about 6 generations, and the number that started the process in the US, it is not difficult to achieve at all. Plus the majority of migrants to the US from Ireland were Catholic, known for large families. Can any group of people breed that fast, or are perhaps some of the US 'Irish' only Irish in their own fantasies? Mr Morris, is it necessary for you to adopt such a derogatory tone when addressing this issue? In some countries this would surely qualify as racial villification! Please read and comprehend the following, it might help you to understand things, and to keep your ignorant opinions to yourself until such time as you acquaint yourself with the facts. It might also help a reasonable person to understand why many people of Irish extraction don't exactly hald the English is very high regard. 1. During the Irish Potato Famine, one (1) million people died in Ireland between 1846 - 1851. 2. Two (2) million people emigrated from Ireland between 1845 - 1855. These mostly went to America in the so-called "coffin ships" and most of them at that time went to the US. 3. This left 5 million people, with continuous emigration being a factor in Irish life since then. I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself can see that almost 2 million people could quite easily reach 22 million in approximately 160 years since the Famine emigration began. But there's more. The Irish Diaspora - by many estimates 60 million people - mainly in the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and South America - all either descended from emigrants, or emigrants themselves, just as my family and I are. A closer acquaintance with the history of the behaviour of the British in Ireland - still going on of course - would go some way to explain why so much emigration, but I doubt you have that acquaintance, nor I think any inclination to find out such things. I infer from your posting address that you are if not British then a resident of that country, which explains for me the ignorant an derogatory tone of your post, above. But on the off-chance that you might be interested, please check out the following recent work on this issue: Coogan, Tim Pat. "Wherever Green is Worn: the Story of the Irish Diaspora". London, Hutchinson, 2000. It is a very good read from an excellent writer, and you will see that it is actually published by and English house, in London. Patric Scully |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:54:57 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote: Of course on St Patricks' day they're all Irish. On ST. Patrick's day, we're *all* Irish. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
In message , Patric Scully
writes I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself can see that almost 2 million people could quite easily reach 22 million in approximately 160 years since the Famine emigration began. You wouldn't have big ears, and be subject to myxomatosis would you? -- Chris Morriss |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:07:28 -0000, Peter Sammon wrote: Don Pearce wrote in m: On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:56:05 -0000, Peter Sammon wrote: Look out! France and "California" are creeping up behind you! California? Last I heard they were bankrupt. But the thought of the French creeping up behind me gives me the creeps. The state government of California has a budget deficit but isn't quite bankrupt (yet). A much different story of course is the state economy which is huge (see below), had a rough year in 2003 but still managed to grow (slightly): 1. United States $9,963 billion 2. Japan $4,614B 3. Germany $1,867B 4. Britain $1,415B 5. France $1,281B (Look out Britain!) 6. China $1,104B 7. Italy $1,054B 8. Canada $701B 9. Brazil $606B 10. Mexico $578B California's GDP is $1,330B which surpassed France in 2000. I think the one we all have to look out for there is China. True. That's only about $1K per person per year. Vastly under-performing its potential. The U.S. and Japan come in at well over 30K a year per capita, average. 30 times China's current productivity would be truly frightening, especially since almost a quarter of it now is U.S. run factories and suppliers. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Peter Sammon wrote:
Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: What I find humorous in the US is the number of "faux" Irish who aren't Catholic; So one has to be Catholic to be true Irish? LOL Spoken like a true faux-Irishman. *Real* Irishman are Catholic. Any other has give up what much of what it means- historically and culturally- to be Irish. For centuries Catholicism was at the heart of the Irish struggle against Britain much like Catholicism was the heart of the Polish struggle against communism during the cold war. You CAN call yourself Irish and be Baptist, Methodist etc., but let's face it, you're then only of Irish descent and not culturally Irish. I speak of course of the legions of "gee I'm Irish" in the US of course. If you're Irish in Cork and converted to Protestantism you're a friggin' traitor. ;-) think being Scots-Irish means they are part Irish, part Scottish; snip I think you've missed something here. In Ireland Scots-Irish call themselves NOT Irish, but Ulster Scots [Brits please correct me if I'm off]. They are the protestants of Northern Ireland. Ulster Scots are descendent from the Scottish Presbytarians who migrated there in the 17/18 century. What would they call the original Catholic Scots-Irish(non Ulster) in the same area, then? Just curious. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
In message , Le Artiste
writes "Steve Batt" emitted : Can't remember where I heard it said, but, it was said by an american.. 'If you ain't american, you ain't ****' LOL! ;-) -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t What chaos eh? Stewart goes off to India for a couple of weeks holiday and all this breaks out. Makes the old technical flaming look quite civilised(ish). Ok, Peter, you must have won your bet by now, that you could bring this newsgroup to its knees. -- Chris Morriss |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
In uk.rec.audio Kurt Hamster wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:48:57 +0000, Ronnie McKinley used to say... In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: In all seriousness though, where do you think was the "tipping point" [to use an in vogue term] where Scottish descended, Protestant Irish changed from anti-English to pro-British? Act of the Union. By far the worst evil the Brits ever bestowed on the Island of Ireland. and btw I'm NOT anti-English. I'm anti-British government. Is there anybody who isn't? We at least you have the chance to boot the ****ers out, or at least chance the profile every few years. A lot of us over here don't have that opportunity. Geez the dirty *******s won't even field official candidates, just a load of quangos :) Religion gets on my tits. It has caused more bloodshed than just about anything else. Ian |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:51:23 -0000, Peter Sammon
wrote: Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Le Artiste wrote: "Ronnie McKinley" emitted : I infer from your posting address that you are if not British then a resident of that country, which explains for me the ignorant an derogatory tone of your post, above. $DEITY forbid anyone being derogatory in here! It always tickles me how the Irish in this world all praise Ireland and it's people and the ****e given to them over the years. Strangely though the vast majority live many miles from Ireland have no interest in returning to the 'homeland'. Personally I think it's all ********. You are as Irish as I am. It's just a tag. If you want to be Irish give up moaning and ****ing bleating about and move back to Ireland where you can be a proper Mick rather than a plastic replica, and quit lecturing us. If they have pubs that serve Guiness, they're Irish.. Of course you mean, Guinness :) Beat you to it matey.. :) Only by seconds :) Btw ... this Peter Sammon fellow, is he a Yank? Personally I don't think he's a Yank, but a Brit. Nope. Never been to Britain save for the airport in London. Had a girlfriend *from* England a couple of years ago. Beautiful woman, but a psychopath. [I attribute that to gender not racial origin.] ;-) So, what did your "wife and teenage sons" think about this? |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
"Le Artiste" wrote in message ... "Steve Batt" emitted : Can't remember where I heard it said, but, it was said by an american.. 'If you ain't american, you ain't ****' LOL! ;-) Many a true word has been said in jest. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message hlink.net...
