world's worst tourists

Deep Freud Moors writes:

The reverse swastika you are talking about originates from India I believe,

The Nazis reversed it, not the Indians.

If you were given total control of your country, how would you implement
"real free speech" making sure that minorites were protected?

Minorities are not harmed by free speech in the first place. Indeed,
they are usually among those who stand to profit from it the most, since
it guarantees the right of minorities to express their points of view.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Deep Freud Moors writes:

After making a bold statement like that, would you care to list the
countries in Europe you have spent time in?

From what I remember, I know that I've been at least in France, the UK,
Norway, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, and
Germany. It's funny how they all blur together after a while.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In rec.travel.asia, Mxsmanic wasted keystrokes
on the following:

Jim Ley writes:

Definitions please... Do you mean people can only move one class or
what?

In socialist societies like Sweden, nobody is ever allowed to become
rich or poor.

You seem to confuse the terms socialist and social security. Probably
because of the severely polarized political situation in the US.
Anyway. I'm a rightwinger myself (and a liberal in economical sense of
the word, not in the US-political sense of the word), but I do
consider living in a country with good social security a part of my
wealth. Sweden is not socialist. Having a good social security system
has nothing to do with socialism, marxism or Das Kapital. The fact
that the US government doesn't give a flying **** about you doesn't
mean it's the standard in the rest of the world.


--

Remove internal organs to send me spam.
But why bother? I don't check this account anyway.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Socialist societies are good for underachievers and lazy people
generally; capitalist societies are good for overachievers and highly
ambitious people. Not surprisingly, most Europeans are in the former
category, and most Americans are in the latter category.

Most Americans are highly ambitious overachievers? I think you may have been
away a little too long.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
...
Deep Freud Moors writes:

After making a bold statement like that, would you care to list the
countries in Europe you have spent time in?

From what I remember, I know that I've been at least in France, the UK,
Norway, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, and
Germany. It's funny how they all blur together after a while.

It's equally funny how all your ridiculous claims and comments also blur
together after a while.

Sjoerd

"Mxsmanic" schreef in bericht
...
One of the most striking things about Europe is that most Europeans are
born, live their lives, and die within a single social stratum--there is
almost no movement between strata.

You live in the 19th century. The entire concept of social strata doesn't
really exist anymore in most of Europe.

Sjoerd

Sloopy wrote:
Tell me what you can't say that you could say before the Patriot Act.

"Welcome to the public library. In the past week we have responded to a
subpoena for one of our borrowers' records."

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:58:17 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Deep Freud Moors writes:

After making a bold statement like that, would you care to list the
countries in Europe you have spent time in?

From what I remember, I know that I've been at least in France, the UK,
Norway, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, and
Germany. It's funny how they all blur together after a while.

You been on that maryjane again?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 03:27:16 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Ley writes:

Right, so by phoning my bank up and talking to the bank person, I
increase the chance that that bank person may defraud me - that seems
kind of odd when they could do that anyway whether I phoned them up or
not... Exactly how does this fraud work?

The more information you provide, the easier the fraud.

"Hi, Can you Pay Bob 200 please?"

I fail to see what information that gives that is useful to fraud,
other than the fact that you pay Bob money on occasion, something that
anyone with account acccess can see with cheques or anything else.

Jim.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Tim Challenger writes:

cynic !

Perhaps merely uninformed. Reading about the work of the Gates
Foundation can be quite enlightening.

It depends who is writing the reading material. There's quite a lot of
material out there which questions the deeper motivations behind a lot
of Gates's philanthropic giving, and I'm talking about funding AIDS
research as much as I am putting Windows computers into schools.
Personally, I don't know enough about it to form an opinion either way-
I'm not cynical enough to believe it's entirely 'selfish'- indeed,
impossible to see it that way, really- but there does seem to be a lot
of convenient 'self-interest' at the very least.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk