From: John B. on
On Feb 7, 12:24 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:clark-6300BD.10213407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
>
>
> > In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87...(a)newsfe11.iad>,
> > "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
> >> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >>news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> > In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16...(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
> >> >> "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> >> >> message
> >> >>news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >> > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7...(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> >> >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
>
> >> >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >> > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.co
> >> >> >> >> >m..
> >> >> >> >> >.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama
> >> >> >> >> > > was a
> >> >> >> >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people
> >> >> >> >> > > who
> >> >> >> >> > > can't
> >> >> >> >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> >> >> >> >> > > prerequisite
> >> >> >> >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here
> >> >> >> >> > > think
> >> >> >> >> > > about
> >> >> >> >> > > this. Do you defend him?
>
> >> >> >> >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to
> >> >> >> >> > enact
> >> >> >> >> > socialist
> >> >> >> >> > policies.
>
> >> >> >> >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> >> >> >> >> > write".
> >> >> >> >> > That
> >> >> >> >> > is stupid.
>
> >> >> >> >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
> >> >> >> >> > will
> >> >> >> >> > never
> >> >> >> >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > elections
> >> >> >> >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> >> >> >> >> > based
> >> >> >> >> > on
> >> >> >> >> > how
> >> >> >> >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
> >> >> >> >> > year's
> >> >> >> >> > tax
> >> >> >> >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> >> >> >> >> > happen.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you
> >> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> > looking
> >> >> >> >> > for.
>
> >> >> >> >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count
> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> more
> >> >> >> >> than those cast by people who don't?
>
> >> >> >> >> - - -
>
> >> >> >> >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in
> >> >> >> >> taxes
> >> >> >> >> since
> >> >> >> >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> use
> >> >> >> >> it.
> >> >> >> >> What is wrong with that?
>
> >> >> >> > What do you mean by "weight"?
>
> >> >> >> > - - -
>
> >> >> >> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets
> >> >> >> > one
> >> >> >> > vote.
> >> >> >> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person
> >> >> >> > pays
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > income taxes they get another vote.  Doing something like this
> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > it.
> >> >> >> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
>
> >> >> >> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> income
> >> >> >> taxes you get two votes.
>
> >> >> > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
>
> >> >> Buying something suggests that you willingly enter into an agreement.
> >> >> There
> >> >> is no willingness on the part of the taxed.  I am suggesting that the
> >> >> people
> >> >> who actually are currently forced to foot the bill for government
> >> >> decide
> >> >> how
> >> >> that government works.  What is so hard to understand about that?  It
> >> >> used
> >> >> to be that in order to vote you had to be a landowner.  Why?  Well
> >> >> because
> >> >> it was well understood that the only people that should be deciding
> >> >> our
> >> >> affairs were people that had a stake in the outcome.  The further we
> >> >> get
> >> >> away that and the further away we get from the politically astute
> >> >> deciding
> >> >> elections, the more our affairs are determined by idiots.
>
> >> > Your level of taxation is no measure of your contribution. Plenty of
> >> > wealthy people pay far less in tax than many middle class salary
> >> > earners, since they have the means to pay to set up tax shelters and
> >> > other avoidance devices.
>
> >> Geez dude.  Ok let's try again.  In your example, the middle class salary
> >> earner would get MORE votes than the wealthy people since they are paying
> >> MORE in TAXES.  That is EXACTLY what my suggestion would do.
>
> >> > How about you let people vote by their actual
> >> > contribution to society?  Then an inner city teacher who works their
> >> > butt off gets more say than the wastrel son of a billionaire who just
> >> > sits on his rear all day and plays the odd game of polo?
>
> >> Letting people vote by their actual "contribution" to society is worse
> >> yet
> >> because then it is up to politicians to decide what is "contribution" and
> >> what isn't.  Contribution would be defined as a politicians particular
> >> constituency.
>
> >> The son of a billionaire who does nothing gets one vote since he doesn't
> >> pay
> >> income tax.  Try to understand the difference between wealth and income
> >> and
> >> taxes.
>
> >> > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
> >> > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that
> >> > used
> >> > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
>
> > This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
> > million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
> > Right.
>
> > What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
> > disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
> > express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
> > recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
> > ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
> > with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
> > doing this.
>
> It's called a tax return, William and it is already on file with the federal
> government.  So you are worried that people will fill out their tax returns
> claiming they owe more in taxes than they really do because they want more
> power to vote.  But that aside, you think that this would lead to MORE
> shenanigans in elections than the current system where they can't even ask
> for identification?

--They can and do ask for identification.
>
> And we had a system in America where you had to be a land owner to even vote
> at all and that worked fine.  I don't recall that leading to anything
> remarkable.

--Really? When was that?
From: John B. on
On Feb 7, 12:56 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:33:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On 07 Feb 2010 16:21:40 GMT, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>I came across a study recently that argued liberals tend to be more
> >>educated and higher functioning than social conservatives. It's possible
> >>that a civics literacy test would hurt the Republicans more than the
> >>Democrats.
>
> > It all depends on who writes the tests.
>
> Whoever wrote them, they wouldn't be able to get away with injecting
> obvious bias into them.