Peter Sammon wrote: Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: What I find humorous in the US is the number of "faux" Irish who aren't Catholic; So one has to be Catholic to be true Irish? LOL Spoken like a true faux-Irishman. *Real* Irishman are Catholic. Any other has give up what much of what it means- historically and culturally- to be Irish. For centuries Catholicism was at the heart of the Irish struggle against Britain much like Catholicism was the heart of the Polish struggle against communism during the cold war. You CAN call yourself Irish and be Baptist, Methodist etc., but let's face it, you're then only of Irish descent and not culturally Irish. I speak of course of the legions of "gee I'm Irish" in the US of course. If you're Irish in Cork and converted to Protestantism you're a friggin' traitor. ;-) think being Scots-Irish means they are part Irish, part Scottish; snip I think you've missed something here. In Ireland Scots-Irish call themselves NOT Irish, but Ulster Scots [Brits please correct me if I'm off]. They are the protestants of Northern Ireland. Ulster Scots are descendent from the Scottish Presbytarians who migrated there in the 17/18 century. What would they call the original Catholic Scots-Irish(non Ulster) in the same area, then? Just curious. Ulster Scots. Among the Scots speaking immigrants from Scotland there were Catholics. This idea that Scots-Irish is only a presbetarian thing is flawed. Though no doubt there are sectarian biggots who'll abuse anything to justify their twisted ends. Alan |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Peter Sammon wrote:
Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio (Alan Edgey) wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote in message arthlink.net... Peter Sammon wrote: Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: What I find humorous in the US is the number of "faux" Irish who aren't Catholic; So one has to be Catholic to be true Irish? LOL Spoken like a true faux-Irishman. *Real* Irishman are Catholic. Any other has give up what much of what it means- historically and culturally- to be Irish. For centuries Catholicism was at the heart of the Irish struggle against Britain much like Catholicism was the heart of the Polish struggle against communism during the cold war. You CAN call yourself Irish and be Baptist, Methodist etc., but let's face it, you're then only of Irish descent and not culturally Irish. I speak of course of the legions of "gee I'm Irish" in the US of course. If you're Irish in Cork and converted to Protestantism you're a friggin' traitor. ;-) think being Scots-Irish means they are part Irish, part Scottish; snip I think you've missed something here. In Ireland Scots-Irish call themselves NOT Irish, but Ulster Scots [Brits please correct me if I'm off]. They are the protestants of Northern Ireland. Ulster Scots are descendent from the Scottish Presbytarians who migrated there in the 17/18 century. What would they call the original Catholic Scots-Irish(non Ulster) in the same area, then? Just curious. Ulster Scots. Among the Scots speaking immigrants from Scotland there were Catholics. And furthermore great numbers of these Scot immigrants were direct descents of the original peoples of the north of Ireland (Ulster) who had migrated to Scot-land centuries before. This idea that Scots-Irish is only a presbetarian thing is flawed. Though no doubt there are sectarian biggots who'll abuse anything to justify their twisted ends. Absolutely. Backward thinking late 19th century sectarian politics. It has been the name of the games for the last 30 years. Well now, next you'll be telling us Yanks that upper-class English males really *aren't* all homosexuals. ;-)) Prince Charles has by all accounts been giving Camilla a serious seeing to for many a year. He may be many things but he is not a poof. Ian Ian |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Alan Edgey wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message hlink.net... Peter Sammon wrote: Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: What I find humorous in the US is the number of "faux" Irish who aren't Catholic; So one has to be Catholic to be true Irish? LOL Spoken like a true faux-Irishman. *Real* Irishman are Catholic. Any other has give up what much of what it means- historically and culturally- to be Irish. For centuries Catholicism was at the heart of the Irish struggle against Britain much like Catholicism was the heart of the Polish struggle against communism during the cold war. You CAN call yourself Irish and be Baptist, Methodist etc., but let's face it, you're then only of Irish descent and not culturally Irish. I speak of course of the legions of "gee I'm Irish" in the US of course. If you're Irish in Cork and converted to Protestantism you're a friggin' traitor. ;-) think being Scots-Irish means they are part Irish, part Scottish; snip I think you've missed something here. In Ireland Scots-Irish call themselves NOT Irish, but Ulster Scots [Brits please correct me if I'm off]. They are the protestants of Northern Ireland. Ulster Scots are descendent from the Scottish Presbytarians who migrated there in the 17/18 century. What would they call the original Catholic Scots-Irish(non Ulster) in the same area, then? Just curious. Ulster Scots. Among the Scots speaking immigrants from Scotland there