Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:39 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:m4pri2l9b0k5ucekjahpe5a28e5hruafkh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:22:10 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> You have no clue as to what is going to happen. >> >>I'll bet you don't either. >> > > Bet my hammer is closer to hitting the nail on the head, than either > of you two total fucktards. Ok. Lets get some boundaries for the bet then. What timescale are you talking about?
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:40 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:4fgri29ss6jpbh7ov5v4vek2dfaffflr83(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 06 11:20:53 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>This is how N. Korea works. If you don't learn this fact, >>you're to make fatal mistakes as Clinton seems to have done. > > > Funny... I was sure that he is still alive. Fatal doesn't mean it will kill Clinton. Seriously, did you go to school?
From: John Fields on 12 Oct 2006 15:51 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:29:56 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> I mean, I can't recall a single post where you've had anything good >> to say about America or Americans, can you? > >There's precious little left worth saying good about. --- Try. There must be _something_ you like about us or this great big beautiful country we live in, no? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 12 Oct 2006 16:21 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:30:43 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:sg1ti29dndl3kncm7aj7fihp7cuab0gv9e(a)4ax.com... >> >> The conservative base is also spitting mad. Those that believe in >> small government and have been similarly sold a bill of goods that >> never was delivered upon and where there is little evidence they ever >> intended to do so. One of the men directly involved in the political >> successes of the conservative base is going around on various talk >> shows now, speaking with anyone who will listen, about just how angry >> they are at the grossly increased expenditures of the US gov't and the >> expansion of interference into everyones' lives here. None of which >> his group likes. > >Despite the fact that I've spent much of this thread complaining about the >Republicans, I will turn to my roots and defend them for a change. > >I don't think it is fair to say that "Those that believe in small government >and have been similarly sold a bill of goods that never was delivered upon >and where there is little evidence they ever intended to do so." I was paraphrasing what he was saying on radio, yesterday, in fact. I don't agree with him about his approach, so I cannot do much more than pass along his anger as I understood it. >I think, >when the Republicans came to a position of parity in Congress in the early >90s, they did indeed intend to deliver upon the conservative values of >smaller government. Clinton's DNC was also quite conservative, as well. And I remember Clinton's entering speeches about meaningful cooperation with the Republicans. His "open hand" policy to the Republicans at that time actually angered me, because I remember well what they did in the executive office during the 1980's. Of course, in exchange for baring his throat to the Republicans, they naturally chose to slit it with a knife. >Their constituency really did seem to want that. After >all, it was partly the actions of Congress during the Clinton administration >that allowed for balancing the budget and even generating surpluses. I'll agree with that, tentatively. >I'm not actually sure what led them to discard the old party values of small >government and fiscal conservatism, but that seems to have been something >that happened well after their rise to parity in the early 90s. I know the names of those who are why. I think you do, too. Their names were in some renown under Reagan, as well. >Perhaps the >spend-spend-spend greed of the 90s stock market and .com boom created a >constituency that became intolerant of any sort of bad news. I don't find that a convincingly significant part. >Thus any sort >of bad news like "we're going to have to cut the spending on your pet >program X" was avoided like the plague, and Congress never controlled the >Federal government's spending like they should have. Perhaps that combined >with the Republican legislators' fear of doing anything that might lose them >a vote, and return control of the Congress to the Democrats, where it had >resided for many decades previous. Something is seriously, deeply, pervasively wrong in that party now. Jon
From: John Fields on 12 Oct 2006 16:29
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:39:57 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> --- >> >> Have you ever lost a child? >> > >> >I lost my parents at a relatively young age. Will that suffice ? >> >> --- >> No. I asked whether you'd ever lost a child. Why not just answer >> the question instead of doing your little dance of evasion? > >You're a truly unpleasant person. LOL, I don't see _you_ winning any popularity contests, do you? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |