Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 08:09 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei22el$8ss_006(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <VjT0h.22840$e66.20121(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45436FD6.3B0A4C75(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Wow. You should market your filter. I know a few politicians >>>> that would love to hand them out before every speech. >>> >>> Do you have anything useful to contribute ? >> >>Apparently she doesn't. Logic has failed her, so she just goes around >>spouting Republican soundbites and acting holier-than-thou when people >>dare >>to question them. > > I seem to be making my points; I can tell when you start using > circular logic to refute them. Was that circular logic?
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:06 In article <Gun2h.3654$B31.3169(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eicnua$8qk_009(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <691d6$4548e447$4fe7703$17646(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>You mean like Kerry and his latest debacle? >> >> >> Exactly. I knew he didn't like to work. What was really >> weird is that the speech was so familiar; he'ld given a similar >> sentiment when he was running for an office in 1972. At least the >> news here reported that one. He's using his anti-Nam speeches. >> The Democrats are turning this election year into another Nam >> political tactic; so now I'm concentrating on reading about that >> era. > >So you choose to listen to somebody who isn't even running for office, Kerry? He's running for President. >as an >excuse to indict the Democrats, rather than actually listening to what the >actual candidates are saying. Our Democrat candidates are saying nothing other than, "Those mean Republicans are picking me, poor me." > Like I said, you listen very selectively, and >only hear the bits that support your pre-existing belief structure. Nice >basis for choosing your leaders. You don't know what you're talking about. Up until this week Kerry was running for President. His speech this week may have finished it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:08 In article <4549E63D.35EDA11(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >> about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >> scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. > >It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. Sigh! That will happen unless steps are taken to prevent the mess. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:09 In article <3c732$4549ec30$4fe7336$23388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. >> >> >> It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. > >You're obviously not old enough to personally >remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's. > Right. And it was made worse by Nixon instituting government controls which made the supply even tighter and the mob psychology go into berserk mode overnight. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Nov 2006 08:11
In article <nHn2h.3660$B31.570(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:3c732$4549ec30$4fe7336$23388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> Eeyore wrote: >> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>>>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>>>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. >>> >>> >>> It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. >> >> You're obviously not old enough to personally >> remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's. > >First you say you're not talking about an embargo, then as evidence that it >will happen, you point to an embargo. At least you could get your story >straight.... The embargo was reducing deliveries to certain countries unless they capitulated into obeying. I'm not talking about embargo. I'm talking about stopping all production. /BAH |