were Catholics. This idea that Scots-Irish is only a presbetarian thing is flawed. Though no doubt there are sectarian biggots who'll abuse anything to justify their twisted ends. What I meant is, how do you tell the Ulsters apart from the older ones that preceeded them - or are they all now lumped together? Yeha - the notion of 100% Catholic in the south and 100% presbetarian in the North is flawed. Especially now, with the younger generations. Shoot, a large number of them are opting out of the mess entirely or looking into other religions. In a few decades, it's going to be much more muddled as to which is which - and that's a good thing as the second they stop fighting over issues that the Brits(govt) have invented for them to keep them busy fighting amongst themselves and start looking at the larger picture, they'll unite and kick them out. I'm a big fan myself of a unified Ireland. Afterall, let's not forget that it was a colony just a couple of hundred years ago. That 2/3 of it was freed from their opressive masters was nice, but the job still remains unfinished. At the least, N. Ireland should be its own seperate country by now. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:04:28 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: I'm a big fan myself of a unified Ireland. Afterall, let's not forget that it was a colony just a couple of hundred years ago. That 2/3 of it was freed from their opressive masters was nice, but the job still remains unfinished. At the least, N. Ireland should be its own seperate country by now. A united Ireland is an absolutely A1 idea. The only big problem I can see is logistical. How would you accommodate all those extra MPs at Westminster? d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:19:59 +0000, Don Pearce
wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:04:28 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: I'm a big fan myself of a unified Ireland. Afterall, let's not forget that it was a colony just a couple of hundred years ago. That 2/3 of it was freed from their opressive masters was nice, but the job still remains unfinished. At the least, N. Ireland should be its own seperate country by now. A united Ireland is an absolutely A1 idea. The only big problem I can see is logistical. How would you accommodate all those extra MPs at Westminster? Maybe some hanging hammocks? |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:34:03 +0000, Ian Bell
wrote: Peter Sammon wrote: Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio (Alan Edgey) wrote: Joseph Oberlander wrote in message . earthlink.net... Peter Sammon wrote: Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: What I find humorous in the US is the number of "faux" Irish who aren't Catholic; So one has to be Catholic to be true Irish? LOL Spoken like a true faux-Irishman. *Real* Irishman are Catholic. Any other has give up what much of what it means- historically and culturally- to be Irish. For centuries Catholicism was at the heart of the Irish struggle against Britain much like Catholicism was the heart of the Polish struggle against communism during the cold war. You CAN call yourself Irish and be Baptist, Methodist etc., but let's face it, you're then only of Irish descent and not culturally Irish. I speak of course of the legions of "gee I'm Irish" in the US of course. If you're Irish in Cork and converted to Protestantism you're a friggin' traitor. ;-) think being Scots-Irish means they are part Irish, part Scottish; snip I think you've missed something here. In Ireland Scots-Irish call themselves NOT Irish, but Ulster Scots [Brits please correct me if I'm off]. They are the protestants of Northern Ireland. Ulster Scots are descendent from the Scottish Presbytarians who migrated there in the 17/18 century. What would they call the original Catholic Scots-Irish(non Ulster) in the same area, then? Just curious. Ulster Scots. Among the Scots speaking immigrants from Scotland there were Catholics. And furthermore great numbers of these Scot immigrants were direct descents of the original peoples of the north of Ireland (Ulster) who had migrated to Scot-land centuries before. This idea that Scots-Irish is only a presbetarian thing is flawed. Though no doubt there are sectarian biggots who'll abuse anything to justify their twisted ends. Absolutely. Backward thinking late 19th century sectarian politics. It has been the name of the games for the last 30 years. Well now, next you'll be telling us Yanks that upper-class English males really *aren't* all homosexuals. ;-)) Prince Charles has by all accounts been giving Camilla a serious seeing to for many a year. He may be many things but he is not a poof. You mean she isn't a cross-dresser that needs a Queer Eye For the Straight Guy makeover? I always thought that she shared Dame Edna's stylist. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:55:34 +0000, Ronnie McKinley
