Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Dec 2006 09:15 In article <45781ECA.7C2760D5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >If any Muslims over here try it on, they'll discover what a swift kick to the >> >nuts does ! >> >> With the methods available today, you will never see your >> killer. > >There's no need to be as silly as I was being ! I wish I could be silly. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Dec 2006 09:18 In article <45781F58.293CB9CE(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>If any Muslims over here try it on, they'll discover what a swift kick to >> >>the nuts does ! >> > >> > With the methods available today, you will never see your killer. >> >> If they kill Eeyore they have failed. Killing people doesn't convert them, >> it just kills them. >> >> The fear you monger is more likely to cause a conversion. > >It's actually more likely to cause a backlash in fact ! It doesn't matter if you convert; they intend to kill you anyway. You live a Western life-style. You use Western technology. You will do anything to stay alive. These people kill their own...or haven't you been noticing. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 7 Dec 2006 09:31 In article <457820A1.E6669D4B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> But your BBC news reports our politicians' sound bites as news. >> You are basing your decisions on political slickerhood. > >Who said I was relying exclusively on the BBC ? Because I've traced it. The way the Democrats tested reactions of the US was to go to Europe and give a speech that contained the ideas they wanted a reaction test. BBC would report on the speech. The American news media would report on what the BBC reported minus the fact that it came from some guy's speech. The politician would then watch to see how the voters of the US received it. What you saw a the Democrat platform had been vetted through Europe this way. > > >> >> For some strange >> >> reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing >> >> towards ceding to Islam. >> > >> >No he isn't ! >> > >> >How about a cite here ? >> >> Sigh! He's hawking another book. So far, all of his book selling >> interviews promote the same opinion that extremists will be >> willing to talk and compromise. > >All the evidence to date shows that this is what eventually happens. What?! You are very deluded. There is no evidence. > Was peace >restored in N Ireland by 'defeating' the IRA ? There was no stomach to defeat the IRA. That conflict lasted because there was no intent to defeat the IRA. > > >> >Having thought quite long about these issues, I've concluded that much US >> >reaction is based on fear of the unknown or unfamiliar actually and the >> typical US >> >reaction is to try to stamp it out as a result. >> >> So there is no place for mess prevention? > >If it's done *intelligently*. What is an intellgent mess prevention in this situation? > >Recent US action has been purely mess *generation*. Very >costly mess generation too in every conceivable respect. Our Democrats cannot leave well enough alone. Around here they are still in Bush-bashing mode. Now they say Bush is wrong because he hasn't done what the commission has recommended and, since he hasn't commented on the report (which is a lie), it is clear to these Democrats that Bush will do nothing and nothing will get done. IOW, our lovely Democrats no longer expect instantaneous gratification but gratification before they feel a need. They are completely insane. I finally switched to the Art Bell show to get a dose of sanity. I've been doing that a lot over the last year. This doesn't bode well. /BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 7 Dec 2006 04:37 In article <el6iat$8qk_003(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <4576CCA8.DC3D47DC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > >>> >Ever hear of the "peace dividend"? We weren't fighting the cold war >anymore. >>> >>> And you swallowed the sound byte hook, line, and sinker. >> >>That's sound bite btw. I'm amused how it's been corrupted so quickly. > >It is "byte" if all you do is rely on Google for your facts. > >> >> >>> The cold war didn't just stop. >> >>Well actually, yes it did. Aside from N Korea I suppose. > >Afghanistan and the Taliban was caused by cold war skirmishes. By our foolish arming of the rebels there. >Somalia is a cold war side effect. Are we spending billions on our military to deter Somalia? >Egypt was one. Iran >seems to be still playing with Cold War rules. And everybody >seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China. > Oh yes, we've got to deter a first-strike by India. >/BAH > >> >> >>> There will be side effects for >>> a hundred years. The war we're fighting now is leftovers >>> from WWI and WWII that were put off for later. >> >>Not really. Do elaborate if you can. >> >>Graham >>
From: Lloyd Parker on 7 Dec 2006 04:36
