 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / November 2007Are you ready to vote Howard out this Saturday?
As you all know, this Saturday there's a general elections taking place in Australia: the incumbent Prime Minister Howard is facing a tough uphill battle against the young, Mandarin-fluent Labor leader, Kevin Rudd. I would like to point out to all Chinese and other Asian diaspora - Japanese, Korean, Filipinos, Vietnamese etc, who live in Australia or have an Australian citizenship papers to vote for the upcoming winner - Rudd. First of all, the Liberal Party of Australia is more anti-immigrant than Labor could ever be; we all remember the immigration debacle back in 2001, when he refused entry to Asian refugees. He has used 9/11 as a(n) (racist) excuse to exclude Asian immigrants from Aussie society. You won't want to reward him with another mandate. Furthermore, when the question of pacific islanders who might find themselves refugees due to the rising sea level set and poised to inundate and submerge these islands, partly due to his gov't's refusal to go through the motions and ratify Kyoto (Australia is the largest *per capita* GHG emitter, far above the US and China) - he refused to allow these poor people entry visa to Australia. New Zealand, may I remind you - DOES. Second of all, he's well beyond his time. His refusal to allow Australia to shed its colonial ties to the British monarchy may contrast with his love of everything American. So far, he's been Bush's poodle when it comes to "war on terror" or refusal to ratify Kyoto. He boasts a pro-American stance when it comes to a Reagenesque policy that squeezes out the poor, (like WorkChoice) yet sticks to an outdated anachronistic monarchist model that was even being questioned back in England, in 1687, by Oliver Cromwell, rather than adopting a US-style republican model. Moreover it baffles me why, in light of 67% of the Australian public, who consistently back a Republic since 1993, he won't back the democratic choice of the Australia people, and insist of obstructing the change to a Republic (as he did in 1999 when he shrewdly divided the Republican camp). It infuriates me, because when China does something that the West doesn't consider as "democratic", it's being scrutinized as a tyranny. But Howard can give the finger to the 2/3 of the public who want a republic and say "sc**w you" and get away with it, apparently. The third thing is, that Kevin Rudd, rather than being a Bush-poodle like Howard, (Rudd is staunchly pro-American, though, but not a poodle), he profoundly understands the emergence of China as a world force and the importance of growing trade with it. Look at the map, "it's the geography, stupid", to paraphrase Bill Clinton. Rudd, unlike Howard, understands the Chinese mentality, as well as being a fluent Mandarin speaker. Rudd is also younger, more in tune with the Internet, the global trends, and understands the modern globalized society better than 68 year old Howard. Besides, it's about time to have a change after 11 years of the same old, same old. So, I hope the Asian constituents of Howard's own electoral district, which is about 45% Asian, mainly Chinese and Korean, would heed this advice and vote him out of office for good. David Huang On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: "He boasts a pro-American stance when it comes to a Reagenesque policy that squeezes out the poor, (like WorkChoice) yet sticks to an outdated anachronistic monarchist model that was even being questioned back in England, in 1687, by Oliver Cromwell, rather than adopting a US-style republican model" Hmm, quite. 1687! So let's see what you want here. To get rid of a PM because he is pro- American, because you want to put in place an American style system of government. "I would like to point out to all Chinese and other Asian diaspora - Japanese, Korean, Filipinos, Vietnamese etc, who live in Australia or have an Australian citizenship papers to vote for the upcoming winner - Rudd" By the way, my understanding is that Asia begins in Turkey. You wouldn't be excluding the non-Mongoloid peoples because of your own racism, would you? Did and done. Long live PM Kev' > On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > wouldn't be excluding the non-Mongoloid peoples because of your own > racism, would you? > On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > So let's see what you want here. To get rid of a PM because he is pro- > American, because you want to put in place an American style system of > government. No. I was just pointing and highlighting how hypocrite he was to be such a Bush-poodle on Iraq and Kyoto, but at the same time to shun 2/3 of Australians who wanted a US-style Republic. David Huang On Nov 26, 12:21 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > such a Bush-poodle on Iraq and Kyoto, but at the same time to shun 2/3 > of Australians who wanted a US-style Republic. Along with your racism, ignorance of history and general cock-eyed logic, you also seem to have some difficulty with basic arithmetic. > On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > wouldn't be excluding the non-Mongoloid peoples because of your own > racism, would you? Just to be clear to you, Turkey is a Mongoloid country. They originated in the Far East and conquered the Byzantine empire. Their language is closely related to Mongolian, even though it's completely different than Chinese, Korean or Japanese. David Huang On Nov 26, 6:57 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > David Huang "Mongoloid" is not a current word. It is only found in outdated texts on racial anthropology, or in reference to people characterized by Down's Syndrome; in both cases it is thoroughly obsolete; in neither case is it applicable to the Turks of Turkey. The Turks are *linguistically* "Altaic" -- meaning they are at the Western end of a Turkic-language continuum that stretches