A lap around "The Ring"

Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv

R.D.S. wrote: > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > > http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv fucking sweet

R.D.S. wrote: > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > > http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv I got lost, and I wasn't even driving.lol.That was very cool! Mike mls67

How about this ring lap with a Sauber in the supreme GT4... www.areyouserios.com/uploads_hf/sauber_s16.wmv

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > > http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv > OMG, that was sweet! Two things are very apparent: 1. He's been around that track before . . . a few hundred times! 2. He's got big, brass cojones. -- Rob Berryhill

> http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv Inferiority complex, ahoy ! Were those Porsche's he overtook ? Scary shit.

"R.D.S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > > http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv Any idea what time he gets? dan

In article <[email hidden]>, "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >"R.D.S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck >> >> http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv > >Any idea what time he gets?

I clock 8:20 from under the "BMW Sheer Driving Pleasure" overpass to return. Note he's doing the combined new + old Nurburgring. If I just time it from about the starting line of the Nordschleife to where he exits it, and add about 5 seconds for the part he didn't do (the last R hand turn to the start), I get about 6:55. Subtract about 21 seconds for "bridge-to-gantry" time. IOW, pretty damned fast!

This is pretty scary, IMHO anything faster around this tight track is totally suicidal. EL "R.D.S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > > http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv

The link is dead. EL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How about this ring lap with a Sauber in the supreme GT4... > > www.areyouserios.com/uploads_hf/sauber_s16.wmv >

Yep. Dead as a box of hair. "EL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:K5XYd.260$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> The link is dead. > > EL > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > How about this ring lap with a Sauber in the supreme GT4... > > > > www.areyouserios.com/uploads_hf/sauber_s16.wmv > > > >

"R.D.S." wrote... > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring > with Hans Stuck > <link snipped> Wow, Strietzel was really "on it" for that one. Looks like he enjoyed it too. ;-) Jan. =---

"Steve Smith" wrote... > Yep. Dead as a box of hair. This one, though a little convoluted, works. Be sure to read the download instructions in the post. http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52936&page=22&pp=20 Jan. =---

> If I just time it from about the starting line of the Nordschleife > to where he exits it, and add about 5 seconds for the part > he didn't do (the last R hand turn to the start), I get about > 6:55. And thats still 44 seconds off Stephan Bellof's lap record of 6:11 in a 956! Robin

Awesome. To all of you that thougth the head movement and the gear whine were over done in GTR just watch this. Looks to me as Simbin was spot on. My copy of GTR should be here tomorrow woohoo. Mitch "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WdXYd.36670$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> "R.D.S." wrote... >> Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring >> with Hans Stuck >> <link snipped> > > Wow, Strietzel was really "on it" for that one. Looks like he enjoyed it > too. ;-) > > Jan. > =--- > >

Yea Ted he passed em like they werent trying or something. The guy on the long straight looked to be in first gear. Mitch. "redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >> http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv > > Inferiority complex, ahoy ! > Were those Porsche's he overtook ? Scary shit. >

EL wrote: > The link is dead. Well, so is his marketing effort for GT4... ;)

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > EL > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>How about this ring lap with a Sauber in the supreme GT4... >> >>www.areyouserios.com/uploads_hf/sauber_s16.wmv >> > > >

In article <8PZYd.18098$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > Yea Ted he passed em like they werent trying or something. The guy on the > long straight looked to be in first gear. > > Mitch. Well here's the answer to why all the Pooches :) looked so slow, This was posted on the site where I found the link to the video: "The reason the other cars look so slow is because they are. That's the original Nurburgring in Germany. Anyone with a few dollars can drive their street car around the famous 14 mile course. If you look at the cars that Hans Stuck is passing they have a large number on them. that is their identifying number for their session (not a racing number). There are no speed limits on the course. You can also rent Porsches, Mercedes and Bmw's to drive around the course. They no longer use the orignal 14 mile course for racing. they built a shorter and safer course for modern racing venues. If you think that video was good, you need to find a copy of "IN CAR 956" Showcasing the late 80's GTP prototypes. Lots of great footage from in car video of this track at over 200 MPH."

"R.D.S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > > http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv Cool stuff, thanks.

> "The reason the other cars look so slow is because they are. > That's the original Nurburgring in Germany. > Anyone with a few dollars can drive their street car around the famous > 14 mile course. If you look at the cars that Hans Stuck is passing they > have a large number on them. that is their identifying number for their > session (not a racing number). You have no such number on a pubilc day/session (touristfahren) > There are no speed limits on the course. Again not true during touristfahren > You can also rent Porsches, Mercedes and Bmw's to drive around the > course. > > They no longer use the orignal 14 mile course for racing. they built a > shorter and safer course for modern racing venues. It's still used for some racing (VLN and the 24hr race) > If you think that video was good, you need to find a copy of "IN CAR > 956" Showcasing the late 80's GTP prototypes. Lots of great footage from > in car video of this track at over 200 MPH." Great vid - but its _early_ 80's cars (1983?) The GTR video was perhaps taken from, the qualifying session from the 24hr race? http://adac.24h-rennen.de/ There are many different classes of car - hence why some are much slower, and they're not all necessarily going flat out, some may be on in or out laps If you liked the video, perhaps you should go buy the DVD from http://renn.tv/shop/ (or one of the others I think this ones out of stock now) They do it for the love of it in their spare time and dont make a single euro out of the business - every thing is ploughed back in to make better videos available in the future Robin

Yeah...if only SimBin had had a BMW M3 V8 in GTR (to be fair, BMW didn't have an M3 in the year simmed--2003--only that fruity little Z3 hatchback with the inline 6). The M3 was supposed to be avail as an add-on, but apparently BMW freaked. (Or demanded blood money.) "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xLZYd.18060$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Awesome. > > To all of you that thougth the head movement and the gear whine were over > done in GTR just watch this. Looks to me as Simbin was spot on. > > My copy of GTR should be here tomorrow woohoo. > > Mitch > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:WdXYd.36670$[email hidden]... > > "R.D.S." wrote... > >> Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring > >> with Hans Stuck > >> <link snipped> > > > > Wow, Strietzel was really "on it" for that one. Looks like he enjoyed it > > too. ;-) > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > > > > >

Steve Smith wrote: > Yeah...if only SimBin had had a BMW M3 V8 in GTR (to be fair, BMW didn't > have an M3 in the year simmed--2003--only that fruity little Z3 hatchback > with the inline 6). The M3 was supposed to be avail as an add-on, but > apparently BMW freaked. (Or demanded blood money.) > Thats too bad. You would think these mfg's would realize it's free advertising and not name exploitation. Isnt racing all about advertising products anyway? Having your products in these sims generates more positive interest doesnt it? The void by the absence seems more detrimental to the mfg/service than licensing can make up for if ya ask me. EA not included in that statement of course ;) Im mean seriously, how could BMW go wrong in this instance? Mitch -- Remove "nospam." to reply. SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> Yeah...if only SimBin had had a BMW M3 V8 in GTR (to be fair, BMW didn't >> have an M3 in the year simmed--2003--only that fruity little Z3 hatchback >> with the inline 6). The M3 was supposed to be avail as an add-on, but >> apparently BMW freaked. (Or demanded blood money.) >> > > > > Thats too bad. You would think these mfg's would realize it's free > advertising and not name exploitation. Isnt racing all about advertising > products anyway? Having your products in these sims generates more > positive interest doesnt it? The void by the absence seems more > detrimental to the mfg/service than licensing can make up for if ya ask > me. > EA not included in that statement of course ;) Im mean seriously, how > could BMW go wrong in this instance? > > Mitch

BMW had the M3 GTR in 2003 for the N�rburgring 24hr if nothing else, cause I was there. However it was a bit of an embarassment for them as they packed the M3 GTRs radiators with dry ice prior to the race start which caused broken oil lines and the cars had to stop on the very 1st lap, not getting back out top do their 1st lap for a couple of hours Bad memories maybe? Robin

Sorry, I meant to say BMW didn't have the M3 V8 in the FIA's GT Racing series (which is what the game GTR simulates). They did run the car elsewhere, but the race at the Nurburgring wasn't part of the FIA GT Championship that year: http://www.fiagt.com/results.php?event=11&season=2003&reporttype= Neither were such enduro classics as Daytona, Sebring, the TT, Le Mans, etc. Politics...or worse, *French* politics. (Sorry if I offended any descendants of Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Montier--better known as the Marquis de Lafayette--we are still grateful....) "Robin Lord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:or1Zd.1891$[email hidden]... > >> Yeah...if only SimBin had had a BMW M3 V8 in GTR (to be fair, BMWdidn't > >> have an M3 in the year simmed--2003--only that fruity little Z3hatchback

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> with the inline 6). The M3 was supposed to be avail as an add-on, but > >> apparently BMW freaked. (Or demanded blood money.) > >> > > > > > > > > Thats too bad. You would think these mfg's would realize it's free > > advertising and not name exploitation. Isnt racing all about

advertising

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > products anyway? Having your products in these sims generates more > > positive interest doesnt it? The void by the absence seems more > > detrimental to the mfg/service than licensing can make up for if ya ask > > me. > > EA not included in that statement of course ;) Im mean seriously, how > > could BMW go wrong in this instance? > > > > Mitch > > BMW had the M3 GTR in 2003 for the N�rburgring 24hr if nothing else, cause

I

Quoted text (10 lines)

> was there. However it was a bit of an embarassment for them as they packed > the M3 GTRs radiators with dry ice prior to the race start which caused > broken oil lines and the cars had to stop on the very 1st lap, not getting > back out top do their 1st lap for a couple of hours > > Bad memories maybe? > > Robin > >

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:25:27 -0500, R.D.S. <[email hidden]> wrote: > >They no longer use the orignal 14 mile course for racing. they built a >shorter and safer course for modern racing venues. > There are in fact several races per year on the Nordschleife, including the famous 24 hour race (which this year TPTB decided to NOT run opposite the Lemans 24 hour race, thank god).

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:11:51 -0500, R.D.S. <[email hidden]> wrote something like: >Check it out, Awesome lap around the Nurburgring with Hans Stuck > >http://www.dgtalpimp.com/m3_gtr_nurburgring.wmv Wow. Never realised how much noise the gearbox/power train really makes. You can hardly hear the engine at high speeds. -- - Jussi Koukku -

> Wow. Never realised how much noise the gearbox/power train really > makes. You can hardly hear the engine at high speeds. If you think the noise is bad on that, check out this http://www.supercarchallenge.nl/video/assen-bmwstw.wmv Great vid where a 320i starts at the back and works his way through Robin

In article <dUfZd.1301$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Wow. Never realised how much noise the gearbox/power train really > > makes. You can hardly hear the engine at high speeds. > > If you think the noise is bad on that, check out this > http://www.supercarchallenge.nl/video/assen-bmwstw.wmv > Great vid where a 320i starts at the back and works his way through > > Robin

Holy shit! I had to stop watching about halfway through because my ears were hurting. How in the hell do drivers put up with that? Good earplugs I guess... -- _________________________ Todd Walker http://www.toddwalker.net _________________________

Jussi Koukku <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > Wow. Never realised how much noise the gearbox/power train really > makes. You can hardly hear the engine at high speeds. > -- > - Jussi Koukku - > That is one area we've not been exposed truthfully to I think. I remember the BMW touring cars that ran in the AUssie Super Touring series back in the mid 90's, they were schreechingly, painfully loud when the incar camera was shown. I loved it. So whenever we get just the barest hint of gear whine, like the tptcc mod's sound file, I tend to get overenthused. dave henrie

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Jussi Koukku <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > > > Wow. Never realised how much noise the gearbox/power train really > > makes. You can hardly hear the engine at high speeds. > > -- > > - Jussi Koukku - > > > > That is one area we've not been exposed truthfully to I think. > I remember the BMW touring cars that ran in the AUssie Super Touring

series > back in the mid 90's, they were schreechingly, painfully loud when the > incar camera was shown. I loved it. So whenever we get just the barest > hint of gear whine, like the tptcc mod's sound file, I tend to get > overenthused. Bear in mind that a) the driver will be wearing a helmet & balaclava, and b) the amount of noise from the diff is dependant on the position & type of mic on the video camera, and will only really be excessively loud in-car in a front-engined, RWD chassis. Malc.

Absolutely painful...it dislodged some earwax I've been living with since 1955. (BTW, Assen--the long course--is an add-on track for GTR...and a great online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron - what are they driving, DAFs?) "Robin Lord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dUfZd.1301$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Wow. Never realised how much noise the gearbox/power train really > > makes. You can hardly hear the engine at high speeds. > > If you think the noise is bad on that, check out this > http://www.supercarchallenge.nl/video/assen-bmwstw.wmv > Great vid where a 320i starts at the back and works his way through > > Robin > >

"Steve Smith" wrote... > Absolutely painful...it dislodged some earwax I've been > living with since 1955. > > (BTW, Assen--the long course--is an add-on track for GTR > ...and a great online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is > an oxymoron - what are they driving, DAFs?) The people at Spijker and Donkervoort are gonna love you for that nugget, Steve. ;-) Jan. =---

Steve Smith wrote: > (BTW, Assen--the long course--is an add-on track for GTR...and a great > online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron - what are they > driving, DAFs?) I'll have you know, I've seen a picture of a DAF formula car with none other than Jack Brabham at the wheel! :) Oh, and the reason we don't have a supercar tradition is that of course, we didn't NEED to outrun the cops since it was all legal over here anyway. ;) Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -24)

That ain't the only thing that's legal in the Lowlands, Gott sei dank. Go Dutch! "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d15dn2$ski$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote: > > > (BTW, Assen--the long course--is an add-on track for GTR...and a great > > online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron - what are they > > driving, DAFs?) > > I'll have you know, I've seen a picture of a DAF formula car with none > other than Jack Brabham at the wheel! :) > > Oh, and the reason we don't have a supercar tradition is that of course, > we didn't NEED to outrun the cops since it was all legal over here anyway. > > ;) > > Regards, Rudy > (GPLRank -24)

Possible that this link died? I know I read the site can only 'download it' once an hour (20meg/hr limit) but I dont know what to exect when I click on the link in the forum, seems to take me to a page that acts like the link is no good? Jan Verschueren enlightened us with:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Steve Smith" wrote... >> Yep. Dead as a box of hair. > > This one, though a little convoluted, works. Be sure to read the > download instructions in the post. > > http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52936&page=22&pp=20 > > Jan. > =---

"Plowboy" wrote... > Possible that this link died? I know I read the site can > only 'download it' once an hour (20meg/hr limit) but I > dont know what to exect when I click on the link in the > forum, seems to take me to a page that acts like the link > is no good? Yes, I know it looks odd, but follow the link from the post and click on the "free" button at the bottom once that page has loaded (as explained in the post). You will be taken to another bland looking page, with a little frame at the bottom counting down 45secs or so (miniscule text), once the counter counts down, a download link for the movie will appear. Jan. =---

>Im mean seriously, how could BMW go wrong in this instance? Suppose they licence their car to a publisher for a "sim" and it the marketing guys at the publishing company convince the developers to turn it into Need for Speed cop-killer 2006 (purely fictional title I hope), and it turns into a cult classic with the console crowd, so of course CNN, Fox and 60 minutes produce "in depth" specials, then every ambulance chaser in the inner city who's been near a hit and run launches a nuisance suit against the car and game manufacturer which they have to spend millions defending. If you're a lawyer in a conservative company and don't know anything about the game market (except that the average console player can't afford a BMW so you likely won't generate any sales) you might just give it a pass. Or something along those lines..... ;)

mcewena wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>>Im mean seriously, how could BMW go wrong in this instance? > > Suppose they licence their car to a publisher for a "sim" and it > the marketing guys at the publishing company convince the developers to > turn it into Need for Speed cop-killer 2006 (purely fictional title I > hope), and it turns into a cult classic with the console crowd, so of > course CNN, Fox and 60 minutes produce "in depth" specials, then every > ambulance chaser in the inner city who's been near a hit and run > launches a nuisance suit against the car and game manufacturer which > they have to spend millions defending. > > If you're a lawyer in a conservative company and don't know > anything about the game market (except that the average console player > can't afford a BMW so you likely won't generate any sales) you might > just give it a pass. > > Or something along those lines..... ;)

good points. Dam lawyers... ;) Mitch -- Remove "nospam." to reply. SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

Um, yes, except that... 1. The licensee can reserve the right to vet the final product (as Ferrari did with GPL), and/or 2. BMW already *has* a car in GTR: the decidedly unlovely Z3M hatchback...so it's not like they've already put their best foot forward, hmmmn? "mcewena" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >Im mean seriously, how could BMW go wrong in this instance? > > Suppose they licence their car to a publisher for a "sim" and it > the marketing guys at the publishing company convince the developers to > turn it into Need for Speed cop-killer 2006 (purely fictional title I > hope), and it turns into a cult classic with the console crowd, so of > course CNN, Fox and 60 minutes produce "in depth" specials, then every > ambulance chaser in the inner city who's been near a hit and run > launches a nuisance suit against the car and game manufacturer which > they have to spend millions defending. > > If you're a lawyer in a conservative company and don't know > anything about the game market (except that the average console player > can't afford a BMW so you likely won't generate any sales) you might > just give it a pass. > > Or something along those lines..... ;) >

>1. The licensee can reserve the right to vet the final product (asFerrari >did with GPL), and/or GPL without Ferrari would have been like a Nascar sim without an Earnhart so maybe they got a special veto (much like they do in real F1). They can ask, but the publisher can say no and the vendor can walk away from the table. Point is there's dozens of reasons a licencing deal can fall through and I didn't even get to money... ;) >2. BMW already *has* a car in GTR: the decidedly unlovely Z3Mhatchback...so >it's not like they've already put their best foot forward, hmmmn? A car who's reputation they can't wreck ;)

Steve Smith wrote: > That ain't the only thing that's legal in the Lowlands, Gott sei dank. Go Dutch! That should be "Godzijdank" Steve - "Gott sei Dank" is more Teutonic in nature ;) Oh and btw, we'd gladly take any old MOPARs you 'Merkins would want to get rid of, we like stuffing things into those dunes at the end of the straight ;) Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -24) >>>online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron

A la Cadillac Ranch? http://www.newgute.com/WildBoysRoadTrip/images/RT%208-04-01%20Cadillac%20Ranch%202-web.jpg Jeez, "Godzijdank" sounds more like a painful skin condition. "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d1a6q9$oeq$[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > > That ain't the only thing that's legal in the Lowlands, Gott sei dank.Go Dutch!

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > That should be "Godzijdank" Steve - "Gott sei Dank" is more Teutonic in > nature ;) > > Oh and btw, we'd gladly take any old MOPARs you 'Merkins would want to > get rid of, we like stuffing things into those dunes at the end of the > straight ;) > > > Regards, Rudy > (GPLRank -24) > > >>>online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron

Steve Smith wrote: > A la Cadillac Ranch? > > http://www.newgute.com/WildBoysRoadTrip/images/RT%208-04-01%20Cadillac%20Ranch%202-web.jpg > > Jeez, "Godzijdank" sounds more like a painful skin condition. Sigh, ever wondered how English sounds to someone not speaking it...? ;) l8er ronny

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d1a6q9$oeq$[email hidden]... > >>Steve Smith wrote: >> >> >>>That ain't the only thing that's legal in the Lowlands, Gott sei dank. > > Go Dutch! > >>That should be "Godzijdank" Steve - "Gott sei Dank" is more Teutonic in >>nature ;) >> >>Oh and btw, we'd gladly take any old MOPARs you 'Merkins would want to >>get rid of, we like stuffing things into those dunes at the end of the >>straight ;) >> >> >>Regards, Rudy >>(GPLRank -24) >> >> >>>>>online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron > > >

Believe it or not, the general speedlmits (i.e. 100 km/h) are on for Tourist runs. There is a reminder like: "the STVO (Strassenverkehrsordnung) applies. I have even seen a speedtrap on the nordschleife already. Not sure whether that was for penelizing the offenders or studying the speed driven on the track. JS On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:10:45 GMT, "Robin Lord" <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip>> >> There are no speed limits on the course. > >Again not true during touristfahren ><snip>

Gutteral, with a lotta dipthongs, I would imagine. It's a bastard language on account of so many influences on the Scented...er, Sceptered Isle from the Roman occupation thru 1066 and all that. "Ronald Stoehr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d1hf76$e54$02$[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > A la Cadillac Ranch? > > > >http://www.newgute.com/WildBoysRoadTrip/images/RT%208-04-01%20Cadillac%20Ranch%202-web.jpg

Quoted text (36 lines)

> > > > Jeez, "Godzijdank" sounds more like a painful skin condition. > > Sigh, ever wondered how English sounds to someone not speaking it...? ;) > > l8er > ronny > > > > > > > "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:d1a6q9$oeq$[email hidden]... > > > >>Steve Smith wrote: > >> > >> > >>>That ain't the only thing that's legal in the Lowlands, Gott sei dank. > > > > Go Dutch! > > > >>That should be "Godzijdank" Steve - "Gott sei Dank" is more Teutonic in > >>nature ;) > >> > >>Oh and btw, we'd gladly take any old MOPARs you 'Merkins would want to > >>get rid of, we like stuffing things into those dunes at the end of the > >>straight ;) > >> > >> > >>Regards, Rudy > >>(GPLRank -24) > >> > >> > >>>>>online venue. OTOH, "Dutch supercars" is an oxymoron > > > > > >

JS wrote: >Believe it or not, the general speedlmits (i.e. 100 km/h) are on forTourist >runs. I believe it not. The Nordschleife is a divided highway (Kraftfahrstrasse), where by law (StVO) no speed limit applies. That's why there's a 130 km/h speed limit sign on the Döttinger Höhe during Touristenfahrten. -Laurens de Jong.

Haven't seen that on my last lap, but this is already 12 years ago. Might be that they changed something. I'm quite sure though that the beginning of a highway should be accompanied by this white-blue 'highway begin' sign. I never saw that at the ring ... However, nobody gives a sh*t on speed limits over there and I'm quite sure that the speedtrap I saw was not meant to raise funds :-) but merely for research purposes JS On 21 Mar 2005 08:58:12 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>JS wrote: >>Believe it or not, the general speedlmits (i.e. 100 km/h) are on for >Tourist >>runs. > >I believe it not. The Nordschleife is a divided highway >(Kraftfahrstrasse), where by law (StVO) no speed limit applies. That's >why there's a 130 km/h speed limit sign on the D�ttinger H�he during >Touristenfahrten. > >-Laurens de Jong.

If it was 12 years ago, then you'd have started your lap at T13/the old pits. These days you start halfway down the main straight which is coned off in the middle (so you have to come off and go through the barriers if you want to continue & do another lap) Because of this they have speed limits before you reach the cones. There is also a speed limit halfway round at Breidscheid where the other exit/entrance is. -- Robin "JS" <JensSchumi_not@home> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Haven't seen that on my last lap, but this is already 12 years ago. Might > be > that they changed something. > I'm quite sure though that the beginning of a highway should be > accompanied by > this white-blue 'highway begin' sign. I never saw that at the ring ... > > However, nobody gives a sh*t on speed limits over there and I'm quite sure > that > the speedtrap I saw was not meant to raise funds :-) but merely for > research > purposes > > JS > > > > On 21 Mar 2005 08:58:12 -0800, [email hidden] wrote: > >>JS wrote: >>>Believe it or not, the general speedlmits (i.e. 100 km/h) are on for >>Tourist >>>runs. >> >>I believe it not. The Nordschleife is a divided highway >>(Kraftfahrstrasse), where by law (StVO) no speed limit applies. That's >>why there's a 130 km/h speed limit sign on the D�ttinger H�he during >>Touristenfahrten. >> >>-Laurens de Jong. >

Thx for the info. Things have really changed since then. JS On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:10:28 GMT, "Robin Lord" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>If it was 12 years ago, then you'd have started your lap at T13/the old >pits. These days you start halfway down the main straight which is coned off >in the middle (so you have to come off and go through the barriers if you >want to continue & do another lap) >Because of this they have speed limits before you reach the cones. There is >also a speed limit halfway round at Breidscheid where the other >exit/entrance is.

Steve Smith wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Um, yes, except that... > > 1. The licensee can reserve the right to vet the final product (as Ferrari > did with GPL), and/or > > 2. BMW already *has* a car in GTR: the decidedly unlovely Z3M hatchback...so > it's not like they've already put their best foot forward, hmmmn?

By the Z3M do you mean the M Coupe? How can "M Coupe" and "unlovely" share the same sentence!!?!? Granted it could be considered as an acquired taste, but it's a beautiful car once "bitten", and exceptional to drive. The Z3 OTOH is a taste I've never acquired. It looks a smidge too light on the loafers for its own good...

In this country, John, hatchbacks are considered down around the ankles as far as style, class, and taste are concerned; abt. on a par w. John Tesch albums, paintings of Elvis on velvet, velour pants suits, Thunderbird wine, and mullets. To me, it looks too much like the Volvo P1800 wagon of 30 years ago. (Nor do I like the M3 roadster, which looks like an imitation British sports car, viz. the Miata/Triumph Spitfire. My idea of ein echte Deutsche sports coupe is BMW's 630i, which would have made a great rag top, or the original M-B 600SL, which did.) The BMW M3 V8 would be a splendid addition to GTR, as would the mighty Aston Martin DB9 as raced at Sebring. If you're a TVR fan, there's a Cerbera or Speed Six or Tuscan or whatever it is over at RSC. "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > Um, yes, except that... > > > > 1. The licensee can reserve the right to vet the final product (asFerrari > > did with GPL), and/or > > > > 2. BMW already *has* a car in GTR: the decidedly unlovely Z3Mhatchback...so

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > it's not like they've already put their best foot forward, hmmmn? > > By the Z3M do you mean the M Coupe? How can "M Coupe" and "unlovely" > share the same sentence!!?!? Granted it could be considered as an > acquired taste, but it's a beautiful car once "bitten", and exceptional > to drive. > > The Z3 OTOH is a taste I've never acquired. It looks a smidge too light > on the loafers for its own good...

Steve Smith wrote: > In this country, John, hatchbacks are considered down around the ankles as > far as style, class, and taste are concerned; <splutter> I openly weep for the evolution of our species. So you're telling me that as I sit at the lights in my Lancia Delta Integrale, your average knuckle-scraping, SUV-driving, Bush-voting moron is going to think *he* has the automotive class, and *I* have the "Elvis on velvet"? Oh dear... :-) (Don't mind the Bush part - I know half of you guys thought he was better than his political clone Kerry. I tend to take Steve Bell's view!)

We don't allow no steenkin' Lancias in this country. Neither Fiats, Ladas, Trabbies, Renaults, Vauxhalls, Opels, Seats, Smarts, or other sh*tty little cars for sh*tty little people (David E. Davis, Jr. quote). I only voted for Kerry (whom I personally can't stand) because I thought SOMEBODY ought to pay a price for our misadventure in Iraq...other than our brave, misled troops. Since none of the neo-con architects of this disaster (Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rove, Wolfewitz) was willing to commit seppuku, and since I wasn't about to throw my vote away on the self-appointed loser Ralph Nader (who hoisted himself to fame quoting my road test of the 1964 Corvair Monza, BTW), I figured Kerry had to be better than the Devil I did know. I only wish it had been John McCain. vs. Zell Miller - now THERE'S a choice! When one sez "hatchback" in this country, one thinks of the late, unlamented Chevette. When one weeps for the evolution of our species, I think of Camille Paglia (in a leather bustier and 5-inch stilettos, of course). Let's get off this topic before I draw my Hunter S. Thompson Signature Edition 1911 and drill you right between the eyes. "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > In this country, John, hatchbacks are considered down around the anklesas

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > far as style, class, and taste are concerned; > > <splutter> > > I openly weep for the evolution of our species. So you're telling me > that as I sit at the lights in my Lancia Delta Integrale, your average > knuckle-scraping, SUV-driving, Bush-voting moron is going to think *he* > has the automotive class, and *I* have the "Elvis on velvet"? > > Oh dear... :-) > > (Don't mind the Bush part - I know half of you guys thought he was > better than his political clone Kerry. I tend to take Steve Bell's view!)

