Very OT-How Smart Are My Fellow Americans? :-)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) David G Fisher

Yeah -- I just read that myself. Sad --- Pathetic really. ....and scary. David G Fisher wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher

Yeah -- I just read that myself. Sad --- Pathetic really. ....and scary. > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher IMHO there is a small percentage of intelligent people in our country that carry the balance of those who don't know and don't care to know anything else other than how to get to work and back. I can tell you this though, my 12 year old goes to a great school that actually *teaches* geography - and he listens... If he can stay off drugs and keep focused, I have hopes that he will grow up to be in that top percentile! - Dave Cook

As long as Bush and the military know where to find it, I'm comfortable. How many people in Iraq, who may get clobbered, can find Texas on a map? On the other hand, it may be cheaper to buy the country than to fight it. Here's my 25 cents. It's been that way for most of recent history, at least. I didn't know where Viet Nam was until I went there. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to world events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe that would have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had been called upon to fight. But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network' disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/ Dave B "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100% unconditionally patriotic is a commie. Marc "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > 25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to world > events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe that would > have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had been > called upon to fight. > > But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network' > disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/ > > Dave B > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

Well, If that's how 'you' feel about it, you are entitled to you're opinion, but I think you are wrong. "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YhTC9.7391$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100% unconditionally > patriotic is a commie. > > Marc > > "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > 25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to world > > events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe that would > > have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had been > > called upon to fight. > > > > But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network' > > disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/ > > > > Dave B > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > >

Ick...that's unbelievable! Who did they survey, they didn't survey my school! As a sophmore, we go by continent and start w/ the geography than do its history. For the middle east, we fill in a political map of the M.E., a physical map, and then we have to draw a political map by hand. Then, we take a test with a blank map where we have to fill in all the physical features (even less popular things, like the Hindu Kush, Kyber Pass, Dead Sea) countries, and capitals. How can you not know where Iraq is, I've knows where it was since I was 6! :) (Well, we had placemats that were world maps and my sister and I would try to outsmart eachother with by asking eachother to find unpopluar countries, heh) Thanks, Alex "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took geography classes during the Clinton administration. BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place :) It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referred to as stupid, whether the guy is or not. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

But what if he IS stupid ;) Thanks, Alex "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place:)

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referred to > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher And the same ones who thought Clinton did too :) Surveys, polls, whatever. You can prove or disprove any agenda one has with them. John > >

Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore is another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks. Only reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the push-over Willy was :) John p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan was either. "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place:)

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referred to > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

Reminds me of this joke: Last month in preparation for the Earth Summit currently being hosted by South Africa, the UN conducted a world-wide survey. The only question was: "Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?" The survey was a huge failure.... - In Africa, they didn't know what "food" meant. - In Eastern Europe, they didn't know what "honest" meant. - In Western Europe, they didn't know what "shortage" meant. - In China, they didn't know what "opinion" meant. - In the Middle East, they didn't know what "solutions" meant. - In South America, they didn't know what "please" meant. - And in the USA, they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant. Sad but true.... Mikkel David G Fisher <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go there anyway!!! Todd "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

"JTBurn" wrote... > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go > there anyway!!! Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the political system. Jan. =---

Oh right...the first place to come up with irrigation...Almost forgot about that :) Too bad they ruined all their soil from all that farming... Thanks, Alex "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:IXWC9.10899$[email hidden]... > > "JTBurn" wrote... > > > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go > > > there anyway!!! > > > > Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the political > > system. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > Right, it's just where civilization began. > > Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's nothing to see,

like > the ancient city of Babylon and Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wondersof > the World. > > Even if it wasn't a big deal that only 13% can find Iraq (yea, it's ok tobe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> that dumb), it really should make you ill that 29% can't even find the > PACIFIC OCEAN. > > Lol. > > David G Fisher > >

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:IXWC9.10899$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "JTBurn" wrote... > > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go > > there anyway!!! > > Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the political > system. > > Jan. > =---

Right, it's just where civilization began. Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's nothing to see, like the ancient city of Babylon and Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. 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

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:29:49 GMT, "Mike Portnoy" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Whats even more perplexing is that you voted for Al Gore!! How sad is that! Let's see, you have a choice between a failed businessman who is addicted to alcohol and cocaine, an anti-corporate lawyer (actually this isn't so bad, but I prefer not having radicals in power - even if I agree with them), or someone who actually has experience drafting legislation and dealing with national/global policy. Anyway, make as much random political commentary as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the man who won received fewer votes. Yay for an electoral system designed during a time period when it took 3 months to tally votes and the average person never traveled more than 5 miles from their home during their lifetime. Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:29:49 GMT, "Mike Portnoy" >Whats even more perplexing is that you voted for Al Gore!! How sad is that! Let's see, you have a choice between a failed businessman who is ***ed to *** and ***, an anti-corporate lawyer (actually this isn't so bad, but I prefer not having radicals in power - even if I agree with them), or someone who actually has experience drafting legislation and dealing with national/global policy. Anyway, make as much random political commentary as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the man who won received fewer votes. Yay for an elect***system designed during a time period when it took 3 months to tally votes and the average person never traveled more than 5 miles from their home during their lifetime. Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:31:39 -0700, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html >> >> These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) >> >> David G Fisher > > And the same ones who thought Clinton did too :) Surveys, polls, >whatever. You can prove or disprove any agenda one has with them.

Yup. No matter what your policy is, if you want power in this country you need to appeal to the idiot masses. Clinton was fortunate to have immense charisma in addition to anything good or bad you want to say about his policy. Regardless of his policies (or his sex life, as more people seem to care about that then what he actually *did* as President), I miss having a President who had solid command of the English language and seemed to have learned a thing or two inbetween the booze and cocaine binges in college. Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:13:03 -0500, "JTBurn" <[email hidden]> wrote: >People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go there anyway!!! I thought's we was gonna send all them negroes and spanics there, Cooter? *tugs on belt buckle* Jason

LOL, it was designed so that the largest states in the union could not overbear the smaller states just because they had more people, it had nothing to do with how long it takes to count votes or how far it is to a polling booth. LOL "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:29:49 GMT, "Mike Portnoy" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Whats even more perplexing is that you voted for Al Gore!! How sad isthat!

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Let's see, you have a choice between a failed businessman who is > addicted to alcohol and cocaine, an anti-corporate lawyer (actually > this isn't so bad, but I prefer not having radicals in power - even if > I agree with them), or someone who actually has experience drafting > legislation and dealing with national/global policy. > > Anyway, make as much random political commentary as you want, it > doesn't change the fact that the man who won received fewer votes. > Yay for an electoral system designed during a time period when it took > 3 months to tally votes and the average person never traveled more > than 5 miles from their home during their lifetime. > > Jason

Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they were just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing and pathetic, and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until they are educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject. Unfortunately, most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions should be heard. As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in Kosovo about that. Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a few hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his poll numbers the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after 9/11 to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. That would of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would of made it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil he and his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock before he took vice president nomination). David G Fisher "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore is > another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks. Only > reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the push-over > Willy was :) > > John > > p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan was > either. > > > "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place > :) > > > > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referred

to

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > >

This is a reason I like the guy and so do a lot of others here because of that ...

Quoted text (165 lines)

> >THE PRESIDENT > > > >Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military > >men and > >women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice > >anything, but > >military people see it right away. Watch: When President Bush leaves > >his > >helicopter or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as > >he > >disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by. They > >continue > >to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of salute has not > >been seen > >in the previous eight years, though it is customary courtesy to the > >Commander-in-Chief. You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and > >face the > >President as they salute. They are not required to salute his back. > >They > >are only required to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire > >time. > > > >And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. > >Our > >soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not > >forced to > >respect him. From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not. > >Why is > >such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to > >bite > >his lower lip and not get teary-eyed whenever he speaks! > > > >The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an > >insight. Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian > >Fellowship. He > >lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was attacked Sept. 11. > >His > >executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned and in the > >hospital > >when President Bush visited him. Our President spent time and prayed > >with > >Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of > >Brian's bed > >and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his > >burned and > >bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return. The Commander-in-Chief > >never > >initiates a salute, except in the case of a Congressional Medal of > >Honor > >winner. The injured soldier did not have to return the salute. But > >he did, > >out of respect to his President - a Soldier's President. > > > >Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the > >right thing > >when nobody is looking." The nation and world learned some of what > >our last > >President did when nobody was looking. That President was > >disbarred-the > >worst disgrace (other than imprisonment) to a lawyer. CNN will have > >a > >difficult time shining his or his wife's tarnished images. > > > >In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a President > >whom > >the soldiers salute-fully. > > > >On Special Report with Brit Hume, hosted by Jim Angle, at the close > >of the > >show when they normally have some funny video clip, they showed > >President > >Bush and the First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp > >David > >for the weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the > >way into > >the helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president > >is right > >behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered > >the > >chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute. The > >Scottie > >the President was walking decided it wanted to squat right when he > >got to > >steps. The president pulled on its leash, but the stubborn Scottie > >persisted > >in squatting. The President bent down and scooped up the pooch and > >entered > >Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and returned > >to the > >position of attention. Moments later the President reemerged from > >the > >helicopter and out onto the steps. The Marine was standing at > >attention, > >head and eyes straight ahead. The President leaned over and tapped > >him on > >the left arm. The startled Marine turned his body toward the > >President and > >received his returned salute! I was so impressed by this true act of > >respect > >for our military people by our President! He really does get it. > >Most any > >other person of his stature would have just continued his journey, > >disregarding the neglected return salute. Not George W.Bush. He is > >earning the respect of the military community, not expecting it-as > >most have > >and would. > > > >President George W. Bush-The man who admitted to having a drinking > >problem > >in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to > >mediocre > >grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture. Who mangled syntax, > >and > >whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms." He came within a > >hair's > >breadth of losing the election in November. While votes were counted > >and > >re-counted, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch. > > > >Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, but he stayed in the > >background, faithful and confident. Bush named Jesus Christ as Lord > >of his > >life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or > >having > >a "life change." He actually said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus > >Christ!" > > > >On September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by > >Roosevelt, > >Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on > >his > >shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. > >So > >President George W. Bush walked to his seat at the front of the > >National > >Cathedral just three days after two of the most impressive symbols > >of > >American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated. When the > >history of > >this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe > >alike that > >President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a > >nation > >off its knees. In what was one of the most impressive exhibitions of > >self-control in presidential history, President George W. Bush was > >able to > >deliver his remarks without losing his resolve, focus, or > >confidence. > > > >God's hand, which guided him through that sliver-thin election, now > >rested > >fully on him. As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was > >appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that > >massive > >place with God, just him and the Lord. Back at his seat, George H. > >Bush > >reached over and took his son's hand. In that gesture his father > >seemed to > >say, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to > >do this > >on your own." President George W. Bush squeezed back and gave him a > >look of > >peace that said, "I don't have to do it alone, Dad. I've got help." > > > >What a blessing to have a believer in a good God as President.

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:28:40 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took >geography classes during the Clinton administration. > >BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place :) > >It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referred to >as stupid, whether the guy is or not.

I don't think the Republican presidents in the last half of the 20th century were really great representatives of the party. Aside from Nixon and Ford, you basically have war mongerers and senile oil tycoons. It always seems like the modern young republicans get shoved aside for the corporate welfare southern baptist Jesse Helms wannabes. I guess it's a matter of whatever will carry the trailer trash in 'Bama come election time. If I were a Republican, I would be embarassed that McCain lost to Bush in the primaries in 2002. The GOP is a great party when they're not obsessing over religion or destroying 150 years of social progress. Of course, our GOP president/House (with the approval of the weak, limp wristed Senate) has already added more bloat to the govt than any leader since Roosevelt. Has it really only been 2 years since the government operated at a surplus? Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:34:57 -0700, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore is >another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks. Only >reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the push-over >Willy was :) Only reason you don't like Clinton is because he got laid. Aren't political arguments fun when you just throw around statements that don't mean anything? Jason

Alex, They've been farming in that region for 6,000 years, and are still farming. If some of it was ruined, they have an excuse. Americans, in the 20th and 21st century, with all the examples before us to draw on, and all the knowledge we've accumulated through science and technology, are still ruining our soil TODAY. We've done a huge amount of damage in a fraction of the time. David G Fisher "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lJXC9.20164$[email hidden]... > Oh right...the first place to come up with irrigation...Almost forgotabout

Quoted text (14 lines)

> that :) Too bad they ruined all their soil from all that farming... > > Thanks, > Alex > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:IXWC9.10899$[email hidden]... > > > "JTBurn" wrote... > > > > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go > > > > there anyway!!! > > > > > > Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the

political

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > system. > > > > > > Jan. > > > =--- > > > > Right, it's just where civilization began. > > > > Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's nothing to see, > like > > the ancient city of Babylon and Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven

Wonders > of > > the World. > > > > Even if it wasn't a big deal that only 13% can find Iraq (yea, it's okto

Quoted text (11 lines)

> be > > that dumb), it really should make you ill that 29% can't even find the > > PACIFIC OCEAN. > > > > Lol. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:39:06 -0500, "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100% unconditionally >patriotic is a commie. Take any analysis of Reagan's presidency, use a word processor to substitute "terrorism" for "communism", and you've got our current Cocaine-user in Charge. Ok, you should also substitute "learning disabled" for "senile". The sad thing is that I've seen recent polls showing that most Americans believe Reagan played an important role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. I wonder what percentage could name a single thing he actually did to expedite that collapse, or know anything about the infighting and corruption that started ripping the sytem apart in the late 60's (coincidentally around the same time the Soviet Union started falling behind us technologically). Jason

"Jason Moyer" ), I miss > having a President who had solid command of the English language and > seemed to have learned a thing or two inbetween the booze and cocaine > binges in college. > > Jason You mean Billy really NEVER DID inhale?? Show me a politic and I'll show you someone who I won't associate with. Either side...I have no party affiliations. The impeachment proceedings clearly showed how desperate the parties were to protect their organizations than dig for truth. The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Greed drives Washington, not some desire to serve human kind..... (that reminds me of a story about a cookbook!!) :0 dave henrie

First of all, where do you get off saying to people that there opinions dont matter? No one is perfect, period. Can you tell me where New Zealand is on a map without having to look it up? Probably not. Does that mean you are ignorant and should keep your mouth shut until you can? Nope, so why treat people like that? Al Gore, he even lost his home state! If they dont trust him, why should we??? Gore sat there 8 years with Clinton and they never stood up for our military, making cuts in the military left and right. I have friends that were in Korea during that time and they told stories about how they were having to cannibalize broke down vehicles to fix others and the like. The Clinton/Gore administration also knew about Bin Laden for years before most had ever heard of the guy, even after they knew he was responsible for attacking the USS Cole and they did nothing. I also seem to remember Bush trying to wean americans off of mideastern oil, and everywhere oil could be drilled for here, the environmentalists that Gore is in bed with blocked it, every time, threatening lawsuits and everything else under the sun, everywhere where oil was thought to be available. From the coast of Florida to the midwest, everything was blocked. So, dont give me any of that. Get your facts straight, your opinion is no better than God's since no one is perfect. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they were > just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing andpathetic, > and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until theyare > educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject.Unfortunately, > most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinionsshould > be heard. > > As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in > Kosovo about that. > > Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden andother

Quoted text (8 lines)

> top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a few > hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his poll numbers > the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, > watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack on U.S. > soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else > apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > > Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after

9/11 > to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. That would > of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would ofmade > it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush > unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil he and > his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock beforehe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> took vice president nomination). > > David G Fisher > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore

is > > another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks.Only

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the push-over > > Willy was :) > > > > John > > > > p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan was > > either. > > > > > > "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > > > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > > > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the

place > > :) > > > > > > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is alwaysreferred

Quoted text (10 lines)

> to > > > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing.

:-)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:15:54 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote: >LOL, it was designed so that the largest states in the union could not >overbear the smaller states just because they had more people, it had >nothing to do with how long it takes to count votes or how far it is to a >polling booth. LOL Actually, while logistics played some role, the real reason for the Electoral College was to give the most knowledgable and informed individuals in each state the final say in the presidential election. It was based on 2 other systems that were created for the same reason - the College of Cardinals (who elect the Pope) and the Centurial Assembly of the Roman Republic. Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:16:11 -0500, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they were >just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing and pathetic, >and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until they are >educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject. Unfortunately, >most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions should >be heard. I agree with the rest of your post Dave, except for that part. I don't think intelligence or wisdom should have any more of a bearing on someone's right to participate in government than their race, religion, or economic status. Of course, race/religion/wealth are probably the 3 most important variables at work in American politics, so I guess my argument is semi-moot. Jason

> The GOP is a great party when they're not obsessing over religion or > destroying 150 years of social progress. What exactly are they destroying? You just throw out a statement with no mention of what you are talking about. > Of course, our GOP president/House (with the approval of the weak, limpwristed Senate) > has already added more bloat to the govt than any leader since > Roosevelt. Has it really only been 2 years since the government > operated at a surplus? > > Jason The reason there is no surplus is that the gov't has had to pay to rebuild NYC, all the families of those that lost relatives, and operate under a wartime philosophy since 9/11. You seem to fail to remember any of this. Another reason there is no surplus was because of the shape the economy was heading in BEFORE Clinton left office. The stock market was ALREADY losing major points while Clinton was in office and the Bush Administration inherited a recession. At least the economy has recovered a little during the last year and a half. If you dont believe me, look it up.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:38:18 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Well said. I'd also include the Green/Reform parties, the Libertarian party, the Socialist party, the Worker's party, etc. I wonder what American politics would be like if people like Washington, who supported a ban on political parties, would have gotten their way. Even better, we should go back to the winner of the Presidential election becoming President and the runner up being the Vice President. Anything that would force compromise in this country has to be good. Jason

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>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".

I don't really want to get into politics David, but if you think the Balkans are settled, you're very wrong. All Slick Willy and his crew did, along with the Useless N, is put window dressing on the issues there, something the UN is good at. Hell, the current Iraq mess is another one of their cluster fornications. Just like under Tito, the problems are still there, just buried again, only to re-surface at a later date. You can't tell people who've hated each other for centuries, to join hands, sing kumbaya, and expect things to be okey dokey, because some niave policy makers say, "Gosh darnit, can't we all just get along and be friends ?" John "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they were > just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing andpathetic, > and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until theyare > educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject.Unfortunately, > most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinionsshould > be heard. > > As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in > Kosovo about that. > > Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden andother

Quoted text (8 lines)

> top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a few > hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his poll numbers > the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, > watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack on U.S. > soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else > apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > > Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after

9/11 > to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. That would > of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would ofmade > it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush > unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil he and > his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock beforehe

Quoted text (9 lines)

> took vice president nomination). > > David G Fisher > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore

is > > another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks.Only

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the push-over > > Willy was :) > > > > John > > > > p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan was > > either. > > > > > > "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > > > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > > > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the

place > > :) > > > > > > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is alwaysreferred

Quoted text (10 lines)

> to > > > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing.

:-)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:34:57 -0700, "John Pancoast" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore is > >another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks.Only

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the push-over > >Willy was :) > > Only reason you don't like Clinton is because he got laid. > > Aren't political arguments fun when you just throw around statements > that don't mean anything? > > Jason

I don't know, means a lot to me. John

Dave Henrie wrote: > The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Greed drives > Washington, not some desire to serve human kind..... > (that reminds me of a story about a cookbook!!) :0 > dave henrie You can't really be Dave Henrie. You sound like my clone. Hmmm... maybe my anarchist ways are getting somewhere. :-P -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:28:40 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus Jr" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > >geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > >BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place

:) > > > >It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referredto

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > I don't think the Republican presidents in the last half of the 20th > century were really great representatives of the party. Aside from > Nixon and Ford, you basically have war mongerers and senile oil > tycoons. It always seems like the modern young republicans get shoved > aside for the corporate welfare southern baptist Jesse Helms wannabes. > I guess it's a matter of whatever will carry the trailer trash in > 'Bama come election time. If I were a Republican, I would be > embarassed that McCain lost to Bush in the primaries in 2002. > > The GOP is a great party when they're not obsessing over religion or > destroying 150 years of social progress. Of course, our GOP > president/House (with the approval of the weak, limp wristed Senate) > has already added more bloat to the govt than any leader since > Roosevelt. Has it really only been 2 years since the government > operated at a surplus? > > Jason

Lol, no kidding. Bush is being more big government Democrat than the Dems themselves. John p.s. If you really believe Clinton's claim of a surplus, I got a bridge to sell ya :)

David G Fisher wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher OMFG. Figures... Feed them nothing but propaganda & this is what results. Garbage in, garbage out. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:31:39 -0700, "John Pancoast" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > >> > >> These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > >> > >> David G Fisher > > > > And the same ones who thought Clinton did too :) Surveys, polls, > >whatever. You can prove or disprove any agenda one has with them. > > Yup. No matter what your policy is, if you want power in this country > you need to appeal to the idiot masses. Clinton was fortunate to have > immense charisma in addition to anything good or bad you want to say > about his policy. > > Regardless of his policies (or his sex life, as more people seem to > care about that then what he actually *did* as President), I miss > having a President who had solid command of the English language and > seemed to have learned a thing or two inbetween the booze and cocaine > binges in college. > > Jason

Well, fwiw, it IS what he did as President,(sex stuff ? who cares) and what he represents, that I can't stand :) John

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KyYC9.67947$P31.35296@rwcrnsc53...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Jason Moyer" > ), I miss > > having a President who had solid command of the English language and > > seemed to have learned a thing or two inbetween the booze and cocaine > > binges in college. > > > > Jason > You mean Billy really NEVER DID inhale?? > Show me a politic and I'll show you someone who I won't associate with. > Either side...I have no party affiliations. The impeachment proceedings > clearly showed how desperate the parties were to protect their

organizations > than dig for truth. > The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Greed drives > Washington, not some desire to serve human kind..... > (that reminds me of a story about a cookbook!!) :0 > dave henrie Agreed. John > >

Mikkel Gram-Hansen wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Reminds me of this joke: > > Last month in preparation for the Earth Summit currently being hosted by > South Africa, the UN conducted a world-wide survey. The only question was: > > "Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food > shortage in the rest of the world?" > > The survey was a huge failure.... > > - In Africa, they didn't know what "food" meant. > - In Eastern Europe, they didn't know what "honest" meant. > - In Western Europe, they didn't know what "shortage" meant. > - In China, they didn't know what "opinion" meant. > - In the Middle East, they didn't know what "solutions" meant. > - In South America, they didn't know what "please" meant. > - And in the USA, they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant. > > Sad but true.... > > Mikkel

LOL. Thx for sharing some intellectual humor. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

And we're also the only country in world history to be completely self-sufficient with food. Don't talk with your mouth full :) John "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Alex, > > They've been farming in that region for 6,000 years, and are stillfarming. > If some of it was ruined, they have an excuse. > > Americans, in the 20th and 21st century, with all the examples before usto

Quoted text (19 lines)

> draw on, and all the knowledge we've accumulated through science and > technology, are still ruining our soil TODAY. We've done a huge amount of > damage in a fraction of the time. > > David G Fisher > > > "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lJXC9.20164$[email hidden]... > > Oh right...the first place to come up with irrigation...Almost forgot > about > > that :) Too bad they ruined all their soil from all that farming... > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted text (36 lines)

> > > news:IXWC9.10899$[email hidden]... > > > > "JTBurn" wrote... > > > > > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go > > > > > there anyway!!! > > > > > > > > Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the > political > > > > system. > > > > > > > > Jan. > > > > =--- > > > > > > Right, it's just where civilization began. > > > > > > Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's nothing to see, > > like > > > the ancient city of Babylon and Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven > Wonders > > of > > > the World. > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:IXWC9.10899$[email hidden]... > > "JTBurn" wrote... > > > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go > > > there anyway!!! > > > > Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the political > > system. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > Right, it's just where civilization began. > > Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's nothing to see,

like > the ancient city of Babylon and Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wondersof > the World. > > Even if it wasn't a big deal that only 13% can find Iraq (yea, it's ok tobe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> that dumb), it really should make you ill that 29% can't even find the > PACIFIC OCEAN. > > Lol. > > David G Fisher > >

Whats even more perplexing is that you voted for Al Gore!! How sad is that!

Good grief. Won't Papy go ahead and rescue us from all of this by releasing the NR2003 demo already? Getting testy around here; a sure sign of boredom... Or at least a demo for RS3; that oughta provide something On Topic to fight about... ;-) SB "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:15:54 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >LOL, it was designed so that the largest states in the union could not > >overbear the smaller states just because they had more people, it had > >nothing to do with how long it takes to count votes or how far it is to a > >polling booth. LOL > > Actually, while logistics played some role, the real reason for the > Electoral College was to give the most knowledgable and informed > individuals in each state the final say in the presidential election. > It was based on 2 other systems that were created for the same reason > - the College of Cardinals (who elect the Pope) and the Centurial > Assembly of the Roman Republic. > > Jason

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Even if it wasn't a big deal that only 13% can find Iraq (yea, it's ok tobe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >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".

Try and defend us if you want, but of the nine countries surveyed, only Mexico scored lower. David G Fisher

Take your Republican propaganda somewhere else. ALT.POLITICS.MORONS would be my suggestion...

Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > First of all, where do you get off saying to people that there opinionsdont > matter? No one is perfect, period. If they or myself are not educated about a subject, then our opinions don't matter. >Can you tell me where New Zealand is on a > map without having to look it up? Probably not. I've known where New Zealand was since I was a child. I don't understand the mentality of anyone who doesn't bother to learn the geography and make up of the planet they live on. It's one of the most important things a person should know. > Does that mean you are > ignorant and should keep your mouth shut until you can? Nope, so why treat > people like that? If I didn't even know where New Zealand was, I definitely would be a fool to have an opinion about it, and I'd certainly be a complete assh**e if I said that my government should wage war on it.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Al Gore, he even lost his home state! If they dont trust him, why should > we??? > > Gore sat there 8 years with Clinton and they never stood up for our > military, making cuts in the military left and right. I have friends that > were in Korea during that time and they told stories about how they were > having to cannibalize broke down vehicles to fix others and the like. The > Clinton/Gore administration also knew about Bin Laden for years before

most > had ever heard of the guy, even after they knew he was responsible for > attacking the USS Cole and they did nothing. There's something wrong in every sentence of that paragraph. > I also seem to remember Bush trying to wean americans off of mideasternoil, > and everywhere oil could be drilled for here, the environmentalists that > Gore is in bed with blocked it, every time, threatening lawsuits and > everything else under the sun, everywhere where oil was thought to be > available. From the coast of Florida to the midwest, everything wasblocked. His own brother didn't want drilling off of Florida. In Alaska, there is a relatively tiny amount of oil that will do nothing to help solve the short or long term problem of our dependence on oil. That's why drilling there has been blocked. David G Fisher > So, dont give me any of that. Get your facts straight, your opinion is no > better than God's since no one is perfect. > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, theywere

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing and > pathetic, > > and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until they > are > > educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject. > Unfortunately, > > most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions > should > > be heard. > > > > As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in > > Kosovo about that. > > > > Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden and > other > > top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a

few > > hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his pollnumbers > > the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, > > watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack onU.S. > > soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else > > apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > > > > Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after > 9/11 > > to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. Thatwould > > of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would of > made > > it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush > > unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil heand

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock before > he > > took vice president nomination). > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore > is > > > another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks. > Only > > > reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the

push-over

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > Willy was :) > > > > > > John > > > > > > p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan was > > > either. > > > > > > > > > "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and

took

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > > > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > > > > > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the > place > > > :) > > > > > > > > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always > referred > > to > > > > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. > :-) > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> 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?

LOL that post really just put the last nail in the coffin... can't even find New Zealand without consulting a lawyer and visiting a therapist. Come on man, don't tell me you have never looked at a map of the world ??? Hint hint... New Zealand is to the south.... way way down south... yep even further south than Alabama and Florida !!! I guess it would not help you if I placed in relation to Australia which you probably do not know where is either ? Don't make it this easy on the rest of us Phillip. Mikkel PS: And damn those commie environmentalist bastards.. who are they to tell real patriot americans anything ? *sigh* the stupidity of some people Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > First of all, where do you get off saying to people that there opinionsdont > matter? No one is perfect, period. Can you tell me where New Zealand is ona

Quoted text (12 lines)

> map without having to look it up? Probably not. Does that mean you are > ignorant and should keep your mouth shut until you can? Nope, so why treat > people like that? > > Al Gore, he even lost his home state! If they dont trust him, why should > we??? > > Gore sat there 8 years with Clinton and they never stood up for our > military, making cuts in the military left and right. I have friends that > were in Korea during that time and they told stories about how they were > having to cannibalize broke down vehicles to fix others and the like. The > Clinton/Gore administration also knew about Bin Laden for years before

most > had ever heard of the guy, even after they knew he was responsible for > attacking the USS Cole and they did nothing. > > I also seem to remember Bush trying to wean americans off of mideasternoil, > and everywhere oil could be drilled for here, the environmentalists that > Gore is in bed with blocked it, every time, threatening lawsuits and > everything else under the sun, everywhere where oil was thought to be > available. From the coast of Florida to the midwest, everything wasblocked.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > So, dont give me any of that. Get your facts straight, your opinion is no > better than God's since no one is perfect. > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they

were

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing and > pathetic, > > and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until they > are > > educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject. > Unfortunately, > > most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions > should > > be heard. > > > > As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in > > Kosovo about that. > > > > Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden and > other > > top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a

few > > hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his pollnumbers > > the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, > > watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack onU.S. > > soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else > > apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > > > > Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after > 9/11 > > to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. Thatwould > > of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would of > made > > it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush > > unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil heand

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock before > he > > took vice president nomination). > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but Clinton/Gore > is > > > another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks. > Only > > > reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the

push-over

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > Willy was :) > > > > > > John > > > > > > p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan was > > > either. > > > > > > > > > "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and

took

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > > > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > > > > > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the > place > > > :) > > > > > > > > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always > referred > > to > > > > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. > :-) > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Sorry John, but the rest of us don't really care about your internal Bush/Clinton fight... we are just a bit scared that most Americans show so little interest in anything but where the nearest McDonals is located. And judging by comments in this thread some of you don't really care as long as you can find the place when you need to go to war ????? Scary attitude. Bush or Clinton to blame, the majority of the american youth know virtually nothing of other cultures... unless Ophra or Ricki Lake had a special on it. ;) Mikkel John Pancoast <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > David G Fisher > > And the same ones who thought Clinton did too :) Surveys, polls, > whatever. You can prove or disprove any agenda one has with them. > > John > > > > > > > >

Phillip Malphrus, Jr. wrote: > This is a reason I like the guy and so do a lot of others here because of > that ... >>>What a blessing to have a believer in a good God as President. *ROFL* this last sentence alone makes you look like the biggest fool to everyone but a minority of fundamentalist right-winger "Nuke-em Christians", of course.. I dunno, some 'mericans just love to prove European sceptics ever so right by disposing of every shred of nuance. Never mind they want to nuke Iran without Saddam actually having really *done* anything to its neighbours lately but being the perfect scapegoat now that Bush hasn't actually really caught Bin Laden, let alone Al-Quaida... What? You mean that should be "Iraq", not Iran? Heck, most Americans don't even seem to know where it is, let alone see the difference - it's just one digit, after all. Nuances, nuances... (Fellas, you know that's the original supposed Garden of Eden you want to nuke there? No? Ah well... Not quite surprised.) <sigh> Please note, there are a lot of intelligent and well-mannered Americans out there, it's just that they seem to have gone missing lately. Regards, Ruud

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:07:03 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Oh dear...I'm feeling a little left out of these arguments as an Australian. >Anyone care to discuss religion instead? I wish *I* could feel left out of stuff like this. I try to turn to my sim racing for escape and it seems like the petty political nonsense just follows me around... I think the rule is that whichever side wins the election gets to point fingers and go "neener neener" at the side which lost until congress re-convenes. At that time, both sides are required to b*tch and moan continuously until the next election. They call that "democracy." Ain't it grand? :)

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:19:15 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Please note, there are a lot of intelligent and well-mannered Americans >out there, it's just that they seem to have gone missing lately. There's still a loyal opposition over here, Ruud, it's just that the other side is in control of most of the media outlets so it seems like every American is some genetic experiment gone terrible wrong where the mixed the DNA of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwartzenegger to produce the current bunch running the show over here. Hopefully two years of unabated bullhockey on their part will convince the voters of the error of their ways and we can reverse things in 2004.

"Jason Moyer wrote > Actually ......... the real reason for the > Electoral College was to give the most knowledgable and informed > individuals in each state the final say in the presidential election. And thankfully, it worked. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

"Jason Moyer wrote And thankfully, it worked. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:argu33$igu0v$[email hidden]... > As long as Bush and the military know where to find it, I'm comfortable.How > many people in Iraq, who may get clobbered, can find Texas on a map? Onthe > other hand, it may be cheaper to buy the country than to fight it. Here'smy > 25 cents.<snip> I like your thinking, but unfortunately it will only save your "country" money (ignoring the countless number of human lives saved), and not actually make any cash for those in power (who may or may not have parents that own arms manufacturing consortiums ;) Wars and the threat thereof are also very good during election time... iksteh

David, I'm a little surprised at some of what you're saying. While I do tend to be conservative ( for the past several years), I have no party affiliations. I was once a registered Democrat, but am now an Independent. The CNN pole was produced to propagate an agenda. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with education in this country, but if you pole the right people you can get the results you want. The fact that Americans don't know where Iraq is doesn't really matter as far as this political situation is concerned. It's been this way throughout history. How many Japanese knew where Pearl Harbor was before they attacked us? The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18th century. The Bush family would benefit financially if we didn't have Middle Eastern oil. They OWN oil wells. Why do you need Gore to ask you to wean off mid-east oil? If that's what you believe in, do it yourself. It doesn't matter if anyone else does it. If you believe in it, do it. Finally, and this is in no way political (as I detest politicians of both parties), everyone should read Al Gore's book. He's a real nut case. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

> > Oh dear...I'm feeling a little left out of these arguments as anAustralian. > 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. Recent events in Bali have shown that John Howards stance has also made us a terrorist target. There are only two reasons that the US wants to go to war against Iraq. 1- Oil. They need it. 2- Isreal. America wants to keep Isreal the only Nuclear power in the region. People forget, who supplied Bin Laden and Saddam with money and arms to get them into power. I may sound anti-American. I'm not. Just a citizen of the Earth that hates war. Steve Whitty

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:07:03 +1000, Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> 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? > >

Damien, you're all brit expatriate criminals down there! I didn't know you even had a religion ;-) Couldn't resist! uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arht5f$io2oc$[email hidden]... > > 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 anAustralian. > Anyone care to discuss religion instead? Do you mean Ford vs Holden? :)

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > And we're also the only country in world history to be completely > self-sufficient with food. Don't talk with your mouth full :) 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

I saw this thread start just before i went to bed....i was wondering how big it would be by morning :) rasers dont half need some decent subjects to talk crap about every so often:) When this all dies down and we're back to boring questions about how to configure game x on system y i think ill start a 'religion which is the one true faith?' thread ...just for fun of course dan "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

LOL you really do a great "Stupid Patriotic Yank"... I almost believe it. [quote]In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a President whom the soldiers salute-fully. [/quote] OMG this is pure comedy... you really do make the right wing americans look stupid. Seriously NOBODY can be that much of a dramaqueen and still expect to be anything but ridiculed ? I can hear the cheesy music playing in the background, the starspangled banner blowing in the wind in the back of the scene... a solemn comentator readig this with his deep earnest voice. Short cuts to children awing at Bush, mothers with tears in their eyes when the gaze upon the great ruler, hard marines looking stern and yet strangely emotional due to their enormous respect for Bush..... Bush the man they salute with respect !! Phillip I marvel at your ability to disregard any intellectual impulse, when caught up in the fanatic patriotic frenzy. God someone put me out of my misery before I crack myself laughing at this pathetic piece of soap opera poetry. Mikkel PS: Is this a just a great joke or does anyone actually read stuff like that and find it ok ?? If you can read this without laughing I have a few books by Barbara Cartland I'd like to sell you as "documentary works" and "factual reading" Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (181 lines)

> This is a reason I like the guy and so do a lot of others here because of > that ... > > > >THE PRESIDENT > > > > > >Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military > > >men and > > >women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice > > >anything, but > > >military people see it right away. Watch: When President Bush leaves > > >his > > >helicopter or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as > > >he > > >disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by. They > > >continue > > >to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of salute has not > > >been seen > > >in the previous eight years, though it is customary courtesy to the > > >Commander-in-Chief. You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and > > >face the > > >President as they salute. They are not required to salute his back. > > >They > > >are only required to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire > > >time. > > > > > >And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. > > >Our > > >soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not > > >forced to > > >respect him. From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not. > > >Why is > > >such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to > > >bite > > >his lower lip and not get teary-eyed whenever he speaks! > > > > > >The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an > > >insight. Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian > > >Fellowship. He > > >lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was attacked Sept. 11. > > >His > > >executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned and in the > > >hospital > > >when President Bush visited him. Our President spent time and prayed > > >with > > >Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of > > >Brian's bed > > >and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his > > >burned and > > >bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return. The Commander-in-Chief > > >never > > >initiates a salute, except in the case of a Congressional Medal of > > >Honor > > >winner. The injured soldier did not have to return the salute. But > > >he did, > > >out of respect to his President - a Soldier's President. > > > > > >Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the > > >right thing > > >when nobody is looking." The nation and world learned some of what > > >our last > > >President did when nobody was looking. That President was > > >disbarred-the > > >worst disgrace (other than imprisonment) to a lawyer. CNN will have > > >a > > >difficult time shining his or his wife's tarnished images. > > > > > >In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a President > > >whom > > >the soldiers salute-fully. > > > > > >On Special Report with Brit Hume, hosted by Jim Angle, at the close > > >of the > > >show when they normally have some funny video clip, they showed > > >President > > >Bush and the First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp > > >David > > >for the weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the > > >way into > > >the helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president > > >is right > > >behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered > > >the > > >chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute. The > > >Scottie > > >the President was walking decided it wanted to squat right when he > > >got to > > >steps. The president pulled on its leash, but the stubborn Scottie > > >persisted > > >in squatting. The President bent down and scooped up the pooch and > > >entered > > >Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and returned > > >to the > > >position of attention. Moments later the President reemerged from > > >the > > >helicopter and out onto the steps. The Marine was standing at > > >attention, > > >head and eyes straight ahead. The President leaned over and tapped > > >him on > > >the left arm. The startled Marine turned his body toward the > > >President and > > >received his returned salute! I was so impressed by this true act of > > >respect > > >for our military people by our President! He really does get it. > > >Most any > > >other person of his stature would have just continued his journey, > > >disregarding the neglected return salute. Not George W.Bush. He is > > >earning the respect of the military community, not expecting it-as > > >most have > > >and would. > > > > > >President George W. Bush-The man who admitted to having a drinking > > >problem > > >in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to > > >mediocre > > >grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture. Who mangled syntax, > > >and > > >whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms." He came within a > > >hair's > > >breadth of losing the election in November. While votes were counted > > >and > > >re-counted, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch. > > > > > >Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, but he stayed in the > > >background, faithful and confident. Bush named Jesus Christ as Lord > > >of his > > >life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or > > >having > > >a "life change." He actually said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus > > >Christ!" > > > > > >On September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by > > >Roosevelt, > > >Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on > > >his > > >shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. > > >So > > >President George W. Bush walked to his seat at the front of the > > >National > > >Cathedral just three days after two of the most impressive symbols > > >of > > >American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated. When the > > >history of > > >this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe > > >alike that > > >President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a > > >nation > > >off its knees. In what was one of the most impressive exhibitions of > > >self-control in presidential history, President George W. Bush was > > >able to > > >deliver his remarks without losing his resolve, focus, or > > >confidence. > > > > > >God's hand, which guided him through that sliver-thin election, now > > >rested > > >fully on him. As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was > > >appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that > > >massive > > >place with God, just him and the Lord. Back at his seat, George H. > > >Bush > > >reached over and took his son's hand. In that gesture his father > > >seemed to > > >say, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to > > >do this > > >on your own." President George W. Bush squeezed back and gave him a > > >look of > > >peace that said, "I don't have to do it alone, Dad. I've got help." > > > > > >What a blessing to have a believer in a good God as President. > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher >

It would be the same in the UK. Most kids wont have a clue where Iraq is - and I remember fairly recently a survey that showed most kids in the UK couldnt place several of the country's major cities. For some strange reason - Geography at GCSE level and below seems to be focused on what I'd call humanities and social studies, more than on actual geography Doug

I tried Christianism and Islam, but they're no GPL :) JoH On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:22:02 -0000, "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>I saw this thread start just before i went to bed....i was wondering how big >it would be by morning :) > rasers dont half need some decent subjects to talk crap about every so >often:) > When this all dies down and we're back to boring questions about how to >configure game x on system y i think ill start a 'religion which is the one >true faith?' thread ...just for fun of course > dan >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html >> >> These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) >> >> David G Fisher >> >> >

Ohhhhh here comes trouble !!!! rumours of that fight has spread all the way to the other side of the globe :) Someone Else <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ddcad87$0$12761$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arht5f$io2oc$[email hidden]... > > > 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? :) > >

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:22:02 -0000, "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote something like this: > When this all dies down and we're back to boring questions about how to >configure game x on system y i think ill start a 'religion which is the one >true faith?' thread ...just for fun of course Wasn't that answered in an episode of South Park ?-) >"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html >> >> These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) Well, he did win the election... didn't he? ;-) -- - Igor -

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:44:31 -0500, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:IXWC9.10899$[email hidden]... >> "JTBurn" wrote... >> > People can't find Iraq. Big deal. Who would want to go >> > there anyway!!! >> Damn straight... it's just sand, rock and heat. Never mind the political >> system. >Right, it's just where civilization began. >Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's nothing to see, like >the ancient city of Babylon and Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of >the World. >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.