to Uigur Turkestan in China. The Turkic languages are _distantly_ related to the Mongolian languages, though formerly Turks and Mongols had much in common _culturally_. The Turks who invaded Asia Minor in 1071, however, were thoroughly Persianized in culture (and partly in language). They came in as small bands of raiders into a much more populous country filled with Armenians, Greeks, and the hybrid descendants of far older nations -- Asia Minor was the melting pot of the Byzantine Empire. The Turks were not endogamous, but married freely with local converts to Islam (of which there were very many). Thus, within a very few generation, all visible traces of the original ancestry of the descendants of the first Turkish invaders had been effaced; while great numbers of people adopted the Turkish language who had no ancestral connection with the eastern Turks at all. The original Turks would have resembled modern-day Uigurs or Kazakhs. Modern-day Turks are, however, a characteristically Mediterranean people, "racially" somewhere between the Greeks and the Armenians; and this has been the case for over six hundred years. >> On Nov 22, 8:11 pm, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> wouldn't be excluding the non-Mongoloid peoples because of your own >> racism, would you? ETC (etcetera) - The inclusion of all other persons or objects belonging to a group by definition without being obviously stated. eg, 'The english speaking diaspora, the US Canada, Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong, etc' (notice that in the example I gave of the english speaking diaspora that the country of ENGLAND was not mentioned.) > <david_huang2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > (notice that in the example I gave of the english speaking diaspora that > the country of ENGLAND was not mentioned.)- Hide quoted text - Hong Kong! One does seem to have a sticky key, doesn't one! As far as I can see, your list is just a mite more diverse, geographically and ethnically than than "Chinese and other Asian diaspora - Japanese, Korean, Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc." Asian, in the latter context obviously means "like Japan, Korean, Filipino and Vietnamese" not like Turkish, Iranian, Indian or Maldive. On Nov 23, 7:11 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > As you all know, this Saturday there's a general elections taking > place in Australia: the incumbent Prime Minister Howard is facing a [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > David Huang I really get sick and tired with this same old argument by republicans - that the referendum put to the people in 1999 and to which the answer was a resounding No - doesn't really mean No. You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with a republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the monarchy in 1660. As to the other political rhetoric - well Australia is a democratic country and you can vote for whomsoever you chose. Regards Donald Binks > On Nov 23, 7:11 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > Regards > Donald Binks The English experiment you talk of Donald from 1649-1860 was more to do with dictatorship than republicanism, hardly a fair analogy. On Nov 24, 2:15 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Nov 23, 7:11 am, david_huang2...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > The English experiment you talk of Donald from 1649-1860 was more to > do with dictatorship than republicanism, hardly a fair analogy.- Hide quoted text - 1860? You will be telling us that republics can never be dictatorships next. > On Nov 24, 2:15 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > You will be telling us that republics can never be dictatorships next. 1860, typo of course. Was that not evident ? Of course republics can become dictatorships just as monarchies can like Italy during the 1920's. However ideally republics are democracies, as well you know. On Nov 24, 8:24 pm, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2:15 am, jell...@bigpond.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > 1860, typo of course. Was that not evident ? Had to say with a pie in the sjy analysis. > Of course republics can become dictatorships just as monarchies can > like Italy during the 1920's. However ideally republics are > democracies, as well you know.- Hide quoted text - Alas, the practice is that most republics have been dictatorships or authoritarian states of one kind or another, at least during some period of their existence. Those who have remained democracies throughout their existence can be counted on the fingers of one hand. > You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with > a republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the > monarchy in 1660. I think "half-heartedly" is more like it, and that the subsequent history of the monarchy bears that out. Moreover, the "republican government" of 1649-1660 was a military dictatorship headed up by a generalissimo, and not a republic even in the sense in which contemporary republics (like the United Provinces of the Netherlands) understood the term. The more-or-less democratically elected parliament of 1642 had been much reduced, by expulsions and defections, by 1648, to the point where it was dominated by a majority of a minority. Even this minority parliament was insufficiently radical for the unelected Army; and when it looked as if the parliament might reinstate the King, on terms that would give parliamentary leaders free control of policy and choice of cabinet ministers (much like the current situation in the UK), the Army chiefs, led by Cromwell, kicked out all but the most radical Parliamentarians and cut the King's head off in what was, by any legal criteria but the law of might makes right, an illegal proceeding. A new wave of civil war followed, which was competently and brutally enough suppressed by Cromwell; and