Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:30 In article <8594c$45468e46$4fe716b$704(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <Lga1h.2227$s6.11(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>BAH--this is a new low for you. Self-congratulation and attacking other >>>posters by using another screen name. >> >> >> Huh? I can't write that well. You will assume any posture just >> to avoid the facts of what is really going on. I don't know >> how to deal with this kind of insanity. > >By making this sort of accuation he's avoiding >the issues. He didn't have a single point to >make about the content of the post. And if >one considers the content of his posting, it >actually has nothing at all to do with what's >above. > >If anyone deserves to be ignored, he does. That's not a viable choice. When the US gets its Democrat for President, s/he/it will think, talk and act like Eric portrays in this discussion. That's the only reason I've stayed here so long. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:34 In article <Rvp1h.23508$e66.15121(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ei4t4d$8qk_006(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <4544E33A.555EF3DA(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did >>>> >>>the >> oil >>>> go ? >>>> >> >>>> >> If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of Europe >>>> >> in exchange for capitulation. >>>> >> >>>> >> /BAH >>>> > >>>> >They're suddenly going to increase their oil consumption by over a >>>> >factor >> of >>>> >10??? >>>> >>>> They already have. It's going to be more. >>> >>>Not ten times more though is it ? And not 'overnight' either. >> >> In economic terms, it will be overnight. > >Nice smokescreen. We were talking about an oil embargo, You may have been talking about an embargo. I wasn't. There are two subjects: 1) the oil wells are shut down; this is not an embargo and 2) the price of oil taking a decade to get to $100/bbl. You people are smoking some heavy dope to not notice that we're oneWall Street panic away from that figure. >which happens >overnight in *actual* terms. You implied that China is going to soak up the >extra oil consumption, Man, you need learn about capitalism and bidding and futures. >but it will not happen to allow the OPEC nations to >keep from going bankrupt. Please try to focus and stay on point--defending >your wacko theories by trying to shift the discussion is a very disingenuous >arguing tactic...although it is what the Bush administration has been doing >for 6 years. Keep digging that hole. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:35 In article <4qnbicFo0aioU1(a)individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:ei4t4d$8qk_006(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4544E33A.555EF3DA(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> You people are not thinking! Scenario: oil imports stop. >>>>>>>> So who's going to be buying the oil instead of the USA ? Where did >>>>>>>> the >>> oil >>>>> go ? >>>>>>> If production hasn't been stopped, China, India, and parts of Europe >>>>>>> in exchange for capitulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /BAH >>>>>> They're suddenly going to increase their oil consumption by over a >>>>>> factor >>> of >>>>>> 10??? >>>>> They already have. It's going to be more. >>>> Not ten times more though is it ? And not 'overnight' either. >>> In economic terms, it will be overnight. >> >> Nice smokescreen. We were talking about an oil embargo, which happens >> overnight in *actual* terms. You implied that China is going to soak up the >> extra oil consumption, but it will not happen to allow the OPEC nations to >> keep from going bankrupt. Please try to focus and stay on point--defending >> your wacko theories by trying to shift the discussion is a very disingenuous >> arguing tactic...although it is what the Bush administration has been doing >> for 6 years. >> >> Eric Lucas >> > >China is massively investing in coal liquefaction plants. When I was there in the 80s, their economy was based on all coal. ARe they working on development autos that can run on coal tar? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Nov 2006 08:42 In article <b0b87$454896c9$4fe760b$14253(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <4546F871.E7AD0EB5(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >>>>and other places in the world to ours. >>> >>>What !!!! >>> >>>Are you being funny ? >> >> >> No, he's not. There are a lot of Europeans who come to the US >> to shop. > >There have been many flights bringing Europeans to shop at >the Mall of America in Minnesota. Straight in, shop all day, >get back on the plane the same day and go back. I hadn't heard that one. I suspect it would be the place to go with everything in the same building. I don't understand how people can do that. I hate shopping..except in my local hardware and lumber store and the book store. I'll browse in those stores. /BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Nov 2006 03:11
In article <hpK1h.39044$P7.19708(a)edtnps89>, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick(a)chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message >news:ei7qis$565$1(a)news-int2.gatech.edu... >> In article <45476864.AB9F9647(a)earthlink.net>, mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net >> wrote: >>>MooseFET wrote: >>>> >>>> SInce on the average Canadians live longer than Americans (79 vs 77), >>>> we can assume that health care is getting delivered quite well up >>>> there. > >>> No, its just that the cold winters that slow everything down. > >> Actually, it's because they come to the US instead of waiting forever in >> Canada. > >So why do Americans come to Canada for medical treatment? > > > Some want elective surgery Canada's system doesn't cover. Some can afford it and believe American care is better. And yes, in a few localized instances over the years, there have been waits. Why do Americans who retire to Mexico or Costa Rica rave about the medical care there? Why do Canadians who move to the US, go back home when they retire? |