Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Dec 2006 01:01 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> > > >> >Oh yes, we've got to deter a first-strike by India. > >> > >> It appears you haven't been keeping on who has nuclear weapons > >> and who is working on getting them in that area. > > > >It appears that you have some odd ideas about who'd even > > think about engaging in a first strike on the USA. > > Wake up. To start a mess does not require a first strike on the > US. An atomic war between India and Pakistan would create > enough EMF to wipe out all the electronic paper pushing that > has been contracted out to India. I see you're not concerned about the people then ! AFAIK neither India nor Pakistan have enough nuclear warheads to wipe out as much as you suggest. Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Dec 2006 01:03 Lloyd Parker wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>>In article <el6kid$v36$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu > >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >You keep missing the legal point that FEMA cannot do anything until > >>>> >it is asked to come in and help by the governor of the state. > >>>> > >>>> You right-wingers keep saying this, and it's no more true than any other > >>>> of your mantras. > >>> > >>>That is correct. It is no more (or less) true of any other of our > >>>arguments. The fact is that the feds *must* be asked for help (an > >>>emergency declared). > >> > >>And the president can declare an emergency. > > > >What are you going to do when a president abuses that power > >by declaring an emergency which puts the country into a permanent > >state of a dictatorship? Be very careful of what you wish for. > >You do seem to want the Constitution to be suspended as long > >as everyone else, but you, pays for it. > > > >/BAH > > Like The Republican Congress gave Bush the power to suspend habeas corpus? > It's already here, but since it's a right-winger, you lap it up. It's astonishing isn't it ? Imagine the furore if Clinton had been the one doing it ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Dec 2006 01:06 John Fields wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> 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. > >> > >> Traced what ? I read multiple sources of info indeed including the BBC but > >> also > >> American and Arab sources for example, even Russian sometimes ! I was just > >> reading the Times of India in fact. You can soon weed out national bias > >> that way. > > --- > Bullshit. all you can do is read what others' opinions are and then > decide whether they conform to what you consider the "right way" for > the US to act to be. > > In the first place, you need to come to the realization that what > you think doesn't matter and hasn't mattered since the first time > you were overwhelmed and had to ask us for help to survive. And > then, after the second time, surely you must realize that, in > effect, we own you. > > In the case of America's being right and doing the right thing, > however, no amount of information attesting to that being true would > satisfy you since you've already made up your mind that we're > unequivocally wrong, no matter which road we decide to tread. > > On the other side of it, I don't see where you had any problems with > questions of ethics when you were trying to gobble up the globe and > arrogantly declared that "The sun never sets on the British Empire". Britain did introduce democracy to its colonies. It's more than the USA has ever done. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Dec 2006 06:55 In article <457B34C7.6EDCC233(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: >> >> 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: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> > >> >> >Traced what ? I read multiple sources of info indeed including the BBC but >> >> >also >> >> >American and Arab sources for example, even Russian sometimes ! I was just >> >> >reading the Times of India in fact. You can soon weed out national bias >> >> >that way. >> >> >> >> I used to use that approach. But it's not as reliable anymore >> >> because news items usually have a one-person source and every >> >> news outlet picks it up. Your approach only works if competing >> >> news agencies send people they employ. Nowadays, the only >> >> spots that get covered by competing media are >> >> the frenzy of the week. >> > >> >If you used the web I'd recommend Al Jazeera for an interesting alternative >> >source. Here's the link anyway. >> > >> >http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.h >> tm >> >> I read that to find out the latest propoganda. I find very little >> news that hasn't been soaped, rinsed, repeat. Usually I use >> it to see how news items are slanted, using the premise that >> I might be able to get an idea of their mindset and how it's >> stuck. > >And what's your conclusion. > >I find Al Jazeera pleasantly unbiased in fact, yet it gives an insight into an >Arab perspective of the news. Anything written is biased. That's why science uses the scientific method to produce its knowledge. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Dec 2006 06:57
In article <op.tkayhaxz26l578(a)borek>, Borek <m.borkowski(a)delete.chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote: >On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:15:25 +0100, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, considering Europeans are healthier, are happier, live longer, >>>> are >>>> more educated and more literate, etc., maybe we could take some >>>> lessons. >>> >>> We do? Good, I am not moving anywehere. >> >> <grin> You detected the attitude, too. > >Nope. I was deadly serious ;) You must find us terribly naive. /BAH |