following the reestablishment of peace, he suppressed the last remnants of the parliament of '42. Handpicked assemblies, without any democratic element to their selection, offered Cromwell powers equal to or greater than a King's -- and he accepted everything but the name. When Cromwell died five years later, and his weaker son was ousted by a military coup, many people reasoned thus: "One way or another, we seem destined to end up under monarchical rule. If this is so, why not choose the heir by blood? At least under the old constitutional regime we knew what our rights, and the King's obligations, were. Under these new dispensations and Instruments of Government, we have no established rights and can be deprived of our freedoms at any time by this rapacious soldiery." With that in mind, the monarchy was (after many political twists and turns, and largely due to Charles II's amenability to compomise) restored as a limited, constitutional monarchy, hemmed in though not (as yet) strictly controlled by Parliament. But the acceptance of Charles II's rule was not "whole-hearted" -- rather, it soon developed an opposition faction and the development of the first true party politics in the history of England. The Revolution of '88, and the Hanoverian Succession of '14, showed that the attachment of the Restoration elite was not to the persons of the Stuart monarchs, but to a monarchical system within which an oligarchic form of government, making use of, but not controlled by monarchic authority, could be established. Democratic elements did not appear in the system until the 19th century, and then were only established gradually; in between, the British state was governed by aristocratic factions who used the façade of elections, manipulated by themselves, to legitimize their claims to authority, rather than deriving their authority from the results of free elections. >> You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with a >> republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > manipulated by themselves, to legitimize their claims to authority, > rather than deriving their authority from the results of free elections. Just imagine what might have happened if there had been a US government in existence in 1649 when Charles I was executed. First, they would have applauded Cromwell for deposing Charles and putting him on trial. Then, they would have adopted a hands-off approach to the decision to execute him. Following Charles' execution, they would have insisted that Cromwell took off his military uniform in order to be recognised as Lord Protector. And, finally, they would have supported the installation of a tripartite devolved government representing the Scottish, Welsh, and English communities with a preponderance of power granted to the Puritan extremists. And, of course, it was the Puritan extremists who sailed in the Mayflower to America. PS. Americans don't like Christmas. That's why they celebrate Thanksgiving, and work through Christmas. Puritans were the same. Cromwell and his pals abolished Christmas too. This fellow actually knows some British History, as contrasted to many of the British bloviators and poseurs who regularly post here. DSH On Nov 23, 6:50 pm, Donald4564 <dbi...@aapt.net.au> wrote: > You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with > a republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the > monarchy in 1660. I think "half-heartedly" is more like it, and that the subsequent history of the monarchy bears that out. Moreover, the "republican government" of 1649-1660 was a military dictatorship headed up by a generalissimo, and not a republic even in the sense in which contemporary republics (like the United Provinces of the Netherlands) understood the term. The more-or-less democratically elected parliament of 1642 had been much reduced, by expulsions and defections, by 1648, to the point where it was dominated by a majority of a minority. Even this minority parliament was insufficiently radical for the unelected Army; and when it looked as if the parliament might reinstate the King, on terms that would give parliamentary leaders free control of policy and choice of cabinet ministers (much like the current situation in the UK), the Army chiefs, led by Cromwell, kicked out all but the most radical Parliamentarians and cut the King's head off in what was, by any legal criteria but the law of might makes right, an illegal proceeding. A new wave of civil war followed, which was competently and brutally enough suppressed by Cromwell; and following the reestablishment of peace, he suppressed the last remnants of the parliament of '42. Handpicked assemblies, without any democratic element to their selection, offered Cromwell powers equal to or greater than a King's -- and he accepted everything but the name. When Cromwell died five years later, and his weaker son was ousted by a military coup, many people reasoned thus: "One way or another, we seem destined to end up under monarchical rule. If this is so, why not choose the heir by blood? At least under the old constitutional regime we knew what our rights, and the King's obligations, were. Under these new dispensations and Instruments of Government, we have no established rights and can be deprived of our freedoms at any time by this rapacious soldiery." With that in mind, the monarchy was (after many political twists and turns, and largely due to Charles II's amenability to compomise) restored as a limited, constitutional monarchy, hemmed in though not (as yet) strictly controlled by Parliament. But the acceptance of Charles II's rule was not "whole-hearted" -- rather, it soon developed an opposition faction and the development of the first true party politics in the history of England. The Revolution of '88, and the Hanoverian Succession of '14, showed that the attachment of the Restoration elite was not to the persons of the Stuart monarchs, but to a monarchical