Jihad needs scientists

[Michael A. Terrell]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:t1dbi2pob3u7ic3dp19guns746jria0n2e@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:29:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

importing oil to feed its ridiculous fleet of
inefficient cars

I doubt that you even have any clue as to the model and make
distribution of cars in the US population.

Over half are SUVs and pickup trucks, that all get less than about 17 mpg.
I think that's all he really needs to know to make statements like he did
about "ridiculous fleet of inefficient cars".

Eric Lucas

Not around here. More small cars than anything else. Sure a lot of
people drive pickup trucks, but they have business names painted on
them. I drive a mini pickup with a four cylinder to do my volunteer
work, and because its all I have at the moment.


It all changes when the Northerners come to winter here. Lots of
Caddies, Lincolns, and SUVs driving down the center of two lanes at 20
miles an hour under the speed limit.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

So, you don't carry anything else?...........
.........An insurance card so you don't die while waiting for
the hospital to make sure they will be paid for their services?

You really don't know much about the UK do you ?

Medical services are free.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:45:03 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:10:34 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.

/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.

Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France,
specifically.

You're being very very silly.

Graham

I don't think so. A couple of things are at work here. One is the
military and cultural and technological and scientific dominance of
the USA as compared to Europe, which is bound to cause some
resentment. The other is expressed in the Chinese proverb, "if you
save someone's life, they will hate you forever."

You really are monumentally stupid.

You are fat, poor, unhappy, and frustrated by the state of the world.
I am none of these. Explain to me why I am the stupid one here.

Because you're stupidly happy in your profound ignorance ?

It's not ignorance; I am happy by choice, then design. Try it some
time.

The only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what
idiocy America's up to next.

You are blaming externals for an internal state, a convenient and
paralyzing cop-out. For anyone reasonably healthy and living in a
free, developed country not to be happy is stunning stupidity. Sad,
too.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:48:26 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're very silly. I reckon I'd rather have Russia as an ally than the USA
frankly.

Well, I've spent months in Russia and months in England, and we can
agree on that!

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4525D26C.C2FF6B64@earthlink.net...

YAWN = Not very intersting reply to me. How long have you been on
Usenet?

No, "not very interesting reply to me" means you just skip it and move on.
YAWN is "I'm trying to impress you with how big/smart/important/well-hung I
am by telling you your reply is beneath me, and screaming it at you." At
least be honest with yourself.

Eric Lucas

You have your definition, I have mine. I never gave a shit about
impressing anyone, unless it was promotion time. I was good at my job
which hurt or helped, depending on the day and the "Crisis de jour". I
have worked in electronics for over 40 years, and did things I was told
was impossible.


If you have to brag about being well hung, I still have plenty of
rope. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Or "If its tourist season why can't I shoot 'em?" Bumpersticker

I want to put a sign at the Florida state border that says, "Leave
your wallets, and go home!" ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Larkin]

On 06 Oct 2006 03:11:24 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

America's only got a couple of hundred years of history.

It makes them dizzy thinking much further back.

I just re-read "A Distant Mirror", about Europe in the 14th century.
And Carolly Ericson's "Bloody Mary" and "Mistress Anne." And Defoe and
Boccaccio, about the plague. And Mackay's "Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." And Fraser's excellent book
about the Gunpowder Plot. A history of Ireland is next on the list.
Lots of fiction, too: Trollope, Scott, Austen, O'Brian, Forester,
Forster, Eliot, Sand, Dickens, Hugo, Shakespeare, Balzac, the whole
gang. No signs of dizziness so far. Do you like history?

Graham


Yes, but I like many of them.


You just have a Book (The Book), being nearly thousand years old, not
to mention the older history.

But as everywhere, you can find bad and good.


How the U.S.A. managed that 50:50 voting spectacle is out of my
imagination.

The nature of our fixed-term popular elections discourages coalitions
and tends to kill small political parties, so we wind up with two. And
they automatically servo towards the center. And the American public
is smart enough that we prefer to not keep any one party in power for
too long. So things naturally trend towards a very close split between
the parties. The balance *is* remarkable.

There are many bad things about having two fairly antagonistic
parties, but they do keep one another honest. And partially paralyzing
government is a good thing, too, which Americans do instinctively.

John

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:tfhbi29cplhgpsm87rtvtddpq3sggh8cpm@4ax.com...

People CAN record a phone call.

Not in an all party state like CA. All parties must be notified and agree to
the recording. Passing on a non compliant recording is a federal offence.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uSjVg.11666$6S3.7084@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Wow, JoeBlows is smarter and knows more Constitutional law than the 9
supreme court justices. Who'd'a thunk it from a redneck Joe Sixpack like
that?

No one.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-D04EA7.23242505102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

25% of world production?

So you are really assuming our use is going to go to nothing?

The US still produces quite a lot of oil. Add in Canada, Mexico and the Gulf
and you're close to what you need IF you had halfway fuel efficient cars.

 

[Robert Latest]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:58:29 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <gchai2ligb29uejo28rjrpi78fkdonglhp@4ax.com>

But I consider trerrorism to be attacking non-combattant populations
for political/emotional/morale reasons, which both sides did in WWII
and I don't think the US is doing deliberately at present.

At present, no. Deliberately, no. It is in fact difficult to make out
what the US are doing at present, and why they insist on doing it.
That's what causes a great deal of the alienation the US are
experiencing at the moment. The uproar about slippery email exchanges
between a politican and teenagers isn't helping the US to get into a
situation where they can be taken serious, either. In any normal country
the guy would simply be kicked out of office, tars and feathers and all
and be done with it.

