Jihad needs scientists

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:32:52 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

snip

Hey, donkey boy... you have been hung up in this thread so long
that you are ignoring all those other threads which you have been
posting incorrect crap in! Your one track, hate the US cause is
hampering your ability to show us how stupid you are in other areas.

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:sPGdnW1qqOyX7LrYRVnyrw@pipex.net...

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:g6udi2h3s876tsd4igje6qo10872ndlq2t@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:09:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

You would never know if you had 15 seconds as I very, very much doubt you
can count that high.

I can juggle 15 imaginary numbers around, while you piddle fart

I can juggle imaginary elephants. Beat that.

around with counting the digits of one hand.

Wow. Good comeback.

Try again, asswipe.

Ok, what other imaginary things shall we pretend we can juggle?

Ooh, ooh, I've got one...how about intelligent neocons?

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:sPGdnWhqqOyW7LrYRVnyrw@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xfGVg.11941$6S3.9608@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg72np$a4m$5@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4525651A.5E36C356@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the
GDP will
go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100
million people?

That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA.

No, not since it doesn't have to happen. I only spoke of the fear of
life
in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen
and
the jail isn't needed.


We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing. We're
going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to
convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and
answer the question.

Doesn't that imply killing them is not a deterrent?

No, it actually comes out and says it.

The problem is we are killing Iraqis and the terrorist are Syrians. If the
Jihadists thought they would be jailed for life and have to suffer eighty
years before they were martyred it would take a fair bit of steam out of
their sails. (IMHO of course)

I'm not any sort of expert on either terrorists or any of the ethnicities in
the Middle East, but I doubt that would make much of a difference. I think
the terrorist leadership is good at convincing their minions that none of
that matters. We'd have to imprison a hell of a lot of them in order for it
to sink in that they might have a reasonable chance of being put in jail.
In order for imprisonment to be any sort of deterrent, a significant
fraction of criminals must actually be imprisoned, in order for the
criminals to think they have any chance of being punished. Something like
half of murderers have to be put in jail...and yet murder still happens.
And I would argue that terrorists have a much stronger impetus to commit
terrorism, than other more run-of-the-mill murderers have to commit murder.

Eric Lucas

Eric Lucas

 

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
newsg5fi2d1ds6gigkd2n99bu8jd2868nt0j3@4ax.com...

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:18:24 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:XeGVg.11929$6S3.5416@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:aasdi21rrd3aj4cj4va9rh5vtdn25lgb9n@4ax.com...

Yes, as good as Iraq had WMD.

They did, you ditzo.

Uhh...no...not since 1991. You really do need to get yourself educated,
and not just listen to Bush soundbites.

Sadly, you've asked for something impossible. It would be easier to invent
a
perpetual motion device than get JoeBloe and education.

You cannot even construct a sentence properly

Example, please, typos aside. With your stellar knowledge of English and
inability to distinguish between words that mean something different, I'd be
surprised if you even know what is an appropriate sentence structure and
what isn't.


, and you declare that

not only do I need an education, but that I would not be able to
garner anything from it.

Well, since you seem not to have garnered anything from the education that
you have had, it would seem a reasonable assumption.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:b9ydna4x9eTtFLrYRVny2A@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7ss6$8qk_002@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <wMGdnU0OlJ5E6rvYnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg56q0$8ss_006@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
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.

What national threat?

Do you mean the Islamic based terrorist who cause almost insignifcant
loss
of life when compared to (for example) obesity?

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.

The counter tactic is to over exaggerate the threat from one sector to
mask
other problems.

After reading your response and the others', there is no way
anybody can do mess prevention until one is made and is too
big to clean up.

Your mess prevention analogy is flawed on several levels. The invasion of
Iraq is not "mess prevention."

No, in fact it was quite clearly nothing but mess *creation*.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7tn5$8qk_005@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <6ruVg.13907$7I1.7585@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5el9$8qk_011@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <452634AB.3341D603@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?

