Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 8 Nov 2006 05:25 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:e7e64$45515248$49ecf6c$10663(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>It amazing to me how far afield from the original conversation >>this has been taken in order to avoid confronting the valid >>points that were made. > Good conversations meander, and explore all facets of a topic. > Would you rather that we spent the last 7300 posts fawning > over you and how right you were (which you weren't, by the way)? > How insecure can you get? Get over yourself! You're amazing. You answer the first half of my sentence while taking it out of context by purposely ignoring the second half, all the while displaying your rage at having been caught out. There's no possibility of applying a value added tax on this petty bomb blast of yours. >>I'm amazed too at just how anti-American some people living here >>in the US are. > And here you are dead wrong in your assumptions. I love my > country...so much so, in fact, that I want it wrested from > the grasp of a President and political party run amok. You don't begin to realize how hillarous such protestations are to someone who heard all this from members of the communist party USA in bygone decades. Of course they merely wanted to replace what is with something different, something of their own choice, to the determent of the nation as a whole. > It is incredibly arrogant of you to think that > you have the only way of thinking that could be considered > pro-American, and to equate "disagree with you" and > "anti-American". In fact, that is the most anti-American > attitude I can think of--to be expected to either agree > with everything my government does or shut up. You do realize, I hope, that nobody has told you to shut up that I've seen here. But part of the cost (ah yes, these is no free lunch after all) is that you have to accept the criticism of your ideas by fellow citizens. The one thing that's certain is that you've been agressive and abusive the whole time I've been reading this thread, even before I chimed in. I consider anyone anti-American who places the wants and needs of others, including not only foreigners in their own setting but also foreigners illegally in this country ahead of the needs of the United States and US citizens as a set. That any government is capable of making mistakes there is no question. To take the side of interests other than ours at any time, including such moments in history, is anti- American. You've been arguing, in concert with a couple of acknowledged Brits, not only against the interests of USA but in favor of foreign interests. Once this nation gets into a bad situation, your support for finding a way to get past it is necessary. That doesn't mean the quickest easiest way out, but it does mean that sometimes things which might be distasteful to some of our citizens becomes necessary. You, as a citizen, get to vote the government into and out of office. Once you've put them into power, you better be prepared to accept the consequences unless they get so out of line that they can be recalled or impeached. That doesn't happen very often. Interestingly, the threats we face today live an a system which is absent any constraints. They merrily do whatever they want without conscience, child like in fact. Instead of arguing with me over such issues, it might be better if you grew up just a little, and tried looking at the world through the prism called adult. If being pro America with a clear vision of something you proclaim you detest, that is traditional values, is incredibly arrogant, then I wear that mantle without protest. You should realize that traditional values aren't "Christian Right" or anything else sinister. I said before, they're the same values that made this country the great place it is. You do agree we live in a great country, don't you? If you don't, then there's just no conversation at all to be had.
From: Ben Newsam on 8 Nov 2006 05:43 On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:01:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4551081E.F35B96FA(a)hotmail.com... >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> I didn't say "wood", I said "lumber". Do you know the difference? >> >> Even I know that and lumber's not even an English Word. > >I did not know that. Interesting etymology at >http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lumber. NSOED gives: 1 Disused articles of furniture etc. taking up room inconveniently, or removed to be out of the way; useless odds and ends; useless or cumbrous material. 2 Timber sawn into rough planks or otherwise partly prepared. Chiefly N. Amer. 3 Superfluous fat, esp. in horses. I guess all of those can be burnt. <g>
From: Ben Newsam on 8 Nov 2006 05:47 On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 03:32:28 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >Claiming that some popular hero in the past held the views you are >advocating is also a common trick. Albert Einstein said that he really >hated people who do this. LOL!
From: Ben Newsam on 8 Nov 2006 05:48 On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:54:10 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >It amazing to me how far afield from the original conversation >this has been taken in order to avoid confronting the valid >points that were made. You made some valid points? >I'm amazed too at just how anti-American some people living here >in the US are. I wouldn't know, I've never been there.
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Nov 2006 07:15
In article <8S14h.8319$B31.7934(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eiq1m3$8qk_001(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <XlI3h.6213$B31.2084(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eindeb$8qk_002(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <454F23F4.F28CDB32(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>>> kicked >>>>>> >his troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>>>>> >>>>>> The UK and US were spending tons of money to keep him in his cage. >>>>> >>>>>Your assertion only. >>>> >>>> You are hopeless. It is a fact. >>> >>>Much like the "fact" that you asserted that Massachusetts has repeatedly >>>had >>>blackouts since the 80s because of network overload? Bullshit--I lived in >>>Massachusetts for a significant period of time since 1980, during some >>>wicked-hot summers, and there was never once a blackout, or even rolling >>>brownouts, while I was there. Not even close. >> >> I see you didn't read what I wrote once again. Residental didn't >> do the powering down. > >Again, bullshit. It happens nearly every summer in California. > > >> That would be impossible to manage without >> a shutdown. Commercial and manufacturing did power down. It >> was a volunteer effort to avoid unplanned black and brownouts. > >Never happened while I was there. Then you weren't one of the people who were assigned to do all the powering down, were you? <snip> /BAH |