Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 22:50 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:87u4l2958euckevkl0iaf1oba4betm5amj(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was able >>to >>foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all ended >>up >>being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas about how the >>country should be structured. > > They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being > able to start from scratch. You could also argue that they had started from a position of having just escaped some pretty repressive behavior. However, when most people are under stress like that, their natural response is to deal with the particular stressor in that situation. To be able to get beyond the immediate situation and think of *other* things that could go wrong in other situations not yet encountered takes a very, very special type of wisdom, and a very deep understanding of human nature. They were really an amazing bunch. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 22:53 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:bd3d6$455277dd$49ecfec$17614(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > The worse part of all this is that you're another usenet dupe > who first decided who "the enemy" is, Yeah? Since you're able to read my mind, exactly who do you think I consider "the enemy"? Hint: I virtually guarantee you're wrong. > PLONK Do you even know what this means, or did you just see someone else us it one time and think it was cute? I've been waiting for you to start ignoring my posts since you said "PLONK" the first time, so the rest of us can get on with the discussion of ideas without your endless insults. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 23:12 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:af9bf$45527a24$49ecfec$17687(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45525B3A.A3C915E6(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Don Rumsfeld, cut from the same inflexible, unthinking and >>>>>>unlistening, >>>>>>"my way or the highway" mold, has now stepped aside. >>>>> >>>>>Do you think it was his decision entirely or was he nudged or even >>>>>pushed ? >>>> >>>>Oh, I'm quite certain he was pushed. >>> >>>I'd like to think so ! >>> >>> >>> >>>> You can see it on Rumsfeld's face. I >>>>think Bush saw the writing on the wall, that he would probably have to >>>>let >>>>Rumsfeld go at some point, and decided to cut bait now while he has a >>>>remote >>>>chance of having an even minimally friendly Congress for the new guy's >>>>confirmation hearings. From what little I've read, however, the new guy >>>>is >>>>probably a pretty good choice, given his actual desire and ability to >>>>work >>>>with other people, and not think he can run the whole show himself. >>> >>>You mean there may yet be some hope for 'consensus politics' ??? >>> >>>I'd heard Bush isn't so keen on that. >> >> >> True, but he may be sensing his demise if he doesn't attempt *some* sort >> of reconciliation with Congress and the >50% of the American people that >> he has increasingly alienated over the past 6 years. Remember, the >> Congress can now begin investigating some of his shenanigans, and those >> of his cohorts. He needs to be thinking ahead to 2008 and beyond. > > Who needs to be thinking of 2008 and beyond? Bush? Yes. > Bwahahahaha. He will have his presidential library and > an income for the rest of his life. Unlike you, some people care about more than their own personal legacy. I'm not necessarily saying Bush is a man of deep principles, but I'm equally sure he does care to at least some extent about the principles upon which he and his party govern. Most people approaching the end of their career start to think about other people carrying on the work that they've begun. He needs to consider what his actions are doing to the electability of others in his party in the future, now that he's seen what they have done to the electability of his party in the present...and even if he doesn't have that solid a set of principles, I'm sure he's getting a lot of pressure from people in his own party. > In the meantime the executive branch, that is to say the > president, sets foreign policy. In many cases (for example, entering into wars, signing treaties, etc.), not without the help of Congress. Oh, that's right, you think Bush should continue to ignore the Constitutional requirement of Congress to actually declare wars. >> Bush was quoted today as saying: "I'm obviously disappointed with the >> outcome of the election and, as the head of the Republican Party, I share >> a large part of the responsibility," This is obviously the >> understatement of the year. I think he bears *100%* of the >> responsibility, and it all focuses on one unbelievably stupid moment of >> hubris--his in-your-face victory dance about a "mandate from the people" >> after narrowly squeaking out a win in 2004. I remember very distinctly >> thinking at that time, that that one moment of self-indulgence would end >> up coming back to haunt him...and I do not think the political >> repercussions from that one incredibly ill advised speech have yet come >> to pass. I think he will pay *dearly* for his hubris. > > That Bush is a jerk is well established. That he's been the > best man for the job isn't. Boy, how different a story you crow now that the Republicans aren't in power. > However, the Republican Party > platform is more apt to provide for economic growth. Recent history belies that assertion (i.e., the past 30+ years), especially since the Republican party has given up even trying to keep a straight face about fiscal responsibility. As long as we keep have a national debt of 60% of the GDP and budget deficits, growth potential will be limited. Remember, after WWII, we had high debt, but the growth of the 50s - very early 70s didn't begin until we got serious about fiscal responsibility and started paying down that debt (i.e., budget surpluses). Same with the growth in the 90s. Eric Lucas Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 23:21 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ben Newsam wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was able >>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas about >>>how the country should be structured. >> >> >> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >> able to start from scratch. > > Not at all. They had a population that demanded as > little change from what they were used to as > necessary. As time went on they reverted to much > of what they sought to escape when they came here. I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them leave England. Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 years? I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so fearful of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate over nationalized health care is an excellent example. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 8 Nov 2006 23:23
"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:6825l2de2qlkqtsck12t13f5jq296hsrvr(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:49:27 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: > >>Ben Newsam wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:31:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>C) Taking a high tech biz like Google, what sort >>>> of people do they employ, ie, what's the >>>> distribution >>> >>> Mostly commie pinkos I expect. I even thought of applying for a job >>> with them myself. Why? >> >>Typical stupid Brit comment, purposely out of >>context too. No doubt the product of a dumbed >>down "education" process. > > Does that mean I was right? Of course. Congratulations. Eric Lucas |