What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ?

They
were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't.

Again, evidence to justify this assumption?

You have got to be kidding.

No, I'm absolutely dead serious. This very assumption is a crux, if not
*the* crux, of this discussion. We have people going off all over the
place, speculating like mad about what the Middle Eastern Muslim culture is
and is not, and about what the terrorists' motivations really are. Unless
you grew up a Muslim in the Middle East, I'm not going to let you get away
with something this basic without evidence. My evidence, from talking to
Muslim acquaintances, coworkers, etc. I've had over the years, is that Islam
is a very peaceful religion. If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt
them, they had no reason to lie to me), then what is the "culture that
admires killing" of which you speak? And don't go quoting verses of the
Koran to demonstrate that it is a "culture that admires killing"--there are
verses in the Bible that would make you believe that Christianity is an
equally violent culture. You and I know it is not--it is a culture that
admires peace and life.

All the Muslims I know are very
much peace-loving people. Certainly much more so than any of the "kill
'em
all" Americans I see on this group.

I haven't seen anybody (who is rational) demand that all Muslims
be killed. I have seen extrapolations about what will have to
be done if no mess prvention is done now.

That was hyperbolic allegory.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7tss$8qk_007@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <P6-dnSajh_Dt4LvYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5el9$8qk_011@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <452634AB.3341D603@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times
as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01
attack.
That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by
anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a
normal
risk in life.

Amazing really.

So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?

What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ?

Because I can think of one that will kill a billion in less
than 1/2 year. If I can think it, they certainly can. They
were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't.

I can think about space aliens invading and making everyone die their hair
red. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.

You can deal with things you _think_ will happen or deal with things which
are happening.

I know which makes more sense to me.

I understand what makes more sense to you. I was brought up to
take action if I can see that a big mess is about to be made
if nothing is done.

Yes, but whenever you are going to take preemptive action like that, it is
based 100% on assumptions, mostly assumptions regarding what will happen and
why. If you're going to make global policy based on assumptions, you
absolutely *must* make sure your assumptions are 100% reliable. I've seen
you make some extremely shaky assumptions that, in fact, are arguably wrong.
You need to reexamine your assumptions and make sure they are solid--and
this is something that, from your posts on this group, you don't seem to be
willing to do. You appear to filter everything through Bush's
fear-mongering rhetoric without question. That's an extremely dangerous
position from which to make assumptions that, were they to translate to
policy, would be extremely dangerous.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7u2a$8qk_008@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <eg5tpm$70s$13@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eg57l7$8ss_011@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's
highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to
every
person in the country than is terrorism.

3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.


3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by
Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How
many
have died in car accidents in that time?

That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack.
That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by
anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal
risk in life.

Amazing really.

So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?


So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him?

Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization
is not isolated to one human being.

Where do you *get* these assumptions???

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg806n$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <KStVg.13889$7I1.2829@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
All we've done in Iraq is create one big, huge problem that, luckily for
Bush, *he* won't even have to deal with. I will grant you that Bush dealt
with 9/11 reasonably well--but what evidence do you have that Clinton
wouldn't have done just as well

Because he didn't do as well. You seem to keep forgetting that
9/11 was the SECOND bombing of those building. The first one
happened while Clinton was president and he did not deal with
the problem. He just gestures and pretended it won't happen again.

Evidence, please. This is revisionist history, filtered through a desire to
exalt Bush and excoriate Clinton. How about a little more balanced view of
the facts, please.

He let the Arab coalition, established by Bush from the invasion
of Kuwait, falter.

And what, exacctly, would it have accomplished to maintain it? It is a
coalition of nations, the Islamic terrorists know no nations. By far the
main nation that was providing al Qaeda support was Afghanistan, which is
not even an Arab nation.

--or is it just your inability to admit that
Clinton was capable of doing anything good just because he got a blowjob?

The fact that he eschewed national security just to get that blowjob
was my concern.

Evidence, please?

