Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 14 Oct 2006 13:54 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:FaadnQaHsfrvnazYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net... > >> Your obsession with criticising the current US government is blinding >> you to impending danger. > > Really? Are you still talking to me? When have I criticised the current US > Government? > > I have criticised select actions the government has taken but that is a > _very_ different thing. You are using a McCarthy-esque approach here. Bush's "if you're not with us, your against us" (or, better, "if y'ain't wit us, yer agin us") is worse--it's the new McCarthyism. And it's worse, because half of the braindead rednecks in this country agree with that black-and-white view of foreign policy. > You are trying to create a strawman to the effect that if I disagree with > Policy X I must be criticising the government. I am sure this impresses > sycophants like JoeBloe but it is poor form to say the least. > > If you have a legitimate debate, debate it legitimately. It's difficult to debate an extremist fear-mongering policy legitimately, and the Republicans' blind supporters can't or don't understand subtle and nuanced issues. Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 14 Oct 2006 14:59 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:46:42 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:cg02j2p7s1csnaocvu26f8grj1qh6d75i8(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:21:31 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost >>>> >200 >>>> >years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this >>>> >to >>>> >Vietnam, I suppose. >>>> >>>> Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. >>> >>>It had ZILCH to do with WW2. >>> >>>Graham >> >> How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with >> WWII? > >Arguing against a semantic mistake with another semantic mistake is not a >good idea. > >Are you saying the US Invasion of Afghanistan was due to WWII? > Certainly. John
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 14 Oct 2006 15:04 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:18:26 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:36:51 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>When does Bush get impeached ? > >Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. > >>When does the Republican Party get impeached ? > >Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. > >But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. I know you already know the answer to this. You couldn't possibly not know. So you must be just pretending ignorance. No one ignores the elephant in their midst. Jon
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Oct 2006 15:09 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > > No one ignores the elephant in their midst. You really do need to stop drinking so much. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: John Larkin on 14 Oct 2006 15:33
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:04:21 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. > >I know you already know the answer to this. You couldn't possibly not >know. So you must be just pretending ignorance. > >No one ignores the elephant in their midst. > How is the US "in your midst?" John |