Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 15:48 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > >>Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling > >>a criticism "unacceptable." > > > > Which criticism was unacceptable? > > > > I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't > > think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about > > something. > > > > You can't have it both ways. > > Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an > argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who > disagrees with you. Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too. Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 15:49 "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:deDUg.49810$E67.34301(a)clgrps13... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > message news:69t5i2hpcjkq20p8tm1dv71ub7k2vpbon0(a)4ax.com... > >> Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and >> the Brits should have made a deal? > > The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused. > Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad. > No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may have gone differently.
From: Daniel Mandic on 4 Oct 2006 15:49 Keith wrote: > WRT == "With Respect To" Aha. Yes, me too. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 15:50 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522F663.D256E2A6(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> >It [WW2] simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, >> >> >just to put your fevered >> >> >American >> minds at rest, should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' >> expect another >> >> >Kristallnacht' with >> Muslims being progromised. >> >> >> >> I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does >> >> "get nasty" include acquiring political power? >> > >> >If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not >> >the politicians. >> >> --- >> So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for >> something to happen so you can let it out? > > No. > > I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the > British public will defend them. Hopefully. I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day. >You should > approve of that. It won't happen anyway, it's purely hypothetical. >
From: Gordon on 4 Oct 2006 15:50
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:eg0hcc$h85$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > >>>Clinton was successful. >>> >>>Bush is a failure. >> >> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. > >9/11 was Bush's failure. > How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in office the 8 years before that? Gordon |