Clinton was verifiably trying to go after bin Laden--obviously he wasn't
successful, but he was trying.

No he wasn't. he was making a half-hearted gesture to show
that he was doing something.

The Republicans at the time were criticizing him for paying too *much*
attention to bin Laden, just to cover up the sexual imbroglio. You can't
have it both ways.

He was not serious about
dealing with this security threat.

Again, you assumptions about what someone is and is not serious about.

And I do clearly remember the Republicans
using the phrase "wag the dog" in relation to the effort to discredit
Clinton for even trying. (Back then, I was still reasonably happy with
the
Republican party, so this isn't just a matter of me having selectively
heard
something just because it made the Republicans look bad. Heck, back then,
I
kind of agreed, because it was not clear to the average citizen what sort
of
threat bin Laden was.) By contrast, there is solid evidence that
Condoleeza Rice was briefed with a plan to continue going after bin Laden.
Do you know how important she considered that meeting? She doesn't even
remember it happening! There was a good reason Colin Powell resigned.
He,
as a skilled and level-headed diplomat,

Diplomat? He was a general. How did he get diplomatic skills?

I do not know how he got them, but he was good at it. I suspect anybody at
that level of management has to have some pretty strong diplomatic skills to
even rise to that level of authority (essentially equal in scope and
influence to a VP-GM or CEO of a Fortune 500 company). Remember, generals
aren't just about military strategy and barking orders at people. He is an
extremely intelligent man, he thinks things through and understands the
ramifications of actions. From watching him speak, he seemed to have a real
head for understanding geopolitical ramifications. Perhaps it was innate
talent, perhaps not, I don't know. And you could tell, just by his body
language, that throughout Bush's first term in office, Colin Powell was
uncomfortable with almost everything the President made him do and say. I
was only surprised he didn't resign sooner. (As an aside, I do very
seriously hope he chooses to run for President at some point. I think he's
very electable, and I would vote for him over any other candidate that is in
the mix.)

was sick of the Administration's
cowboy foreign policy, including being made to lie to the public to
justify
invading Iraq. Before he gave that speech, he *told* the President that
the
intelligence was wrong...and he was forced to give the speech anyway.

If Bush had given his January, 2006 speech before going into Iraq,
would you have understood his reasoning?

No. I saw the speech, and as I always do, I took it seriously and at face
value. I'm sorry to say that, upon analysis, iit was just more
fear-mongering to garner support for a flagging presidency, and to keep his
party in power in the upcoming elections.

I don't think so because
you don't seem to comprehend it today.

Yes, I understand it fine. I just don't choose to apply the same filter you
do, which appears to be based on very shaky assumptions, and on Bush's own
fear-mongering rhetoric.

I don't know if you saw my post presenting my background, but I'll repeat
briefly. I am a longtime Republican, turned independent. I've become
disgusted with the arrogance and hypocrisy of the modern Republican party.
I didn't especially like Clinton (I was still pretty strongly Republican
then), but things went reasonably well with the country under his
leadership. He was taking the threat of terrorism seriously, so much so
that he was criticized for it. The one thing I do is to critically evaluate
politicians' actions independent of any political party affiliation. I
examine assumptions, both theirs and my own, and get facts to support those
assumptions when I can, and I discard any assumptions for which I cannot get
reliable facts (not just spin and cherry-picked facts) to support.

Since I've been in this thread, I've noticed you do have a talent for
thinking issues through, and using logic to support a position, and that is
the main reason I respond to your posts. Many of the rest aren't even worth
it (although I do admit to occasionally getting a little glee at toying with
JoeBlow and a couple of the others in the wee hours.) The thing I've
noticed more recently is that you are applying some extremely shaky
assumptions (and some that are verifiably false) that I can only surmise are
a product of Bush's fear mongering, and it surprises me.

Eric Lucas

 

[YD]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:37:11 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:56:31 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT;

Well it is very British.


it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy"

In which case it didn't 'translate' well over your side of the pond.


, nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

I find that dull.


You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

Don't worry. I laugh a bit. There's not a heck of a lot to laugh about these days
though ( see thread ).

Beg to differ. The world is wonderful, and with a bit of conscious
effort one can learn to appreciate it. A rational creature could do no
less.

It really doesn't feel very wonderful right now.

From a rational perspective, it should. You and I have more freedom,
better health, better education, live longer, eat better, and have
vastly more choices about our lives and entertainments than 99% of the
people who ever lived. And we are educated enough to understand our
own psychies, certainly enough to be able to seize rational control of
our own destinies and *redesign* ourselves to be happy and productive.
A passing grade in Psychology 101 and a bit of effort is all it takes.

But many in the West are depressed, listless, and angry. And unable to
enjoy life or love. This ain't progress. I can appreciate the Islamic
claim that Western society is Godless and spiritually sterile, because
often it is. And I can see how Muslims might not want their kids to
grow up to be like many of our kids, who live for video games and
drugs and emotionless sex, who want to cheat their way through school
so they can get a job that pays enough for a cool apartment and a
Porsche.


Having a whole continent to yourselves may help your view.

Well, there are other countries attached, but in so much that most of
the USA is surrounded by more USA, why would cultural isolation make
people happier? Or to put it another way, why would familiarity with
other cultures make people unhappy? Heck, we USians were recently
ragged in this very group for ignorance of other cultures, and now the
ignorance turns out to make us happy? Nope, that's not it. The US is
seriously multicultural, Americans travel around the world a lot, and
tend to be happy and optimistic, mostly enjoy their jobs and families,
as polls repeatedly show; so there must be other reasons.

John

Not if some of the participants in this and other threads are any
indication. But of course they're a statistically insignificant
sub-set.

In my line of work I've come across several USians, and they've all
been nice and easy-going. Except the one who almost flew back home due
to our wiring code (colors) being slightly different from what he was
used to.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg81lv$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <4N8Vg.19635$Ij.6104@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2nr4$8qk_001@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu0c$8ss_002@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only
read
posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of
pointless to me.

Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't
give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten
physical violence and assault.

Yes, I know. I'm trying to figure out how to quell this useless
behaviour. I don't seem to have figured it out yet.

Me neither, but thanks for trying.

I'm not finished trying yet .

Shame doesn't work

No. That would have never worked.

(silly me, should
have known that one.) Stolidly attempting reasoned discussion with both
sides of the issue doesn't work. (Side comment--isn't it also sad that
such
a complex issue seems to have only two sides bashing at each other?
George
Washington saw the problems inherent in and spoke against the two party
system, and it's a real shame the country chose to ignore him.)

It's a complex problem that has not been getting any attention paid
to it for a century. Getting this problem stated in such a way
that there is two side is what is happening right now in Iraq,
in Iran, in our media, in Arabic media, in Europe, in Asia,
everywhere.

It goes beyond that. Look at the political process in this country. It's
me-vs.-you, us-against-them, and it's getting worse. I hate to say it, but
Bush is part of the problem--he just seems to be a lightning rod for
divisive behavior, both his own party's and the other's. Clinton, for all
his faults (and he had several), was truly a uniter, and managed to get
useful things done even with a Republican Congress. However, I can't lay it
all on Bush, both parties have been doing it for a long time, and both
parties should be ashamed of themselves. Part of the reason is that it is
easier to couch your position in terms of what somebody else's isn't, than
it is to actually think through the issues and make an intelligent decision.
Part of it is that it's easier to simply make decisions along party lines,
rather than coming to a conclusion of your own. And part of it is that this
make-me-look-better-by-making-you-look-worse that seems to have invaded our
society as a whole, not just politics. But the crux of the whole thing is
the lack of a credible third-party voice. When that happens, all of a
sudden, you can't just nay-say your opponent to win an argument, you
actually have to come up with the most tenable position.

