Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Oct 2006 05:43 In article <ehv9me$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>[....] >>> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >>> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? >> >>This is simply false. > >Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. >> >>Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: >> >>(A) >>The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 > >I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just >provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? >> >>(B) >>Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. > >I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were >checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems >in most of them; no funding was allowed. >> >>(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. That's spitting into a gale >force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >a hundred miles away. > >> The Saudi government >>had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on >>Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. > >None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's >stump speeches would have one believe. > >I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why >didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not >doing it? > >Everybody swallows what this man says without any critical thinking. >I guess that's what JMF called charisma. > >/BAH > No, we've read Clark's book and Woodword's book.
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Oct 2006 05:46 In article <ehvga6$8qk_008(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45433F9F.F6808F39(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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 ? > >I'd establish a nation with a capitalistic, representative democracy >with a secular education system mandatory for all residents >smack dab in the middle of that mess. > >/BAH And then what, leave and hope they like it?
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Oct 2006 05:47 In article <ehvl4j$8qk_001(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <9hJ0h.787$wX.77(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehvb5g$8qk_007(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>You might add Sherrod Brown, Ken Strickland, and Mary Jo Kilroy. I usually >>TIVO through the ads on TV, but I just happened to catch each of these three >>in a row, and they're all talking specific plans to deal with terrorism. > >What I've heard so far is talk about making plans. It's too late >to talk about making plans. Everybody should have been trained >and had a job assigned to them when the next mess happens. > >>Certainly better than "stay the course". > >Bush's apparently stopped saying that because people don't understand >what he means. Actually, they understood too well. When you're sailing towards a waterfall, you don't just "stay the course." > >>You're problem isn't that you >>refuse to listen to what people say, it's worse than that....you listen >>selectively, and then refuse to admit that they said something you didn't >>want to hear. > >I'm not the one who is being selective; you are. > > ><snip he said, she said> > >>IIRC, you mentioned you live in Massachusetts. When exactly was the last >>time your states grid was insufficient? Not exactly a hotbed of blackouts >>or brownouts. > >This past summer. Projections are not good for winter and worse >for summer...again according to news reports. > >We've had problems since the early 80s. One of my jobs was to >have a plan and then do it whenever I got a phone call to reduce >power consumption. This meant shutting down mainframes that got >extremely cranky if they were powered down. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Oct 2006 05:58 In article <ei4s7g$8qk_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> In article <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: ><snip delusional expectations that Democrats never fulfilled> > > >>> The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>> medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>> tax penalties will be imposed. >> >>The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They don't >>want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to fund >>their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay for >>their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the care of >>those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to do if >>you have the state paying for those who can't. >> >>If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to the >>poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one taken. > >Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >and people are trying to get rid of it. The fact that the Democrats >have implemented a similar structure for medical insurance (this >is NOT medical care) bodes ill for all, especially those who >cannot pay. The new thing that these idiots have implemented is >tying the payments to income taxes. They did this with sales >tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >medical insurance. > Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and Japan. They cover everybody and spend less. >Please note that there is a huge difference between medical >insurance and actual medical care. > > >> >>If you rely on private charity hospitals, you will find a lot of >>disagreeable people can't get care. Back when there was entirely >>private charity, there was the idea of "the deserving poor". Those who >>were not "deserving" didn't get charity. This may sound like a good >>idea until you think about what it does to public health. The poor end >>up acting as a breeding ground for and a resevoir of diseases. You >>could not of gotten rid of polio without treating everyone. > >None of this is about the poor. All of this is about absconding >people's monies and spending it for them. Like the Pentagon?
From: lucasea on 30 Oct 2006 11:08
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei4sfp$8qk_003(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>snip >> >>> Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. >>> This is serious business and it will take another three massive >>> killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and >>> ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are >>> put back in power. >> >>Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious >>end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual >>dictatorial authority. >> >>Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was >>mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating >>against the west for decades. Despite the protestations >>of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been >>from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a >>new religion. >> >>If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's >>growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement >>as is being promoted in these related threads. In the >>case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in >>charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of >>men that the appeasers disdained. They historically >>worked hard to derail him but there came a moment >>of truth when they were finally unable to deny the >>realities facing them any longer, and needed a >>strong man to drive them towards victory. By that >>time they were in trouble, so America was pulled >>into the fray, with its own dictator style president >>at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a >>sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to >>use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. >> >>How many today would have the nerve to actually use a >>nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here >>want that to happen, but by their actions they're >>driving the system towards the point where other >>options will cease to exist. >> >>Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" >>we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably >>evenually get to the point where we'll have to use >>our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. >> >>History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess >>if you take care of business and protect yourself >>early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring >>all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >>futures. > > Thank you. You write better than I do. Very nicely written. Congratulating yourself under another alias. You do realize how pathetic that is, don't you? Eric Lucas |