Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:05 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a > >> >> >> large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any > >> >> >> other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told > >> >> >> what to do all the time. > >> >> > > >> >> >What nonsense is this now ? > >> >> > > >> >> >Where *do* you get these ideas ? > >> >> > >> >> I think about what I read. > >> > > >> >You'r reading garbage in that case. > >> > >> Historians write garbage? De Touqueville wrote garbage? The > >> framers of our Constitution wrote garbage? Thatcher wrote > >> garbage? Churchhill wrote garbage? Generals wrote garbage? > > > >Have you ever read anything modern ? > > --- > She reads you, which fits your both your "modern" and "garbage" > criteria. > > -- > JF Idiot
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:22 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <456844BE.827AEA7B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [....] > >Heck, they even go to war so Bechtel and Halliburton can pick up uncontested > >contracts. > > Ben Laden Costruction is a local company they could have used instead. Actually I think I may have been mistaken about the uncontested bit. I think some British companies did bid too, so it wasn't uncontested but since they were British they weren't allowed to receive US 'reconstruction' funds. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:28 unsettled wrote: > Quick rule of thumb: Marxist socialists like Puddledick and > the dumb donkey come to the discussion ill equipped to > deal with the issues because they won't read political science > and economics texts, let alone wikipedia: I regularly read and quote items from Wikipedia. As for 'Marxist socialist' it's clear you don't know the meaning of the terms. I'm very much to the centre of British politics, leaning slightly to the left on social issues and slightly to the right on business issues. Graham
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 19:29 In article <FOCdnQH6YZ2HQvXYRVnyrQ(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > Well, not so much idiot but total lack of _any_ grasp of History. It has > been a fair while since our monarch had "absolute power." If one of course wanted to be totally picky and vindictive, you could point out it was not that much further after the US was founded. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 19:30
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > In article <MPG.1fd266d5bdc0a343989c9f(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >>What's the matter? You have to stoop to snip-forging? You are >>areal piece of work. I think that's enough of you! > > > Thats pretty rich coming from a poster who has to try hard to be > noticeable, let alone interesting. It seems the quality of political > debate in the UK is far more mature as we grew out of calling people > "leftist" or "rightist" as insults quite a while ago. Yes indeed, and grew cruder in the process. |