This party is 100% ignoring the problem. All I want is to
start thinking and talking out loud about it. Their national
chairman actually thinks that replying to questions about
this problem with a "Trust me" is a sufficient answer.

I'm starting to doubt your ability to not filter everything through the
Republican talking points, but if you can step out of your Republican box
for a minute, you might see that that is exactly what Bush has done. "Stay
the course"??? Give me a break, that's nothing but political doublespeak
for "trust me".

Everybody is so set on making their "enemy" (odd concept, no?)
look wrong/bad/stupid/etc., that nobody is willing to sit down and discuss
differences. I used to think it was a symptom of the maxim of human
behavior, "The less important an issue, the louder and more vehement the
argument", but that's clearly not the case with foreign policy. I didn't
especially like Clinton, but the one thing he was good at was compromise,

He wasn't even good at that. He would take a fucking poll out of
the White House's back door and make his based on that. This means
that there was no public dialogue about anything. He just chose
on the public's gut reaction who had no data nor spent any time
thinking about the question. This is irresponsible. Not even
a supervisor does this and President of the USA did.

No public discourse??? Are you kidding me, Bush has done more to silence
public discourse and any president in recent memory. Clinton may not have
encouraged it, but Bush has taken actions that active silence it. Calling
anyone a traitor who dares to criticize the President's decision generally
has a pretty chilling effect on discourse. Throwing protesters in jail for
no good reason at political and campaign speeches, or relocating them to
"Free Speech Zones" in the middle of the boonies 5 miles out of town, has a
really chilling effect on public discourse. I have never *seen* a President
behave so badly as regards communication and discourse. And it's sad,
because I really wanted to like Bush. I though his father was a reasonably
good president, honorable and mostly humble. I even voted for Bush in 2000.
It only too me 3 years to regret that choice.

and working with his political adversaries. Things got done despite the
potential gridlock of a Democrat President and a Republican Congress for
most of his term in office. It really rankles me that Bush and his
supporters used the soundbite taglines "the Great Uniter" and "Uniter not
Divider" to describe him and his cronies. I think Dick Cheney best
expressed the Administration's contempt for those who think differently
than
they do: "Fuck you."

The new Democrats do not walk across the aisle and talk to their
opponents. It's been reported here that only Kennedy does this
and he is getting eliminated oout of the Democrat power circle.

That may be true, but it's kind of a vicious circle--if one party starts
eschewing communication, that makes the other party want to communicate less
as well.

Sure. The way to avoid morphing into the The Truth is to constantly
examine your assumptions. I use this forum (newsgroups) to poke
me with reason whenever I get on the wrong track.

Agreed. And I've made some pretty forceful statements about some of your
assumptions. Please take them with the respect intended.

Eric Lucas

 

[sooofisticated]

I really don't give a damn what you dumb sand nigger fucks have planned
for our government, but if any of you sorry asses come around my barrio
talking all that trash you'll get dealt with and then I'll fuck all of
your wives. We have AKs and bombs here too mutha fucka! Hace cuidad
aqui, you ain't your sorry barren country anymore.

 

[YD]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:08:27 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In article <C2hVg.51715$E67.41475@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4525946B.609BE651@hotmail.com...

20,000 killed by sex and yet only 13,426 of that number from Aids ? What's
going
on ?

That's what comes of abstinence only courses. They don't get the message
about lamp sockets.

Or vaccum cleaners or stray farm animals, or the gas tanks of '69
Dodge Chargers (I will never let my friend live that one down) or...

You really must tell all about that one.

Some years ago a guy stuck his dick in a swimming pool circulating
vent and got stuck. The small diameter brass ring with suction behind
it made him swell very inconveniently. They had to drain the pool and
hack out a section of the wall (with him standing there for several
hours) before carting him off to the hospital where a prosaic hack-saw
set him free.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:jt4fi2hpqhls5ujcahaasrq2jvcle25rhe@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:59:40 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Yep. And isn't it also ironic that the ouster of those very commies has
been one of the destabilizing forces in the world that may well have
furthered the current mess?


You're an idiot.

Ya gotta love his nuanced and repetitive view of the world, ladies and
gentlemen.

Eric Lucas

 

[JoeBloe]

On 7 Oct 2006 09:22:18 -0700, "sooofisticated"
<sooofisticated@yahoo.com> Gave us:

I really don't give a damn what you dumb sand nigger fucks have planned
for our government, but if any of you sorry asses come around my barrio
talking all that trash you'll get dealt with and then I'll fuck all of
your wives. We have AKs and bombs here too mutha fucka! Hace cuidad
aqui, you ain't your sorry barren country anymore.

You're an idiot. You need to quote whomever you are responding to
for one thing, dumbass.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:23:23 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> Gave us:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:08:27 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <C2hVg.51715$E67.41475@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4525946B.609BE651@hotmail.com...

20,000 killed by sex and yet only 13,426 of that number from Aids ? What's
going
on ?

That's what comes of abstinence only courses. They don't get the message
about lamp sockets.

Or vaccum cleaners or stray farm animals, or the gas tanks of '69
Dodge Chargers (I will never let my friend live that one down) or...

You really must tell all about that one.

Some years ago a guy stuck his dick in a swimming pool circulating
vent and got stuck. The small diameter brass ring with suction behind
it made him swell very inconveniently. They had to drain the pool and
hack out a section of the wall (with him standing there for several
hours) before carting him off to the hospital where a prosaic hack-saw
set him free.

When all they really needed to do is knock the stupid fucker out.
He'd lose his inconvenient swelling, and could be drug of the
bobbettizer without being bobbettized.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ma7fi2l8q4oc32p6chnf39hvlm89tmhcdk@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:05:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message newseb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone
in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.

All I need to do is push a button ;-)


It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.

Fuck you, asswipe!

You are such a wizard with words.

I *SHOULD* have the right to record ANY call that
is passed on MY phone, and buyer beware to all that call it or speak
to me on it.

Your logic is flawed. As you have the IQ of a flea there is no point trying
to discuss the finer points of this with you.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg80it$8qk_002@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <4_idnbX0z-W0FLrYRVny2w@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7t54$8qk_003@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <zuWdnToy_6qB6rvYRVnytA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5e55$8qk_007@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <452633ED.B02A967A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

You're suggesting that because one person did this then we must never
again listen ? That's a very blinkered view indeed.

It is a tactic that worked.

Is it? Has Israel ceased to exist now?

Those people have not acquired an instant gratification addiction.
They think in terms of decades and centuries.

So sying it "worked" is inappropriate, "working" is as much as you can
assume. Even then it is tenuous as the working / not working argument has
equal support.

Arafat got billions
of dollars by talking peace while actually doing the opposite.

Don't you think others will try
the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats
all of the time?

Logical fallacy.

Apparently.

You can't change attitudes with bullets.

My attitude changed. And the trigger was two little airplane
missles.


Yet, you think doing the same to the other side will change their
attitude
in a different manner? Ok, that makes sense.

Not little missles. Clinton lobbed a couple of little missles and
it didn't stop them. These people do not care who nor how many
die. It is their stated goal to kill millions.

Who is this they of which you speak?

Islamic extremists. Bin Laden has declared it.

Ok, where should we send the bigger missiles to kill Bin Laden? How many
other people are we allowed to kill in order that we _eventually_ take out
UBL?

Iran has
declared this goal.

Really? The president of Iran has declared it is the intention of his
country to kill millions? Could you point me in the direction of an example
of this please

Clerics wish to remove all vestiges

Oh, I thought we were talking about killing millions. Also, do you mean
_only_ Islamic clerics or all religious fanatics?

of Western civilzation; this includes no freedom of the press,

Which we [tinw] are in the process of eroding ourselves.

