New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 10 Aug 2006 16:20 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:7FsYNT4To42EFwcb(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <44DB82A4.D14AA9B3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Thu, 10 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >>I just saw an intelligent American counter-terrorism expert interviewed >>on our Channel 4 News who said that the reasons for terrorist action >>against the West is on account primarily because of our troops being on >>'Islamic soil'. that's reaaly just a convienent excuse. The real reason is the animus against Western society and it's evil influence on Islam. Spain,and much of Europe,and a large part of Africa was "Islamic soil" at one time,and there's a prohibition in the Koran about surrendering Islamic lands to infidels. > > That's not the least bit intelligent. It immediately raises the question > of "what all these Muslim immigrants are doing here on our 'Christian > soil'". BNP-fodder! Muslims are required by the Koran to spread the Faith,by sword if necessary.Infidels must not be tolerated(must be converted or killed),and "People of the Book" must submit and pay the poll tax,or Jizya,or convert to Islam. There's no such thing as "Christian soil" to Muslims. It's merely infidel land to be conquered. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: John Woodgate on 10 Aug 2006 17:05 In message <Xns981BA62AFFF97jyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.84>, dated Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> writes >Muslims are required by the Koran to spread the Faith,by sword if >necessary. Jim, you can find words like that in the New Testament, too. >Infidels must not be tolerated(must be converted or killed),and "People >of the Book" must submit and pay the poll tax,or Jizya,or convert to >Islam. > >There's no such thing as "Christian soil" to Muslims. No, but there IS to militant Christians, and to White Supremacists. >It's merely infidel land to be conquered. Well, the Crusaders had similar views 600 years ago. When Christianity was as old as Islam is now. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: John Fields on 10 Aug 2006 18:02 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:21:45 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >>> Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance >>> extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns >>> extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of >>> power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is >>> inequitable and undemocratic. >> >> That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public >> office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the >> advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > >It's rather the other way around. >A candidate for public office will be truly viable if he's financed. --- But, he won't be financed unless he's viable in the first place. That is, he'll have to convince the money that he's the right choice. Why else would we support him? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 10 Aug 2006 18:22 On 10 Aug 2006 09:30:01 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >John Larkin wrote: >> On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance >> >extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns >> >extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of >> >power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is >> >inequitable and undemocratic. >> >> That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public >> office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the >> advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > >And if the candidate has been financed and knows taht they are going to >have to be financed again at the next election, they are beholden to >the financier(s)? > >> A more serious money-related problem is regionalism driven by pork. >> >> But overall, the system works very well, so you can't complain too >> much about the details. > >It has given you two terms of Dubbya, which suggests the system needs >to work better, --- We fixed that problem, long before W, by limiting _anyone's_ term of office in the presidency of the US to two four year terms, which means that W will be out next time. Who would you like to see in there next time? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: bill.sloman on 10 Aug 2006 18:36
John Fields wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:21:45 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On 10 Aug 2006 02:52:08 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Your current situation is one where people with the money to finance > >>> extended advertising campaigns - not to mention judicial campaigns > >>> extending to the Supreme Court - exercise a disproportionate amount of > >>> power over the election process and the people who get elected. This is > >>> inequitable and undemocratic. > >> > >> That aspect of money isn't a serious problem. A candidate for public > >> office will be financed if he's truly viable. In that sense, the > >> advertising budget knocks out the un-electable loonies and spoilers. > > > >It's rather the other way around. > >A candidate for public office will be truly viable if he's financed. > > --- > But, he won't be financed unless he's viable in the first place. > That is, he'll have to convince the money that he's the right > choice. Why else would we support him? Because he might do something nice for you after he'd been elected? I know that you, personally, don't have that kind of money, but some people do. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |