Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 06:24 In article <1161873433.497805.165040(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1161700854.976916.304350(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >[....] >> >The nuclear power industry has a history of making false promices and >> >screwing up badly. As a result the idea of making a new power plant >> >isn't very popular. Strangley enough research into the theory that >> >makes them go is still fairly popular. This may be a good thing >> >because a "new generation of safe power plants" may just sell. >> >> The only person who is willing to say those "bad" words, nuclear >> power plant, is Bush. > >That is simply false. > >At least the these have talked about it at length: > >Dennis Kucinich, >Senator Domenici, >Sen. Stabenow > >I'm sure there are many more but I'm lazy. I'll make a point to listen to these people when they talk. > > >> I haven't heard Republicans say them and >> Democrats always leave it off their list of items we have >> to do to become less dependent on oil imports. > >Once again simply false. Try a bit of googling. > Anybody can edit any ASCII that's out there. I listen to their speeches..you know those where they talk face to face with their constiuencies? Even the Democrat rebuttals to Bush's Saturday radio speeches never include building nuclear reactors when they list the viable alternate energy sources they claim to have in their platform plans. They don't *say* it when it counts. There isn't a mention in my state's politics about improving our power grid. And we have tons of hot politics going on at the moment. No Democrat and no Republican in this state is talking about any of the real stuff. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 07:31 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > [Clinton] > >(C) > >Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This > >I remember because it was a near perfect failure. > > I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand > of religion an effective action. It's not *its brand of religion* at all ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi > That's spitting into a gale > force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk > a hundred miles away. How would you deal with it then ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Oct 2006 06:32 In article <45415E02.6A03097A(a)earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Dream on. Have you stocked two weeks worth of drinking water? > > > I live in Central Florida. What do you think? Some do, some don't :-). > Two weeks supply per >person isn't enough, when the electricity can be out for a full month >after a hurricane. Yea. Our storm today is supposed to remain in liquid form. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 07:36 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Your name-calling aside, bin Laden was not so stupid that he didn't know the > >administration had changed. If the Republicans are so strong on terror, bin > >Laden would have known that. He chose to attack during a Republican > >administration anyway. It doesn't matter when the plans were made. > > He did not expect an all-out retaliation. Even Regan just bombed > a building. He didn't wipe out the administration of the country > it resided in. The coalition that had formed when Saddam invaded > Kuwait did not complete the job it should have. Incorrect. It fulfilled the UN mandate precisely. The UN mandate was not about toppling Saddam. Shame really since it might have worked out just fine back then. Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Oct 2006 07:42
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of buildings full of > >people, mostly Americans. > > The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. > This is > the part of human society that keeps it functioning, growing, > thriving. Remove that and you have a dark ages. See these Muslim centres of trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_towers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_World_Trade_Centre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putra_World_Trade_Centre And this list of 74 buildings also called " World Trade Center " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_trade_center Graham |