In article <yne1e.98416$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >since I wasn't about to throw my vote away on the self-appointed loser Ralph >Nader (who hoisted himself to fame quoting my road test of the 1964 Corvair >Monza, BTW) Do tell! >When one sez "hatchback" in this country, one thinks of the late, >unlamented Chevette. Ah, but hatches (and wagons) are making a comeback, albeit under different names: crossover, sport-combi, MAXX ...

Sad Steve, I still respect your invaluable expertise in the Car industry but your politics scare me and had the electorate agreed with you Iraq and the entire ME would be a real mess. 30 million newly FREED people in 2 countries voting in FREE elections is somehow a disaster? We sadly lost over 1500 brave soldiers but in the big scheme of things thats nothing. We lose nearly that many in training accidents in the same time period and that many in just a few minutes of dday. The previous administrations uncontrolled terrorists are now hiding instead of attacking. Id say were winning. Mitch BTW GW will be looked upon in history as a brave politician that changed the world for the better despite the lefts continual insane ramblings. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> > I only voted for Kerry (whom I personally can't stand) because I thought > SOMEBODY ought to pay a price for our misadventure in Iraq...other than > our > brave, misled troops. Since none of the neo-con architects of this > disaster > (Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rove, Wolfewitz) was willing to commit seppuku, and

So sad to hear another misguided flag waving defense of the chicken-hawk president and his fraudulent war. Declaring anyone is 'newly freed' by the occupation by US military forces of countries that were no credible threat to national security... When none of the WMD or 9/11 rationales for preemptive war are or were true... When the neo-con fascists who seized the White House in 2000 are known to have immediately started plans for war to occupy the oil fields of Iraq... While the Bush administration ignored the warnings of the out going Clinton national security team as well as ongoing intel concerns about the growing threat of domestic terrorist attack from Al-Queda leading up to 9/11... When most of the world stood against the US in the lead up to the war, and still does... And then to pander to the religious right with federal intervention in a family depute over whether to let a woman in a 'persistent vegetative state' die, for the obvious cynical political purpose of distracting the media from the Orwellian dismantling of American liberty while securing the worlds resources for for American Corporations... None of this would be possible but for the massive delusions exemplified by those who support the neo-fascists regime in Washington. Of course some of those are not deluded at all, but are true fascists themselves. Yes Mitch, history will judge George W. Bush, and like Hitler, those who supported him. FYI Classic definition of fascism: www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html The architects of American empire: www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html Bogus President / Bogus War Marty Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> Sad Steve, I still respect your invaluable expertise in the Car industry but > your politics scare me and had the electorate agreed with you Iraq and the > entire ME would be a real mess. > > 30 million newly FREED people in 2 countries voting in FREE elections is > somehow a disaster? We sadly lost over 1500 brave soldiers but in the big > scheme of things thats nothing. We lose nearly that many in training > accidents in the same time period and that many in just a few minutes of > dday. > > The previous administrations uncontrolled terrorists are now hiding instead > of attacking. Id say were winning. > > Mitch > > BTW GW will be looked upon in history as a brave politician that changed the > world for the better despite the lefts continual insane ramblings. > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> > I only voted for Kerry > (whom I personally can't stand) because I thought > >>SOMEBODY ought to pay a price for our misadventure in Iraq...other than >>our >>brave, misled troops. Since none of the neo-con architects of this >>disaster >>(Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rove, Wolfewitz) was willing to commit seppuku, and > > >

True. I even considered that Subaru Imprezza hatchback...before I discovered that it doesn't have the same mechanical underpinnings as the WRX sedan. "Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:B4g1e.113386$[email hidden]... > In article <yne1e.98416$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith"<[email hidden]> wrote: > > >since I wasn't about to throw my vote away on the self-appointed loserRalph > >Nader (who hoisted himself to fame quoting my road test of the 1964Corvair

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Monza, BTW) > > Do tell! > > >When one sez "hatchback" in this country, one thinks of the late, > >unlamented Chevette. > > Ah, but hatches (and wagons) are making a comeback, albeit under > different names: crossover, sport-combi, MAXX ...

Nothing? Ask the families of the 1,500 troops who died. We've turned Iraq into a bigger spawning ground for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was...and we still haven't caught the guy responsible for 9/11. I think the guy who preceded GW was even worse. I'm a little to the right of Ghengis Khan, if you really wanna know. If I had been the SoD, I would've gone into Iraq w. twice as many troops as Gen. Shinseki advised. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:qMh1e.2917$[email hidden]... > Sad Steve, I still respect your invaluable expertise in the Car industrybut

Quoted text (10 lines)

> your politics scare me and had the electorate agreed with you Iraq and the > entire ME would be a real mess. > > 30 million newly FREED people in 2 countries voting in FREE elections is > somehow a disaster? We sadly lost over 1500 brave soldiers but in the big > scheme of things thats nothing. We lose nearly that many in training > accidents in the same time period and that many in just a few minutes of > dday. > > The previous administrations uncontrolled terrorists are now hiding

instead > of attacking. Id say were winning. > > Mitch > > BTW GW will be looked upon in history as a brave politician that changedthe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> world for the better despite the lefts continual insane ramblings. > > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> > I only voted for Kerry > (whom I personally can't stand) because I thought > > SOMEBODY ought to pay a price for our misadventure in Iraq...other than > > our > > brave, misled troops. Since none of the neo-con architects of this > > disaster > > (Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rove, Wolfewitz) was willing to commit seppuku,

and > >

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > In this country, John, hatchbacks are considered down around the anklesas

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > far as style, class, and taste are concerned; > > <splutter> > > I openly weep for the evolution of our species. So you're telling me > that as I sit at the lights in my Lancia Delta Integrale, your average > knuckle-scraping, SUV-driving, Bush-voting moron is going to think *he* > has the automotive class, and *I* have the "Elvis on velvet"? > > Oh dear... :-) > > (Don't mind the Bush part - I know half of you guys thought he was > better than his political clone Kerry. I tend to take Steve Bell's view!)

<rolls eyes> Nice try........"Here, let me get a dig in on any Bush supporters, but, wink, don't mind it guys"

MartyU wrote: > <moveon.org talking points snipped> nice job regurgitating the left-wing propaganda. Randy

First dont take my statement out of context. The lives arent "nothing" but the crok tears form some left wing activist are... Having been an Infantryman I can honestly say that most if not all knew the risk when they joined the MILITARY! Ignorance is no excuse. Crocodile tears in this case are a slap in the face to ANY soldier and is disrespectful to the tenth degree. If ya wanna cry about lives being lost look no further than the US highways. Since the start of the Iraqi war weve lost over 40k (yes 40,000) innocent lives including women and children yet the 1500 make the headlines in the liberal medias agenda driven world. The troop made a conscience choice to join and knew the risk and accepted it. For someone else to use that FREE CHOICE as some kind of a tool against a politician is absurd. Things arent perfect in Iraq but ask the Kurds if this mission was/is a success.... No one is trying to blow smoke here. Mistakes were made but things are improving all over the ME and its only going to get better. Mitch "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:T9z1e.120229$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Nothing? Ask the families of the 1,500 troops who died. > > We've turned Iraq into a bigger spawning ground for terrorists than > Afghanistan ever was...and we still haven't caught the guy responsible for > 9/11. > > I think the guy who preceded GW was even worse. > > I'm a little to the right of Ghengis Khan, if you really wanna know. If I > had been the SoD, I would've gone into Iraq w. twice as many troops as > Gen. > Shinseki advised. >

Randy Magruder wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> MartyU wrote: > > >><moveon.org talking points snipped> > > > nice job regurgitating the left-wing propaganda. > > Randy

Truth hurts sometimes. Not all have the guts to face it. Marty

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Steve Smith wrote: > >>and we still haven't caught the guy responsible for >>9/11. >> > > > He's of bigger use for the current US administration while he's > roaming around freely. It's easier to keep people scared and afraid > that way. > > All the best, > > Uwe > >

Absolutely. Glad to see someone here gets it. Marty

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:T9z1e.120229$[email hidden]... > Nothing? Ask the families of the 1,500 troops who died. > > We've turned Iraq into a bigger spawning ground for terrorists than > Afghanistan ever was.. <snip other drivel> Cite ?

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:10:59 GMT, Steve Smith wrote: > and we still haven't caught the guy responsible for > 9/11. > He's of bigger use for the current US administration while he's roaming around freely. It's easier to keep people scared and afraid that way. All the best, Uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Do you have ANY kind of proof or are conspiracies your thing? If you rub that bottle hard enough a Jeannie will pop out too ;) Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was considered the lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened to reason and common sense over their?? Mitch "Uwe Sch�rkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote > He's of bigger use for the current US administration while he's

Quoted text (10 lines)

> roaming around freely. It's easier to keep people scared and afraid > that way. > > All the best, > > Uwe > > > -- > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Do you have ANY kind of proof or are conspiracies your thing? > > If you rub that bottle hard enough a Jeannie will pop out too ;) > > Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was considered the > lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened to reason and common > sense over their??

We put it on the shelf when you guys re-elected GWB as we figured we wouldn't need it for another 4 years :) (Warning, the above was intended as a joke) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Randy Magruder wrote: > Don't worry, there are people even WORSE than Marty, like that French > author who claims that 9/11 didn't really happen, and even if it did, > it must've been those Israeli agents on adjacent buildings > choreographing the whole thing. Classic right-wing difficulty with cognitive dissonance. Terrorist attacked us so my leader must be right about who the threat is. > The Michael-Moore lunatic fringe has become even more unhinged now that > their "Bush=Hitler" campaign didn't work. Michael Moore, great American hero. Has the guts and the brains to seek the awful truth and use his art to communicate. > It's fun to imagine them at their keyboards foaming at the mouth, > waking up every morning full of hatred and paranoia. Yes, Randy it has never been a better time to be a liberal Democrat. Liberals are what stands between America and the jugernaught of ocorporatism being engineered by the Bush neo-fascists. > Oh well, there will always be enough rational people out there that we > shouldn't have to worry about people like this actually getting > elected. They'll just have to settle for an attempt at judicial > tyranny. Oh yes, it's judicial tyranny when ever the right-wing doesn't like a court ruling. Like the Terri Shiavo case, right? > Randy > > PS Marty, pop quiz for you. Did the founding fathers of this country > (evil white heterosexual males, of course), write that the judiciary > should be the final authority on what is constitutional? Yes or no. Final authority? If you believe in democratic principles of government that is of, by, and for the people, no. The judiciary interpets the law. I think that was covered in Government 101. Marty

Randy Magruder wrote: > Good one! They can't wait 4 years though. His wing of the party is > undoubtedly getting champaigne on ice so they can toast their success > when Terri Schaivo dies. It'll be like Christmas for the 'culture of > death' crowd. Culture of death crowd? You mean those of us who want an end to the flow of our soldier's blood to secure oil? I continually mystifies me how the religious fundamentalists of the right wing seems to have all but exclusive concern for life before birth and after death. And yes, Terri Shiavo died long ago regardless of the medical support that has kept her body alive. Marty

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Goy Larsen wrote: > > >>Mitch_A wrote: >> >>>Do you have ANY kind of proof or are conspiracies your thing? >>> >>>If you rub that bottle hard enough a Jeannie will pop out too ;) >>> >>>Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was >>>considered the lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened >>>to reason and common sense over their?? >> >>We put it on the shelf when you guys re-elected GWB as we figured we >>wouldn't need it for another 4 years :) >> >>(Warning, the above was intended as a joke) >> >> >>Beers and cheers >>(uncle) Goy >>"goyl at nettx dot no" >> >>http://www.theuspits.com >> >>"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" >>--Groucho Marx-- > >

Mitch_A wrote: > 30 million newly FREED people in 2 countries voting in FREE elections is > somehow a disaster? We sadly lost over 1500 brave soldiers but in the big > scheme of things thats nothing. We lose nearly that many in training > accidents in the same time period and that many in just a few minutes of > dday. Mitch - this ain't the place for politics, but democracy says you can't just remove people you don't like. Look on any newsreel footage of Iraq, Saddam got a whole load more support than Bush or Blair get at home. Heck, if the world worked by removing foreign leaders who didn't fit "our view", the majority of Europe would be marching through Washington right now! :-) > BTW GW will be looked upon in history as a brave politician that changed the > world for the better despite the lefts continual insane ramblings. I *truly* believe history will look back in horror on GW, as the worst president in the history of the United States. There's a LOT of mileage in this before we see whether "the world" has changed for the better. Not "the world as the US sees it" or "the world as the US wishes it", but the world that exists for the people in those countries. If he wanted to make the world better, stopping his world bank buddies raping the third world, and his arms manufacturing other buddies selling even more weapons to them, would have been a far better place to start. No money in that though. Sorry, way OT

Randy > > Truth hurts sometimes. Not all have the guts to face it. > Particularly people like you, just off the mothership. How's Elvis, btw? Send my greetings on one of your next trips home. Randy

JP wrote: >>(Don't mind the Bush part - I know half of you guys thought he was >>better than his political clone Kerry. I tend to take Steve Bell's view!) > > <rolls eyes> Nice try........"Here, let me get a dig in on any Bush > supporters, but, wink, don't mind it guys" Er....where did you read that? I implied they were *both* wankers...

Don't worry, there are people even WORSE than Marty, like that French author who claims that 9/11 didn't really happen, and even if it did, it must've been those Israeli agents on adjacent buildings choreographing the whole thing. The Michael-Moore lunatic fringe has become even more unhinged now that their "Bush=Hitler" campaign didn't work. It's fun to imagine them at their keyboards foaming at the mouth, waking up every morning full of hatred and paranoia. Oh well, there will always be enough rational people out there that we shouldn't have to worry about people like this actually getting elected. They'll just have to settle for an attempt at judicial tyranny. Randy PS Marty, pop quiz for you. Did the founding fathers of this country (evil white heterosexual males, of course), write that the judiciary should be the final authority on what is constitutional? Yes or no. Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Do you have ANY kind of proof or are conspiracies your thing? > > If you rub that bottle hard enough a Jeannie will pop out too ;) > > Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was > considered the lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened to > reason and common sense over their?? > > Mitch > > > "Uwe Sch|rkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote > He's of bigger use > for the current US administration while he's > > roaming around freely. It's easier to keep people scared and afraid > > that way. > > > > All the best, > > > > Uwe > > > > > > -- > > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Good one! They can't wait 4 years though. His wing of the party is undoubtedly getting champaigne on ice so they can toast their success when Terri Schaivo dies. It'll be like Christmas for the 'culture of death' crowd. Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: > > > > Do you have ANY kind of proof or are conspiracies your thing? > > > > If you rub that bottle hard enough a Jeannie will pop out too ;) > > > > Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was > > considered the lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened > > to reason and common sense over their?? > > We put it on the shelf when you guys re-elected GWB as we figured we > wouldn't need it for another 4 years :) > > (Warning, the above was intended as a joke) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JP wrote: > > >>(Don't mind the Bush part - I know half of you guys thought he was > >>better than his political clone Kerry. I tend to take Steve Bell'sview!) > > > > <rolls eyes> Nice try........"Here, let me get a dig in on any Bush > > supporters, but, wink, don't mind it guys" > > Er....where did you read that? I implied they were *both* wankers... Um, in your post ? But then, this is priceless too, from another post,......"Mitch - this ain't the place for politics, ....." So, you can post political comments, but not others ? Interesting.

Randy Magruder wrote: > Don't worry, there are people even WORSE than Marty, like that French > author who claims that 9/11 didn't really happen, and even if it did, > it must've been those Israeli agents on adjacent buildings > choreographing the whole thing. You have to admit though, the French guy has a shred of a point. I'm far from saying he's right, but I've never seen a plane disappear into a hole smaller than itself, nor leave any trace of wreckage, bodies, seats, luggage, or any of the other debris we've all seen in every other plane crash. It *is* wierd

JP wrote: > Um, in your post ? > > But then, this is priceless too, from another post,......"Mitch - this > ain't the place for politics, ....." > > So, you can post political comments, but not others ? Interesting. I was apologising for the fact that *I* was about to go off topic. I made no comment on what others should or should not do. You should try it sometime.

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> JP wrote: > > Um, in your post ? > > > > But then, this is priceless too, from another post,......"Mitch - this > > ain't the place for politics, ....." > > > > So, you can post political comments, but not others ? Interesting. > > I was apologising for the fact that *I* was about to go off topic. > > I made no comment on what others should or should not do. You should try > it sometime.

<laughter> My, the hypocrisy just keeps on comin'. It "ain't the place for politics", yet you have no problem posting such......repeatedly in one thread, including the first illusion to it maybe ? Suggest you follow your own advice.

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: > > > > Do you have ANY kind of proof or are conspiracies your thing? > > > > If you rub that bottle hard enough a Jeannie will pop out too ;) > > > > Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was considered

the

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened to reason and common > > sense over their?? > > We put it on the shelf when you guys re-elected GWB as we figured we > wouldn't need it for another 4 years :) > > (Warning, the above was intended as a joke) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no"

Your kind intentions aside, some jokes are just too close to the truth. ;o) Elrikk

JP wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <laughter> > > My, the hypocrisy just keeps on comin'. It "ain't the place for > politics", yet you have no problem posting such......repeatedly in one > thread, including the first illusion to it maybe ? > > Suggest you follow your own advice.

Tell you what, I'll just file "getting through to you" under recreational impossibilities. By the way, it's "allusion".

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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> JP wrote: > > <laughter> > > > > My, the hypocrisy just keeps on comin'. It "ain't the place for > > politics", yet you have no problem posting such......repeatedly in one > > thread, including the first illusion to it maybe ? > > > > Suggest you follow your own advice. > > Tell you what, I'll just file "getting through to you" under > recreational impossibilities.

Sounds good; should be right next to the section about you entitled "Who, me ?" > > By the way, it's "allusion". Gee, thanks Mom. But at the same time, to be expected.

MartyU wrote: > Culture of death crowd? You mean those of us who want an end to the > flow of our soldier's blood to secure oil? As if concern for our soldiers were really what was driving you. Only one thing drives you. Pure, unadulterated hatred. That's all that drives you. You wouldn't care about the truth at all if it forced you to give up your hate. > I continually mystifies me how the religious fundamentalists of the > right wing seems to have all but exclusive concern for life before > birth and after death. I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. > And yes, Terri Shiavo died long ago regardless of the medical supportthat has kept her body alive. You don't know that. That's what you believe. There are nobel-nominated physicians who disagree with you. But what do they know? You've got your ideology, and far be it from you to even express any slightest tinge of doubt. It's amazing that the left will take the smallest amount of doubt to spare the life of someone who committed murder and rape, but when it comes to doubt about Terri Schiavo, they claim to have none. Enjoy your champaigne. You sure put one over on those pesky Christians, trying to keep someone alive. More power to death... >

> Classic right-wing difficulty with cognitive dissonance. Terrorist > attacked us so my leader must be right about who the threat is. Classic left-wing loon, if it's a republican in office, war is bad. If it's a democrat...more war, we need more war! > Michael Moore, great American hero. Has the guts and the brains to > seek the awful truth and use his art to communicate. ROFL! Michael Moore, the self-hating American "hero"? Good one! It doesn't bother you a bit that most of the crap in Fahrenheit 9/11 were proven lies that no thinking person could take seriously. Oh wait, I forgot about that caveat: "thinking person". Take him as seriously as you like then. > Yes, Randy it has never been a better time to be a liberal Democrat. > Liberals are what stands between America and the jugernaught of > ocorporatism being engineered by the Bush neo-fascists. LOL! It's really funny how when you don't have an enemy, you can create one. >> Oh yes, it's judicial tyranny when ever the right-wing doesn't like a > court ruling. Like the Terri Shiavo case, right? You don't understand the constitution one whit. You're as ignorant as most of the raving left. > Final authority? If you believe in democratic principles of > government that is of, by, and for the people, no. The judiciary > interpets the law. I think that was covered in Government 101. The judiciary interprets the law. They do not WRITE it (well, up until recently, when somehow the judiciary starting finding things that didn't exist in the constitution). Since you have so much respect for our judiciary, I assume you also supported the internment of the Japanese in WWII and the institution of slavery...since both were at one point fully backed by our laws. But hey, we don't want to flout the law right? Last time I checked, each branch of government swears fealty to the Constitution, NOT the judiciary. The truth of the matter is pretty easy to find. Start with reading Federalist papers 78 and 79 regarding the power of the courts. Or, if your attention span lasts long enough, read this and I dare you to dispute its accuracy: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43472 I have to say that after I write these posts I ask myself why I'm even bothering. You cleasrly are absolutely CONSUMED with such utter hatred towards all things conservative, that my guess is that there is nothing that anyone could say or do to convince you that you were wrong. So failing that, my suggestion is that you travel to Baghdad, and in a public street corner (with, of course, the aid of a translator), you tell the Iraqi people that they aren't really free, and all the blather about Bush. I expect you won't make it out of that square alive. Or alternatively, there are many organizations which are still looking for the "useful idiots" of Stalin's day, to do their bidding. You might find an organization like this and offer yourself as a spokesman. You have the concept of 'reading your lines' down pat. I keep thinking of the movie "Lethal Weapon 2" where Danny Glover is in the South African embassy saying he wants to move to S. Africa to end apartheid, and he is using phrases like "oppresive white regime", and Joe Pesci's character, with a big stupid grin on his face, is doing the role of "amen, brother" and says stupidly "oppressive white regime!" parroting Danny Glover. When I see posts like yours that look like they could have been cut 'n pasted from the moveon.org website, complete with every lie and tired cliche trotted out, touted as fat, I just see you as a parrot incapable of any kind of rational thought on the subject, because you are utterly blinded by your hatred of all things not far left. Randy

John Wallace wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You have to admit though, the French guy has a shred of a point. I'm > far from saying he's right, but I've never seen a plane disappear > into a hole smaller than itself, nor leave any trace of wreckage, > bodies, seats, luggage, or any of the other debris we've all seen in > every other plane crash. > > It is wierd

Okay, John, you win -- 9/11 was cooked up by Bush in Area 51 (which coincidentally, is also where the second shooter on the grassy knoll has retired and is living comfortably sipping cocktails with Elvis)

John Wallace wrote: > Mitch - this ain't the place for politics, but democracy says you > can't just remove people you don't like. Look on any newsreel footage > of Iraq, Saddam got a whole load more support than Bush or Blair get > at home. Um, yeah, that's because our ballots don't have two options: [ ] Saddam Hussein [ ] please rape my wife in front of me and torture me to death My guess is that option 1 is probably going to get a lot more votes :) > Heck, if the world worked by removing foreign leaders who didn't fit > "our view", the majority of Europe would be marching through > Washington right now! :-) Saddam Hussein's "views" didn't gas the kurds and the Iranians, my friend, nor did they invade a neighboring country and turn it into a miniature 3rd reich, complete with secret police. > I truly believe history will look back in horror on GW, as the worst > president in the history of the United States. There's a LOT of > mileage in this before we see whether "the world" has changed for the > better. Not "the world as the US sees it" or "the world as the US > wishes it", but the world that exists for the people in those > countries. Well, your crystal ball is just as good or bad as mine is. On the other hand, Winston Churchill had the left howling at him for saying the Nazis were really a threat, and now we know how mr. peacemaker neville chamberlain went down in history. > If he wanted to make the world better, stopping his world bank > buddies raping the third world, and his arms manufacturing other > buddies selling even more weapons to them, would have been a far > better place to start. You and Marty must be reading the same web sites! Randy

Hopefully this exerpt isn't too 'dry' for you to follow, but read it carefully if you dare: -------------------- AT THIS POINT, ONE might expect a discussion of how John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison declared the Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. Kramer, however, shows that this standard interpretation of Marbury is erroneous. At most, Marbury stands for the proposition that the Court may make reference the Constitution when deciding a case. In 1803, this was not a given. We must remember that in the British system only Parliament could make constitutional interpretations. Parliament was the ultimate sovereign and, to paraphrase Blackstone, could make or unmake any law as it saw fit. The Marbury Court simply recognized that because the people are the ultimate sovereigns in America, all three coordinate branches may refer to the people's fundamental law when carrying out their assigned constitutional duties. Had Marshall declared the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter, President Jefferson would likely have had him sent to the federal gaol. In essence, Marshall's Marbury opinion simply articulated the doctrine of "departmentalism" favored by the Jeffersonian Republicans. Departmentalist theory is perhaps best examined in the context of President Jefferson's approach to the Sedition Act. Upon entering office, Jefferson ordered the cessation of all federal sedition prosecutions and he pardoned those who had been convicted. In 1804, Jefferson received a letter from Abigail Adams criticizing his handling of the Sedition Act controversy. Mrs. Adams argued that because the judges had upheld the Sedition Act, President Jefferson had overstepped his constitutional bounds when terminating prosecutions and pardoning offenders. In a polite response, Jefferson reminded Mrs. Adams that "nothing in the constitution has given [the judges] the right to decide for the executive, more than the Executive to decide for them." Both branches, continued Jefferson, "are equally independent in the sphere assigned to them." Jefferson recognized that the judges, "believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution." However, this did not bind him when performing his duties as chief executive. Because he believed the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, he "was bound to remit the execution of it." Jefferson, like Madison in his Report to the Virginia House of Delegates on the Sedition Act, denied that the judiciary was the final arbiter of the Constitution. To give any one "co-equal" branch such a power would make it "despotic." Of course, a final arbiter is needed if the branches cannot reach an accommodation on certain issues. And for Jefferson this ultimate power resided in the people of the several states -- the ultimate sovereigns in the American system. By using the ballot box or meeting in convention, the people would settle all disputed constitutional questions. ------------------------------ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290860/posts

MartyU <[email hidden]> wrote in news:42472b57$0$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I continually mystifies me how the religious fundamentalists of the > right wing seems to have all but exclusive concern for life before birth > and after death. And yes, Terri Shiavo died long ago regardless of the > medical support that has kept her body alive. > > Marty >

What life support? oxygen? no...blood transfusions? no...Heart pacemakers? no... Did she need Kidney machines? no...Did she need breathing assistance? no... Did she need anything that you see on shows like ER just to stay alive? No. All she needed was tube for food and water and somebody to change her diapers. Thats not life support. As many know, I'm not a republican nor a democrat.(although I can easily see most of my thoughts have a more 'right-wing' angle than left these days) I don't subscribe to party politcs, I'm not a member of any religious group. I don't see TS as 'on life support' as so many like to claim. But I also do not see why her case stands out so...we have probably thousands of similarly end-stage elders facing the same life/death issues every year. I did hear one interesting juxtaposition, The other day a 10 year old boy tried to sneak water into the facility..he was arrested, handcuffed and taken away by 4(yes 4 policemen) Yet also last week, a 200+pound man on trial for rape was escorted by 1 (yes only 1!) 54year old grandmother even AFTER they had discovered two shanks on his person before the trial began. The result..the Granny was shot in the face...with her own weapon...the perp then shot the judge, the bailiff and a Fed Imigration officer later during his escape. This is all blown out of perportion. I greive for the family yet have no doubt they are not saving Terri's life. dave henrie Now will somebody esplain what ANY of this has to do with simming? dh

ROTFLMFAO "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Okay, John, you win -- 9/11 was cooked up by Bush in Area 51 (which > coincidentally, is also where the second shooter on the grassy knoll > has retired and is living comfortably sipping cocktails with Elvis) > >

ROTFLMFAO 9/11 was cooked up by Bush in Area 51 (which

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

Quoted text (14 lines)

> John Wallace wrote: > > > You have to admit though, the French guy has a shred of a point. I'm > > far from saying he's right, but I've never seen a plane disappear > > into a hole smaller than itself, nor leave any trace of wreckage, > > bodies, seats, luggage, or any of the other debris we've all seen in > > every other plane crash. > > > > It is wierd > > Okay, John, you win -- 9/11 was cooked up by Bush in Area 51 (which > coincidentally, is also where the second shooter on the grassy knoll > has retired and is living comfortably sipping cocktails with Elvis) >

I always get a kick out of how the same "group" who say that those in the Bush admin are as dumb as fence posts, but yet in the same breath, credit them with being able to pull of the most intricate of conspiracies. But then, double-talk is their specialty.

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pgC1e.1927$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:T9z1e.120229$[email hidden]... > > Nothing? Ask the families of the 1,500 troops who died. > > > > We've turned Iraq into a bigger spawning ground for terrorists than > > Afghanistan ever was.. > > <snip other drivel> > > Cite ?

Figures; didn't think so.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:21:58 GMT, Mitch_A wrote: > Europe has went off the deep end. This kind of thinking was considered the > lunatic fringe not long ago, what the hell happened to reason and common > sense over their?? Ironically, the same thing could be said of the other side of the atlantic, too. Remember: when you're arguing with an idiot, chances are high he's doing the same! ;-) All the best, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:35:42 -0600, Randy Magruder wrote: > > coincidentally, is also where the second shooter on the grassy knoll > has retired and is living comfortably sipping cocktails with Elvis) Wrong! We all know Elvis was abducted by Martians. That's why both Beagle and Mars Observer were shot down when they approached their home planet ;-) All the best, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:07:16 +0100, John Wallace wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> JP wrote: >> Um, in your post ? >> >> But then, this is priceless too, from another post,......"Mitch - this >> ain't the place for politics, ....." >> >> So, you can post political comments, but not others ? Interesting. > > I was apologising for the fact that *I* was about to go off topic. > > I made no comment on what others should or should not do. You should try > it sometime.

C'mon guys, everybody enjoys a good old GWB flamewar in here every once in a while. This phenomenon is bound to stay with us here for the next three years or so ;-) All the best, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"Uwe Sch�rkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:07:16 +0100, John Wallace wrote: > > JP wrote: > >> Um, in your post ? > >> > >> But then, this is priceless too, from another post,......"Mitch -this

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >> ain't the place for politics, ....." > >> > >> So, you can post political comments, but not others ? Interesting. > > > > I was apologising for the fact that *I* was about to go off topic. > > > > I made no comment on what others should or should not do. You should try > > it sometime. > > C'mon guys, everybody enjoys a good old GWB flamewar in here every > once in a while. This phenomenon is bound to stay with us here for the > next three years or so ;-) > > All the best, uwe > > > -- > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Hehe, good point. <g>

In article <[email hidden]>, "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote: [...] I was looking forward to seeing one of auto sim worlds most esteemed denizens contributing some welcome insight on the sim world. Instead ... Oh well. Back to rec.autos.simulators.OT.political.opinionated.drivel (from all sides) ...

Randy Magruder wrote: > LOL! It's really funny how when you don't have an enemy, you can > create one. Like the Russians? Like Al Quaeda? Like "The War On Terror"? Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terror could last fifty years or more? It's the perfect "non enemy" to justify any spending, any rolling back of civil liberties, the bill of liberties in the US, trial by jury over here. Vastly greater numbers of people die on the roads each year than have ever been killed by all terrorists in history. Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit, peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die from. Compared to 9/11, twice as many children die every day from the effects of poverty, but our efforts to do anything about that are pitiful. Asking as a human being, why should that be? Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium shells (WMDs? No, because we used them), and the hospital facilities treat them with....a bottle of aspirin. Why, because that's all that Britain and the US allowed in under the embargo, despite the UN resolution specifically allowing such drugs. I think everyone can agree that's a tragedy, yes? But look at the media clamour over Terri Shiavo (a person) compared to the media silence over thousands of Iraqi children dying of cancer and preventible diseases. Please don't read into this that I'm knocking your beliefs, I'm not. I'm just stating mine. I find it fascinating that two people, albeit from different perspetives and with differently "apun" information can arrive at such different opinions on the same topic. It's fine as long as both are open for discussion. However, we need to recognise truly who and where the enemies are, and have some sense of proportion.

JP wrote: >>By the way, it's "allusion". > > Gee, thanks Mom. > > But at the same time, to be expected. Yes, I'd imagined you would by now have become accustomed to people correcting you.

Randy Magruder wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> John Wallace wrote: > > >>You have to admit though, the French guy has a shred of a point. I'm >>far from saying he's right, but I've never seen a plane disappear >>into a hole smaller than itself, nor leave any trace of wreckage, >>bodies, seats, luggage, or any of the other debris we've all seen in >>every other plane crash. >> >>It is wierd > > > Okay, John, you win -- 9/11 was cooked up by Bush in Area 51 (which > coincidentally, is also where the second shooter on the grassy knoll > has retired and is living comfortably sipping cocktails with Elvis)

Oh come on Randy, that is the lamest non-argument. FFS at least deal with the question - if you can't answer it, are you yourself not curious as to why?! I thought such questioning was an innate part of humanity.

Randy Magruder wrote: > Saddam Hussein's "views" didn't gas the kurds and the Iranians, my > friend, nor did they invade a neighboring country and turn it into a > miniature 3rd reich, complete with secret police. There isn't the time to go into how wrong you are about the above statements, not I suspect the willingness on your side to open your mind to it. I used to believe what you did, was challenged on it, and researched for myself. I urge you to do the same. >>If he wanted to make the world better, stopping his world bank >>buddies raping the third world, and his arms manufacturing other >>buddies selling even more weapons to them, would have been a far >>better place to start. > > You and Marty must be reading the same web sites! Do you disagree? Sufficient weapons exist to kill everyone on the planet four times over. Do you think the world will be a better place when we spend further trillions on making that five or six, or could the effort be used more profitably? I have as much fight with the average Iraqi as I do with you, my next door neighbour, or indeed the average Chinese or any other person in the world. Why do we feel the need to pigeon-hole them, correction, to have them pigeon-holed for us into "like" and "hate"? Or live and die? Saddam was the US' best buddy back in the 80's, and again in the 90's, as was Suharto in days gone by, as was Noriega, etc etc - the list is endless.

Randy Magruder wrote: > I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of > innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns > her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm > not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling > to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. Sometimes Stalin really did say it best.

LOL, good to know where you stand, Randy. One of the few good things about these dark times under Bush is that people are increasingly willing to speak up and take politics seriously. One of the cultural defects in American society has been treating politics as a dirty word, and all politicians as bad guys. I welcome your angry diatribe. While it's obvious I can't convince you of the threat of Bush's neo-fascism, expressing our views is fundamental to what is left of a free and open society. Marty Randy Magruder wrote:

Quoted text (87 lines)

>>Classic right-wing difficulty with cognitive dissonance. Terrorist >>attacked us so my leader must be right about who the threat is. > > > Classic left-wing loon, if it's a republican in office, war is bad. If > it's a democrat...more war, we need more war! > > >>Michael Moore, great American hero. Has the guts and the brains to >>seek the awful truth and use his art to communicate. > > > ROFL! Michael Moore, the self-hating American "hero"? Good one! It > doesn't bother you a bit that most of the crap in Fahrenheit 9/11 were > proven lies that no thinking person could take seriously. Oh wait, I > forgot about that caveat: "thinking person". Take him as seriously as > you like then. > > >>Yes, Randy it has never been a better time to be a liberal Democrat. >>Liberals are what stands between America and the jugernaught of >>ocorporatism being engineered by the Bush neo-fascists. > > > LOL! It's really funny how when you don't have an enemy, you can > create one. > > >>>Oh yes, it's judicial tyranny when ever the right-wing doesn't like a >> >>court ruling. Like the Terri Shiavo case, right? > > > You don't understand the constitution one whit. You're as ignorant as > most of the raving left. > > >>Final authority? If you believe in democratic principles of >>government that is of, by, and for the people, no. The judiciary >>interpets the law. I think that was covered in Government 101. > > > The judiciary interprets the law. They do not WRITE it (well, up until > recently, when somehow the judiciary starting finding things that > didn't exist in the constitution). Since you have so much respect for > our judiciary, I assume you also supported the internment of the > Japanese in WWII and the institution of slavery...since both were at > one point fully backed by our laws. But hey, we don't want to flout > the law right? > > Last time I checked, each branch of government swears fealty to the > Constitution, NOT the judiciary. > > The truth of the matter is pretty easy to find. Start with reading > Federalist papers 78 and 79 regarding the power of the courts. Or, if > your attention span lasts long enough, read this and I dare you to > dispute its accuracy: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43472 > > I have to say that after I write these posts I ask myself why I'm even > bothering. You cleasrly are absolutely CONSUMED with such utter hatred > towards all things conservative, that my guess is that there is nothing > that anyone could say or do to convince you that you were wrong. > > So failing that, my suggestion is that you travel to Baghdad, and in a > public street corner (with, of course, the aid of a translator), you > tell the Iraqi people that they aren't really free, and all the blather > about Bush. I expect you won't make it out of that square alive. > > Or alternatively, there are many organizations which are still looking > for the "useful idiots" of Stalin's day, to do their bidding. You > might find an organization like this and offer yourself as a spokesman. > You have the concept of 'reading your lines' down pat. > > I keep thinking of the movie "Lethal Weapon 2" where Danny Glover is in > the South African embassy saying he wants to move to S. Africa to end > apartheid, and he is using phrases like "oppresive white regime", and > Joe Pesci's character, with a big stupid grin on his face, is doing the > role of "amen, brother" and says stupidly "oppressive white regime!" > parroting Danny Glover. When I see posts like yours that look like > they could have been cut 'n pasted from the moveon.org website, > complete with every lie and tired cliche trotted out, touted as fat, I > just see you as a parrot incapable of any kind of rational thought on > the subject, because you are utterly blinded by your hatred of all > things not far left. > > Randy

Hmmm... www.freerepublic.com Thanks, I'll add that to my reference list of sources of extremest right-wing drivel. Marty Randy Magruder wrote:

Quoted text (55 lines)

> Hopefully this exerpt isn't too 'dry' for you to follow, but read it > carefully if you dare: > > -------------------- > AT THIS POINT, ONE might expect a discussion of how John Marshall in > Marbury v. Madison declared the Court to be the final arbiter of the > Constitution. Kramer, however, shows that this standard interpretation > of Marbury is erroneous. At most, Marbury stands for the proposition > that the Court may make reference the Constitution when deciding a > case. In 1803, this was not a given. We must remember that in the > British system only Parliament could make constitutional > interpretations. Parliament was the ultimate sovereign and, to > paraphrase Blackstone, could make or unmake any law as it saw fit. The > Marbury Court simply recognized that because the people are the > ultimate sovereigns in America, all three coordinate branches may refer > to the people's fundamental law when carrying out their assigned > constitutional duties. Had Marshall declared the Supreme Court to be > the final arbiter, President Jefferson would likely have had him sent > to the federal gaol. > > In essence, Marshall's Marbury opinion simply articulated the doctrine > of "departmentalism" favored by the Jeffersonian Republicans. > Departmentalist theory is perhaps best examined in the context of > President Jefferson's approach to the Sedition Act. Upon entering > office, Jefferson ordered the cessation of all federal sedition > prosecutions and he pardoned those who had been convicted. In 1804, > Jefferson received a letter from Abigail Adams criticizing his handling > of the Sedition Act controversy. Mrs. Adams argued that because the > judges had upheld the Sedition Act, President Jefferson had overstepped > his constitutional bounds when terminating prosecutions and pardoning > offenders. > > In a polite response, Jefferson reminded Mrs. Adams that "nothing in > the constitution has given [the judges] the right to decide for the > executive, more than the Executive to decide for them." Both branches, > continued Jefferson, "are equally independent in the sphere assigned to > them." Jefferson recognized that the judges, "believing the law > constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and > imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the > constitution." However, this did not bind him when performing his > duties as chief executive. Because he believed the Sedition Act was > unconstitutional, he "was bound to remit the execution of it." > > Jefferson, like Madison in his Report to the Virginia House of > Delegates on the Sedition Act, denied that the judiciary was the final > arbiter of the Constitution. To give any one "co-equal" branch such a > power would make it "despotic." Of course, a final arbiter is needed if > the branches cannot reach an accommodation on certain issues. And for > Jefferson this ultimate power resided in the people of the several > states -- the ultimate sovereigns in the American system. By using the > ballot box or meeting in convention, the people would settle all > disputed constitutional questions. > ------------------------------ > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290860/posts

This one little sentence speaks volumes and shows us exactly who John Wallace is. And what an ugly view it is.... Stalin and Saddam both hero's while GW is the anti-christ? Sad.. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > Sometimes Stalin really did say it best.

Versus your concrete argument that half of the Iraqi population is going to die of cancer... They sell refills over the net now and its cheap ;) Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Oh come on Randy, that is the lamest non-argument. FFS at least deal with > the question - if you can't answer it, are you yourself not curious as to > why?! > > I thought such questioning was an innate part of humanity.

Where do you get "half a million children" from?

I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort into.

>> Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terrorcould last fifty years or more?>> I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is that a conspiracy you also hold?) >> It's the perfect "non enemy" to justify any spending, any rollingback of civil liberties, the bill of liberties in the US, trial by jury over here. I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this administration? >> Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit,peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die from. And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times and prying open our mouths and murdering us. Every seller needs a buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of corporations? Sounds kinda like you are... >> Compared to 9/11, twice as many children die every day from theeffects of poverty, but our efforts to do anything about that are pitiful. What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate? >> Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uraniumshells I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well. >> Why, because that's all that Britain and the US allowed inunder the embargo, despite the UN resolution specifically allowing such drugs. >> Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain were stopping him. I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but I suppose you'll just deny that, too). The whole conspiracy thing is not only tired, it's also completely illogical and isn't borne out by reality. Those claiming Bush is dumb as a stump now credit him for somehow concocting and scheming world domination - saying one or the other depending upon what day of the week it is, how they feel, whether there's a full moon, etc. Then there's Dick Cheney, you know, also known as Beelzebub. You just vilify and make him the Dark Prince, and it really doesn't matter to you whether your charges actually make any sense. As long as they make you feel good and give you a human target against which to direct your seething hatred, I guess that's okay....it's what is to be expected for a person who lives in a country that gets its news from the BBC). ("the Biased British Communist" network) Usually the more people vilify Bush and Cheney as Hitler, pro-corporate or whatever, the more unhinged I'm convinced they have become. Randy

>> One of the few good things about these dark times under Bush is thatpeople are increasingly willing to speak up and take politics seriously>> How is that possible, since all of our civil liberties have been stripped away by Dick Cheney. What prison cell are you writing this from? I didn't know they had Internet access in Cheney's Liberal internment camps? Whenever you say "Bush's neo-fascism" I just smile the patient smile of someone dealing with the mentally challenged. I'd ask you to try thinking things through rationally and try to set hatred aside, but my guess is that hatred and bitterness just feel good to you, so go ahead and wallow in them. As for making me angry, you're not making me angry, you are amusing me in a pathetic kind of way. I'd love to see the results of a psychological study of lefties who are upset because their continued attempts to banish God from society and turn the US into another Cuba keep getting thwarted at the ballot box. The more unhinged you guys get, the bigger the Republican majority gets. If you libs were smart, you'd actually try to persuade people of your opinion without getting into all the neo-fascism cliches. People might actually listen to you if you toned down the rhetoric and showed some degree of rationality. Instead you post your 'manifestos' and people just tune you out as another of Stalin's "useful idiots". Randy

Dave, Sorry, man...we'll get back to sims - I guess he just caught me not in the mood to tolerate the manifestos. After today I will no longer reply to John & Marty's manifestos, okay? Randy

I'm soooooooo sorry. This is all my fault. I was the one that injected politics into an otherwise polite discussion of the virtual world vs. reality. We oughtta have a rule like the one at my family's dinner table: no POLITICS and no RELIGION. Can we all agree on that? "Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:26U1e.123278$[email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, "Randy Magruder"<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> [...] > > I was looking forward to seeing one of auto sim worlds most > esteemed denizens contributing some welcome insight on the sim > world. Instead ... > > Oh well. > > Back to rec.autos.simulators.OT.political.opinionated.drivel (from > all sides) ...

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > ROFL! Michael Moore, the self-hating American "hero"? Good one! It > doesn't bother you a bit that most of the crap in Fahrenheit 9/11 were > proven lies that no thinking person could take seriously. Oh wait, I > forgot about that caveat: "thinking person". Take him as seriously as > you like then. >

So what parts of that were confirmed lies? When do the slander suits begin - overshadowed by Michael Jackson case?

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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Randy Magruder wrote: > > > I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of > > innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns > > her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm > > not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling > > to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. > > So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the > killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? > Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. > > Sometimes Stalin really did say it best

Cite for the Albright quote ?

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> JP wrote: > > >>By the way, it's "allusion". > > > > Gee, thanks Mom. > > > > But at the same time, to be expected. > > Yes, I'd imagined you would by now have become accustomed to people > correcting you.

<laughter> Whoosh, right over the top of his head.

"MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:42485062$0$[email hidden]... > LOL, good to know where you stand, Randy. One of the few good things about > these dark times under Bush is that people are increasingly willing to > speak up and take politics seriously. One of the cultural defects in > American society has been treating politics as a dirty word, and all > politicians as bad guys. > LOL. Love democracy - a bunch of people who know nothing about leadership voting for a bunch of people who know nothing about leadership - even bitches get to vote which means there is no possibilty of anyone with any balls and brains getting a say in anything - thus the current inevitable crop of dildos at the helm of every political party. rotfl

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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Randy Magruder wrote: >> Don't worry, there are people even WORSE than Marty, like that French >> author who claims that 9/11 didn't really happen, and even if it did, >> it must've been those Israeli agents on adjacent buildings >> choreographing the whole thing. > > You have to admit though, the French guy has a shred of a point. I'm far > from saying he's right, but I've never seen a plane disappear into a hole > smaller than itself, nor leave any trace of wreckage, bodies, seats, > luggage, or any of the other debris we've all seen in every other plane > crash. > > It *is* wierd

You never saw that engine on the street? Did man really land on the moon? I saw it (911) happen live - looked pretty real to me.

In article <[email hidden]>, "rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Dave, > >Sorry, man...we'll get back to sims - I guess he just caught me not in >the mood to tolerate the manifestos. > >After today I will no longer reply to John & Marty's manifestos, okay? > >Randy

Hey, I'm just surprised that you didn't tell me to take a flying leap. But since we're talking deals, how about throwing in a GT4 review too :-)

In article <mdZ1e.18$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm soooooooo sorry. This is all my fault. I was the one that injected >politics into an otherwise polite discussion of the virtual world vs. >reality. We oughtta have a rule like the one at my family's dinner table: >no POLITICS and no RELIGION. Can we all agree on that? Still leaves SEX, right? Okay, everyone Kumbaya time ...

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

Quoted text (14 lines)

> John Wallace wrote: > >> Mitch - this ain't the place for politics, but democracy says you >> can't just remove people you don't like. Look on any newsreel footage >> of Iraq, Saddam got a whole load more support than Bush or Blair get >> at home. > > Um, yeah, that's because our ballots don't have two options: > > [ ] Saddam Hussein > [ ] please rape my wife in front of me and torture me to death > > My guess is that option 1 is probably going to get a lot more votes :) >

LOL - that's what i was gunna say. No doubt, Hussein needed to be booted. But the manner in which it has been done has been pathetic. Bush talks to much and buys into too many idiotic viewpoints and agendas/reasoning. He and others needed to stick to the key point - Hussein was an arsehole with a lot of power - the whole chemical weapons thing was a joke. Bush1 and Bush 2 have basically flushed shitloads of taxpayer dollars down the toilet in the name of accomplishing a basic task in a hopeless manner. With images of tortured prisoners with homosexual overtones at the hands of U.S. troops who look like they'd be right at home hanging out with Hussein's son, the whole thing is just a big joke. Those soldiers needed to be lined up against a wall and shot. Moral to the story - might has won the day with one bunch of dogs replacing another.

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote: >> In this country, John, hatchbacks are considered down around the ankles >> as >> far as style, class, and taste are concerned; > > <splutter> > > I openly weep for the evolution of our species. So you're telling me that > as I sit at the lights in my Lancia Delta Integrale, your average > knuckle-scraping, SUV-driving, Bush-voting moron is going to think *he* > has the automotive class, and *I* have the "Elvis on velvet"? >

Most would simply shake their head at your "furrin" car. Then again, those in the know would probably still shake their head and wonder why you would put up with such a tempermental car. I had considered an Integrale Evo for a while, but couldn't come to grips with the various electrical issues, or ultimately with the rather sad image the car has here in Switzerland. The Escort Cossie, Sport Quattro and Integrale were all awesome rally machines, no doubt, but just too wild for daily use (IMHO) and although in a whole different league than the Manta/Camaro/Capri of old days, still a modern "mullet-head" car (even if the modern equivalent driver doesn't have a mullet). I'm not saying this is a justly deserverd reputation, but it seems to be the case - for every driver who appreciates the rally heritage and dynamic talents of the Integrale, there are 10 hooligans who just like to make the wastegate go Whoop-Whoop while eyeing the ladies from their slammed-to-the-floor Sparco seat. I prefer more of a Q-ship, or a classic roadster. For my tastes, the current generation of Subaru STis and Mitsu Evos are also just a little too boy racer for me. But I diverge. The sad thing is that Americans don't appreciate the hatchback anymore... Stephen

No one at MY family's dinner table ever THOUGHT to talk abt. sex...or drugs...or rock & roll...or even tobacco or booze. Or maybe they never had the BALLS (now that mysogeny is outta the closet in this discussion). "Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:V402e.123371$[email hidden]... > In article <mdZ1e.18$[email hidden]>, "Steve Smith"<[email hidden]> wrote: > >I'm soooooooo sorry. This is all my fault. I was the one that injected > >politics into an otherwise polite discussion of the virtual world vs. > >reality. We oughtta have a rule like the one at my family's dinnertable: > >no POLITICS and no RELIGION. Can we all agree on that? > > > Still leaves SEX, right? > > Okay, everyone Kumbaya time ...

Steve Smith wrote: > I'm soooooooo sorry. This is all my fault. I was the one that injected > politics into an otherwise polite discussion of the virtual world vs. > reality. We oughtta have a rule like the one at my family's dinner table: > no POLITICS and no RELIGION. Can we all agree on that? No. The unwillingness of good people to look greed and corruption in the face and speak up, as if dirty politics doesn't effect them, is the American cultural sickness that has got us into a bogus war for oil and fear, roll back of environmental protection if it stands in the crony corporate profit, new ways for big government to invade our private lives, etc., etc., etc. But I take your point Steve, there is a time and place for everything. But I'm not sure it is necessarily inappropriate here where the subject is otherwise about entertainment through a simulated experience, as much as I love it too. Besides, how else would we come to know what a right-wing loon Randy is? Marty

Stephen F. wrote:

Quoted text (42 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Steve Smith wrote: >> >>>In this country, John, hatchbacks are considered down around the ankles >>>as >>>far as style, class, and taste are concerned; >> >><splutter> >> >>I openly weep for the evolution of our species. So you're telling me that >>as I sit at the lights in my Lancia Delta Integrale, your average >>knuckle-scraping, SUV-driving, Bush-voting moron is going to think *he* >>has the automotive class, and *I* have the "Elvis on velvet"? >> > > > Most would simply shake their head at your "furrin" car. > > Then again, those in the know would probably still shake their head and > wonder why you would put up with such a tempermental car. I had considered > an Integrale Evo for a while, but couldn't come to grips with the various > electrical issues, or ultimately with the rather sad image the car has here > in Switzerland. The Escort Cossie, Sport Quattro and Integrale were all > awesome rally machines, no doubt, but just too wild for daily use (IMHO) and > although in a whole different league than the Manta/Camaro/Capri of old > days, still a modern "mullet-head" car (even if the modern equivalent driver > doesn't have a mullet). I'm not saying this is a justly deserverd > reputation, but it seems to be the case - for every driver who appreciates > the rally heritage and dynamic talents of the Integrale, there are 10 > hooligans who just like to make the wastegate go Whoop-Whoop while eyeing > the ladies from their slammed-to-the-floor Sparco seat. I prefer more of a > Q-ship, or a classic roadster. For my tastes, the current generation of > Subaru STis and Mitsu Evos are also just a little too boy racer for me. > > But I diverge. The sad thing is that Americans don't appreciate the > hatchback anymore... > > Stephen > >

VW Golf R32.... Yum. Marty

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UG%1e.2083$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Randy Magruder wrote: > > > > > I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of > > > innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns > > > her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm > > > not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling > > > to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. > > > > So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the > > killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? > > Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. > > > > Sometimes Stalin really did say it best > > > Cite for the Albright quote ?

Didn't think so. Figures. > > >

"MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4249bb54$0$[email hidden]... > > VW Golf R32.... > > Yum. > > Marty Wait until you see the next-gen Golf GTI which VW will send to the states in 2006. We already have it here. It's a back-to-basics car (as much as is possible in an era of airbags, ABS, ESP, crush zones, necessary comfort etc.) which makes the old R32 really look like the overweight cruiser it was. A healthy and reliable 200hp from a blown 2.0L, and bags of torque as early as 1800rpm. Available with the DSG transmission (double clutch, uninterrupted power on upshifts) and the first decent suspension in a long time from VW. Very nice machine, and likely to rekindle the North American interest in hatchbacks to some degree. Stephen p.s. A shame you won't see the Ford Focus ST... it will be another killer car. Not to mention the crazy 180hp Seat *turbodiesel* Ibiza which has more torque than a locomotive. Or the Civic Type R.

Oh, so you don't have arguments, thus unable to debate. Very well. I knew that. You fit perfectly my impression of the vast majority of americans. ---A--- Randy Magruder wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Randy > >>Truth hurts sometimes. Not all have the guts to face it. >> > > Particularly people like you, just off the mothership. How's Elvis, > btw? Send my greetings on one of your next trips home. > > Randy

Now, instead of being blind and deaf, why don't you listen to what John actually said? He said: "Sometimes Stalin really did say it best". I am sure Stalin said a lot of good things, and he may even have put it well. But that doesn't make him a better person, of course, but that was never the intention of john's either. Some people hear "Stalin", and their petty minds start shortcutting and sizzle, and their minds just produce crap and bollocks. ---Asgeir--- Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> This one little sentence speaks volumes and shows us exactly who John > Wallace is. And what an ugly view it is.... > > Stalin and Saddam both hero's while GW is the anti-christ? > > Sad.. > > Mitch > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > >>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best. > > >

Albright used this number in a specific question concerning the trade blockade herself. People die when they suffer from ground water radiation and don't get medical care due to no medication available, you know. The blockade was the most ghastly treatment of the iraqui people, since the only victims were the ones completely without guilt whatsoever. ---A--- rmagruder wrote: > Where do you get "half a million children" from? >

Try this: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Iraqs_children.html Or this: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp Or this: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 The only thing you have to do is to open your eyes. ---A--- JP wrote:

Quoted text (47 lines)

> "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:UG%1e.2083$[email hidden]... > >>"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >> >>>Randy Magruder wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of >>>>innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns >>>>her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm >>>>not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling >>>>to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. >>> >>>So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the >>>killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? >>>Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. >>> >>>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best >> >> >> Cite for the Albright quote ? > > > > > Didn't think so. Figures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2e92t$st$[email hidden]... > Albright used this number in a specific question concerning the tradeblockade > herself. > > People die when they suffer from ground water radiation and don't getmedical > care due to no medication available, you know. > > The blockade was the most ghastly treatment of the iraqui people, sincethe only > victims were the ones completely without guilt whatsoever. > > ---A--- > > rmagruder wrote: > > Where do you get "half a million children" from? To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if not.