system within which an oligarchic form of government, making use of, but not controlled by monarchic authority, could be established. Democratic elements did not appear in the system until the 19th century, and then were only established gradually; in between, the British state was governed by aristocratic factions who used the façade of elections, manipulated by themselves, to legitimize their claims to authority, rather than deriving their authority from the results of free elections. > > You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with > > a republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > contemporary republics (like the United Provinces of the Netherlands) > understood the term. Well, different in terms of the Head of State not being a member of a Royal House. Even so, how often was the Prince of Orange subject to election? Every year, every four years? How very different was Cromwell's rank as supreme military commander from that of Captain-General of the United Provinces? The latter held good for times of war or national crisis, but Cromwell and his mob could asily argue that they ruled in just such times. > The more-or-less democratically elected parliament of 1642 had been > much reduced, by expulsions and defections, by 1648, to the point [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > element to their selection, offered Cromwell powers equal to or > greater than a King's -- and he accepted everything but the name. I am not sure that any of this proves that the country wasn't a republic at the time. Just that the "supreme fellow" meddled a lot in the make up of parliament. All republics throw democracy out the window in regard to any choice regarding the reinstatement of a monarch, once they have deposed him. As we have seen during more recent times, many of those who have become republics forbid a return by democratic means, expel or deprive members of the Royal Family of their citizenship, residence and even property. Moreover, the "republican government" of 1649-1660 was a military dictatorship headed up by a generalissimo, and not a republic even in the sense in which contemporary republics (like the United Provinces of the Netherlands) understood the term. -------------------- You need to put the term 'The English Republic' into a search engine some time. The the king lost effective power in 1642 and the military dictatorship didn't start until 1653. This run until Cromwell's death in 1658 and then the government of England seems to have been in the hands of 'nobody very much'.  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. On Nov 26, 9:32 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Moreover, the "republican > government" of 1649-1660 was a military dictatorship headed up by a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This run until Cromwell's death in 1658 and then the government of England > seems to have been in the hands of 'nobody very much'. The King had effective power over large chunks of England and Wales in 1642, 1643, 1644, and 1645 when the Royalists collapsed, though the King wasn't personally in custody until '46. The remainder of the country was in the hands of the "Two Houses of Parliament" (the Royalists refused to call the Houses "the Parliament", pointing out with legal nicety that it wasn't a Parliament if the King wasn't part of it) during this time, but it was still a kingdom -- the Parliamentarians nominally governed in the name of the King, and formally the war wasn't against the King himself (which would have been legal nonsense) but against his evil counsellors and other "malignants", a rhetoric that had been in use even before the war. Parliamentary authority was gradually usurped by the New Model Army from 1645 on, as local commanders pretty much did as they wished. Things came to a head in the summer of 1647, when the Army marched on London and successfully overawed the Parliament. From this point on the Parliament is a shadow and a puppet theatre; its last attempt to act independently in 1648 was thwarted by the Army, and led directly to the beheading of the King. This was not an act directed against the powerless Charles; it was an act to prevent Parliament from using the King's authority against the Army. Only after the death of Charles was a "Res publica" declared; but it the government no more a real republic after '49 than it had been a real monarchy before '49. Though the Rump Parliament dragged its limp carcass along until '53, its own authority was gone and the Army ruled unchecked. All of these events were very much in the minds of our Founding Fathers in the United States as they wrote our Constitution. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas > The King had effective power over large chunks of England and Wales in > 1642, 1643, 1644, and 1645 when the Royalists collapsed, though the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Though the Rump Parliament dragged its limp carcass along until '53, > its own authority was gone and the Army ruled unchecked. > On Nov 26, 9:32 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Though the Rump Parliament dragged its limp carcass along until '53, > its own authority was gone and the Army ruled unchecked.- Hide quoted text - So a republic is only a state where parliament is supreme, correct or not? > > On Nov 26, 9:32 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > So a republic is only a state where parliament is supreme, correct or > not? Well no, in theory and in name a republic is simply a state whose external form is non-monarchic, and this covers "Democratic People's Republics" and "Soviet Socialist Republics" and various other states governed by juntos and caudillos and generalissimos and rahbars and turkmenbashis. In that sense, between January 1649 and May 1660, England was properly called a _res publica_, or "Commonwealth" as the phrase was Englished at the time. But in terms of what we would nowadays call a republic -- a state governed through regularly elected, representative institutions -- it wasn't, except perhaps at the very end when a free Parliament was summoned -- the one that promptly recalled Charles II. > > > On Nov 26, 9:32 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > the very end when a free Parliament was summoned -- the one that > promptly recalled Charles II.- Hide quoted text - But that isn't what we nowadays call a republic. We call a republic any old thing that does not have a monarch, including those who have "hereditary" presidents. > > > > On Nov 26, 9:32 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The North Korean head-of-state's titles now include 'Eternal President'. > > > > > On Nov 26, 9:32 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > The North Korean head-of-state's titles now include 'Eternal > President'.- Hide quoted text - Interesting. Does the Syrian president have anything similar? Do you have a citation and quotation for that please? [That _res publica_ was translated as Commonwealth and that the two terms were synonymous.] DSH > In that sense, between January 1649 and May 1660, > England was properly called a _res publica_, or "Commonwealth" as the > phrase was Englished at the time. > Do you have a citation and quotation for that please? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>England was properly called a _res publica_, or "Commonwealth" as the >>phrase was Englished at the time. Res publica is a Latin phrase, made of res + publica, literally meaning "public thing" or "public matter". It is the origin of the word 'Republic', though translations vary widely according to the context. "The state" - "The Commonwealth" Taking everything together that is of public interest leads to the connotation that the res publica in general equals the state. For Romans this equalled of course also the Imperium Romanum, and all its interests, so Res Publica could as well refer to the Roman Empire as a whole (regardless of whether it was governed as a republic or under imperial reign). In this context scholars suggest "commonwealth" as a more accurate and neutral translation of the term, while neither implying republican nor imperial connotations, just a reference to the state as a whole. [wiki] > Do you have a citation and quotation for that please? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > England was properly called a _res publica_, or "Commonwealth" as the > > phrase was Englished at the time. Well, no, I don't have a citation exactly, but I can mention Cromwell's Great Seal (a semi-illegible image of which can be found here http://www.hants.gov.uk/record-office/gallery/images/gallery11.jpg and a more legible sketch of which can be found here http://www.yeomenoftheguard.com/cromwellscotland.jpg) which reads "Olivarius, Dei gra[tia] Reip[ublicae] Angliæ, Scotiæ, Hiberniæ &c. Protector"; to which may be compared Old Noll's "Instrument of Government" which can be found here http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur097.htm and which gives his style as "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland", which I take to be evidence that the English understood _res publica_ to be the formal equivalent of their _commonwealth_. And if state documents are preferred, even prior to the Protectorate, John Milton, who was the Latin secretary of the Commonwealth, referred to the Parliament in foreign dispatches as "Parlamentum reipublicæ Angliæ" as for instance seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=G-ewXjmqXDQC&pg=PA788, and the corresponding English letters use "The Parliament of the Commonwealth of England" as for instance here http://books.google.com/books?id=G-ewXjmqXDQC&pg=PA599, et passim in both cases. Milton's authority, both as a representative of the Commonwealth's government, and as a 17th-century Latinist, should be pretty high. In alt.talk.royalty David <dsalo@softhome.net> wrote: :> You might like to also check on some facts. England experimented with :> a republican government from 1649-1660 and wholeheartedly restored the [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] : their claims to authority, rather than deriving their authority from : the results of free elections. Authority can only derive from the Divine Right of a Monarchy; a government can only derive its EFFECTIVENESS from the consent of the governed.A government's responsibility is to act for the BENEFIT of,not ON BEHALF of,those it governs...as a subordinate of their desires it can not perform its duty of subordinating their desires to their needs. Republicanism is fundamentally illogical and should not exist. -=-=- The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote: > : [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. I'm highly impressed by your ALL CAPITALS, Louis, indeed, they shine so blindingly bright that I cannot see anything else. I may need some help in interpreting the meaning of EFFECTIVENESS BENEFIT ON BEHALF, though; it's slightly cryptic, though intriguing. In alt.talk.royalty David <dsalo@softhome.net> wrote: :> In alt.talk.royalty David <dsalo@softhome.net> wrote: :> : [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] : help in interpreting the meaning of EFFECTIVENESS BENEFIT ON BEHALF, : though; it's slightly cryptic, though intriguing. Apply yourself assiduously to the study of my writings, and comprehension may one day dawn upon you. :> -=-=- :> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, :> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > In alt.talk.royalty David <ds...@softhome.net> wrote: > : [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. 'Authority can only derive from the Divine Right of a Monarchy" And I thought it was only the young blokes in white shirts and black ties who knock on my door that I had to worry about. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.