What would happen is that most people would refuse to take the test.
Some would take it and fail. Voter turnout would drop to about 10% of
eligible voters. The United States would no longer be a democracy. It
would be a meritocracy. But it's a moot point. Conditioning voting on
passage of a test would violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights
Act.
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<clark-B507BB.08034807022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> In article <alangbaker-35AE26.20434306022010(a)news.shawcable.com>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> > > > news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
> > > > >
> > > > > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
> > > > > ..
> > > > > .
> > > > > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > > >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>
> > > > >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
> > > > >> ..
> > > > >> .
> > > > >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.co
> > > > >> >m.
> > > > >> >..
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama was
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who
> > > > >> > > can't
> > > > >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> > > > >> > > prerequisite
> > > > >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think
> > > > >> > > about
> > > > >> > > this. Do you defend him?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact
> > > > >> > socialist
> > > > >> > policies.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> > > > >> > write".
> > > > >> > That
> > > > >> > is stupid.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It will
> > > > >> > never
> > > > >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that
> > > > >> > elections
> > > > >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> > > > >> > based
> > > > >> > on
> > > > >> > how
> > > > >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous year's
> > > > >> > tax
> > > > >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> > > > >> > happen.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are
> > > > >> > looking
> > > > >> > for.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> than those cast by people who don't?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - - -
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes
> > > > >> since
> > > > >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how to
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> it.
> > > > >> What is wrong with that?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you mean by "weight"?
> > > > >
> > > > > - - -
> > > > >
> > > > > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one
> > > > > vote.
> > > > > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays in
> > > > > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this would
> > > > > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying for
> > > > > it.
> > > > > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in
> > > > income
> > > > taxes you get two votes.
> > >
> > > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> >
> > Are you seriously suggesting that there is no chance that it could
> > produce a better society?
>
> Yes, I am. I saw how this system operated in Northern Ireland, and the
> consequences for the society of effectively disenfranchising large
> sections of the population. We all know where it ended up.

I'm unfamiliar with the situation. Could you point me to some info?

> >
> > Right now we have a tyranny of the majority situation in one particular
> > area: if the majority want something, they can force the minority to pay
> > for it.
>
> You are assuming that the majority is a) coherently organized, and b)
> all of the same mind. Our electoral system (as long as the districts are
> not gerrymandered) shows that the moveable center shifts sides and leads
> to change.

You're assuming that coherent organization is necessary for politicians
to see which way the wind blows...

> >
> > If 5 guys on a street corner "vote" to "redistribute" the wealth of a
> > sixth, we usually call that a mugging...
>
> But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we will
> call that "democracy"? I don't think so.

You're assuming that he'll have that power. I'm not talking about making
money the only vote and I don't pretend to know where the balance point
should be, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't necessarily be some
counterbalancing.


We have constitutions and the rule of law to protect our freedoms of
speech, religion, liberty, etc. precisely because we recognize that the
unfettered power of democracy can lead to excesses. I'm suggesting that
there is an area that has led to excess: the fact that our property
rights are not protected when we bring up this thing called "taxation".

> >
> > When 5 million vote to do it to a million of their fellow citizens, it's
> > suddenly "democracy"!
>
> Yes, but you know that is not how it works.