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2e9hn$17i$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Try this: > http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Iraqs_children.html > > Or this: > http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp > > Or this: > http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 > > The only thing you have to do is to open your eyes. > > ---A---

<laughter> I'd suggest you open yours. But thanks for verifying the quote, with the second and third link. First one didn't at all. As to the quote, so ? You read her other remarks, right ? Didn't think so. And again, and how did/who's fault was it that the sanction come about ? Put the tin beenie down, and try a thinking cap.

Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote in news:d2e6oi$sou$[email hidden]: > Some people hear "Stalin", and their petty minds start shortcutting > and sizzle, and their minds just produce crap and bollocks. > > ---Asgeir--- > Some people hear 'Stalin' and think of 20+ million people starved to death. It is kind of hard to have warm-fuzzy thoughts about anyone such as he. So he may have been a good administrator, he may have been a fine public works politician, he may have had many fine qualities...but the HORROR of his policies completely outweigh ANY thoughts anyone should have of this man. The fact you seem to admire him Ziggy...is frightening. dave(call me petty, I'd choose that over being a Stalinist ANYDAY)henrie

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2e92t$st$[email hidden]... > Albright used this number in a specific question concerning the tradeblockade > herself. > > People die when they suffer from ground water radiation and don't getmedical > care due to no medication available, you know. > > The blockade was the most ghastly treatment of the iraqui people, sincethe only > victims were the ones completely without guilt whatsoever. > > ---A--- > p.s. If you're so concerned about "ghastly treatment of the Iraqi (learn how to spell) people", interesting you don't seem to bothered by the UN oil/food scam. The $ was there to take care of the Iraqi's ya know. Or do you ? Doubt it.

JP wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d2e92t$st$[email hidden]... > > Albright used this number in a specific question concerning the trade > blockade > > herself. > > > > People die when they suffer from ground water radiation and don't get > medical > > care due to no medication available, you know. > > > > The blockade was the most ghastly treatment of the iraqui people, since > the only > > victims were the ones completely without guilt whatsoever. > > > > ---A--- > > > > p.s. If you're so concerned about "ghastly treatment of the Iraqi (learn > how to spell) people", interesting you don't seem to bothered by the UN > oil/food scam. The $ was there to take care of the Iraqi's ya know. > Or do you ? Doubt it.

If you're going to correct other people's spelling and/or grammar mistakes, especially in a post from a person who clearly doesn't have English as his first language, you should proof read your message before you post it Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" 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 (13 lines)

> JP wrote: > > > > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:d2e92t$st$[email hidden]... > > > Albright used this number in a specific question concerning the trade > > blockade > > > herself. > > > > > > People die when they suffer from ground water radiation and don't get > > medical > > > care due to no medication available, you know. > > > > > > The blockade was the most ghastly treatment of the iraqui people,

since

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > the only > > > victims were the ones completely without guilt whatsoever. > > > > > > ---A--- > > > > > > > p.s. If you're so concerned about "ghastly treatment of the Iraqi

(learn

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > how to spell) people", interesting you don't seem to bothered by the UN > > oil/food scam. The $ was there to take care of the Iraqi's ya know. > > Or do you ? Doubt it. > > > If you're going to correct other people's spelling and/or grammar > mistakes, especially in a post from a person who clearly doesn't have > English as his first language, you should proof read your message before > you post it > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

If you're got the time and desire to butt into other people's thread, to give advice on giving advice, how about you do it for me ?

I hope you realize that statement makes you look like an IDIOT??? "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in > You fit perfectly my impression of the vast majority of americans. > > ---A---

You are one scary mofo.... "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in ".

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > I am sure Stalin said a lot of good things, Some people hear > "Stalin", ---Asgeir--- > > Mitch_A wrote: >> This one little sentence speaks volumes and shows us exactly who John >> Wallace is. And what an ugly view it is.... >> >> Stalin and Saddam both hero's while GW is the anti-christ? >> >> Sad.. >> >> Mitch >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > >> >>>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best. >> >>

In article <iPB2e.18457$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mitch_A) wrote: > You are one scary mofo.... The scary thing is when so many Americans think wholly with their hearts, not with their heads. To understand why Stalin was so evil you first have to understand why he was so successful. Maybe if you and many others could grasp that concept you'd understand why America is so despised under its current leadership. History has taught you nothing. Because you never listen, just talk loudly over calmer, more rational voices. Andrew McP

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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> In article <iPB2e.18457$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Mitch_A) wrote: > > > You are one scary mofo.... > > The scary thing is when so many Americans think wholly with their hearts, > not with their heads. To understand why Stalin was so evil you first have > to understand why he was so successful. > > Maybe if you and many others could grasp that concept you'd understand why > America is so despised under its current leadership. History has taught > you nothing. Because you never listen, just talk loudly over calmer, more > rational voices. > > Andrew McP

Having a Euro tell us that history has taught us nothing is pathetic hypocrisy at it's finest. The scary thing is when so many Euros in their arrogance think they know best, when history shows otherwise...............over............and over.....................and over.................etc. As to comparing the Bush admin to Stalinist Russia, quite the pathetic thought process you have there.

"JP" wrote...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> <snip> > Having a Euro tell us that history has taught us nothing > is pathetic hypocrisy at it's finest. The scary thing > is when so many Euros in their arrogance think they know > best, when history shows otherwise over and over and over > etc. > > As to comparing the Bush admin to Stalinist Russia, > quite the pathetic thought process you have there.

Is there any difference? -Bush will personally intervene in a euthanasia case, "fighting for a life" without seemingly realising his policies have sent thousands to an early grave in an unnescessary war. He's also willing to step on the weakest members of your society and to destabilise world economy to save America's big industries' bottom line. And don't me started on the Kyoto agreement. Why do we think we're right? -simple, we are able to put our prejudices aside and compromise on the basis of reasonable argument. Trying to force an inhumane existance from terminating, while on the other hand expecting perfectly functioning humans to die to defend a false notion of global security or statements like "you're either with us or against us", do not constitute reasonable argument. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:URG2e.51132$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > > <snip> > > Having a Euro tell us that history has taught us nothing > > is pathetic hypocrisy at it's finest. The scary thing > > is when so many Euros in their arrogance think they know > > best, when history shows otherwise over and over and over > > etc. > > > > As to comparing the Bush admin to Stalinist Russia, > > quite the pathetic thought process you have there. > > Is there any difference? -Bush will personally intervene in a euthanasia > case, "fighting for a life" without seemingly realising his policies have > sent thousands to an early grave in an unnescessary war. He's also willing > to step on the weakest members of your society and to destabilise world > economy to save America's big industries' bottom line. And don't me

started > on the Kyoto agreement. Is there any difference between someone who starved millions of his own people to death (and thats just for starters), and Bush ? <laughter> Is that a serious question ? Interesting how those who don't even live in the US think they know so much about it. Advise staying away from www.moonbatsrus.com for a bit, eh ? > > Why do we think we're right? -simple, we are able to put our prejudices > aside and compromise on the basis of reasonable argument. Trying to forcean > inhumane existance from terminating, while on the other hand expecting > perfectly functioning humans to die to defend a false notion of global > security or statements like "you're either with us or against us", do not > constitute reasonable argument. > > Jan. Whew, that tin beenie is on mighty tight, eh ? And you wonder why that part of the world isn't listened to anymore. p.s. this is putting your prejudices aside though, right ? >

"JP" wrote... > Is there any difference between someone who starved millions > of his own people to death (and thats just for starters), > and Bush ? <laughter> Is that a serious question ? > Interesting how those who don't even live in the > US think they know so much about it. US protectionist measures, i.e. dropping the price of their currency and driving up the price of oil, will cause indirect casualties in the developing world. >> <snip> > And you wonder why that part of the world isn't listened to > anymore. You have no logical argument. You're like the people who point out "yeah, but it might happen to *you*", when someone says you're less likely to die in an airplane crash than a car accident. As if that defuses their argument in any way. > p.s. this is putting your prejudices aside though, right ? Like I said, it's conditional... show me some reasonable argument. Jan. =---

"JP" wrote... > <snip> And another thing, just as an example... After I finished posting my last message I happened to zap across to CNN only to find the American news anchor asking an obviously rethoric question to the equally American economic analyst on whether objections to Wolfowitz'<sp?> nomination to become president of the world bank on account if him being in favour of "exporting democracy, US style" were justified. The analyst duly got into a story about how the market was moving away from caring about macro-economic parameters and on to fighting corruption, promoting democratic systems and transparency in order to defuse those objections. Ok, having been brought up as a typical reasonably independant thinking Euro (you know, since the 17-hundreds, it's been alright to think for yourself and question those in power around here... a trait which hasn't, again: seemingly, travelled well across the Atlantic), it's hard to argue against that. I mean, promoting democratic values is ok, no question. But extending that sentiment into wielding your economic and military power to ensure the succes of the add campaign is OTT AFAIC. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jzH2e.51157$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > > Is there any difference between someone who starved millions > > of his own people to death (and thats just for starters), > > and Bush ? <laughter> Is that a serious question ? > > Interesting how those who don't even live in the > > US think they know so much about it. > > US protectionist measures, i.e. dropping the price of their currency and > driving up the price of oil, will cause indirect casualties in the > developing world. >

Your proof of this assertion ? I won't address the inherent incorrectness of your facts, but lets see some proof. Not theories, that means.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> <snip> > > And you wonder why that part of the world isn't listened to > > anymore. > > You have no logical argument. You're like the people who point out "yeah, > but it might happen to *you*", when someone says you're less likely to die > in an airplane crash than a car accident. As if that defuses their

argument > in any way. <laughter> *I* have no logical argument ? Show me some proof of your allegations and your alleged future end results. > > > p.s. this is putting your prejudices aside though, right ? > > Like I said, it's conditional... show me some reasonable argument. You first. Btw, explain to me exactly how the Bush admin. is "stepping on the weakest parts of my society". Facts please, and try to answer at least one question directly for a change. I'm curious, since you didn't seem so concerned about the weakest parts of the US society under the Clinton admin. You know, when he and Reno had the Texas Barbecue, the Florida Fiasco, and the Idaho Adventure ? Show me one event under the Bush admin. regarding US citizens that is comparable to those. Assuming you even know what they were, but then, someone so concerned and knowledgeable about the US as you think you are, it should be no problem, eh ? Anyway, I await your facts.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:w1I2e.51169$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > > <snip> > > And another thing, just as an example... > > After I finished posting my last message I happened to zap across to CNN > only to find the American news anchor asking an obviously rethoric

question > to the equally American economic analyst on whether objections to > Wolfowitz'<sp?> nomination to become president of the world bank onaccount > if him being in favour of "exporting democracy, US style" were justified. > The analyst duly got into a story about how the market was moving awayfrom > caring about macro-economic parameters and on to fighting corruption, > promoting democratic systems and transparency in order to defuse those > objections. > > Ok, having been brought up as a typical reasonably independant thinkingEuro > (you know, since the 17-hundreds, it's been alright to think for yourself > and question those in power around here... a trait which hasn't, again: > seemingly, travelled well across the Atlantic), <snip> Yes, and you have done so well about it, too, ala all that history has shown since the 1700's. WW 1 and 2 ring a bell ? And that's just the 20th century. I mean, promoting democratic values is ok, no question. But extending > that sentiment into wielding your economic and military power to ensurethe > succes of the add campaign is OTT AFAIC. > > Jan. Putting aside the question of whether "wielding economic and military power to ensure success...." is right or wrong, since you think promoting democratic values is ok, how would you suggest it be done ?

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jzH2e.51157$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > > Is there any difference between someone who starved millions > > of his own people to death (and thats just for starters), > > and Bush ? <laughter> Is that a serious question ? > > Interesting how those who don't even live in the > > US think they know so much about it. > > US protectionist measures, i.e. dropping the price of their currency and > driving up the price of oil, will cause indirect casualties in the > developing world.

<snip> Oh, and btw, you might want to bone up on how oil prices come about. Hint; try OPEC for starters. History has shown, and continues to do so, that their prices are usually set for self-serving reasons, not because of US currency fluctuations. <laughter> The last thing the US wants, for it's own self-interests, is anything that would drive up the price of oil, that's in their control, aka currency. You're really reaching with this one, but whatever. Good thing you're not prejudiced though, eh ? <wink>

In article <0BE2e.2173$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (JP) wrote: > As to comparing the Bush admin to Stalinist Russia Your inability to step outside your patriotic indoctrination would make Stalin proud. Andrew McP

Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever done. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world. Im not saying this in an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite your clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people that want the best for the World and everyone in it. Simplistic maybe but at least we give people a choice. Some cultures and people cant handle the responsibility that Freedom needs to survive. That isnt our fault. Mitch "Andrew MacPherson" > Your inability to step outside your patriotic indoctrination would make > Stalin proud. > > Andrew McP

I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the brooding and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use *way, *way* more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. Booohoooooooo!" JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand and Availability. LOL!!! I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I *eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore the facts like ignorant heedless children do. ---A--- JP wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jzH2e.51157$[email hidden]... > >>"JP" wrote... >> >>>Is there any difference between someone who starved millions >>>of his own people to death (and thats just for starters), >>>and Bush ? <laughter> Is that a serious question ? >>>Interesting how those who don't even live in the >>>US think they know so much about it. >> >>US protectionist measures, i.e. dropping the price of their currency and >>driving up the price of oil, will cause indirect casualties in the >>developing world. > > > > <snip> > > Oh, and btw, you might want to bone up on how oil prices come about. > Hint; try OPEC for starters. History has shown, and continues to do so, > that their prices are usually set for self-serving reasons, not because of > US currency fluctuations. > > <laughter> > > The last thing the US wants, for it's own self-interests, is anything that > would drive up the price of oil, that's in their control, aka currency. > > You're really reaching with this one, but whatever. Good thing you're not > prejudiced though, eh ? <wink> > >

The *only* way to "promote democratic values" is to make sure these values are praised in the people itself. In each and every citizen. And *they*'ll decide what shall be done, and how it should be done, simply because they own the land, and they own their destiny. No country on this planet has *any* right to say "your leader is despotic and evil, and we'll deal with him". This is fundamental in *any* international treaty/agreement on this planet even the ones where US have a part. Only a very narrow-minded person would even *think* the thought that you can force someone into being democratic, or bomb someone into being democratic, or persuade someon into being democratic. Democracy is a *culture*, and culture takes centuries to build. Bombs never built culture, except the sick one, where violence is used as cure for everything. ---A--- JP wrote: <snip>

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > Putting aside the question of whether "wielding economic and military > power to ensure success...." is right or wrong, since you think promoting > democratic values is ok, how would you suggest it be done ? > > > >

Sorry, but I have to address what happened between the two world wars here. There is NO proof of 20 million+ starving to death in the Soviet Union. If you confront the population numbers through the in-between war years, you'll see a huge, and steady increase from 1929 to 1937, and it would be hard to proove that more than 20 million people died in that light. But people died from starvation, certainly. And, also FYI, Soviet had terrible problems after the revolution because their country had been abused by the tsar family over a long period of time, and they had to practically rebuild the entire country because of that. And people were starving, oh yes, they were, that's why Nansen spent so much time in Soviet trying to help the few he could, and claiming that Stalin was the direct cause of the starvation is like claiming that Charlton Heston is the direct cause of the thousands of gun deaths in America every year! ---A--- Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:d2e6oi$sou$[email hidden]: > > >>Some people hear "Stalin", and their petty minds start shortcutting >>and sizzle, and their minds just produce crap and bollocks. >> >>---Asgeir--- >> > > > Some people hear 'Stalin' and think of 20+ million people starved to > death. It is kind of hard to have warm-fuzzy thoughts about anyone such as > he. So he may have been a good administrator, he may have been a fine > public works politician, he may have had many fine qualities...but the > HORROR of his policies completely outweigh ANY thoughts anyone should have > of this man. > The fact you seem to admire him Ziggy...is frightening. > > dave(call me petty, I'd choose that over being a Stalinist ANYDAY)henrie >

Mitch_A wrote: > Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever done. > Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more > than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world. I'd like to see a list of good "contributions" relating directly to foreign policy. I already know the list of "mistakes", and it is long, and it is ugly. Sometimes, you can't say "yes, I made a mistake, but it was in good intention". When innocent people die due to your "mistakes", the intention is forfeit, void and meaningless, because innocent died! The major difference between US and European moral is the fact that weighing some lives against a few other lives is a natural thing to do. It isn't in europe, and this explains a whole range of complexes concerning american policy, foreigh policy among other things. The classical philosophical problem is the jew in the confrontation camp, confronted with the following choice: Either he wields a machine gun (if you can say "wield" when using a machine gun) and kill 100 of his own people, or he doesn't, and 200 of his people get killed. Think about it, what you'd do. > Im not saying this in > an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite your > clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people that > want the best for the World and everyone in it. Simplistic maybe but at > least we give people a choice. Some cultures and people cant handle the > responsibility that Freedom needs to survive. That isnt our fault. If you have made this realization about freedom, then why on earth are you guys bombing the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq? Why are you not giving these peoples a choice? ---Asgeir---

Mitch_A wrote: > Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the > US has ever done. When have I *ever* said that? The problem with many of you guys is that you and your current leadership so often spout a "you're either with us or against us" philosophy which has no place in real world debate. This isn't an ideal world. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But so often many of you talk as if Truth and Light and Justice is all that America stands for. If only that were true! America, like any other human construct, is as capable of being corrupted and misused as any other. Corruption comes in many forms. Your democracy is up for grabs to the highest bidder. Your military is all but worshipped as the Tool of Righteousness by people fed the Stars & Stripes from birth by cultural indoctrination. Your leaders must appeal to the tele-evangelist herded vote to succeed. And in order to stay in power they must preach fear. Fear of Russia. Fear of Al-Quaeda. Fear, quite literally, of your own shadow. A frightened population is an obedient population. Just ask Stalin. But then Stalin was loved by a lot of his people too. It's funny how rational human beings can admire a leader even when he does things which horrify others. > The US (despite your clouded nonsense) is a great country and > a great collection of people that want the best for the World > and everyone in it. I don't doubt that. However there are many great nations full of great people who want the same, but disagree about the journey and the destination. Their opinions count no more or no less just because they don't have the armed forces to back it up. Andrew McP PS Thanks for giving me something to think about while the anaesthetic wears off from my filling. Speaking of which, I believe the powered dental drill was invented by an American. Thanks a bunch! PPS Apologies if there's anything unusual about this post (apart from the fact it's full of OT euro-bollox). I'm posting with Mozilla Firebird for the first time and I'm not convinced I know what I'm doing. Nothing new there then ;-)

So, an eye for an eye, eh? Or in this case, a head for an eye? And in this case, it wasn't even your own eye which got hurt in the first place! Grow up, we are supposed to be sentient beings!!! Hasn't anyone told you that you must not let yourself be guided by the need for revenge? Your parents didn't do the job properly! ---A--- JP wrote: <snip> > > > To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if not.

What's wrong with "ghastly"? I thought I knew what that meant... And I won't continue this thread, because you are not arguing. You're just being a dickhead. I suggest you focus on continue being a dickhead, and you'll see where that brings you over the years. Good luck. So, if you tell me where I made a spelling error, I'll leave this thread better educated. ---A--- JP wrote:

Quoted text (34 lines)

> "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d2e92t$st$[email hidden]... > >>Albright used this number in a specific question concerning the trade > > blockade > >>herself. >> >>People die when they suffer from ground water radiation and don't get > > medical > >>care due to no medication available, you know. >> >>The blockade was the most ghastly treatment of the iraqui people, since > > the only > >> victims were the ones completely without guilt whatsoever. >> >>---A--- >> > > > > p.s. If you're so concerned about "ghastly treatment of the Iraqi (learn > how to spell) people", interesting you don't seem to bothered by the UN > oil/food scam. The $ was there to take care of the Iraqi's ya know. > Or do you ? Doubt it. > > > >

I am discontinuing the argue with you, sir, because it is a waste of time, and you are lost, and you will find out in due time. BTW, the reason for the sanctions was Saddam Hussein. The victim of the sanctions were the Iraqi people. Saddam got all the medication he needed. This was my point, and you failed completely to see it. Good luck in your life. ---A--- JP wrote:

Quoted text (37 lines)

> "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d2e9hn$17i$[email hidden]... > >>Try this: >>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Iraqs_children.html > > > > >>Or this: >>http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp > > > > >>Or this: >>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 >> >>The only thing you have to do is to open your eyes. >> >>---A--- > > > > > <laughter> > > I'd suggest you open yours. But thanks for verifying the quote, with the > second and third link. First one didn't at all. > > As to the quote, so ? You read her other remarks, right ? Didn't think > so. > > And again, and how did/who's fault was it that the sanction come about ? > Put the tin beenie down, and try a thinking cap. > >

Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > claiming that Stalin was the direct cause of the starvation > is like claiming that Charlton Heston is the direct > cause of the thousands of gun deaths in America every year! I agree that the Stalin period was much more complex than (TV) history often reports it, and on an abstract level he did an incredible job of modernising a peasant nation. But I think we can definitely say Stalin's policies were directly responsible for many millions of deaths and many more millions of people suffering greatly. Whether there was any other way of preparing Russia before Germany made its move eastwards (as Stalin feared from an early stage) we can only guess. One thing's for sure though, we owe Stalin's Russia a lot (in regards to defeating Hitler), and that's a bitter pill to have to swallow in some ways. Andrew McP

> If you're going to correct other people's spelling and/or grammar > mistakes, especially in a post from a person who clearly doesn't have > English as his first language, you should proof read your message before > you post it Goy, it seems ras is spawning a number of Adam Dean's. It's a shame that all these "over-inflated EGO's" have forgotten this NG is supposed to deal with auto simulators. It seems there is no escape from political and ideological bigotry. It's not like the air waves and media aren't fully saturated with it but the zealots feel the need to bring it here as well. I guess you were right about how things have died in sim racing. It's been fun watching ras and racing sims evolve from day one in my case but I guess it's time to move on. I just don't have the desire to read the latest rendition of alt.religion-politicalBS.org. Pete If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. Bertrand Russell

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2gbls$68l$[email hidden]... > I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC'sfault, > yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the brooding andpouting: > "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use *way, *way* more than wehave > ourselves for the prices that we want. Booohoooooooo!" > > JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand and > Availability. LOL!!! > > I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans willhave > to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I *eagerly* awaitit! > And it is not that far off in the future either!!! > > Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US wherepeople > start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not OPEC'sfault, > simply because they don't control the market. The prices get high because > everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US is the biggestconsumer > on the planet. And while you americans are concerned with your oil prices,this > planet goes to rot, and you ignore the facts like ignorant heedlesschildren do. > > ---A--- Wow, so much hatred for a tin beenie wearer. What happened to your Kumbaya mindset ?

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2gc3o$6jh$[email hidden]... > The *only* way to "promote democratic values" is to make sure these valuesare > praised in the people itself. In each and every citizen. And *they*'lldecide > what shall be done, and how it should be done, simply because they own theland, > and they own their destiny. No country on this planet has *any* right tosay > "your leader is despotic and evil, and we'll deal with him". This isfundamental > in *any* international treaty/agreement on this planet even the ones whereUS > have a part. > > Only a very narrow-minded person would even *think* the thought that youcan > force someone into being democratic, or bomb someone into beingdemocratic, or > persuade someon into being democratic. Democracy is a *culture*, andculture > takes centuries to build. Bombs never built culture, except the sick one,where > violence is used as cure for everything. I'd agree with most of this. Forcing someone to do anything never works.

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In article <0BE2e.2173$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (JP) > wrote: > > > As to comparing the Bush admin to Stalinist Russia > > Your inability to step outside your patriotic indoctrination would make > Stalin proud. > > Andrew McP

No, my ability not to take meaningless drivel from an arrogant, conceited Euro pisses you off, you mean.

<laughter> Right over the top of the tin beanie head. Show me exactly where I said eye for an eye ? You're bitching about your alleged damages done by the *UN* sanction (scam) against Iraq. I just stated the fact, that if Kuwait had never been invaded, there would have been no sanction. Besides the fact that the $ for Iraq were there via the scam, but SH and his crew decided to pocket them instead of spending them on food and medicine as supposedly required. Really not hard to understand. But do keep ignoring the facts. Makes your moonbat theories more interesting. "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2gfbk$8f0$[email hidden]... > So, an eye for an eye, eh? Or in this case, a head for an eye? And in thiscase, > it wasn't even your own eye which got hurt in the first place! > > Grow up, we are supposed to be sentient beings!!! > > Hasn't anyone told you that you must not let yourself be guided by theneed for

Quoted text (9 lines)

> revenge? Your parents didn't do the job properly! > > ---A--- > > JP wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if

not.

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2gfqi$8pe$[email hidden]... > What's wrong with "ghastly"? I thought I knew what that meant... Where did I say there was something wrong with it ? > > And I won't continue this thread, because you are not arguing. You're justbeing > a dickhead. I suggest you focus on continue being a dickhead, and you'llsee > where that brings you over the years. Good luck. So, does this mean you won't answer my question ? > > So, if you tell me where I made a spelling error, I'll leave this threadbetter > educated. > > ---A--- "I won't continue this thread because you are not arguing" <laughter> Interesting statement. Anyway, I thought you weren't going to continue this thread, yet you ask me a question. It's Iraqi btw.

So, since you finally admit that the sanctions, etc. were SH's fault (is that what you're saying ?), and he got all the meds, etc. he needed, why are you blaming Albright et al for your alleged problems with the sanction ? "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2gg2b$90b$[email hidden]... > I am discontinuing the argue with you, sir, because it is a waste of time,and > you are lost, and you will find out in due time. > > BTW, the reason for the sanctions was Saddam Hussein. The victim of the > sanctions were the Iraqi people. Saddam got all the medication he needed.This

Quoted text (35 lines)

> was my point, and you failed completely to see it. > > Good luck in your life. > > ---A--- > > JP wrote: > > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:d2e9hn$17i$[email hidden]... > > > >>Try this: > >>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Iraqs_children.html > > > > > > > > > >>Or this: > >>http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp > > > > > > > > > >>Or this: > >>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 > >> > >>The only thing you have to do is to open your eyes. > >> > >>---A--- > > > > > > > > > > <laughter> > > > > I'd suggest you open yours. But thanks for verifying the quote, with

the > > second and third link. First one didn't at all. > > > > As to the quote, so ? You read her other remarks, right ? Didn'tthink > > so. > > > > And again, and how did/who's fault was it that the sanction come about? > > Put the tin beenie down, and try a thinking cap. > > > >

No Andrew nothing too out of the ordinary ;) Oh man you just reminded me I need a root canal.... Mitch "Andrew MacPherson" > PPS Apologies if there's anything unusual about this post (apart from the > fact it's full of OT euro-bollox). I'm posting with Mozilla Firebird for > the first time and I'm not convinced I know what I'm doing. Nothing new > there then ;-)

Stephen F. wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

> "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4249bb54$0$[email hidden]... > >>VW Golf R32.... >> >>Yum. >> >>Marty > > > Wait until you see the next-gen Golf GTI which VW will send to the states in > 2006. We already have it here. It's a back-to-basics car (as much as is > possible in an era of airbags, ABS, ESP, crush zones, necessary comfort > etc.) which makes the old R32 really look like the overweight cruiser it > was. A healthy and reliable 200hp from a blown 2.0L, and bags of torque as > early as 1800rpm. Available with the DSG transmission (double clutch, > uninterrupted power on upshifts) and the first decent suspension in a long > time from VW. Very nice machine, and likely to rekindle the North American > interest in hatchbacks to some degree. > > Stephen > > p.s. A shame you won't see the Ford Focus ST... it will be another killer > car. Not to mention the crazy 180hp Seat *turbodiesel* Ibiza which has more > torque than a locomotive. Or the Civic Type R.

