Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 19:17 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:rucjm2lk4fu5s5t54iv37q20rkq9nbmjr6(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:14:25 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >>> >T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty years >>> >>bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name >>> >>supports >>> >>terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to >>> >>obey it. >>> >> >>> >>Well, is that the case? >>> > >>> >A fairly good argument could be made if you assume: >>> > >>> >"shock and aw" == terrorism >>> >war == violence >>> >war == "nonpolitical methods" >>> > >>> >You should have picked a better example. >>> >>> The word is AWE, you dipshit. >>> >>> You should have picked an example that you at least know the >>> spelling of. >> >>Never heard of a typo have you ? >> > Well, then he'll come back and declare such. Ever heard of a > rebuttal? Heh heh heh...he said "butt"...heh heh heh Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 19:21 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd37dd5965b0195989cf7(a)news.individual.net... > In article <Rs9ah.15783$9v5.6767(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1fd25cd82201f847989c99(a)news.individual.net... >> > In article <pMO9h.6329$yf7.4173(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> >> news:HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> > >> >> > You bias is ensuring you are incapable of making a reasoned >> >> > judgement >> >> > about policies or foreign governments. >> >> > >> >> > Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty >> >> > years >> >> > bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name >> >> > supports >> >> > terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to >> >> > obey >> >> > it. >> >> > >> >> > Well, is that the case? >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, two outta three ain't bad. >> >> >> > Of course an unthinking sock puppet would say that. >> >> ...which is what a person would say if they had no *logical* argument to >> disprove what I say, > > You three couldn't kissy-face each other more if you were in the > same bed playing show-n-tell. > >> and need instead to try to dismiss me with insults. > > You really are a piece of work. > >> You're as lame (although not quite as hypocritical) as unsettled. > > From you, "lame" is a compliment. The rest you're not one to > judge. You're right--I was wrong. You *are* as hypocritical as unsettled, since you claimed you were going to ignore me. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 19:24 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:q2ejm2dk696g373or7il1s1j3cgtg20duc(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:38:08 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >Ken Smith wrote: >>> >> 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. >>> >>> --- >>> That doesn't make any sense, since I'm sure they knew the ground >>> rules before they bid, so why would they waste money putting a bid >>> package together if they knew they wouldn't win the job? >> >>You haven't posted an insult this time ? > > --- > I only post insults when they're warranted. Ah, you mean like when you have nothing more intelligent to add? Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 19:24 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fd3837039f50c1a989cfd(a)news.individual.net... > In article <Craah.15803$9v5.14513(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4568EDE9.72E1B5ED(a)hotmail.com... >> > >> > >> > krw wrote: >> > >> >> Health care is not in the COnstitution as a federal power >> > >> > Are you always going to let a historical document rule your lives as if >> > nothing >> > had changed ? >> >> In any case, he's simply wrong. Article V can easily be interpreted to >> include health care, if one isn't prejudiced to preclude it in the first >> place. > > Only by a leftist loon. Looking around in those penumbras again, > eh lefty? You have nothing more intelligent to add, so you try to use insults to bring me down to your level. Nice try. ERic Lucas
From: unsettled on 26 Nov 2006 19:32
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <24c3f$4569e4d0$4fe775f$22843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > [... crack addicts ....] > >>Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... > > > If it cost $10 a day to keep them off drugs, it is cheaper than putting > them in jail. The brits want to help them. This may be the more > practical answer even though I don't see how they can keep an addict away > from drugs. That's really the whole point. They can't be kept away from drugs unless they're confined, and even then for various reasons guards in any number of jurisdictions have been known to sneak drugs to them. There's what appears to be an insurmountable problem dealing with addicts and addiction. Empathy and kindness is taken as a sign of weakness to be used to advantage against anyone extending help to them. It would be nice to be able to do something for them that works and actually provides rehabilitation, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards unless some significant advance is made in medicine. |