Guest
In article <63c23$453cf3f2$49ecff9$26858@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
/BAH
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
/BAH
Guest
In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming
the politcally correct way to think. This will cause political
leaders who pander the same way to be elected. These people
will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists.
They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything
about it. There one difference between WWII and now. Today's
technology is sophisticated enough to wipe out 75% of the
world's population within 12 months. Even in the black plague
days, the creep of death waves took longer.
This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling
is not an acceptable tactic.
/BAH
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
I realize that. It a serious problem and you should be very
worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming
the politcally correct way to think. This will cause political
leaders who pander the same way to be elected. These people
will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists.
They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything
about it. There one difference between WWII and now. Today's
technology is sophisticated enough to wipe out 75% of the
world's population within 12 months. Even in the black plague
days, the creep of death waves took longer.
This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling
is not an acceptable tactic.
/BAH
Guest
In article <ehj7op$h3g$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
long thread.
We'll have think of name for this; it's a law of threads.
/BAH
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Now we're back to the beginning. Whacking that mole started this
long thread.
We'll have think of name for this; it's a law of threads.
/BAH
Guest
In article <k4uqj2tih5dpatici8qeesbi8otu4gp5p1@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
<snip>
/BAH
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
<snip>
Ah-choo! [emoticon picks nose] Yep.
/BAH
Guest
In article <ehilc2$rv0$11@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
powers to the Federation, keeping all the rest within each
state.
that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do.
So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has
removed.
/BAH
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Yes. The purpose of the Constitution was to give very limited
powers to the Federation, keeping all the rest within each
state.
<snip>
Name one so we have something concrete to talk about. Note
that Bush needs Congressional approval for what he does do.
So I want you to name one liberty that Bush, the person, has
removed.
/BAH
Guest
In article <48c%g.19686$6S3.1431@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
/BAH
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
And unsettled was talking about C.
/BAH
Guest
In article <obeqj25dhnhpo19q90c1s4vtdrticvi04o@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:
The subject was businesses in the USA. Not the government,
not the people, not anything but business.
I was talking about how the US government has very little
power over what a business does to make money. Unless
the business involves national security, there isn't much
the feds can do. The seive holes are getting bigger but
that's why we have the judicial branch.
OTOH, a country whose economics is based in socialism has
to give permission for everything new.
/BAH
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:
Go back and reread the thread before unsettled's statement.
The subject was businesses in the USA. Not the government,
not the people, not anything but business.
I was talking about how the US government has very little
power over what a business does to make money. Unless
the business involves national security, there isn't much
the feds can do. The seive holes are getting bigger but
that's why we have the judicial branch.
OTOH, a country whose economics is based in socialism has
to give permission for everything new.
/BAH
Guest
In article <ehildp$rv0$12@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.
also the only step that could produce good results with minimum
risk. This is still true unless the Democrats succeed in
diverting the world from the original threat. They seem to
be succeeding. The Republican running for governor in my state
has already lost the election because of one thing she failed
to do in last week's debate.
/BAH
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
Yup. And Kerry's campaign for president, both in 2003 and now,
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.
It is one step in the stragegy. It is a necessary step. It was
also the only step that could produce good results with minimum
risk. This is still true unless the Democrats succeed in
diverting the world from the original threat. They seem to
be succeeding. The Republican running for governor in my state
has already lost the election because of one thing she failed
to do in last week's debate.
/BAH
Guest
In article <453CBD2E.2081C49F@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kerry. There was a news item that a similar ad is playing on
that al jazeer network. I haven't checked that one out.
/BAH
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ben Ladin said he would stop attacking if the voters voted for
Kerry. There was a news item that a similar ad is playing on
that al jazeer network. I haven't checked that one out.
/BAH
Guest
In article <453DA904.61F1CEC3@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability. There would have
been more airplanes used as bombs. Spain would have had more
crippling of its infrastructure. Afghanistan would still be
training new recruits. The Islamic moderates would still be
in hidden in their closets. Nobody would be trying to keep
Iran from deploying atomic bombs. Women would not be gaining
access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan would
still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint.
Should I go on?
/BAH
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability. There would have
been more airplanes used as bombs. Spain would have had more
crippling of its infrastructure. Afghanistan would still be
training new recruits. The Islamic moderates would still be
in hidden in their closets. Nobody would be trying to keep
Iran from deploying atomic bombs. Women would not be gaining
access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan would
still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint.
Should I go on?
/BAH
Guest
In article <RT3%g.23038$7I1.13549@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.
Do get your timelines straight.
/BAH
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No, the plans were made during Clinton's adminstration. The first
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.
Do get your timelines straight.
/BAH
Guest
In article <6qSdndc6PtVrmqDYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied
and aided in their endeavors, will have the result
of the society that produces these programs to surrender.
/BAH
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to
destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied
and aided in their endeavors, will have the result
of the society that produces these programs to surrender.
/BAH
E
Eeyore
Guest
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
What drugs are you on ?
Graham
Nazi rock star ?
What drugs are you on ?
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Graham
No. The European Central Bank is.
Your news is crap in that case.
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Graham
You finally noticed ?
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82@4ax.com...
before they dismiss them. Often the new idea is thought about, maybe for a
second or two, before it is dismissed as crackpot.
This is not a bad thing.
news:4iitj2p030albnbvi4ssev39j7ge23lq82@4ax.com...
For how long? Also this assumes that people don't think about them *at all*
before they dismiss them. Often the new idea is thought about, maybe for a
second or two, before it is dismissed as crackpot.
This is not a bad thing.
E
Eeyore
Guest
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
in love with.
Graham
Actually it's simply rational thinking as opposed to the lunacy you're
in love with.
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehndut$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what
happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your
understanding of what you are observing.
A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new
(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we
[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*.
That is how science works.
not mathematics and scientific "proofs" are very, very different to
mathematical ones.
History is replete with scientific "facts" which were later falsified by
experiment or new theory. A theory is only valid until someone falsifies it.
This requires some level of belief, whether or not you wish to admit this.
<snip>
news:ehndut$8qk_001@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
I know how science works.
We [tinw] believe that Newtonian gravity is the best description of what
happens. Your lab experiment is limited by your equipment and your
understanding of what you are observing.
A new theory which matches the previous predictions and makes new
(sucessfully) testable ones will overhaul the old one. Until that happens we
[tinw] believe that the current theory is the *best*.
That is how science works.
Because you *believe* in the validity of the scientific method. Science is
not mathematics and scientific "proofs" are very, very different to
mathematical ones.
History is replete with scientific "facts" which were later falsified by
experiment or new theory. A theory is only valid until someone falsifies it.
This requires some level of belief, whether or not you wish to admit this.
Because every one assumes (believes) it just works that way.
As usual.
<snip>
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:vnitj25natap4oknal6rv0mi9g77spvtgk@4ax.com...
Even little ones can be useful
news:vnitj25natap4oknal6rv0mi9g77spvtgk@4ax.com...
Even little ones can be useful
T
T Wake
Guest
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnadm$8ss_003@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
at others they are not so. EU politics are no different than the rest of the
world.
news:ehnadm$8ss_003@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
Never said it was. Germany is not in a depression.
No more so than France.
Unlike 1930s Germany. France and Germany are closely aligned at times, but
at others they are not so. EU politics are no different than the rest of the
world.
News is not always accurate.