"We're no. 1! Why try harder?!?" Apparently, when you have the strongest army, which the US undoubtly does, the feeling is that you don't have to do anything else well, or indeed, at all. Scary, but it seems to be the way most Americans think. -- Hajaj� [email hidden] Boycott the 2008 Olympics

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > David G Fisher > >

Mmmh, I know I should not feed these (adequately tagged, thanks David) very off-topic threads (look in the 'other' simulation newsgroup for things to avoid) but... I'll bite. What makes the results really appealing for the youth of that great country is the fact that the survey was based on multiple choice questions: http://lava.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html Given the fact that the question on Afghanistan only involved a choice between four possible locations (five if you include the 'I dont know' option), you can even wonder whether the 17% americans aged 18-24 that actually got the right result were just lucky. Pure random choice should have given 25% (20%) success ! I cant help but ask what the annual US education budget is ? Especially knowing that the US government spends one *billion* dollars a *day* for its army. That is five dollars a day per inhabitant (children included), or in other words defence spendings from a single day could buy every US school-aged kid a luxury world atlas. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm (not exactly a communist news network, I think) Sigh. Xavier.

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ari497$ivq7b$[email hidden]... > David, I'm a little surprised at some of what you're saying. While I dotend > to be conservative ( for the past several years), I have no party > affiliations. I was once a registered Democrat, but am now an Independent. I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anything to me. > The CNN pole was produced to propagate an agenda. It's a National Geographic survey. No political agenda. This survey was nothing new anyway. I've heard of similiarly poor results by Americans many, many times before from different sources. Letterman's made jokes about them in the past. > I'm not saying that there > isn't a problem with education in this country, but if you pole the right > people you can get the results you want. The fact that Americans don'tknow > where Iraq is doesn't really matter as far as this political situation is > concerned. It's been this way throughout history. How many Japanese knew > where Pearl Harbor was before they attacked us? > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. If it does, so what? All that means is we are a very large country which just happens to have a great climate with a lot of arable soil. We are ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste a disgusting amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to be proud of there. > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18th century. If that's true, again, so what? Forests were devastated in that century. How about we compare the amount of forests that we have today to what was here before the first settlers? There were continuous forests from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. > The Bush family would benefit financially if we didn't have Middle Eastern > oil. They OWN oil wells. Bush would never do what Gore suggested becasue his political career would be over. His main support would be gone. > Why do you need Gore to ask you to wean off mid-east oil? If that's whatyou > believe in, do it yourself. It doesn't matter if anyone else does it. Ifyou > believe in it, do it. I have done it. Unfortunately it does matter a great deal if others do it. > Finally, and this is in no way political (as I detest politicians of both > parties), everyone should read Al Gore's book. He's a real nut case. ??? I have read the book, along with tons of scientific research about the same subject. I also have common sense. The single biggest crisis facing all of us is the destruction of the environment along with overpopulation. Al Gore is a nut case for writing a book which he hopes will inform and raise awareness of this crisis? Funny you would bring this up as tonight the following story was just put out by the AP: http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap11-21-010708.asp?t=apnew&vts=112120020 213 Shows how much of a "nut case" Gore supposedly is, huh? In George Bush, you have a man who said during the '00 campaign that there wasn't yet enough proof that global warming was for real. One of his biggest religious supporters, Jerry Falwell, just said yesterday on CNN that global warming was a myth, invented by liberals and environmentalists. Who's the "nut case"?? For those who don't know, Gore's book is called "Earth in the Balance". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452269350/qid=1037871152/sr=1 -13/ref=sr_1_13/103-2591785-9946225?v=glance&s=books From Amazon.com : "What's most inspiring about Earth in the Balance is who wrote it. It's a big deal, after all, that a sitting senator was willing to write, "We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization." And that's not all. In his 1992 book, Al Gore also wrote: I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the political winds and proceed cautiously.... [E]very time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [on the environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone far enough.... [T]he time has long since come to take more political risks--and endure more political criticism--by proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for their enactments. And the buzz on the street is that Gore actually wrote those words himself. When Earth in the Balance first came out, it caused quite a stir--and for good reason. It convincingly makes the case that a crisis of epidemic proportions is nearly upon us and that if the world doesn't get its act together soon and agree to some kind of "Global Marshall Plan" to protect the environment, we're all up a polluted creek without a paddle. Myriad plagues are upon us, but the worst include the loss of biodiversity, the depletion of the ozone layer, the slash-and-burn destruction of rainforests, and the onset of global warming. None of this is new, of course, nor was it new in 1992. But most environmentalists will still get a giddy feeling reading such a call to action as written by a prominent politician. The book is arranged into three sections: the first describes the plagues; the second looks at how we got ourselves into this mess; and the final chapters present ways out. Gore gets his points across in a serviceable way, though he could have benefited from a firmer editor's hand; at times the analogies are arcane and the pacing is odd--kind of like a Gore speech that climaxes at weird points and then sinks just as the audience is about to clap. Still, at the end you understand what's been said. Gore believes that if we apply some American ingenuity, the twin engines of democracy and capitalism can be rigged to help us stabilize world population growth, spread social justice, boost education levels, create environmentally appropriate technologies, and negotiate international agreements to bring us back from the brink. For example, a worldwide shift to clean, renewable energy sources would create huge economic opportunities for companies large and small to design, build, and maintain solar panels, wind turbines, fuel cells, and other ecofriendly innovations. Gore doesn't mince words when describing just how hard it will be to get out of this jam. Real hope is contingent on a swelling up of concern among the public--and fast. A year into the vice presidency, in an interview with writer Bill McKibben, Gore paraphrased a key passage in his book, "The minimum that is scientifically necessary far exceeds the maximum that is politically feasible." Ah, a political out. Some readers will ask of Gore: what has he done since publishing his book to advance the political feasibility of decisive environmental action? --Chip Giller --This text refers to the Hardcover edition." David G Fisher

> I cant help but ask what the annual US education budget is ? Especially > knowing that the US government spends one *billion* dollars a *day* for > its army yeah that may be... but in return the marines salute Bush with honest respect !!!! *LOL* Phillips post will give me laughing fits for a long long time to come... Mikkel PS: I can't even choose between the quotes of that infamous post by Phillip, but this one makes me either vomit or chuckle depending on my mood : "He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return." Readers Digest go home, now this is high class LOW class. Never ever have I read propaganda that phony or sickeningly sweet before.

"Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arieo6$e36$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > Mmmh, I know I should not feed these (adequately tagged, thanks David) > very off-topic threads (look in the 'other' simulation newsgroup for > things to avoid) but... I'll bite. > > What makes the results really appealing for the youth of that great > country is the fact that the survey was based on multiple choice

questions:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > http://lava.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/templates/question_1.html > > Given the fact that the question on Afghanistan only involved a choice > between four possible locations (five if you include the 'I dont know' > option), you can even wonder whether the 17% americans aged 18-24 that > actually got the right result were just lucky. Pure random choice > should have given 25% (20%) success !

Multiple choice. 17% after what happened this past year. Unbelievable. Lol, we also came in last among the nine countries when asked what is the correct population range of the U.S. Only 25% got it right in a multiple choice question. David G Fisher

"Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Can you tell me where New Zealand is on a > map without having to look it up? All you need to know about New Zealand if you live in England is 31-28! Oh yeah, it's right next to Australia - 32-31! Sport is a better teacher of geography than war, my friends ;-)

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >> > >> 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?

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:47:37 +0100, "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote something like this: >LOW class. Never ever have I read propaganda that phony or sickeningly sweet >before. Saddam Hussein getting 100% support from the people of Iraq for his next term comes IMO quite close ;-) It always makes me laugh to see this kind of figures from Iraq, North Korea etc =) -- - Igor -

Always amazing how non-Americans are so knowledgable(in their own minds) about Americans. I could make some generalizations about Europeans too, but that would be just as stupid. John "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ddc7bd9$0$11042$[email hidden]... > Sorry John, but the rest of us don't really care about your internal > Bush/Clinton fight... we are just a bit scared that most Americans show so > little interest in anything but where the nearest McDonals is located. > And judging by comments in this thread some of you don't really care aslong > as you can find the place when you need to go to war ????? Scary attitude. > > Bush or Clinton to blame, the majority of the american youth knowvirtually

Quoted text (31 lines)

> nothing of other > cultures... unless Ophra or Ricki Lake had a special on it. ;) > > Mikkel > > John Pancoast <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > And the same ones who thought Clinton did too :) Surveys, polls, > > whatever. You can prove or disprove any agenda one has with them. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > And we're also the only country in world history to be completely > > self-sufficient with food. Don't talk with your mouth full :) > > 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

Without oil, any country would be in trouble. John > >

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:29:34 -0500, David G Fisher wrote: > > I have read the book, along with tons of scientific research about the same > subject. I also have common sense. The single biggest crisis facing all of > us is the destruction of the environment along with overpopulation. Al Gore Hey, I might not be alone much longer mentioning Dan Quinn whenever this topic crops up in RAS! Dave, give "The Story of B" a read or start with "Ishmael", both are truely awesome books by Dan Quinn. Website is at http://www.ishmael.org/ cheers & good luck, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:19:03 -0500, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > >These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) Good for the US; you need stupid people to go into unknown territory and give their life so that people back home can be prevented from having to pay a bit more for their petrol. That's all it is. The bad thing is that people are actually buying the weapon issues, and that is scary. The human race still has a long way to go before they can call themselves an 'intelligent' race. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:20:11 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote: >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. Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:18:54 +1100, "Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Unfortunately, being Australian, these arguements also affect us. Our Prime >Minister is hell bent on us being the next US state. I was seriously disturbed at his comments after the recent bombing. I can't remember the exact quotes offhand, but I do remember it sounded like something that would come out of the mouth of Dubya or Sharon. Jason

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KyYC9.67947$P31.35296@rwcrnsc53... > > The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Greed drives > Washington, not some desire to serve human kind..... > (that reminds me of a story about a cookbook!!) :0 > dave henrie > . . . with some fava beans and a little light chianti (sp?) . . . elrikk

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:50:59 -0500, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Multiple choice. 17% after what happened this past year. Unbelievable. > >Lol, we also came in last among the nine countries when asked what is the >correct population range of the U.S. Only 25% got it right in a multiple >choice question. Well designed multiple choice questions can be incredibly challenging, as anyone who has had a good professor can probably tell you. I'm not saying that's the case here but I just wanted to point that out. =) Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:28:29 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote: >And thankfully, it worked. Except for that bit where we pretend to be the beacon of democracy for the world even though we aren't a democracy, sure. Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:20:04 -0700, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Lol, no kidding. Bush is being more big government Democrat than the Dems >themselves. It's honestly scary IMHO how many stereotypes for the parties seem backwards. For instance, there is the big/small government debate, where the Democrats (at least on the surface) appeared to be making some progress with reducing the size of the executive branch, at least, while the Republicans regularly increase funding for defense and are (with support, of course) creating an entirely new bloated executive department. Another example is war mongering. Without a question, people seem to see Republicans as war mongerers, and Democrats as liberal wimps. Yet, which party started the most conflicts in the 20th century? If Clinton or Gore were in office, I truly believe that Afghanistan would have been hit with a serious strike force rather than combed with spec ops. Aside from matters with Iraq, you've got Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, etc all sticking our military in places where it didn't belong. Not what you expect from the stereotypes. Maybe Bush can be the breakthrough in this area. I just hope we don't run out of places to bomb before his only term ends. =) > p.s. If you really believe Clinton's claim of a surplus, I got a bridge to >sell ya :) I haven't seen the books, honestly. Both parties claimed a surplus (it was the Republican House/Senate who drafted the budget, after all) so I assumed that there was one. Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:21:22 -0700, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Well, fwiw, it IS what he did as President,(sex stuff ? who cares) and >what he represents, that I can't stand :) There are things about him that disgust me, including essentially defrauding the voters in 92 by supporting NAFTA after he said he wouldn't (that is one of the wimpiest things I can think of any President doing, even the Wimp-In-Chief's wimpy father), but what specifically don't *you* like? I'm just generally curious, that's all. The main thing that disgusts me is that his support of big business was nearly as bad as Reagan or either Bush. There's also using military strikes (the Sudan incident, in particular, was well timed) to try and deflect attention from his sex scandals. Jason

On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:16:28 -0700, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > You can't tell people who've hated each other for centuries, to join >hands, sing kumbaya, and expect things to be okey dokey, because some niave >policy makers say, "Gosh darnit, can't we all just get along and be friends >?" Rabin/Arafat anyone? Jason

"Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:19:03 -0500, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > >These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > Good for the US; you need stupid people to go into unknown territory > and give their life so that people back home can be prevented from > having to pay a bit more for their petrol. > That's all it is. The bad thing is that people are actually buying the > weapon issues, and that is scary. The human race still has a long way > to go before they can call themselves an 'intelligent' race.

I'm not buying it (the weapons issue). It's all about oil and that became obvious when we found out that North Korea had "weapons of mass destruction". Even after we found this out the Bush adminstration CONTINUES TO SELL OIL TO N. KOREA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2010-2002Oct22.html BTW - I don't appreciate all the US bashing here. We don't have as much control over our government as you all might think... - Dave Cook

"Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:19:03 -0500, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > >These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > Good for the US; you need stupid people to go into unknown territory > and give their life so that people back home can be prevented from > having to pay a bit more for their petrol. > That's all it is. The bad thing is that people are actually buying the > weapon issues, and that is scary. The human race still has a long way > to go before they can call themselves an 'intelligent' race.

Very nicely worded Ruud - I've always said "It's not about bombs -it's about bloody Oil" - but you've worded it quite nicely Doug

I'm entitled to my opinion. If you dont like it, deal with it. I didnt start the thread ... "Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ddcb606$0$11078$[email hidden]... > LOL you really do a great "Stupid Patriotic Yank"... I almost believe it. > > [quote]In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have aPresident > whom the soldiers salute-fully. [/quote] > > OMG this is pure comedy... you really do make the right wing americanslook

Quoted text (9 lines)

> stupid. > Seriously NOBODY can be that much of a dramaqueen and still expect to be > anything but ridiculed ? > > I can hear the cheesy music playing in the background, the starspangled > banner blowing in the wind in the back of the scene... a solemn comentator > readig this with his deep earnest voice. Short cuts to children awing at > Bush, mothers with tears in their eyes when the gaze upon the great ruler, > hard marines looking stern and yet strangely emotional due to their

enormous > respect for Bush..... Bush the man they salute with respect !! > > Phillip I marvel at your ability to disregard any intellectual impulse,when

Quoted text (7 lines)

> caught up in the fanatic patriotic frenzy. > God someone put me out of my misery before I crack myself laughing at this > pathetic piece of soap opera poetry. > > Mikkel > > PS: Is this a just a great joke or does anyone actually read stuff like

that > and find it ok ?? If you can read this without laughing I have a few books > by Barbara Cartland I'd like to sell you as "documentary works" and"factual

Quoted text (7 lines)

> reading" > > > > Phillip Malphrus, Jr. <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > This is a reason I like the guy and so do a lot of others here because

of

Quoted text (182 lines)

> > that ... > > > > > >THE PRESIDENT > > > > > > > >Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military > > > >men and > > > >women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice > > > >anything, but > > > >military people see it right away. Watch: When President Bush leaves > > > >his > > > >helicopter or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as > > > >he > > > >disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by. They > > > >continue > > > >to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of salute has not > > > >been seen > > > >in the previous eight years, though it is customary courtesy to the > > > >Commander-in-Chief. You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and > > > >face the > > > >President as they salute. They are not required to salute his back. > > > >They > > > >are only required to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire > > > >time. > > > > > > > >And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. > > > >Our > > > >soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not > > > >forced to > > > >respect him. From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not. > > > >Why is > > > >such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to > > > >bite > > > >his lower lip and not get teary-eyed whenever he speaks! > > > > > > > >The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an > > > >insight. Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian > > > >Fellowship. He > > > >lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was attacked Sept. 11. > > > >His > > > >executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned and in the > > > >hospital > > > >when President Bush visited him. Our President spent time and prayed > > > >with > > > >Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of > > > >Brian's bed > > > >and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his > > > >burned and > > > >bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return. The Commander-in-Chief > > > >never > > > >initiates a salute, except in the case of a Congressional Medal of > > > >Honor > > > >winner. The injured soldier did not have to return the salute. But > > > >he did, > > > >out of respect to his President - a Soldier's President. > > > > > > > >Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the > > > >right thing > > > >when nobody is looking." The nation and world learned some of what > > > >our last > > > >President did when nobody was looking. That President was > > > >disbarred-the > > > >worst disgrace (other than imprisonment) to a lawyer. CNN will have > > > >a > > > >difficult time shining his or his wife's tarnished images. > > > > > > > >In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a President > > > >whom > > > >the soldiers salute-fully. > > > > > > > >On Special Report with Brit Hume, hosted by Jim Angle, at the close > > > >of the > > > >show when they normally have some funny video clip, they showed > > > >President > > > >Bush and the First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp > > > >David > > > >for the weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the > > > >way into > > > >the helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president > > > >is right > > > >behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered > > > >the > > > >chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute. The > > > >Scottie > > > >the President was walking decided it wanted to squat right when he > > > >got to > > > >steps. The president pulled on its leash, but the stubborn Scottie > > > >persisted > > > >in squatting. The President bent down and scooped up the pooch and > > > >entered > > > >Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and returned > > > >to the > > > >position of attention. Moments later the President reemerged from > > > >the > > > >helicopter and out onto the steps. The Marine was standing at > > > >attention, > > > >head and eyes straight ahead. The President leaned over and tapped > > > >him on > > > >the left arm. The startled Marine turned his body toward the > > > >President and > > > >received his returned salute! I was so impressed by this true act of > > > >respect > > > >for our military people by our President! He really does get it. > > > >Most any > > > >other person of his stature would have just continued his journey, > > > >disregarding the neglected return salute. Not George W.Bush. He is > > > >earning the respect of the military community, not expecting it-as > > > >most have > > > >and would. > > > > > > > >President George W. Bush-The man who admitted to having a drinking > > > >problem > > > >in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to > > > >mediocre > > > >grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture. Who mangled syntax, > > > >and > > > >whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms." He came within a > > > >hair's > > > >breadth of losing the election in November. While votes were counted > > > >and > > > >re-counted, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch. > > > > > > > >Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, but he stayed in the > > > >background, faithful and confident. Bush named Jesus Christ as Lord > > > >of his > > > >life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or > > > >having > > > >a "life change." He actually said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus > > > >Christ!" > > > > > > > >On September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by > > > >Roosevelt, > > > >Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on > > > >his > > > >shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. > > > >So > > > >President George W. Bush walked to his seat at the front of the > > > >National > > > >Cathedral just three days after two of the most impressive symbols > > > >of > > > >American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated. When the > > > >history of > > > >this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe > > > >alike that > > > >President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a > > > >nation > > > >off its knees. In what was one of the most impressive exhibitions of > > > >self-control in presidential history, President George W. Bush was > > > >able to > > > >deliver his remarks without losing his resolve, focus, or > > > >confidence. > > > > > > > >God's hand, which guided him through that sliver-thin election, now > > > >rested > > > >fully on him. As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was > > > >appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that > > > >massive > > > >place with God, just him and the Lord. Back at his seat, George H. > > > >Bush > > > >reached over and took his son's hand. In that gesture his father > > > >seemed to > > > >say, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to > > > >do this > > > >on your own." President George W. Bush squeezed back and gave him a > > > >look of > > > >peace that said, "I don't have to do it alone, Dad. I've got help." > > > > > > > >What a blessing to have a believer in a good God as President. > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > >

I have every right to defend my President, as much as the guy who started the thread has a right to bitch 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. "The Black Cat =^..^=" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Take your Republican propaganda somewhere else. ALT.POLITICS.MORONS > would be my suggestion...

Well, then what would Gore do to get people off of oil then? You said Bush didnt try, that was a lie, he did. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > First of all, where do you get off saying to people that there opinions > dont > > matter? No one is perfect, period. > > If they or myself are not educated about a subject, then our opinions

don't > matter. > > >Can you tell me where New Zealand is on a > > map without having to look it up? Probably not. > > I've known where New Zealand was since I was a child. I don't understandthe > mentality of anyone who doesn't bother to learn the geography and make upof > the planet they live on. It's one of the most important things a person > should know. > > > Does that mean you are > > ignorant and should keep your mouth shut until you can? Nope, so whytreat > > people like that? > > If I didn't even know where New Zealand was, I definitely would be a foolto > have an opinion about it, and I'd certainly be a complete assh**e if Isaid

Quoted text (7 lines)

> that my government should wage war on it. > > > Al Gore, he even lost his home state! If they dont trust him, why should > > we??? > > > > Gore sat there 8 years with Clinton and they never stood up for our > > military, making cuts in the military left and right. I have friends

that > > were in Korea during that time and they told stories about how they were > > having to cannibalize broke down vehicles to fix others and the like.The

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > Clinton/Gore administration also knew about Bin Laden for years before > most > > had ever heard of the guy, even after they knew he was responsible for > > attacking the USS Cole and they did nothing. > > There's something wrong in every sentence of that paragraph. > > > I also seem to remember Bush trying to wean americans off of mideastern > oil, > > and everywhere oil could be drilled for here, the environmentalists that > > Gore is in bed with blocked it, every time, threatening lawsuits and > > everything else under the sun, everywhere where oil was thought to be > > available. From the coast of Florida to the midwest, everything was > blocked. > > His own brother didn't want drilling off of Florida. In Alaska, there is a > relatively tiny amount of oil that will do nothing to help solve the short > or long term problem of our dependence on oil. That's why drilling there

has > been blocked. > > David G Fisher > > > So, dont give me any of that. Get your facts straight, your opinion isno

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > better than God's since no one is perfect. > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they > were > > > just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing and > > pathetic, > > > and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until

they

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > are > > > educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject. > > Unfortunately, > > > most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions > > should > > > be heard. > > > > > > As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people

in

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > Kosovo about that. > > > > > > Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden and > > other > > > top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a > few > > > hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his poll > numbers > > > the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone

nowhere, > > > watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack on > U.S. > > > soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else > > > apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > > > > > > Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existedafter

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > 9/11 > > > to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. That > would > > > of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would of > > made > > > it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush > > > unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil he > and > > > his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock

before

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > he > > > took vice president nomination). > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Lol, no kidding Phillip. I can take or leave Bush, but

Clinton/Gore

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > is > > > > another story.......worthless, touchy-feely, stareyed, niave smucks. > > Only > > > > reason the Europeans don't like Bush, is because he isn't the > push-over > > > > Willy was :) > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > p.s. I bet in 1940, not many Americans could tell you where Japan

was

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and > took > > > > > geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the > > place > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always > > referred > > > to > > > > > as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > >

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he'sdoing.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Save it Bob; the folks in this "discussion" had already picked sides before it started, and aren't going to let the details get in their way. :-( SB "Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> 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? >

Steve Whitty wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > > 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.

Get in line then, UK has already applied I believe and with our brown nosing prime minister and foreign affairs minister, I have feeling Norway will be applying soon too 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--

Someone Else wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arht5f$io2oc$[email hidden]... > > > 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? :)

AussieV8's !!! 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--

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Even if it wasn't a big deal that only 13% can find Iraq (yea, it's ok tobe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >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".

Maybe, but 'worldwide' includes people from places in Africa for example who have no education whatsoever, and have never seen a map in their life.

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:20:11 -0500, "Phillip Malphrus, Jr." > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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.

As usual I go against the obvious :-), the last time I voted, I voted for a party that wants to take more of my money in taxes, go figure :-) 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--

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [Big ole snip] > For example, a worldwide shift to clean, renewable > energy sources would create huge economic opportunities for companieslarge > and small to design, build, and maintain solar panels, wind turbines, fuel > cells, and other ecofriendly innovations. > 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 conspiracy. 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.

GTX_SlotCar wrote: > 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 --- 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--

Yeah, it's only an American problem. Think before you post please. "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > And we're also the only country in world history to be completely > > self-sufficient with food. Don't talk with your mouth full :) > > 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 > >

"Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arieo6$e36$[email hidden]... > I cant help but ask what the annual US education budget is ? Especially > knowing that the US government spends one *billion* dollars a *day* for > its army. That is five dollars a day per inhabitant (children included), > or in other words defence spendings from a single day could buy every US > school-aged kid a luxury world atlas. 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... > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American one, too.

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > > snip > > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18thcentury.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 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

I think you got rolled.... 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...

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:02:56 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >Get in line then, UK has already applied I believe and with our brown >nosing prime minister and foreign affairs minister, I have feeling >Norway will be applying soon too If only we could get the Swedish Air Force involved, I'd be interested in all of this. =) SWEDISH AIR FORCE SIM!! (fuck a V8) Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:54:22 GMT, [email hidden] (Ruud van Gaal) wrote: >Good for the US; you need stupid people to go into unknown territory >and give their life so that people back home can be prevented from >having to pay a bit more for their petrol. >That's all it is. The bad thing is that people are actually buying the >weapon issues, and that is scary. The human race still has a long way >to go before they can call themselves an 'intelligent' race. Ever feel like you're participating in the end game of Civilization 3? Jason

"Nick" <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American one, > too. 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.

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Jason Moyer wrote: > > You support the people who give you money, it's an obvious concept. > > As usual I go against the obvious :-), the last time I voted, I voted > for a party that wants to take more of my money in taxes, go figure :-) I always do. I pride myself in being in the upper range of intelligence in the UK, because I realise that to improve all the things the political parties say they will, they *need* to raise taxes, but they still say they will *lower* taxes. Then nothing changes, except re-routing government spending from somewhere to somewhere else - check the massive problems our socialist government have caused the education system to meet some of their less important policies. At least the Liberal Democrats are straight with the voters, it's a shame that the average voter hears 'lower taxes' and is sold, regardless of the harm caused to the country as a whole. I also believe that if I work hard through the education system and get a well-paid job, then all the people who dropped out as soon as they could have *NO RIGHT* to any of my hard earnt money. I am not a supporter of a democratic party founded on communist theories of equality and centralisation. It is my choice if I want to help people in that situation. How unusual for somebody in the UK to have an independent viewpoint. Oh well, I'm used to being labelled strange - girlfriends and computers don't mix...

Goy, you dammed socialist! If you keep this up Canada is going to beat you out for most favoured place to live again. :-) Pete "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > As usual I go against the obvious :-), the last time I voted, I voted > for a party that wants to take more of my money in taxes, go figure :-) > > 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--

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:54:22 GMT, Ruud van Gaal wrote: [snip snip] > The human race still has a long way > to go before they can call themselves an 'intelligent' race. > Dingding! Ishmael time! Don't talk of the human race when you actually talk about a single culture gone horribly wrong. There are very many intelligent people living on this planet, not overrunning it, not exploiting it and poisoning the earth, not replicating like rats and also not waging constant war on each other. Ok, they've become rare and hard to find, but that's because our culture has overrun them, assimilated them or outright killed them whereever these two worldviews met. Cheers, uwe PS: Read "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn. You will find it most interesting. -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I think you got rolled.... > > 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...

Not quite sure where you're heading with this.....? They compared the acreage of what is now the 50 states to acreage of the same area in the 18th century.....even the guy who made the original statement backed off on it and claimed he was talking about something else, which may or may not be true and has no bearing on this, but at least he was convinced that his original statement as quoted by FAIR couldn't be backed up They could have gone the other way of course and compared the acreage within the 13 original states to the acreage of these states today, but if that number backed up Limbaugh's statement I'd be surprised if he didn't take that route, he's not just anybody in American Broadcasting after all I'm not a fan of his btw, I caught his show while on vacation in the US last year and I was less than impressed :-), but you don't get to where he is without having the support of a decent research team or people would have nailed his ass once and for all 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--

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arivfg$j5e8l$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > > > > 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 > > I think you got rolled.... > > 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... >

Does it really matter? I think if you were to compare forest acreage in the New England between 1700 and no it would show a massive deforestation. But then that would be the type of stat used by the environmentalists (very misleading). Although, as I understand it, most of the deforestation in that part of the country happened before 1700, so I'm not so sure. But if the numbers that Goy has in his message are close, I would hardly classify that as "massive deforestation". Now if they were to measure the forests in board feet, I imagine that would show a more significant drop. Yeah, I can just see the day when an environmentalist backed study measures the forests in board feet, lol.

Dave Boyle wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Does it really matter? I think if you were to compare forest acreage in the > New England between 1700 and no it would show a massive deforestation. But > then that would be the type of stat used by the environmentalists (very > misleading). Although, as I understand it, most of the deforestation in that > part of the country happened before 1700, so I'm not so sure. > > But if the numbers that Goy has in his message are close, I would hardly > classify that as "massive deforestation". Now if they were to measure the > forests in board feet, I imagine that would show a more significant drop. > Yeah, I can just see the day when an environmentalist backed study measures > the forests in board feet, lol.

Hi Dave :-) Depends on the def of massive of course, if we compare it to what's going on with the Rain Forrests in some countries, then I'd agree with you that's nothing massive about it, but it's still a 15% drop in acreage wich is a pretty hefty amount of forest in a country the size of the US, the more important question of course being if the numbers are rising or falling and what's being done with it Anyways, I agree that in the context of things it's hardly massive, I was merely pointing out that it appears that there's less acreage now, not more, and it was kinda funny to see that statement in this NG as there was a huge debate over in the "other" group about Limbaugh and this particular statement was used as an example of what he says and how he says it, all within a couple of days of each other :-) 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 Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:12:52 GMT, Jason Moyer wrote: > ops. Aside from matters with Iraq, you've got Roosevelt, Kennedy, > Johnson, etc all sticking our military in places where it didn't > belong. Not what you expect from the stereotypes. Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view... cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"David G Fisher" wrote > > I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anything tome. Yes, David, you are a liberal. I'm a conservative. I'm convinced this balance is what makes this country work. > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. > > If it does, so what? We are ........................ > ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat > production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste a disgusting > amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to be proudof > there. If we're growing enough crops to waste, how can you say we're devoting too much land to cattle ranching? Most of the chemicals for farming are now biodegradable, so they shouldn't be polluting our environment. In that respect, we're in much better shape now than we were in the 40's and 50's. I think that's something to be proud of. > > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18thcentury. > > If that's true, again, so what? Forests were devastated in that century.How > about we compare the amount of forests that we have today to what was here > before the first settlers? There were continuous forests from the Atlantic > to the Mississippi. I picked that century to make a point. The fact is we have more forest in this country than we have had, ever, even in the Northeast (which was more forested than the rest of the country). Much of the country from the western border of NY to the western and southern borders of NJ was grassland, as was much of the rest of the country. The forests weren't devastated in the 18th century, they have simply spread. In more recent history, control of forest fires has added to this. At one time forest fires would consume millions of acres of trees. As a side note, the Rain Forests we hear so much about didn't exist until about 25 thousand years ago. > The single biggest crisis facing all of > us is the destruction of the environment along with overpopulation. > ..[snipe from another post].....with all the examples before us to >draw on......... Yes, we should learn from history. I think the biggest crisis we face is decadence and moral decay. It's been the demise of each major civilization in history. We should learn form it, or it could be ours. As for overpopulation, cutting Clinton's balls off should go a long way towards solving that problem :-) This really isn't the best place for this kind of discussion, I suppose. I'd hate to have someone slam me into the wall at Daytona just because I'm a conservative :-) Am I still on your Christmas Card list?? -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:48:25 -0500, Phillip Malphrus Jr wrote: > I'm entitled to my opinion. If you dont like it, deal with it. I didnt start > the thread ... > Another TOFU. Great. Just what RAS needed! ;-) uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Pete wrote: > > Goy, you dammed socialist! If you keep this up Canada is > going to beat you out for most favoured place to live again. :-) Hiya Pete :-) I've since repented, I no longer vote as the current crop of politicians disgusts me, since I've got no time/interest in running for office myself, I've realized that all I can do is try to make sure that my little piece of the earth is in a little better shape when I pack it in than it was when I arrived, I'm not having too much success Canada eh, they say Canadians are just Americans without guns, doesn't sound too bad as I've met very few Americans I didn't like 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--

Dave Cook wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > (...) > > BTW - I don't appreciate all the US bashing here. We don't have as much > control over our government as you all might think... > > - Dave Cook > >

Dave, I understand that feeling. Be assured that in Europe there is certainly no general hostility towards the American population as a whole, quite the opposite. However, thanks to the combined efforts from Cheeney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Bush and the like we do not take everything coming from the US as the best thing since sliced bread anymore. During the last forty years, America has lost a bit of its post-WW2 magical image here, as more and more Europeans travel there for business or vacation. Not that this is a bad thing, we now have more realistic expectations on both the positive and sometimes negative aspects of our big neighbour. And we still like the guys who brought us the Apple II, the Internet, the Boeing 707 and the Moon ! Not to mention GPL and N2K2. I think that the vast majority of the fellow simracers posting in this thread do not intend to bash America itself, but sure enough they question certain policies (Iraq=Terror) or priorities (education and sustainable development versus defence budgets) of its government. Besides, does Dubya's GPLRank really matter ? ;) Regards, Xavier. -- "The stone age didn't end for a lack of stone" -- Firoz Rasul

You guys should remember that Kennedy would not have been president if it weren't for the electoral college. "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:28:29 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >And thankfully, it worked. > > Except for that bit where we pretend to be the beacon of democracy for > the world even though we aren't a democracy, sure. > > Jason

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after9/11 > to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil.<SNIP> Nothing could be farther from the truth than this statement. It's the Clinton/Gore blind followers and all these tree huggers that prevent us from actually getting to one of OUR own largest oil reserves in ANWAR. They are also the same people that bankrolled the blockade of the large oil reserve found off the coast of my home state, NC. Your liberal friends indeed want us to continue getting oil from the mideast AND the civil war torn areas of South America. Lest we have any environmental crisis here in the US. And don't talk to me about electric cars either. They will never catch on within the mass populus within our lifetime.

> Apparently, when you have the strongest army, which the US > undoubtly does, the feeling is that you don't have to do > anything else well, or indeed, at all. Well, except for being #1 in food production and technology, and the most driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in giving away money to politically insignificant countries.

