Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 08:55 In article <eooin3$tri$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eoo8dh$8qk_003(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <eoo0o7$bib$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <eons1k$8qk_006(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <45ACE35A.FDA46239(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Congress just passed a bill that cause all food processing to be >>>>>> moved to foreign lands. >>>>> >>>>>Does this bill have a name ? >>>> >>>>I can't remember its title. What it does is raise the minimum >>>>wage to $7.50/hour. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>OH BS. Studies have shown increasing the minimum wage doesn't lead to lower >>>employment. And look at the many states which already have a higher min. >>wage >>>than that. With booming economies (CA, for example). >> >>My state's grocers haven't even waited for the bill to become >>law; the price of milk just increased by $.30/gallon. >> >>/BAH > >Yes, those cows get higher wages now. Perhaps you should do a cost analysis of everything that a large increase in the price of milk affects. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 19 Jan 2007 09:18 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: > >> > > >> >> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US > >> >> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. > >> > > >> >Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. > >> > >> You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to > >> Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she > >> and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks. > > > >What has where they're visiting got to do about it ? Have they been visiting > >extremists ? > > Yes. Which ones ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 Jan 2007 09:21 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Expect BAH to now suggest that the agriculture in California is about to > >> >collapse. > >> > >> It already has. Adding the burden of a minimum wage hike will > >> make it worse. > > > >I truly don't believe it ! > > Now read the past few weeks' weather reports. What would I find there ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jan 2007 09:19 In article <kp8vq2tb9eaq0ed813jdpr00kbcstl3v5r(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 18 Jan 07 13:22:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <i98qq29j207ke01380bfk1h82rhguhf8lb(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:34:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>wrote: >>> >>>>In article <eoin12$8qk_002(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>><snippage for bah's reader> >>> >>>>>NATO is now in charge of helping Afghanistan. Bush isn't supposed >>>>>to be helping there. >>>> >>>>What? We invaded! >>> >>>Yeah! So everyone else has to help patch things up after we break >>>them. That's fair, right? Our motto, "We break 'em, you remake 'em." >>> >>> ;) >> >>It would behoove you to watch what happens and NATO's performance. > >None of that changes my 'teasing.' The US made the decision to >invade. That it may hand over some of that later on does not dissolve >its responsibilities created by that event. I didn't mean to imply that its responsibilities dissolved. > >By the way, I do tend to think that Afghanistan was the right place >for us to invade. It was the logical _first_ step. There are about 13 steps involved in dealing with this problem. Some can be done in parallel; some have a heirarchy where one step has to be almost completed before the next step can be started. Most of these steps can be laid down in a PERT chart without too much thinking (that's how easy the IF/THEN/ELSE/AND sets of conditions are. Getting these steps to work is the extremely hard part. > Bush's admin got that one right, I think. However, >I don't know if you remember, but the Taliban actually offered to turn >over bin Laden to a neutral nation (not the US) and without any having >to see any evidence (in other words, 'without recourse') that may be >used in a trial, after the 9/11 attack in the US. They wanted a halt >to the bombing, though. Bush said, "No." The Taliban had their chance. If Bush had acquiesced in the middle, he would have lost all respect from the rest of the extremists. That action would have been interpreted as weakness. The reason 9/11 happened is because Al Queda believed that the US would do nothing, just as it did nothing when the first one happened. When I say "nothing", I mean nothing from their point of view. They do not value human life and don't care how many of their people are jailed and killed. These extremists are treating this conflict as a war. Not considering this problem as war is giving them an edge and they are using this benefit with glee. > >>Our enemies certainly are and, at this moment, are testing the >>backbone strength of a European-based association. > >I'm not granting that you either (1) that you know anything about >their motivations you seem to feel you can speak for; It is a logical thing for the Taliban to do. It is a normal human action; if a new boss takes over, everybody tests that boss' mettle to see where he draws the line. Haven't you seen all the behaviour that establishes each person's territorial behaviour when a new boss comes in? >or, (2) that >there is a single mind of some enemy, as implied by the way you write >about this entity, our 'enemies.' Sigh! There doesn't have to be a single mind. This is simply basic, normal, human behaviour. > You will need to show your case >here with some reason why I should imagine you can speak to this. > >In any case, that doesn't mean you should get cowed in some direction. I'm not the one getting cowed. I suggest that you throw these notions out. > >>If there >>is no backbone in Europe, one tactic may be to whack that area >>first because it is the weaker. And it's closer. > >I think you are personifying the 'enemy' and 'Europe' Europe is the heart of Western civilization. Americans took a large part of that civilization and modified it. You people are the ones who are personifying the enemy to the point that the only way to deal with this problem is to have a nation to bomb or a person to capture and put on trial. This never addresses a conflict between two diverse civilizations. In fact, the personifying that you people are doing denies that there is a conflict until it is too late to do anything about it. > to the point of >terrible distortion and uselessness for thinking well about the >problems. I don't see Europe as something with a 'backbone' Europe doesn't have a backbone. Their usual procedures is to appease until it's too late to do anything other than have a war which stagnates. > nor do I >see 'our enemies' as possessing a single mind and motivation or even >purpose. The single mind and motiviation is currently getting created. That is what the extremists are working on now--they are trying to turn this conlict into a religious war. If they do manage to succeed with this, even the moderate Muslims will fight and start to make messes. Pay attention to the riots that happened in France and the African shores of the Red Sea. Pay attention to what happened when that cartoon was published. The roars you heard were not spontaneous reactions. > It's just rubbish to even think that way, as it won't help >you very much in working out the complex solutions that are needed. It >just turns everything into flat, lackluster cartoon bubbles that tell >you nothing helpful. Would you like my reading list? That is the printed background I used to come to my conclusions. /BAH
From: unsettled on 19 Jan 2007 09:28
Phil Carmody wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >>> >>> >>>>In article <45AF7DB2.FB13F663(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>[.. Islamic extremists vs the law ..] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>They have no ability to undermine it. >>>> >>>>That may be true in England but it seems in the US they have found >>>>a way to undermine the law. It is quite a clever trick they are >>>>using. They pretend to be christians, spread fear and then claim >>>>that the laws must be undermined to make people safe. >>> >>>Post of the thread. >> >>How nice for you. > > > Indeed. It may be an unfair prejudice to say that Americans don't get > irony, but when the big fist of irony sits there stolidly too many > Americans take great delight in running straight at it, which makes > that prejudice very hard to shake off. The sun rose and set on "our empire" for the Brits. Now it is "irony." <snore> I repeat something that went whoosh right over your head, "How nice for you." See if you can do better this time. |