wrote: In uk.rec.audio Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:04:28 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: I'm a big fan myself of a unified Ireland. Afterall, let's not forget that it was a colony just a couple of hundred years ago. That 2/3 of it was freed from their opressive masters was nice, but the job still remains unfinished. At the least, N. Ireland should be its own seperate country by now. A united Ireland is an absolutely A1 idea. The only big problem I can see is logistical. How would you accommodate all those extra MPs at Westminster? Is there a joke into there somewhere. Don? Why would Irish Republic MPs (actually TDs) be sitting in Westminster? I was just assuming that the smaller part would be absorbed into the larger. In other words the republic would become a part of the United Kingdom. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:59:13 +0000, Ronnie McKinley
wrote: Is there a joke in there somewhere. Don? Why would Irish Republic MPs (actually TDs) be sitting in Westminster? I was just assuming that the smaller part would be absorbed into the larger. In other words the republic would become a part of the United Kingdom. Yea, seems logical, Don. I suppose with Ronan Keating as King? We're hitting the sherry early tonight, Don :) -- Highly chilled and currently watching Spinal Tap. I feel no pain. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
|
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:04:28 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: I'm a big fan myself of a unified Ireland. Afterall, let's not forget that it was a colony just a couple of hundred years ago. That 2/3 of it was freed from their opressive masters was nice, but the job still remains unfinished. At the least, N. Ireland should be its own seperate country by now. A united Ireland is an absolutely A1 idea. The only big problem I can see is logistical. How would you accommodate all those extra MPs at Westminster? I don't know that it would matter terribly much. :) Given the propensity for the British government to threaten to or actually shut down the N. Irish parlement when they feel like, it's clear that they are in the same crappy situation that we were 230 years ago. They should be free. Unification is a seperate issue for later. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
Not according to the 1920s Government of Ireland Act :) Yeah, I know. Grr. ******* poofs sitting there in their ivory towers in London... Government sucks. U.K. doubly so. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message nk.net...
Ronnie McKinley wrote: Not according to the 1920s Government of Ireland Act :) Yeah, I know. Grr. ******* poofs sitting there in their ivory towers in London... Government sucks. U.K. doubly so. ******* poofs? How do you come to that specific conclusion? Personal experience? |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
STFU NO ONE CARES ABOUT POLITICS,,,, THIS IS AUDIO GROUP.... GO AWAY
"Peter Sammon" wrote in message ... Kurt Hamster wrote in news:rrednRczA_S9ULvdRVn- : On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:13:27 -0000, Peter Sammon used to say... Actually it's losing several wars to the French that does it to you. Stiff upper lip and all that rot! You're a bit of a one trick pony aren't you? No my little Kurt, Britains' loses to France in several wars is a deep, rich well. Worth drawing from more than once. The shame. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Peter Sammon wrote: Ian Molton wrote in : On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:21:44 -0000 Peter Sammon wrote: I think I'd rather be a brit than belong to the most hated country on the planet. Canada? Heh. you do realise that almost the entire world (including a ton-load of yanks) *LOVES* Canada? Its ranked No. 1 most desireable place to live (USA is only just above the 3rd world in those rankings) Canada is the country the USA wanted to be but sadly failed to become... Ian, Ian, Ian, tsk, tsk, tsk. Canada is really the fountain of all evil. The heartland of terrorism, homeland of Satan and true ringleader of the Axis of Evil. I steal the following liberally: As Americans, we have several problems with the Canadians: 1. Canadians make their coins to appear very similar to ours so that they can pass off their lower value coinage in our businesses. 2. Canada refuses to recognize that they are an enclave of the United States, even though they are clearly between Alaska and the rest of the continental states. 3. Canada refuses to provide freedom of worship to their citizens, being ruled by a minister, instead of a President, as is proper. 4. Canada takes a unilaterally hostile and threatening posture on their southern border by placing a disproportionate number of their citizens there. 5. Canada routinely infiltrates sensitive US military installations, such as NORAD headquarters in Colorado. 6. Canadians show little respect for Americans from the South. 7. Canada's Gestapo keeps its internal affairs secret by imposing a media blackout throughout their country. This is why you hardly ever hear any news about Canada. 8. Canada sends terrorists to the United States. 9. Canada has a national anthem that has lyrics that were obviously written by some committee. 10. On August 1814, Canada provided logistic support to England in burning down our White House during the War of 1812. We have never forgotten this, and our rage towards Canada and her allies still burns hot in our hearts to this very day. 11. Bose 901 Made in Canada ;) I hope that this answers your questions, and helps you to understand why we refer to Canada as the "axis of evil". |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Peter Sammon wrote:
