On Dec 3, 5:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 03/12/2010 00:45, wrote:





On Dec 2, 3:57 am, Martin
wrote:
On 02/12/2010 04:19, wrote:

On Dec 1, 9:10 pm, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
* *wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:13 am, wrote:

On Nov 24, 10:06 am, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave

* *wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:13 am, wrote:

basically following party lines then only the savings and
loan industry would have failed (Whoops didn't we bail out the savings
and load industry once before, Hmm now I remember that was under a
REPUBLICAN and wasn't the REPULICAN presidential candidate McCain
criticized for having exercised "poor judgment" ).

I am a conservative, not a Republican. *You seem to get the two ideas
confused.

It is difficult from your posts to determine how much further to the
extreme right you are than the Neocons though. The lunatic fringes of
conservatism are very ill defined.

The terms "left" and "right" refer ONLY to socialists, a group which
includes both communists and fascists. Communists are on the left and
fascists are on the right. *Conservatives do not fall on that
political spectrum at all; we are neither left nor right, nor anywhere
in the middle of that morass.

You will have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
You have defined yourself as not any of the above without saying
anything about what you believe in. I am still no wiser about what you
mean by saying you are a "conservative". You have not defined the word.

Low taxes, less government, equal rights, strong national defense,
freedom of speech, right to self defense, religious freedom, right to
privacy, fair trials, school choice, family values, preserve the
environment, support the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, etc.
Simple for most people (but not you) to understand.

No you are about as far from be conservative as is possible. You are
even to the right of the John Birchers' whos members William F.
Buckley called "paranoid and idiotic"

True Conservatives, such as myself, see people like you as leftists.

You see anyone to the left of Ghengis Khan as a leftist. This is ironic
since the ultra-right and ultra-left are virtually indistinguishable as
they each want a totalitarian one party state where no dissent is
permitted.

The ultra-right and ultra-left are all socialists.

So what are you then? Just plain anti-social.
The sort of American who lives in one of those odious gated communities
surrounded by discretely hidden razor wire and goons with guns?

http://www.seeing-stars.com/live/malibu.shtml

There is a map that will show you how to get to the beach, but be sure
to stay on the wet sand. You don't want any of the liberal residents
to accuse you of trespassing.

The only difference is what they call themselves and a few
minor details about their choice of "the great leader".

Ghengis Khan would probably best be described as a leftist. *He was
certainly not a conservative.

Humpty-dumpty still hasn't defined what he means by "conservative".

We find it both disturbing and amusing that people like you are
utterly unable to distinguish fascists (or right-wingers as you like
to call them) from us True Conservatives. *Your ignorance is
astounding and is best explained as the the result of your having been
"educated" in government schools.

So please explain to me the difference between a "true conservative" and
a neofascist in your own words.

A neofascist is a socialist, while a true conservative is not a
socialist.

All the bad bits of being a neofascist without *any* of the benefits for
the community - that sounds really appealing to deranged nutters and
megalomanics alike. Do you model yourself of Ernst Stavro Blofeld or
Napolean?

The best way to benefit the community is to be a conservative.
Socialists only take from the community.

Mature democracies can actually tolerate
political parties from far left to far right.

The US is not a democracy, and was not founded as such, so your
statement is irrelevant.

It is also hopelessly politically immature. Where else would you have a
witch-hunter general appointed to shadow box with reds under the bed. A
particularly odd scenario since the reds in America are Republicans!

Nowadays, the communist and socialist parties are weak in the US
because the Democrat platform seems very similar to their own. A few
Republicans have started to act like socialists, but this discussion
is about conservatives, not Republicans. Try to stay on topic.

I am sure US national security was greatly improved by forcing Charlie
Chaplin out. He didn't seem to do us any harm at all living in the UK.

It probably didn't hurt, but it wasn't conservatives that kept him
from returning.

The extremists do not get
many votes but do provide an outlet for the nutters.

Extremists exist only among the socialists. *There is no such thing as
a extremist conservative in US politics.

So rabid that they are beyond extremism - this I have to see.



Viewed from over the pond it is difficult to tell what you believe in. I
hope as an astronomer you are not so antiscience as to deny evolution

It isn't a pond, the body of water in question is called the Atlantic
Ocean. *I am more pro-science than you are. I know the difference
between a pond and an ocean.

But you seem to lack a knowledge of colloquial English.

You probably meant to say colloquial British.

Hearing people refer to the ocean as "the pond" was somewhat funny the
first 10,000 times, but has grown a bit tiresome over the last few
decades.

You espouse views which are on the rabid side of rightard kookdom.

Is that some sort of technical term?

Describes you perfectly.

One could say that you are on the rabid side of "LEFTtard kookdom" but
it is already a given that leftists are rabid kooks and mostly
"tards" (as you like to refer to people with whom you disagree.)

The comedians didn't need scripts they could just repeat her incoherent
utterances. She made Bush look intelligent by comparison. Neofascist
describes your politics more accurately than Conservative.

How so, idiot?

Look at your rants here and think about how you come across.

No rants, just statements of facts that don't jibe with your twisted
beliefs.

The US style ones sold in Europe are typically the least efficient and
come in at around 550kWh/month. about 3x the best A+ rated kit eghttp://www.dealtime.co.uk/Beko-Beko-AS920-Frost-Free-American-Refrige...

What exactly is a US style fridge?

Something that has double doors is badly insulated, about 1m deep with
2m square frontage and is hopelessly inefficient.

You just described a 100 cubic foot refrigerator. The vast majority
of household refrigerators in the US are in the 20- to 26-cubic foot
size.

A high efficiency European fridge is more like 160kWh/month. eghttp://www.liebherrrefrigerators.co.uk/category/liebherr-fridges/

That's more than mine uses.

Perhaps you don't have an American fridge then. I'm not sure where they
get their figures from some standardised test at a high ambient I would
guess - mine uses nothing like the book value either.

Is an "American fridge" a refrigerator that is designed in America,
built in America or just sold in America?

That is because the typical "conservative" stance in the US is always to
facilitate environmental rape for fun and profit.

You mean like the 20-room mansions, the limos, the heated pools and
the private jets of the hypocritical, faux-green leftist celebrities?

Oh it is the American way for all, but the Republicans are much more
strongly associated with encouraging profligate waste of resources to
make a quick profit. US cars are a classic example of bad by design with
average fleet fuel economy that has not improved since the 1920's.

2010 Bentley Azure, 11 MPG combined.

Ever wonder why Americans bought Japanese cars instead of British
cars? Or for that matter American cars instead of British cars?

The US eco-movement is also a part of the problem since greens tend to
claim things that are demonstrably untrue, and activists like Gore work
on a "do as I say not as I do" world model. I agree he is a hypocrite.

Well, that was easy.

Bush was not called
the toxic Texan for nothing - he did a lot to eviscerate the EPA so his
mates in the oil industry could pollute with impunity.

Your own position on AGW demonstrates clearly a total refusal to accept
any scientific evidence that conflicts with your extreme politics.

When the left-wing, jet-setting eco-hypocrites start practicing what
they preach, then us reasonable, thoughtful people might take the
(supposed) situation seriously. *Not until.

You could always set a good example and encourage others to follow. And
to be fair it sounds like you do.

Of course.

But you don't believe that it makes sense to leave the planet in a fit
state for the next generation. Why does that not surprise me?

I do believe that it makes sense. It's the hypocritical liberals who
don't.