TV and probably all computers (anything with a picture of a human
being),

Which Islamic countries do this?

all women in chattel (this is 50% of the labor force),

Which Islamic country puts all its women in chattel?

public schools will shut down, private property will no longer
be allowed, banks will be closed so trade will have to revert
back to person-to-person bartering.

Sorry, I am not sure where you get the model for this from. The Taliban were
an extreme form of Government who fit the mould you discuss better than any
others (women did work though and trade was certainly more than person to
person bartering), yet at no point did the Taliban ever express a desire to
export their "brand" of worship.

Most Islamic states in existence now do not conform to any of the things you
have described. What I can assume is that you have taken the "demands" of a
few firebrand clerics as indicative of the desires of _all_ extremist
groups.

There is (based on the suggested responses) also the apparent implication
that this desire is shared by Islamic states themselves. This is not far
from assuming the ranting of a demented Christian cleric is indicative of
the desires of America.

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4527A4FD.A2DF8EFA@earthlink.net...

"Y.Porat" wrote:

dont beleive a single word of T.Wake
he is a disturbed gangster and a pathologic lier

and a 'PHD of cosmology'
so let him speak about
thje influence of cosmologic radiation- on the balls of the goat


He's become so boring I've stopped reading any of his crap.

Aww. I am hurt. On the positive side, it is not as if you _ever_ had
anything of value to add.

 

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying it to
all of Muslim society.

Eric Lucas


<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg84il$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <KhuVg.13905$7I1.10490@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg58oe$8ss_016@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam.

No, not even remotely. We would just stop going out of our way to do the
things that we repeatedly do that piss off the rest of the world.

Using computers is a product of Western civilization. Are you
suggesting that all business stops using them? All TV shows
have human images in them. Are you going to stop watching TV
so the rest of the world won't get pissed off? All women have
to stay home. Are you going go get the groceries? No women
may have medical care. Are you going to deliver your own babies?
Are you willing to watch somebody you love die because she is not
allowed to go to the doctor nor the hospital?




OK. Assume that.

Why should we? That would be your problem, you make too many assumptions
without data, and assumptions combined with fear-mongering lead to some
pretty untenable scenarios. You assume that Bush has all the answers.

No, I do not assume that Bush has all the answers. I know that
the Republican party is the only politcal party in the United State
who is willing to do something about this threat to our
national security. Democrats don't want to talk about it; if
they don't talk about it, they cannot deal with it.

You
assume that the Democrats will do nothing about the threat of terror.

I don't assume this. Clinton has already shown that they will not.
If these people won't talk about it, they can't have any plans about
what they're going to do if scenarios x,y, and z occur.


You
assume you know what is in the hearts and minds of a society (Islam) with
which you have no direct experience. You assume because you can interpret
the Koran to say "kill all Infidels" that the goal of Islam is to kill all
Infidels. There are lots of the parts of the Bible that, when interpreted
literally, inspire violence. By your interpretation, since the bible
tells
us to cut off the hands of thieves, that Christians and Jews will go
around
cutting off the hands of everyone that gets something they don't deserve.
Funny, I don't see huge numbers of people walking around one-handed, and
despite the presence of some Fundamentalist Christians in some pretty high
offices in this land, funnily enough I don't feel in danger of losing my
hand.

You assumptions about me are incorrect.


The good thing is that the vast majority of people don't interpret
religious
texts literally. Yes, there is a fringe that do, and it is a
*vanishingly*
small fraction of the population

It is not a small fraction in Islam.

--let's call them "the wackos", for the sake
of brevity. In order for "the wackos" to do any harm, they have to
convince
a larger (but still relatively small) fraction of the population that
somebody has done them wrong, and they need to get revenge.

Sigh! In this day and age of technology, the extremists do not
have convince a large number. They can make a mess that will
cause a degeneration of all societies.