Ronnie McKinley wrote in : In uk.rec.audio Peter Sammon wrote: What I find humorous in the US is the number of "faux" Irish who aren't Catholic; So one has to be Catholic to be true Irish? LOL Spoken like a true faux-Irishman. *Real* Irishman are Catholic. Any other has give up what much of what it means- historically and culturally- to be Irish. For centuries Catholicism was at the heart of the Irish struggle against Britain much like Catholicism was the heart of the Polish struggle against communism during the cold war. Fek off. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:43:29 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote: In message , Peter Sammon writes Now we've got 22,721,252 drunken' Irish who all hate the Brits. Good God, there's only four and a half million of them in the whole of Ireland. Yes, and this stems from a time when "God" definitely was not good! Given that the peak of imigration into the US was only about 140 years ago, what have they been doing to get to 22 Million) Given that that amounts to about 6 generations, and the number that started the process in the US, it is not difficult to achieve at all. Plus the majority of migrants to the US from Ireland were Catholic, known for large families. Can any group of people breed that fast, or are perhaps some of the US 'Irish' only Irish in their own fantasies? Mr Morris, is it necessary for you to adopt such a derogatory tone when addressing this issue? In some countries this would surely qualify as racial villification! Please read and comprehend the following, it might help you to understand things, and to keep your ignorant opinions to yourself until such time as you acquaint yourself with the facts. It might also help a reasonable person to understand why many people of Irish extraction don't exactly hald the English is very high regard. 1. During the Irish Potato Famine, one (1) million people died in Ireland between 1846 - 1851. 2. Two (2) million people emigrated from Ireland between 1845 - 1855. These mostly went to America in the so-called "coffin ships" and most of them at that time went to the US. 3. This left 5 million people, with continuous emigration being a factor in Irish life since then. I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself can see that almost 2 million people could quite easily reach 22 million in approximately 160 years since the Famine emigration began. But there's more. The Irish Diaspora - by many estimates 60 million people - mainly in the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and South America - all either descended from emigrants, or emigrants themselves, just as my family and I are. A closer acquaintance with the history of the behaviour of the British in Ireland - still going on of course - would go some way to explain why so much emigration, but I doubt you have that acquaintance, nor I think any inclination to find out such things. I infer from your posting address that you are if not British then a resident of that country, which explains for me the ignorant an derogatory tone of your post, above. But on the off-chance that you might be interested, please check out the following recent work on this issue: Coogan, Tim Pat. "Wherever Green is Worn: the Story of the Irish Diaspora". London, Hutchinson, 2000. It is a very good read from an excellent writer, and you will see that it is actually published by and English house, in London. Patric Scully |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
"Patric" wrote:
I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself can see that almost 2 million people could quite easily reach 22 million in approximately 160 years since the Famine emigration began. A demographer you're not. The population of China in 1850 was about 450,000,000. By your analysis, China (also until recently with extremely large families) should have a population of almost 5 billion now. Your statistics are dodgy by a factor of at least four. |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:39:52 +1000, Michael Conzo
wrote: "Patric" wrote: I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself can see that almost 2 million people could quite easily reach 22 million in approximately 160 years since the Famine emigration began. A demographer you're not. And he's not Irish-American, either. The population of China in 1850 was about 450,000,000. By your analysis, China (also until recently with extremely large families) should have a population of almost 5 billion now. Your statistics are dodgy by a factor of at least four. Well, de Oirish was always a bit tick, boyo.............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Spectacular Bookshelf Performance
Michael, The US population in 1850 was around 22 million, it is now 280
million. This is a greater percentage then what you were proposing for China. Look at the following graph http://www.npg.org/historypop.html APR. "Michael Conzo" wrote in message ... "Patric" wrote: I'm sure a reasonable person such as yourself can see that almost 2 million people could quite easily reach 22 million in approximately 160 years since the Famine emigration began. A demographer you're not. The population of China in 1850 was about 450,000,000. By your analysis, China (also until recently with extremely large families) should have a population of almost 5 billion now. Your statistics are dodgy by a factor of at least four. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk