Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 21 Oct 2006 16:57 On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:36:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:3ikkj2h256i6m8mjl1th466nhrinom3tg7(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:55:18 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>Not true, IMO. African hatreds are much like American >>>ones, passed from one generation to the next without >>>understanding, as in "Damn Yankees burned the south!" >> >> I've lived in the South, the northeast, and the West, and traveled all >> over, and I know of no US regional hatreds. There's some mild >> stereotyping, like Californians are goofy and Vermonters are austere >> and Bostonians drive badly, stuff like that, but usually based in >> fact. > >Yes. The Hatfields and McCoys made up *years* ago. > Yup, over a hundred years ago. And their feud wasn't very regional. John
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 16:59 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:7c6e8$453a49e8$49ecfae$4514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake distorts as only a Muslim can: >> >><snip> >> >>>The argument in this thread is that the current plans were wrong. >> >>That's one of many many arguments in this thread. >> >> >>>It appears that the military chain of command are coming to think that as >>>well. >> >>It is election season and the republicans are in >>trouble there. > > > Yep, and that would explaing the upswing in fear-mongering and showings of > the 9/11 video footage. The Republicans haven't a leg to stand on with the > real issues, so they choose to use fear-mongering instead. Clearly whatever works in love & war....
From: unsettled on 21 Oct 2006 17:00 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:9dd44$453a4b74$49ecfae$4540(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > >>Yet you allow, and encourage, capitalist extremism to prosper. > > > C'mon, BAH, first you say that Europe is socialist, then you say that it's > "capitalist extremist". Make up your mind! I thought it was T Wake that wrote that. If you want to get it right go back to the origins and follow the attributes.
From: T Wake on 21 Oct 2006 17:02 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:aBu_g.14857$GR.7860(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:PtWdnWzlorfyqafYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> Your nation is led by a President who is overtly seek guidance from God. >> That would frighten me. The UK PM is a devout Catholic. That offends me > > Not clear to me why it should offend you, unless he has begun inflicting > his religious beliefs on his performance in office...and I haven't seen > signs of that, but then again, I'm not privy to much of what the UK > government does, day to day. I should clarify, I have no major issue with which religion the PM chooses to follow. There is an issue with a countries leader who follows a dogmatic faith that (dont forget this is really IMHO and possibly the result of advancing age) requires obedience to a non-public entity. There is a reasonable possibility that "offend" was an excessive word to have used, but what ever word it would have been the same if he was Islamic, Hindu, Jane etc. Using a simplist and far from real example: if there was a situation where the interests of the people conflicted with the interests of God/the Pope, where would the PM stand? If it was with the people, his faith is a lie and he shouldn't be trusted. If it is with God/Pope then he is not doing his job as PM and shouldn't be trusted. >> and there are (currently) significant checks and balances to prevent a >> religious upsurge. > > Used to be here, too. W has been slowly dismantling those, all on the > basis of unfounded fear. The same is starting to happen in the UK. Slowly legislation is passed, which appears reasonable but allows for unreasonable things. We currently have a government that I actually, largely, support and things are going well so people don't seem to mind being monitored and tracked everywhere (legislation for black boxes in cars is looming). What happens in X years when not-so-nice government gets in?
From: lucasea on 21 Oct 2006 17:03
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:55113$453a8854$4fe71c4$5874(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:9dd44$453a4b74$49ecfae$4540(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >> >>>Yet you allow, and encourage, capitalist extremism to prosper. >> >> >> C'mon, BAH, first you say that Europe is socialist, then you say that >> it's "capitalist extremist". Make up your mind! > > I thought it was T Wake that wrote that. If you want to > get it right go back to the origins and follow the attributes. > Did. It was you. Eric Lucas |