Article

2005-03-21 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-21 4:28:19 AM|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The achilles heel of socialism is that it can never pay for itself, and must sponge off of someone outside the system. When a country becomes thoroughly socialist, it becomes utterly dependent on the charity of other nations. The end result is Bangladesh: other countries pay it to keep it impoverished.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-03-21 8:44:02 AM|| 2005-03-21 8:44:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Brittain has some good hotels and lots of good Indian and continental restaurants. Couldn't they make their payments in kind? Just host a few hundred beaurocrats?

Posted by Jackal 2005-03-21 9:47:11 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-03-21 9:47:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I wonder how much longer the English will stay with the EU. From what I have seen of the British character, they don't suffer fools greatly and the EU is filled with fools...

Posted by mmurray821 2005-03-21 11:13:20 AM|| 2005-03-21 11:13:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "From what I have seen of the British character, they don't suffer fools greatly" Maybe Bulldog can give us a rundown on the political parties in Britain again? They seem to "suffer" as many fools there as we do over in the States . ..

Posted by James 2005-03-21 4:37:57 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-03-21 4:37:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I wonder how much longer the English will stay with the EU.

They first applied in '63... and Europe turned them down.
So they applied again in '67... and Europe turned them down.
And so they applied again in '73... and Europe finally let them in.

At which point the Brits decided the eeevil Europe had twisted their arms and forced them to join.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-21 8:27:00 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-21 8:27:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 You're stretching the truth, Aris. The Maastricht Treaty established the "European Union" in '92.

Posted by Tom 2005-03-21 8:35:00 PM|| 2005-03-21 8:35:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 You're nitpicking, Tom. EU evolved from the European Communities of the 1950s.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-03-21 8:48:29 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-03-21 8:48:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 No one in their right mind would say the EU "evolved" -- it's more a matter of bureaucratic entropy.

Posted by Tom 2005-03-21 8:53:10 PM|| 2005-03-21 8:53:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Britain should bail before the black hole debts of the Euro-welfare states drag them down - Lilliputians tying down their betters

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-21 8:54:47 PM|| 2005-03-21 8:54:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 #8ÃÂ No one in their right mind would say the EU "evolved"

That is correct. The accurate term is metastasized.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-21 9:03:55 PM|| 2005-03-21 9:03:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris, the UK joined an economic union. At the time, Britain had lost an empire and had yet to find a role. Socialism was at its high point, everyone seemed to be a member of a regional grouping, and the USA was pre-occupied with Asia in general and Vietnam in particular. The Common Market (as it was known then) was viewed as the only option available. The world is very different today. At I think at some point the UK will leave the EU but it will require a disruptive event to trigger it.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-21 10:41:37 PM|| 2005-03-21 10:41:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Tom... entropy? I asked my Thermodymanics professor to define entropy in terms we sophomore engineers could understand, and he said, "Well, some say it is the 'randomness of the universe', but really, it's this term in the equation, right here."

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-21 10:41:41 PM|| 2005-03-21 10:41:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Bobby, ... and from an engineer's POV, he was really absolutely correct! LOL!

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-21 10:49:33 PM|| 2005-03-21 10:49:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Technically, it's the amount of information about the current state of the system that cannot be obtained from knowing the initial state of the system.

Or is it the amount of information about the initial state that can't be obtained from the current knowledge of the state of the system?

I forget.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-03-21 10:53:09 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-03-21 10:53:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Thanks Phil - I'll be diggin up my 1969 notes from Thermo to see if your definition fits.... (snicker)

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-21 10:58:53 PM|| 2005-03-21 10:58:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-21 11:05:26 PM|| 2005-03-21 11:05:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-03-21 11:05:26 PM|| 2005-03-21 11:05:26 PM|| Front Page Top

23:05 Sobiesky
23:05 Sobiesky
10:09 Cyber Sarge
10:09 Cyber Sarge
00:06 ed
23:30 Barbara Skolaut
23:21 DMFD
23:17 Bobby
23:14 Bobby
23:13 .com
23:13 Bobby
23:11 AzCat
23:10 Sobiesky
23:09 Asedwich
23:07 Bobby
23:03 Frank G
23:00 Sobiesky
22:58 Bobby
22:53 Phil Fraering
22:52 Bobby
22:49 Sobiesky
22:41 Bobby
22:41 phil_b
22:35 mom