"Vennt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arivm3$puq$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Nick" <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > > > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American one, > > too. > > 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 ;)

'New' Labour's swing to the right indeed was the only way to get in power, but once the achieved it, they returned (slowly) to their usual stance. They remain the only political party that has had a really bad influence on my life, with their ignorant and unbelievable education policies, and centralisation issues. Oh, and transport, where hiking fuel tax brought the entire country to a halt, because they forgot that the part of England outside the M25 doesn't have any park-and-ride facilities, especially down here in the South West. Last time the government of England tried to selectively tax to that extent, it resulted in the creation of the United States of America as an independant country from the British Empire. But still motorists are being taxed more and more, if not from fuel tax at the moment, then from 'speed-tax', thanks to GATSO. The fact that all income from speeding fines goes straight to the police force does not cover that it is a tax. Why do we see more police on the roads with radar guns at the end of the month? To get their budget up. Need I mention that the price of petrol per litre in Gibraltar is around 54p? Over here it was hitting 90p before we blockaded all the distributors and brought the country to a complete standstill. Oh, and now they are refusing to raise the pay for firefighters from a measly �21k to around �30k a year (still vastly lower than they should get for risking their lives on a daily basis for people they don't know), because they don't have the money. Why not steal some more education budget? Who cares about the Non-Urgent Critical issues (like the state of the country when the people suffering from these education screw-ups become leaders of political parties and CEOs of major corporations), when there are Urgent Critical issues to attend to, like the lack of a Fire Service over the next 8 days. Okay, hit a tangent there, but Labour have been slowly swinging back left ever since they arrived... There is nothing stopping them, because the Conservatives are in a mess which is just getting worse (now they have people abstaining from Three Line Whips, which is politi-speak for mutiny), and the Liberal Democrats don't lie enough about lowering taxes to ever get enough votes. > Anti-American? Huh? Elaborate if you would. Most of the population of England are fundamentally anti-American. I don't know why. Maybe it is a thing passed on from generation to generation since 1776, maybe it is our traitorous shift in policy over Israel which the US didn't reflect, maybe it is the fall of the British Empire, started by the American War of Independence, to be replaced by America (the ultimate kick-while-your down), maybe it is a whole bunch of things. But it is impossible to get any independent reporting of American news in the UK, because all news reports are tinged with anti-Americanisms. You don't really notice them until you start watching American news shows. I'm not saying that American news services are not biased, but when you have seen news reports from an American (or even better, an independent) viewpoint, then you watch the BBC reports, you can see the subtle twisting of context away from the American side of things. For example, that incident where the Americans accidentally bombed friendlies in Afghanistan, left everybody I know saying how stupid Americans are, etc etc. Like when they changed the name of the Harry Potter film from The Philosophers Stone to The Sorcerers Stone for the American audience, it prompted comments of 'Americans are so stupid, they can't understand words with 4 syllables', etc. The only things that can influence a teenagers' outlook on certain issues (before they learn, if ever, to find out for themselves) are parental influences and media influences. Influences from friends are pretty non-existant on things like this, because nobody this age is knowledgable enough to sway everybody else. Parental influences are different for each individual, but everybody sees the same thing on TV, and so TV conditions each individual (mostly in a partially subliminal way over many years) by adding certain leanings to reports in order to sway the masses. Having close connections to the education system, especially the A-Level fiasco perpetrated by Labour trying to fix things which simply weren't broken, and seeing exactly how far off the mark all the reporting was on the subject by all the news services, I have finally come to realise that if they can be that wrong on something as widespread and fundamental as that, then what evidence is there that any other reporting has more basis in fact or neutral comment? Everytime somebody asked me about the A-Level problem, I ended up in arguments, because I was telling these people what was actually happening, and what the situation was, and they were telling me I was wrong because that's not what they heard on BBC. It is so infuriating. It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased, you just need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say.

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Jason Moyer wrote: > > > You support the people who give you money, it's an obvious concept. > > > > As usual I go against the obvious :-), the last time I voted, I voted > > for a party that wants to take more of my money in taxes, go figure :-) > > I always do. I pride myself in being in the upper range of intelligence in > the UK, because I realise that to improve all the things the political > parties say they will, they *need* to raise taxes, but they still say they > will *lower* taxes. Then nothing changes, except re-routing government > spending from somewhere to somewhere else - check the massive problems our > socialist government have caused the education system to meet some of their > less important policies. At least the Liberal Democrats are straight with > the voters, it's a shame that the average voter hears 'lower taxes' and is > sold, regardless of the harm caused to the country as a whole. > > I also believe that if I work hard through the education system and get a > well-paid job, then all the people who dropped out as soon as they could > have *NO RIGHT* to any of my hard earnt money. I am not a supporter of a > democratic party founded on communist theories of equality and > centralisation. It is my choice if I want to help people in that situation. > > How unusual for somebody in the UK to have an independent viewpoint. Oh > well, I'm used to being labelled strange - girlfriends and computers don't > mix...

One of the guys at "The Pits" has plans to become filthy rich, he's young :-), and if he does he's going to buy himself a small island to live on far away from politics and other stupid stuff, sounds like a plan to me and I'm prepared to chip in with whatever I've got....:-) 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--

"Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arj1gt$q6a$[email hidden]... > > And we still like the guys who brought us the Apple II, > the Internet, the Boeing 707 and the Moon ! Not to mention GPL and N2K2.<snip> > Besides, does Dubya's GPLRank really matter ? ;) LOL, Xavier - good points! Thanks for your post. - Dave Cook

David G Fisher wrote: > Unfortunately, > most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions should > be heard. That's another one for my collection!

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:55:47 +0000 (UTC), "Vennt" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>"Nick" <[email hidden]> scribbled: > >> > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm >> > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) >> >> Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American one, >> too. > >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. >

Now that would be something... Over here, Tony B. is regarded as Bush's lapdog for God's sake! I'm beginning to understand what they mean when they say Americans have no clue about how they are regarded abroad, LOL. JoH

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > One of the guys at "The Pits" has plans to become filthy rich, he's > young :-), and if he does he's going to buy himself a small island to > live on far away from politics and other stupid stuff, sounds like a > plan to me and I'm prepared to chip in with whatever I've got....:-) I'll be the first in line to join you. The only problem is, all the people who split to start a new country on an island will end up needing rules and policies and will have to create some sort of government (depends on the size of the island, though), so we will be back to square one... :-)

"JoH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:38:45 -0000, "Nick" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased > so are you, aren't you? So is almost everybody, in fact. Yes I am. > >you just > >need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own > >conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say. > > Picking out the things that you like and leaving out the things you > don't like is not tough at all. But picking out the common facts to form your own conclusions from two biased viewpoints is very tough. One of the best ways of learning is to listen to an argument about something and decide for yourself which viewpoint you believe in.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:38:45 -0000, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased so are you, aren't you? So is almost everybody, in fact. >you just >need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own >conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say. Picking out the things that you like and leaving out the things you don't like is not tough at all. JoH

Goy, they have banned guns here but not the ammunition! I just wish they would design it better to work with sling shots. :-) Pete "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > Hiya Pete :-) > > I've since repented, I no longer vote as the current crop of politicians > disgusts me, since I've got no time/interest in running for office > myself, I've realized that all I can do is try to make sure that my > little piece of the earth is in a little better shape when I pack it in > than it was when I arrived, I'm not having too much success > > Canada eh, they say Canadians are just Americans without guns, doesn't > sound too bad as I've met very few Americans I didn't like > > > 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--

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > One of the guys at "The Pits" has plans to become filthy rich, he's > > young :-), and if he does he's going to buy himself a small island to > > live on far away from politics and other stupid stuff, sounds like a > > plan to me and I'm prepared to chip in with whatever I've got....:-) > > I'll be the first in line to join you. The only problem is, all the people > who split to start a new country on an island will end up needing rules and > policies and will have to create some sort of government (depends on the > size of the island, though), so we will be back to square one... :-)

I'll settle for dictatorship, this guy is not too unreasonable :-) 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--

Nick wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arieo6$e36$[email hidden]... > >>I cant help but ask what the annual US education budget is ? Especially >>knowing that the US government spends one *billion* dollars a *day* for >>its army. That is five dollars a day per inhabitant (children included), >>or in other words defence spendings from a single day could buy every US >>school-aged kid a luxury world atlas. > > But most of them wouldn't read it.

Sad if true. But I have good hope that your kids will surprise you. > Take a look back over history, and count > the number of successful nations / empires which had no army... Mmmh... Switzerland ? Admittedly a small army but one of the strongest education system in the world and very high living standards (and it is older than the US of A, BTW). It also seems to me that Japan has been more successful globally since parting from its imperial army. Talking about empires... its military power did not prevent the Roman empire to decline in decadence, quite the opposite I think. Regards, Xavier.

Pete wrote: > > Goy, they have banned guns here but not the ammunition! > I just wish they would design it better to work with sling shots. :-) > I can picture it in my mind, Pete, his slingshot and a pocketful of 30.06 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 Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:30:13 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You guys should remember that Kennedy would not have been president if it >weren't for the electoral college. Kennedy won that election in popular vote. It was close (a few hundred thousand as I recall?) but he still won. The electoral college and popular vote never differed in the 20th century. I can't remember all of the votes from the 19th century, but I think there may have been one where they disagreed. I'd have to check, tho. Also, I assume you're implying I'm a Democrat by using the phrase "you guys"? I'm a registered member of a party, actually, but it's not the Democrats, Greens, or Reform. Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:20:12 +0100, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull >out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view... Never saw the movie, altho I love hokey conspiracy theories so it's high on the list. =) I could have sworn that Gulf of Tonkin happened during Johnson's term, but that the Chiefs of Staff had been planning military action in Vietnam during Kennedy's presidency. Something I'd have to research. Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:50:18 -0000, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>"JoH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:38:45 -0000, "Nick" <[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased >> so are you, aren't you? So is almost everybody, in fact. > >Yes I am. > >> >you just >> >need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own >> >conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say. >> >> Picking out the things that you like and leaving out the things you >> don't like is not tough at all. > >But picking out the common facts to form your own conclusions from two >biased viewpoints is very tough. One of the best ways of learning is to >listen to an argument about something and decide for yourself which >viewpoint you believe in.

Well, personally I've given up all hope and turned into a cynic. Think about it: let's say something happens between two people, or groups of people, or nations or whatever. You have ONE objective fact, the event that took place. Then you have at least two points of view of what happened, that will most likely be totally opposite. You also have a background to what happened, who knows how far it goes back, and again there will be at least two points of view. (most of the time, you have no clue of this background, or get fed just (biased) parts of it, BTW) If you're lucky (?), the event makes it into the news. Whether it does, depends certainly not only on its 'real' importance (which contains a judgement already) but on other aspects like "do we have moving images?", "was there a reporter close enough?", "does the country have oil?", "is it a former colony?", "do the people resemble our skincolor/religion/language enough to feel empathy?", "is the subject popular atm?", "did Michael Jackson show his face again so we can broadcast that instead?" When it makes the news, you see an interpretation of the previous by the staff of TV news. Next, if you think you're smart, you then try to filter out the things YOU think were biased. This of course requires you to be able to accurately analyse how exactly the news twisted the report. But this is based on the ideas you already had about in which way they are biased, and on your own preoccupations about what happened. Face it: it's all useless and you're deluding yourself if you think you can make sense of it, period. I wouldn't trust my own opinion and judgement for a second. JoH

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arj2bm$j47r2$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Vennt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arivm3$puq$[email hidden]... > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > > > > > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > > > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > > > > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American

one,

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > too. > > > > 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 ;) > > 'New' Labour's swing to the right indeed was the only way to get in power, > but once the achieved it, they returned (slowly) to their usual stance.

That is a matter of opinion, "are returning (slowly)" rather than "returned (slowly) " I might go along with. > ...Oh, and transport, where hiking fuel tax brought the > entire country to a halt, because they forgot that the part of England > outside the M25 doesn't have any park-and-ride facilities, especially down > here in the South West. Protests brought the country to a halt, although I'll give you the fact that the hikes caused the protests :) This is one issue I won't comment on, as I myself have not decided whether the "I, The driver" wants cheaper fuel more than "I, The Environmentalist" wants to keep vehicles of the roads ;) > Oh, and now they are refusing to raise the pay for > firefighters from a measly �21k to around �30k a year (still vastly lower > than they should get for risking their lives on a daily basis for people > they don't know), because they don't have the money. Why not steal somemore > education budget? Or perhaps they could have refrained from their own 40% pay rise last year, Ironically recommended by the same research group that suggested 40k for the firefighters. > There is nothing stopping them, because the > Conservatives are in a mess which is just getting worse (now they have > people abstaining from Three Line Whips, which is politi-speak formutiny), > and the Liberal Democrats don't lie enough about lowering taxes to everget > enough votes. One reason I'll continue voting LD until they become an effective opposition ;) > Most of the population of England are fundamentally anti-American. I don't > know why. Maybe it is a thing passed on from generation to generationsince > 1776, maybe it is our traitorous shift in policy over Israel which the US > didn't reflect, maybe it is the fall of the British Empire, started by the > American War of Independence, to be replaced by America (the ultimate > kick-while-your down), maybe it is a whole bunch of things. But it is > impossible to get any independent reporting of American news in the UK, > because all news reports are tinged with anti-Americanisms. Now this I have to challenge, I would agree that the country is split between the pro and anti-american camps, but my experience is that the anti-american is no more prevelant than the pro's, one thing that often does lead, IMO, to this perceived anti-americanism being more numerous is the fact that neutrals who question or debate about Americas actions/policies are often immediately painted with the anti tag for having the cheek to question such a great and wonderous nation :) > You don't really > notice them until you start watching American news shows. I'm not saying > that American news services are not biased, but when you have seen news > reports from an American (or even better, an independent) viewpoint, then > you watch the BBC reports, you can see the subtle twisting of context away > from the American side of things. Strange that many Americans I know personally see this differently, and equate mainstream US-based news reporting as borderline propaganda, and prefer the BBC for it's more impartial stance, personally I question EVERYTHING I read/see/hear from the media regardless of locality as likely to be spoonfed propaganda by one source or another. > It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased, youjust > need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own > conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say. Damn straight! One thing I can agree with 100%. Vennt.

Educated in what respect? I took a class at my local Jr College so I'm educated? Is this what you mean Dave? Or is it more a matter of sifting through truths/semi-truths/lies of information, then deciding for yourself what your opinions are based on that particular information? Perhaps the teacher at the local JC was mis-informed or mis-interpreted whatever info he happened to digest... Then we have the other motivations (political, social, economic) that go into the distribution of information... This could really go on for awhile I better stop now hehe.. Mitch "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > If they or myself are not educated about a subject, then our opinionsdon't > matter. >

I love BBC News and so do others I know because it gives a much more detailed view of world affairs, and how we are perceived by people outside our borders. David G Fisher "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arj2bm$j47r2$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Vennt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arivm3$puq$[email hidden]... > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > > > > > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > > > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > > > > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American

one, > > > too. > Most of the population of England are fundamentally anti-American. I don't > know why. Maybe it is a thing passed on from generation to generationsince > 1776, maybe it is our traitorous shift in policy over Israel which the US > didn't reflect, maybe it is the fall of the British Empire, started by the > American War of Independence, to be replaced by America (the ultimate > kick-while-your down), maybe it is a whole bunch of things. But it is > impossible to get any independent reporting of American news in the UK, > because all news reports are tinged with anti-Americanisms. You don'treally

Quoted text (8 lines)

> notice them until you start watching American news shows. I'm not saying > that American news services are not biased, but when you have seen news > reports from an American (or even better, an independent) viewpoint, then > you watch the BBC reports, you can see the subtle twisting of context away > from the American side of things. > > For example, that incident where the Americans accidentally bombed > friendlies in Afghanistan, left everybody I know saying how stupid

Americans > are, etc etc. Like when they changed the name of the Harry Potter filmfrom > The Philosophers Stone to The Sorcerers Stone for the American audience,it

Quoted text (15 lines)

> prompted comments of 'Americans are so stupid, they can't understand words > with 4 syllables', etc. > > The only things that can influence a teenagers' outlook on certain issues > (before they learn, if ever, to find out for themselves) are parental > influences and media influences. Influences from friends are pretty > non-existant on things like this, because nobody this age is knowledgable > enough to sway everybody else. Parental influences are different for each > individual, but everybody sees the same thing on TV, and so TV conditions > each individual (mostly in a partially subliminal way over many years) by > adding certain leanings to reports in order to sway the masses. > > Having close connections to the education system, especially the A-Level > fiasco perpetrated by Labour trying to fix things which simply weren't > broken, and seeing exactly how far off the mark all the reporting was on

the > subject by all the news services, I have finally come to realise that if > they can be that wrong on something as widespread and fundamental as that, > then what evidence is there that any other reporting has more basis infact > or neutral comment? Everytime somebody asked me about the A-Level problem,I > ended up in arguments, because I was telling these people what wasactually > happening, and what the situation was, and they were telling me I waswrong > because that's not what they heard on BBC. It is so infuriating. > > It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased, youjust > need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own > conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say. > >

Religion down here is Aussie Rules Football Steve

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Damien, you're all brit expatriate criminals down there! I > didn't know you even had a religion ;-) > > Couldn't resist! > > uwe

and it gets better ;) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12391626&method=full& siteid=50143

"Wayne Bradley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arium4$mvd$[email hidden]... > Yeah, it's only an American problem. Think before you post please. Didn't say it was only an American problem. Read before you reply please. iksteh

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Without oil, any country would be in trouble. I agree, but not all countries preach that they are "self sufficient" when they are not. iksteh

All perfectly valid points. What I was getting at, though, is what happens when a current affairs issue comes up in conversation, where there are people who support one or the other viewpoint. When they discuss (not argue) their personal opinions, and you observe, you can get a good feel for the underlying situation and by listening to one persons' defences against anothers' challenges can be very informative. I guess I am one of the lucky people who, if I am in an argument about something and I am proved wrong, I will hold my hands up and say 'okay, I was wrong, thanx for pointing out the errors of my ways'...

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:42:46 GMT, Dave Cook wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Xavier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arj1gt$q6a$[email hidden]... >> >> And we still like the guys who brought us the Apple II, >> the Internet, the Boeing 707 and the Moon ! Not to mention GPL and N2K2. ><snip> >> Besides, does Dubya's GPLRank really matter ? ;) > > LOL, Xavier - good points! Thanks for your post. > > - Dave Cook > >

See, it still works out: GPLrank was a European/Canadian creation, and now it's hosted in the US. Peace, everybody. ;-) Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:35:46 GMT, SimRacer wrote: > And don't talk to me about electric cars either. They will never catch on > within the mass populus within our lifetime. your lifetime (and those of your / our brethren) might be shorter than generally expected. My favourite Unreal Tournament Quote: "Die, B***" ;-) uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:20:04 -0700, "John Pancoast" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Lol, no kidding. Bush is being more big government Democrat than theDems

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >themselves. > > It's honestly scary IMHO how many stereotypes for the parties seem > backwards. > > For instance, there is the big/small government debate, where the > Democrats (at least on the surface) appeared to be making some > progress with reducing the size of the executive branch, at least, > while the Republicans regularly increase funding for defense and are > (with support, of course) creating an entirely new bloated executive > department. > > Another example is war mongering. Without a question, people seem to > see Republicans as war mongerers, and Democrats as liberal wimps. > Yet, which party started the most conflicts in the 20th century? If > Clinton or Gore were in office, I truly believe that Afghanistan would > have been hit with a serious strike force rather than combed with spec > ops. Aside from matters with Iraq, you've got Roosevelt, Kennedy, > Johnson, etc all sticking our military in places where it didn't > belong. Not what you expect from the stereotypes. > > Maybe Bush can be the breakthrough in this area. I just hope we don't > run out of places to bomb before his only term ends. =) > > > p.s. If you really believe Clinton's claim of a surplus, I got a bridge

to

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >sell ya :) > > I haven't seen the books, honestly. Both parties claimed a surplus > (it was the Republican House/Senate who drafted the budget, after all) > so I assumed that there was one. > > Jason

Agreed Jason, well said. John

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:20:12 +0100, Uwe Schuerkamp > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull > >out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view... > > Never saw the movie, altho I love hokey conspiracy theories so it's > high on the list. =) > > I could have sworn that Gulf of Tonkin happened during Johnson's term, > but that the Chiefs of Staff had been planning military action in > Vietnam during Kennedy's presidency. Something I'd have to research. > > Jason

You are correct; advisors started under Kennedy, (if not earlier),Tonkin was Johnson. John

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:21:22 -0700, "John Pancoast" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Well, fwiw, it IS what he did as President,(sex stuff ? who cares) and > >what he represents, that I can't stand :) > > There are things about him that disgust me, including essentially > defrauding the voters in 92 by supporting NAFTA after he said he > wouldn't (that is one of the wimpiest things I can think of any > President doing, even the Wimp-In-Chief's wimpy father), but what > specifically don't *you* like? I'm just generally curious, that's > all. > > The main thing that disgusts me is that his support of big business > was nearly as bad as Reagan or either Bush. There's also using > military strikes (the Sudan incident, in particular, was well timed) > to try and deflect attention from his sex scandals. > > Jason

Agreed, good points. Since you asked, and thanks for doing so......... :) I didn't like his catering to the UN/world opinion. I didn't like his Sec. of State for the same reasons. His using the Armed Forces as a world police force, including in the Balkans. His complete lack of meaningfull response to the numerous terrorist actions under his watch. This was a copy of the German reaction to the lack of a British/French response to Germany's pre-war aggressions; "Why not try X event; they won't do anything but talk rhetoric " At the same time, the same can be said about Reagan after the Marines in Beirut. The same reaction to Iraq's actions under his watch, including the lack of reaction when Iraq booted the inspectors out, the ongoing hostile actions against American/British aircraft, disregarding sanctions, etc. Equal responsibility for that rests with the UN too though imo, who along with their precursor, The League of Nations, is a joke, and always has been. I didn't like his social agenda; the vaunted "Welfare changed as we know it" didn't happen, it became more bloated. But then, for me, that would be to completely eliminate it, so that'd be hard to please :) Anyway, I think both parties have good points and bad. Clinton represented the bad parts of the Democratic party imo, the far, elitist, left. The only thing I dislike equally with that group, is the far, Christian coalition right :) Both dangerous imo. John

"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Without oil, any country would be in trouble. > > I agree, but not all countries preach that they are "self sufficient" > when they are not. > > iksteh >

I don't recall the US saying they're self-sufficient in oil. John >

> and it gets better ;) ".....poll was carried out at the self-proclaimed centre of the world - Times Square on Broadway." The people who elected Hillary Clinton also can't find Iraq. What a surprise. "Drag queens Kristal Snow and Hagatha Christie, from the Lower East Side, were equally sure.....pointing at Norway." Now there's a fine representation of the country. All joking aside, it's certainly sad. I wouldn't feel so bad if they would have, at least, pointed out a country in the Middle East.

"David G Fisher" wrote... > <snip> > Right, it's just where civilization began. That was Persia, not the current states of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. > Writing, money, law, the first cites.......and there's > nothing to see, like the ancient city of Babylon and > Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Sure... built when the climate was a lot more agreeable and it was still nice to live there. Now these ancient monuments (made out of rock, BTW), just sit in sand, in crushing heat. I know who built them, where they are and I suppose I could go and visit them if I really wanted to, but I find it a lot easier to just watch a National Geographic movie about them. That way I can have a beer while watching, for example. > 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. You're paying the taxes that fund your school system and you vote for the people who set the policy on education, not me. That said, I'm pretty sure there'd be more people than one would care to acknowledge over here who wouldn't have a clue where Iraq is either. If it hadn't been in the news so much over the past decade, I'm not sure my guess would even be approximately correct. Take a relatively low profile country like Cameroun.. can you describe where it's situated without looking it up first? I tried this on myself and was about 1200miles out. Jan. =---

Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:12:52 GMT, Jason Moyer wrote: > >>ops. Aside from matters with Iraq, you've got Roosevelt, Kennedy, >>Johnson, etc all sticking our military in places where it didn't >>belong. Not what you expect from the stereotypes. > > > Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull > out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view...

Also for not backing up the CIA boys at the Bay of Pigs. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

You seem to have missed my tongue-in-cheek point. I am not an US citizen, but living next door in Canada, we chuckle at the frequent use of the term communist to describe anything that isn't in-line with the current US military position. A majority of Americans don't even know what communism is...rattling on about communism versus democracy. CNN is so right wing compared to any intelligent world news source (BBC, CBC, most anything in Europe), that to call it what you did suggests a complete myopic misunderstanding of the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world and a complete misunderstanding of the term communism. Marc "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> Well, > > If that's how 'you' feel about it, you are entitled to you're opinion, > but I think you are wrong. > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YhTC9.7391$[email hidden]... > > Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100% unconditionally > > patriotic is a commie. > > > > Marc > > > > "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > 25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to world > > > events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe that would > > > have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had been > > > called upon to fight. > > > > > > But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network' > > > disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/ > > > > > > Dave B > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing.

:-)

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Hmm, wasn't Kennedy shot partly because he wanted the troops to pull > > out of 'Nam? At least that's Oliver Stone's view... > > > Also for not backing up the CIA boys at the Bay of Pigs. > > > --

That was James Ellroy's view in American Tabloid....cracking read, if a little 'bloody' :-)))

You just said it was self-sufficient in food, which requires oil to harvest/process...so what don't you get? Marc "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Without oil, any country would be in trouble. > > > > I agree, but not all countries preach that they are "self sufficient" > > when they are not. > > > > iksteh > > > I don't recall the US saying they're self-sufficient in oil. > > John > > > > > >

Gore has more brains in one finger tip than Dubya has in his actual brain. That of course doesn't actually make sense, but you get what I mean! Marc "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ari497$ivq7b$[email hidden]... > > David, I'm a little surprised at some of what you're saying. While I do > tend > > to be conservative ( for the past several years), I have no party > > affiliations. I was once a registered Democrat, but am now an

Independent. > > I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anything tome. > > > The CNN pole was produced to propagate an agenda. > > It's a National Geographic survey. No political agenda. This survey was > nothing new anyway. I've heard of similiarly poor results by Americansmany, > many times before from different sources. Letterman's made jokes aboutthem > in the past. > > > I'm not saying that there > > isn't a problem with education in this country, but if you pole theright > > people you can get the results you want. The fact that Americans don't > know > > where Iraq is doesn't really matter as far as this political situationis

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > concerned. It's been this way throughout history. How many Japanese knew > > where Pearl Harbor was before they attacked us? > > > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. > > If it does, so what? All that means is we are a very large country which > just happens to have a great climate with a lot of arable soil. We are > ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat > production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste a disgusting > amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to be proud

of > there. > > > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18thcentury. > > If that's true, again, so what? Forests were devastated in that century.How > about we compare the amount of forests that we have today to what was here > before the first settlers? There were continuous forests from the Atlantic > to the Mississippi. > > > The Bush family would benefit financially if we didn't have MiddleEastern

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > oil. They OWN oil wells. > > Bush would never do what Gore suggested becasue his political career would > be over. His main support would be gone. > > > Why do you need Gore to ask you to wean off mid-east oil? If that's what > you > > believe in, do it yourself. It doesn't matter if anyone else does it. If > you > > believe in it, do it. > > I have done it. Unfortunately it does matter a great deal if others do it. > > > Finally, and this is in no way political (as I detest politicians of

both > > parties), everyone should read Al Gore's book. He's a real nut case. > > ??? > > I have read the book, along with tons of scientific research about thesame > subject. I also have common sense. The single biggest crisis facing all of > us is the destruction of the environment along with overpopulation. AlGore

Quoted text (7 lines)

> is a nut case for writing a book which he hopes will inform and raise > awareness of this crisis? > > Funny you would bring this up as tonight the following story was just put > out by the AP: > >

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap11-21-010708.asp?t=apnew&vts=112120020 > 213 > > Shows how much of a "nut case" Gore supposedly is, huh? > > In George Bush, you have a man who said during the '00 campaign that there > wasn't yet enough proof that global warming was for real. One of hisbiggest > religious supporters, Jerry Falwell, just said yesterday on CNN thatglobal > warming was a myth, invented by liberals and environmentalists. > > Who's the "nut case"?? > > For those who don't know, Gore's book is called "Earth in the Balance". >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452269350/qid=1037871152/sr=1

Quoted text (9 lines)

> -13/ref=sr_1_13/103-2591785-9946225?v=glance&s=books > > From Amazon.com : > "What's most inspiring about Earth in the Balance is who wrote it. It's a > big deal, after all, that a sitting senator was willing to write, "We must > make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for > civilization." And that's not all. In his 1992 book, Al Gore also wrote: > I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to the > political winds and proceed cautiously.... [E]very time I pause to

consider > whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [on the > environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and > conclude that I have not gone far enough.... [T]he time has long sincecome > to take more political risks--and endure more political criticism--by > proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for their > enactments. > And the buzz on the street is that Gore actually wrote those wordshimself.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > When Earth in the Balance first came out, it caused quite a stir--and for > good reason. It convincingly makes the case that a crisis of epidemic > proportions is nearly upon us and that if the world doesn't get its act > together soon and agree to some kind of "Global Marshall Plan" to protect > the environment, we're all up a polluted creek without a paddle. Myriad > plagues are upon us, but the worst include the loss of biodiversity, the > depletion of the ozone layer, the slash-and-burn destruction of

rainforests, > and the onset of global warming. None of this is new, of course, nor wasit > new in 1992. But most environmentalists will still get a giddy feeling > reading such a call to action as written by a prominent politician. > > The book is arranged into three sections: the first describes the plagues; > the second looks at how we got ourselves into this mess; and the final > chapters present ways out. Gore gets his points across in a serviceableway, > though he could have benefited from a firmer editor's hand; at times the > analogies are arcane and the pacing is odd--kind of like a Gore speechthat > climaxes at weird points and then sinks just as the audience is about to > clap. Still, at the end you understand what's been said. Gore believesthat > if we apply some American ingenuity, the twin engines of democracy and > capitalism can be rigged to help us stabilize world population growth, > spread social justice, boost education levels, create environmentally > appropriate technologies, and negotiate international agreements to bringus > back from the brink. For example, a worldwide shift to clean, renewable > energy sources would create huge economic opportunities for companieslarge > and small to design, build, and maintain solar panels, wind turbines, fuel > cells, and other ecofriendly innovations. > > Gore doesn't mince words when describing just how hard it will be to getout

Quoted text (13 lines)

> of this jam. Real hope is contingent on a swelling up of concern among the > public--and fast. A year into the vice presidency, in an interview with > writer Bill McKibben, Gore paraphrased a key passage in his book, "The > minimum that is scientifically necessary far exceeds the maximum that is > politically feasible." Ah, a political out. Some readers will ask of Gore: > what has he done since publishing his book to advance the political > feasibility of decisive environmental action? --Chip Giller --This text > refers to the Hardcover edition." > > > David G Fisher > >

OMG!!!!! You must be a commie!!!!!!! :) Marc "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:30:13 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >You guys should remember that Kennedy would not have been president if it > >weren't for the electoral college. > > Kennedy won that election in popular vote. It was close (a few > hundred thousand as I recall?) but he still won. > > The electoral college and popular vote never differed in the 20th > century. I can't remember all of the votes from the 19th century, but > I think there may have been one where they disagreed. I'd have to > check, tho. > > Also, I assume you're implying I'm a Democrat by using the phrase "you > guys"? I'm a registered member of a party, actually, but it's not the > Democrats, Greens, or Reform. > > Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:02:56 +0100, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Get in line then, UK has already applied I believe and with our brown > >nosing prime minister and foreign affairs minister, I have feeling > >Norway will be applying soon too > > If only we could get the Swedish Air Force involved, I'd be interested > in all of this. =) > > SWEDISH AIR FORCE SIM!! (fuck a V8) > > Jason

Jason, have you tried Eurofighter Typhoon ? It's got some Saab fighter jets in it, with Swedish markings. John

Ah, right..............if the US had no MidEast oil, it couldn't produce as much food..............yeah, that's it. Wrong. Besides the fact, that even with markedly less production, it'd still be self-sufficent in food. John "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YFeD9.8324$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> You just said it was self-sufficient in food, which requires oil to > harvest/process...so what don't you get? > > Marc > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Without oil, any country would be in trouble. > > > > > > I agree, but not all countries preach that they are "self sufficient" > > > when they are not. > > > > > > iksteh > > > > > I don't recall the US saying they're self-sufficient in oil. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Wow, Marc This thread turned into a big one. Guess it touched a nerve in allot of people. I didn't miss your tongue in cheek point but was simply being a reverse smart ass about what appeared to be a strong stereotype about me. I consider myself an open minded guy like most I think. I occasionally watch the BBC America broadcasts because its interesting to see the different perceptions folks have about America. I think you as a Canadian have much more in common with us than you think. The USA is not a Democracy but a representative Republic form of Government, Meaning that in a pure democracy everyone has an equal vote/voice, But in a Republic we elect officials to represent the majority on any given matter. In a Communist state you don't have that voice, and you have no recourse against injustice done by the state against you. My only gripe against CNN is that they frequently IMO present news stories based on opinion 'that is biased by politics' as factual, and don't always seem to present both sides of an issue. Just my opinion of course. Best to you. Dave B "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KweD9.8317$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> You seem to have missed my tongue-in-cheek point. I am not an US citizen, > but living next door in Canada, we chuckle at the frequent use of the term > communist to describe anything that isn't in-line with the current US > military position. > > A majority of Americans don't even know what communism is...rattling on > about communism versus democracy. > > CNN is so right wing compared to any intelligent world news source (BBC, > CBC, most anything in Europe), that to call it what you did suggests a > complete myopic misunderstanding of the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world > and a complete misunderstanding of the term communism. > > Marc > > > > "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Well, > > > > If that's how 'you' feel about it, you are entitled to you're

opinion,

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > but I think you are wrong. > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:YhTC9.7391$[email hidden]... > > > Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100% unconditionally > > > patriotic is a commie. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > 25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to

world > > > > events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe thatwould

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > > > have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had been > > > > called upon to fight. > > > > > > > > But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network' > > > > disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/ > > > > > > > > Dave B > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. > :-) > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Thinking like that is why the Democrats keep underestimating Bush and getting their butts in a sling. Keep it up guys ;) "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nJeD9.8325$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Gore has more brains in one finger tip than Dubya has in his actual brain. > That of course doesn't actually make sense, but you get what I mean! > > Marc > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:ari497$ivq7b$[email hidden]... > > > David, I'm a little surprised at some of what you're saying. While I

do

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > tend > > > to be conservative ( for the past several years), I have no party > > > affiliations. I was once a registered Democrat, but am now an > Independent. > > > > I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anything to > me. > > > > > The CNN pole was produced to propagate an agenda. > > > > It's a National Geographic survey. No political agenda. This survey was > > nothing new anyway. I've heard of similiarly poor results by Americans > many, > > many times before from different sources. Letterman's made jokes about > them > > in the past. > > > > > I'm not saying that there > > > isn't a problem with education in this country, but if you pole the > right > > > people you can get the results you want. The fact that Americans don't > > know > > > where Iraq is doesn't really matter as far as this political situation > is > > > concerned. It's been this way throughout history. How many Japanese

knew

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > where Pearl Harbor was before they attacked us? > > > > > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. > > > > If it does, so what? All that means is we are a very large country which > > just happens to have a great climate with a lot of arable soil. We are > > ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat > > production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste a disgusting > > amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to be

proud

Quoted text (9 lines)

> of > > there. > > > > > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18th > century. > > > > If that's true, again, so what? Forests were devastated in that century. > How > > about we compare the amount of forests that we have today to what was

here > > before the first settlers? There were continuous forests from theAtlantic

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > to the Mississippi. > > > > > The Bush family would benefit financially if we didn't have Middle > Eastern > > > oil. They OWN oil wells. > > > > Bush would never do what Gore suggested becasue his political career

would > > be over. His main support would be gone. > > > > > Why do you need Gore to ask you to wean off mid-east oil? If that'swhat > > you > > > believe in, do it yourself. It doesn't matter if anyone else does it.If > > you > > > believe in it, do it. > > > > I have done it. Unfortunately it does matter a great deal if others doit.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > Finally, and this is in no way political (as I detest politicians of > both > > > parties), everyone should read Al Gore's book. He's a real nut case. > > > > ??? > > > > I have read the book, along with tons of scientific research about the > same > > subject. I also have common sense. The single biggest crisis facing all

of > > us is the destruction of the environment along with overpopulation. Al > Gore > > is a nut case for writing a book which he hopes will inform and raise > > awareness of this crisis? > > > > Funny you would bring this up as tonight the following story was justput > > out by the AP: > > > > >http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap11-21-010708.asp?t=apnew&vts=112120020 > > 213 > > > > Shows how much of a "nut case" Gore supposedly is, huh? > > > > In George Bush, you have a man who said during the '00 campaign thatthere

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > wasn't yet enough proof that global warming was for real. One of his > biggest > > religious supporters, Jerry Falwell, just said yesterday on CNN that > global > > warming was a myth, invented by liberals and environmentalists. > > > > Who's the "nut case"?? > > > > For those who don't know, Gore's book is called "Earth in the Balance". > > >

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452269350/qid=1037871152/sr=1 > > -13/ref=sr_1_13/103-2591785-9946225?v=glance&s=books > > > > From Amazon.com : > > "What's most inspiring about Earth in the Balance is who wrote it. It'sa > > big deal, after all, that a sitting senator was willing to write, "Wemust > > make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for > > civilization." And that's not all. In his 1992 book, Al Gore also wrote: > > I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger tothe > > political winds and proceed cautiously.... [E]very time I pause to > consider > > whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [onthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and > > conclude that I have not gone far enough.... [T]he time has long since > come > > to take more political risks--and endure more political criticism--by > > proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for their > > enactments. > > And the buzz on the street is that Gore actually wrote those words > himself. > > > > When Earth in the Balance first came out, it caused quite a stir--and

for > > good reason. It convincingly makes the case that a crisis of epidemic > > proportions is nearly upon us and that if the world doesn't get its act > > together soon and agree to some kind of "Global Marshall Plan" toprotect

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > the environment, we're all up a polluted creek without a paddle. Myriad > > plagues are upon us, but the worst include the loss of biodiversity, the > > depletion of the ozone layer, the slash-and-burn destruction of > rainforests, > > and the onset of global warming. None of this is new, of course, nor was > it > > new in 1992. But most environmentalists will still get a giddy feeling > > reading such a call to action as written by a prominent politician. > > > > The book is arranged into three sections: the first describes the

plagues;

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > the second looks at how we got ourselves into this mess; and the final > > chapters present ways out. Gore gets his points across in a serviceable > way, > > though he could have benefited from a firmer editor's hand; at times the > > analogies are arcane and the pacing is odd--kind of like a Gore speech > that > > climaxes at weird points and then sinks just as the audience is about to > > clap. Still, at the end you understand what's been said. Gore believes > that > > if we apply some American ingenuity, the twin engines of democracy and > > capitalism can be rigged to help us stabilize world population growth, > > spread social justice, boost education levels, create environmentally > > appropriate technologies, and negotiate international agreements to

bring > us > > back from the brink. For example, a worldwide shift to clean, renewable > > energy sources would create huge economic opportunities for companies > large > > and small to design, build, and maintain solar panels, wind turbines,fuel > > cells, and other ecofriendly innovations. > > > > Gore doesn't mince words when describing just how hard it will be to get > out > > of this jam. Real hope is contingent on a swelling up of concern amongthe > > public--and fast. A year into the vice presidency, in an interview with > > writer Bill McKibben, Gore paraphrased a key passage in his book, "The > > minimum that is scientifically necessary far exceeds the maximum that is > > politically feasible." Ah, a political out. Some readers will ask ofGore:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > what has he done since publishing his book to advance the political > > feasibility of decisive environmental action? --Chip Giller --This text > > refers to the Hardcover edition." > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

The Black Cat =^..^= wrote: > Hopefully two years of unabated bullhockey on their part will convince > the voters of the error of their ways and we can reverse things in > 2004. Actually, my feline friend, I gather it was not so much the voters but the counters who erred last time, since the guy who seems to have had the most votes overall mysteriously didn't win. At least that's the impression most of us got in Europe... Regards, Ruud

JoH wrote: > I tried Christianism and Islam, but they're no GPL :) I tried Mac and Linux religion, and the last one actually *is* GPL :) Regards, Ruud

Jussi 'Igor' Koukku wrote: > Saddam Hussein getting 100% support from the people of Iraq for his > next term comes IMO quite close ;-) It always makes me laugh to see > this kind of figures from Iraq, North Korea etc =) Ah, but that's because *their* voting system is 100 per cent *perfect*, see? Unlike US/Florida and such states ;) Regards, Ruud

John Pancoast wrote: > Without oil, any country would be in trouble. Erm... So Bush's boyfriends, emptying the US oil reserves by millions of barrels every day, are actually getting the US in trouble right now? Nice going ;) Regards, Ruud PS. Internal combustion engines are *so* 19th century tech, anyway.

