BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Gary_A_Hill

Listed below are comments made by Gary_A_Hill between Friday, 31st July 2009 and Monday, 7th September 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Speaking American 10:40pm on 07 Sep 2009 You should write for a British audience, and use American terms when it suits your purpose of giving insight into American life. "Labor Day" is our day, so it is spelled our way (both words are capitalized). It has nothing to do with the Labour Party.

I normally write the date: 7 Sep. 2009. There is no ambiguity when the month is spelled, and we don't get arrested in the US for using the DMY order.

Any American knows what a "film" is. You are being somewhat condescending with that comment. Certainly many Americans are somewhat informal in their use of language, but I imagine there are also many people in the UK who do not use the Queen's English. Assume an educated British audience, and educated Americans will understand you quite well.
Healthcare row gets physical? 04:42am on 05 Sep 2009 democracythreat (#63) "What you are effectively saying is that the system favours corporate sponsors, because they will always be able to buy enough votes SOMEWHERE, in order to defeat the mandate of the elected government."

No, I am not saying that at all. Corporate sponsors support those legislators who are most in conformance with their views, whether Democrat or Republican. Very few legislators are "bought," in the sense that they represent merely their largest campaign contributors. Members of the US Congress reflect the values of the voting members of their districts. If they do not, they do not get reelected. If you do not believe this, and choose to take the most cynical view of US electoral politics, there is nothing I can do to convince you, since you seem to be unwilling to learn anything about US politics and are inclined to lecture us about our system of government about which you know next to nothing. I think you should stick to Swiss and European politics, where you have some experience.
Healthcare row gets physical? 03:30am on 04 Sep 2009 To add to my preceding remarks: the health-care industry could not, for example, promise to contribute to the campaign fund of Senator Boxer from my state, who is one of the most "liberal" members of the Senate, and thereby turn her into an opponent of health care reform. She has a constituancy which elects and reelects her on the basis of her liberal Democratic values, and no amount of health-care money would cause her to turn her back on her constituancy. The "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House of Representatives, and their counterparts in the Senate, are from conservative districts and they must reflect the values of their constituents or face opposition in their next election campaign.
Healthcare row gets physical? 03:24am on 04 Sep 2009 democracythreat (#48) "I wish to know why the democrats can't keep party discipline ... "

Simply because they have no power to coerce. Parties in the US do not have the control of their members that they do under other political systems. If you can't relate to that, I don't know how to explain it.

I don't mean that individual constituents control their elected representatives either. Consider the case of the Senator Baucus (D-Montana) in The Washington Post article to which I linked. It would be simplistic to assume that he has been bought by the health-care industry. He is a conservative Democratic from a state which voted for McCain-Palin in 2008. Were he a liberal in the Obama mold, he would never have become a senator from Montana. He holds his senate seat in a strong Republican state because he is in tune with the values of a majority of the people of Montana. He is supported by the health-care industry because he is in tune with their values as well. There is no way that Sen. Baucus would roll over for Obama if that would threaten his support in his home state. What can Obama do if Baucus does not give Obama everything he wants? Nothing much.
Space, youth and hope 4:11pm on 03 Aug 2009 bfoulkrod1 (#114), I don't know to what you refer as being a "real steal." The Presidio of San Francisco was closed as an Army base, but it is now managed by the Presidio Trust (which see), a public body.

As for the Defense Language Institute, the history is here:

http://benefits.military.com/misc/installations/Base_Content.jsp?id=460
Too European? 03:14am on 02 Aug 2009 SaintDominick (#1000) "Along those lines, how many atheist organizations qualify for tax exempt status in the USA?"

There are lots of not-for-profit associations and corporations in the US which are not taxed on nearly all of their revenue, as long as it not distributed, and used for the purposes of the association. There are, in fact, not-for-profit associations of atheists. Not too many, I suppose, but only because there is not much demand for them.

You should say more precisely what you mean by tax exempt. Which tax?
Too European? 02:58am on 02 Aug 2009 InterestedForeigner "I would have thought the Boy Scouts were pretty innocuous, and about as far from controversial as you could get."

The controversy is their restrictive admissions standards. It requires a belief in God, for one thing.

Here is alink to a discussion of a recent controversy in Berkeley, CA:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49282
Too European? 6:02pm on 31 Jul 2009 BMF, that previous post may not be clear. I was not referring to BMF as one of Jack's aliases, but thought BMF wrote the line which I quoted. I'm not going to work back through the posts to figure it out. Not worth the trouble.
Too European? 5:57pm on 31 Jul 2009 BMF (#841) " ... when Gary finds out who you are ... "

This has been obvious for some time. Jack always has a few aliases in operation. It is not my knowledge of them which gets him banned; it is his own bad behavior, which always comes out sooner or later.
Too European? 5:49pm on 31 Jul 2009 rodidog (#848), thanks, but I don't know as it is a "farce." It certainly is confusing, however. I would not call the character in the actual trademark logo a "hyphen." It is two long dashes, one above the other. As an icon, such as the "AW" logo (which is just a picture), this causes no problem, but when they want to represent the trademark in text they have to use the "equals" symbol. I suppose they have trademarked that also, but they certainly don't mean "Waldorf equals Astoria" when they write it that way. Just writing "The Waldorf" seems to be sufficient, and they refer to it that way themselves anyway. They can call it what they please.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Gary_A_Hill