Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 12:42 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1161093618.810074.46780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Also if you call it a war, you make the folks on the other side into > "soldiers". This is an honerable status I am not sure we want to grant > them. They are criminals like the Mafia and nothing more. Exactly. The problem is, Bush calls them "soldiers" when it's convenient for him, and "criminals" when it's not. That way, he can thumb his nose at the US Constitution *and* the Geneva Convention. Eric Lucas
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 17 Oct 2006 12:45 On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Nicely written. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>>State? >>> >>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>> don't say what you are thinking here. >> >>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example of >>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. > >Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard >troops. And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just curious. Jon
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 12:54 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:gnu9j250311a5k2rb7l1sgj9r2uc4qqr8v(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:41:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on >>>>> the table -- particularly, their tactical use. >>>> >>>>Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great >>>>grandchildren. But it gets less likely. >>>> >>> Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump. >> >>Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009. > > Hilary, as much as I detest her, would probably be a pretty good prez, > a lot better than W or Willy. Perhaps, although I think her shrillness (which will probably make her unelectable anyway) would not play well as the world's premiere diplomat. Too much like Condy--extremely intelligent, and zero skill as a diplomat/negotiator/compromiser. The one good thing you have to admit about WJC is that he was a moderate. More than anything right now, we desparately need a moderate, from either side. Politics has become too divisive, and we desparately need that pendulum to swing back to the middle. I really respect the stand Lieberman took in CT, staying on the ticket even though he was too moderate for the radical left electorate. He's probably not electable as president--he's perhaps too introspective--but he may be the closest thing the US has to a viable 3rd-party candidate now. He may be getting too old to run, anyway. The sad thing is that, in 2000, McCain and Bradley would probably have both made better presidents than W or Gore. I used to think McCain, as a moderate, would be a good choice, but lately I've seen him cozy up to W one too many times. We've got 2 more years for someone to come along and make the case, though. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 12:56 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0su9j2tbgmi1lk9probji10efek75h3uf1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Nicely written. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>>State? >>> >>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>> don't say what you are thinking here. >> >>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example >>of >>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. >> > Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard > troops. Agreed, but those were pretty extreme times. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 17 Oct 2006 13:05
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:100aj2tujd38kum9omn0ni4tcbd22cfdbe(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:47:19 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:igi8j2tmonmnsklrgqsh5dds73npt22g6m(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>> <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than >>>>>their >>>>>Muslim counterparts. >>>> >>>>More so, because they (through political influence over the power of >>>>US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They >>>>are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here >>>>and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as >>>>well.) >>> >>> And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You >>> seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing >>> among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too. >> >> >>Yeah, but the fundamental difference is that a religious organization, >>which >>gets special tax breaks because of the special protected position that >>religion holds in the Constitution, is supposed to stay out of the >>business >>of governing the country. Mother Jones, and the liberal organizations >>associated therewith enjoy no such special protection. Any church that >>dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have >>their tax-exempt status revoked. > > There are plenty of tax-exempt nonprofits on both sides, or rather all > sides. The ones I'm objecting to are the religious ones, and they're almost invariably aligned with the right. >They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and > that's reasonably well enforced. Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a big problem, in my book. > They are not prohibited from doing > good works, even governmant-funded good works. Agreed, nor should they be. Eric Lucas |