Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Oct 2006 07:05 In article <z3RUg.8422$GR.463(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eftq1i$c8p$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:452198F0.A71D16AC(a)hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Fields wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its >>>>>> government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so >>>>>> what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying >>>>>> to help with constructive criticism? >>>>> >>>>> I thought it was fine under Clinton ! >>>> >>>>Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as >>>>someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't >>>>have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that >>>>perhaps >>>>it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be >>>>capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing >>>>the >>>>Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a >>>>"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing >>>>with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem >>>>to >>>>fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is >>>>given >>>>the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of >>>>their >>>>lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to >>>>legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior. >>> >>>Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling >>>a >>>criticism "unacceptable." >> >> Which criticism was unacceptable? >> >> I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't >> think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about >> something. >> >> You can't have it both ways. > >Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an >argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who >disagrees with you. The reason I asked for specifics is because I want to know if the criticism the donkey is talking about is the same one that the Democrats here are fanning as a reprehensible act. They are in campaign mode at the moment and are pulling as many dirty as they can without having to state their position nor be specific about which actions they will take when elected. A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Oct 2006 07:07 In article <gvTUg.51409$E67.10236(a)clgrps13>, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> Which criticism was unacceptable? >> >> I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't >> think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about >> something. >> >> You can't have it both ways. > >Can too. > >Criticizing Bush for his lack of thought is really criticizing Bush. > >Criticizing Bush for his 'thoughts' is really criticizing Cheney. All this rhetoric is a very nice way to ignore the existence of a national threat. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Oct 2006 07:09 In article <4523923C.918AEB02(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >JoeBloe wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >US aid is frequently accompanied by compulsory 'trade concessions' that >> >> >favour the USA. >> >> >> >> Funny, I don't recall us ever asking Russia for anything for the >> >> millions of tons of wheat we have sent them over the last several >> >> decades. >> > >> >Why does Russia need 'aid' ? Why is it going there. Can't they pay for it? >> >> She was killing of her farmers at one point. > >Under Stalin presumably ? Yes. > >What's that got to do with giving Russia aid ? > >Answer the damn question. If a country kills off the people who know how to grow its food, then all foodstuffs have to be imported. This bankrupts a country quickly. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Oct 2006 07:10 In article <452392F3.AB63EFCC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <Z_KUg.56$45.161(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> >Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't >> >dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something >> >horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means. >> >> Yup. I've come to this conclusion. Mess prevention work cannot >> begin until there's a really big mess to clean up. Women aren't >> trained to work this way. Or at least the women of my generation. > >What's it got to do with women specifically FFS ? Define FFS, please. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Oct 2006 07:12
In article <PsRUg.57$45.150(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> >> >>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >>> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> > >>> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >>> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >>> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >>> > >>> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >>> > >>> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >>> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >>> history if you don't like it. >> >>But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? >> >>Graham >> >Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that the extremists are already doing this to themselves. /BAH |