Not surprised. Thanks for the info. I'll start saving up now. The U.S. has long been denied most of the best performance cars the world has to offer. GT3&4 really drives the point home with the variety of cool cars not available here. The R32 is one exception because, as I read it, some American automotive journalists asked a VW exec. why we often don't get to have such cars. Marty

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:424bc3c9$0$296$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > claiming that Stalin was the direct cause of the starvation > > is like claiming that Charlton Heston is the direct > > cause of the thousands of gun deaths in America every year! > > I agree that the Stalin period was much more complex than (TV) history > often reports it, and on an abstract level he did an incredible job of > modernising a peasant nation. But I think we can definitely say Stalin's > policies were directly responsible for many millions of deaths and many > more millions of people suffering greatly. > > Whether there was any other way of preparing Russia before Germany made > its move eastwards (as Stalin feared from an early stage) we can only > guess. > > One thing's for sure though, we owe Stalin's Russia a lot (in regards to > defeating Hitler), and that's a bitter pill to have to swallow in some > ways. > > Andrew McP

One of the hilarious effects of the cold war is how the west has become so anti communist that they have abandoned their sense of community - now interpreted as communism - and live in an every man (and woman - even more funny) for him/herself. The New England Patriots demonstrate the power of team - the rest are a demonstration of collections of so called "superstars". Maybe the other teams of the NFL can start an anti communist campaign to oust the Patriots?

In article <zLV2e.1380$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mitch_A) wrote: > Oh man you just reminded me I > need a root canal.... Funny you should mention that. I came within >.< this much of root canal treatment. He showed me the bottom of the filling where he very nearly needed to drill into the nerve cavity. He did say I could have it done if I wanted, rather than wait & see if his new filling worked in the medium to long term. Strangely enough I had no inclination to volunteer. I'll wait until I'm in agony like the last time root canal work was required. Then I'll do anything to stop the pain :-) Such times always remind me how pointless torture is. Andrew McP

"JP" wrote... >> <snip> > Your proof of this assertion ? I won't address the > inherent incorrectness of your facts, but lets see some > proof. Not theories, that means. Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening your exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your market share is, by definition, a protectionist measure. The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother. You think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's natural resources? -think again. > <laughter> > > *I* have no logical argument ? No you don't. > Show me some proof of your allegations and your alleged > future end results. You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply in order to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took these measures in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European imports are now 20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of that!!" -get out of here!! >> <snip> > You first. > > Btw, explain to me exactly how the Bush admin. is "stepping > on the weakest parts of my society". Facts please, and try > to answer at least one question directly for a change. Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have money or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy yahooing about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine. > I'm curious, since you didn't seem so concerned about the > weakest parts of the US society under the Clinton admin. > You know, when he and Reno had the Texas Barbecue, the > Florida Fiasco, and the Idaho Adventure ? The primary sector over here was hit hard over this period of time too. I don't think Clinton did anything significantly worse than politicians over here. They didn't win any popularity contests either. However, we don't have this 2 term deal so continuity prevailed and those areas are on the up again in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, you guys were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who f'ing cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the Atlantic. I've gained a lot of respect for the man, post office. I think he's doing you guys a hell of a service while he could be just hacking in to the current administration. > Show me one event under the Bush admin. regarding US citizens > that is comparable to those. Assuming you even know what they > were, but then, someone so concerned and knowledgeable about > the US as you think you are, it should be no problem, eh ? Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in the world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that you don't, so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and, if you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", your grandson is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Because there isn't going to be left anything to run it on. Jan. =---

"JP" wrote... >> <snip> > I'd agree with most of this. Forcing someone to do > anything never works. No way!! -That's far too sensible. And you call yourself a patriot? Jan. <vbseg> =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rn03e.51926$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > >> <snip> > > Your proof of this assertion ? I won't address the > > inherent incorrectness of your facts, but lets see some > > proof. Not theories, that means. > > Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your > currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening

your > exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your market > share is, by definition, a protectionist measure. Definition ? Seemed like an accusation to me. Which requires facts. But nice dodge. > > The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother.You > think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's natural > resources? -think again. Show exactly where I said that (suck dry bit).

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > <laughter> > > > > *I* have no logical argument ? > > No you don't. >

Better than not answering direct questions put to one, as you are doing. > > Show me some proof of your allegations and your alleged > > future end results. > > You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters > wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply inorder > to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took thesemeasures > in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European imports are now > 20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of that!!" -get out of > here!! First of all, always amusing who the same group who likes to spout off who stupid the Bush admin is on one hand, in the same breath credit them with the most complex of consipiracies. Interesting. Besides the fact that oil/gas prices rose sharply before the election, so how that would help a re-election is curious. You really need to do some research. Anyway, answer my question. Proof. It's how we do things over here (figured I might as well do some patronizing myself. In return you understand).

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >> <snip> > > You first. > > > > Btw, explain to me exactly how the Bush admin. is "stepping > > on the weakest parts of my society". Facts please, and try > > to answer at least one question directly for a change. > > Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have

money > or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy yahooing > about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine. Um, we already have private healthcare. Always have. What are you referring to ? Medicare/caid ? (Assuming you even know what those are). Or do you have Social Security confused ? It has nothing to do with healthcare, if so.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > I'm curious, since you didn't seem so concerned about the > > weakest parts of the US society under the Clinton admin. > > You know, when he and Reno had the Texas Barbecue, the > > Florida Fiasco, and the Idaho Adventure ? > > The primary sector over here was hit hard over this period of time too. I > don't think Clinton did anything significantly worse than politicians over > here. They didn't win any popularity contests either. However, we don't

have > this 2 term deal so continuity prevailed and those areas are on the upagain > in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, youguys > were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who f'ing > cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the Atlantic. > > I've gained a lot of respect for the man, post office. I think he's doing > you guys a hell of a service while he could be just hacking in to the > current administration. You didn't answer my question. Surprised, I'm not.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > Show me one event under the Bush admin. regarding US citizens > > that is comparable to those. Assuming you even know what they > > were, but then, someone so concerned and knowledgeable about > > the US as you think you are, it should be no problem, eh ? > > Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in the > world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that > goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that you don't, > so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per > capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and,

if > you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", yourgrandson > is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Because there isn'tgoing > to be left anything to run it on. Newsflash for those who can't keep up: The US already IS the leading nation in the world, like it or not. As to the rest of your moonbat theory, we'll see. Since you'd rather deal in theories instead of facts, whatever you'd like to believe is fine.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Pt03e.51929$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > >> <snip> > > I'd agree with most of this. Forcing someone to do > > anything never works. > > No way!! -That's far too sensible. And you call yourself a patriot? > > Jan. <vbseg>

Hehe, show me where I called myself a patriot. I just don't tolerate moonbat theories and criticism is all.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rn03e.51926$[email hidden]... > Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your > currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening > your exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your > market share is, by definition, a protectionist measure. Jan, I am sure your probably don't really know why our dollar is cheap right now, BUT here are some real reasons. 1 - As the number of IMPORTS rises it puts downward pressure on the dollar. We are now importing more goods and services today than we ever have. So your idea that it is protectionist is completely false. 2 - Our dollar should probably be much lower if it was at a true value, but other countries prop it up, but because of our low interest rates, they have not been as eager to do so. 3 - A weak dollar should actually help our economy as it makes our goods and services more attractive overseas. > > The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother. > You think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's > natural resources? -think again. You are right here, BUT as prices rise the need/desire for THOSE natural resources will dwindle, alternative fuels sources are already being developed, but until the costs rise higher, what is the point? Just because you "run out" of something, doesn't necassarily mean it should be conserved. > You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters > wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply in > order to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took these > measures in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European > imports are now 20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of > that!!" -get out of here!! No, BUT American goods and services are 20% cheaper for foreigners to purchase and are expansionary for our economy. HOWEVER, if you look at the facts, it has in no way dampened the American desire for IMPORTS which therefore is expanding the world economy even faster. Right now, the world economy looks very attractive. > Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have > money or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy > yahooing about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine. That is completely false. No reason to respond. > in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, you > guys were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who > f'ing cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the > Atlantic. Why do we care? Because we don't want to let our society degenerate into a system of "Do whatever you want - no rules on me". YOU have no idea what the effects of our President getting "Monica'd" has done. Is it OK for young girls in Junior High to be giving their "Friends with Benefits" - Monica's in the Bathroom or having "Rainbow" parties? THAT is the reason why those issues ARE important.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in the > world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that > goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that you don't, > so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per > capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and, > if you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", your > grandson is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Because there > isn't going to be left anything to run it on.

Jan, as I am sure you are aware of, but it is very likely that JP's grandson will be running his SUV on alternative fuels by then and oil will be a non-issue. THIS is the primary reason why OPEC is VERY concerned with letting oil prices get too high. They do NOT want to give too much incentive for the continued development of alternative fuels. P.S. Do you also realize that CHINA's recent capitalistic expansion and resulting economic success is the primary reason for dramatic increase in demand for oil? There is also big speculation going on in the oil market right now. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com

"JP" wrote... > Wow, so much hatred for a tin beenie wearer. What happened > to your Kumbaya mindset ? If there's any good to come out of this whole mess, it's got to be a sort of territorial "European" sense among the populace over here; whereas "US-emulation" dominated one hslf and "US-hatred" the other before. The shift in perspective since Bush/Powell pushing through their way with Iraq regardless of not having UN sanctioning (both lied to the UN security counsil... inexcusable, in *our* opinion) is palpable Europe wide in popular culture/opinions. Which is a good thing, IMO, along with re-inforcing historic ties among Eastern and Western European nations, previously severed by the US demonising "the other half". It has all the makings of you having to compete with a resurging Europe instead of being able to divide and conquer by ignoring one half while culturally and economically dominating the other. And I though I was born into a boring era... <vbseg> Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9s13e.51947$[email hidden]... > "JP" wrote... > > Wow, so much hatred for a tin beenie wearer. What happened > > to your Kumbaya mindset ? > > If there's any good to come out of this whole mess, it's got to be a sortof > territorial "European" sense among the populace over here; whereas > "US-emulation" dominated one hslf and "US-hatred" the other before. The > shift in perspective since Bush/Powell pushing through their way with Iraq > regardless of not having UN sanctioning (both lied to the UN security > counsil... inexcusable, in *our* opinion) is palpable Europe wide inpopular > culture/opinions. Which is a good thing, IMO, along with re-inforcing > historic ties among Eastern and Western European nations, previouslysevered

Quoted text (10 lines)

> by the US demonising "the other half". > > It has all the makings of you having to compete with a resurging Europe > instead of being able to divide and conquer by ignoring one half while > culturally and economically dominating the other. > > And I though I was born into a boring era... <vbseg> > > Jan. > =---

<shrug> We'll see. Definately moonbat stuff here as usual. You really have an aversion to facts it seems. Your comments I guess are the latest version of a "resurging Europe". Last (but not first) heard it when the Euro, etc. came about. Seems a lot of jealousy to feel the need to make such comments imo. p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.

"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4i13e.19979$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rn03e.51926$[email hidden]... > > Since when does one have to prove a definition? -not supporting your > > currency in a sagging economy, thus alllowing it to drop and cheapening > > your exports with regard to other countries in order to preserve your > > market share is, by definition, a protectionist measure. > > Jan, I am sure your probably don't really know why our dollar is cheap

right > now, BUT here are some real reasons. > > 1 - As the number of IMPORTS rises it puts downward pressure on thedollar. > We are now importing more goods and services today than we ever have. So > your idea that it is protectionist is completely false. > > 2 - Our dollar should probably be much lower if it was at a true value,but > other countries prop it up, but because of our low interest rates, theyhave > not been as eager to do so. > > 3 - A weak dollar should actually help our economy as it makes our goodsand

Quoted text (11 lines)

> services more attractive overseas. > > > > > > The oil thing I could hardly word better than Asgeir, so I won't bother. > > You think the middle east is gonna allow you to suck it dry of it's > > natural resources? -think again. > > You are right here, BUT as prices rise the need/desire for THOSE natural > resources will dwindle, alternative fuels sources are already being > developed, but until the costs rise higher, what is the point? Just

because > you "run out" of something, doesn't necassarily mean it should beconserved.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > You're saying there are reasons other than short term fixes so voters > > wouldn't feel the effects of a global economic downturn as sharply in > > order to get re-elected? -You mean to say George and the gang took these > > measures in good faith and only afterwards realised "Dang, European > > imports are now 20% more expensive than before.... hadn't thought of > > that!!" -get out of here!! > > No, BUT American goods and services are 20% cheaper for foreigners to > purchase and are expansionary for our economy. HOWEVER, if you look at

the > facts, it has in no way dampened the American desire for IMPORTS which > therefore is expanding the world economy even faster. Right now, theworld

Quoted text (15 lines)

> economy looks very attractive. > > > > Hello? -Bush plans to completely privatise healthcare. That means have > > money or die. I can't believe voters overlooked that aspect. Too busy > > yahooing about kicking Iraqi ass, I would imagine. > > That is completely false. No reason to respond. > > > in different ways -instead of being artificially sustained. Anyway, you > > guys were too busy wondering whether Monica sucked his dick or not (who > > f'ing cares?) for much detail to filter through on this side of the > > Atlantic. > > Why do we care? Because we don't want to let our society degenerate into

a

Quoted text (8 lines)

> system of "Do whatever you want - no rules on me". YOU have no idea what > the effects of our President getting "Monica'd" has done. Is it OK for > young girls in Junior High to be giving their "Friends with Benefits" - > Monica's in the Bathroom or having "Rainbow" parties? THAT is the reason > why those issues ARE important. > > > > Exactly, that's the whole point. You want to be the leading nation in

the > > world without having to take the responsabililty towards the future that > > goes with it and Georgie is working his nuts off to ensure that youdon't, > > so you like him a lot. But the reality is this: you guys consume, per > > capita, twice as much natural resources as anyone else in the world and, > > if you hang on to your blinkers and preserve "your way of life", your > > grandson is going to have to turn his SUV into a flowerbed. Becausethere > > isn't going to be left anything to run it on. > > > Jan, as I am sure you are aware of, but it is very likely that JP'sgrandson

Quoted text (13 lines)

> will be running his SUV on alternative fuels by then and oil will be a > non-issue. THIS is the primary reason why OPEC is VERY concerned with > letting oil prices get too high. They do NOT want to give too much > incentive for the continued development of alternative fuels. > > P.S. Do you also realize that CHINA's recent capitalistic expansion and > resulting economic success is the primary reason for dramatic increase in > demand for oil? There is also big speculation going on in the oil market > right now. > > > Bill Bollinger > www.gsxn.com

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Careful though; facts tend to not set well with the moonbat brigade <g>

Western historians and writers usually try to decimate the ghastly soviet losses during WW2, but the fact remains, as you say - the eastern front was the decider of the war. The germans had very good records of their personell, and they have found out lately that more than 70% of the germans wounded/killed found place at the eastern front. 80% of the germans wounded/killed found place *prior* to D-day. Furthermore, I think we can say that soviet won the war more in spite of Stalin than because of him. He made huge mistakes both before the war and during it. At one point the russians had next to no qualified officers, and the vast majority of russians died as cannon fodder. This could have been avoided big scale, if Stalin had the senses to listen to his advisors (if you can call someone an "advicer" when they knew that Sibiria, or simply a bullet was not far away giving the wrong piece of "advice")... In many ways, Stalin's leadership resembles Hitler's in many ways, at least militarily. I think we can agree on the fact that the two of them caused millions of deaths, yes. One very peculiar thing is that after the war, there was born more boys than girls; in fact, I think for several years more than 60% of the newborns were boys. Funny how nature adjusts so easily to population changes... ---A--- Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > > claiming that Stalin was the direct cause of the starvation > > is like claiming that Charlton Heston is the direct > > cause of the thousands of gun deaths in America every year! > > I agree that the Stalin period was much more complex than (TV) history > often reports it, and on an abstract level he did an incredible job of > modernising a peasant nation. But I think we can definitely say Stalin's > policies were directly responsible for many millions of deaths and many > more millions of people suffering greatly. > > Whether there was any other way of preparing Russia before Germany made > its move eastwards (as Stalin feared from an early stage) we can only > guess. > > One thing's for sure though, we owe Stalin's Russia a lot (in regards to > defeating Hitler), and that's a bitter pill to have to swallow in some > ways. > > Andrew McP

--A--

What is fact and what is not. It always boils down to this. It's been the philosophical question of all times, and yet you americans (the vast majority, that is, there are sensible people all around the globe) just fail to see it. ---A---

Well, the thing is: OPEC have a limited resource and when you evaluate this resource, you have to take into account the fact that limited supply creates higher prices, thus bigger yield the oil will create. They can pump it up at the rate you want, but they will actually loose money on it. Who can blame these countries for doing just that? What would US do in the same situation? Oil strategy was adressed early in the 20th century and has been stable since. US have a lot of oil, but they pump as little as possible (as far as I know, they pump just enough to fill the military reserve tanks, which represents quite a few millions of gallons, mind you), and they go after controlling oil fields all over the world instead, one way or the other. Loads and loads of american historians will back me up on this, btw, I am not just drivelling here. Chinas evolving economy is one very big reason why oil is expensive these days. And since no oil producing country seem unwilling to pump it up faster, it will create an actual lack of oil. And you can imagine what will happen with oil prices that way. Today, there is enough oil produced, but not to keep prices low. The north sea here in northern europe is running dry in some 10 years, max. I have this from the british department of Trade and Industry (http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/). China will want huge amounts of oil in a few years time (they're already the third biggest importer these days), expect oil prices to escalate. The potential finds are years from becoming exploited, and the amount is unknown. But one thing is certain: This planet will not ever produce more oil than today, partly because the sources are limited, partly because it is politically impossible to pump more than is done today. I would like the oil producing countries to pump every single well dry in 3 years, because then we'd see a huge world wide recession that would take out most of the industrial northern hemisphere. And people would experience that we need to help each other, and think collectively, instead of being concerned with Lewinsky's, or Schiavo's or gay marriages or other "moral" issues. And this "new" country would force the leaders to think differently altogether, thinking community and equality before revenue. Every man for himself won't work when there is no gas to be burnt, no oil to be burnt for heating, no gas. The paradox is that the countries of the 3rd world will be the only ones nearly unaffected by the oil crisis, since they burn little oil in the first place. Americans claim that they have oil in Alaska! Yes, they do, but it is about 6 months consume 10 years away. ---A--- Bill Bollinger wrote: <snip>

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Jan, as I am sure you are aware of, but it is very likely that JP's grandson > will be running his SUV on alternative fuels by then and oil will be a > non-issue. THIS is the primary reason why OPEC is VERY concerned with > letting oil prices get too high. They do NOT want to give too much > incentive for the continued development of alternative fuels. > > P.S. Do you also realize that CHINA's recent capitalistic expansion and > resulting economic success is the primary reason for dramatic increase in > demand for oil? There is also big speculation going on in the oil market > right now. > > > Bill Bollinger > www.gsxn.com > >

Oil for food scam? I don't know anything about that. ---A--- JP wrote:

Quoted text (44 lines)

> <laughter> > > Right over the top of the tin beanie head. > > Show me exactly where I said eye for an eye ? You're bitching about > your alleged damages done by the *UN* sanction (scam) against Iraq. I just > stated the fact, that if Kuwait had never been invaded, there would have > been no sanction. > Besides the fact that the $ for Iraq were there via the scam, but SH and > his crew decided to pocket them instead of spending them on food and > medicine as supposedly required. > > Really not hard to understand. But do keep ignoring the facts. Makes > your moonbat theories more interesting. > > > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d2gfbk$8f0$[email hidden]... > >>So, an eye for an eye, eh? Or in this case, a head for an eye? And in this > > case, > >> it wasn't even your own eye which got hurt in the first place! >> >>Grow up, we are supposed to be sentient beings!!! >> >>Hasn't anyone told you that you must not let yourself be guided by the > > need for > >>revenge? Your parents didn't do the job properly! >> >>---A--- >> >>JP wrote: >><snip> >> >>> >>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if > > not. > >

Of course Saddam Hussein was to blame for the sanctions, indirectly. Repercussions could have been different, oh yes, but it was Saddam Hussein who triggered it. Of course it was. AND he was never affected by the blockade, but his people was. The only point I tried to make was that the sanctions *directly* killed hundred of thousands in deplated uranium polluted Iraq. Innocent people died, and in vain, since their leader was sitting comfortably still. I am blaming Albright for weighing about 500 000 lives up against a political goal, that is what I do. But that is the way american leaders think, I am aware of that, and it scares the shit out of me. And the "problem" is not alleged, it is a fact. Go there. Or talk to someone who did. Cancer frequency is going ballistic. Talk to the american soldiers with malformed babies after being down there. There are thousands of them. This has never been addressed properly by your "patriotic" press. ---A--- JP wrote:

Quoted text (77 lines)

> So, since you finally admit that the sanctions, etc. were SH's fault (is > that what you're saying ?), and he got all the meds, etc. he needed, why are > you blaming Albright et al for your alleged problems with the sanction ? > > > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d2gg2b$90b$[email hidden]... > >>I am discontinuing the argue with you, sir, because it is a waste of time, > > and > >>you are lost, and you will find out in due time. >> >>BTW, the reason for the sanctions was Saddam Hussein. The victim of the >>sanctions were the Iraqi people. Saddam got all the medication he needed. > > This > >>was my point, and you failed completely to see it. >> >>Good luck in your life. >> >>---A--- >> >>JP wrote: >> >>>"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:d2e9hn$17i$[email hidden]... >>> >>> >>>>Try this: >>>>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/Iraqs_children.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Or this: >>>>http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Or this: >>>>http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 >>>> >>>>The only thing you have to do is to open your eyes. >>>> >>>>---A--- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <laughter> >>> >>> I'd suggest you open yours. But thanks for verifying the quote, with > > the > >>>second and third link. First one didn't at all. >>> >>> As to the quote, so ? You read her other remarks, right ? Didn't > > think > >>>so. >>> >>> And again, and how did/who's fault was it that the sanction come about > > ? > >>>Put the tin beenie down, and try a thinking cap. >>> >>> > > >

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2iu4p$kau$[email hidden]... > --A-- I thought you were done talking with me ? Have something to say ?

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2iufk$kof$[email hidden]... > What is fact and what is not. It always boils down to this. It's been the > philosophical question of all times, and yet you americans (the vastmajority, > that is, there are sensible people all around the globe) just fail to seeit. > > ---A--- <laughter> Only a Euro could twist facts about any subject into being a "philosophical question."

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2j10g$m7k$[email hidden]... > Well, the thing is: OPEC have a limited resource and when you evaluatethis > resource, you have to take into account the fact that limited supplycreates > higher prices, thus bigger yield the oil will create. > > They can pump it up at the rate you want, but they will actually loosemoney on > it. Who can blame these countries for doing just that? What would US do inthe > same situation? > > Oil strategy was adressed early in the 20th century and has been stablesince. > US have a lot of oil, but they pump as little as possible (as far as Iknow, > they pump just enough to fill the military reserve tanks, which representsquite > a few millions of gallons, mind you), and they go after controlling oilfields > all over the world instead, one way or the other. Loads and loads ofamerican > historians will back me up on this, btw, I am not just drivelling here. > > Chinas evolving economy is one very big reason why oil is expensive thesedays. > And since no oil producing country seem unwilling to pump it up faster, itwill > create an actual lack of oil. And you can imagine what will happen withoil > prices that way. Today, there is enough oil produced, but not to keepprices low. > > The north sea here in northern europe is running dry in some 10 years,max. I > have this from the british department of Trade and Industry > (http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/). China will want huge amounts of oil in a fewyears > time (they're already the third biggest importer these days), expect oilprices > to escalate. The potential finds are years from becoming exploited, andthe > amount is unknown. But one thing is certain: This planet will not everproduce > more oil than today, partly because the sources are limited, partlybecause it > is politically impossible to pump more than is done today. > > I would like the oil producing countries to pump every single well dry in3 > years, because then we'd see a huge world wide recession that would takeout > most of the industrial northern hemisphere. And people would experiencethat we > need to help each other, and think collectively, instead of beingconcerned with > Lewinsky's, or Schiavo's or gay marriages or other "moral" issues. Andthis > "new" country would force the leaders to think differently altogether,thinking > community and equality before revenue. Every man for himself won't workwhen > there is no gas to be burnt, no oil to be burnt for heating, no gas. > > The paradox is that the countries of the 3rd world will be the only onesnearly > unaffected by the oil crisis, since they burn little oil in the firstplace. > > Americans claim that they have oil in Alaska! Yes, they do, but it isabout 6 > months consume 10 years away. > > ---A--- <laughter> Wow, the tin beanie is on mighty tight today, eh ? Pessimism isn't good for the health ya know. Suggest you do some research into history too. I don't buy the "when oil runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention, but history has shown people don't "come together" when times are bad, as you suggest will happen when oil runs out. The opposite in fact. The kumbaya stuff is soooo unrealistic.

Pete wrote: > > Goy, it seems ras is spawning a number of Adam Dean's. I wouldn't go quite that far myself :D, but for various reasons I'm certainly "moving on", there was a time when I checked r.a.s. a couple of times each day for the latest info or a friendly debate about something sim related, these days it can go weeks, and when I check in doesn't really seem as if I've missed much Oh well, the times they are a'changing I suppose 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--

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2its0$kau$[email hidden]... > > One very peculiar thing is that after the war, there was born more boys > than girls; in fact, I think for several years more than 60% of the > newborns were boys. Funny how nature adjusts so easily to population > changes... > A classic example of the manipulations of the gods. Bring on the Evolution freaks claiming this is evolutionary adaption - LOL.

"Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d2j1v1$mps$[email hidden]... > > And the "problem" is not alleged, it is a fact. Go there. Or talk to > someone who did. Cancer frequency is going ballistic. Talk to the american > soldiers with malformed babies after being down there. There are thousands > of them. This has never been addressed properly by your "patriotic" press. > More like the under the influence of the government/military/weapons company "you report this we kick your ass" press. Depleted Uranium - highly effective, super cheap and better to dispose of it this way than via nuclear waste neccessities - lotsa problems solved. Bloody fantastic! :)

"JP" wrote... >> <snip> > > <shrug> We'll see. Definately moonbat stuff here as usual. > You really have an aversion to facts it seems. Hmmm... I wouldn't call it an aversion to the facts, but Mitch is right: in my haste to get my point across, I did end up sounding like a raging lefty. Tends to happen when one's posting at this time of night and having to get up at a reasonable hour in the morning. DST just messed up my biorythm and makes me more intolerant than usual. > Your comments I guess are the latest version of a "resurging > Europe". Last (but not first) heard it when the Euro, etc. > came about. Yeah, and I got in a right state when BBC news made fun of it at the release. No, really... bloody cheeks. > Seems a lot of jealousy to feel the need to make such comments > imo. Oh, but I am jealous of the country you live in and your mindset in certain ways, no question. But at the same time I think, on the whole, things are better arranged over here. Less of a feelgood factor on the individual level, but with a broader perspective on the world. > p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? > Why yes, it was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. As in we were part of the UN at the time (like everone else, for that matter, why don't you go pick on some Peruvian?) and participated in sanctioning Iraq due to non-compliance on their part? -and then you guys decided we weren't being "hard" enough? Ok, so we have long standing ties with the place (probably dating back to Roman times) and, on the personal and individual company level this has led to some "creative trading", but to actually conclude we were supporting Saddam behind your back is a bit rich. Jan. =---

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pam3e.52735$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "JP" wrote... > >> <snip> > > > > <shrug> We'll see. Definately moonbat stuff here as usual. > > You really have an aversion to facts it seems. > > Hmmm... I wouldn't call it an aversion to the facts, but Mitch is right:

in > my haste to get my point across, I did end up sounding like a raginglefty.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > Tends to happen when one's posting at this time of night and having to get > up at a reasonable hour in the morning. DST just messed up my biorythm and > makes me more intolerant than usual. > > > Your comments I guess are the latest version of a "resurging > > Europe". Last (but not first) heard it when the Euro, etc. > > came about. > > Yeah, and I got in a right state when BBC news made fun of it at the > release. No, really... bloody cheeks. > > > Seems a lot of jealousy to feel the need to make such comments > > imo. > > Oh, but I am jealous of the country you live in and your mindset in

certain

Quoted text (14 lines)

> ways, no question. But at the same time I think, on the whole, things are > better arranged over here. Less of a feelgood factor on the individual > level, but with a broader perspective on the world. > > > p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? > > Why yes, it was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. > > As in we were part of the UN at the time (like everone else, for that > matter, why don't you go pick on some Peruvian?) and participated in > sanctioning Iraq due to non-compliance on their part? -and then you guys > decided we weren't being "hard" enough? > > Ok, so we have long standing ties with the place (probably dating back to > Roman times) and, on the personal and individual company level this has

led > to some "creative trading", but to actually conclude we were supporting > Saddam behind your back is a bit rich. > > Jan. > =--- Oh, if there was a Peruvian here saying the same things, I'd be bitching at them too, don't worry. Anyway, fwiw, I actually agree with most of your comments here, in a general sense.

