Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:15 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifet5$8qk_006(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Gun2h.3654$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. Funny, we're not electing a president next week. Focus. >>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." And I know for a fact that you're either lying, or just simply not listening when they say other things. > >> 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. Your actions belie that sentence. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:19 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiff5h$8qk_009(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <nHn2h.3660$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. And if that happens, I will remind you once again, that we could build all the nuclear plants we want to, and they will be useless in that situation because we will not have the electric cars to make use of the electricity to replace oil/gasoline. Oil will have to become uncompetitive *before* the US even thinks about moving to electric cars...and the lag time to developing electric cars is years, not "overnight", as you seem to assume. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 09:20 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifg2n$8qk_002(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B41A0.D3070554(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>And the best way to avoid a 'mess' is for the USA to get its nose out of > stuff >>that it has no place interfering with. > > Would it have been OK with you if the US stopped containing Saddam and > his excursions north and south? Yes. Have a think about which nations took part in that task.
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 09:21 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifg97$8qk_003(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B4204.F6B04682(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >>Wrong. I do recall it and I have the fuel vouchers to prove it. > > That was an embargo which was a reduction of production and a > selection of favored customers. I'm not talking about an embargo. > I'm thinking about scenarios where all production is stopped. I disagree. You use the word thinking when you mean fantasising. >>> 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. >> >>Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? > > Yes. I don't remember all the details. Oh well.
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 09:22
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454B3B17.C9C6F72B(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. >> >> Neither had I. It seems unusual for people to fly over 10 hours each way >> to >> go shopping. The prices there really must be rock bottom. >> >> > I suspect it would be the place to >> > go with everything in the same building. >> >> Strangely, we have things like that in Europe as well. > > Maybe BAH and unsettled haven't heard of Bluewater ? > I suspect the set of things in Europe they have no idea about (other than some half understood anecdotal commentary) is very large. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Bluewater.. but then I hate shopping. |