In article <el6i3f$8qk_002(a)s867.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <el4g4q$l1v$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <el45om$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <1165332870.593782.314710(a)f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <4572475E.BA56AF16(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect >>>it's >>>>> >> > just another of your fanciful folksy notions. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Nope. It's fact. >>>>> > >>>>> >I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to >>date. >>>> >>>>> All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >>>>> got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >>>>> worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >>>>> side had some kind farm business before they were legal. >>>> >>>>Even allowing for ultra-cheap tacky portacabin / garden sheds that some >>>>USians call homes how exactly did they do it? >>> >>>None of my brothers would have been caught dead in >>>a porta cabin. >>> >>>> The numbers just don't seem to stack up. >>> >>>They did it. Two incomes and paying off the loans first before >>>buying junk is how they did it. Both my brothers built their >>>houses. 50% or more of the work was done by their hands and >>>not by hiring out. >>> >>>> >>>>In most first world countries >>> >>>I thought we were talking about poor? >>> >>>>a basic starter home costs somewhere >>>>between 5 and 20x median annual salary. >>> >>>If it's 20x, that means that the principle is about 10x. >> >>No, he means the purchase price. > >Oh, I see. So the loan is going to be triple that which >is 15 and 60x annual salary. For somebody starting out, >I'd say find a cheaper place to get started. > > >> That's true around here -- the average home >>price in the Atlanta area is $156,000. That's 3 times the median income. In >>the LA area, it's around 9 times. Boston, 6 x. > >Yes. Large cities are not the place to start out. So you, as >a young dewy-eyed adult, do not start out in the most expensive >cities. You start out in a suburb or a countryside. After You start out where you've got a job. >a decade, you can move up. That's how it's done. You get really >rich on your balance sheet if you never move. >> >>>That's takes 10 years to pay off loan and you own the >>>house and property free and clear. >> >>What? Nobody making around or below the median income can pay off an average >>mortgage in 10 years. > >Yes they can. You just don't spend money on anything else. > OK, no food, clothing, medicine, transportation, oh, and no kids. >> >>> >>>> And more still in truly >>>>expensive hotspots like Tokyo or Hong Kong. >>>> >>>>I guess things are a bit cheaper in Outer Hicksville but what are the >>>>numbers? >>> >>>You people keep assuming that only one person buys the house; only >>>one person pays for the house; and that only the most expensive >>>housing is bought. >>> >> >>There're a lot of single parent families, you know. > >Oh, now we are talking about people who don't plan and do >things bassackwards. So what, a woman should stay in an abusive marriage so she can afford a house? And oh, God, never let a spouse die either, OK? >Now we're getting to misogynous assumptions >of those Liberals you like to parrot. > >> And I was using the >>average home price, above. > >So two single-headed families can pool their resources if they >have to live in such an expensive place. > >> >>>> >>>>> None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. >>>> >>>>This appears to be yet another of your folksy fairy tales. You cannot >>>>be poor and buy a house - in the UK at least in the 80's the banks >>>>would not even look at you for a home loan unless you had at least a 5% >>>>deposit to put down. >>> >>>How does anybody get that 5% down payment (if you intend to borrow >>>to buy)? >> >>How indeed? The mortgage industry is luring people who can't afford it, with >>interest-only loans, no down payments, etc. That's why defaults are up. > >Defaults are up because people buy things that are too expensive >for them. Or they are members of that population (which is >increasing) who assume everything should be free and it is >their right to buy everything they want even if they don't >the money. In last night's paper: In Atlanta, defaults up 99% this year. > >> >>> >>>> You can be cash poor after buying a house though >>>>and finding all the things that urgently need doing to make it >>>>habitable. >>> >>>sure. But you aren't poor and all your "rent" is going into >>>your real estate pocket. I didn't buy a house until I was >>>told my rent was going up. So I went out and bought a house >>>where the monthly payments were less than my current rent. >> >>I betr you saved up for a down payment though. > >So? That's how you do this buying your house biz if you >are going to take out a loan. You can also take out a >loan that includes the down payment. Is it now a sin >to save for the down payment? > >/BAH No, but it means young people have to put off buying a house while they do. |