French politicians want to tax tablets for not running Windows

Samuel Thurston sam.thurston at
Tue Jan 4 06:49:54 UTC 2011

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Goh Lip <g.lip at> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:13:05 +0800, Doug Pollard <dougpol1 at>
> wrote:
>> I am absolutely serious.  It may be ironic but it is what fascism is
>> about. They might be able to get millions from MS but they can get billions
>> from the lower and middle class by appearing to champion them. The middle
>> class is where all the money is.  You only have to leave him enough to eat,
>> 25% of his income. Take more and he leaves for another country. You can only
>> take a business mans profit and that is only 15 to 30% of his income. Take
>> more and he also leaves.   Why would any liberal politician get close to big
>> buisness it's the kiss of death in a socialist/fascist country like France,
>> and it's where the least money is. With millions working in governemnt do
>> you think a deal with MS could be kept quiet??  It would be out on wiki
>> leaks in a heart beat.                        Doug
> I really have no issue with people who disagree with me, or want to do,
> believe or live their ways which I disagree with - as long as they do not
> compel me to change to theirs. It is their choice if they are happy with
> capitalism, communism or fascism or whatever labels they want to put on.
> However, it still bothers me (oh, only so slightly, mind you, and for a
> better word, 'tickles'?)  that words and labels are thrown about that, in
> effect, are contradictory to their implied meaning. And by using words that
> connote some *other* implied or common-wisdom-accepted notions (wrongly, by
> propagandist iterations), they would seem to hold the moral high ground, so
> to speak (sneaky, isn't it?).

It really seems as though the value of good-old-fashioned reading has
diminished in public discourse. It truly makes me sad to see someone
forming an argument which cannot be refuted on the grounds that it
essentially refutes itself though improper definition of terms.   And
sadly, in the USA, that's what 80% of the "debate" is.  The remaining
20% seems to come down to declaring that the other half of your
country that doesn't agree with you ideologically are imbecilic
terrorists who can't be negotiated with; But why can't those bastards
in Washington ever accomplish anything?

SNIPPED a lot of good stuff...

> Lastly, if to cheer you up, at least you're not bombed to poverty or death
> by your government, which they would do to other countries; for your sake,
> for your freedom, for your wealth, for your way of life, for your
> god,....and they'll keep on telling you.

Would do... and do presently!  It is hard to imagine how my countrymen
live with their heads in the sand (as it were), oblivious to the
messages we send the rest of the world: do as we say or we'll bomb you
back to the stone age. We're here to bring PEACE and DEMOCRACY!
I don't deny that our foreign policy often does have favorable
objectives and occasionally even favorable outcomes, but are we ever
so bad at showing we've gone somewhere to help.

Iraq: hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, utter destruction of
the civilian infrastructure and untold millions of disfigurements and
chronic illnesses later, we saved you from the BAD MAN. now, to cover
your tab we'll just parcel off your oil fields to the multinationals
and be on our... oh wait a minute you've got a strategically favorable
location for some enormous military bases!  Don't worry, we just have
to "liberate" your neighbors-- then we'll go.

More information about the sounder mailing list