Let's call them
"the recruitees", for brevity. That's where we come in, since we
repeatedly
given "the wackos" good evidence to present to "the recruitees" that we
*have* done Muslim society wrong, and this gives "the wackos" a fantastic
recruiting tool to increase the ranks of "the recruitees". Invading Iraq
for absolutely no reason is an excellent example.

There was a reason. For you to say that there wasn't is foolish.

We were not "welcomed
with open arms" as Bush assumed we would be and continued to trumpet to
the
population even after it became clear that we *weren't* entirely welcome.
While some fraction of the population may have been happy we invaded, a
large fraction wasn't, especially they began to see how badly we
mismanaged
the effort.

Where do you get this data from. Those CBS polls?

How can you fail to see that this just served as a recruiting
too for "the wackos" to find more "recruitees" to help them out?

Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't go out of our way to give "the wackos"
more
evidence to increase the ranks of "the recruitees"? I'm not saying that
we
should give them the keys to city hall.

Yes, you are. These people will not be satisfied until they get
those keys. Even then they will not be satisified; the killing
will never stop. It is a part of their religion. These
extremists have made killing one of the pillars of the religion.

What I'm saying is that maybe we
should stop running around the world like the arrogant jerks that we have
become, trying to shove *our* point of view down everybody else's throats.
You talk about being made to convert to Islam. Yes, that would be a
terrible thing. Don't you think that other societies might just think it
is
just as terrible to be forced to adopt *our* way of doing things? You and
I
may think that we live in the best society in the world (and I do happen
to
believe that, despite my desire to tweak it a little to make it more
world-friendly). But don't you think it is *incredibly* arrogant to
assume
it is what is best for everybody else?

You are mixing up our political form of government with Western
civilization. Yes, we are insisting that Western civilization
not be destroyed. The US is not insisting that the US Constitution
with its amendments be adopted by the rest of the world.


Since the factions are already killing each
other, what makes you think that they will stop killing and
murdering and destroying all infrastructure?

It's called a civil war.

Is it a civil war when the head of the most viscious is from
another country and working for an external terrorist organization
and funded and supplied by other countries?

When we had our little in-house set-to 140 years
ago, what would have made you think that we would stop killing and
murdering
and destroying all infrastructure (and Sherman's march was pretty
terrifying, by all accounts)? I doubt if the rest of the world was
sitting
there quaking in their boots, worrying about when we were going to go
global
with our family dispute.

If we had had atomic bombs and TV satellites and airplanes and
small pox in tubes, they would have been quaking. Britain was
involved in aiding the South.

The goal
is to destroy Western infrastructure.

Data please. It is incredibly arrogant of you to assume you know what
their
goal is.

Their target was the World Trade Center. World and Trade is
western civilization. Afghanistan was a small example of
kinds of things would not be allowed. All pictures are destroyed.
Women can't be touched by doctors so they don't have access to
any medical services.

If you read the posts of half of the participants in this
discussion and took them literally, then you would have to assume that
that
half of the group is all busy sodomizing each other.

In the past five years, I've read about 100 books on all of this.
I made a partial list somewhere because another person assumed
that my knowledge came only from posters' opinions in newsgroups.
Do you need that book list? Or are you going dump this incorrect
assumption of where I've obtained my data.

The fact that you believe my knowledge comes from these postings
tells me that this is where you have obtained most of your knowledge.
Try reading some books instead.


This means bridges,
roads, computers, any science results and their applications,
white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, manufacturing plants,
food processing plants, etc. Do I need to think of more to
list?

If you want. But boy, you have bought into Bush's fear mongering so much

That's enough. Nobody tells me what to think. I definitely do not
allow any male to tell me what to think...especially a male because
they have nutty thinking.

that you're now off into fantasy land thinking up things that the Muslims
want to destroy. I thought I had you pegged for someone who looks at data
and evaluates the situation critically. Sorry to say, you appear to have
bought into Bush's rhetoric of fear to such an extent that you no longer
appear to be capable of that.

I merely listed what was eliminated in Afghanistan where this
extremism did become the political and economic power.

/BAH