In what way does it differ?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<clark-6300BD.10213407022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> In article <7kzbn.90050$1m3.87120(a)newsfe11.iad>,
> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
>
> > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > >> news:clark-486C64.22485806022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >> > In article <tnqbn.35794$Fm7.7270(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > >> > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:1mqbn.35793$Fm7.7043(a)newsfe16.iad...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> > news:b5b4fc62-1eb4-4744-9d69-ad9972e5ff31(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.c
> > >> >> > om
> > >> >> > ...
> > >> >> > On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > >> >> >> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> news:b2a74ab3-c5cb-45d4-ab83-9d44fe40edc4(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.c
> > >> >> >> om
> > >> >> >> ...
> > >> >> >> On Feb 6, 8:07 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >news:ae8a32c0-f97f-4e25-ad48-467fb695fa32(a)o3g2000vbo.googlegroups.
> > >> >> >> >co
> > >> >> >> >m..
> > >> >> >> >.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > > In a speech to the Tea Party convention, Tancredo said Obama
> > >> >> >> > > was a
> > >> >> >> > > "committed socialist ideologue," who was elected by people who
> > >> >> >> > > can't
> > >> >> >> > > read or write. He said a civics literacy test should be a
> > >> >> >> > > prerequisite
> > >> >> >> > > for voting. I'm just wondering what the Republicans here think
> > >> >> >> > > about
> > >> >> >> > > this. Do you defend him?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > I think Obama is a socialist in the sense that he wants to enact
> > >> >> >> > socialist
> > >> >> >> > policies.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > I do not think that the people who elected him "can't read or
> > >> >> >> > write".
> > >> >> >> > That
> > >> >> >> > is stupid.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > A civics literacy test would be a fantastic prerequisite. It
> > >> >> >> > will
> > >> >> >> > never
> > >> >> >> > happen. Another good idea would be to just accept the fact that
> > >> >> >> > elections
> > >> >> >> > are nothing more than spoils systems nowadays and weight votes
> > >> >> >> > based
> > >> >> >> > on
> > >> >> >> > how
> > >> >> >> > much income tax an individual pays. Bring in your previous
> > >> >> >> > year's
> > >> >> >> > tax
> > >> >> >> > returns and your vote is thusly weighted. It will also never
> > >> >> >> > happen.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > Of course not being a Republican my opinion is not what you are
> > >> >> >> > looking
> > >> >> >> > for.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> So, votes cast by people who make a lot of money should count for
> > >> >> >> more
> > >> >> >> than those cast by people who don't?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> - - -
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> No, I suggested weight be given to those who pay the most in taxes
> > >> >> >> since
> > >> >> >> they are financing government. Let he who pays for it decide how
> > >> >> >> to
> > >> >> >> use
> > >> >> >> it.
> > >> >> >> What is wrong with that?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > What do you mean by "weight"?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > - - -
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Well for example let's say that every person automatically gets one
> > >> >> > vote.
> > >> >> > Then in addition say that for every thousand dollars a person pays
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > income taxes they get another vote. Doing something like this
> > >> >> > would
> > >> >> > weight votes on what government should do based on who is paying
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > it.
> > >> >> > If you pay $12k dollars in income taxes you get two votes.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sorry, obviously using my example I meant to say if you pay $1200 in
> > >> >> income
> > >> >> taxes you get two votes.
> > >> >
> > >> > Are you seriously suggesting that buying votes is OK?
> > >>
> > >> Buying something suggests that you willingly enter into an agreement.
> > >> There
> > >> is no willingness on the part of the taxed. I am suggesting that the
> > >> people
> > >> who actually are currently forced to foot the bill for government decide
> > >> how
> > >> that government works. What is so hard to understand about that? It
> > >> used
> > >> to be that in order to vote you had to be a landowner. Why? Well
> > >> because
> > >> it was well understood that the only people that should be deciding our
> > >> affairs were people that had a stake in the outcome. The further we get
> > >> away that and the further away we get from the politically astute
> > >> deciding
> > >> elections, the more our affairs are determined by idiots.
> > >
> > > Your level of taxation is no measure of your contribution. Plenty of
> > > wealthy people pay far less in tax than many middle class salary
> > > earners, since they have the means to pay to set up tax shelters and
> > > other avoidance devices.
> >
> > Geez dude. Ok let's try again. In your example, the middle class salary
> > earner would get MORE votes than the wealthy people since they are paying
> > MORE in TAXES. That is EXACTLY what my suggestion would do.
> >
> > > How about you let people vote by their actual
> > > contribution to society? Then an inner city teacher who works their
> > > butt off gets more say than the wastrel son of a billionaire who just
> > > sits on his rear all day and plays the odd game of polo?
> >
> > Letting people vote by their actual "contribution" to society is worse yet
> > because then it is up to politicians to decide what is "contribution" and
> > what isn't. Contribution would be defined as a politicians particular
> > constituency.
> >
> > The son of a billionaire who does nothing gets one vote since he doesn't
> > pay
> > income tax. Try to understand the difference between wealth and income and
> > taxes.
> >
> >
> >
> > > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
> > > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that used
> > > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
>
> This gets crazier by the moment. You don't suppose there are fifty
> million ways to avoid paying taxes but making it look like you do?
> Right.

Eventually, you have to cut a cheque to the government and they issue
you a receipt (or could).

>
> What you end up with in a system like this is a permanently
> disenfranchised class, who then turn to other (usually violent) means to
> express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the system. Don't I
> recall some kind of revolution taking place a couple of hundred years
> ago on a similar basis? It is what happened in Northern Ireland, and
> with some justification. I prefer the ballot box as a better means of
> doing this.

There is nothing be discussed here that means that anyone need be
disenfranchised, so that's a strawman.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on
In article
<clark-E8C8B3.13571807022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> In article <hJ6dnb8YFrbIaPPWnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
> "Bobster" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > news:clark-B9A309.07575607022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > In article <YOrbn.35799$Fm7.16451(a)newsfe16.iad>,
> > > "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So now you see just what a stupid idea this is. For a reality check,
> > > just remember that your proposal is very similar to the system that used
> > > to hold in Northern Ireland, and we all know what that led to.
> >
> > No, now we see how stupid you are. People who don't pay taxes don't have
> > any skin in the game. They shouldn't get to vote on issues that raise
> > taxes
> > or increase spending.
>
> Again, go read your Northern Ireland history. Then you might not make
> quite such an idiot of yourself in public.

I've started that investigation. From even a cursory examination, it
isn't nearly has cut and dried as you're claiming.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>