Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 12:13 In article <4524295E.909C814D(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > Keith wrote: > > > In article <IjTUg.51405$E67.42536(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com > > says... > > > "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message. > > > > > > >>Clinton was successful. > > > >> > > > >>Bush is a failure. > > > > > > > > Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. > > > > > > 9/11 was Bush's failure. > > > > You are your mother's failure. > > Bwahahahahahahahaha ! > > Are you always this retarded ? Indeed, you are. -- Keith
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 12:15 In article <eg32k5$5l0$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql(a)4ax.com>, > Gordon <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote: > >On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:50:58 +0100, Eeyore > ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>Gordon wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: > >>> >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message > >>> > > >>> >>>Clinton was successful. > >>> >>> > >>> >>>Bush is a failure. > >>> >> > >>> >> Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is. > >>> > > >>> >9/11 was Bush's failure. > >>> > >>> How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in > >>> office the 8 years before that? > >> > >>What's that got to do with it ? > >> > >>You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't > >>take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ? > >> > >>The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible. > >> > >>Graham > >> > >Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration > >ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and > >ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week > >after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date > >for any responsibility of the previous presidency? > > > >Gordon > > Bush was warned repeatedly OBL was a threat. He ignored them. Read > Woodward's book. > Why? It's in the fiction section. -- Keith
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 12:15 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:46:43 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> >It [WW2] simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered >> >> >American >> minds at rest, should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another >> >> >Kristallnacht' with >> Muslims being progromised. >> >> >> >> I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does >> >> "get nasty" include acquiring political power? >> > >> >If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not the politicians. >> >> --- >> So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for >> something to happen so you can let it out? > >No. > >I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the British public will defend them. You should approve of that. --- Yes, I would, but I think if they're sufficiently demonized what's more likely is that if your government decides that it's boxcars and death camps for them, then you'll watch 'em get loaded up just like the good non-Jewish citizens of Germany did about 60 years ago. --- It won't happen anyway, it's purely hypothetical. --- I'm sure the Jews in Germany thought the same thing until the reality of it was forced on them. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 12:19 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:51:55 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote.. >> >> > That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny >> > suppressing important freedoms. >> >> Aha, you only defend "Important" freedoms. Ok. > >It was meant to be emphasis about *fighting*. --- Busted!!! If it was, you would have written: "That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny suppressing freedom." -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 12:31
In article <eX9Vg.19678$Ij.1805(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > Agreed, but those couple of orders of magnitude are made up by the fact that > the guy is a US Congressman, and in effect, the page's boss. They write the > laws that guide this nation...we're supposed to expect more of them. Add to > that the power imbalance (which is what consent laws are all about), and it > becomes even worse. > ? \Agreed. Actually there is a rather ironic place where Clinton and Foley intersect. Clinton signed the law that made previous acts admissible in sexual harassment suits (which is what he was testifying on) and Foley was one of the major sponsors of the law that made texting, IMing and Internet discussions such as the one he had illegal. |