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> You can't tell people who've hated each other for centuries, to join >>hands, sing kumbaya, and expect things to be okey dokey, because some niave >>policy makers say, "Gosh darnit, can't we all just get along and be friends >>?" > > Rabin/Arafat anyone?

Yeah, and Nelson Mandela? Mikhail Gorbatchev? Mahatma Gandhi? Martin Luther King? Regards, Ruud

Nick wrote: >>Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm >>(not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. Ahem, many Americans' views of 'socialist' European parties is rather crooked. Most leftish-wing 'Liberals' tend to think of them - including Labour! - as being far too middle-of-the-road in the political spectrum. They usually are, too, since once in power they have to keep corporate enterprise happy as well as the unions. > An anti-American one,too. You have GOT to be kidding. Blair is actually referred to as 'Bush's lap dog' here in the old world (not to mention some video clips) and that's being anti-American already? Sheesh... Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ark2l4$ba0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> John Pancoast wrote: > > > Without oil, any country would be in trouble. > > Erm... So Bush's boyfriends, emptying the US oil reserves by millions of > barrels every day, are actually getting the US in trouble right now? > Nice going ;) > > Regards, Ruud > > PS. Internal combustion engines are *so* 19th century tech, anyway.

If you say so. John >

GTX_SlotCar wrote: >Well, except for being #1 in food production and technology, and the most > driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in giving away > money to politically insignificant countries. Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a leading and founding member (!) of the UN? I wonder how many billions does the US actually give out on international spending to 'poor' and 'insignificant' countries when compared to arms spending, both internally and for Defense? And "arms" means "things that kill other human beings", yes. (From what I gather on a quick Google search it's about $ 155 (USAID) to 330 million total on the former, and $ 320 billion on the latter.) Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ark32u$dv4$[email hidden]... > Jason Moyer wrote: > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >> You can't tell people who've hated each other for centuries, to join > >>hands, sing kumbaya, and expect things to be okey dokey, because someniave > >>policy makers say, "Gosh darnit, can't we all just get along and befriends

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >>?" > > > > Rabin/Arafat anyone? > > Yeah, and Nelson Mandela? Mikhail Gorbatchev? Mahatma Gandhi? Martin > Luther King? > > Regards, Ruud

Yeah, the Arab-Israeli conflict is just peachy now, lol. Even under Rabin it was still a mess, since Arafat couldn't, wouldn't, whatever, control all the splinter groups. And you're completely missing the point; in your examples, the underlying problems were answered, one way or the other, mainly by the collapse of the system in place with nothing to do to the issues you imply, especially re South Africa, Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Anytime some star gazer thinks conflicts like those are settled "because it's the nice thing to do", they aren't. John >

Marc Collins wrote: > but living next door in Canada, we chuckle at the frequent use of the term > communist to describe anything that isn't in-line with the current US > military position. Not only in Canada, that's for sure... > CNN is so right wing compared to any intelligent world news source (BBC, > CBC, most anything in Europe), that to call it what you did suggests a > complete myopic misunderstanding of the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world > and a complete misunderstanding of the term communism. True, although had Marx lived long enough he would probably have something to say to Stalin-the-Butcher as well about the interpretation of his original ideas... Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ark4js$ouf$[email hidden]... > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > >Well, except for being #1 in food production and technology, and themost

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in giving away > > money to politically insignificant countries. > > Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US > because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a > leading and founding member (!) of the UN? > > ><snip> > Regards, Ruud

One born every minute with ol' Teddy. A penny sent to the UN is a wasted penny; thank God we don't pay them a damn thing more than we already do. Maybe your country would care to pay 1/3 of it's operating expenses(which is seperate to the costs you mention above), and host it ? Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get that dead weight out of this country. John >

John Pancoast wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>>>You can't tell people who've hated each other for centuries, to join >>>>hands, sing kumbaya, and expect things to be okey dokey, because some >>>niave policy makers say, "Gosh darnit, can't we all just get along and be >>>Rabin/Arafat anyone? >> >>Yeah, and Nelson Mandela? Mikhail Gorbatchev? Mahatma Gandhi? Martin >>Luther King? > problems were answered, one way or the other, mainly by the collapse of the > system in place with nothing to do to the issues you imply, especially re > South Africa, Soviet Union, and the British Empire. > > Anytime some star gazer thinks conflicts like those are settled "because > it's the nice thing to do", they aren't.

If you say so. Regards, Ruud

John Pancoast wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>GTX_SlotCar wrote: >>>driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in giving away >>>money to politically insignificant countries. >> >>Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US >>because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a >>leading and founding member (!) of the UN? > One born every minute with ol' Teddy. A penny sent to the UN is a wasted

Sure. Whatever you say. Let's all go our separate ways then, not having any supranational bodies except multinationals, ...and watch the next world war break out at the next big conflict by lack of communication, sooner or later. The UN wasn't started just for fun, you know. > Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get that dead weight out of this country. There's a chance that disbanding the UN might hurt a lot more than your feelings in the long term, I'd say. Just give let's say China the chance of becoming the next superpower and let's see former superpower America be on the other end of the stick - and then let's see if some negotiating body does not have its uses when it's not you that's in a position of power and regularly act like the school bully. Regards, Ruud

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ark60a$173$[email hidden]... > John Pancoast wrote: > > >>GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > >>>driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in givingaway

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >>>money to politically insignificant countries. > >> > >>Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US > >>because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a > >>leading and founding member (!) of the UN? > > > One born every minute with ol' Teddy. A penny sent to the UN is a

wasted

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Sure. Whatever you say. Let's all go our separate ways then, not having > any supranational bodies except multinationals, > > ...and watch the next world war break out at the next big conflict by > lack of communication, sooner or later. The UN wasn't started just for > fun, you know. > > > Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get that dead weight out of this

country.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > There's a chance that disbanding the UN might hurt a lot more than your > feelings in the long term, I'd say. > > Just give let's say China the chance of becoming the next superpower and > let's see former superpower America be on the other end of the stick - > and then let's see if some negotiating body does not have its uses when > it's not you that's in a position of power and regularly act like the > school bully. > > Regards, Ruud

Lol, yep, the League of Appeasers did a great job preventing WW2, eh ? The UN's done a great job solving Korea, MidEast, Balkans, and even Iraq, eh ? (ironic, after the Gulf War, crys were made *elsewhere* criticizing why Hussein wasn't toppled then(which was a UN mandate, that it couldn't be done)........now, the same people are criticizing the thought of that happening now, which fwiw, I'm not to comfortable with either) Different superpower ? It'll happen sooner or later anyway. Big deal. Britain, France, Russia, etc. are still around, i.e. History shows that time and again, over centuries. And if you think a body like the UN could stop/solve anything like you mention..............whoosh. Their precursor didn't stop Japan or Germany, and they won't do it in any future conflict either. All they're good at is making things worse. John >

No way! Slingshot and 500lb bombs. :-) Pete "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > I can picture it in my mind, Pete, his slingshot and a pocketful of > 30.06 > > > 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 Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:37:53 -0700, "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Jason, have you tried Eurofighter Typhoon ? It's got some Saab fighter >jets in it, with Swedish markings. No. I'll have to check that out, thanks John. Jason

"elrikk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xG5D9.3846$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:KyYC9.67947$P31.35296@rwcrnsc53... > > > > The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Greed drives > > Washington, not some desire to serve human kind..... > > (that reminds me of a story about a cookbook!!) :0 > > dave henrie > > > > . . . with some fava beans and a little light chianti (sp?) . . . > > elrikk >

Who would have a book called "To Serve Mankind" ?? a) A Politician b) A Philanthropist c) A Cook :) dave henrie

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:22:23 -0500, "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote: >OMG!!!!! You must be a commie!!!!!!! :) No =p Actually, the party I belong to I never vote for, if you can believe that. When I first registered for them I assumed that the US version of the party adhered to the ideals set out by the European version of the party and people like Chomsky rather than simply privatizing the free world and legalizing LSD (altho I'd certainly go for the latter). Normally as a voter, I vote about 50% Dem and 50% GOP with the odd independent thrown in. Regardless of what I believe policy-wise, I'd rather see a government where there isn't anyone with full control over the direction the country is taking. My preference is actually a Democratic President and Republican Congress, but vice versa works for me too. A Democrat or neutral Supreme Court is good with me too. I'd rather see Dems making social decisions and the GOP making economic decisions, at least in theory. In practice I guess that would mean that every member of a minority would be given a million dollars and IBM, GM, and Ford would never have to pay taxes. Jason

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:02:16 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yeah, and Nelson Mandela? It's kinda sad that Mandela was on our "most wanted terrorist" list for most of his life. Of course, with recent statements like "The United States is a threat to world peace" he might find himself back on it. =) Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:07:37 -0000, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>All perfectly valid points. > >What I was getting at, though, is what happens when a current affairs issue >comes up in conversation, where there are people who support one or the >other viewpoint. When they discuss (not argue) their personal opinions, and >you observe, you can get a good feel for the underlying situation and by >listening to one persons' defences against anothers' challenges can be very >informative. I guess I am one of the lucky people who, if I am in an >argument about something and I am proved wrong, I will hold my hands up and >say 'okay, I was wrong, thanx for pointing out the errors of my ways'... >

Good for you and it would be nice if there would be more around :) I still dispute that observing the discussion will give you much reliable clues to get to a valuable conclusion. You hear opinions and slightly twisted facts. Which way you go, given you have no other information, just depends on who you *believe* most. And that, in turn, depends on preoccupation and the debating-skills of both parties. Maybe subconsciously even on how they physically look... JoH

>"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote > The CNN pole was produced to propagate an agenda. No. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

>"Phillip Malphrus, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote > LOL, it was designed so that the largest states in the union could not > overbear the smaller states just because they had more people, it had > nothing to do with how long it takes to count votes or how far it is to a > polling booth. LOL States are still semi-random geopolitical subdivision of a country.

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Ah, right..............if the US had no MidEast oil, it couldn'tproduce > as much food..............yeah, that's it. Wrong. Besides the fact, that > even with markedly less production, it'd still be self-sufficent in food. Ignoring the obvious energy costs of growing a crop, and the need to use petroleum products to operate farm machinery, the massive abundant crops that Joe the farmer managed with a bull and a hand plow might not handle the sun waiting for a truck to come and bring it to the city. Or the train that hasn't got any diesel.. I have read estimates that the USA has about 15 years worth of oil in reserve. thats not taking population growth into account. IMO, the increase in cost to produce and ship food will grow and will be reflected in what people have to pay for it. And unfortunely more people will go hungry as the poverty line effectively rises. It's a bleak picture but ignore it at your peril. I do have faith in humankind (including you yanks :) to be able to produce renewable replacement resources but only if some energy is expended on such research. Some interesting reading on oil ... http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page131.htm food consumption and energy use http://www.npg.org/forum_series/tightening_conflict.htm Future world oil supplies http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page85.htm Anyway, this is more on topic than the original post (though sim cars don't need real oil) :) iksteh

> All joking aside, it's certainly sad. I wouldn't feel so bad if they would > have, at least, pointed out a country in the Middle East. Take a poll of kids in the UK - they wont have a clue either It's bad education I'm affriad Doug

> It's bad education I'm affriad > Lol Doug :)

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:02:16 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >>Yeah, and Nelson Mandela? > > > It's kinda sad that Mandela was on our "most wanted terrorist" list > for most of his life.

Considering the amount of racism we & those we ally with exhibit, it's not very surprising at all. > > Of course, with recent statements like "The United States is a threat > to world peace" he might find himself back on it. =) True. The US usually doesn't appreciate honesty. Only parrots. :-) -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"JoH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Good for you and it would be nice if there would be more around :) > > I still dispute that observing the discussion will give you much > reliable clues to get to a valuable conclusion. You hear opinions and > slightly twisted facts. Which way you go, given you have no other > information, just depends on who you *believe* most. And that, in > turn, depends on preoccupation and the debating-skills of both > parties. Maybe subconsciously even on how they physically look...

Yeah, if one of the the arguing parties is a particularly attractive laydee then I would definitely 'see her point of view'...

"Vennt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arj591$1o6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arj2bm$j47r2$[email hidden]... > > "Vennt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:arivm3$puq$[email hidden]... > > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> scribbled: > > > > > > > > Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > > > > > (not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > > > > > > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. An anti-American > one, > > > > too. > > > > > > 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 ;) > > > > 'New' Labour's swing to the right indeed was the only way to get in

power, > > but once the achieved it, they returned (slowly) to their usual stance. > > That is a matter of opinion, "are returning (slowly)" rather than > "returned (slowly) " I might go along with. Fair enough. > > ...Oh, and transport, where hiking fuel tax brought the > > entire country to a halt, because they forgot that the part of England > > outside the M25 doesn't have any park-and-ride facilities, especiallydown > > here in the South West. > > Protests brought the country to a halt, although I'll give you the factthat > the hikes caused the protests :) > > This is one issue I won't comment on, as I myself have not decided whether > the "I, The driver" wants cheaper fuel more than "I, The Environmentalist" > wants to keep vehicles of the roads ;) Nobody I know gave up their cars because of the prohibitive expense of fuel, simply because there is no alternative. We *need* cars where I live, and we *need* fuel, so we have to buy it whatever the price. That idea may work in London, where there are ample services to replace cars for minimal financial outlay, but not where there is no alternative. I don't want us polluting the atmosphere any more than we absolutely have to in order to live our lives, but engine technology is getting to the point where harmful emmisions are relatively negligible anyway. We just need to wait until all the people with older, less eco-friendly cars replace them with newer models. > > Oh, and now they are refusing to raise the pay for > > firefighters from a measly �21k to around �30k a year (still vastlylower > > than they should get for risking their lives on a daily basis for people > > they don't know), because they don't have the money. Why not steal some > more > > education budget? > > Or perhaps they could have refrained from their own 40% pay rise lastyear, > Ironically recommended by the same research group that suggested 40k forthe > firefighters. Politics, eh?

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > There is nothing stopping them, because the > > Conservatives are in a mess which is just getting worse (now they have > > people abstaining from Three Line Whips, which is politi-speak for > mutiny), > > and the Liberal Democrats don't lie enough about lowering taxes to ever > get > > enough votes. > > One reason I'll continue voting LD until they become an effective

opposition > ;) I always vote LD now, too. > > Most of the population of England are fundamentally anti-American. Idon't > > know why. Maybe it is a thing passed on from generation to generation > since > > 1776, maybe it is our traitorous shift in policy over Israel which theUS > > didn't reflect, maybe it is the fall of the British Empire, started bythe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > American War of Independence, to be replaced by America (the ultimate > > kick-while-your down), maybe it is a whole bunch of things. But it is > > impossible to get any independent reporting of American news in the UK, > > because all news reports are tinged with anti-Americanisms. > > Now this I have to challenge, I would agree that the country is split > between the pro and anti-american camps, but my experience is that the > anti-american is no more prevelant than the pro's, one thing that often

does > lead, IMO, to this perceived anti-americanism being more numerous is the > fact that neutrals who question or debate about Americas actions/policies > are often immediately painted with the anti tag for having the cheek to > question such a great and wonderous nation :) That is just personal experience. I don't know many pro-American people, in fact, I can only think of two off the top of my head, but I can think of many more anti-American people. These people are all my friends, and I have discovered when talking to them that their inherent anti-American viewpoints have no real basis in fact. They don't understand anything about the political system, they just criticise everything it does. They don't like the NFL simply because it is American, and they know absolutely nothing about it. Things like that, some important, some just irritating. > > > You don't really > > notice them until you start watching American news shows. I'm not saying > > that American news services are not biased, but when you have seen news > > reports from an American (or even better, an independent) viewpoint,then > > you watch the BBC reports, you can see the subtle twisting of contextaway

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > from the American side of things. > > Strange that many Americans I know personally see this differently, and > equate mainstream US-based news reporting as borderline propaganda, and > prefer the BBC for it's more impartial stance, personally I question > EVERYTHING I read/see/hear from the media regardless of locality as likely > to be spoonfed propaganda by one source or another.

Yeah, it does seem that way. Mainstream US news is very pro-America, especially since 9/11, simply because nobody wants to hear people criticising their country after something like that happens. Strangely enough, I get a much more balanced view of Britain by watching American news channels than I do watching BBC, so maybe it works the other way around, too. > > It's something we have to live with. All news reporting is biased, you > just > > need to read/see enough and pick out the common facts to form your own > > conclusions - something which is a lot harder to do than it is to say. > > Damn straight! One thing I can agree with 100%.

"Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ark3hi$h9f$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Nick wrote: > > >>Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2167515.stm > >>(not exactly a communist news network, I think) > > > > Currently a socialist one, as Labour are in power. > > Ahem, many Americans' views of 'socialist' European parties is rather > crooked.

But I am English. > > An anti-American one,too. > > You have GOT to be kidding. Blair is actually referred to as 'Bush's lap > dog' here in the old world (not to mention some video clips) and that's > being anti-American already? People here don't like it that ol' Tony is sucking up to Bush so much. Because Tony is being pro-American (which is probably the only Labour stance that I support totally at the moment), but generally the people don't like it, which is why there are videos like 'Shoot the dog' around. A much more strange viewpoint is that Tony is actually influencing Bush at the moment. Sure, Bush really wants Britain as an ally right now, but would he be doing anything different if we split on this issue? Is Tony doing it because he thinks it is the right course of action to take through this war on terrorism, or because he wants to reinforce MFN status? Just as apt a question as wondering if Bush wants to rid the world of governments who support terrorists, or governments who have weapons of mass destruction, or just wants some Middle East oil?

"Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arl77s$64j$[email hidden]... > > > It's bad education I'm affriad > > > > Lol Doug :) And to think - my parents PAID for mine ! Doug

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Nick(??) wrote: <big snip> > Nobody I know gave up their cars because of the prohibitive expense of fuel, > simply because there is no alternative. We *need* cars where I live, and we > *need* fuel, so we have to buy it whatever the price. That idea may work in Have people lived in your area for more than ~100 years? If so, they must have managed without cars and fuel (well, maybe some whale oil for oil lamps...) Of course they lived in different ways, and maybe the future will require some long term changes. If you don't evolve, you die (evolution!) I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather).

By "you guys" (post above) I meant the ones complaining about losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college vote, regardless of party. I suppose in this case it's mostly democrats, socialist and green party members, but some republicans and libertarians as well. I was still in school when the 1960 elections took place and we covered it extensively in our social studies class. Sometimes it takes a while to remember things from that long ago. As I recall, now, the reason it was so controversial is that Kennedy won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes. 2 tenths of a percent (or something like that). Nixon won more states, but the states Kennedy won had more electoral college votes. The count was a mess in a few states, but Illinois was really messed up. A recount there could have given Nixon the popular vote, but he didn't call for one because he would have still lost the election. I think Kennedy had 2/3 of the electoral college votes, so it wasn't that close in that respect. Does that sound about right? > In practice I guess that would mean > that every member of a minority would be given a million dollars and > IBM, GM, and Ford would never have to pay taxes. I think you meant that as a joke, but if it were true I guess that would leave guys like me to pay all the taxes. -------------- Regardless of political views in this thread, the topic really seems to be about the right of the US, with the UN, to force Iraq to stop making weapons of mass destruction. Does Iraq have the right to become an atomic power? So, it goes something like this. Iraq wants more oil so they invade Kuwait. The UN comes in and stops them. In Iraq's surrender, they agree to weapons inspections (as opposed to a bunch of other alternatives which would have been far worse). Later, they force UN inspectors to leave, violating the terms of their surrender. Now, after WWII, the Japanese had to agree to only keep a small military (Germany, too, I think, but I'm not sure). If Japan can honor their agreement to this day, why shouldn't Iraq? Of course, being the "mean spirited" people we are, we spent billions to help rebuild Japan and turn it into a leading economic power. We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons on it's own people, civilians, and are not opposed to mass murder. You have to ask yourself what could happen if Iraq has atomic bombs. It would certainly make the UN think twice about defending anyone else that Iraq decides to invade. They could pretty much waive the bombs around and say if you try to stop us you'd better be prepared for a world wide nuclear war. What about the other countries that have atomic weapons? What is there to stop them from doing the same thing? Well, nothing, but Iraq is the bully that steals your milk money. The other countries are not. So, even if Iraq didn't launch the bomb at the US (and he might), it's a formidable tool. Saddam Hussein has the power to prevent a war. All he has to do is honor his surrender agreement. It really is that simple. There's also abundant evidence that Iraq is training terrorists. Is that worth going to war over? Well, WWI was kicked off when one prince got shot. The US entered WWII when about 2400 people, mostly military, were killed at Pearl Harbor. The Sept. 11 terrorist attack killed about 3000 people, mostly civilians. Historically, it's enough reason to start a war, and then some. In any war, if you ally yourself with our enemies, you are an enemy. These events may or may not be enough to go to war over. Each person must decide for himself. I wonder if Iraq's people would like us to do something about Hussein. I've heard that Saddam Hussein won't even let his people play GPL. Now that is mean!

Doug Milliken wrote: > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather). ROFL, you almost had me there for a second, right up until you mentioned the bicycle bit, then I realized this was a joke 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 Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Doug Milliken wrote: > > > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was > > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few > > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather). > > ROFL, you almost had me there for a second, right up until you mentioned > the bicycle bit, then I realized this was a joke

Joke's on you. My bicycle gets more _hours_ of use per year than my car -- of course I go on longer trips with the car, so the car does more miles/year. Cycling with a good bike _is_ fun, and also saves the wear and tear on the car from those short trips that never really get the engine warmed up.

> 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 falseI actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the late '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper mill. His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I was building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months. There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about Rush's info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him. Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US in 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could be wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would help their agenda to state just the opposite. Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age. Winter temperatures here in Maine were often 40� below zero.That would certainly hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to it. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mblowers/def.html Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would only be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud even if it was true. David G Fisher "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arm18f$jvuqi$[email hidden]... > > 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 > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in thelate > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local papermill. > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While Iwas > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months. > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements aboutRush's > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him. > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US in > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could be > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it wouldhelp > their agenda to state just the opposite. > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age.Winter > temperatures here in Maine were often 40� below zero.That would certainly > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to it.

I'll be short since this isn't the place: communism is an economic model, like capitalism or socialism or fascism. It has nothing to do with democracy, which is an alternate to totalitarianism, dictatorship, monarchism, etc. The fact that the more well known communist states also happened to be undemocratic doesn't mean the two go hand-in-glove. There are lots of extreme right wing totalitarian governments, too. Marc "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Wow, Marc > This thread turned into a big one. Guess it touched a nerve in allot of > people. I didn't miss your tongue in cheek point but was simply being > a reverse smart ass about what appeared to be a strong stereotype > about me. > I consider myself an open minded guy like most I think. I occasionally > watch the BBC America broadcasts because its interesting to see the > different perceptions folks have about America. I think you as a Canadian > have much more in common with us than you think. The USA is not a > Democracy but a representative Republic form of Government, Meaning > that in a pure democracy everyone has an equal vote/voice, But in a

Republic > we elect officials to represent the majority on any given matter. > In a Communist state you don't have that voice, and you have no recourse > against injustice done by the state against you. > My only gripe against CNN is that they frequently IMO present news > stories based on opinion 'that is biased by politics' as factual, anddon't

Quoted text (9 lines)

> always seem to present both sides of an issue. Just my opinion of course. > > Best to you. > Dave B > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:KweD9.8317$[email hidden]... > > You seem to have missed my tongue-in-cheek point. I am not an US

citizen, > > but living next door in Canada, we chuckle at the frequent use of theterm

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > communist to describe anything that isn't in-line with the current US > > military position. > > > > A majority of Americans don't even know what communism is...rattling on > > about communism versus democracy. > > > > CNN is so right wing compared to any intelligent world news source (BBC, > > CBC, most anything in Europe), that to call it what you did suggests a > > complete myopic misunderstanding of the US vis-a-vis the rest of the

world

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > and a complete misunderstanding of the term communism. > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Well, > > > > > > If that's how 'you' feel about it, you are entitled to you're > opinion, > > > but I think you are wrong. > > > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:YhTC9.7391$[email hidden]... > > > > Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100%

unconditionally

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > patriotic is a commie. > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > 25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to > world > > > > > events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe that > would > > > > > have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had

been

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > > called upon to fight. > > > > > > > > > > But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network' > > > > > disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/ > > > > > > > > > > Dave B > > > > > > > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > >

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he'sdoing.

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Doug Milliken wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Goy Larsen wrote: > > > Doug Milliken wrote: > > > > > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was > > > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few > > > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather). > > > > ROFL, you almost had me there for a second, right up until you mentioned > > the bicycle bit, then I realized this was a joke > > Joke's on you. My bicycle gets more _hours_ of use per year than my car -- > of course I go on longer trips with the car, so the car does more > miles/year. Cycling with a good bike _is_ fun, and also saves the wear and > tear on the car from those short trips that never really get the engine > warmed up.

Oh the horror.....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > > 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 > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the late > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper mill. > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I was > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months. > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about Rush's > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him. > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US in > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could be > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would help > their agenda to state just the opposite. > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age. Winter > temperatures here in Maine were often 40� below zero.That would certainly > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to it.

I hardly think an organization like FAIR would state something they couldn't back up with facts regardless if they have it in for Rush, and the fact is that Rush couldn't back up his own statement which was nearly identical to your statement, and unlike most of us in here he needs his rep to be fairly clean, he can't afford too many blunders, so I'd think it's fair to say that if that statement could have been backed up with facts, Rush would have done so instead of back peddling like he did, wouldn't you agree ? I can't back up that statement, I wouldn't even know where to start looking, but I bet someone like Rush would, maybe you both read the same book ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

John, you did well just to follow what he was saying. I'm sure he doesn't realize how much the other countries owe us for the UN. Regardless of how much we spend on defense, we still spend more on foreign aid than any other country. And if they'd spend a little more on defense, we wouldn't have to spend so much. I suppose we could spend more on education then. There are some of us in the US that don't think it's fair that we should have to be the ones to keep world peace. I get tired of those, who don't aspire to being great, always wanting to tear down everything that is. ---------------- There are only a hand full of countries in the free world that can protect themselves. Wouldn't it be ironic if the US announced tomorrow that it would no longer get involved in foreign military matters. If Saddam wants the Netherlands, it's not our problem. China wants Denmark? It's not our problem, ask the Netherlands for help. Cuba, North Korea, take what you can, we don't care. If anyone thinks they want to live under a dictator like Hussein, they're nuts. You've got freedom of speech in this newsgroup, but you surely wouldn't have it then. You may not like us putting pressure on Iraq to keep them from becoming an atomic power, but your children will thank us later. If the US had stayed out of Europe during WWII, you'd all be wearing black crosses on your arm bands. Your dictator's son would also be his brother. Your schools would only teach technology, there would be no literature or fine arts. If you complained you, and possibly your families, would be shot, or worse. Yes, had the US gotten involved earlier, we could have saved millions of lives. Your parents or grandparents lives. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake with Saddam. And, by the way, you're welcome. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ark4js$ouf$[email hidden]... > > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > >Well, except for being #1 in food production and technology, and the > most > > > driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in giving away > > > money to politically insignificant countries. > > > > Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US > > because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a > > leading and founding member (!) of the UN? > > > > > ><snip> > > > Regards, Ruud > > One born every minute with ol' Teddy. A penny sent to the UN is a wasted > penny; thank God we don't pay them a damn thing more than we already do. > Maybe your country would care to pay 1/3 of it's operating expenses(which > is seperate to the costs you mention above), and host it ? > Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get that dead weight out of this country. > > John > > > > > >

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:16:40 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Does that sound about right? Now that you mention it, yeah. IIRC the big question in that election (popular vote wise) was voter fraud in Chicago, tho I could be wrong. Would have given Nixon the popular vote most likely. >been far worse). Later, they force UN inspectors to leave, violating the >terms of their surrender. I was under the impression that Iraq hadn't been fully complying with the inspections, so we asked the inspectors to leave. Same thing, I guess. > Now, after WWII, the Japanese had to agree to only >keep a small military (Germany, too, I think, but I'm not sure). If Japan >can honor their agreement to this day, why shouldn't Iraq? Of course, being >the "mean spirited" people we are, we spent billions to help rebuild Japan >and turn it into a leading economic power. I dunno how right I am here, but I'm guessing that if you strip a military dictator of his ability to keep an active military, his regime would lose much its influence politically in that country. Just an idea. IMHO, the second Saddam completely dismantles his armed forces he'll be overthrown (assuming the rebel groups in Iraq actually pulled together). >We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons on it's own people, civilians, >and are not opposed to mass murder. Not to justify anything Saddam has done, but those chemical weapons were designed (and, at least initially, manufactured) in this country. > You have to ask yourself what could >happen if Iraq has atomic bombs. At worst, a glass crater in the middle east. At best, a glass crater in the middle east. =) >about defending anyone else that Iraq decides to invade. They could pretty >much waive the bombs around and say if you try to stop us you'd better be >prepared for a world wide nuclear war. Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build ICBM's. =) Certainly, he'd threaten the use of tactical nukes, but as recently as 10 years ago he couldn't even accurately fire a missile at Israel. Unless he's been smuggling rather large rockets into the country, his best missile is still the "aim it in the general direction of your target and hope it hits something" Scud. >There's also abundant evidence that Iraq is training terrorists. Really? The only terrorists I can think of in Iraq are anti-government. Saddam has had a history of snubbing muslim extremists. Part of the reason why we're unsure about how to handle a post-Saddam Iraq is that the internal opposition to his regime consists primarily of the muslim extremists we're trying to wash our hands of. Hopefully 9/11 taught a few people in the CIA that supporting terrorism as long as it has the same agenda that we do is a bad thing. >These events may or may not be enough to go to war over. Each person must >decide for himself. I wonder if Iraq's people would like us to do something >about Hussein. I'm sure the Kurds would, but after we allowed them to get slaughtered after the last war (the whole "incite the Kurds to attack by pledging US support then pull our troops out" move) they seem a bit more tentative about supporting us again. Jason

"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Ah, right..............if the US had no MidEast oil, it couldn't > produce > > as much food..............yeah, that's it. Wrong. Besides the fact,that > > even with markedly less production, it'd still be self-sufficent infood.

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > Ignoring the obvious energy costs of growing a crop, > and the need to use petroleum products to operate > farm machinery, the massive abundant crops that Joe > the farmer managed with a bull and a hand plow might > not handle the sun waiting for a truck to come and > bring it to the city. Or the train that hasn't got any > diesel.. > > I have read estimates that the USA has about 15 > years worth of oil in reserve. thats not taking population > growth into account. IMO, the increase in cost to > produce and ship food will grow and will be reflected > in what people have to pay for it. And unfortunely > more people will go hungry as the poverty line effectively > rises. It's a bleak picture but ignore it at your peril. I > do have faith in humankind (including you yanks :) to > be able to produce renewable replacement resources > but only if some energy is expended on such research. > > Some interesting reading on oil ... > http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page131.htm > > food consumption and energy use > http://www.npg.org/forum_series/tightening_conflict.htm > > Future world oil supplies > http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page85.htm > > Anyway, this is more on topic than the original post > (though sim cars don't need real oil) :) > > iksteh >

Some interesting reading in those links there. Especially the second one that goes into the energy relationships of food production. Too many you only get Chicken Little Reports rather than a sound, fundamental energy flow discussion. Although, in their dire conclusions they (mostly) neglect potential energy supplies that can replace (and even surpass) fossil fuels. While Solar power (photovoltaics) has huge potential growth, I don't think that it has the potential to replace fossil fuels. I mean, just glancing at the numbers, it would take something like 8 billion sq meters of 100% efficient solar cells working 24 hours a day (in space) to equal the ~340 quadrillion BTUs produced from fossil fuels per year worldwide. If you want them on the surface of the earth, you would have to what, double or triple (or maybe more) that? If you can only raise the efficiency to say 50% you would have to double the number again. I think they are currently running in the low teens for efficiency right now, so I'm thinking that there would be considerable time and money required to achieve even those numbers. As dwindling oil supplies impact the economies of the world to greater and greater extents, I'm sure that public opinion on Nuclear Power plants (Fission) will change dramatically. Even so, there is a limited amount of fissionable material available, so I'm not sure whether it is even possible to operate the number of Fission plants that would be required to replace fossil fuels. I think the greatest hope lies in Nuclear Fusion plants. The science is already known, so now it is essentially an engineering problem. Which means that it will be solved eventually. But the question is whether or not it will be solved before the petroleum reserves run out. If I were in charge of energy policy, I would put every research dollar possible into Fusion technology, because IMO it's the only energy supply that can replace (and greatly surpass) what we have now in oil. IMO when Fusion is implemented on a large scale, the world will undergo a standard of living increase even greater than that created by petroleum. db

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mblowers/def.html > > Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would only > be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud > even if it was true. > > David G Fisher >

Well, New England forests being ravaged in the 17 century isn't something I'm going to be ashamed of either. If you feel the need to take on the guilt from all of history, that's fine by me. I prefer to try to deal with the current situation and focus on the future ;). db

This was taken from the link you gave. It's from the guy's home page. "....but not to worry. Rush and Newt are advising him (Jesus) closely on the art of shafting others for personal gain. " I can't be sure, but he may be biased against conservatives in general. Of course, one wonders how anyone would know, with certainty, what the forests were like on the west coast in 1650. And, the maps only go to 1926. I believe that from around 1870 to 1930 they had the worst logging practices ever. Regardless, the maps are only covering virgin forests so they are irrelevant to the original statement. It's kind of like counting the number of people playing GPL, but you can only count the ones running the original version 1.0, not anyone running patches or upgrades. It has nothing to do with the current state of forests. I just looked at a map showing the forests in northern Maine (top right corner of the US for those failing the CNN pole) and I assure you it looks like the 1650 map on your link. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mblowers/def.html > > Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would only > be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud > even if it was true. > > David G Fisher > > > > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arm18f$jvuqi$[email hidden]... > > > 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 > > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the > late > > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper > mill. > > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I > was > > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months. > > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting > > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the > > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet > > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about > Rush's > > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him. > > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US in > > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could be > > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would > help > > their agenda to state just the opposite. > > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age. > Winter > > temperatures here in Maine were often 40� below zero.That would certainly > > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to it. > >

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:armbls$jnjbf$[email hidden]... > You may not like us putting pressure on Iraq to keep > them from becoming an atomic power, but your children will thank us later. The White House is putting pressure on Iraq now because they weren't making progress on the war on terrorism, and they wanted to maintain support he got (as any president would have) from the mindless flag wavers after 9/11. > If the US had stayed out of Europe during WWII, you'd all be wearing black > crosses on your arm bands. Your dictator's son would also be his brother. > Your schools would only teach technology, there would be no literature or > fine arts. If you complained you, and possibly your families, would beshot, > or worse. Yes, had the US gotten involved earlier, we could have saved > millions of lives. Your parents or grandparents lives. Hopefully we won't > make the same mistake with Saddam. > And, by the way, you're welcome. Where would the U.S. today be if they had lost the war before we decided it might be a good idea to help out? They don't need to say thank you. Besides, Europeans and their families began and built this country. David G Fisher

Goy, I don't know. I have no idea what Rush's schedule is like. Maybe he did have a comeback statement but his bashers just don't mention it. I listened to his show a couple times and he was bashing the NE Patriots, so he's not exactly on my Christmas Card list. I do try to listen to Paul Harvey when I have the chance, though. Does that count for anything ;-) -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > > > > 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 > > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the late > > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper mill. > > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I was > > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months. > > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting > > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the > > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet > > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about Rush's > > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him. > > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US in > > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could be > > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would help > > their agenda to state just the opposite. > > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age. Winter > > temperatures here in Maine were often 40� below zero.That would certainly > > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to it. > > I hardly think an organization like FAIR would state something they > couldn't back up with facts regardless if they have it in for Rush, and > the fact is that Rush couldn't back up his own statement which was > nearly identical to your statement, and unlike most of us in here he > needs his rep to be fairly clean, he can't afford too many blunders, so > I'd think it's fair to say that if that statement could have been backed > up with facts, Rush would have done so instead of back peddling like he > did, wouldn't you agree ? > > I can't back up that statement, I wouldn't even know where to start > looking, but I bet someone like Rush would, maybe you both read the same > book ? :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build > ICBM's. =) Certainly, he'd threaten the use of tactical nukes, but as > recently as 10 years ago he couldn't even accurately fire a missile at > Israel. Unless he's been smuggling rather large rockets into the > country, his best missile is still the "aim it in the general > direction of your target and hope it hits something" Scud.

I suppose there's an argument to be made for the fact that if you manage to equip said SCUD missile with a substantial warhead of either a nuclear, chemical or biological type, it really doesn't matter too much if it misses the target by a mile or two....:-( I do feel however that you make some excellent points, in Afghanistan there was an opposition ready to replace the Taliban regime, they were even willing to do the grunt work as long as they got a little help, can't see the same thing happening in Iraq, would probably be the start of a very bloody civil war if we take out Saddam And then we can start talking about the Oil, Iraq is believed to have the second largest source of oil, beaten only by Saudi Arabia, who gets the oil ? Iraq owes Russia for instance about 12 billion dollars, one of the reasons Russia didn't vote for the resolution right at once is because they can't afford to lose that kind of money and wanted some assurances that their economic interests in Iraq would be protected (for want of a better word), naa, I'm being cynical here ..... I find it somewhat strange that another "rogue" nation, North Korea, can develop weapons of mass destruction and nobody really seems to care all that much, yes I know some people (Bush) has said something but I haven't heard any news about a UN resolution being prepared, but Iraq.....couldn't be because Iraq has OIL and North Korea has nothing anyone would be interested in unless you need to grow large amounts of Rice, naa, I'm being cynical here .... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

> At worst, a glass crater in the middle east. At best, a glass crater > in the middle east. =)LOL Thanks for the levity. > Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build > ICBM's. =)Ya, I guess the US is out, huh? The nice (or bad) thing about nuclear weapons for him is, if you sent up 2 or 3, it doesn't really matter much where they land as long as they don't come straight down :-) -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > Goy, I don't know. I have no idea what Rush's schedule is like. Maybe he did > have a comeback statement but his bashers just don't mention it. I listened > to his show a couple times and he was bashing the NE Patriots, so he's not > exactly on my Christmas Card list. Fair enough :-), but he did actually respond..... ---

Quoted text (7 lines)

> LIMBAUGH: "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?" > > FAIR: "In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million acres today." > > REALITY: Enormous tracts of trees were destroyed by settlers in this country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land. In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994 edition. > > LIMBAUGH RESPONDS: "According to the U.S. Forest Service, annual timber growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres -- six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting -- were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests, the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today." -- Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco- Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p. 23.

--- So while it does indeed look like the US are doing the right thing right now, and he goes to some length to argue that case and back it up with facts, he doesn't even attempt to back up the original statement It's not really important, I just thought it was a bit funny to see Rush quoted about this in another NG and within days I see someone making the exact same statement :-) > I do try to listen to Paul Harvey when I have the chance, though. Does that > count for anything ;-) Sorry, don't know the guy so you don't get any credits for that :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Regardless of political views in this thread, the topic really seems to be > about the right of the US, with the UN, to force Iraq to stop making weapons > of mass destruction. Does Iraq have the right to become an atomic power? > So, it goes something like this. Iraq wants more oil so they invade Kuwait. > The UN comes in and stops them. In Iraq's surrender, they agree to weapons > inspections (as opposed to a bunch of other alternatives which would have > been far worse). Later, they force UN inspectors to leave, violating the > terms of their surrender. Now, after WWII, the Japanese had to agree to only > keep a small military (Germany, too, I think, but I'm not sure). If Japan > can honor their agreement to this day, why shouldn't Iraq? Of course, being > the "mean spirited" people we are, we spent billions to help rebuild Japan > and turn it into a leading economic power. > We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons on it's own people, civilians, > and are not opposed to mass murder. You have to ask yourself what could > happen if Iraq has atomic bombs. It would certainly make the UN think twice > about defending anyone else that Iraq decides to invade. They could pretty > much waive the bombs around and say if you try to stop us you'd better be > prepared for a world wide nuclear war. What about the other countries that > have atomic weapons? What is there to stop them from doing the same thing? > Well, nothing, but Iraq is the bully that steals your milk money. The other > countries are not. So, even if Iraq didn't launch the bomb at the US (and he > might), it's a formidable tool. > Saddam Hussein has the power to prevent a war. All he has to do is honor his > surrender agreement. It really is that simple.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:armf59$k12ph$[email hidden]... > This was taken from the link you gave. It's from the guy's home page. > "....but not to worry. Rush and Newt are advising him (Jesus) closely onthe > art of shafting others for personal gain. " > I can't be sure, but he may be biased against conservatives in general. Um, I have friends who are Republicans and they all think Rush and Newt are idiots too. Maybe the guy is just biased against idiots? > Of course, one wonders how anyone would know, with certainty, what the > forests were like on the west coast in 1650. And, the maps only go to1926. > I believe that from around 1870 to 1930 they had the worst loggingpractices > ever. > Regardless, the maps are only covering virgin forests so they areirrelevant > to the original statement. How about this then. The original statement (and Rush's) is ridiculous because it misleads the uninformed and tries to make them think that the current conditions of forests and trees in the U.S. is good, especially when compared to the distant past when the U.S. was covered in diverse old growth forests from the east coast to the Mississippi. The current conditions are not good at all. They are a f**ken pathetic mess compared to what they were before Americans destroyed them. It's something to be extremely, extremely ashamed of. In 2002, we still have many U.S. citizens who could care less. David G Fisher

Quoted text (21 lines)

>It's kind of like counting the number of people > playing GPL, but you can only count the ones running the original version > 1.0, not anyone running patches or upgrades. It has nothing to do with the > current state of forests. > I just looked at a map showing the forests in northern Maine (top right > corner of the US for those failing the CNN pole) and I assure you it looks > like the 1650 map on your link. > > > -- > Slot > > Tweaks & Reviews > www.slottweak.com > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mblowers/def.html > > > > Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would

only

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud > > even if it was true. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:arm18f$jvuqi$[email hidden]... > > > > 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 > > > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the > > late > > > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper > > mill. > > > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. WhileI > > was > > > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a fewmonths. > > > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting > > > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the > > > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet > > > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about > > Rush's > > > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in forhim. > > > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US > in > > > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the bookcould

Quoted text (14 lines)

> be > > > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would > > help > > > their agenda to state just the opposite. > > > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age. > > Winter > > > temperatures here in Maine were often 40� below zero.That would > certainly > > > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to > it. > > > > > >

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (40 lines)

> > > Jason Moyer wrote: > > > > Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build > > ICBM's. =) Certainly, he'd threaten the use of tactical nukes, but as > > recently as 10 years ago he couldn't even accurately fire a missile at > > Israel. Unless he's been smuggling rather large rockets into the > > country, his best missile is still the "aim it in the general > > direction of your target and hope it hits something" Scud. > > I suppose there's an argument to be made for the fact that if you manage > to equip said SCUD missile with a substantial warhead of either a > nuclear, chemical or biological type, it really doesn't matter too much > if it misses the target by a mile or two....:-( > > I do feel however that you make some excellent points, in Afghanistan > there was an opposition ready to replace the Taliban regime, they were > even willing to do the grunt work as long as they got a little help, > can't see the same thing happening in Iraq, would probably be the start > of a very bloody civil war if we take out Saddam > > And then we can start talking about the Oil, Iraq is believed to have > the second largest source of oil, beaten only by Saudi Arabia, who gets > the oil ? > > Iraq owes Russia for instance about 12 billion dollars, one of the > reasons Russia didn't vote for the resolution right at once is because > they can't afford to lose that kind of money and wanted some assurances > that their economic interests in Iraq would be protected (for want of a > better word), naa, I'm being cynical here ..... > > I find it somewhat strange that another "rogue" nation, North Korea, can > develop weapons of mass destruction and nobody really seems to care all > that much, yes I know some people (Bush) has said something but I > haven't heard any news about a UN resolution being prepared, but > Iraq.....couldn't be because Iraq has OIL and North Korea has nothing > anyone would be interested in unless you need to grow large amounts of > Rice, naa, I'm being cynical here .... >

Hey Goy ;P One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil like it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over. Right now, oil is the lifeblood of the world economy. If it were suddenly cut off, the industrialized world would be devastated. I don't even want to think about what would happen in the non industrialized countries (the folks at the bottom will *always* suffer the most). Because of oil, people like us have the privilege of sitting all nice and comfy in front of our monitors and piss and moan to everyone in the world about all our insignificant peeves. Nothing personal Goy, but it seems like people make light of the importance of energy all too often. db

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > How about this then. The original statement (and Rush's) is ridiculous > because it misleads the uninformed and tries to make them think that the > current conditions of forests and trees in the U.S. is good, especiallywhen > compared to the distant past when the U.S. was covered in diverse oldgrowth > forests from the east coast to the Mississippi. > > The current conditions are not good at all. They are a f**ken patheticmess > compared to what they were before Americans destroyed them. It's something > to be extremely, extremely ashamed of. In 2002, we still have many U.S. > citizens who could care less. > > David G Fisher Interesting position you have on the issue there. I'm just curious, but how have you come to the conclusion that the current conditions are a "fucken pathetic mess"? I'm just wondering because I haven't read any factual reports that would make me draw the same conclusion. db

Dave Boyle wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Hey Goy ;P > > One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil like > it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over. > Right now, oil is the lifeblood of the world economy. If it were suddenly > cut off, the industrialized world would be devastated. I don't even want to > think about what would happen in the non industrialized countries (the folks > at the bottom will *always* suffer the most). Because of oil, people like us > have the privilege of sitting all nice and comfy in front of our monitors > and piss and moan to everyone in the world about all our insignificant > peeves.

I'm not quite sure if you agree with my cynical looks on things or not here Dave, you must remember that I'm only an ignorant foreigner.....:-) I do place a lot of importance on oil, it's the one commodity on this earth you can be sure to make money on as every industrialized nations needs it, plain and simple, the one who controls the oil ....... That doesn't mean we have the right to take control over Iraq's oil resources, I mean, I love my cars and all that, but I'm not prepared to go to war as an aggressor to assure that my way of life stays the way it is, and quite frankly I believe that oil has a lot to do with what happens with Iraq right now I'm not cynical enough to suggest that this is the only motive certain nations have for the anti Iraq campaign that is going on as I'm as eager to keep to Saddam under a certain of control as the next person, I'm merely suggesting that some people might have a hidden agenda, that's all, I bet that whoever replaces Saddam will show a certain amount of gratitude to whoever helped them to seize power, I know I would > Nothing personal Goy, but it seems like people make light of the importance > of energy all too often. As long as you keep shut about certain things I may have mentioned to you in a very weak moment in the past, I don't take it personally :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I'm not quite sure if you agree with my cynical looks on things or not > here Dave, you must remember that I'm only an ignorant foreigner.....:-) Really? ...and here I thought you were actually from Norway. Sweeden maybe? ;p

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I do place a lot of importance on oil, it's the one commodity on this > earth you can be sure to make money on as every industrialized nations > needs it, plain and simple, the one who controls the oil ....... > > That doesn't mean we have the right to take control over Iraq's oil > resources, I mean, I love my cars and all that, but I'm not prepared to > go to war as an aggressor to assure that my way of life stays the way it > is, and quite frankly I believe that oil has a lot to do with what > happens with Iraq right now

I don't think that anyone has the right to take over their oil fields either. But then going to war doesn't necessarily mean taking them over either (in a permanent way). I can live without my car as well (It still has less than 10k mi on it. Not bad for a '98 eh? Heheh.) But energy is more than just cars or a high standard of living. It is truly about sustaining life itself. The link that iksteh posted (somewhere else in this thread) begins to explain the energy relationships that make most of the food produced in the world possible. If it were just our standard of living, it wouldn't be worthwhile. But it is much, much more than that. Lowering our standard of living pushes everyone else down the food chain. What happens to all those unfortunates on the edge already? So, in the current world economy, I feel that the disruption (or even destabilization) of the flow of oil is an aggressive act of war upon the world and needs to be dealt with swiftly. > I'm not cynical enough to suggest that this is the only motive certain > nations have for the anti Iraq campaign that is going on as I'm as eager > to keep to Saddam under a certain of control as the next person, I'm > merely suggesting that some people might have a hidden agenda, that's > all, I bet that whoever replaces Saddam will show a certain amount of > gratitude to whoever helped them to seize power, I know I would I fully agree with you here Goy. Although my agenda wouldn be hidden, lol. But I truly think that the biggest reason behind the current push is because of Saddam's recent willingness to deal with extremists/terrorists where he shunned them in the past. Maybe Saddam couldn't threaten The West with a Nuclear bomb, but terrorists that he could give one to are another story. I don't think they have done all their homework on Iraq yet, but I think it is being pushed anyways because of the support the President currently has by the very fickle US population. I guess we'll have to see how the inspections go... > > Nothing personal Goy, but it seems like people make light of theimportance > > of energy all too often. > > As long as you keep shut about certain things I may have mentioned to > you in a very weak moment in the past, I don't take it personally :-) Geez, I really hope my psychiatrist rid me of those nasty sleep-posting episodes ;D db

"Doug Milliken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Nick(??) wrote: > <big snip> > > Nobody I know gave up their cars because of the prohibitive expense offuel, > > simply because there is no alternative. We *need* cars where I live, andwe > > *need* fuel, so we have to buy it whatever the price. That idea may workin > > Have people lived in your area for more than ~100 years? If so, they must > have managed without cars and fuel (well, maybe some whale oil for oil > lamps...) Of course they lived in different ways, and maybe the futurewill > require some long term changes. If you don't evolve, you die (evolution!) > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather). > I used to commute daily to a town 25 miles from the village in which I live. A little too far to jog or cycle, and there were no direct bus / train routes either. So I *needed* my car. Had I been around 100 years ago, I wouldn't have needed the car to go to work on the local farm down the road, but the development of the automobile has also allowed people to expand their social and working circles. In a way, the development of the automobile developed the need for the automobile. So there is a good reason why I am entirely dependent on my car despite the fact that it is, as you say, quite a new thing. But then, in terms of the age of the universe, Earth is quite a new thing, but we kinda need that, too...

On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:23:29 GMT, "Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote: >One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil like >it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over. So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a war for oil. Jason

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:16:26 -0500, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html > >Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. That's actually the first website I usually read when I wake up in the morning. 1. The editorial type pieces and commentary are seriously funny. There could be an article about a naturalized American Jew being promoted to senior bank teller at a small town bank and he's write 5 pages on how it's proof of a Jewish banking conspiracy. 2. That said, the links to articles are awesome, which is primarily why I go there. Some interesting news that doesn't make the headlines. Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:23:29 GMT, "Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oillike > >it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over. > > So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human > life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a > war for oil. The way the economy works now, energy *is* life to a very large number of people on this earth. db

Dave Boyle wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:23:29 GMT, "Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >>>One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil >> > like > >>>it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war over. >> >>So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human >>life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a >>war for oil. > > > > The way the economy works now, energy *is* life to a very large number of > people on this earth.

If so, then might the economic system itself be *wrong*? -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:16:26 -0500, Uncle Fester > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html >> >>Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. > > > That's actually the first website I usually read when I wake up in the > morning. 1. The editorial type pieces and commentary are seriously > funny. There could be an article about a naturalized American Jew > being promoted to senior bank teller at a small town bank and he's > write 5 pages on how it's proof of a Jewish banking conspiracy. 2. > That said, the links to articles are awesome, which is primarily why I > go there. Some interesting news that doesn't make the headlines. > > Jason

He doesn't really have a slant either. His links cover the Right, Left & Center. Great alternative news reading. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Dave Boyle wrote: > > "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >>On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:23:29 GMT, "Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>One thing I don't understand is why people continue to talk about oil > >> > > like > > > >>>it has no importance and that it's not something worth going to war

over.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> > >>So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human > >>life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a > >>war for oil. > > > > > > > > The way the economy works now, energy *is* life to a very large number

of > > people on this earth. > > > If so, then might the economic system itself be *wrong*? > Maybe so. But any economic system that doesn't inject supplemental energy to the natural sunlight/photosynthesis energy system of the earth will simply not sustain as may people as are on the planet right now. It would also mean an agrarian economy where 75-85% of the population works growing food. I guess everyone will have to form their own "moral" opinion on that solution, but I feel that the utilization of extra energy has been worth the drawbacks so far. db

I am not a Democrat and wouldn't be one even if I lived in the US. But Bush can't even put an unscripted sentence together. The guy IS stupid. Fortunately the Reagan administration proved you can have a vacant moron as President and nothing really that bad will happen because the government isn't actually run by one person...the Executive office isn't even really run by the President alone. Oily North and his escapades couldn't have happened under Clinton or Bush Senior (since he was involved!!!!!!), but even that isn't the worst thing that has happened to democracy in the US. I would say the perpetual and sickeningly low voter turn-outs for elections would be first on the agenda. Marc "DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Thinking like that is why the Democrats keep underestimating Bush and > getting their butts in a sling. Keep it up guys ;) > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:nJeD9.8325$[email hidden]... > > Gore has more brains in one finger tip than Dubya has in his actualbrain.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > That of course doesn't actually make sense, but you get what I mean! > > > > Marc > > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:ari497$ivq7b$[email hidden]... > > > > David, I'm a little surprised at some of what you're saying. While I > do > > > tend > > > > to be conservative ( for the past several years), I have no party > > > > affiliations. I was once a registered Democrat, but am now an > > Independent. > > > > > > I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anything

to > > me. > > > > > > > The CNN pole was produced to propagate an agenda. > > > > > > It's a National Geographic survey. No political agenda. This surveywas

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > nothing new anyway. I've heard of similiarly poor results by Americans > > many, > > > many times before from different sources. Letterman's made jokes about > > them > > > in the past. > > > > > > > I'm not saying that there > > > > isn't a problem with education in this country, but if you pole the > > right > > > > people you can get the results you want. The fact that Americans

don't > > > know > > > > where Iraq is doesn't really matter as far as this politicalsituation

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > is > > > > concerned. It's been this way throughout history. How many Japanese > knew > > > > where Pearl Harbor was before they attacked us? > > > > > > > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. > > > > > > If it does, so what? All that means is we are a very large country

which > > > just happens to have a great climate with a lot of arable soil. We are > > > ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat > > > production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste adisgusting

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to be > proud > > of > > > there. > > > > > > > There are more forests in the US now than there were in the 18th > > century. > > > > > > If that's true, again, so what? Forests were devastated in that

century.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > How > > > about we compare the amount of forests that we have today to what was > here > > > before the first settlers? There were continuous forests from the > Atlantic > > > to the Mississippi. > > > > > > > The Bush family would benefit financially if we didn't have Middle > > Eastern > > > > oil. They OWN oil wells. > > > > > > Bush would never do what Gore suggested becasue his political career > would > > > be over. His main support would be gone. > > > > > > > Why do you need Gore to ask you to wean off mid-east oil? If that's > what > > > you > > > > believe in, do it yourself. It doesn't matter if anyone else does

it.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> If > > > you > > > > believe in it, do it. > > > > > > I have done it. Unfortunately it does matter a great deal if others do > it. > > > > > > > Finally, and this is in no way political (as I detest politicians of > > both > > > > parties), everyone should read Al Gore's book. He's a real nut

case. > > > > > > ??? > > > > > > I have read the book, along with tons of scientific research about the > > same > > > subject. I also have common sense. The single biggest crisis facingall

Quoted text (13 lines)

> of > > > us is the destruction of the environment along with overpopulation. Al > > Gore > > > is a nut case for writing a book which he hopes will inform and raise > > > awareness of this crisis? > > > > > > Funny you would bring this up as tonight the following story was just > put > > > out by the AP: > > > > > > > > >

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap11-21-010708.asp?t=apnew&vts=112120020

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > 213 > > > > > > Shows how much of a "nut case" Gore supposedly is, huh? > > > > > > In George Bush, you have a man who said during the '00 campaign that > there > > > wasn't yet enough proof that global warming was for real. One of his > > biggest > > > religious supporters, Jerry Falwell, just said yesterday on CNN that > > global > > > warming was a myth, invented by liberals and environmentalists. > > > > > > Who's the "nut case"?? > > > > > > For those who don't know, Gore's book is called "Earth in the

Balance". > > > > > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452269350/qid=1037871152/sr=1 > > > -13/ref=sr_1_13/103-2591785-9946225?v=glance&s=books > > > > > > From Amazon.com : > > > "What's most inspiring about Earth in the Balance is who wrote it.It's > a > > > big deal, after all, that a sitting senator was willing to write, "We > must > > > make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principlefor > > > civilization." And that's not all. In his 1992 book, Al Gore alsowrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > I have become very impatient with my own tendency to put a finger to > the > > > political winds and proceed cautiously.... [E]very time I pause to > > consider > > > whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts [on > the > > > environment crisis] that continue to pour in from around the world and > > > conclude that I have not gone far enough.... [T]he time has long since > > come > > > to take more political risks--and endure more political criticism--by > > > proposing tougher, more effective solutions and fighting hard for

their

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > enactments. > > > And the buzz on the street is that Gore actually wrote those words > > himself. > > > > > > When Earth in the Balance first came out, it caused quite a stir--and > for > > > good reason. It convincingly makes the case that a crisis of epidemic > > > proportions is nearly upon us and that if the world doesn't get its

act > > > together soon and agree to some kind of "Global Marshall Plan" to > protect > > > the environment, we're all up a polluted creek without a paddle.Myriad > > > plagues are upon us, but the worst include the loss of biodiversity,the > > > depletion of the ozone layer, the slash-and-burn destruction of > > rainforests, > > > and the onset of global warming. None of this is new, of course, norwas

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > it > > > new in 1992. But most environmentalists will still get a giddy feeling > > > reading such a call to action as written by a prominent politician. > > > > > > The book is arranged into three sections: the first describes the > plagues; > > > the second looks at how we got ourselves into this mess; and the final > > > chapters present ways out. Gore gets his points across in a

serviceable > > way, > > > though he could have benefited from a firmer editor's hand; at timesthe > > > analogies are arcane and the pacing is odd--kind of like a Gore speech > > that > > > climaxes at weird points and then sinks just as the audience is aboutto

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > clap. Still, at the end you understand what's been said. Gore believes > > that > > > if we apply some American ingenuity, the twin engines of democracy and > > > capitalism can be rigged to help us stabilize world population growth, > > > spread social justice, boost education levels, create environmentally > > > appropriate technologies, and negotiate international agreements to > bring > > us > > > back from the brink. For example, a worldwide shift to clean,

renewable

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > energy sources would create huge economic opportunities for companies > > large > > > and small to design, build, and maintain solar panels, wind turbines, > fuel > > > cells, and other ecofriendly innovations. > > > > > > Gore doesn't mince words when describing just how hard it will be to

get > > out > > > of this jam. Real hope is contingent on a swelling up of concern among > the > > > public--and fast. A year into the vice presidency, in an interviewwith > > > writer Bill McKibben, Gore paraphrased a key passage in his book, "The > > > minimum that is scientifically necessary far exceeds the maximum thatis > > > politically feasible." Ah, a political out. Some readers will ask of > Gore: > > > what has he done since publishing his book to advance the political > > > feasibility of decisive environmental action? --Chip Giller --Thistext

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > refers to the Hardcover edition." > > > > > > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > > > > > > >

A nice bit of research for us, Goy. Thanks. Where did you find it? I found the FAIR website. It seems they are to liberals what Rush is to some conservatives. I wish the "Reality" parts of your quotes had estimates from the 17th or 18th centuries. The book I read may not have included Hawaii or Alaska in it's estimates from the1600's because of the lack of data and these other quotes do. That would account for something and they are, after all, only estimates. I'm sure that 2 people doing the estimates could easily use different guidelines and be a few billion acres apart. I could try to find the book again (I'm sure he still has it somewhere), but that wouldn't be for another week or so and then I'd feel obligated to post the results here. I certainly don't want to perpetuate this thread that long. I didn't think my statement was that important, and I guess it wouldn't have been if Rush hadn't said the same thing. I only wanted to point out that our forests weren't being devastated according to what I read in a US Forestry Service book. I'll stick by that, at least, and if the Forestry Service used the wrong guidelines for the estimate, I'm fairly confident that we still have about the same number of trees we had before. This much I do know: 1. I live in a 2 story chalet on a dead end street in the country in Maine. My house is 275 feet from the road and I have a 2 acre wooded lot. I'm happy with the amount of trees I have around me. 2. The US has more trees than Iraq (this thread was about Iraq, right?). 3. Most of the tracks in GPL have just the right amount of trees ;-) -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > GTX_SlotCar wrote: > > > > Goy, I don't know. I have no idea what Rush's schedule is like. Maybe he did > > have a comeback statement but his bashers just don't mention it. I listened > > to his show a couple times and he was bashing the NE Patriots, so he's not > > exactly on my Christmas Card list. > > Fair enough :-), but he did actually respond..... > > --- > > LIMBAUGH: "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?" > > > > FAIR: "In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million acres today." > > > > REALITY: Enormous tracts of trees were destroyed by settlers in this country, without being replanted. Today, reforestation is a critical component of the U.S. lumber industry. Furthermore, with increasingly sophisticated measuring methods, the more sure we are about the rapidly increasing rate of forest growth in the continental United States. These are the current facts: In 1952, the U.S. had 664 million acres of forest land. In 1987 the number had climbed to 731 million acres, according to the most recent numbers available in the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1993-1994 edition. > > > > LIMBAUGH RESPONDS: "According to the U.S. Forest Service, annual timber growth in the U.S. now exceeds harvest by 37 percent. Annual growth has exceeded harvest every year since 1952. In 1992, just 384,000 acres -- six-tenths of 1 percent of the National Forest land open to harvesting -- were actually harvested. As a result of growth steadily exceeding harvests, the number of wooded acres in the U.S. has grown 20 percent in the past twenty years. The average annual wooded growth in the U.S. today is an amazing three times what it was in 1920. In Vermont, for example, the area covered by forests has increased from 35 percent a hundred years ago to about 76 percent today." -- Joseph Bast, Peter Hill and Richard Rue, Eco- Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books: 1994), p. 23. > --- > > So while it does indeed look like the US are doing the right thing right > now, and he goes to some length to argue that case and back it up with > facts, he doesn't even attempt to back up the original statement > > It's not really important, I just thought it was a bit funny to see Rush > quoted about this in another NG and within days I see someone making the > exact same statement :-) > > > I do try to listen to Paul Harvey when I have the chance, though. Does that > > count for anything ;-) > > Sorry, don't know the guy so you don't get any credits for that :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

"David G Fisher" wrote > > The White House is putting pressure on Iraq now because they weren'tmaking > progress on the war on terrorism, and they wanted to maintain support hegot > (as any president would have) from the mindless flag wavers after 9/11. Well, David, that may be true, but during the campaign both Bush and Gore said they'd do something about Iraq and the audience applauded. They both agreed something had to be done and finally something is. Better now than never. If Gore was doing it, you'd be applauding him. > Where would the U.S. today be if they had lost the war before we decidedit > might be a good idea to help .......... Huh? We saw they were losing and we did help out. Before we sent troops, we sent arms, ammunition, tanks and ships. You seem to think that we went to war with Germany because of Japan's attack on us. That's not true. Japan attacked the US because, of all things, we shut off their oil supply (along with all other trade). Japan declared war on the US and Britain on Dec. 7, 1941. FDR knew that most of the people in the US didn't want to fight a war with Germany (who had done nothing to us) at the same time we were fighting a war Japan, who attacked us on our own soil. Hitler and Mussolini (Italy) declared war on the US on Dec 11. Then in 1942 the US declared war on Thailand. In late 1942 the US entered the war (with Britain) in North Africa. That is, I think, our first troop involvement with our European allies. I'm sure that if my memory of this chronology isn't perfect (I am getting old, you know), someone will correct me. Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard to look up somewhere. > Besides, Europeans and their families began and built this country.And now let's all read Roots. Look, I love my European "cousins". There are a few who seem to get off on putting down the US whenever they can. Instead of bashing, they might try helping. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:55:22 GMT, Doug Milliken wrote: > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather). > Hey Doug, I envy you! While I do most in-town travelling by bike whenever possible, a bloodily stupid and expensive German railroad network leaves me with no alternative but to commute by car (about 50km each way). I try to work from home when possible, but riding the bike is more fun even in bad weather (there are clothes for that, you know ;-) cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:46:13 +1100, "iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Some interesting reading on oil ... >http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page131.htm Ooohh... a _damn_ good read, that. Shows exactly why middle eastern oil will be infinitely _more_ important in the near future for the western world, especially the U.S.

> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html > > Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. > Fester > LOL. Articles like "the memo that proves FDR engineered the Pearl Harbor attack", "The video that proves 9-11 was not a surprise". It looks like the only conspiracies he left out is how Johnson had Kennedy killed and how Elvis was a CIA agent and is living under cover. Still, I found it entertaining. Couldn't find anything about aliens, though ;-)

On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 03:34:48 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote: > LOL. Articles like "the memo that proves FDR engineered the Pearl Harbor >attack", "The video that proves 9-11 was not a surprise". It looks like the >only conspiracies he left out is how Johnson had Kennedy killed and how >Elvis was a CIA agent and is living under cover. >Still, I found it entertaining. Couldn't find anything about aliens, though Don't forget to check out the Clinton body count while you're there. I think he's since added a Bush one, too. =) Jason

Marc Collins wrote: > I > would say the perpetual and sickeningly low voter turn-outs for elections > would be first on the agenda. People like myself don't turn out because there can be no *real* substantive change in our system. No matter who wins, the first thing they must do upon entering office is to take an oath "to uphold & defend the Constitution of the United States." Therefore there is only a very narrow range in which they can operate. If elections could mean *real* change, I think you see people turn out in droves. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

GTX_SlotCar wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html >> >>Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. >>Fester >> > > LOL. Articles like "the memo that proves FDR engineered the Pearl Harbor > attack",

A real memo, outlining all the steps he eventually took. What more do you need? A video clip? >"The video that proves 9-11 was not a surprise". Bush sure doesn't look surprised or shocked. Why is that? Strange reaction he had... >It looks like the > only conspiracies he left out is how Johnson had Kennedy killed and how > Elvis was a CIA agent and is living under cover. > Still, I found it entertaining. Couldn't find anything about aliens, though > ;-) LOL!! -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Dave Boyle wrote: > > Really? ...and here I thought you were actually from Norway. Sweeden maybe? > ;p No need for name calling, Sweden, PAH

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I don't think that anyone has the right to take over their oil fields > either. But then going to war doesn't necessarily mean taking them over > either (in a permanent way). I can live without my car as well (It still has > less than 10k mi on it. Not bad for a '98 eh? Heheh.) But energy is more > than just cars or a high standard of living. It is truly about sustaining > life itself. The link that iksteh posted (somewhere else in this thread) > begins to explain the energy relationships that make most of the food > produced in the world possible. If it were just our standard of living, it > wouldn't be worthwhile. But it is much, much more than that. Lowering our > standard of living pushes everyone else down the food chain. What happens to > all those unfortunates on the edge already? So, in the current world > economy, I feel that the disruption (or even destabilization) of the flow of > oil is an aggressive act of war upon the world and needs to be dealt with > swiftly.

Well, the only ones currently disrupting the flow of oil from Iraq are UN sanctions, sanctions that don't do anything but put terrible burdens of the civilians in Iraq, Saddam himself probably doesn't even notice it and neither does his closest followers, if he needs money he will simply take it from his own people and blame the West

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I fully agree with you here Goy. Although my agenda wouldn be hidden, lol. > But I truly think that the biggest reason behind the current push is because > of Saddam's recent willingness to deal with extremists/terrorists where he > shunned them in the past. Maybe Saddam couldn't threaten The West with a > Nuclear bomb, but terrorists that he could give one to are another story. I > don't think they have done all their homework on Iraq yet, but I think it is > being pushed anyways because of the support the President currently has by > the very fickle US population. I guess we'll have to see how the inspections > go...

Well, I'd be surprised if anyone can come up with tangible evidence that he is actively supporting fundamentalist muslim terrorists on a larger scale, he's not a fundamentalist himself you know, not even sure if he's really a muslim or if he's just using religion to further his political agenda, remember, he was a western ally at some point and we thought it was a good idea to support him in his war against the fundamentalists in Iran, and waging war against other muslims is usually a big no-no So while I'm sure he wouldn't mind supporting the Palestinians in their fight against Israel, and quite possibly do so, I seriously doubt that he would actively support someone like Bin Laden who if given the opp would kick Saddam's ass, and Saddam knows this all too well > Geez, I really hope my psychiatrist rid me of those nasty sleep-posting > episodes I hope so too....:-) 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 Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:24:02 GMT, Dave Boyle wrote: > > I think the greatest hope lies in Nuclear Fusion plants. The science is > already known, so now it is essentially an engineering problem. Which means > that it will be solved eventually. But the question is whether or not it While you might think highly of nuclear power plants, your children (and mine and theirs) might beg to differ, since you leave them with huge amounts of nuclear waste that simply cannot be stored safely for the time span required until they are harmless. Also, massive amounts of research dollars, Marks, Rubels and Euros have flown into nuclear power science and engineering for the last 50 years, while almost nothing has been done for solar powered technology or alternative energy sources. Guess why. Right, you can't use solar power to build a huge f*cking bomb capable of killing tens of thousands of people. On the other hand, every nuclear power plant can and is being used to provide the stuff it takes to build those nasty weapsons of mass destruction (Plutonium). Who knows at what level of efficiency alternative energy sources would be *now* if all that money hadn't been wasted on nuclear power for the last half of a century. Makes you think... uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well, the only ones currently disrupting the flow of oil from Iraq are > UN sanctions, sanctions that don't do anything but put terrible burdens > of the civilians in Iraq, Saddam himself probably doesn't even notice it > and neither does his closest followers, if he needs money he will simply > take it from his own people and blame the West AFAIK, the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf isn't any less now than it was before the Gulf War. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating going to war right now to protect oil production. My original statements about going to war over oil was a more general one aimed at what seems to be a prevalent idea about the relative (un)importance of oil. True that sanctions won't overthrow his regime and they hurt the civilian population greatly (and I'm sure he is getting some amount of oil out of the country anyways). But the more oil you let him control the export of, the more opportunity he has to rebuild his war machine at an accelerated pace. So, the UN sanctions against Iraq aren't somethng that I fully support, yet I won't fully condemn them either. Saddam does need to be kept in as small a box as possible. He has shown that he is a direct threat to the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and he must never be allowed to regain that position ever again. Saddly, the Iraqi citizens happen to be caught in the same box and as always, the people on the bottom always suffer the most. > > I fully agree with you here Goy. Although my agenda wouldn be hidden,lol. > > But I truly think that the biggest reason behind the current push isbecause > > of Saddam's recent willingness to deal with extremists/terrorists wherehe > > shunned them in the past. Maybe Saddam couldn't threaten The West with a > > Nuclear bomb, but terrorists that he could give one to are anotherstory. I > > don't think they have done all their homework on Iraq yet, but I thinkit is > > being pushed anyways because of the support the President currently hasby > > the very fickle US population. I guess we'll have to see how theinspections

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > go... > > Well, I'd be surprised if anyone can come up with tangible evidence that > he is actively supporting fundamentalist muslim terrorists on a larger > scale, he's not a fundamentalist himself you know, not even sure if he's > really a muslim or if he's just using religion to further his political > agenda, remember, he was a western ally at some point and we thought it > was a good idea to support him in his war against the fundamentalists in > Iran, and waging war against other muslims is usually a big no-no

That is what I meant by not having done all their homework. If they want to remove Saddam because he is a terrorist threat, then they need to find and clearly show the links. I guess they will try to gather as much evidence as they can to make the case that he is still developing weapons of mass destruction and paint him as a threat from that angle. We'll just have to wait and see how the inspections play out. But if they can produce credible evidence that he is a threat again, I would support actions to remove the threat. > So while I'm sure he wouldn't mind supporting the Palestinians in their > fight against Israel, and quite possibly do so, I seriously doubt that > he would actively support someone like Bin Laden who if given the opp > would kick Saddam's ass, and Saddam knows this all too well Yes, I understand that in the past he hasn't supported fundamentalists (like you say, he even waged war against some). But who knows? Since the Gulf War, maybe Saddam and Bin Laden have adopted that "Enemy of my Enemy..." understanding. Stranger things have been known to happen... db

Dave Boyle wrote: > > AFAIK, the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf isn't any less now than it was > before the Gulf War. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating going to war > right now to protect oil production. My original statements about going to > war over oil was a more general one aimed at what seems to be a prevalent > idea about the relative (un)importance of oil. Oh I can well imagine nations going to war over oil in the future.... > True that sanctions won't overthrow his regime and they hurt the civilian > population greatly (and I'm sure he is getting some amount of oil out of the > country anyways). But the more oil you let him control the export of, the > more opportunity he has to rebuild his war machine at an accelerated pace. Hmm, well, there could still be a trade embargo limiting what he could import, AFAIK Iraq doesn't really have the heavy industry needed to manufacture tanks and planes in large numbers and that sort of weaponry isn't something that could be smuggled in easily either, hence there's no way he could rebuild his armies to their former glory without anyone noticing, furthermore, there are few nations that would be willing to provide him with said weapons even if he could afford to pay for them, none of them have borders to Iraq > So, the UN sanctions against Iraq aren't somethng that I fully support, yet > I won't fully condemn them either. Saddam does need to be kept in as small a > box as possible. He has shown that he is a direct threat to the flow of oil > from the Persian Gulf and he must never be allowed to regain that position > ever again. Saddly, the Iraqi citizens happen to be caught in the same box > and as always, the people on the bottom always suffer the most. And as far as I'm concerned we're we're only adding to their misery with these sanctions without gaining much, if anything, from it, but that's just me I guess

Quoted text (8 lines)

> That is what I meant by not having done all their homework. If they want to > remove Saddam because he is a terrorist threat, then they need to find and > clearly show the links. I guess they will try to gather as much evidence as > they can to make the case that he is still developing weapons of mass > destruction and paint him as a threat from that angle. We'll just have to > wait and see how the inspections play out. But if they can produce credible > evidence that he is a threat again, I would support actions to remove the > threat.