The Cold War certainly helped hold western Europe together, and
supressed the latent anti-Americanism until the Soviet empire
collapsed and the Europeans felt they didn't need us any more.

I really don't know where you see all that anti-Americansim. The
dominant sentiment among Europeans (including myself) is a huge
disappointment with what America has grown into recently. For much of
the world, especially Europe, America used to be the very definition of
freedom - not the least because it saved Western Europe not so much from
Hitler as from Soviet domination. Now we have to witness how that great
country is being run down by a bunch of religious goons and their
industry buddies. The feeling is more like grief, not hate.

robert

 

[Robert Baer]

Try wasting bandwidth on this...

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at
least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to
reach the stated endpoint.

When Oil runs out - the rate will increase exponentially!

In the meantime, how about if we stop giving
them reasons to do so?

Their "reason" is similar as for climbing mount everest: "because it is there" -
i.e. "because you exist". The hive must destroy all that is not off the hive!

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:7lbbi25muodhj7akomhefagj5bdfe4h61b@4ax.com...

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:46:37 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



JoeBloe wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:57:03 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net
Gave us:

Okay, I'm a little slow this morning. What's the second purpose?
I can see where purpose # 1 is to get rid of the excess young
men, by brainwashing them into being suicide bombers, so the
ruthless leaders can have more of the young women to themselves,
but what's purpose #2?

From their POV or ours? We of course say there is no purpose, but
you readily see in the world what they think they are getting. There
are actually entire nations of ill informed societies that have
actually been duped into thinking these extreme bastards have a
righteous cause.

What do you mean by 'duped' ? You think they imagine it ?

The word for today is propaganda, dipshit. Go look it up.

Taking Afghanistan as an example... they were allowed NO radios, no
tapes or tape players, no foreign newspapers. All they "knew" was what
was "fed" to them.

.... And now "they" are achieving more of exactly the same with the aid of
Western Technology - Google, Cisco and so on actively *helping* dictators and
nut-case-countries to carve out the dissenting information from the Internet and
clamping down on dissidents!

Maybe one day you'll get the clue that this is how all the "Islamic
Extremist" groups operate. This is how UN signatory nations mutate so
perversely as to raise their kids to hate their neighboring country
and teach them to suicide themselves for a purely propagandized
"cause".

Maybe one day, you'll get a clue.

Oh "we" Got It - Problem it that the people that make decisions for "us" all
have their own agenda; which does not involve more freedom and a better life for
"us". It does for "them", though.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45256127.7BE53C0D@hotmail.com...

Keith wrote:

In article <45244E9E.D8DD822E@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then
?

Successful missile test?

How about proof of American sailors being trigger happy dickheads ?

The simple fact that you can make a joke out of the mass slaughter of innocent
ppl
is one reason why the rest of the world looks at the USA in incredulity.

Graham

The simple act of generalising from one to millions show you as the bigot you
really are!

>

 

In article
<kurtullman-1593BC.14174905102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <GObVg.51595$E67.42301@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2m1h$8qk_001@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

The Constitution already curtails powers of all three branches.
People do not mean control of Congress. For some strange reason,
people are using the human being named Bush as the reason for
all the world's ails. I keep tracing this bizarre thinking back
to the new Democrats who have not stopped campaigning for the 2004
elections. One would think that the platform that lost them that
election would be examined and changed.

Say what? The Democrats got way more real votes, but the Republicans had a
better system for cheating.

Interesting because all of the FL precincts that had troubles were in
Counties where the Dems had majorities on the election boards.

Exactly. Yet, somehow, these anti-Bushers insist that
Bush had power to control these Democrats and their decisions
before he campaigned.

Also,
despite the demonizing of the Secretary of State, they only have
authority to okay machines when used. Which machines and how the ballots
are set-up is entirely in the hands of the locals.

You must remember to repeat that those locals were Democrats.

/BAH

 

In article
<kurtullman-0F836F.10021405102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Define abuse, (seriously). I usually reserve that term for actual
physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is
nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to
suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given
both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble.
Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of
magnitude below physical and sexual abuse.

When did talking dirty become illegal?

/BAH

 

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2m74$8qk_002@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.

take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way
that
Hitler did.

You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic
behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.

You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.


The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.


You mean kind of like gay marriage amendments, embryonic stem cells, Iraq
(as opposed to the *real* fight against terrorism), and so on?

Did you find the speech that Bush made in January? He described
why Iraq is important.

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Did you purposely mininterpret what I wrote? Or did I not
write clearly enough? The Democrats are using this behavior
as a distraction. Do you not think that they are minimizing
the behaviour? Nobody has reported what those emails said.
All I've heard is that there was sex mentioned. Does that
mean he wrote, "Fuck" or something else?

/BAH

 

In article <45253DEE.896AC21A@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH


Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news.

All politics is local. The subject we were talking about
is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning
for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet
with their voters, they don't have to describe what they
are going to do about the national threat. The one running
for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor
didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he
leaves the meeting.

It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our
national security.

/BAH

 

In article <45253B7B.F1D399F5@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

another possibility is
the goal is to cede to these extremists

Are you really that monumentally stupid ?

Listening to their greivances isn't 'ceding' btw.

Arafat used this tactic. He kept people at the table talking
about peace to give his side time to accumulate weapons. He
even got all these rich countries to fund his efforts.

/BAH