Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 08:45 In article <ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession > of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started > in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, > you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's > largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves > Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable > people. Blanket generalisation? -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 08:45 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-1D5872.01111526112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <4568E8C1.1ACD11DA(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > Don't let /BAH hear you say that.... She is convinced Thatcher was the >> > great >> > saviour of UK economics. /BAH wouldn't for one second think that >> > Thatcher's >> > meddling caused all manner of long term problems. >> >> I'm sure you're quite right about that. >> >> Blinkered thinking can be very popular. I guess it's attractive because >> it >> avoids having to deal with the difficult issues. >> >> Graham > > Thatcher was lucky in that she was perceived as being tough with the > unions after the 70's, plus she was fighting a weakened Labour party > that was rife with internal splits and incohesive. Sadly, the time was ideal for her to prosper and then by a miracle enough people seem to have a blinkered opinion of the period that the other "bad" things seem to have been brushed over. Her economic policies caused all manner of turmoil and took the best part of a decade to ty and rectify, yet now people seem to have some weird flashback about how great things were.
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 26 Nov 2006 08:46 In article <ekc2lv$8ss_003(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <phineaspuddleduck-6E5882.14501825112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >In article <ek9kq1$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> > > >> I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. > >> > >> /BAH > > > >Brevity. > > > Some posters do it for slyness. > > /BAH I don't believe in reading ten ton of prelude to get to the point.. Plus I have a cap on my usenet. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 08:46 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > krw wrote: > >> usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > >> > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote > >> > > > >> > > I'm left of centre myself. I can see the need for the state to keep > >> > > checks and balances, but human nature sometimes really makes me cry! > >> > > >> > Prior to getting embroiled in this thread, I thought I was fairly right > >> > of centre. I now see the error in my ways and I am firmly left of centre > >> > now. I suspect half the apparently right wing extremists posting on this > >> > thread live very different lives away from USENET. > >> > >> No, you're a left-wing extremist, > > > > Oh right. The left-wing extemist former soldier ! > > It is quite funny. But some of the rightwing cranks posting to this thread > have no argument so have to resort to insults and try to score points. > > >> right there with the dumb donkey. > >> This isn't surprising since you're both socialist Europeons. > > > > LMAO ! > > > > I've only once ever voted Labour and that was at a local election for a > > councillor whose opinions I respected. > > Tories are probably more socialist than labour now :-) I wonder what'll happen when all their old farts finally die off ? Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 08:47
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4568EA1A.564BC718(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>Have you ever read anything modern ? >> >>>> >> >>>>Thatcher was quite mad btw. >> >>> >> >>>"Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in >> >>>Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. >> >> >> >>Her idea of running the economy using 'corner shop' economics was a >> >>total >> >>disaster. >> > >> > >> > Don't let /BAH hear you say that.... She is convinced Thatcher was the >> > great >> > saviour of UK economics. /BAH wouldn't for one second think that >> > Thatcher's >> > meddling caused all manner of long term problems. >> >> LOL it wasn't as though you had none when she became >> Prime Minister. > > Eh ? Oddly, I never said we had no long term problems so I dont know why the unsettled thing thinks that has anything to do with things. > Thatcher presided over the start of the destruction of British > manufacturing > industry for one. Which adds to the irony of /BAH being such a big fan of her. |