What I don't get, nobody really wants to overthrow Saddam, even Dubya has stepped down from saying that now, because there's no clear opposition in Iraq and there's really noone to replace the bastard if he was to be removed, so who would rule Iraq if the UN removes him from power ? I'd bet there be an uproar amongst muslims all over the world as soon as the first infidel soldier sets foot in Baghdad, this isn't just any old village we're talking about here, as I'm sure you're well aware of :-), so not only would we need muslims to throw him out of Baghdad, but we'd need to find "neutral" muslims to rule Iraq until some sort of home grown government could be put into place, and your guess is as good as mine as to how long that could take in a country which has few if any traditions for democracy by any standards, at least in recent times, and then we come back to the oil.....who gets to decide over the large oil reservoirs in Iraq ? And the there are the Kurds who flat out refuses to be a part of Iraq with or without Saddam, they want to be a free and independent nation.... Can you imagine the nightmare ? We could do it the old fashioned way of course, damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead and see what happens....my prediction would be that Al Qaeda's membership numbers would rise quite rapidly and that's something I *really* don't want to see happening as he will strike anywhere against anyone using whatever means he thinks is appropriate With Saddam you know what you're dealing with, a megalomaniac power monger who actually has something to lose, the absolute power over the lands he's ruling today, he would most likely only use weapons of mass destruction as a last resort of self defense, Bin Laden and his followers won't think twice about using a nuclear war head if it suits their plans and unlike Saddam he has a band of absolutely loyal followers willing to whatever he wants from them, whereas Saddam's soldier will surrender at first opportunity as they're not willing to die for him > Yes, I understand that in the past he hasn't supported fundamentalists (like > you say, he even waged war against some). But who knows? Since the Gulf War, > maybe Saddam and Bin Laden have adopted that "Enemy of my Enemy..." > understanding. Stranger things have been known to happen... Scary thought indeed ..... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Hmm, well, there could still be a trade embargo limiting what he could > import, AFAIK Iraq doesn't really have the heavy industry needed to > manufacture tanks and planes in large numbers and that sort of weaponry > isn't something that could be smuggled in easily either, hence there's > no way he could rebuild his armies to their former glory without anyone > noticing, furthermore, there are few nations that would be willing to > provide him with said weapons even if he could afford to pay for them, > none of them have borders to Iraq

I guess there are all different flavors of sanctions that could be imposed. But one thing to remember is the more complex they are, the more difficult it is to enforce them. And being the fundamentalist that I am, I like to attack a problem as close to the root as possible. So my first impulse is to cut of the cash inflow.

Quoted text (38 lines)

> What I don't get, nobody really wants to overthrow Saddam, even Dubya > has stepped down from saying that now, because there's no clear > opposition in Iraq and there's really noone to replace the bastard if he > was to be removed, so who would rule Iraq if the UN removes him from > power ? > > I'd bet there be an uproar amongst muslims all over the world as soon as > the first infidel soldier sets foot in Baghdad, this isn't just any old > village we're talking about here, as I'm sure you're well aware of :-), > so not only would we need muslims to throw him out of Baghdad, but we'd > need to find "neutral" muslims to rule Iraq until some sort of home > grown government could be put into place, and your guess is as good as > mine as to how long that could take in a country which has few if any > traditions for democracy by any standards, at least in recent times, and > then we come back to the oil.....who gets to decide over the large oil > reservoirs in Iraq ? > > And the there are the Kurds who flat out refuses to be a part of Iraq > with or without Saddam, they want to be a free and independent > nation.... > > Can you imagine the nightmare ? > > We could do it the old fashioned way of course, damn the torpedoes and > full steam ahead and see what happens....my prediction would be that Al > Qaeda's membership numbers would rise quite rapidly and that's something > I *really* don't want to see happening as he will strike anywhere > against anyone using whatever means he thinks is appropriate > > With Saddam you know what you're dealing with, a megalomaniac power > monger who actually has something to lose, the absolute power over the > lands he's ruling today, he would most likely only use weapons of mass > destruction as a last resort of self defense, Bin Laden and his > followers won't think twice about using a nuclear war head if it suits > their plans and unlike Saddam he has a band of absolutely loyal > followers willing to whatever he wants from them, whereas Saddam's > soldier will surrender at first opportunity as they're not willing to > die for him

You pretty much describe the situation as I see it also (thanks for saving me all that typing, heheh). Which is the reason why I said, "remove the threat." Depending on what our intelligence develops in Iraq, that may or may not mean removing Saddam from power. Obviously, the quick removal of Saddam would be the ideal outcome, but we may not be able to massage the situation to where it would be feasible to do that anytime soon. IMO it is still a long term goal. But we still need to keep the pressure up, keep working the problem, and make sure that we are prepared to take advantage of any opportunities that may present themselves. db

"Goy Larsen" > Oh I can well imagine nations going to war over oil in the future.... Wasn't one of Japan's motivations for war against the USA, oil? dave henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

Wars are bad for the economy....take good money and blow it up is not a recipe for making more money. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (15 lines)

> >I like your thinking, but unfortunately it will only >save your "country" money (ignoring the countless >number of human lives saved), and not actually >make any cash for those in power (who may or >may not have parents that own arms manufacturing >consortiums ;) > >Wars and the threat thereof are also very good >during election time... > >iksteh > > >

Then the demoncrats and the UN and the French, Germans and Russians are being outmanuevered by a stupid dumb bunny....not sure why some of them are so eager to make a person who is slapping them upside the head so often as a dummy. I would prefer my enemies to be smarter especially when they are beating me up. Put it simply for you, would you rather say you had been beat up by a 5 year old girl or a 250 pound giant of a man. Oddly enough most of the world prefers to claim a 5 year old girl did that. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (29 lines)

>But what if he IS stupid ;) > >Thanks, >Alex >"Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took >> geography classes during the Clinton administration. >> >> BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the place >:) >> >> It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referred to >> as stupid, whether the guy is or not. >> >> >> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> > >> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html >> > >> > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. :-) >> > >> > David G Fisher >> > >> > >> >> >

Careful now...its very unseemly for a leftist liberal freak to let his hair down too often like you just did. You are supposed to be the party that cares for the common man not the party that is full of elitists/totalitarians like yourself. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (28 lines)

>Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they were >just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing and pathetic, >and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until they are >educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject. Unfortunately, >most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinions should >be heard. > >As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in >Kosovo about that. > >Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden and other >top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a few >hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his poll numbers >the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, >watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack on U.S. >soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else >apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > >Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after 9/11 >to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. That would >of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would of made >it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush >unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil he and >his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock before he >took vice president nomination). > >David G Fisher >

Jason Moyer wrote: >>Yeah, and Nelson Mandela? > Of course, with recent statements like "The United States is a threat > to world peace" he might find himself back on it. =) Well, the United States *is* a threat to world peace, technically. After all they've got most of the nukes, arms, bombs, guns etc ;) Come to think of it, with all that stuff, the US is a threat to itself ;) Regards, Ruud

"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:24:02 GMT, Dave Boyle wrote: > > > > I think the greatest hope lies in Nuclear Fusion plants. The science is > > already known, so now it is essentially an engineering problem. Whichmeans

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > that it will be solved eventually. But the question is whether or not it > > While you might think highly of nuclear power plants, your > children (and mine and theirs) might beg to differ, since you > leave them with huge amounts of nuclear waste that simply > cannot be stored safely for the time span required until they > are harmless. > > Also, massive amounts of research dollars, Marks, Rubels and > Euros have flown into nuclear power science and engineering for > the last 50 years, while almost nothing has been done for solar > powered technology or alternative energy sources. Guess why. > > Right, you can't use solar power to build a huge f*cking bomb > capable of killing tens of thousands of people. On the other > hand, every nuclear power plant can and is being used to > provide the stuff it takes to build those nasty weapsons of > mass destruction (Plutonium). > > Who knows at what level of efficiency alternative energy > sources would be *now* if all that money hadn't been wasted on > nuclear power for the last half of a century.

I think you mis-snipped for your reply there Uwe. Fusion plants (Plasma Physics) don't use/produce radioactive materials nor can you make bombs from them either. As for Fission plants... Yeah, sure they have their drawbacks. The biggest IMO is the risk of accidents that can cause a lot of damage. And like you mention, storage of the depleted fuel needs to be encapsulated and stored essentially forever. Although you are incorrect in the statement that all nuclear fusion plants are capable of producing weapons grade materials. But when the time comes and petroleum runs out, if there are no other suitable replacements, I'm thinking everyone in the world will be thankful that so much money was "wasted" on nuclear technologies. I'm really a huge fan of Fission plants, but if Fusion isn't ready to go online by then, Fission plants will make up the bulk of the world's energy production. As for alternate energy... Even at 100% efficiency (which you will never reach), solar energy would require a *lot* of panels to make a significant dent in overall energy supply. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be developed, but you have to have realistic expectations of the long term potential and plan your budgets accordingly. All the other "alternate" energy sources (except geothermal) are simply indirect solar power, so why would you waste money developing any of them on a large scale. They may have specific locations where they are ideally suited to a specific application, but for large scale usage, you should target the most direct source. db

Lol, heya Doc, I was wondering what you'd think of this thread :) Good to see you around. John "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Wars are bad for the economy....take good money and blow it up is not > a recipe for making more money. > > PAPA DOC > > > > >I like your thinking, but unfortunately it will only > >save your "country" money (ignoring the countless > >number of human lives saved), and not actually > >make any cash for those in power (who may or > >may not have parents that own arms manufacturing > >consortiums ;) > > > >Wars and the threat thereof are also very good > >during election time... > > > >iksteh > > > > > > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5YVD9.93569$%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" > > Oh I can well imagine nations going to war over oil in the future.... > > Wasn't one of Japan's motivations for war against the USA, oil? > dave henrie > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

Yes and no; after they invaded and raped China, the US put an oil embargo on them(after the Chinese went the the League of Nations for assistance. The League did nothing. Sound familiar ? <g>) At the same time, their plans for the Dutch East Indies, etc.(oil), were being considered long before that. The embargo helped speed things along. John > >

"Dave Boyle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tlYD9.888342$[email hidden]... > Although you are incorrect in the statement that all nuclear fusion plants > are capable of producing weapons grade materials. Ooops, mistake there. That should read Nuclear Fission plants. Here's an interesting report on the subject: http://www.cnfc.or.jp/e/proposal/reports/rep0105e.html db

On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:55:22 GMT, Doug Milliken wrote: > > > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was > > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few > > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather). > I envy you! While I do most in-town travelling by bike whenever > possible, a bloodily stupid and expensive German railroad > network leaves me with no alternative but to commute by car > (about 50km each way). I try to work from home when possible, > but riding the bike is more fun even in bad weather (there are > clothes for that, you know ;-)

I've got the clothes, but not the studded tires (we just had an ice storm...) The main problem with riding here in bad/cold weather is that the SUV[*] drivers aren't looking for cyclists and it gets pretty scary mixing with motor vehicle traffic. [*] stupid useless vehicle

Lol. Amazing. Bush ended up agreeing to a resolution which was nothing like the nonsense he was talking about a few months ago. The French, Germans and Russians slapped him around. How the hell do people manage to completely rewrite history? David G Fisher "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Then the demoncrats and the UN and the French, Germans and Russians > are being outmanuevered by a stupid dumb bunny....not sure why some of > them are so eager to make a person who is slapping them upside the > head so often as a dummy. I would prefer my enemies to be smarter > especially when they are beating me up. > > Put it simply for you, would you rather say you had been beat up by a > 5 year old girl or a 250 pound giant of a man. Oddly enough most of > the world prefers to claim a 5 year old girl did that. > > PAPA DOC > > >But what if he IS stupid ;) > > > >Thanks, > >Alex > >"Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > >> geography classes during the Clinton administration. > >> > >> BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the

place > >:) > >> > >> It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always referredto

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >> as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > >> > >> > >> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:[email hidden]... > >> > > >> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > >> > > >> > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing.

:-)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> > > >> > David G Fisher > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >

I can't believe there are still people who get an erection from calling someone a "leftist" or a "liberal". I'm neither, btw. I have a feeling you can't even find the north pole on a globe. David G Fisher "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Careful now...its very unseemly for a leftist liberal freak to let his > hair down too often like you just did. You are supposed to be the > party that cares for the common man not the party that is full of > elitists/totalitarians like yourself. > > PAPA DOC > > >Then not only were Americans more racist and sexist in the 40's, they

were > >just as dumb as they are today. Those results are embarrassing andpathetic, > >and people who are so ignorant should keep their mouths shut until theyare > >educated enough to give an informed opinion about a subject.Unfortunately, > >most people I see think that just because they exist, their opinionsshould > >be heard. > > > >As for Clinton/Gore being touch-feely, you may want to ask the people in > >Kosovo about that. > > > >Gore would of put 40,000 troops into Afganistan to find bin Laden andother > >top al Qaeda leaders, and maintain the peace afterwards, instead of a few > >hundred like Bush. Bush took the approach that would keep his pollnumbers > >the highest, but now that the "war against terrorism" has gone nowhere, > >watch Bush's poll numbers plummet after the next terrorist attack on U.S. > >soil (we don't notice or care about attacks that happen anywhere else > >apparently) led by bin Laden and al Qaeda. > > > >Gore also would of used the goodwill in this country that existed after9/11 > >to ask Americans to begin weaning ourselves off of mideast oil. Thatwould > >of been extremely smart, wise, and showed true leadership. It would ofmade > >it easier to make decisions regarding the mideast in the future. Bush > >unfortunately never did that because we all know how tied into oil he and > >his administration is (Cheney sold $40,000,000 worth of oil stock beforehe > >took vice president nomination). > > > >David G Fisher > > >

"GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:arj148$j7ces$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "David G Fisher" wrote > > > > I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anything to > me. > > Yes, David, you are a liberal. I'm a conservative. I'm convinced this > balance is what makes this country work.

No, I'm not. The country would work 100 times better if people approached issues logically and used critical thinking, instead of taking sides like football fans. > > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. > > > > If it does, so what? We are ........................ > > ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat > > production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste a disgusting > > amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to beproud > of > > there. > > If we're growing enough crops to waste, how can you say we're devoting too > much land to cattle ranching? The two can and do occur at the same time. Why would you think they can't? >Most of the chemicals for farming are now > biodegradable, so they shouldn't be polluting our environment. >In that > respect, we're in much better shape now than we were in the 40's and 50's.I > think that's something to be proud of. What? I give up. All I can say is do research and talk to some ecologists. Here's an article about the growing movement by farmers towards organic farming which might interest you. http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/810693.asp David G Fisher

"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:54:22 GMT, Ruud van Gaal wrote: > > [snip snip] > > > The human race still has a long way > > to go before they can call themselves an 'intelligent' race. > > > > Dingding! Ishmael time! Don't talk of the human race when you > actually talk about a single culture gone horribly wrong. There > are very many intelligent people living on this planet, not > overrunning it, not exploiting it and poisoning the earth, not > replicating like rats and also not waging constant war on each > other. > > Ok, they've become rare and hard to find, but that's because > our culture has overrun them, assimilated them or outright > killed them whereever these two worldviews met. > > Cheers, > > uwe > > PS: Read "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn. You will find it most > interesting.

Already read it. Great book. David G Fisher

"Mikkel Gram-Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ddd4dcc$0$11133$[email hidden]... > and it gets better ;) > >http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12391626&method=full& > siteid=50143 Absolutely pathetic. David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Lol. > > Amazing. > > Bush ended up agreeing to a resolution which was nothing like the nonsense > he was talking about a few months ago. The French, Germans and Russians > slapped him around. How the hell do people manage to completely rewrite > history? > > David G Fisher >

Old negotiating trick David. Blather and Shout about tough tough terms...then slowly back away as the real target gets near. Demos keep saying how DUMB W is. If I was a Republican, I'd be smirking quite a-bit. Patton or Hannibal or somebody said along time ago... NEVER underestimate your opponent. The Republicans did that with Clinton during his first election. The demos have been guilty of it ever since Florida. (who made the BONE-head move there?) {hint: Gore could have gotten the recount he wanted if he'd not tried to CHERRY PICK 3 demo counties} Oh and about Gore sending 40k troops to Afghanistan? Naw...more like a couple of Cruise missles and then he'd announce: "That'll teach em to mess with the USA." dave henrie

Quoted text (28 lines)

> "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Then the demoncrats and the UN and the French, Germans and Russians > > are being outmanuevered by a stupid dumb bunny....not sure why some of > > them are so eager to make a person who is slapping them upside the > > head so often as a dummy. I would prefer my enemies to be smarter > > especially when they are beating me up. > > > > Put it simply for you, would you rather say you had been beat up by a > > 5 year old girl or a 250 pound giant of a man. Oddly enough most of > > the world prefers to claim a 5 year old girl did that. > > > > PAPA DOC > > > > >But what if he IS stupid ;) > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Alex > > >"Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >news:[email hidden]... > > >> You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and took > > >> geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > >> > > >> BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the > place > > >:) > > >> > > >> It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always

referred

Quoted text (21 lines)

> to > > >> as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > >> > > >> > > >> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >> news:[email hidden]... > > >> > > > >> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > >> > > > >> > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's doing. > :-) > > >> > > > >> > David G Fisher > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

No, what happened was 150 countries told him he was wrong, and he ended up accepting what France, Russia, and China said they'd agree to from the beginning. All the supposed damning evidence amounted to nothing. If they had just provided it, then it would have been easy to get what they wanted. The last few months have been embarrassing. Bush has won nothing. When 150 countries stand up against you, your a loser. As for Afghanistan, Bush has lost there too. He didn't want to use American troops on the ground (had the Alliance do all the dirty work and take all the casualties so his approval rating would stay high). The Taliban is gaining control again. Al Qaeda is doing just fine, bin Laden and almost all of his top people are alive and well, and it's just a matter of time before we get hit in a big way again. The mindless flag waving support for Bush will disappear because people will suddenly start losing confidence in his supposed leadership in this "war against terrorism". The ONLY reason Bush has support right now is because of 9/11. ANY president would be receiving support like he has after what happened. It's wrong, but that's the way people are unfortunately. They can only focus on the most dramatic issues. He has nothing to smirk about, unless you think that taking political advantage of a terrorist attack in NYC is a good thing. Nothing to smirk about here either, especially since the changes were bought by the oil, utility, and coal industries. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/clean.air.ap/index.html David G Fisher "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UdeE9.102372$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Lol. > > > > Amazing. > > > > Bush ended up agreeing to a resolution which was nothing like the

nonsense

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > he was talking about a few months ago. The French, Germans and Russians > > slapped him around. How the hell do people manage to completely rewrite > > history? > > > > David G Fisher > > > Old negotiating trick David. Blather and Shout about tough tough > terms...then slowly back away as the real target gets near. > Demos keep saying how DUMB W is. If I was a Republican, I'd be

smirking > quite a-bit. Patton or Hannibal or somebody said along time ago... > > NEVER underestimate your opponent. > The Republicans did that with Clinton during his first election. Thedemos > have been guilty of it ever since Florida. (who made the BONE-head move > there?) {hint: Gore could have gotten the recount he wanted if he'd not > tried to CHERRY PICK 3 demo counties} > Oh and about Gore sending 40k troops to Afghanistan? Naw...more like a > couple of Cruise missles and then he'd announce: "That'll teach em tomess

Quoted text (26 lines)

> with the USA." > dave henrie > > > > > "Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Then the demoncrats and the UN and the French, Germans and Russians > > > are being outmanuevered by a stupid dumb bunny....not sure why some of > > > them are so eager to make a person who is slapping them upside the > > > head so often as a dummy. I would prefer my enemies to be smarter > > > especially when they are beating me up. > > > > > > Put it simply for you, would you rather say you had been beat up by a > > > 5 year old girl or a 250 pound giant of a man. Oddly enough most of > > > the world prefers to claim a 5 year old girl did that. > > > > > > PAPA DOC > > > > > > >But what if he IS stupid ;) > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Alex > > > >"Phillip Malphrus Jr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > >news:[email hidden]... > > > >> You know, all those kids referred to in that passage grew up and

took

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > >> geography classes during the Clinton administration. > > > >> > > > >> BTW, I think Bush knows exactly what he's doing and I can find the > > place > > > >:) > > > >> > > > >> It's funny how every Republican in the last 20 years is always > referred > > to > > > >> as stupid, whether the guy is or not. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > >> news:[email hidden]... > > > >> > > > > >> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/index.html > > > >> > > > > >> > These are the people that think George Bush knows what he's

doing.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > :-) > > > >> > > > > >> > David G Fisher > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02 > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:arj148$j7ces$[email hidden]... > > "David G Fisher" wrote > > > > > > I'm not a conservative or a liberal. Those words don't mean anythingto

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > me. > > > > Yes, David, you are a liberal. I'm a conservative. I'm convinced this > > balance is what makes this country work. > > No, I'm not. The country would work 100 times better if people approached > issues logically and used critical thinking, instead of taking sides like > football fans. > > > > > The US grows more food and more variety than any other country. > > > > > > If it does, so what? We are ........................ > > > ruining our land by devoting too much of it to cattle farming for meat > > > production, and polluting it with chemicals. We also waste a

disgusting > > > amount of food, and are the fattest country on earth. Nothing to be > proud > > of > > > there. > > > > If we're growing enough crops to waste, how can you say we're devotingtoo

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > much land to cattle ranching? > > The two can and do occur at the same time. Why would you think they can't? > > >Most of the chemicals for farming are now > > biodegradable, so they shouldn't be polluting our environment. > >In that > > respect, we're in much better shape now than we were in the 40's and

50's.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I > > think that's something to be proud of. > > What? I give up. All I can say is do research and talk to some ecologists. > Here's an article about the growing movement by farmers towards organic > farming which might interest you. http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/810693.asp > > David G Fisher

Fwiw, that "growing movement" is so overblown in the media, it's amazing. My family farms Dave; has, on the same farm, for generations. My great-great-grandparents on my mother's side settled it, off the boat from Germany. Chemicals, etc. that you mention aren't the threat. Subdivisions eating up prime land and corporate farming are a much larger problem. Subdivisions; that's part of life. People have to live somewhere. Corporate farming, end of the family farm; watch out. John > >

Careful David I have lurked in this group for quite sometime, I have seen the weapons you bring to battle of wits and does the word defenseless ring any bells...? >I can't believe there are still people who get an erection from calling >someone a "leftist" or a "liberal". >I'm neither, btw. >I have a feeling you can't even find the north pole on a globe. >David G Fisher You shouldnt be looking at my crotch David, Im not that kind of guy. I definitely am a libetarian with a swift streak of conservative in me. I am always amused that while conservatives have no problems admitting their politics, leftist/totalitarians never want to be labeled as such. I guess I cannot blame you...after all who would buy your schitck (sp?) if they knew that you loathed them and thought that you knew better than they what was good for them. No better for you to decieve everyone then spring your totalitarian bullshit on people. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

"John Pancoast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Fwiw, that "growing movement" is so overblown in the media, it'samazing. > My family farms Dave; has, on the same farm, for generations. My > great-great-grandparents on my mother's side settled it, off the boat from > Germany. > Chemicals, etc. that you mention aren't the threat. Subdivisions eatingup > prime land and corporate farming are a much larger problem. > Subdivisions; that's part of life. People have to live somewhere. > Corporate farming, end of the family farm; watch out. Another perfect example of the media not knowing what they are talking about, and everybody taking their ill-informed reports as gospel... :-)

PAPADOC wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > Careful David I have lurked in this group for quite sometime, I have > seen the weapons you bring to battle of wits and does the word > defenseless ring any bells...? > > >I can't believe there are still people who get an erection from calling > >someone a "leftist" or a "liberal". > >I'm neither, btw. > >I have a feeling you can't even find the north pole on a globe. > >David G Fisher > > You shouldnt be looking at my crotch David, Im not that kind of guy. I > definitely am a libetarian with a swift streak of conservative in me. > I am always amused that while conservatives have no problems admitting > their politics, leftist/totalitarians never want to be labeled as > such. I guess I cannot blame you...after all who would buy your > schitck (sp?) if they knew that you loathed them and thought that you > knew better than they what was good for them. No better for you to > decieve everyone then spring your totalitarian bullshit on people.

Why do I get the impression that anyone with a differing view on politics to you is a 'leftist/totalitarian' as far as you are concerned?

Nope I have differed with conservatives before but not around here...most of you are college age...unfortunately many have been indoctrinated with the predominate viewpoint of the professors who tend to be lovers of Marx and admireres of anything socialist. Unless you actively fight the nonsense on campus you end up bringing some of that nonsense back with you. You can guess how much fun I had on campus....I dont take shit from Socialist professors. But in the end they won and I stopped going...the straw that broke the back was being forced to write an essay in English Lit about poor families and the oppression they felt from business. Or some such, its been 30 years.. PAPA DOC >Why do I get the impression that anyone with a differing view on >politics to you is a 'leftist/totalitarian' as far as you are concerned? Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

hehe Being old enough to remember the Carter administration and its predictions of oil for the year 2000 I find UT amusing...ooh someone get me a helmet the sky is falling. PAPA DOC >Ooohh... a _damn_ good read, that. Shows exactly why middle eastern >oil will be infinitely _more_ important in the near future for the >western world, especially the U.S. > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

So then the American public are idiots for loving Bush so much..? Btw does Gore enjoy being beaten by a dummy..??? Gore had a booming economy and a record...why did he lose..? PAPA DOC >Gore has more brains in one finger tip than Dubya has in his actual brain. >That of course doesn't actually make sense, but you get what I mean! > >Marc Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

PAPADOC wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Nope I have differed with conservatives before but not around > here...most of you are college age...unfortunately many have been > indoctrinated with the predominate viewpoint of the professors who > tend to be lovers of Marx and admireres of anything socialist. > > Unless you actively fight the nonsense on campus you end up bringing > some of that nonsense back with you. You can guess how much fun I had > on campus....I dont take shit from Socialist professors. But in the > end they won and I stopped going...the straw that broke the back was > being forced to write an essay in English Lit about poor families and > the oppression they felt from business. Or some such, its been 30 > years..

Yeah, I know what you mean, unfortunately. Gerry

So this means oil supply is and will remain unlimited? Please enlighten us. Timescales will always be off, but the principle remains and will hit us hard sometime. But why should we care anyway? This whole Indian "people don't inherit the earth from their parents but borrow it from their children" bullshit is so oldfashioned and leftwing, isn't it? :) JoH On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:34:40 GMT, PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>hehe Being old enough to remember the Carter administration and its >predictions of oil for the year 2000 I find UT amusing...ooh someone >get me a helmet the sky is falling. > >PAPA DOC > >>Ooohh... a _damn_ good read, that. Shows exactly why middle eastern >>oil will be infinitely _more_ important in the near future for the >>western world, especially the U.S. >> > >Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 >www.papadoc.net >Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the >10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in >more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:05:49 +0000, Gerry Aitken wrote: > PAPADOC wrote: >> >> Nope I have differed with conservatives before but not around >> here...most of you are college age...unfortunately many have been >> indoctrinated with the predominate viewpoint of the professors who >> tend to be lovers of Marx and admireres of anything socialist. So who indoctrinated you? College age, LOL. You wish! -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 04:13:14 GMT, Dave Boyle wrote: > > I think you mis-snipped for your reply there Uwe. Fusion plants (Plasma > Physics) don't use/produce radioactive materials nor can you make bombs from > them either. > Sadly, controlled fusion is still a long way off. And yes, you can use fusion for bombs... H-bomb, anyone? > Even at 100% efficiency (which you will never reach), solar energy would > require a *lot* of panels to make a significant dent in overall energy > supply. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be developed, but you have to have > realistic expectations of the long term potential and plan your budgets I think we should check all options before we bet our collective arses on fission plants. I don't know if you were around in may 1986 (?) when the one Russia blew up, it was quite scary here in Europe. I'll state my point again: if all that money would have flown into the science of alternate energy sources (or even just trying to *reduce* energy consumption for a change and not increasing it all the time), we'd probably a lot further on the road to a fission free culture. This stuff is just too dangerous to let your kids play with it (quite figuratively speaking). Cheers & thanks for your clarification, Uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:59:49 -0500, David G Fisher wrote: > > Already read it. Great book. > > David G Fisher coolk, I'm not alone any more in RAS ;-) hoover -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Careful David I have lurked in this group for quite sometime, I have > seen the weapons you bring to battle of wits and does the word > defenseless ring any bells...? > > >I can't believe there are still people who get an erection from calling > >someone a "leftist" or a "liberal". > >I'm neither, btw. > >I have a feeling you can't even find the north pole on a globe. > >David G Fisher > > You shouldnt be looking at my crotch David, Im not that kind of guy. I > definitely am a libetarian with a swift streak of conservative in me. > I am always amused that while conservatives have no problems admitting > their politics, leftist/totalitarians never want to be labeled as > such. I guess I cannot blame you...after all who would buy your > schitck (sp?) if they knew that you loathed them and thought that you > knew better than they what was good for them. No better for you to > decieve everyone then spring your totalitarian bullshit on people. > > PAPA DOC > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 > www.papadoc.net > Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the > 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in > more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Better luck next time Opey. David G Fisher

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:27:10 GMT, PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote: >Nope I have differed with conservatives before but not around >here...most of you are college age...unfortunately many have been >indoctrinated with the predominate viewpoint of the professors who >tend to be lovers of Marx and admireres of anything socialist. So what you're saying is that intelligent and/or wise men tend to be Socialists? I need to start rethinking my political views I guess. Being a Libertarian must make me seem a mental lightweight to my peers. Jason

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:34:16 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Drag queens Kristal Snow and Hagatha Christie, from the Lower East Side, >were equally sure.....pointing at Norway." > >Now there's a fine representation of the country. You know, I bet if there were a nationwide poll done, drag queens would score better than non-drag queens on it. For that matter, I also suspect you'd find a higher average IQ, and a higher average education level. I can only assume if you're stereotyping "social deviants" that you don't regularly interact with any. Besides, one of my best friends who happens to be a crossdresser (and college graduate, etc) has been working on Capitol Hill with Mr. Ridge the last 9 to 10 months. =) Jason

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:34:45 +0100, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote: >I think we should check all options before we bet our >collective arses on fission plants. I don't know if you were >around in may 1986 (?) when the one Russia blew up, it was >quite scary here in Europe. I grew up a bit east of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island was not a happy event. Jason

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:34:45 +0100, Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 04:13:14 GMT, Dave Boyle wrote: >> >> I think you mis-snipped for your reply there Uwe. Fusion plants (Plasma >> Physics) don't use/produce radioactive materials nor can you make bombs from >> them either. >> >Sadly, controlled fusion is still a long way off. And yes, you >can use fusion for bombs... H-bomb, anyone?

That's hardly "controlled" fusion :) But more importantly: the "it could be used for something bad" philosophy blocks more or less ANY development so I don't think that's a very good approach. And not realistic either: history time after time shows that what CAN be done, WILL be done.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Even at 100% efficiency (which you will never reach), solar energy would >> require a *lot* of panels to make a significant dent in overall energy >> supply. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be developed, but you have to have >> realistic expectations of the long term potential and plan your budgets >I think we should check all options before we bet our >collective arses on fission plants. I don't know if you were >around in may 1986 (?) when the one Russia blew up, it was >quite scary here in Europe.

Well, *I* was around. Still glowing ;)

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I'll state my point again: if all that money would have flown >into the science of alternate energy sources (or even just >trying to *reduce* energy consumption for a change and not >increasing it all the time), we'd probably a lot further on the >road to a fission free culture. This stuff is just too >dangerous to let your kids play with it (quite figuratively >speaking).

Realistically spoken, it may be the only option. Lessening energy requirements in the future is only a dream, it WON'T happen. Certainly not as long as there is an imbalance between developed and underdeveloped countries/areas. So more energy really is the only way to go, whether we like it or not. The world depends so much on an abundance of oil, that an alternative would have to be extremely efficient. You can't just patch up the "energy gap" with a collection of environmental friendly alternative sources, no matter how much we would like to. And when you're looking for a powerful, efficient energy source you will have to go towards something nuclear. Chemical reactions can just produce so much energy and not more. If you want to make a big step forward, nuclear energy (fission/fusion) is physically speaking the only alternative? (matter/antimatter combination would be even better <g>) Fusion is the only longterm hope I guess... It might take a lot more time to get it right. All the more reason to work on it NOW so it can get in production when the oil reserves start to dry up. JoH

I wish no ill will to people who have a few wires crossed as long as they're not hurting anyone, but no, I don't associate with them on a regular basis. I hope these 2, pointing to Norway instead of Iraq, don't have college educations. That would be sad. -- Slot Tweaks & Reviews www.slottweak.com "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:34:16 -0500, "GTX_SlotCar" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >"Drag queens Kristal Snow and Hagatha Christie, from the Lower East Side, > >were equally sure.....pointing at Norway." > > > >Now there's a fine representation of the country. > > You know, I bet if there were a nationwide poll done, drag queens > would score better than non-drag queens on it. For that matter, I > also suspect you'd find a higher average IQ, and a higher average > education level. > > I can only assume if you're stereotyping "social deviants" that you > don't regularly interact with any. Besides, one of my best friends > who happens to be a crossdresser (and college graduate, etc) has been > working on Capitol Hill with Mr. Ridge the last 9 to 10 months. =) > > Jason

"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sadly, controlled fusion is still a long way off. And yes, you > can use fusion for bombs... H-bomb, anyone? While technically, you can make a bomb out of Hydrogen isotopes, that's not what Hydrogen bombs are. The way I understand them, "Hydrogen" bombs are a fissionable core surrounded by Lithium and encased in another fissionable shell. When the bomb explodes, the fission reactions change the Lithium into Hydrogen isotopes on the spot which then fuse under the heat/pressure of the fission chain reaction, thus releasing a lot more energy. This is why they are sometimes called fission-fusion bombs. So, I guess I should have said that the materials that would be used/created in a Fusion power plant are not the materials used to make bombs.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'll state my point again: if all that money would have flown > into the science of alternate energy sources (or even just > trying to *reduce* energy consumption for a change and not > increasing it all the time), we'd probably a lot further on the > road to a fission free culture. This stuff is just too > dangerous to let your kids play with it (quite figuratively > speaking).

Would we be much better off if Solar panels were much more efficient? Heck Yeah! But I remain skeptical as to whether (even under optimal efficiency) it will ever be feasible to produce the bulk of the world's growing energy usage with Solar panels. I guess if I had a magic slider that controlled the research efforts between Solar and Fusion, I'd probably set it somewhere in the range of 20% Solar : 80% Fusion. But that's just me... db

Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:05:49 +0000, Gerry Aitken wrote: > > PAPADOC wrote: > >> > >> Nope I have differed with conservatives before but not around > >> here...most of you are college age...unfortunately many have been > >> indoctrinated with the predominate viewpoint of the professors who > >> tend to be lovers of Marx and admireres of anything socialist. > > So who indoctrinated you? College age, LOL. You wish!

Some of us take that as a compliment :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sadly, controlled fusion is still a long way off. I just found this article on a possible (very rough) time horizon for Fusion: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021125-035622-1734r So, yes, 35 years is a relatively long way off. But I would still be funding the hell outta all of the experiments to move it along as fast as possible ;). db

Hmm....not sure certainly I was driven by my dad to read everything I could get my hands on regarding philosophy, but he had been schooled in Paris and he had a knack for being able to argue any political theory. It wasnt till much later in life after I had independently discovered Ayn Rand that I found out he was a big fan of hers. >So who indoctrinated you? College age, LOL. You wish! I read Atlas Shrugged and thru the entire book found myself saying RIGHT, YEA.....no shit....oh my you thought of that too....I then read everything else by her. Then I read Marx Das Capital to see if I disagreed with him as much as she did....I did. Much much later in life I discovered that both my Mom and Dad had flirted with Socialist nonsense till my Dad discovered Anarchy...when they were both very young. Mom once told me the old saw about "If at 18 you arent a socialist you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 30 you have no brains" PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

I dont actually consider Professors to be either very wise or intelligent as a rule....usually my experience has shown that they just are failures at life and find refuge as Professors from the rigors of life. Libertarians are generally pretty damn smart....hehe. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (7 lines)

>So what you're saying is that intelligent and/or wise men tend to be >Socialists? > >I need to start rethinking my political views I guess. Being a >Libertarian must make me seem a mental lightweight to my peers. > >Jason

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Ah Dave good response...limit the verbage so that you limit your exposure as a dumb ass. PAPA DOC > >Better luck next time Opey. > >David G Fisher > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Nope it wont remain unlimited...it will begin to become more and more expensive...oh my...sky is falling. But thats a pretty far point in the future....dont sell your shares in any oil companies just yet...matter of fact your Great Grand Children will prosper from them. When its cost rises past the point of others technologies those technologies will take over....oh my god...is that how it works. Just as coal took over from wood and oil took over from coal..the world will somehow muddle through unless the Eco Freaks who hate humans fuck it up. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (12 lines)

>So this means oil supply is and will remain unlimited? Please >enlighten us. > >Timescales will always be off, but the principle remains and will hit >us hard sometime. > >But why should we care anyway? This whole Indian "people don't inherit >the earth from their parents but borrow it from their children" >bullshit is so oldfashioned and leftwing, isn't it? :) > >JoH >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Gee Dave those negotiating tactics are a real puzzle to you arent they. >No, what happened was 150 countries told him he was wrong, and he ended up >accepting what France, Russia, and China said they'd agree to from the >beginning. No what they wanted was no inspections or inspections with no teeth in them....what they got were inspections that virtually guarantee that Saddam violates them. Not sure if you noticed but we have been building up an awful lot of forces....awful lot. War has already started with Spec Ops in the North and South. >All the supposed damning evidence amounted to nothing. If they had just >provided it, then it would have been easy to get what they wanted. Thats odd I saw alot of damning evidence....why didnt you? >The last few months have been embarrassing. Bush has won nothing. When 150 >countries stand up against you, your a loser. Yup he sure is embarrassed...so am I. My only problem with Bush is he may not be moving fast enough to eliminate the threats.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>As for Afghanistan, Bush has lost there too. He didn't want to use American >troops on the ground (had the Alliance do all the dirty work and take all >the casualties so his approval rating would stay high). The Taliban is >gaining control again. Al Qaeda is doing just fine, bin Laden and almost all >of his top people are alive and well, and it's just a matter of time before >we get hit in a big way again. The mindless flag waving support for Bush >will disappear because people will suddenly start losing confidence in his >supposed leadership in this "war against terrorism".

