the thread has a right to *** about him. I dont see you telling the guy
who posted the thread to take it somewhere else. If you dont like it, deal
with it.
SB
> >> Yep, 29% of Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean, but it looks like
> >> 30% of the people in the rest of the world can't find it either,
> >> according to this quote from the CNN article.
> >> "Only 71 percent of the surveyed Americans could locate on the map the
> >> Pacific Ocean, the world's largest body of water. Worldwide, three in
> >> 10 of those surveyed could not correctly locate the Pacific Ocean".
> >Try and defend us if you want, but of the nine countries surveyed, only
> >Mexico scored lower.
> Uh, sorry, but I'm not part of your "us", I'm not an American. I was
> just pointing out the unusual wording of that particular statement.
> Both sentences say exactly the same thing, just worded a bit
> differently to demonstrate... what exactly, I don't know!
> I find the whole article to be slightly dubious to say the least. Not
> sticking up for Americans by any means, but the article gives
> absolutely no info as to the people being tested. Americans 18-24?
> Are these inner-city high school dropouts? College students? Working
> professionals? A mixture of all of these? Who the hell knows. Were
> the samples consistent over the various countries tested? And, of
> course, the National Geographic Society couldn't possibly have any
> kind of hidden agenda or axe to grind, could it?
> > Oh dear...I'm feeling a little left out of these arguments as an
> Australian.
> > Anyone care to discuss religion instead?
> Unfortunately, being Australian, these arguements also affect us. Our Prime
> Minister is hell bent on us being the next US state.
OJ (Norwegian comedian) for PM !!!
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
> > > Take your Republican propaganda somewhere else. ALT.POLITICS.MORONS
> > > would be my suggestion...
> > Oh dear...I'm feeling a little left out of these arguments as an
> Australian.
> > Anyone care to discuss religion instead?
> Do you mean Ford vs Holden? :)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:20:11 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr."
> >This is a reason I like the guy and so do a lot of others here because of
> >that ...
> Um, the military has always been 90% republican. It's as predictable
> as minorities and unions supporting Democrats and global businesses
> and natural resource suppliers voting Republican.
> You support the people who give you money, it's an obvious concept.
But then again I've never thought money to be important
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
> >Even if it wasn't a big deal that only 13% can find Iraq (yea, it's ok to
be
> >that dumb), it really should make you ill that 29% can't even find the
> >PACIFIC OCEAN.
> >Lol.
> >David G Fisher
> Yep, 29% of Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean, but it looks like
> 30% of the people in the rest of the world can't find it either,
> according to this quote from the CNN article.
> "Only 71 percent of the surveyed Americans could locate on the map the
> Pacific Ocean, the world's largest body of water. Worldwide, three in
> 10 of those surveyed could not correctly locate the Pacific Ocean".
[Big ole snip]
You know, I read this type of statement again and again and am still puzzled
by it. Can you imagine just how many solar panels it would take to replace
the worldwide energy produced from petroleum? Things like solar, wind,
geothermal, wave, organic, etc. are very good for supplementing limited
energy applications, but they simply can't even begin to approach a primary
role in the world's energy production much less completely replace
petroleum. ...and that doesn't even take into account the other major
(offending) energy producers like coal, hydroelectric and nuclear.
We don't us oil because some are too greedy or we are too lazy to use
something else or there is some kind of worldwide ***. We use oil for
the simply fact that there is no current technology capable of producing
enough energy to replace it. When one becomes available it *will* be used.
snip
> There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18th century.
---
"Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States
today than we did at the time the Constitution was written?" said
Limbaugh. In fact, in what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were at
least 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s, vs. only 730
million acres today.
Limbaugh's rebuttal is a lengthy dodge, which compares the amount of
forest land in the U.S. today to that in 1920. But the Constitution was
written in 1787, not 1920.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/fair-limbaugh-rebuttal.html
---
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
But most of them wouldn't read it. Take a look back over history, and count
the number of successful nations / empires which had no army...
Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American one,
too.
> Not sure about that - without the oil to drive your
> industrialized agriculture, I imagine the USA would
> be in major strife. erm.. will be in major strife.
> iksteh
If only we could get the Swedish Air Force involved, I'd be interested
in all of this. =)
SWEDISH AIR FORCE SIM!! (*** a V8)
Jason
> snip
> > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18th
century.
> According to a discussion in another NG, this statement is not true...,
> apparently Rush Limbaugh made this statement and it seems to have been
> proven false
> ---
> "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States
> today than we did at the time the Constitution was written?" said
> Limbaugh. In fact, in what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were at
> least 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s, vs. only 730
> million acres today.
> Limbaugh's rebuttal is a lengthy dodge, which compares the amount of
> forest land in the U.S. today to that in 1920. But the Constitution was
> written in 1787, not 1920.
> http://www.fair.org/press-releases/fair-limbaugh-rebuttal.html
At the time the Constitution was written there were only 13 'colonies' on
the East coast, the Louisiana purchase hadn't been made yet. So of the 850
million acres of forest land in the late 1700s, most of it wasn't part of
the United States at the time...
Jason
Tony B's "New" Labour are most definately NOT socialist, their change
heavily to the right was the only way they could get in power ;)
Anti-American? Huh? Elaborate if you would.
Vennt.