Gosh we lost already..?? I was under the impression that this war was gonna be a long one...but after a year you say we have lost..? Wow you must be a motherfucker of a strategist....are you a General? >David G Fisher > Dave do you see Black Helicopters flying around your house often...? PAPA DOC

Ah but your view shows how immature and thoughtless you are. Were you to consider that the world runs on oil and that were it to stop many many lives would come to an abrupt end you might want to reconsider that bit of Elitist Leftist tripe. Or do you think all those tractors that produce all that food run on your hopes and good wishes, do you think that all that heat and all those water purification plants run on your dreams and so many more things that Im sure you can imagine if you would take the time. PAPA DOC >So you're saying that oil and money are more important than human >life? Why not legalize armed robbery, it's as ethically sound as a >war for oil. > >Jason

I would like to restate my belief that many people here are of college age...the statement below is definitely High School or Middle School material...though even then I knew people that knew how the world worked. PAPA DOC > >If so, then might the economic system itself be *wrong*?

Please make sure that your genes dont spill into the general population pool. PAPA DOC > >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html > >Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good.

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I would like to restate my belief that many people here are of college > age...the statement below is definitely High School or Middle School > material...though even then I knew people that knew how the world > worked. > > PAPA DOC > > >>If so, then might the economic system itself be *wrong*? > >

Might does not make right my friend. In fact, might is *rarely* right. Who are we to tell any other nation what they can/cannot have? If you wanna stop terrorism, stop f*cking around in other people's countries. Any economic system that necessitates exploiting your fellow human being & destroying the planet we live on in order to survive is worthless. Thanx for the age compliment. :-) My oldest step kid just turned 30 last week. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Please make sure that your genes dont spill into the general > population pool. > > PAPA DOC > > >>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html >> >>Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. > >

I sure wouldn't let them mingle with you rightwing fascists. :-P Care to state any facts, or we just throwing names & insults? -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote: > > Please make sure that your genes dont spill into the general > > population pool. > > > > PAPA DOC > > > > > >>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/warfiction.html > >> > >>Actually the whole http://www.whatreallyhappened.com site is good. > > > > > > I sure wouldn't let them mingle with you rightwing fascists. :-P > > Care to state any facts, or we just throwing names & insults? > > -- > > Fester > > There is a better way, for the enlightened. > http://www.racun.tk/ >

Uncle Fester, I'd give up on him. There's just no hope for some of these young pups. ;O) Elrikk

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:24:55 -0500, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote: >Thanx for the age compliment. :-) My oldest step kid just turned 30 >last week. Jesus. My daughter turns 3 in a few months and I feel old already. =) Jason

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 03:58:55 GMT, Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ah but your view shows how immature and thoughtless you are. Were you >to consider that the world runs on oil and that were it to stop many >many lives would come to an abrupt end you might want to reconsider >that bit of Elitist Leftist tripe. "He's just a right wing pigeon from outer space. Sent here to destroy the human race. He don't give a damn about you or me. He just buys guns and watches TV." -The Dead Milkmen > Or do you think all those tractors >that produce all that food run on your hopes and good wishes We seemed to be doing fine in this country with mules and plows. In fact, I bet if you had grown up without oil you'd not only still be alive, but be a lot more interesting. You probably would have developed...what's the word...character? > do you >think that all that heat and all those water purification plants run >on your dreams and so many more things that Im sure you can imagine if >you would take the time. For 29,800 years of the 30,000 years man has been on this planet, we've survived and flourished without needing oil. Give us another hundred years and I guess we'll be surviving without it again. Jason

Uncle Fester wrote: > Any economic system that necessitates exploiting your fellow human being > & destroying the planet we live on in order to survive is worthless. An amusing, somewhat related link I came across this morning: http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/movies/uncommercials/buy_nothing_day/usa_med.html -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

"Uncle Fester" > Any economic system that necessitates exploiting your fellow human being > & destroying the planet we live on in order to survive is worthless. > I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. dave henrie

"Uncle Fester" I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. dave henrie

On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:19:28 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Uncle Fester" >> Any economic system that necessitates exploiting your fellow human being >> & destroying the planet we live on in order to survive is worthless. >> > I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. >dave henrie You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes... Jason

Jason Moyer wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:24:55 -0500, Uncle Fester > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>Thanx for the age compliment. :-) My oldest step kid just turned 30 >>last week. > > > Jesus. My daughter turns 3 in a few months and I feel old already. =) > > Jason

LOL!! Enjoy her now. In no time she'll be a teenager. And much more difficult to tolerate. :-P -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

In article <KyYC9.67947$P31.35296@rwcrnsc53>, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes: >The republicans are just as ridiculous as the Democrats. Greed drives >Washington, not some desire to serve human kind..... >(that reminds me of a story about a cookbook!!) :0 Twilight zone...? <g> Great episode! Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank:+6.19 N2002 Rank:+18.91 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

hehe...Dont let ignorance get in the way of stupidity. >Might does not make right my friend. In fact, might is *rarely* right. Thats a deep thought there....woo hoo. > Who are we to tell any other nation what they can/cannot have? If >you wanna stop terrorism, stop f*cking around in other people's countries. Well have you read the list of items that pisses off Bin Laden...? Pretty hard to avoid pissing him off....since he is still pissed off about the loss of Spain by the Muslims back before Columbus sailed the atlantic. And the Religion of Peace is busy killling one and all everywhere they can get their hands on them....not sure but when the religion of peace came and hit me that means the Religion of Peace is the enemy. >Any economic system that necessitates exploiting your fellow human being >& destroying the planet we live on in order to survive is worthless. Yup thats why Socialism and Communism have died...and why Islam's version of the Religious state is on the way out. >Thanx for the age compliment. :-) My oldest step kid just turned 30 >last week. Then idiocy comes naturally to you. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Oh me a Marxist fool.... PAPA DOC > >You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A >self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes... > >Jason Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Alrighty then you fool immediatly begin living your dream...stop using your computer since its the height of our industrial society, immediatly stop using electricity, immediatly stop going to the grocery store to buy your food, immediately STOP bringing anyone you know to any doctors office to be treated with any medications developed... What a fucking child....go live in the forest for 20 years and come back and tell us using sign language how well you do. And stop singing stupid dumb ass lyrics to me...I grew up during the height of stupid ass lyrics nothing that anyone under 40 years old has produced is gonna impress me PAPA DOC >For 29,800 years of the 30,000 years man has been on this planet, >we've survived and flourished without needing oil. Give us another >hundred years and I guess we'll be surviving without it again. > >Jason Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

hehe..Fester I dont argue with Flat Earthers and I dont argue with communists...if the last 60 years of brilliant communism havent convinced you of your stupidity then nothing I will say will have any affect. But I love your website....I will visit it often to see how the truly cluess get by in life. Some precious quotes. 2. We want the immediate removal of occupying police forces from our communities. The racist brutality, murder, and repression of our communities must stop now 9. We want direct democracy, the right of every individual to participate in the organization of their own community and their own lives. Representation is nothing but the denial of representation. > >Care to state any facts, or we just throwing names & insults? muahaha....Anyone stupid enough to believe that tripe is too stupid to do anything with but make fun of.... PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:49:34 GMT, PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote: >Oh me a Marxist fool.... Oh there you go, bringing class into it again. Jason

Yea but what is an elitist idiot like you doing slumming around with the prolotariat...?? PAPA DOC >Oh there you go, bringing class into it again. > >Jason

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:29:20 -0500, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote: >I sure wouldn't let them mingle with you rightwing fascists. :-P He and his fascist pals are just bitter because liberals get laid. =) See also: Monicagate. Jason

PAPADOC wrote: > But I love your website....I will visit it often to see how the truly > cluess get by in life. Sorry, it's not my site. I just agree with the majority of what's stated there. We do still have that right, don't we? > Some precious quotes. > > 2. We want the immediate removal of occupying police forces from our > communities. The racist brutality, murder, and repression of our > communities must stop now Anyone who has ever lived in the inner city can see the truth in this statement. It's a fact of life there. > 9. We want direct democracy, the right of every individual to > participate in the organization of their own community and their own > lives. Representation is nothing but the denial of representation. So it appears our Freedom Loving POPADOC doesn't sit well with better representation of the people. No elected official can represent my views across the board like I can. >>Care to state any facts, or we just throwing names & insults? > > > muahaha....Anyone stupid enough to believe that tripe is too stupid to > do anything with but make fun of.... Just as I thought... > PAPA DOC > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 Once you finally realize your government was ass-deep in this thing, you're gonna be PISSED. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

PAPADOC wrote: > > Yup thats why Socialism have died... It's not dead, there are lots more of us than you think... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Yea but what is an elitist idiot like you doing slumming around with > the prolotariat...?? > > PAPA DOC > > >Oh there you go, bringing class into it again. > > > >Jason

It's wasted on him Jason....... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:20:27 GMT, Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yea but what is an elitist idiot like you doing slumming around with >the prolotariat...?? I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Jason

Yea but the dance card is nearly up and with nothing left to rob you will be stuck. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

>It's not dead, there are lots more of us than you think... > > >Beers and cheers >(uncle) Goy > >http://www.theuspits.com > >"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" >--Groucho Marx--

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Ya think...??? Ya might be wrong about that getting laid bit... PAPA DOC >He and his fascist pals are just bitter because liberals get laid. =) > >See also: Monicagate. > >Jason Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

hehehehehe.... >Sorry, it's not my site. I just agree with the majority of what's >stated there. We do still have that right, don't we? Fucking A, even Flat Earthers have the right to believe what they believe...just as I have the right to believe that in a battle of wits between a Flat Earther and a beetle I will take the beetle. You are witless...and you have every right to be that way. Dont cry when you are ignored.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> Some precious quotes. >> >> 2. We want the immediate removal of occupying police forces from our >> communities. The racist brutality, murder, and repression of our >> communities must stop now > >Anyone who has ever lived in the inner city can see the truth in this >statement. It's a fact of life there.

Muahahaha....Fuckwit. I advocate the immediate removal of all police protection from any neighborhood you live in...and I advocate that we put signs that PROCLAIM this advantage of yours.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> 9. We want direct democracy, the right of every individual to >> participate in the organization of their own community and their own >> lives. Representation is nothing but the denial of representation. > >So it appears our Freedom Loving POPADOC doesn't sit well with better >representation of the people. No elected official can represent my >views across the board like I can.

I dont like the dictatorship of a democracy....I believe that individuals have rights that democracies tend to love to trample on. I believes that assholes like you like to vote yourselves enough power to be able to sit on your ass while people like me make things work. >Just as I thought... Dont claim abilities that you havent displayed. >Once you finally realize your government was ass-deep in this thing, >you're gonna be PISSED. hehe...The only thing Im pissed about is that public education tends to produce wizards like you. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote: > Dave do you see Black Helicopters flying around your house often...? FYI, Dave lives under a stone. Gerry

PAPADOC wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>>Some precious quotes. >>> >>>2. We want the immediate removal of occupying police forces from our >>>communities. The racist brutality, murder, and repression of our >>>communities must stop now >> >>Anyone who has ever lived in the inner city can see the truth in this >>statement. It's a fact of life there. > > > Muahahaha....Fuckwit. I advocate the immediate removal of all police > protection from any neighborhood you live in...and I advocate that we > put signs that PROCLAIM this advantage of yours.

Very cool. Some statistics for ya: 40% OF FAMILIES WITH POLICE OFFICERS EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. COMPARED TO 10% OF FAMILIES IN GENERAL. 40% OF INJURY AND DEATHS OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED IN CAR CHASES OCCUR AFTER THE CHASE IS OVER. SO FAR, OUT OF ALL THE DOCUMENTED MURDERS COMMITED BY POLICE IN NEW YORK SINCE 1977, ONLY ONE OFFICER HAS BEEN CONVICED OF A CRIME. OF THE 1,097 INCIDENTS RECORDED BY "STOLEN LIVES", 1,034 HAVE BEEN KILLED BY POLICE SINCE 1990. -OF THAT 1,034: 51 were bystanders, 14 were wives, ex-wives, girlfriends, etc., of Law Enforcement Agents 73%were shot to death, 4% were beaten to death, 4% were asphyxiated, 3% were maced or pepper-sprayed to death, and 3% died due to medical neglect (usually in jail) > I dont like the dictatorship of a democracy....I believe that > individuals have rights that democracies tend to love to trample on. I > believes that assholes like you like to vote yourselves enough power > to be able to sit on your ass while people like me make things work. So you don't like the fact that the majority of your countrymen don't see things the way you do. You want your views imposed upon the majority. While we as a country claim to be free, we definitely show the signs of dictatorship. Some other "precious" quotes you may appreciate: 6. We want housing, fit for shelter of all human beings. Not a single human being should go homeless. 7. Not a single human being should go hungry. Food is a right, not a privilege. 10. We want self-defense. We cannot rely on the system to protect us from it's own brutality, racism, murder and repression of our communities. We must rely on our communities to defend ourselves by any means necessary at any given time I'm sure a rightwing fascist like yourself has problems with these too. You have no feeling for your fellow humans. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

In article <[email hidden]>, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> writes: > >40% OF INJURY AND DEATHS OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED IN CAR CHASES >OCCUR AFTER THECHASE IS OVER. > This number is obscene. We need a concerted effort by all police jurisdictions to GET THIS NUMBER UP!!!!! If a policeman tells you to pull over and you run away indangering others, he should be allowed to shoot you between the eyes after you're handcuffed. Don McCorkle

No SHIT.....everytime I have ever been stopped and it was alot when I had long hair I FUCKING STOPPED. I FROZE....Put YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR...FUCKING HANDS WENT RIGHT THE hell up. Daddy didnt raise no fool and arguing with a pissed off police officer is a good way to die. As it SHOULD BE....police officer tells you to stop and you dont...bubbye, CYA wouldnt want to be ya. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >This number is obscene. We need a concerted effort by all police jurisdictions >to GET THIS NUMBER UP!!!!! If a policeman tells you to pull over and you run >away indangering others, he should be allowed to shoot you between the eyes >after you're handcuffed. > > >Don McCorkle > > >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

No shit dealing with fools like you all day long Im surprised its not alot higher. >40% OF FAMILIES WITH POLICE OFFICERS EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. >COMPARED TO 10% OF FAMILIES IN GENERAL. With the responsibilty to protect assholes like you no wonder they are under a lot of stress. I advocate withdrawing all police protection from assholes like you...just worry about protecting people who respect you. >40% OF INJURY AND DEATHS OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED IN CAR CHASES OCCUR AFTER >THE CHASE IS OVER. Lucky it aint me...any buttwipe thug who runs dies...instantly. Only a couple more would run then everyone would get the same picture I have....Police officer tells you to stop, you stop right the hell now.Thats bullshit that those little buttwipes are endangering my family by running from the police...and that the police dont have more authority to shoot those assholes. >SO FAR, OUT OF ALL THE DOCUMENTED MURDERS COMMITED BY POLICE IN NEW YORK >SINCE 1977, ONLY ONE OFFICER HAS BEEN CONVICED OF A CRIME. Having spent some quality time in David Dinkins New York and then in Guilianos New York....I will take Guilianos New York every time. Murders of all races dropped through floor with Guiliano...they went thru the roof with Dinkins and I expect them to go thru the roof with that pussy Bloomberg. >OF THE 1,097 INCIDENTS RECORDED BY "STOLEN LIVES", 1,034 HAVE BEEN >KILLED BY POLICE SINCE 1990. Good...send those Police officers down to New Orleans and let them kill a few thugs down here. No one will miss them. >-OF THAT 1,034: 51 were bystanders, 14 were wives, ex-wives, >girlfriends, etc., of Law Enforcement Agents 73%were shot to death, 4% >were beaten to death, 4% were asphyxiated, 3% were maced or >pepper-sprayed to death, and 3% died due to medical neglect (usually in >jail) Medical Neglect..??? They should have died from a bullet to the brain...I have lived with those thugs and everyday get to watch them parade around selling drugs scaring everyone acting so tough. Police kill them big deal. >So you don't like the fact that the majority of your countrymen don't >see things the way you do. You want your views imposed upon the >majority. While we as a country claim to be free, we definitely show >the signs of dictatorship. hehe...Yup its called individual rights...quite a concept you should try understanding them. Maybe get somone to read the big words to you. >6. We want housing, fit for shelter of all human beings. Not a single >human being should go homeless. And I guess I get to pay for the priviledge of seeing those thugs housed at the expense of my labor....nah fuck that.Or do you think that homes rain down like pennies from heaven. >7. Not a single human being should go hungry. Food is a right, not a >privilege. hehe...Ooh boy and I guess I get to pay for that as well...eh. >10. We want self-defense. We cannot rely on the system to protect us >from it's own brutality, racism, murder and repression of our >communities. We must rely on our communities to defend ourselves by any >means necessary at any given time Im all for that...withdraw all the police from all the thug communities immediatly.....cures the stress problem for the Police and allows you to discover the wonders of a barbaric society. >I'm sure a rightwing fascist like yourself has problems with these too. > You have no feeling for your fellow humans. Ah its pretty funny but all the most successful dictatorships have all been communists...they are very successful in killing millions with their "concern'. I think that you should enjoy those same privledges...and you know what you can right now...Move to North Korea. The purest form of communism in the world...and you wont have to be bothered with that trivial nonsense like Lights, Food and Medical care...everyone will be equal. Equally starving, Equally in the dark, Equally dying....neat stuff tell us how you fare. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Woodie 83 wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> writes: > > >>40% OF INJURY AND DEATHS OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED IN CAR CHASES >OCCUR AFTER THE > > CHASE IS OVER. > > > This number is obscene. We need a concerted effort by all police jurisdictions > to GET THIS NUMBER UP!!!!! If a policeman tells you to pull over and you run > away indangering others, he should be allowed to shoot you between the eyes > after you're handcuffed.

LOL! Ever consider some run because they know they are endangered anyways? Ever heard of Malice Green? -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

PAPADOC wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Ah its pretty funny but all the most successful dictatorships have all > been communists...they are very successful in killing millions with > their "concern'. I think that you should enjoy those same > privledges...and you know what you can right now...Move to North > Korea. The purest form of communism in the world...and you wont have > to be bothered with that trivial nonsense like Lights, Food and > Medical care...everyone will be equal. Equally starving, Equally in > the dark, Equally dying....neat stuff tell us how you fare.

Your diatribe further exposes you as a racist, police-state loving totalitarian. Those are your opinions & I respect them. Just don't ever suppose yourself as supporting any kind of "free" society. You want anything but. As for communist dictatorships, I don't support those either. As I've stated numerous times, I'm an Anarchist. If the lightbulb don't come on for you that we don't support any form of heirarchal leadership, you don't know squat about what you speak. As far as the "Equally starving, Equally in the dark, Equally dying...." crap, your type don't care about starvation or homelessness as long as it's the minorities in the inner cities. You just don't want your own chickens coming home to roost in your suburban neighborhoods. Despicable. We would never move to another country. We have ~280 million here to liberate yet. :-P -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote: > >>Yea but what is an elitist idiot like you doing slumming around with >>the prolotariat...?? >> >>PAPA DOC >> >> >>>Oh there you go, bringing class into it again. >>> >>>Jason > > > It's wasted on him Jason.......

Isn't that the truth. Can't talk sense & human compassion to a rock. Kinda reminds one of his Voodoo5 vs. GeForce thread, doesn't it? :-) -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Uncle Fester wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > It's wasted on him Jason....... > > Isn't that the truth. Can't talk sense & human compassion to a rock. > Kinda reminds one of his Voodoo5 vs. GeForce thread, doesn't it? :-)

No it doesn't, not even close, Voodoo5's rocked Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand wrote: > > > >>Yea but what is an elitist idiot like you doing slumming around with > >>the prolotariat...?? > >> > >>PAPA DOC > >> > >> > >>>Oh there you go, bringing class into it again. > >>> > >>>Jason > > > > > > It's wasted on him Jason....... > > > Isn't that the truth. Can't talk sense & human compassion to a rock. > Kinda reminds one of his Voodoo5 vs. GeForce thread, doesn't it? :-) > > Fester

It's been what? two years since the 3dfx V5 was released? (I can't remember feel free to correct me) I am still waiting for a card that can equal the V5's FSAA. Nvidia has tried 3 different methods..all incur HUGE framerate penalties and make VERY VERY little difference in image quality. I haven't seen ATI's latest yet...so maybe there is hope. For it's time and for it's target audience, the V5 was great.(wonder what kinda rates a V5 would get with a P4 3gigglehurts cpu) dave(yes I'm faster, but I'm uglier)henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> It's been what? two years since the 3dfx V5 was released? (I can't > remember feel free to correct me) I am still waiting for a card that can > equal the V5's FSAA. Nvidia has tried 3 different methods..all incur HUGE > framerate penalties and make VERY VERY little difference in image quality. > I haven't seen ATI's latest yet...so maybe there is hope. For it's time > and for it's target audience, the V5 was great.(wonder what kinda rates a V5 > would get with a P4 3gigglehurts cpu) > dave(yes I'm faster, but I'm uglier)henrie

I believe it *has* been 2 yrs now. Time flies when you're having fun! You are absolutely correct, I've never seen anyone beat 3DFX for their FSAA quality. If we could combine the GeForce speed with the FSAA image quality of 3DFX... While we're dreaming, make that card available at S3 Virge prices. :-) -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted text (9 lines)

> I believe it *has* been 2 yrs now. Time flies when you're having fun! > > You are absolutely correct, I've never seen anyone beat 3DFX for their > FSAA quality. If we could combine the GeForce speed with the FSAA > image quality of 3DFX... > > While we're dreaming, make that card available at S3 Virge prices. > :-) >

Just plug your TV-output into a 20 year old 25" TV, you'll have all the antialiasing you could ever wish for :-) cheers John

> Just plug your TV-output into a 20 year old 25" TV, you'll have all the > antialiasing you could ever wish for :-) > > cheers > John I have one of those down here in the cave. If I want to watch a race tonight, and see the cars proper colors...I have to turn it on by this afternoon at the latests....tired old beast it is. dave henrie

"Woodie 83" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, > Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > >40% OF INJURY AND DEATHS OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED IN CAR CHASES >OCCUR AFTERTHE > CHASE IS OVER. > > > > This number is obscene. We need a concerted effort by all policejurisdictions > to GET THIS NUMBER UP!!!!! If a policeman tells you to pull over and yourun > away indangering others, he should be allowed to shoot you between theeyes > after you're handcuffed. I understand the Italian police shoot your tyres out if you try to make a run for it. They should aim a little higher ;-) Malc.

What a puss. David G Fisher "PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > No SHIT.....everytime I have ever been stopped and it was alot when I > had long hair I FUCKING STOPPED. I FROZE....Put YOUR HANDS IN THE > AIR...FUCKING HANDS WENT RIGHT THE hell up. Daddy didnt raise no fool > and arguing with a pissed off police officer is a good way to die. As > it SHOULD BE....police officer tells you to stop and you > dont...bubbye, CYA wouldnt want to be ya. > > PAPA DOC > > > >This number is obscene. We need a concerted effort by all police

jurisdictions > >to GET THIS NUMBER UP!!!!! If a policeman tells you to pull over and yourun > >away indangering others, he should be allowed to shoot you between theeyes

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >after you're handcuffed. > > > > > >Don McCorkle > > > > > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 > www.papadoc.net > Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the > 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in > more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:58:58 GMT, PAPADOC wrote: <drivel deleted and PLONK'ed>. It's getting busy in there lately. Enjoy your company. -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Ever considered that they are endangered because they need to be... PAPA DOC >LOL! Ever consider some run because they know they are endangered >anyways? Ever heard of Malice Green? Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Anarchy just another name for Im too stoopid to know better. PAPA DOC > >We would never move to another country. We have ~280 million here to >liberate yet. :-P Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Asswipe its always been your ilk that have caused or stood by while mass murders were committed.... >Ultra rightwing. Just another name for "I'm too stupid to think for >myself". Careful asswipe you are brining a knife to a gunfight in a battle of wits. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:32:24 -0500, Fat Slag <[email hidden]> wrote: >Head over to the flight-sim group sometime Uncle Fester to see more >rightwing fascism rearing it's ugly head from the likes of PD and a >few other loonies. It's always good for a laugh to wind the pricks up. I can't read his posts without imaging spit and sweat flying all over his monitor as he works himself into a frenzy. Jason

Uh, isn't Guiliano some kinda liquor, or something? PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > Having spent some quality time in David Dinkins New York and then in > Guilianos New York....I will take Guilianos New York every time. > Murders of all races dropped through floor with Guiliano...they went > thru the roof with Dinkins and I expect them to go thru the roof with > that pussy Bloomberg.

You are a socialist asshole...not me....you dont believe in individual rights I do....the Nazis were socialists....not libetarians. PAPA DOC > >Really? If you do the research you will see that it is actually >extremists such as yourself with a mob mentality that are the cause of >such atrocities throughout history. The crap you speak is no that far >removed from that of the "brownshirts". And I don't need a gun when >dealing with a half-wit. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

You know I was gonna buy Agent for the spell check but if you promise to follow me around I wont.... >Uh, isn't Guiliano some kinda liquor, or something? PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

PAPADOC wrote: > > You are a socialist asshole...not me....you dont believe in individual > rights I do....the Nazis were socialists....not libetarians. Nazi's *called* themselves Socialists, I could call myself rich and it would still be wrong 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, 04 Dec 2002 17:01:07 +0100, Goy Larsen wrote: > > Nazi's *called* themselves Socialists, I could call myself rich and it > would still be wrong > > ignore him goy, it's (sic!) not worth it. uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 15:44:17 GMT, PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote: >You are a socialist asshole...not me....you dont believe in individual >rights I do....the Nazis were socialists....not libetarians. Uh, the nazis were neither socialists nor libertarians. They were right wing conservative fascists. Read a fucking history book or at least have a basic understanding of the political spectrum before posting this bullshit. Jason

Take a look at their platform...exactly what would a socialist nowadays disagree with...? Well ok most would say that killing all the Jews was a bad idea..but then again sort of looks like Europe is getting the hang of attacking the jews all over again so maybe even thats not so far out of line. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Nazi's *called* themselves Socialists, I could call myself rich and it >would still be wrong > > >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--

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Thats your only response....its why Europe is such a mess. PAPA DOC >ignore him goy, it's (sic!) not worth it. > >uwe Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> PAPADOC wrote: > >>You are a socialist asshole...not me....you dont believe in individual >>rights I do....the Nazis were socialists....not libetarians. > Nazi's *called* themselves Socialists, I could call myself rich and it > would still be wrong

No matter Goy, if he's too lazy to look it up and can't even distinguish between left (socialist) and right (nazi's) there's no hope anyway. Kinda answers the question of this topic though ;) Regards, Ruud

Really exactly what was their platform genius.... >Uh, the nazis were neither socialists nor libertarians. They were >right wing conservative fascists. Ah just what the Socialistswould have you believe and since most of Europe is Socialist just what your governments teach in school but see if you can find their political platforms and see what differences there are. >Read a fucking history book or at least have a basic understanding of >the political spectrum before posting this bullshit. You dont know me...and you dont know history. >Jason PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Here let me help you..

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Uh, the nazis were neither socialists nor libertarians. They were >right wing conservative fascists. > >Read a fucking history book or at least have a basic understanding of >the political spectrum before posting this bullshit. > >Jason

Yea this sound real capitalistic....ooh yea. Dimwit...know politics before you wake up one day to find yourselves in chains...by goofballs like Hitler. PAPA DOC From Hitlers 25 points of his platform obviously I didnt put all of them but its a pretty grim set of demands especially if you Socialists think you are so moral. . We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties . The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits We demand the nationalization of all trusts. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

hehe..Yea well I KNOW you havent looked it up because you think they are on the right.... PAPA DOC >No matter Goy, if he's too lazy to look it up and can't even distinguish >between left (socialist) and right (nazi's) there's no hope anyway. > >Kinda answers the question of this topic though ;) > >Regards, Ruud Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Ruud Dingemans wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > PAPADOC wrote: > > > >>You are a socialist asshole...not me....you dont believe in individual > >>rights I do....the Nazis were socialists....not libetarians. > > > Nazi's *called* themselves Socialists, I could call myself rich and it > > would still be wrong > > No matter Goy, if he's too lazy to look it up and can't even distinguish > between left (socialist) and right (nazi's) there's no hope anyway. > > Kinda answers the question of this topic though ;)

LOL, yeah, fortunately I've come to know enough Americans not to judge them all by the ways of Pierre here 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--

Uwe Schuerkamp wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:01:07 +0100, Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > Nazi's *called* themselves Socialists, I could call myself rich and it > > would still be wrong > > > > > > ignore him goy, it's (sic!) not worth it.

Sound advice I guess.....:-) 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--

"PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Uh, the nazis were neither socialists nor libertarians. They were > >right wing conservative fascists. > > Ah just what the Socialistswould have you believe and since most of > Europe is Socialist just what your governments teach in school but see > if you can find their political platforms and see what differences > there are. > PAPA DOC

You just hired out a book on politics from your local library? Or was politics last weeks 4th grade discussion?

PAPADOC wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Really exactly what was their platform genius.... > > >>Uh, the nazis were neither socialists nor libertarians. They were >>right wing conservative fascists. > > > Ah just what the Socialistswould have you believe and since most of > Europe is Socialist just what your governments teach in school but see > if you can find their political platforms and see what differences > there are.

OMFG... -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

hehe...Nos you are such a tool....its pitiful. You claim that others dont know what they are talking about without knowing anything yourself. PAPA DOC Oscar Wilde: The Soul of Man Under Socialism Socialism, Communism, or whatever, one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and ensure the material well-being of each member of the community. (The Soul of Man Under Socialism) . >He doesn't even have a clue as to what socialism is, but being an >american he's been programmed to think it is a really bad thing and is >no better than communist Russia was. McCarthy would have been proud of >him. Stick to cooking PD, is my advice. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:32:59 -0500, Fat Slag <[email hidden]> wrote: >He told me that politics is his forte' over in the flight-sim group. >He doesn't even have a clue as to what socialism is, but being an >american he's been programmed to think it is a really bad thing and is >no better than communist Russia was. McCarthy would have been proud of >him. Stick to cooking PD, is my advice. It's not just him, man. Most Americans don't have any understanding whatsoever about politics, Ask any average Joe on the street here what the difference between a Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, and Commune are and they'd have no real idea, other than that "Democracy is the one where you're free and stuff." I wouldn't even attempt to explain to them what Socialism is or point out that neither a Socialist nor Democratic (nor Democratic Socialist, since I'm blurring economy and government here =) state has never actually existed. Everytime I hear some idiot spout off about the US being this great beacon for Democracy it makes me sick in my stomach. Actually, for PapaDOC, here's a pop quiz: 1. What form of government is outlined by the Constitution of the United States of America? 2. What economic system is in place in the United States? 3. What form of government was created by the Bolshevik revolution in 1917? 4. What economic system existed in the Soviet Union from 1917-1990? 5. The American Republican Party (the GOP) openly supports nationalism and economic regimentation but also private ownership of industry. Which form of government also supports nationalism, economic regimentation, and private ownership of industry? 6. Name an existing democratic state. 7. Name an existing socialist state. Bonus Question: Name 2 countries from the 1930's which practiced the form of government given in answer 5. Jason

PAPADOC wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > hehe...Nos you are such a tool....its pitiful. You claim that others > dont know what they are talking about without knowing anything > yourself. > > PAPA DOC > > Oscar Wilde: The Soul of Man Under Socialism > Socialism, Communism, or whatever, one chooses to call it, by > converting private property into public wealth, and substituting > co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper > condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and ensure the material > well-being of each member of the community. > > (The Soul of Man Under Socialism)

That would be the same man who wrote this....? "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." 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--

Liar liar pants of fire.... PAPA DOC

Quoted text (11 lines)

>It get's worse Uncle Fester. He's accused a number of people in the >flight-sim group of being enemies of the US just because they have >criticised some of its policies. He once said to me that I "bear >watching". Now, how scary is that? He mouths off about how free the US >is and yet what he would really like to see is a totalitarian state >where anyone that says anything critical of the US is labelled an >enemy and immediatley exiled or incarcerated. Some books you need to >read (again maybe if it didn't sink in the first time) and really >take note of PD. Brave New World, 1984, Animal Farm, and Lord of the >Flies. Maybe once you understand the messages in those books you will >start to think for yourself instead of parroting the party line.

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

I have often wondered how it is that rational people walk into the meat grinders that Socialists governments delight in. Now I know...simple denial of history....brilliant stuff. That the Russians killed 30 or 40 million in their "experiment" doesnt matter because it wasnt really socialism. That the Chinese killed 30 or 40 million in their experiment doesnt mean anything because it wasnt really socialism. Cambodia half the population dead...doesnt count wasnt socialism. Vietnam millions dead since the fall doesnt count wasnt socialism. Nazis 60 or so million doesnt count wasnt socialism... And so it goes with more fools walking quietly to their deaths believing that life is free and that someone elses effort is all thats required. Responsibility is a bougeouis attitude and its the other guys fault....no thanks. The US doesnt understand the finer points of Socialism for a very simple reason..whats the point? I dont learn the finer points of the Theories of the Flat Earth Society because on the face its quite absurd...so it is with Socialism. Ayn Rand who knew quite a bit more than you do about socialism having experienced its brilliance first hand explained all I needed to know about socialism. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >It's not just him, man. Most Americans don't have any understanding >whatsoever about politics, Ask any average Joe on the street here >what the difference between a Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, and >Commune are and they'd have no real idea, other than that "Democracy >is the one where you're free and stuff." I wouldn't even attempt to >explain to them what Socialism is or point out that neither a >Socialist nor Democratic (nor Democratic Socialist, since I'm blurring >economy and government here =) state has never actually existed. >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Here let me help you.. > > >Uh, the nazis were neither socialists nor libertarians. They were > >right wing conservative fascists. > > > >Read a fucking history book or at least have a basic understanding of > >the political spectrum before posting this bullshit. > > > >Jason > > Yea this sound real capitalistic....ooh yea. Dimwit...know politics > before you wake up one day to find yourselves in chains...by goofballs > like Hitler.

He didn't say anything about capitalism. Neither does any of Hitler's drivel you posted in a very misguided attempt to make some kind of point. I'm not really sure what it was, since Jason didn't say that the Nazis were capitalists. He did say that they were right wing. If you look at what they actually are all about, I think you will have to agree. > From Hitlers 25 points of his platform obviously I didnt put all of > them but its a pretty grim set of demands especially if you Socialists > think you are so moral. You left out the central issue which is Aryan racial supremacy; economy & social policy driven and defined by race, etc. Everything in Nazism follows from this core world view. > . We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that > every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and > earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole > population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the > Reich. What does this tell us about who controls the means of production (ie economics, ie capitalism or socialism)? It does illustrate the ideal of State supremacy, a core belief of both Nazism and Fascism. > All citizens must possess equal rights and duties But only Aryans may be citizens. > . The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or > physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the > interest of the community to the benefit of all. Nothing here about who you work for. Here we also see another basic tenet, that of the community being superior to the individual. You may confuse this with socialism, but you would once again be confusing economics with social politics. > That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from > work, be abolished. This has more to do with disenfranchising non-Aryan wealth than anything else. > Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and > treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as > treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of > all war profits Same here. BTW, who gets to keep the money? It wasn't "the people", but their saviour, the State. > We demand the nationalization of all trusts. More disenfranchisement. We also see more evidence that the national state is the power that unites and defines Aryan peoples. Core to Nazism, but also the defining quality of Fascism. > We demand profit-sharing in large industries. Again, nothing about who controls the means of production. > We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions More social politics. Nothing to do with economics. > We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the > immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply > to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given > to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the > State, the provinces and municipalities. Again, the State is supreme. Classic Fascism. > We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national > requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners > without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The > abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in > land. More disenfranchisement of the non-Aryan status quo. Also, the expropriation would naturally be done by The State. This does point out who in Nazi doctrine would control the means of production. Here's a hint: it isn't the workers.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German > to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into > positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of > organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The > curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to > practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of > citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We > demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever > their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

If you needed a bigger clue as to whether the Nazis were on the left or right, here it is. Here again, it is the State that defines life, society, etc. Pure Fascist bullshit. Nothing here about economics and the means of production, by the way. > The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health > by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, > by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory > games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of > associations concerned with the physical education of the young. More Statist, Fascist dogma. Nothing about economics. Seriously, go back to school before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself and the rest of our country. HTH, Gerald

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:37:27 GMT, PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote: >That the Russians killed 30 or 40 million in their "experiment" doesnt >matter because it wasnt really socialism. You're right it wasn't. It was, however, a good example of the tyranny inherent in democratic centralism, at least as it's been practiced in the USSR and China. >That the Chinese killed 30 or 40 million in their experiment doesnt >mean anything because it wasnt really socialism. Again, very good, despite the sarcasm. Of course, those 30 or 40 million people were killed because of the economic system that they practice, right? I guess since the United States is a mixed economy, that is we have a fairly even balance of capitalist and socialist policies, we must be sacrificing our own citizens too, right? Just not as many, tho, right? Whatever you say, right? >Cambodia half the population dead...doesnt count wasnt socialism. Yup. Nowhere near. In fact I'm not sure why you even mentioned them, even taking your sarcasm into account. >Vietnam millions dead since the fall doesnt count wasnt socialism. Nope. I believe most of those millions were killed by the army of a federal republic, who spent as much time raping and pillaging their allies as they did the enemy. The federal republic that you live in. The one that just finished killing over 6 million Afghanistan civilians by dropping cluster bombs in heavily populated cities. But that must be the socialist aspects of our economy creeping in, right? >Nazis 60 or so million doesnt count wasnt socialism... Good boy. You're right, they weren't. Not even close. The Nazis were a totalitarian fascist party which allowed private ownership of business. Same with Mussolini's Italy. >And so it goes with more fools walking quietly to their deaths >believing that life is free and that someone elses effort is all thats >required. Responsibility is a bougeouis attitude and its the other >guys fault....no thanks. No, actually, socialists believe that the bourgeouis don't have any sense of responsiblity. It's part of that whole "destruction of the class system" thing. Seriously, dude, you at least have a 6th or 7th grade education, right? >The US doesnt understand the finer points of Socialism for a very >simple reason.. Because our educational standards are below average for a first world nation? Because the large socialist movement in this country in the first half of the 20th century was put to death by the fascist policies of Eisenhour, McCarthy, Hoover, and the wealthy executives who gave them power? > whats the point? That you exemplify the reasons the founding fathers of the United States instituted a federal republic. They wanted to make sure that the upper class maintained power in this country because the lower class (and later, the middle class) wasn't educated to a high enough degree to make decisions about government. Instead of creating a democracy which would ensure that the government operated on the basis of the will of the people, they created a system which allows the minority, the business class, to dictate political policy. > I dont learn the finer points of the >Theories of the Flat Earth Society because on the face its quite >absurd...so it is with Socialism. Ayn Rand who knew quite a bit more >than you do about socialism having experienced its brilliance first >hand explained all I needed to know about socialism. Ah, so you learned all you need to know about history from a pulp fiction author? People, take note, this is what Americans are talking about when we decry the state of our educational system. Jason

"PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (47 lines)

> I have often wondered how it is that rational people walk into the > meat grinders that Socialists governments delight in. Now I > know...simple denial of history....brilliant stuff. > > That the Russians killed 30 or 40 million in their "experiment" doesnt > matter because it wasnt really socialism. > > That the Chinese killed 30 or 40 million in their experiment doesnt > mean anything because it wasnt really socialism. > > Cambodia half the population dead...doesnt count wasnt socialism. > > Vietnam millions dead since the fall doesnt count wasnt socialism. > > Nazis 60 or so million doesnt count wasnt socialism... > > And so it goes with more fools walking quietly to their deaths > believing that life is free and that someone elses effort is all thats > required. Responsibility is a bougeouis attitude and its the other > guys fault....no thanks. > > The US doesnt understand the finer points of Socialism for a very > simple reason..whats the point? I dont learn the finer points of the > Theories of the Flat Earth Society because on the face its quite > absurd...so it is with Socialism. Ayn Rand who knew quite a bit more > than you do about socialism having experienced its brilliance first > hand explained all I needed to know about socialism. > > PAPA DOC > > > > >It's not just him, man. Most Americans don't have any understanding > >whatsoever about politics, Ask any average Joe on the street here > >what the difference between a Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, and > >Commune are and they'd have no real idea, other than that "Democracy > >is the one where you're free and stuff." I wouldn't even attempt to > >explain to them what Socialism is or point out that neither a > >Socialist nor Democratic (nor Democratic Socialist, since I'm blurring > >economy and government here =) state has never actually existed. > > > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 > www.papadoc.net > Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the > 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in > more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Oh, I'm sorry, did you say something? I wasn't paying attention....

hehe...Yea I agree that person who was quoted is an idiot. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oscar Wilde: The Soul of Man Under Socialism Socialism, Communism, or whatever, one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and ensure the material well-being of each member of the community. (The Soul of Man Under Socialism) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Look. What did I tell you guys? The guy thinks they are one and the >same. Idiot. btw you will be interested in learning that this is a quote pulled directly off of the www.worldsocialism.org site...oopsy idiot. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

hehe....Yea boy you do set quite the example....lovely stuff. Just give socialists ONE more chance..they promise to get it right...just a few more million into the grinder. PAPA DOC >People, take note, this is what Americans are talking about when we >decry the state of our educational system. > >Jason Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Dear man when have I ever said I was afraid of Canada....? Canada is funny...Canada is rushing towards poverty just like the rest of the countries so enamored with blaming someone else and stealing other peoples efforts. But they arent scary by any means...Socialist countries dont get scary until they run out of things to steal...then they get scary.. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Hey, if you're going to read books with big words in them you should >take a reading comprehension class first. Oh, and try to learn what it >means to read between the lines. Your examples all have one thing in >common, which you borderline share IMO. They are all extremists. >Doesn't matter what political/religious belief you have, once you >become extremist you potentially become dangerous to the well being of >your fellow man. You insist Canada is socialist and if you truly >believe that then it shoots your theory down in flames because Canada >is one of the least likely threats to other nations on the planet. You >should be much more afraid of your own country than big bad socialist >Canada. You should start reading books that are more philisophical in >nature too and put down the paint by numbers book on politics. > >Over and Out

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

The rest of your drivel is unworthy of comment but this...ah this is classic. >The one that just finished killing over 6 million Afghanistan >civilians by dropping cluster bombs in heavily populated cities. But >that must be the socialist aspects of our economy creeping in, right? You honestly believe that the US just killed 6 million people in Afganistan...? No wonder you believe that none of those socialist wonderlands were terrible...reality and you are trains passing in the night. >People, take note, this is what Americans are talking about when we >decry the state of our educational system. >Jason Actually with 2 children getting ready to enter school and a third on the way it terrifies me to think what education system produced you. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Learning the details of either Hitler or Marx doesnt interest me. Both sweep away individual rights...in that both are very much the same. >He didn't say anything about capitalism. Neither does any of Hitler's >drivel you posted in a very misguided attempt to make some kind of >point. I'm not really sure what it was, since Jason didn't say that >the Nazis were capitalists. He did say that they were right wing. If >you look at what they actually are all about, I think you will have to >agree. Right wing conservative facists...? If I were socialist I certainly would want to distance myself....by calling others horrible names. I notice on the World Socialist website they indulge a great deal in debunking other socialist theory and orginizations....so I dont feel so embarrassed about being so ignorant of so great a political philosophy. >You left out the central issue which is Aryan racial supremacy; >economy & social policy driven and defined by race, etc. Everything >in Nazism follows from this core world view. Yup certainly did do that but thats obvious but lets not quibble. A lot of his other policies would fit very well into most left wing socialists party platforms. Of course NOT the killing the Jews but its odd how willing the Europeans are to scapegoat them even now.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> . We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that >> every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and >> earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole >> population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the >> Reich. > >What does this tell us about who controls the means of production (ie >economics, ie capitalism or socialism)? It does illustrate the ideal >of State supremacy, a core belief of both Nazism and Fascism.

Yes and pure socialism doesnt really define who controls production except to say its a democratic process....my question is who counts the votes..? Who orginizes the elections? Who defines the issues...? >> All citizens must possess equal rights and duties > >But only Aryans may be citizens. Ah yes but its not that big a difference...essentially he wants equality of results. A core socialist goal...isnt it? I agree that his racial bullshit makes him different from most advertised Socialists but were he to have discarded the race issue most of his other stuff would have fit right in. >Nothing here about who you work for. Here we also see another basic >tenet, that of the community being superior to the individual. You >may confuse this with socialism, but you would once again be confusing >economics with social politics. I will admit to not knowing the intricate details of socialism...but subverting the will of the individual to the good of the whole is one of the basic values of socialism isnt it? Democracy ? >> That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from >> work, be abolished. > >This has more to do with disenfranchising non-Aryan wealth than >anything else. So socialists dont mind banks earning interest or people buying stocks..? Or none of that exists in the perfect socialist society? Tell me before they get to the perfect socialist society how do they deal with banks..cool not cool..? Or is it supposed to be a sudden transformation to socialist wonderfulness.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and >> treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as >> treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of >> all war profits > >Same here. BTW, who gets to keep the money? It wasn't "the people", >but their saviour, the State.

Who runs the democracy in a Socialist state...? If everyone is in charge then nothing gets done...so someone must be in charge...or lets say running the issues and elections. Thats a lot of power...is that called a state or is it just called a committee...? Does the committee decide who gets the produce of the company. And how does the committee decide? >> We demand the nationalization of all trusts. > >More disenfranchisement. We also see more evidence that the national >state is the power that unites and defines Aryan peoples. Core to >Nazism, but also the defining quality of Fascism. True but if you take away Aryan you are left with pronouncements that sound very much like Socialists. And you assume that the state doesnt exist in a Socialist country...then explain how anything gets decided, who sets the agenda? >> We demand profit-sharing in large industries. > >Again, nothing about who controls the means of production. The state of course....in a Socialist government it would be a committee or a group of citizens. Who decides who gets elected, how out of the millions of people do those people get selected....sounds very much like a state to this admittedly simple country boy. To me either the State or "Collection of people who dont want to be called the state" or I own my company. Two of those are one and the same and it aint me. >> We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions > >More social politics. Nothing to do with economics. Absolutely everything to do with economics....who pays...? How do they pay...?

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the >> immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply >> to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given >> to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the >> State, the provinces and municipalities. > >Again, the State is supreme. Classic Fascism.

hehe...From my point of view your collective looks alot like a state. A rose by any other name.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national >> requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners >> without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The >> abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in >> land. > >More disenfranchisement of the non-Aryan status quo. Also, the >expropriation would naturally be done by The State. This does point >out who in Nazi doctrine would control the means of production. >Here's a hint: it isn't the workers.

And the problem is that I laugh at your belief that the Workers would EVER control it....and group of 'workers" orginized enough to control the means of production are called a government. >If you needed a bigger clue as to whether the Nazis were on the left >or right, here it is. Here again, it is the State that defines life, >society, etc. Pure Fascist bullshit. And in the Socialist state ooops collective who defines life, society and such..? And what if I dont agree..? >Seriously, go back to school before you make an even bigger fool out >of yourself and the rest of our country. >HTH, >Gerald Well Im in awe of such unbounded intelligence but I must pursue my questions so that I may get educated at the feet of such great minds. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

PAPADOC wrote: >>No matter Goy, if he's too lazy to look it up and can't even distinguish >>between left (socialist) and right (nazi's) there's no hope anyway. > hehe..Yea well I KNOW you havent looked it up because you think they > are on the right.... Pierre, darling, if you think I'm wrong please look up "extreme right" and "far right" on Google in combination with "nazi" and then try the same with "extreme left" and "far left". Notice the number of hits on the blue bar. It's not evidence or anything, but it'll give you a rough indication of how far off you are. Then go back to your first grade history books and please leave the grown-ups alone. Then again, I guess it's no use convincing your set mind that us "liberals" or "lefties" usually regard both nazis and Stalinists as political opponents (and scum o'the earth). Never mind. I hope you do grow up one day, darling. Good luck. Regards, Rudy

Wow, such a long post. It's a shame nobody cares about your, er, 'unique' viewpoints. You must have been chronically pissed thru college... "PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (166 lines)

> Learning the details of either Hitler or Marx doesnt interest me. Both > sweep away individual rights...in that both are very much the same. > > >He didn't say anything about capitalism. Neither does any of Hitler's > >drivel you posted in a very misguided attempt to make some kind of > >point. I'm not really sure what it was, since Jason didn't say that > >the Nazis were capitalists. He did say that they were right wing. If > >you look at what they actually are all about, I think you will have to > >agree. > > Right wing conservative facists...? If I were socialist I certainly > would want to distance myself....by calling others horrible names. I > notice on the World Socialist website they indulge a great deal in > debunking other socialist theory and orginizations....so I dont feel > so embarrassed about being so ignorant of so great a political > philosophy. > > >You left out the central issue which is Aryan racial supremacy; > >economy & social policy driven and defined by race, etc. Everything > >in Nazism follows from this core world view. > > Yup certainly did do that but thats obvious but lets not quibble. A > lot of his other policies would fit very well into most left wing > socialists party platforms. Of course NOT the killing the Jews but its > odd how willing the Europeans are to scapegoat them even now. > > >> . We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that > >> every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and > >> earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole > >> population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the > >> Reich. > > > >What does this tell us about who controls the means of production (ie > >economics, ie capitalism or socialism)? It does illustrate the ideal > >of State supremacy, a core belief of both Nazism and Fascism. > > Yes and pure socialism doesnt really define who controls production > except to say its a democratic process....my question is who counts > the votes..? Who orginizes the elections? Who defines the issues...? > > >> All citizens must possess equal rights and duties > > > >But only Aryans may be citizens. > > Ah yes but its not that big a difference...essentially he wants > equality of results. A core socialist goal...isnt it? I agree that his > racial bullshit makes him different from most advertised Socialists > but were he to have discarded the race issue most of his other stuff > would have fit right in. > > >Nothing here about who you work for. Here we also see another basic > >tenet, that of the community being superior to the individual. You > >may confuse this with socialism, but you would once again be confusing > >economics with social politics. > > I will admit to not knowing the intricate details of socialism...but > subverting the will of the individual to the good of the whole is one > of the basic values of socialism isnt it? Democracy ? > > >> That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from > >> work, be abolished. > > > >This has more to do with disenfranchising non-Aryan wealth than > >anything else. > > So socialists dont mind banks earning interest or people buying > stocks..? Or none of that exists in the perfect socialist society? > Tell me before they get to the perfect socialist society how do they > deal with banks..cool not cool..? Or is it supposed to be a sudden > transformation to socialist wonderfulness. > > >> Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and > >> treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as > >> treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of > >> all war profits > > > >Same here. BTW, who gets to keep the money? It wasn't "the people", > >but their saviour, the State. > > Who runs the democracy in a Socialist state...? If everyone is in > charge then nothing gets done...so someone must be in charge...or lets > say running the issues and elections. Thats a lot of power...is that > called a state or is it just called a committee...? Does the committee > decide who gets the produce of the company. And how does the committee > decide? > > >> We demand the nationalization of all trusts. > > > >More disenfranchisement. We also see more evidence that the national > >state is the power that unites and defines Aryan peoples. Core to > >Nazism, but also the defining quality of Fascism. > > True but if you take away Aryan you are left with pronouncements that > sound very much like Socialists. And you assume that the state doesnt > exist in a Socialist country...then explain how anything gets decided, > who sets the agenda? > > >> We demand profit-sharing in large industries. > > > >Again, nothing about who controls the means of production. > > The state of course....in a Socialist government it would be a > committee or a group of citizens. Who decides who gets elected, how > out of the millions of people do those people get selected....sounds > very much like a state to this admittedly simple country boy. To me > either the State or "Collection of people who dont want to be called > the state" or I own my company. Two of those are one and the same and > it aint me. > > >> We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions > > > >More social politics. Nothing to do with economics. > > Absolutely everything to do with economics....who pays...? How do they > pay...? > > >> We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the > >> immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply > >> to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given > >> to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the > >> State, the provinces and municipalities. > > > >Again, the State is supreme. Classic Fascism. > > hehe...From my point of view your collective looks alot like a state. > A rose by any other name. > > >> We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national > >> requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners > >> without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The > >> abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in > >> land. > > > >More disenfranchisement of the non-Aryan status quo. Also, the > >expropriation would naturally be done by The State. This does point > >out who in Nazi doctrine would control the means of production. > >Here's a hint: it isn't the workers. > > And the problem is that I laugh at your belief that the Workers would > EVER control it....and group of 'workers" orginized enough to control > the means of production are called a government. > > > >If you needed a bigger clue as to whether the Nazis were on the left > >or right, here it is. Here again, it is the State that defines life, > >society, etc. Pure Fascist bullshit. > > And in the Socialist state ooops collective who defines life, society > and such..? And what if I dont agree..? > > >Seriously, go back to school before you make an even bigger fool out > >of yourself and the rest of our country. > >HTH, > >Gerald > > Well Im in awe of such unbounded intelligence but I must pursue my > questions so that I may get educated at the feet of such great minds. > > PAPA DOC > > Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand > Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 > www.papadoc.net > Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the > 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in > more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Ruud Dingemans wrote: > Pierre, darling, if you think I'm wrong please look up "extreme right" > and "far right" on Google in combination with "nazi" and then try the > same with "extreme left" and "far left". Notice the number of hits on > the blue bar. It's not evidence or anything, but it'll give you a rough > indication of how far off you are. I think I know what the problem is. PAPADOC & his fellow John Birchers are so far to the right that, to them, the nazis *do* appear to be leftists! :-) -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

hehe...Hey if my policies were so close the Nazis and I didnt wish to abandon my policies I would do exactly what the Lefties have done...bad mouth the parties whose policies make my policies look so bad. Here is a hint for you "Dawling" check out the actual policies and see if you can spot the differences. Prior to the admission by the Russian government of the Horrors of Stalin many a leftist defended the government. Now that to defend it would be to defend 30 to 40 million dead of starvation prior to the war due in whole to Socialist policy I would be surprised if the Socialists didnt find a way to disassociate themselves. www.worldsocialism.org finds ways of dissassociating itself from alot of current socialist outfits and it seems that they do the same. Everyone seems to have a problem defining what is actually Socialism...no surprise since the record of success is so dismal. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Then again, I guess it's no use convincing your set mind that us >"liberals" or "lefties" usually regard both nazis and Stalinists as >political opponents (and scum o'the earth). > >Never mind. I hope you do grow up one day, darling. Good luck. > >Regards, Rudy

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

hehe....Yup was that, got tired of listening to bullshit lefty professors tell me shit that was debunked back in the 1800's. Im a modern man and dont prefer systems that never worked. But I knew that going into college. PAPA DOC

Quoted text (172 lines)

>Wow, such a long post. It's a shame nobody cares about your, er, 'unique' >viewpoints. You must have been chronically pissed thru college... > >"PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Learning the details of either Hitler or Marx doesnt interest me. Both >> sweep away individual rights...in that both are very much the same. >> >> >He didn't say anything about capitalism. Neither does any of Hitler's >> >drivel you posted in a very misguided attempt to make some kind of >> >point. I'm not really sure what it was, since Jason didn't say that >> >the Nazis were capitalists. He did say that they were right wing. If >> >you look at what they actually are all about, I think you will have to >> >agree. >> >> Right wing conservative facists...? If I were socialist I certainly >> would want to distance myself....by calling others horrible names. I >> notice on the World Socialist website they indulge a great deal in >> debunking other socialist theory and orginizations....so I dont feel >> so embarrassed about being so ignorant of so great a political >> philosophy. >> >> >You left out the central issue which is Aryan racial supremacy; >> >economy & social policy driven and defined by race, etc. Everything >> >in Nazism follows from this core world view. >> >> Yup certainly did do that but thats obvious but lets not quibble. A >> lot of his other policies would fit very well into most left wing >> socialists party platforms. Of course NOT the killing the Jews but its >> odd how willing the Europeans are to scapegoat them even now. >> >> >> . We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that >> >> every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and >> >> earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole >> >> population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the >> >> Reich. >> > >> >What does this tell us about who controls the means of production (ie >> >economics, ie capitalism or socialism)? It does illustrate the ideal >> >of State supremacy, a core belief of both Nazism and Fascism. >> >> Yes and pure socialism doesnt really define who controls production >> except to say its a democratic process....my question is who counts >> the votes..? Who orginizes the elections? Who defines the issues...? >> >> >> All citizens must possess equal rights and duties >> > >> >But only Aryans may be citizens. >> >> Ah yes but its not that big a difference...essentially he wants >> equality of results. A core socialist goal...isnt it? I agree that his >> racial bullshit makes him different from most advertised Socialists >> but were he to have discarded the race issue most of his other stuff >> would have fit right in. >> >> >Nothing here about who you work for. Here we also see another basic >> >tenet, that of the community being superior to the individual. You >> >may confuse this with socialism, but you would once again be confusing >> >economics with social politics. >> >> I will admit to not knowing the intricate details of socialism...but >> subverting the will of the individual to the good of the whole is one >> of the basic values of socialism isnt it? Democracy ? >> >> >> That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from >> >> work, be abolished. >> > >> >This has more to do with disenfranchising non-Aryan wealth than >> >anything else. >> >> So socialists dont mind banks earning interest or people buying >> stocks..? Or none of that exists in the perfect socialist society? >> Tell me before they get to the perfect socialist society how do they >> deal with banks..cool not cool..? Or is it supposed to be a sudden >> transformation to socialist wonderfulness. >> >> >> Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and >> >> treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as >> >> treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of >> >> all war profits >> > >> >Same here. BTW, who gets to keep the money? It wasn't "the people", >> >but their saviour, the State. >> >> Who runs the democracy in a Socialist state...? If everyone is in >> charge then nothing gets done...so someone must be in charge...or lets >> say running the issues and elections. Thats a lot of power...is that >> called a state or is it just called a committee...? Does the committee >> decide who gets the produce of the company. And how does the committee >> decide? >> >> >> We demand the nationalization of all trusts. >> > >> >More disenfranchisement. We also see more evidence that the national >> >state is the power that unites and defines Aryan peoples. Core to >> >Nazism, but also the defining quality of Fascism. >> >> True but if you take away Aryan you are left with pronouncements that >> sound very much like Socialists. And you assume that the state doesnt >> exist in a Socialist country...then explain how anything gets decided, >> who sets the agenda? >> >> >> We demand profit-sharing in large industries. >> > >> >Again, nothing about who controls the means of production. >> >> The state of course....in a Socialist government it would be a >> committee or a group of citizens. Who decides who gets elected, how >> out of the millions of people do those people get selected....sounds >> very much like a state to this admittedly simple country boy. To me >> either the State or "Collection of people who dont want to be called >> the state" or I own my company. Two of those are one and the same and >> it aint me. >> >> >> We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions >> > >> >More social politics. Nothing to do with economics. >> >> Absolutely everything to do with economics....who pays...? How do they >> pay...? >> >> >> We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the >> >> immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply >> >> to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given >> >> to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the >> >> State, the provinces and municipalities. >> > >> >Again, the State is supreme. Classic Fascism. >> >> hehe...From my point of view your collective looks alot like a state. >> A rose by any other name. >> >> >> We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national >> >> requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners >> >> without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The >> >> abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in >> >> land. >> > >> >More disenfranchisement of the non-Aryan status quo. Also, the >> >expropriation would naturally be done by The State. This does point >> >out who in Nazi doctrine would control the means of production. >> >Here's a hint: it isn't the workers. >> >> And the problem is that I laugh at your belief that the Workers would >> EVER control it....and group of 'workers" orginized enough to control >> the means of production are called a government. >> >> >> >If you needed a bigger clue as to whether the Nazis were on the left >> >or right, here it is. Here again, it is the State that defines life, >> >society, etc. Pure Fascist bullshit. >> >> And in the Socialist state ooops collective who defines life, society >> and such..? And what if I dont agree..? >> >> >Seriously, go back to school before you make an even bigger fool out >> >of yourself and the rest of our country. >> >HTH, >> >Gerald >> >> Well Im in awe of such unbounded intelligence but I must pursue my >> questions so that I may get educated at the feet of such great minds. >> >> PAPA DOC >> >> Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand >> Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 >> www.papadoc.net >> Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the >> 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in >> more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige." >

Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

Actually Im a libertarian....so nearly all the parties look facist to me. My only divergence is Abortion which I dont believe is acceptable...except in rape. >I think I know what the problem is. PAPADOC & his fellow John Birchers >are so far to the right that, to them, the nazis *do* appear to be >leftists! :-) Especially anarchists whose believe in force and the rule of the jungle presages a return to the barbirism of the jungle. But hey dont let that stop you. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:13:14 -0500, Jim Bowen wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:26:07 -0500, Uncle Fester ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>OMFG... > > It get's worse Uncle Fester. He's accused a number of people in the > flight-sim group of being enemies of the US just because they have > criticised some of its policies. He once said to me that I "bear

peace. Can't we all just killfile him and go on with racing sims? Please? Have a nice weekend, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:19:08 -0000, Nick wrote: > Wow, such a long post. It's a shame nobody cares about your, er, 'unique' > viewpoints. You must have been chronically pissed thru college... > Nick, if nobody cares for his viewpoints, why cite them full length in your posting? please cut down the stuff you're quoting from the original article. I killfiled him weeks ago only to have all his shit *quoted* to me in your posting. Doesn't take long. Good for (mental) hygene. Wash your hands / cut your quotes, please, ok? ;-) Thanks in advance for your consideration, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:19:08 -0000, Nick wrote: > > Wow, such a long post. It's a shame nobody cares about your, er,'unique'

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > viewpoints. You must have been chronically pissed thru college... > > > > Nick, if nobody cares for his viewpoints, why cite them full > length in your posting? please cut down the stuff you're > quoting from the original article. I killfiled him weeks ago > only to have all his shit *quoted* to me in your posting. > Doesn't take long. Good for (mental) hygene. Wash your hands / > cut your quotes, please, ok? ;-) > > Thanks in advance for your consideration,

Sorry, was trying to get my TOFU average up ;-)

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:08:49 -0000, Nick wrote: > > Sorry, was trying to get my TOFU average up ;-) > > LOL! Did you mean "up" or "down"? Wonder who'll claim top spot this week, I'll post the results later today. Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > Learning the details of either Hitler or Marx doesnt interest me. That's too bad. For someone who apparently enjoys talkin politics, you would do better to be more well-informed.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >You left out the central issue which is Aryan racial supremacy; > >economy & social policy driven and defined by race, etc. Everything > >in Nazism follows from this core world view. > > Yup certainly did do that but thats obvious but lets not quibble. A > lot of his other policies would fit very well into most left wing > socialists party platforms.

I dont think it is quibbling to ignore the central belief of a philosophy when you are trying to define it. Also, why was Hitler so hung up on ridding the world of Marxism, if indeed he was a closet Marxist? > I will admit to not knowing the intricate details of socialism...but > subverting the will of the individual to the good of the whole is one > of the basic values of socialism isnt it? Democracy ? If you are asking "must the individual will take second place to the good of the whole in a democracy", the answer is yes. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. > And the problem is that I laugh at your belief that the Workers would > EVER control it....and group of 'workers" orginized enough to control > the means of production are called a government. I am not a Socialist. It is not my belief. Just because I have taken the time to read and attempted to understand something does not mean that I embrace it. I was merely attempting to point out to you why it would be incorrect to label the Nazis as socialists. > >If you needed a bigger clue as to whether the Nazis were on the left > >or right, here it is. Here again, it is the State that defines life, > >society, etc. Pure Fascist bullshit. > > And in the Socialist state ooops collective who defines life, society > and such..? And what if I dont agree..? I think the old style was a bullet to the back of the head. I agree that both systems are enemies of anyone who would embrace liberty. But they are not born from the same philosophy, by any stretch of the imagination.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >Seriously, go back to school before you make an even bigger fool out > >of yourself and the rest of our country. > >HTH, > >Gerald > > Well Im in awe of such unbounded intelligence but I must pursue my > questions so that I may get educated at the feet of such great minds.

I wish I could take back that last part. I usually don't stoop to personal attacks, etc. Nazis aren't socialists. Have both philosophies led to brutal totalitarian government? Absolutely. But their ideals are as different as night and day. It would be like confusing Islam with Christianity. Have both religions inspired violent crusades and repression against non-believers? Would you be wrong to say they are the same religion?

hehe..Well first off Socialists themselves cannot seem to agree on what it means. Or which direction the path to all the wonderful advantages of Socialism lies, on the World Socialism site they dedicate a significant amount of effort into detailing the sins of other Socialist movements. The effort and required reading to understand that nonsense is far beyond my interest in politics....this would be akin to asking a Astronomer to study the Flat Earth Society because you know they really area a very serious group of people. I am much more interesting in more important issues such as intelligence Failures that led to 9/11, legislation that led to 9/11 and such. Studying the Flat Earth society doesnt seem to be a good way to spend time. >Nazis aren't socialists. Have both philosophies led to brutal >totalitarian government? Absolutely. But their ideals are as >different as night and day. >It would be like confusing Islam with Christianity. Have both >religions inspired violent crusades and repression against >non-believers? Would you be wrong to say they are the same religion? They called themselves Socialists, many of their policies certainly bore an uncanny resemblance to Socialist party dogma they just added the "we hate jews" bit. They didnt like Marxists just because Hitler never learned to share with the other children when he was growing up....and so sharing power didnt seem like such a great idea. Only problem with Hitler is that when he didnt want to share he usually killed those he didnt want to share with. I shouldnt have stated that they were socialists it wasnt precise. I should have said that the Socialists embrace far more of the policies of the Nazis then they might care to admit to. Even the "we hate jews" part is starting to gain traction in Europe. PAPA DOC Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand www.papadoc.net Loudspeaker of USS Harry Truman carrier departing to the Persian Gulf 12/06/2002 "Peace on Earth to men of goodwill," "All others stand by." Maj. Bryan Hilferty, of 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

"PAPADOC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I am much more interesting > in more important issues such as intelligence Failures that led to > 9/11, legislation that led to 9/11 and such. Oh no, you're one of them...

PAPADOC <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >Nazis aren't socialists. Have both philosophies led to brutal > >totalitarian government? Absolutely. But their ideals are as > >different as night and day. > >It would be like confusing Islam with Christianity. Have both > >religions inspired violent crusades and repression against > >non-believers? Would you be wrong to say they are the same religion? > > They called themselves Socialists, many of their policies certainly > bore an uncanny resemblance to Socialist party dogma they just added > the "we hate jews" bit.

Thats a very gross simplification. And ass-backwards. And you seem to keep forgetting the "National" part, which is the clue that they are, after all, a breed of fascist. > They didnt like Marxists just because Hitler > never learned to share with the other children when he was growing > up....and so sharing power didnt seem like such a great idea. Only > problem with Hitler is that when he didnt want to share he usually > killed those he didnt want to share with. This is just silly. > I shouldnt have stated that they were socialists it wasnt precise. Finally we agree. > I should have said that the Socialists embrace far more of the policies > of the Nazis then they might care to admit to. I find it more effective and to the point just to point out that socialists policies are generally anti-liberty. There is no need to compare them in this sense to Nazis or anything else. > Even the "we hate jews" part is starting to gain traction in Europe. I have seen several vague references to this lately. Can somebody be more specific, please? Gerald

"Gerald Moore" > > Even the "we hate jews" part is starting to gain traction in Europe. > > I have seen several vague references to this lately. Can somebody be > more specific, please? > > Gerald Everytime the Paletinians blow up a couple of dozen Israelies, the World leaders and press are silent. But when Israel hits back, you see all sorts of lamentations about the evil Israelies and the poor Palestinians. You won't hear them say JEWS and you won't see an outright condemnation, but the outpouring of of negative statements by world leaders is almost predictable. Here in the States, they chief Non-Arab countries that condemn Israel almost routinely and without substantiation, 'seems' centered in Europe. Take the so-called Jenin Massacre. THOUSANDS KILLED screamed the Euro Headlines...uh about a dozen fighters who apparently couldn't make it to a Christian church for safety, ended up dieing in a firefight. And I beleive that was one of the few times that more Jews were killed than Moslems.(in the Israel/Palestine conflict that-is.) But you didn't see headlines about the number of Israeli soldiers killed by booby traps and gunfire. So whether it's true or even justified, I don't know, but the PERCEPTION is that Europe is very anti-Israel at this point. dave henrie

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:38:07 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > But when Israel hits back, you see all sorts >of lamentations about the evil Israelies and the poor Palestinians. Probably because when Palestinians attack Israel, you're dealing with an oppressed/refugee civilization lashing out against its oppressors and when Israel does the exact same thing (and far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than vice versa) it's basically a United States satellite defending its right to be an imperialist shithole. Personally, I don't take a side in the conflict (it's basically a group of terrorists vs a group of terrorists) but I could see how people with a decent understanding of the history and politics of the region could feel that way. 2 things I'd really like to see are 1.) American Jews keeping their SUV's and split level homes in the suburbs around New York City where they belong instead of moving them to the West Bank and wondering why the people who already live there and are being pushed further into the inhospitable desert want to kill them and 2.) Ariel Sharon and Yassir Arafat treated like the war criminals that they are - it's revolting that either of these men are taken remotely seriously as the leaders of 21st century nations when they've both been single handedly responsible for the slaughter of thousands of civilians. If peace is ever going to happen in Israel, both nations need to despose of their extremist leaders who hurt the situation further by being relics of a violent past. Jason

On 12 Dec 2002 06:19:05 -0800, [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote: >Thats a very gross simplification. And ass-backwards. And you seem >to keep forgetting the "National" part, which is the clue that they >are, after all, a breed of fascist. Or the fact that Hitler encouraged private ownership of industry. The United States economy is closer to socialism than that of 1930's Germany. Jason

No Offence lads, But take it elsewhere.... Racing Simulators anyone? Politics.....its no GPL :) Ash http://www.siroccoracing.com

"Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ata9bm$63r$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> No Offence lads, > > But take it elsewhere.... > > Racing Simulators anyone? > > Politics.....its no GPL :) > > Ash > http://www.siroccoracing.com

THANK YOU. In the old Netscape forums - they used to use DTD in the subject. DIE THREAD DIE

"Dave Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d42K9.2088$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ata9bm$63r$[email hidden]... > > No Offence lads, > > > > But take it elsewhere.... > > > > Racing Simulators anyone? > > > > Politics.....its no GPL :) > > > > Ash > > http://www.siroccoracing.com > > THANK YOU. In the old Netscape forums - they used to use DTD in the > subject. DIE THREAD DIE >

I've done my part...

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> "Gerald Moore" > >>>Even the "we hate jews" part is starting to gain traction in Europe. >> >>I have seen several vague references to this lately. Can somebody be >>more specific, please? >> >>Gerald > > Everytime the Paletinians blow up a couple of dozen Israelies, the World > leaders and press are silent. But when Israel hits back, you see all sorts > of lamentations about the evil Israelies and the poor Palestinians. You > won't hear them say JEWS and you won't see an outright condemnation, but the > outpouring of of negative statements by world leaders is almost predictable. > Here in the States, they chief Non-Arab countries that condemn Israel > almost routinely and without substantiation, 'seems' centered in Europe. > Take the so-called Jenin Massacre. THOUSANDS KILLED screamed the Euro > Headlines...uh about a dozen fighters who apparently couldn't make it to a > Christian church for safety, ended up dieing in a firefight. And I beleive > that was one of the few times that more Jews were killed than Moslems.(in > the Israel/Palestine conflict that-is.) But you didn't see headlines about > the number of Israeli soldiers killed by booby traps and gunfire. > So whether it's true or even justified, I don't know, but the PERCEPTION > is that Europe is very anti-Israel at this point.

Common confusion: being against actions of Israeli politicians is not the same as "hating Jews", and being opposed to the kill-crazy politics of W doesn't make you anti-american. l8er ronny

PAPADOC wrote: > > Even the "we hate jews" part is starting to gain traction in Europe. You're wrong, some of us don't think too highly of the Israeli government, but I have nothing against Jews, at least not more than I have against other religious groups :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Ronald Stoehr wrote: > Common confusion: being against actions of Israeli politicians is not > the same as "hating Jews", and being opposed to the kill-crazy > politics of W doesn't make you anti-american. Agreed. Zionism represents Judaism about as much as the KKK does Christianity. While both groups have religious overtones, they certainly don't represent their respective religious group. -- Fester There is a better way, for the enlightened. http://www.racun.tk/

Awwwwwwwww, geez! I was just trying to get us a respectable finish opposite the flight-sim newsgroup. They are putting us to shame, I tell you! TO SHAME!!! Gerald "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<ata9bm$63r$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> No Offence lads, > > But take it elsewhere.... > > Racing Simulators anyone? > > Politics.....its no GPL :) > > Ash > http://www.siroccoracing.com

On 16 Dec 2002 06:54:21 -0800, [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote: >Awwwwwwwww, geez! I was just trying to get us a respectable finish >opposite the flight-sim newsgroup. They are putting us to shame, I >tell you! TO SHAME!!! > >Gerald PD has scampered off to the FS group with his tail between his legs where his fascist views get a bit more support than here. Looks like he got soundly thrashed in this group. :-)

Glad to hear it. After suffering for my beliefs at the keyboards of the Delphi FS Forum's right wing (90% of the members <g>), I'm glad to see that race-simmers are more liberal :) Sky "Blink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On 16 Dec 2002 06:54:21 -0800, [email hidden] (Gerald Moore) wrote: > > >Awwwwwwwww, geez! I was just trying to get us a respectable finish > >opposite the flight-sim newsgroup. They are putting us to shame, I > >tell you! TO SHAME!!! > > > >Gerald > > PD has scampered off to the FS group with his tail between his legs > where his fascist views get a bit more support than here. Looks like > he got soundly thrashed in this group. :-)

"The Real Thing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:20:35 GMT, "Chris Helps" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Glad to hear it. After suffering for my beliefs at the keyboards of the > >Delphi FS Forum's right wing (90% of the members <g>), I'm glad to seethat

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >race-simmers are more liberal :) > > > >Sky > > Well, I mentioned his thrashing he got in this group an he denies any > such thing happened and says the r.a.s. people are just "pups" that > don't know any better. If anyone wants to give him a few more lashings > just head on over to the flight-sim group. That group is only good for > flame wars these days anyway.

Of course we are more liberal. We emulate NASCAR types don't we !! ;o) It's a deep south, Trent Lott kind of liberal though. ;o) Elrikk

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:38:34 -0500, "elrikk" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's a deep south, Trent Lott kind of liberal though. ;o) I don't think it's so much that anyone is a liberal (or that he's conservative for that matter) but rather that he's making ridiculous statements about government and economics that are simply incorrect. Jason

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:38:34 -0500, "elrikk" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >It's a deep south, Trent Lott kind of liberal though. ;o) > > I don't think it's so much that anyone is a liberal (or that he's > conservative for that matter) but rather that he's making ridiculous > statements about government and economics that are simply incorrect. > > Jason

I know that. I was just making a funny based on the stereotype of a southern Nascar fan and being liberal. Couldn't pass it up somehow. And I'm a Canadian liberal. (almost a left wing as the European liberals) ;o) Elrikk

"The Real Thing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 03:30:23 -0500, "elrikk" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > <edit> (added an 's' to make 'a' = 'as' in theline below. > >And I'm a Canadian liberal. (almost as left wing as the European

liberals) > >;o) > > > >Elrikk > > According to PD you are no better than a pinko commie. ;-) Now that's being a tad rough don't you think? Comrade ? ;o) But alas, too true! Elrikk