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> This one little sentence speaks volumes and shows us exactly who John > Wallace is. And what an ugly view it is.... > > Stalin and Saddam both hero's while GW is the anti-christ? > > Sad.. > > Mitch

Mitch, you have *NO* idea what I said, so how can your response even begin to make sense? My comment was in no means any form of endorsement of Stalin - it simply alluded to a very famous quote of his. If you don't understand what I write, at least give me the respect of not turning my words into what you wished they meant.

Mitch_A wrote: > Versus your concrete argument that half of the Iraqi population is going to > die of cancer... You are just a font of disinformation today. I said "ALMOST half of ONE town in SOUTHER IRAQ are FORECAST to CONTRACT cancer in the coming years". You read "half of the Iraqi population will die from cancer"!!?? Almost half does not equal all. One town in Souther Iraq does not equal the entire Iraqi population Contract does not equal die So you got "cancer" right, and the entire rest of the sentence wrong. What the heck happens when you go to the shop to ask for a pint of milk? The mind boggles as to what you must come back with ;-) By the way, do you have information to prove the Basra cancer facts wrong? I base this on first-hand jourmalistic and medical evidence. On what do you base your belief that it's wrong?

rmagruder wrote: > Where do you get "half a million children" from? The WHO, the UN, the CIA - it's very widely known. Do a google search on Albright and iraqi kids - even she didn't deny it.

rmagruder wrote: > I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless > sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort > into. No-one is saying the sky has disappeared. If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that. Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen.

rmagruder wrote: >>>Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terror > > could last fifty years or more?>> > > I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is > that a conspiracy you also hold?) Sorry, Randy, straw man argument. Cheney said it - do you agree or disagree? I made no allegation about him and 9/11, so why are you trying to put down an argument I never made? > I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil > liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where > some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this > administration? Well, far be it from me to comment on your laws, but Amendment IV says; "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" The Patriot Act (LOL, well named) allows the police to come into your home, search, leave without telling you. The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act allows warrants from special courts, looking into such ridiculous items as what library books were read, again without notification. Just a couple of example of new laws trampling all over just one amendment to your bill of rights. We're no better off over here unfortunately.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>>Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit, > > peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die > from. > > And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making > us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times > and prying open our mouths and murdering us. Every seller needs a > buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're > not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't > responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of > corporations? Sounds kinda like you are...

I have no victim mentality - I make sure I'm not a victim. The point is that "free choice" is a myth for the most part. Okay, let's take just an example. I show you succulent chicken, couple of bucks, "special offer" tasty chicken breast. You might buy it. If I told you the chicken came from Indonesia, was shipped via Holland where it was injected with 50% water to make it bigger, injected with collagen to hold the water, injected with pig DNA to retain the collagen, and processed in filthy water to remove feathers etc, and had a high probability to be infected with campylobacter....would you still buy it? How about if you were moslem, and hadn't been given the information you were actually eating pig? Fact is that it probably is (more than 80% of the world's chicken comes from three companies, much of it processed in this way). You have the "free choice" to buy this, but you are usually not furnished with the full facts with which to properly exercise that free choice. > What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did > you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate? The "left wing" website of the United Nations. From your government. From my government. From journalist reports. From news. It's almost 11 million children per year, and a very widely known statistic. I suggest you contact those organisations and let them know you dispute it. >>>Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium > shells > > I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well. I know you can use Google.... http://www.google.co.uk/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=iraqi+children+cancer+depleted+uranium&btnG=Google+Search&meta= > Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during > the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain > were stopping him. You may say he bought weapons, but since we failed to find any I don't think we can say this with any certainty. Or do you think he just let his children die to teach us a lesson? Or to boost his popularity? > I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily > sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt > individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the > French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that > Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but > I suppose you'll just deny that, too). The oil-for-food "profits" went first of all to Kuwait (one of the richest countries in the world) as compensation for war damage. A third of the money went to pay UN "expenses" (I thought we paid out of tax, but there you go), further money goes to Kuwait as mentioned, further money goes as compensation to oil and other companies. and with the remainder Iraq would tender on the international markets for food, medical supplies etc - every contract then had to be approved by the UN sanctions committee. From August 1990, for eight months, ALL IMPORTS were banned, including food and medicine, despite these being explicitly allowed under resolution 661. Have you heard of Denis Halliday? He was the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, and resigned over the sanctions. He said "I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has deliberately killed over a million individuals". His successor, Hans von Spooneck, calculated the oil-for-food money, and after paying Kuwait, the UN, oil companies etc, Iraq was left with $100 for each citizen....per YEAR. That money has to pay also for infrastructure including oil, water, electricity etc. After that he also called the sanctions "genocide". But hey, it's a million Iraqis dying, so it doesn't matter...right?

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> This one little sentence speaks volumes and shows us exactly who John > Wallace is. And what an ugly view it is.... > > Stalin and Saddam both hero's while GW is the anti-christ? > > Sad.. > > Mitch

Mitch, you have *NO* idea what I said, so how can your response even begin to make sense? My comment was in no means any form of endorsement of Stalin - it simply alluded to a very famous quote of his. If you don't understand what I write, at least give me the respect of not turning my words into what you wished they meant.

JP wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Randy Magruder wrote: >> >> >>>I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of >>>innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns >>>her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm >>>not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling >>>to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. >> >>So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the >>killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? >>Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. >> >>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best > > > > Cite for the Albright quote ?

Interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS "we think the price is worth it".

Stephen F. wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>I openly weep for the evolution of our species. So you're telling me that >>as I sit at the lights in my Lancia Delta Integrale, your average >>knuckle-scraping, SUV-driving, Bush-voting moron is going to think *he* >>has the automotive class, and *I* have the "Elvis on velvet"? > Then again, those in the know would probably still shake their head and > wonder why you would put up with such a tempermental car.

You're probably right. Used to have an HF Integrale Turbo, and the turbo once caught fire while cruising throught the streets of a small town (after, I must say, a wild cross-country blast). It wasn't funny at the time, racing for some water with flames licking out the bonnet, but it must have looked ridiculous to those watching! I got rid of it soon afterwards....

JP wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:UG%1e.2083$[email hidden]... > >>"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >> >>>Randy Magruder wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of >>>>innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns >>>>her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm >>>>not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling >>>>to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. >>> >>>So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the >>>killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? >>>Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. >>> >>>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best >> >> >> Cite for the Albright quote ? > > > > > Didn't think so. Figures.

It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice. It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

Asgeir Nesoen wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Now, instead of being blind and deaf, why don't you listen to what John > actually said? He said: "Sometimes Stalin really did say it best". > > I am sure Stalin said a lot of good things, and he may even have put it > well. But that doesn't make him a better person, of course, but that was > never the intention of john's either. > > Some people hear "Stalin", and their petty minds start shortcutting and > sizzle, and their minds just produce crap and bollocks.

Thank you. You got my point. The Stali quote to which I was alluding was "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." So Terry Shiavo is a tragedy and a media frenzy, but we don't give a rat's ass about a million Iraqis. Sad, but true.

JP wrote: > To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if not. To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for two wars to get him out. Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though

Dave Henrie wrote: > The fact you seem to admire him Ziggy...is frightening. Dave, please can you explain to me how citing a very famous quote of Stalin's which fits a context, can be interpreted that the person is a raving commie? You should join the CIA - you may in fact be a touch overqualified.

Asgeir Nesoen wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's > fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the > brooding and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use > *way, *way* more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. > Booohoooooooo!" > > JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand > and Availability. LOL!!! > > I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans > will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I > *eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! > > Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where > people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not > OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices > get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US > is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are > concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore > the facts like ignorant heedless children do.

Amen, well said. Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan government, etc. By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after (9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but money is money, y'know...

Mitch_A wrote: > Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever done. > Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more > than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world. Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the tragedies occurring daily in Africa. Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of GDP as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest nation of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%. In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!). In the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights violations). > Im not saying this in > an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite your > clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people that > want the best for the World and everyone in it. Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

JP wrote: > p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it > was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide? Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity....

JP wrote: > Only a Euro could twist facts about any subject into being a > "philosophical question." Only you could fail to see that EVERYTHING revolves around your philosophy on life. Your world has clearly not yet evolved into colour.

JP wrote: > Suggest you do some research into history too. I don't buy the "when oil > runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention, but history has shown people > don't "come together" when times are bad, as you suggest will happen when > oil runs out. > The opposite in fact. So you believe everyone will reach for their Colt 45 "the gun that won the West", slaughter each other....and that will....make the oil come back? Protect you from the 1 billion Chinese who will slaughter you? Or the 1.3 billion Indians who will slaughter them? For your own sake you better start singing kumbaya and praying you're wrong. Nuclear missiles go nowhere without oil.

Time to wipe that foam off your mouth now John. You sound quite delusional. Yea those MILLIONS of innocent victims of the evil USA... <rolls eyes> Mitch . "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> JP wrote: > >> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it >> was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. > > Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide? > Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As the > saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity....

The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate. You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone with any common sense knows better. Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which makes your argument seem even more marginal. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and > it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

OK. I was in shock after reading that ;)

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Mitch, you have *NO* idea what I said, so how can your response even begin > to make sense? > > My comment was in no means any form of endorsement of Stalin - it simply > alluded to a very famous quote of his. If you don't understand what I > write, at least give me the respect of not turning my words into what you > wished they meant.

So your argument is that Clinton was at fault because he didnt oust Saddam as he should have? Which is it? Illegal invasion or a million kids? You cant have it every way. Either way Sadddam should have been gone long before GW came into office. If it was up to Europe Saddam would still be in power thumbing his nose. Somehow to you thats a better option? Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > rmagruder wrote: >> Where do you get "half a million children" from? > > The WHO, the UN, the CIA - it's very widely known. Do a google search on > Albright and iraqi kids - even she didn't deny it.

Google does not a *FACT* make.... Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily > found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice that > they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge mine, > and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

Google does not a *FACT* make.... Mitch Google to find anything - you could have easily

Your interpretation of the Patriot Act is completely wrong. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (121 lines)

> rmagruder wrote: >>>>Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terror >> >> could last fifty years or more?>> >> >> I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is >> that a conspiracy you also hold?) > > Sorry, Randy, straw man argument. > > Cheney said it - do you agree or disagree? I made no allegation about him > and 9/11, so why are you trying to put down an argument I never made? > >> I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil >> liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where >> some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this >> administration? > > Well, far be it from me to comment on your laws, but Amendment IV says; > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported > by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be > searched, and the persons or things to be seized" > > The Patriot Act (LOL, well named) allows the police to come into your > home, search, leave without telling you. The Federal Intelligence > Surveillance Act allows warrants from special courts, looking into such > ridiculous items as what library books were read, again without > notification. > > Just a couple of example of new laws trampling all over just one amendment > to your bill of rights. We're no better off over here unfortunately. > > >>>Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit, >> >> peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die >> from. >> >> And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making >> us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times >> and prying open our mouths and murdering us. Every seller needs a >> buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're >> not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't >> responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of >> corporations? Sounds kinda like you are... > > I have no victim mentality - I make sure I'm not a victim. The point is > that "free choice" is a myth for the most part. > > Okay, let's take just an example. I show you succulent chicken, couple of > bucks, "special offer" tasty chicken breast. You might buy it. If I told > you the chicken came from Indonesia, was shipped via Holland where it was > injected with 50% water to make it bigger, injected with collagen to hold > the water, injected with pig DNA to retain the collagen, and processed in > filthy water to remove feathers etc, and had a high probability to be > infected with campylobacter....would you still buy it? How about if you > were moslem, and hadn't been given the information you were actually > eating pig? > > Fact is that it probably is (more than 80% of the world's chicken comes > from three companies, much of it processed in this way). You have the > "free choice" to buy this, but you are usually not furnished with the full > facts with which to properly exercise that free choice. > >> What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did >> you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate? > > The "left wing" website of the United Nations. From your government. From > my government. From journalist reports. From news. It's almost 11 million > children per year, and a very widely known statistic. I suggest you > contact those organisations and let them know you dispute it. > >>>>Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium >> shells >> >> I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well. > > I know you can use Google.... > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=iraqi+children+cancer+depleted+uranium&btnG=Google+Search&meta= > >> Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during >> the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain >> were stopping him. > > You may say he bought weapons, but since we failed to find any I don't > think we can say this with any certainty. Or do you think he just let his > children die to teach us a lesson? Or to boost his popularity? > > > I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily >> sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt >> individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the >> French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that >> Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but >> I suppose you'll just deny that, too). > > The oil-for-food "profits" went first of all to Kuwait (one of the richest > countries in the world) as compensation for war damage. A third of the > money went to pay UN "expenses" (I thought we paid out of tax, but there > you go), further money goes to Kuwait as mentioned, further money goes as > compensation to oil and other companies. and with the remainder Iraq would > tender on the international markets for food, medical supplies etc - every > contract then had to be approved by the UN sanctions committee. From > August 1990, for eight months, ALL IMPORTS were banned, including food and > medicine, despite these being explicitly allowed under resolution 661. > > Have you heard of Denis Halliday? He was the Assistant Secretary-General > of the UN, and resigned over the sanctions. He said "I had been instructed > to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a > deliberate policy that has deliberately killed over a million > individuals". > > His successor, Hans von Spooneck, calculated the oil-for-food money, and > after paying Kuwait, the UN, oil companies etc, Iraq was left with $100 > for each citizen....per YEAR. That money has to pay also for > infrastructure including oil, water, electricity etc. After that he also > called the sanctions "genocide". > > But hey, it's a million Iraqis dying, so it doesn't matter...right?

Ahhh, Baby Milk. Now that brings up memories of Saddam and his minions... Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: >> Versus your concrete argument that half of the Iraqi population is going >> to die of cancer... > > You are just a font of disinformation today. > > I said "ALMOST half of ONE town in SOUTHER IRAQ are FORECAST to CONTRACT > cancer in the coming years". You read "half of the Iraqi population will > die from cancer"!!?? > > Almost half does not equal all. > One town in Souther Iraq does not equal the entire Iraqi population > Contract does not equal die > > So you got "cancer" right, and the entire rest of the sentence wrong. What > the heck happens when you go to the shop to ask for a pint of milk? The > mind boggles as to what you must come back with ;-) > > By the way, do you have information to prove the Basra cancer facts wrong? > I base this on first-hand jourmalistic and medical evidence. On what do > you base your belief that it's wrong?

What you dont seem to comprehend is that WE do question our Government. I questioned why the hell it took 12 fn years to get rid of Saddam.... Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> rmagruder wrote: >> I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless >> sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort >> into. > > No-one is saying the sky has disappeared. > > If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned > it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that. > > Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen.

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> JP wrote: > > > Only a Euro could twist facts about any subject into being a > > "philosophical question." > > Only you could fail to see that EVERYTHING revolves around your > philosophy on life. > > Your world has clearly not yet evolved into colour.

Sure it has. Just not the color gray.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JP wrote: > > > Suggest you do some research into history too. I don't buy the "whenoil > > runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention, but history has shownpeople > > don't "come together" when times are bad, as you suggest will happenwhen

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > oil runs out. > > The opposite in fact. > > So you believe everyone will reach for their Colt 45 "the gun that won > the West", slaughter each other....and that will....make the oil come > back? Protect you from the 1 billion Chinese who will slaughter you? Or > the 1.3 billion Indians who will slaughter them? > > For your own sake you better start singing kumbaya and praying you're > wrong. Nuclear missiles go nowhere without oil.

Whew, you two must be sharing that beenie. First, of all, I don't believe for a minute the naive thoughts in Asger's post, regarding humanity. If he wants to believe that fine. Second, I'm not a fan of predicting the future(especially well into the future), as again, history has shown such predictions to be wildly wrong the vast majority of the time. Third, I'm definitely not as pessimistic as you two about when oil runs out. Bet you were with the Y2k crowd too, screaming how the world would come to a halt/end at the year 2000, eh ?

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JP wrote: > > > p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes,it > > was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. > > Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide? > Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As > the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity.... And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place, besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep up with the facts, eh ? If you need some help with the answers(probably), let me know, k ?

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

Quoted text (24 lines)

> JP wrote: > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >>Randy Magruder wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of > >>>innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns > >>>her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm > >>>not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling > >>>to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. > >> > >>So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the > >>killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? > >>Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. > >> > >>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best > > > > > > > > Cite for the Albright quote ? > > Interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS "we think the price is worth it".

Yep, got that provided earlier, thanks.

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

Quoted text (36 lines)

> JP wrote: > > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:UG%1e.2083$[email hidden]... > > > >>"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >>news:[email hidden]... > >> > >>>Randy Magruder wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I'm continually baffled that you can't grasp the simple concept of > >>>>innocence and guilt. What crime has Terri Schaivo commited that earns > >>>>her a death penalty? What crime is an unborn infant guilty of? I'm > >>>>not sure why the concept of not punishing the innocent is so baffling > >>>>to you...but that will remain one of the mysteries of life. > >>> > >>>So I presume you stood against Madelaine Albright's view that the > >>>killing of half a million children in Iraq was "a price worth paying"? > >>>Terri Schiavo, in comparison, is not even worthy of mention. > >>> > >>>Sometimes Stalin really did say it best > >> > >> > >> Cite for the Albright quote ? > > > > > > > > > > Didn't think so. Figures. > > It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice. > > It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily > found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice > that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge > mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

Why would I want to google for something, when I wasn't the one making the assertion ? Interesting "logic".

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JP wrote: > > > To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened ifnot. > > To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power > then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for > two wars to get him out. Proof of this assertion ? For that matter, to bad the British and French managed to fuck up the ME so badly when they carved up the Ottoman Empire after WW1, with completely unrealistic national boundaries, etc. > > Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein > shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink>

Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding the quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been created in that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? Let's just say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of Western Europe has in the past 20 years. The truth comes out: Socialist Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> Asgeir Nesoen wrote: >> I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's >> fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the brooding >> and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use *way, *way* >> more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. Booohoooooooo!" >> >> JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand >> and Availability. LOL!!! >> >> I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans >> will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I >> *eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! >> >> Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where >> people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not >> OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices >> get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US >> is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are >> concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore >> the facts like ignorant heedless children do. > > Amen, well said. > > Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when > supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by > invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan government, > etc. > > By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry > about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is > used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after > (9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but > money is money, y'know...

Well John, what you FAIL to quantify is how much Americans give FREELY and not through Government Control. While you guys need someone at the top to command you to give, we as a general rule give FREELY as Americans. Your numbers only count for Government Aid, not what is given in total by American citizens. The next time you imply that Americans as a general rule are STINGY, get your facts straight. BTW, Just through our GOVERNAMENT not including our citizens, we give 60 TIMES ($58 Billion more in total) more than Denmark does in forein aid. BTW, our country does not have 60 times more citizens than Denmark and Denmark has a higher GDP per capita than America... Therefore, based upon the higher GDP per capita why isn't Denmark contributing more? Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: > > Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever > done. > > Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more > > than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world. > > Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true > > The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target > was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the > tragedies occurring daily in Africa. > > Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden, > Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of GDP > as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest nation > of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%. > > In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for > aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!). In > the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian > military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights > violations). > > > Im not saying this in > > an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite > your > > clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people > that > > want the best for the World and everyone in it. > > Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and > it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >Nuclear missiles go nowhere without oil. You make this assumption that we could not develop an alternative fuel source and that once a particular resource is eliminated, that there would be nothing to take its place. I believe otherwise and believe in the theory of Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Therefore, I believe that Nuclear Missles CAN go anywhere without oil. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Dave Henrie wrote: > >> The fact you seem to admire him Ziggy...is frightening. > > Dave, please can you explain to me how citing a very famous quote of > Stalin's which fits a context, can be interpreted that the person is a > raving commie? > > You should join the CIA - you may in fact be a touch overqualified.

John, You should do a google groups search on ras to find out just how paranoid I am. Xfiles should do the trick. I barely breezed through his statement, I wasn't aware of the quote, I think I was responding to his defense of using the quote in an earlier post. Frankly, I can only think of one Stalin quote, it's not something I would be dropping in everyday conversation. I never said Zig was a commie..good chance that Socialist would fit tho. It's the old Al Capone mentality. Viscious criminal, murderer, extortionist etc etc...yet the local neighborhood adored and protected him due to the charities and community projects he sponsored. Good works do not absolve evil intent. Ergo..due to Aseg's continued attempt to defend his man, I merely concluded that he is BONKERS. ABSOLUTELY START RAVING MAD! Other than that...no worries...welcome member of the group and all that. seeya John, dave henrie

Quoted text (12 lines)

> <laughter> > > Wow, the tin beanie is on mighty tight today, eh ? Pessimism isn't good > for the health ya know. > > Suggest you do some research into history too. I don't buy the "when oil > runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention, but history has shown people > don't "come together" when times are bad, as you suggest will happen when > oil runs out. > The opposite in fact. > > The kumbaya stuff is soooo unrealistic.

Did you really mean to say ""I don't buy the "when oil runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention""? So, no need to worry I guess. There will always be plenty of oil to fuel American's gas guzzlers. Marty

Bill Bollinger wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding the > quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been created in > that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? Let's just > say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of Western Europe > has in the past 20 years. > > > The truth comes out: Socialist > > Bill Bollinger > www.gsxn.com

Well, the facts seem to say otherwise. "Overall, this level of creation represents the worst job performance since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression" http://www.jobwatch.org/ Of course it's not all bad news. Corporate profits are souring. Marty

...and seize his oil. Marty Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> What you dont seem to comprehend is that WE do question our Government. I > questioned why the hell it took 12 fn years to get rid of Saddam.... > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>rmagruder wrote: >> >>>I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless >>>sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort >>>into. >> >>No-one is saying the sky has disappeared. >> >>If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned >>it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that. >> >>Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen. > > >

Mitch_A wrote: > The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only > have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in > every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate. True, but few corrupt morons have done the damage GW has done with the blind acquiescence of barely enough American voters to put him in the White House. > You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone > with any common sense knows better. Where do you get anyone saying "Saddam was a grreat guy"? > Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better > place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early > to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which > makes your argument seem even more marginal. This might help. http://search.csmonitor.com/2005/0331/p01s04-wome.htm Marty

True, but the truth is out there for those who have the guts to go after it. Marty Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Google does not a *FACT* make.... > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > It takes two seconds on > Google to find anything - you could have easily > >>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice that >>they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge mine, >>and despair for the human race if we ever give that up. > > >

No, John is right on the money there. If people spent less time waving the flag and more time concerned about their liberty we wouldn't have GW in the White House. Marty Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (139 lines)

> Your interpretation of the Patriot Act is completely wrong. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>rmagruder wrote: >> >>>>>Should it be any surprise that Dick Cheney stated the war on terror >>> >>>could last fifty years or more?>> >>> >>>I wasn't aware that Dick Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is >>>that a conspiracy you also hold?) >> >>Sorry, Randy, straw man argument. >> >>Cheney said it - do you agree or disagree? I made no allegation about him >>and 9/11, so why are you trying to put down an argument I never made? >> >> >>>I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil >>>liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where >>>some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this >>>administration? >> >>Well, far be it from me to comment on your laws, but Amendment IV says; >> >>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, >>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be >>violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported >>by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be >>searched, and the persons or things to be seized" >> >>The Patriot Act (LOL, well named) allows the police to come into your >>home, search, leave without telling you. The Federal Intelligence >>Surveillance Act allows warrants from special courts, looking into such >>ridiculous items as what library books were read, again without >>notification. >> >>Just a couple of example of new laws trampling all over just one amendment >>to your bill of rights. We're no better off over here unfortunately. >> >> >>>Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit, >> >>>peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden crap for the populace to later die >>>from. >>> >>>And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making >>>us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times >>>and prying open our mouths and murdering us. Every seller needs a >>>buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're >>>not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't >>>responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of >>>corporations? Sounds kinda like you are... >> >>I have no victim mentality - I make sure I'm not a victim. The point is >>that "free choice" is a myth for the most part. >> >>Okay, let's take just an example. I show you succulent chicken, couple of >>bucks, "special offer" tasty chicken breast. You might buy it. If I told >>you the chicken came from Indonesia, was shipped via Holland where it was >>injected with 50% water to make it bigger, injected with collagen to hold >>the water, injected with pig DNA to retain the collagen, and processed in >>filthy water to remove feathers etc, and had a high probability to be >>infected with campylobacter....would you still buy it? How about if you >>were moslem, and hadn't been given the information you were actually >>eating pig? >> >>Fact is that it probably is (more than 80% of the world's chicken comes >>from three companies, much of it processed in this way). You have the >>"free choice" to buy this, but you are usually not furnished with the full >>facts with which to properly exercise that free choice. >> >> >>>What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did >>>you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate? >> >>The "left wing" website of the United Nations. From your government. From >>my government. From journalist reports. From news. It's almost 11 million >>children per year, and a very widely known statistic. I suggest you >>contact those organisations and let them know you dispute it. >> >> >>>>>Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium >>> >>>shells >>> >>>I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well. >> >>I know you can use Google.... >> >>http://www.google.co.uk/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=iraqi+children+cancer+depleted+uranium&btnG=Google+Search&meta= >> >> >>>Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during >>>the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain >>>were stopping him. >> >>You may say he bought weapons, but since we failed to find any I don't >>think we can say this with any certainty. Or do you think he just let his >>children die to teach us a lesson? Or to boost his popularity? >> >> >>>I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily >>>sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt >>>individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the >>>French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that >>>Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but >>>I suppose you'll just deny that, too). >> >>The oil-for-food "profits" went first of all to Kuwait (one of the richest >>countries in the world) as compensation for war damage. A third of the >>money went to pay UN "expenses" (I thought we paid out of tax, but there >>you go), further money goes to Kuwait as mentioned, further money goes as >>compensation to oil and other companies. and with the remainder Iraq would >>tender on the international markets for food, medical supplies etc - every >>contract then had to be approved by the UN sanctions committee. From >>August 1990, for eight months, ALL IMPORTS were banned, including food and >>medicine, despite these being explicitly allowed under resolution 661. >> >>Have you heard of Denis Halliday? He was the Assistant Secretary-General >>of the UN, and resigned over the sanctions. He said "I had been instructed >>to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a >>deliberate policy that has deliberately killed over a million >>individuals". >> >>His successor, Hans von Spooneck, calculated the oil-for-food money, and >>after paying Kuwait, the UN, oil companies etc, Iraq was left with $100 >>for each citizen....per YEAR. That money has to pay also for >>infrastructure including oil, water, electricity etc. After that he also >>called the sanctions "genocide". >> >>But hey, it's a million Iraqis dying, so it doesn't matter...right? > > >

"MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:424f5438$0$[email hidden]... > > > <laughter> > > > > Wow, the tin beanie is on mighty tight today, eh ? Pessimism isn'tgood > > for the health ya know. > > > > Suggest you do some research into history too. I don't buy the "whenoil > > runs out, etc." moonbat theories you mention, but history has shownpeople > > don't "come together" when times are bad, as you suggest will happenwhen

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > oil runs out. > > The opposite in fact. > > > > The kumbaya stuff is soooo unrealistic. > > > Did you really mean to say ""I don't buy the "when oil runs out, etc." > moonbat theories you mention""? > > So, no need to worry I guess. There will always be plenty of oil to fuel > American's gas guzzlers. > > Marty

Whoosh, right over the moobat's tin beenied head.

"MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:424f5755$0$[email hidden]... > Bill Bollinger wrote: > > Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expandingthe > > quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have beencreated in > > that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? Let'sjust > > say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of WesternEurope

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > has in the past 20 years. > > > > > > The truth comes out: Socialist > > > > Bill Bollinger > > www.gsxn.com > > Well, the facts seem to say otherwise. > > "Overall, this level of creation represents the worst job performance > since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data > in 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression" > > http://www.jobwatch.org/ > > Of course it's not all bad news. Corporate profits are souring. > > Marty

What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. Here's some info. you need to know. The numbers are from just after the election, fwiw. 5.5% unemployment, wonderfully low interest rates, and GDP growing at just under 4%. Indeed, these numbers are either the same or better than the corresponding figures during the 1996 election period. Interestingly, the media decided to script the election as "Bush's Bad Economy," versus their previous scripting *of the same numbers* in 1996 as "Clinton's Economic Miracle."

"MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:424f60d2$0$[email hidden]... > No, John is right on the money there. If people spent less time waving > the flag and more time concerned about their liberty we wouldn't have GW > in the White House. > > Marty > Explain *exactly* why we should be concerned with our liberty, (is it threatened, or what ?) and why you think GW is a threat to it. (I'm assuming you think he is per above).

Er, Randy was just saying that he did NOT want to get into a debate about something wierd which he saw as completely obvious. As for the 12 years, you better ask the Bush family. The US put Saddam in power, so the timing for removing must have a timetable also. Since you do question your government, you should get an answer from them on that "real soon now" Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> What you dont seem to comprehend is that WE do question our Government. I > questioned why the hell it took 12 fn years to get rid of Saddam.... > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>rmagruder wrote: >> >>>I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless >>>sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort >>>into. >> >>No-one is saying the sky has disappeared. >> >>If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned >>it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that. >> >>Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen. > > >

Mitch_A wrote: > So your argument is that Clinton was at fault because he didnt oust Saddam > as he should have? The sanctions were in place and violated in August 1990. At that time I suspect Clinton was rogering everything that moved or not inhaling things. > Which is it? Illegal invasion or a million kids? You cant have it every > way. So I *must* choose to kill a million kids (actually half a million) or to illegally invade? Only in the black and white world of the US. > Either way Sadddam should have been gone long before GW came into > office. Perhaps then he should not have been placed in power by the CIA and given vast quantities of weapons and money? You paid to put him in, and you paid (twice) to take him out. At least you got to vote for that (or not) - the Iraqi people had no choice, they were only the "unavoidable" collateral damage in this grand game of chess. > If it was up to Europe Saddam would still be in power thumbing his nose. > Somehow to you thats a better option? It is a legal option. Many US citizens still seem to think they're John Wayne.

Mitch_A wrote: > Your interpretation of the Patriot Act is completely wrong. > > Mitch Sorry Mitch, you'll need to do better than that. "Is not" doesn't make a convincing argument. More than two centuries of accrued rights and civil balances have been watered down or made illegal. Muslim-Americans have been arrested and imprisoned without trial (your "justice" department refuses to reveal how many), Bush has ordered military tribunals set up to try, imprison and execute foreign nationals in secret without recourse to any review or appeal system (sound like an order you'd read about in Iraq?!), Habeus Corpus has been suspended for the first time since 1861. FBI agents have the right to go into libraries and see what people are reading. Universities are being encouraged to report on people who show "subversive tendencies". WELCOME, to "the land of the free"... Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about on that score.

So what's your point? That there are no facts on Google? That because you might need to interpret information and judge for yourself if it's factual or not it's too tricky? Heck, you believe the tripe your government serves up (remember "Iraq *has* weapons of mass destruction (so we're gonna go slaughter them all)). You've never even heard a "whoops, we were wrong). Maybe I have more faith than you in our ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Google does not a *FACT* make.... > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > It takes two seconds on > Google to find anything - you could have easily > >>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice that >>they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge mine, >>and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

JP wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>> Didn't think so. Figures. >> >>It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice. >> >>It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily >>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice >>that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge >>mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up. > > > Why would I want to google for something, when I wasn't the one making the > assertion ? Interesting "logic".

Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your own beliefs. Whenever you make a statement to me, I do not instantly respond "horseshit" based upin my own beliefs. I'll first of all listen to you, and if I don't believe you then *I* will go and check and see if you are right. I don't see that it's up to you to convince me, it's up to me to consider if I sufficiently value my beliefs being based upon correct information. Sort of a fundamental difference between us ut would appear

JP wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if > > not. > >>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power >>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for >>two wars to get him out. > > > > Proof of this assertion ?

The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi, Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA train". Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your own research. Don't keep making the mistake of asking only to try and trip people up - ask to further your own knowledge, or do the research yourself. Don't only get annoyed and react only to the parts of a message you don't like, read the whole thing. >>Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein >>shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though > > Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink> So how many, precisely, is a zillion, since you're saying I'm wrong? <wink> Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly pilloried for it. Why is it that because it's Iraqi kids no-one gives a f***? I bet if five thousand US kids were being slaughtered every day there'd be hell to pay.

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

> John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > >>Dave Henrie wrote: >> >> >>> The fact you seem to admire him Ziggy...is frightening. >> >>Dave, please can you explain to me how citing a very famous quote of >>Stalin's which fits a context, can be interpreted that the person is a >>raving commie? >> >>You should join the CIA - you may in fact be a touch overqualified. > > > John, > You should do a google groups search on ras to find out just how > paranoid I am. Xfiles should do the trick. > I barely breezed through his statement, I wasn't aware of the quote, I > think I was responding to his defense of using the quote in an earlier > post. Frankly, I can only think of one Stalin quote, it's not something > I would be dropping in everyday conversation. I never said Zig was a > commie..good chance that Socialist would fit tho. > It's the old Al Capone mentality. Viscious criminal, murderer, > extortionist etc etc...yet the local neighborhood adored and protected him > due to the charities and community projects he sponsored. Good works do > not absolve evil intent. Ergo..due to Aseg's continued attempt to defend > his man, I merely concluded that he is BONKERS. ABSOLUTELY START RAVING > MAD! Other than that...no worries...welcome member of the group and all > that.

Thanks Dave, although I was a member of ras for well over 10 years, I just haven't been around for a while. I was recently looking out for GT4 nd popped back on to see what everyone was saying about it. As for the Stalin, it's very dangerous to equate quoting someone with support for that someone. I do drop quotes into everyday conversation, ad would choose not to converse with people who are not sufficiently open-minded that they see that as support (or choose to do so in order to construct a straw-man they can victoriously rail against). No comment about you in particular, the CIA comment was just paraphrasing a quote from Blackadder (who I do like!) :-)

Can you clarify for me Mitch, I guess the delusional foam is getting in my eyes :-) Are you saying those millions of victims do not in fact exist? Are you saying there are not millions of them? Or are you saying they do exist, but they're not victims and deserved to die? Remember many people of the UN resigned in horror of this, and the "genocide" quote was theirs. So if you think they've made some error with their arithmetic and thrown away their careers for nothing, you'd better call and tell them. Start with the 5000 Iraqi children who died every day as a result of the sanctions - this was the genocide to which the UN referred. Can you tell me that they are actually alive, why the number of 5000 is incorrect, or why they are not innocent victims and actually deserved to die? Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Time to wipe that foam off your mouth now John. You sound quite delusional. > Yea those MILLIONS of innocent victims of the evil USA... <rolls eyes> > > Mitch > > . > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it >>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. >> >>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide? >>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As the >>saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity.... > > >

Mitch, you avoided the response. You said the US gave more aid than anyone else, I provided inforation to prove that was a fallacy. Will you respond to that, or can you agree with the facts I provided? Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only > have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in > every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate. > > You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone > with any common sense knows better. > > Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better > place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early > to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which > makes your argument seem even more marginal. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, I *truly* believe > that is what you and most US people want, and > >>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening. > > >

JP wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, > > it > >>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. >> >>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide? >>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As >>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity.... > > > > And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place, > besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep up > with the facts, eh ?

JP, you are raving. Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or preventible disease. Are you pissed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for applying it far more stringently and killing your family? Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. *READ* what people write to you, don't just see what you want to see. I've explained the above already more than once.

Don't try and pigeon-hole me into your nice little theories - you have no idea. If you can't keep your predjudice out of a discussion, keep yourself out of a discussion. I'd have thought it was obvious after a lifetime on usenet, that you will never change the other person's view, and if you set out with that in mind you are just wasting your time. Geberally the fruitful discussions are those that elicit sufficient quality of response that you can challenge your OWN beliefs and learn something new for yourself. That at least is what I hope for. Bill Bollinger wrote:

Quoted text (55 lines)

> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding the > quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been created in > that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? Let's just > say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of Western Europe > has in the past 20 years. > > > The truth comes out: Socialist > > Bill Bollinger > www.gsxn.com > > > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Asgeir Nesoen wrote: >> >>>I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's >>>fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the brooding >>>and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use *way, *way* >>>more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. Booohoooooooo!" >>> >>>JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand >>>and Availability. LOL!!! >>> >>>I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans >>>will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I >>>*eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! >>> >>>Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where >>>people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not >>>OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices >>>get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US >>>is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are >>>concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore >>>the facts like ignorant heedless children do. >> >>Amen, well said. >> >>Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when >>supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by >>invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan government, >>etc. >> >>By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry >>about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is >>used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after >>(9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but >>money is money, y'know... > > >

Your ex-President said the US is stingy - I did not. Get YOUR facts straight. Bill Bollinger wrote:

Quoted text (63 lines)

> Well John, what you FAIL to quantify is how much Americans give FREELY and > not through Government Control. While you guys need someone at the top to > command you to give, we as a general rule give FREELY as Americans. Your > numbers only count for Government Aid, not what is given in total by > American citizens. The next time you imply that Americans as a general rule > are STINGY, get your facts straight. > > BTW, Just through our GOVERNAMENT not including our citizens, we give 60 > TIMES ($58 Billion more in total) more than Denmark does in forein aid. > BTW, our country does not have 60 times more citizens than Denmark and > Denmark has a higher GDP per capita than America... Therefore, based upon > the higher GDP per capita why isn't Denmark contributing more? > > Bill Bollinger > www.gsxn.com > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Mitch_A wrote: >> >>>Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever >> >>done. >> >>>Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more >>>than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world. >> >>Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true >> >>The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target >>was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the >>tragedies occurring daily in Africa. >> >>Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden, >>Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of GDP >>as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest nation >>of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%. >> >>In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for >>aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!). In >>the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian >>military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights >>violations). >> >> >>>Im not saying this in >>>an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite >> >>your >> >>>clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people >> >>that >> >>>want the best for the World and everyone in it. >> >>Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and >>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening. > > >

JP wrote: > What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his reward for a year's work. Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a worker, I can only say good luck to you.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (John Wallace) wrote: > Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about > on that score. Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move and life might get interesting again. We can but hope! Andrew McP

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> JP wrote: > > > What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. > > New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his > reward for a year's work. > > Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a > worker, I can only say good luck to you.

<shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at their details).

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

Quoted text (21 lines)

> JP wrote: > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >>JP wrote: > >> > >> > >>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, > > > > it > > > >>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc. > >> > >>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide? > >>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As > >>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity.... > > > > > > > > And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place, > > besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep

up > > with the facts, eh ? > > JP, you are raving. I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths under a UN Security Council sanction.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under > house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now > let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even > food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or > preventible disease. > > Are you pissed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for > applying it far more stringently and killing your family? > > Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter > people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way > the sanctions were being applied for the genocide.

<laughter> Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but whatever. Btw, I'd be pissed at myself for putting myself into the situation to begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign concept to you ? Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to say the least. And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted against lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions terms, which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. Indeed, the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed of military use. The UK proposed similiar items. Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that the sanctions existed in the first place ? Or how about this, the millions of dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by the UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the US's fault. Instead of going off on another moonbat diatribe, try answering these direct questions for a change. > > *READ* what people write to you, don't just see what you want to see. > I've explained the above already more than once. Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me.

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> JP wrote: > >>> Didn't think so. Figures. > >> > >>It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice. > >> > >>It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily > >>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice > >>that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge > >>mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up. > > > > > > Why would I want to google for something, when I wasn't the one making

the > > assertion ? Interesting "logic". > > Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your ownbeliefs. No. I have no interest being told to prove something, when I wasn't the one making the allegation. Do your own work, in other words. > > Whenever you make a statement to me, I do not instantly respond > "horseshit" based upin my own beliefs. I'll first of all listen to you, > and if I don't believe you then *I* will go and check and see if you are > right. <shrug> Congrats. > > I don't see that it's up to you to convince me, it's up to me to > consider if I sufficiently value my beliefs being based upon correct > information. > > Sort of a fundamental difference between us ut would appear Would appear so. I hold others accountable for doing their own work, you'd rather do it for them, it seems.

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > (John Wallace) wrote: > > >>Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about >>on that score. > > > Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into > Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move > and life might get interesting again. We can but hope!

Agreed, but Bush/Kerry, Blair/Brown, fundamentally what's the difference? To hop back on-topic for a second, there is aerodynamically one "perfect" shape of car, and all cars naturally evolve toward it (look at the current crop of F1 and how quickly they clone each other). I remember (I sound about 100!) when politics was about forming or joining a party that represented your beliefs, and convincing others of the validity of those beliefs. These days politicians are more like companies - where a company exists to make profit by "giving the consumer what they want", and lots of companies become more and more alike chasing that goal, so too politicians seem intent only on getting into power, and moulding their manifesto around whatever they think will get us to vote for them. Now either that has turned completely the wrong way around, or else politicians all think very much alike. Heck the labour party was formed by people who believed the then governments pandered too much to landowners and companies - now look at labout, with Tony himself a fan of Thatcher's approach to market economics. In anticipation of the inevitable shoe-horning, please note the above does not represent my own political beliefs - simply my view on the way politics exists today. How are you these days anyway Andrew? Still staying in that amazingly quaint village?

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

Quoted text (30 lines)

> JP wrote: > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >>JP wrote: > >> > >> > >>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if > > > > not. > > > >>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power > >>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for > >>two wars to get him out. > > > > > > > > Proof of this assertion ? > > The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the > Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great > victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi, > Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA > train". > > Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide > and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From > now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your > own research.

Now, you're getting the hang of it. Atta boy. No links of course, but I'll take your word on it. > > Don't keep making the mistake of asking only to try and trip people up - > ask to further your own knowledge, or do the research yourself. I already have the research. Just trying to get you to do it too for a change. You're learning though. A good thing, eh ? > > Don't only get annoyed and react only to the parts of a message you > don't like, read the whole thing. Oh, I get annoyed at very little in life. Just see no need to respond to every bit of every message though, if I see no reason to. Simple concept really.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >>Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein > >>shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though > > > > Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink> > > So how many, precisely, is a zillion, since you're saying I'm wrong?

<wink> You tell me. You stated it first, so you must have some idea, eh ? > > Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths > of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE > THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening > in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly > pilloried for it. Proof ? > > Why is it that because it's Iraqi kids no-one gives a f***? I bet if > five thousand US kids were being slaughtered every day there'd be hell > to pay. Who says no one gives a fuck ? Don't see that anywhere in this thread.

JP wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. >> >>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his >>reward for a year's work. >> >>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a >>worker, I can only say good luck to you. > > > > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at > their details).

No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the average salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but less than twenty times more is typical. In the US it's 300 times more. At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad?

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

Quoted text (18 lines)

> JP wrote: > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >>JP wrote: > >> > >> > >>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. > >> > >>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his > >>reward for a year's work. > >> > >>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a > >>worker, I can only say good luck to you. > > > > > > > > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a

profit > > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having lookedat > > their details). > > No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of > "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that > he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? Definately.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the > average salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but > less than twenty times more is typical. > > In the US it's 300 times more. > > At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad?

Agreed. One of my "sore points" also, in the current day. Don't know if your numbers are correct, but that's irrelevant, as overall, the general situation does exist.

JP wrote: > I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths > under a UN Security Council sanction. Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of the operation. Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than they are?

Quoted text (18 lines)

>>Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under >>house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now >>let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even >>food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or >>preventible disease. >> >>Are you pissed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for >>applying it far more stringently and killing your family? >> >>Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter >>people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way >>the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. > > > <laughter> > > Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but > whatever.

In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as would be applied to yourself. > Btw, I'd be pissed at myself for putting myself into the situation to > begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign > concept to you ? In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave them a murderous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved them and denied them medicine, then bombed the crap out of them again. So Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"? > Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming > anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to say > the least. I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what was scammed. > And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted against > lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions terms, > which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. > Indeed, > the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more > efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed of > military use. The UK proposed similiar items. Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. You can keep trying, but I'm not going to let you away with posting such lies. Back it up with facts and evidence. > Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that the > sanctions existed in the first place ? I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam in power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but you can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die in their millions. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either. > Or how about this, the millions of > dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by the > UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for > buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the US's > fault. Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it. > Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me. My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow.

JP wrote: >>Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your own > beliefs. > > > No. I have no interest being told to prove something, when I wasn't the > one making the allegation. Do your own work, in other words. JP, you do realise that was NOT the assertion?! No-one asked you to prove anything. The question was whether you have any interest in challenging your own beliefs, or do you just read something and believe it forever, spouting it off ad infinitum. The question is clearly rhetorical, but feel free to have a crack at it anyway.... >>Whenever you make a statement to me, I do not instantly respond >>"horseshit" based upin my own beliefs. I'll first of all listen to you, >>and if I don't believe you then *I* will go and check and see if you are >>right. > > <shrug> Congrats. If you admire it, try it.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>I don't see that it's up to you to convince me, it's up to me to >>consider if I sufficiently value my beliefs being based upon correct >>information. >> >>Sort of a fundamental difference between us ut would appear > > Would appear so. I hold others accountable for doing their own work, > you'd rather do it for them, it seems.

No, I hold myself accountable for my beliefs, and therefore keep them factual and current. You prefer not to bother. > >

JP wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>JP wrote: >> >> >>>"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:[email hidden]... >>> >>> >>>>JP wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if >>> >>>not. >>> >>> >>>>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power >>>>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for >>>>two wars to get him out. >>> >>> >>> >>> Proof of this assertion ? >> >>The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the >>Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great >>victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi, >>Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA >>train". >> >>Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide >>and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From >>now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your >>own research. > > Now, you're getting the hang of it. Atta boy. No links of course, but > I'll take your word on it.

So, I continue to post proof, no change there. >>Don't keep making the mistake of asking only to try and trip people up - >>ask to further your own knowledge, or do the research yourself. > I already have the research. Just trying to get you to do it too for a > change. You're learning though. A good thing, eh ? You've backed up *nothing* with evidence so far - I have backed up everything whenever requested. I appreciate that you take my word for it, but then I've given you enough evidence that you could hardly do anything else. You've still got quite a bit of work to do before I take your word. > Oh, I get annoyed at very little in life. Just see no need to respond to > every bit of every message though, if I see no reason to. Simple concept > really. Yes, I'm familiar with it - the same as children eating a meal, they only take the bits they like. They need to be provided with education in order to learn that the bits they at first resist are really the parts that do them good and help them grow. Ironic how that applies mentally as well as physically.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>>>Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein >>>>shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though >>> >>> Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink> >> >>So how many, precisely, is a zillion, since you're saying I'm wrong? > > <wink> > You tell me. You stated it first, so you must have some idea, eh ?

You were the one who took exception to a well known hyperbole, therefore I ask you reasoning (which once more you cannot provide. A familiar pattern though, you are consistent in your inability to respond.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths >>of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE >>THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening >>in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly >>pilloried for it. > > Proof ?

Consult your evidence, or look back at my previous posts.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Why is it that because it's Iraqi kids no-one gives a f***? I bet if >>five thousand US kids were being slaughtered every day there'd be hell >>to pay. > > > > Who says no one gives a fuck ? Don't see that anywhere in this thread.

Never mind what people say, what are they DOING!??! Do you see any action at all? Have you done anything? So how should we construe that you give a f***? Again, if it were US kids, there would be riots on the streets. Look at the reaction of the US for less people than that killed ONCE in 9/11 - imagine that happening once a month, and all the victims being children. You not only see no reaction of similar magnitude, you see no reaction at all - your mainstream media doesn't even report it, nor does ours. As Martin Luther King said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal."

John Wallace <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1JydnW3- [email hidden]: > No comment about you in particular, the CIA comment was just > paraphrasing a quote from Blackadder (who I do like!) :-) Anybody who likes Blackadder is more than allright in my book. dave henrie

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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> JP wrote: > > > I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths > > under a UN Security Council sanction. > > Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of > the operation. > > Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than > they are?

Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides their allegations of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were.

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > >>Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under > >>house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now > >>let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even > >>food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or > >>preventible disease. > >> > >>Are you pissed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for > >>applying it far more stringently and killing your family? > >> > >>Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter > >>people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way > >>the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. > > > > > > <laughter> > > > > Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but > > whatever. > > In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or > shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as > would be applied to yourself.

Read my response. The answers are their. Still and again.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > Btw, I'd be pissed at myself for putting myself into the situation to > > begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign > > concept to you ? > > In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave > them a murderous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved > them and denied them medicine, then bombed the crap out of them again. > So Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country > thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"?

Note the word "I" in my response. Don't see the words "Iraqi people" anywhere in it. I responded in the same format as your analogy was constructed. Show me where I blamed the Iraqi people for the sanctions. > > > Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming > > anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, tosay > > the least. > > I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've > explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil > companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per > YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what wasscammed. Oil/food scam ? Surely you've heard of it ? Btw, you never asked me before. Btw, in your example (which is the first I've seen of it, so don't know where you get the idea of "As I've explained to you....") of where the $ went, you forgot some key players. SH and his cronies, and the various UN officials involved in the scam, all pocketing $. > > > And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US votedagainst > > lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctionsterms, > > which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. > > Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred > immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for > Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not > allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. Wow, where were you during this time ? SH flaunted the *UN* sanctions for years, basically since the Gulf War ended, and continued to do so after 1997, when the oil/food program came into place. Anyway, here's two links to some general info. Just basic stuff from CNN and FOX. Those two are more or less opposites in philosophy, fyi. http://archives.cnn.com/1999/WORLD/meast/12/17/un.iraq.france/index.html http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/11/29/sanctions.iraq/index.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147435,00.html > > > Indeed, > > the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more > > efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only thosedeemed of > > military use. The UK proposed similiar items. > > Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which > were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no > possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. Proof ? > > > Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it thatthe > > sanctions existed in the first place ? > > I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam > in power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but > you can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die > in their millions. Interesting that on one hand in this statement, you complain about the US leaving SH in power. Yet on the other, you complain now that the US has taken him out of power. Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain, which came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the *UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn't have had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numbers listed ). I've never blamed things on the Iraqis. Show me where I did. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either. > > > Or how about this, the millions of > > dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled bythe > > UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for > > buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was theUS's > > fault. > > Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it. See the links above. For tip of the iceberg starters. Are you seriously saying the oil/food scam never happened ? You might want to let the Sec. General know that then, as he thinks it did. (and boy, if anyone should know....). > > > Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me. > > My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same > tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow. Evidence ? So far, I've seen nothing but *your* opinions and theories.

John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in politics that the jury forgot what its job is. Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do. Just to be clear as to what your trying to argue about... The US is wrong and Saddam was right. The friends of Saddam that live inside the UN were getting rich off the blood of Iraqi children and somehow the US is at fault for killing millions during the sanctions?... You can call it what you want but Iraq is now in its own free hands and its up to them to join civilized society. Do you have such deep concern for the Iraqi people or is it blind hatred of GW and the US that has clouded your viewpoint? Maybe its a slanderous European media? I dont know but something is wholly wrong across the pond. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (104 lines)

> JP wrote: > >> I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths >> under a UN Security Council sanction. > > Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of the > operation. > > Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than > they are? > >>>Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under >>>house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now >>>let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even >>>food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or >>>preventible disease. >>> >>>Are you pissed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for >>>applying it far more stringently and killing your family? >>> >>>Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter >>>people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way >>>the sanctions were being applied for the genocide. >> >> >> <laughter> >> >> Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but >> whatever. > > In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or shut > up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as would be > applied to yourself. > >> Btw, I'd be pissed at myself for putting myself into the situation to >> begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign >> concept to you ? > > In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave them > a murderous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved them > and denied them medicine, then bombed the crap out of them again. So > Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country > thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"? > >> Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming >> anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to >> say >> the least. > > I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've > explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil > companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per > YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what was > scammed. > >> And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted >> against >> lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions >> terms, >> which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. > > Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred immediately > after the resolution was passed. There was no time for Saddam to flaunt > the sanctions, because food and medicine were not allowed from the moment > the sanctions were introduced. > > > Indeed, >> the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more >> efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed >> of >> military use. The UK proposed similiar items. > > Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which > were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no > possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. > > You can keep trying, but I'm not going to let you away with posting such > lies. Back it up with facts and evidence. > >> Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that >> the >> sanctions existed in the first place ? > > I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam in > power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but you > can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die in > their millions. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They > didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either. > >> Or how about this, the millions of >> dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by >> the >> UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for >> buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the >> US's >> fault. > > Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it. > >> Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me. > > My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same > tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow. >

Thats the fundamental difference. If WE dont like Motorola we dont buy Motorola products and soon Motorola will be gone. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> JP wrote: >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >>>JP wrote: >>> >>> >>>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. >>> >>>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his >>>reward for a year's work. >>> >>>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a >>>worker, I can only say good luck to you. >> >> >> >> <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a >> profit >> isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked >> at >> their details). > > No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of > "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that he > couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? > > In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the average > salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but less than > twenty times more is typical. > > In the US it's 300 times more. > > At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad?

Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the US.... Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (67 lines)

> Don't try and pigeon-hole me into your nice little theories - you have no > idea. If you can't keep your predjudice out of a discussion, keep yourself > out of a discussion. > > I'd have thought it was obvious after a lifetime on usenet, that you will > never change the other person's view, and if you set out with that in mind > you are just wasting your time. Geberally the fruitful discussions are > those that elicit sufficient quality of response that you can challenge > your OWN beliefs and learn something new for yourself. That at least is > what I hope for. > > Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding >> the quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been >> created in that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? >> Let's just say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of >> Western Europe has in the past 20 years. >> >> >> The truth comes out: Socialist >> >> Bill Bollinger >> www.gsxn.com >> >> >> >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >>>Asgeir Nesoen wrote: >>> >>>>I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's >>>>fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the >>>>brooding and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use >>>>*way, *way* more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. >>>>Booohoooooooo!" >>>> >>>>JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand >>>>and Availability. LOL!!! >>>> >>>>I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans >>>>will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I >>>>*eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! >>>> >>>>Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where >>>>people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not >>>>OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices >>>>get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US >>>>is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are >>>>concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore >>>>the facts like ignorant heedless children do. >>> >>>Amen, well said. >>> >>>Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when >>>supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by >>>invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan >>>government, etc. >>> >>>By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry >>>about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is >>>used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after >>>(9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but >>>money is money, y'know... >> >>

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GqU3e.1018$[email hidden]... > John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in > politics that the jury forgot what its job is. > > Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do. Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't help either.

Are you kidding John? You throw some meaningless stats out that are based in ignorance and havent anything to do with reality yet its the basis of your entire argument? You cant put a number on all of the good things the US has done both from the private and public sector. You take a small percentage of public funds then expand that into some sort meaningful number, which it isnt. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Mitch, you avoided the response. You said the US gave more aid than anyone > else, I provided inforation to prove that was a fallacy. > > Will you respond to that, or can you agree with the facts I provided? > >>

Is that a new one? hadnt heard of it yet. "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't > help either. > >

Last few months. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/15/un.congo.peacekeepers/index.html Iirc, it's expanded since this article's timeframe. But I haven't kept up with it. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XFU3e.1025$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Is that a new one? hadnt heard of it yet. > > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > > Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't > > help either. > > > > > >

Well, a conversation with you is the same as talking to a rock so Im off to the rock garden to talk with ya some more ;) Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> Er, Randy was just saying that he did NOT want to get into a debate about > something wierd which he saw as completely obvious. > > As for the 12 years, you better ask the Bush family. The US put Saddam in > power, so the timing for removing must have a timetable also. Since you do > question your government, you should get an answer from them on that "real > soon now" > > > > Mitch_A wrote: >> What you dont seem to comprehend is that WE do question our Government. >> I questioned why the hell it took 12 fn years to get rid of Saddam.... >> >> Mitch >> >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >>>rmagruder wrote: >>> >>>>I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless >>>>sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort >>>>into. >>> >>>No-one is saying the sky has disappeared. >>> >>>If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned >>>it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that. >>> >>>Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen. >> >>

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:foU3e.2461$[email hidden]... > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > JP wrote: > > > > > I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqideaths

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > under a UN Security Council sanction. > > > > Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of > > the operation. > > > > Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than > > they are?

Btw, forgot this the first time; got a cite about these two UN people you mention, blaming the the US ?

Mitch_A wrote: > Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad > things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope some > small amount of reason enters into your thought process ;) The good things are good. Everyone likes the good things. The bad things should be exposed and fixed. But not everyone has the guts to face the bad things. It's obvious where you stand. > > Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. I > didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things are > looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for and > which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party likes to > think. That's just plain delusional. Iraq is a mess because of, A.)the incompetence of the Bush administration, B.)the deceit of the Bush administration, C.) both incompetence and deceit of the Bush administration. Anyway you look at it the people who created the problem are unlikely to be the ones to fix it. Marty

Mitch_A wrote: > Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the > US.... Spoken like a true drama queen. (I don't follow this discussion, but I found this 'If you're not with us, you're against us' rationale simplistic to say the least.) Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -24)

JP wrote: > Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides their allegations > of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their > breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were. No, you said *I* was blaming the US. I don't expect you to admit you were wrong, so lucky I'm here to keep you straight :-) As for being afraid their breadwagon was being cut off, can I remind you that these two gentlemen voluntary *resigned* in horror and protest at what the sanctions were forcing them to do. i.e. they were firmly on your "breadwagon", and they CHOSE to get off. So, once again, your comments are shown as a steaming pile of horse manure.... >>In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or >>shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as >>would be applied to yourself. > > Read my response. The answers are their. Still and again. JP, they're not. Sorry, you're not going to get out of this one by stating again and again that you've answered. Explain to me how that analogy differs from the imposition of the sanctions. You haven't, because you cannot. > Note the word "I" in my response. Don't see the words "Iraqi people" > anywhere in it. I responded in the same format as your analogy was > constructed. And my response was, if *you* were in the position of that analogy, how would you get out of it? And again, you do not (cannot) answer. > Show me where I blamed the Iraqi people for the sanctions. You squarely blamed Iraq when you said; "And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place, besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ?" Or were you <snigger> trying to blame the UN for a sanction demanded by the US and the UK?! > Btw, in your example (which is the first I've seen of it, so don't know > where you get the idea of "As I've explained to you....") of where the $ > went, you forgot some key players. SH and his cronies, and the various UN > officials involved in the scam, all pocketing $. Sorry JP, not this time. Cite me proof, or quit flogging this dead horse. There is NO PROOF AT ALL that Saddam and his cronies were making out like bandits with any oil for food money, none at all. EVERYTHING was paid through the UN, and approved by the security council - that's the US, the UK, Europe and Canada.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred >>immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for >>Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not >>allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. > > > Wow, where were you during this time ? SH flaunted the *UN* sanctions > for years, basically since the Gulf War ended, and continued to do so after > 1997, when the oil/food program came into place. > Anyway, here's two links to some general info. Just basic stuff from CNN > and FOX. Those two are more or less opposites in philosophy, fyi.

JP, listen carefully. The illegal sanctions of food and medicine were implemented immediately after the gulf war. Not in 1997. By the way, when you start relying on Rupert Murdoch for your "facts", we need to stop talking. How can I have an argument with an unarmed man? >>Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which >>were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no >>possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. > > Proof ? I have already posted this. You prove to me that they were letting food and medicine through. Or are you saying Saddam was guzzling the food and using the medicine of an entire nation? Or just slaughtering his own people?

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam >>in power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but >>you can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die >>in their millions. > > Interesting that on one hand in this statement, you complain about the US > leaving SH in power. Yet on the other, you complain now that the US has > taken him out of power.

Read, JP, read dear boy. I complained about neither, I merely organised the facts for you. > Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain, which > came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the > *UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn't have > had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numbers listed ). You have yet to prove there was any irregularity at all in the oil for food, and the numbers have been proven by the UN and through journalistic channels. Now if you can post me facts about oil for food (anyone locked up for these illegal activities) and prove to me that Madelaine Albright was high on drugs when she admitted half a million Iraqi children had been slaughtered, I'll think about responding to your foundationless allegations. In the meantime, thanks for calling....

Hate? Hate for the idea that might makes right (Bush foreign policy)? Hate for the bigotry of right-wingers who have no pity for the hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab people murdered at the hands of a fraudulent American president responsible for a fraudulent war in Iraq? Hate for the corporate fascism that drives Bush's forign policy and domestic securty state? You bet! Bye-bye? No stomach for a dialog with people who don't agree with you? Marty Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (35 lines)

> Delusional is thinking you can actually add anything constructive. Your > only motivation is pure hatred and that hate has marginalized you out of > existence. Buh-Bye... > > > "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4250779b$0$[email hidden]... > >>Mitch_A wrote: >> >>>Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad >>>things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope >>>some small amount of reason enters into your thought process ;) >> >>The good things are good. Everyone likes the good things. The bad things >>should be exposed and fixed. But not everyone has the guts to face the bad >>things. It's obvious where you stand. >> >> >>>Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. >>>I didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things >>>are looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for >>>and which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party >>>likes to think. >> >>That's just plain delusional. Iraq is a mess because of, A.)the >>incompetence of the Bush administration, B.)the deceit of the Bush >>administration, C.) both incompetence and deceit of the Bush >>administration. Anyway you look at it the people who created the problem >>are unlikely to be the ones to fix it. >> >>Marty > > >

Mitch_A wrote: > John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in > politics that the jury forgot what its job is. > > Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do. What money was taken, by whom, and for who's benefit? Who has been arrested? How did this benefit Saddam? How did it contribute at all toward killing half a million Iraqi children during the previous decade?!!? You and JP are sorely getting facts and timelines mixed up. > Just to be clear as to what your trying to argue about... > The US is wrong and Saddam was right. Where the hell do you get that? Saddam was a total madman, albeit a madman bought and paid for by the US. I agree that the US was wrong - wrong to put his party in power in the first place, and wrong to wage an illegal war killing millions of innocent Iraqis. But you'll never find me saying Saddam was "right". Right about....what? > The friends of Saddam that live > inside the UN were getting rich off the blood of Iraqi children and somehow > the US is at fault for killing millions during the sanctions?... The sanctions were from Resolution 661 of August 1990. Why are people trying to equate this with supposed oil-for-food? Kofi Annan personally criticised the US for this at the time. > You can call it what you want but Iraq is now in its own free hands and its > up to them to join civilized society. By "own free hands" you mean that the US has provided another leader for them, as happened last time. You could be right, but surely you can see why they wouldn't exactly be jumping for joy. > Do you have such deep concern for the Iraqi people or is it blind hatred of > GW and the US that has clouded your viewpoint? Sorry Mitch, but please don't try to shoehorn me into some convenient little labelled box. You will never hear me say I hate the US. Bush, well, different matter, but I'm not close enough to see what he does locally. My concern is with international law, and with the Iraqi people, and my truck is as much with my own country as with yours. The only country in this I have some respect for is the French, but you guys were spun such lies and half-truths about the French that I don't even want to go there :-) > Maybe its a slanderous > European media? I dont know but something is wholly wrong across the pond. I think the same ;-) We obviously have very different viewpoints, but I do very much appreciate that you know the difference between an argument and a debate! It seems a rare gift on this issue!

Mitch_A wrote: > Thats the fundamental difference. If WE dont like Motorola we dont buy > Motorola products and soon Motorola will be gone. Just for discussion sake, what if you do like their products, but they're all outsourced to China and the CEO takes 100 million dollars? Is there a point at which a halt should be called, or does the old "Reaganomics" apply, of what's good for the money markets is good for the country?

Mitch_A wrote: > Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the > US.... Well, you seem to have invented the US as my enemy, and had the US not put an internet together I'm pretty sure someone else would have. If we stoop to that you can start thanking us Scots for your roads, your TVs and your telephones.... ;-)

JP wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GqU3e.1018$[email hidden]... > >>John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in >>politics that the jury forgot what its job is. >> >>Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do. > > Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't > help either.

Probably saw the footage from Abu Ghraib and thought that was the in thing....

Mitch_A wrote: > Are you kidding John? You throw some meaningless stats out that are based > in ignorance and havent anything to do with reality yet its the basis of > your entire argument? The stats come from the UN, and are not disputed by the US. Am I to understand *you* do dispute these, and are about to provide evidence of which the UN and your government are unaware? > You cant put a number on all of the good things the US has done both from > the private and public sector. No-one is arguing that the US has done good things, although they've done more than their fair share of bad things also. The point is that in the specific case you cited, giving aid to other countries, the US falls well short of the standards agreed to by the UN. That was the only assertion I made, backed up with the facts deemed so necessary.

JP wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>>Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of >>>the operation. >>> >>>Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than >>>they are? > > Btw, forgot this the first time; got a cite about these two UN people you > mention, blaming the the US ?

I've already posted them. Hans von Spooneck, who replaced Denis Halliday. His resignation was only the first public expression of what was desribed as an unprecedented rebellion within the UN against the manipulation of the sanctions. In an television interview he stated "I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide, a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible" Please note, the security council to which he refers comprises only five permanent members, US, UK, China, France and Russia. The US and the UK were the only ones to veto supplies under the sanctions, and were the members to which Halliday refers.

And those who committed crimes are paying for it. I bet you agree with the irony of beheading innocents in orange jumpsuits also. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Probably saw the footage from Abu Ghraib and thought that was the in > thing....

And those who committed crimes are paying for it. I bet you agree with the irony of *** innocents in orange jumpsuits also. Mitch from Abu Ghraib and thought that was the in

I can ignore the insult but when someone walks in on the backend of a conversation then has the cahones to comment speaks loudly about you.... When did I ever say that? Its the attacks I have an issue with not rational discussion. "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > (I don't follow this discussion, but I found this 'If you're not with > us, you're against us' rationale simplistic to say the least.) > > Regards, Rudy > (GPLRank -24)

Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope some small amount of reason enters into your thought process ;) Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. I didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things are looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for and which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party likes to think. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > No-one is arguing that the US has done good things, although they've > done more than their fair share of bad things also.

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JP wrote: > >>>Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of > >>>the operation. > >>> > >>>Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on thisthan > >>>they are? > > > > Btw, forgot this the first time; got a cite about these two UN peopleyou > > mention, blaming the the US ? > > I've already posted them. No you didn't. At least not to me. *You* posted quotes. I'm looking for a link. Hans von Spooneck, who replaced Denis

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Halliday. His resignation was only the first public expression of what > was desribed as an unprecedented rebellion within the UN against the > manipulation of the sanctions. > > In an television interview he stated "I had been instructed to implement > a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide, a deliberate policy > that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children > and adults. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of > control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the > Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will > slaughter those responsible" > > Please note, the security council to which he refers comprises only five > permanent members, US, UK, China, France and Russia. The US and the UK > were the only ones to veto supplies under the sanctions, and were the > members to which Halliday refers.

Proof (link, i.e.) showing your claim about the US/UK here ? Exactly what kind of supplies are you referring too ? I've posted some showing otherwise.

Delusional is thinking you can actually add anything constructive. Your only motivation is pure hatred and that hate has marginalized you out of existence. Buh-Bye... "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4250779b$0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: >> Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad >> things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope >> some small amount of reason enters into your thought process ;) > > The good things are good. Everyone likes the good things. The bad things > should be exposed and fixed. But not everyone has the guts to face the bad > things. It's obvious where you stand. > >> >> Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. >> I didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things >> are looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for >> and which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party >> likes to think. > > That's just plain delusional. Iraq is a mess because of, A.)the > incompetence of the Bush administration, B.)the deceit of the Bush > administration, C.) both incompetence and deceit of the Bush > administration. Anyway you look at it the people who created the problem > are unlikely to be the ones to fix it. > > Marty

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JP wrote: > > > Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides theirallegations > > of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their > > breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were. > > No, you said *I* was blaming the US. I don't expect you to admit you > were wrong, so lucky I'm here to keep you straight :-) And this quote of yours means what then ? Want to keep something straight, start with your statements. "Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As >>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity...." > > As for being afraid their breadwagon was being cut off, can I remind you > that these two gentlemen voluntary *resigned* in horror and protest at > what the sanctions were forcing them to do. i.e. they were firmly on > your "breadwagon", and they CHOSE to get off.

Proof ? > > So, once again, your comments are shown as a steaming pile of horse > manure.... Explain how so ? I've posted facts. You're still posting non-confirmed quotes, theories, and opinions. So, explain exactly how so.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > >>In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or > >>shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as > >>would be applied to yourself. > > > > Read my response. The answers are their. Still and again. > > JP, they're not. Sorry, you're not going to get out of this one by > stating again and again that you've answered. Explain to me how that > analogy differs from the imposition of the sanctions.

You answer my questions first, since you've been dodging them, and we'll go from there. p.s. But for *starters*, the US/UK didn't stop food/medicine, as in this line from your analogy. "Now let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even food and medicine to you. " Btw, what's that again about how you weren't blaming the US ? Ok, answered yours. Once again, how about mine, for who knows how many times I've posted it; the $ for oil/food were present. Yet, much of it was pocketed by UN, European officials, and SH and his gang. Follow along now...........that means all those $ that were supposed to buy food/medicine didn't get to do so.............still with me ?. So, since there was all this money wasted instead of used as it was supposed to have been, how is it the US's fault ? Or are you going to keep conviently ignoring this fact ?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Note the word "I" in my response. Don't see the words "Iraqi people" > > anywhere in it. I responded in the same format as your analogy was > > constructed. > > And my response was, if *you* were in the position of that analogy, how > would you get out of it?

Simple. By living up to my end of the agreement. The one that I forced upon myself.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Show me where I blamed the Iraqi people for the sanctions. > > You squarely blamed Iraq when you said; > > "And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place, > besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ?"

Exactly. Blamed Iraq. I.e., their govt. Fairly common sense to understand that. Or, when you incorrectly say the US didn't allow food/medicine, you mean the US people ? Using your "reasoning" here, you would be, eh ? > > Or were you <snigger> trying to blame the UN for a sanction demanded by > the US and the UK?! Ah, I see. Since you can't ignore the fact that all the sanctions were UN sanctions, now you twist it so that they "don't really count" if you will, because in your tin-beenied head, the US/UK demanded them. First, proof of this latest incorrect allegation ? Second, they were Security Council sanctions. Do some research on that body, what countries are on it, and how it's vetoes/passing work. Hint: It takes more than the US/UK to pass/veto a sanction via this council. > > > Btw, in your example (which is the first I've seen of it, so don'tknow > > where you get the idea of "As I've explained to you....") of where the $ > > went, you forgot some key players. SH and his cronies, and the variousUN

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > officials involved in the scam, all pocketing $. > > Sorry JP, not this time. Cite me proof, or quit flogging this dead > horse. There is NO PROOF AT ALL that Saddam and his cronies were making > out like bandits with any oil for food money, none at all. EVERYTHING > was paid through the UN, and approved by the security council - that's > the US, the UK, Europe and Canada. >

Ah, the moonbat comes out in full force. Ok, here's a very small tip of the iceberg start for you. Btw, you conviently left out the UN and European officials that took $ too. Anyway, here you go. Since you passed (your Murdoch comment was interesting...ignored the CNN links, eh ?) over my earlier links to CNN and FOX, I've included others this time too. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/30/world/main684085.shtml (SH part toward the end here) http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=471455&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=259502 Or maybe one closer to home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4025057.stm I had some NBC links too, but for some reason, the text was fubared upon page loading. nbcnews.com if you're interested. > >>Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred > >>immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for > >>Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not > >>allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. Not allowed ? Proof ? > >>Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which > >>were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no > >>possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. Proof ? > I have already posted this. Then you should have no difficulty copying/pasting it. I haven't seen it. > > > Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain,which > > came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the > > *UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn'thave > > had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numberslisted ). > > You have yet to prove there was any irregularity at all in the oil for > food, and the numbers have been proven by the UN and through > journalistic channels. *I* have yet to prove it ? You're the one who first claimed the US blocked it. Proving things is on your end. Which you haven't yet btw. So put up already. This thread has gone on long enough, without your showing any proof at all of your myriad moonbat claims. > > Now if you can post me facts about oil for food (anyone locked up for > these illegal activities) and prove to me that Madelaine Albright was > high on drugs when she admitted half a million Iraqi children had been > slaughtered, I'll think about responding to your foundationlessallegations. Missed those earlier links, eh ? In this post and earlier. You're in a serious state of delusion old boy. Denying facts, interesting. So, I've backed up my statements with facts, links, etc. Even though you're the one who starting making accusations, and while having been repeatedly asked to prove them, have not, how about trying now ? So far, all you've done is dodge every question for proof, while trying to change subjects in each post. But I'm not surprised; the moonbat crowd always gets nervous when facts are called for. Put up or shut up. Simple concept really.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (John Wallace) wrote: > moulding their manifesto around whatever they think > will get us to vote for them Messy stuff politics. They say we get what we deserve, and if focus-groups continue to shape policy that's certainly what we'll continue to get. Personally I like my politicians to have their own ideas rather than those they copied out of The Sun. I think that's why Brown would make a difference if the New Labour spin machine lets him. Either way, at the moment the only thing that matters is getting a party in power without a huge, distorting majority. While we're on the subject, there was some interesting comment on R4 the other day that said without Cherie, Blair might have gravitated towards the Conservative party rather than Labour. That might explain a lot. > How are you these days anyway Andrew? You mean, apart from terminally depressed at the state of world leadership, the future for the environment, and the fact I still prefer GPL to anything more recent (except maybe rFactor)? Fine John! :-) > Still staying in that amazingly quaint village? <peers out of the window at the M25 in the near distance>. Er, no. Not sure I ever did :-) Nice to see you still hanging around the place. Not sure I can recommend getting involved in the political stuff though. It's really bad for any optimism you might have lurking at the back or your head. Andrew McP

No, I was comparing the number of jobs created in USA vs. Western Europe. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:424f5755$0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding >> the quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been >> created in that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? >> Let's just say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of >> Western Europe has in the past 20 years. >> >> >> The truth comes out: Socialist >> >> Bill Bollinger >> www.gsxn.com > > Well, the facts seem to say otherwise. > > "Overall, this level of creation represents the worst job performance > since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting monthly jobs data in > 1939 (at the end of the Great Depression" > > http://www.jobwatch.org/ > > Of course it's not all bad news. Corporate profits are souring. > > Marty >

The FACTS are: Americans contribute nearly 1 trillion every year to charities. You may think that is stingy, but that would be incorrect. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (67 lines)

> Your ex-President said the US is stingy - I did not. > > Get YOUR facts straight. > > Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Well John, what you FAIL to quantify is how much Americans give FREELY >> and not through Government Control. While you guys need someone at the >> top to command you to give, we as a general rule give FREELY as >> Americans. Your numbers only count for Government Aid, not what is given >> in total by American citizens. The next time you imply that Americans as >> a general rule are STINGY, get your facts straight. >> >> BTW, Just through our GOVERNAMENT not including our citizens, we give 60 >> TIMES ($58 Billion more in total) more than Denmark does in forein aid. >> BTW, our country does not have 60 times more citizens than Denmark and >> Denmark has a higher GDP per capita than America... Therefore, based upon >> the higher GDP per capita why isn't Denmark contributing more? >> >> Bill Bollinger >> www.gsxn.com >> >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >>>Mitch_A wrote: >>> >>>>Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever >>> >>>done. >>> >>>>Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more >>>>than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world. >>> >>>Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true >>> >>>The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target >>>was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the >>>tragedies occurring daily in Africa. >>> >>>Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden, >>>Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of GDP >>>as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest >>>nation of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%. >>> >>>In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for >>>aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!). In >>>the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian >>>military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights >>>violations). >>> >>> >>>>Im not saying this in >>>>an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite >>> >>>your >>> >>>>clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people >>> >>>that >>> >>>>want the best for the World and everyone in it. >>> >>>Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and >>>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening. >> >>

You are the one who has pigeon-hold himself. Not my fault that many of the Western European countries lean to the socialist side and wonder why they cannot grow their economies and are falling behind. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (67 lines)

> Don't try and pigeon-hole me into your nice little theories - you have no > idea. If you can't keep your predjudice out of a discussion, keep yourself > out of a discussion. > > I'd have thought it was obvious after a lifetime on usenet, that you will > never change the other person's view, and if you set out with that in mind > you are just wasting your time. Geberally the fruitful discussions are > those that elicit sufficient quality of response that you can challenge > your OWN beliefs and learn something new for yourself. That at least is > what I hope for. > > Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding >> the quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been >> created in that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? >> Let's just say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of >> Western Europe has in the past 20 years. >> >> >> The truth comes out: Socialist >> >> Bill Bollinger >> www.gsxn.com >> >> >> >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >>>Asgeir Nesoen wrote: >>> >>>>I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's >>>>fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the >>>>brooding and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use >>>>*way, *way* more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. >>>>Booohoooooooo!" >>>> >>>>JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand >>>>and Availability. LOL!!! >>>> >>>>I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans >>>>will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I >>>>*eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!! >>>> >>>>Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where >>>>people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not >>>>OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices >>>>get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US >>>>is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are >>>>concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore >>>>the facts like ignorant heedless children do. >>> >>>Amen, well said. >>> >>>Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when >>>supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by >>>invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan >>>government, etc. >>> >>>By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry >>>about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is >>>used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after >>>(9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but >>>money is money, y'know... >> >>

He also forgets to even mention where MOST corporate profits come from in USA: Privately held corporations, NOT publically held corporations. Public companies get the press, but contribute much less to the overall health of our economy. "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BPS3e.2455$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> JP wrote: >> >> > What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. >> >> New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his >> reward for a year's work. >> >> Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a >> worker, I can only say good luck to you. > > > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a > profit > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at > their details). > >

Just on a side note: I treat the CEO pay no different than Sports Hero's pay. We as a public are the only ones to blame. We make up the owners of these companies and allow it to happen. On another side note, even with our "excess" it has created more wealth, jobs and supported more charities than any other country in the world. Not to mention more freedoms. Bill Bollinger www.gsxn.com "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SmT3e.2459$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> JP wrote: >> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:[email hidden]... >> > >> >>JP wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all. >> >> >> >>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his >> >>reward for a year's work. >> >> >> >>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as >> >>a >> >>worker, I can only say good luck to you. >> > >> > >> > >> > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a > profit >> > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked > at >> > their details). >> >> No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of >> "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that >> he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million? > > > Definately. > > >> >> In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the >> average salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but >> less than twenty times more is typical. >> >> In the US it's 300 times more. >> >> At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad? > > > Agreed. One of my "sore points" also, in the current day. Don't know > if > your numbers are correct, but that's irrelevant, as overall, the general > situation does exist. > >

Yah kind of like Clinton did with Nuclear Secrets (Off Topic). Mitch do you even know what jobs have been outsourced the most over the past 5 years? Are there any jobs that shouldn't be outsourced? Here is a little economics 101: Countries can normally be seperated on 1 of 2 ways. They either are rich in labor or rich in capital. Obviously USA is rich in capital. It is also the norm that a country rich in capital is also poor in labor (High costs or low number of a quality labor force). Therefore, lets look at a refridgerator as an example. 70 years ago, it was not uncommon for people to pay upwards of 20-25% of their ANNUAL income for a fridge (a large amount of profit was available - BECAUSE it was a higher tech product for its time) today people can pay less than 500 for a fridge that would only have been dreamed about 70 years ago. As product life cycles mature, the level of profit will normally drop and companies have to look to cut costs. Is it SMART for us to continue to force our economy to produce low profitable fridges? I say not. Our economy is evolving to an economy that will continue to emphasize education, health care and new technologies. It means that an education will become more and more important and valuable. Example: 1970 --- Average college degree only meant an additional 50% more lifetime earnings... Today it is over 80% more lifetime earnings. Bill Bollinger "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: >> Thats the fundamental difference. If WE dont like Motorola we dont buy >> Motorola products and soon Motorola will be gone. > > Just for discussion sake, what if you do like their products, but they're > all outsourced to China and the CEO takes 100 million dollars? > > Is there a point at which a halt should be called, or does the old > "Reaganomics" apply, of what's good for the money markets is good for the > country?

"John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The point is that in the specific case you cited, giving aid to other > countries, the US falls well short of the standards agreed to by the UN. Ok, this just about makes me puke. Standards and the UN said in one statement. Bill Bollinger

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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] > (John Wallace) wrote: > >> Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about >> on that score. > > Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into > Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move > and life might get interesting again. We can but hope! > > Andrew McP

Question for Brits - how does the scenario of the death of the Queen and the crowning of a King named Charles sound?

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AcT3e.2458$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >> >> Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths >> of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE >> THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening >> in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly >> pilloried for it. > > > Proof ? >

Here's a good read - http://www.jhu.edu/hurj/focus-krumm.html Whilst it is clearly inconclusive, I'm very sure I'd refuse to work in one of those tanks and I'd be hopping mad if the military was playing war games with this depleted uranium shit near my house. How would you feel about that JP?

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AcT3e.2458$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> JP wrote: >> >> >> Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths >> of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE >> THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening >> in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly >> pilloried for it. >

Much more concerning, and to me beleivable - http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/displayarticle447.html You'd need to be a very careless cunt to give the go ahead to use this stuff! ie just like any of the last 2 U.S. presidents.

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:v3_3e.1096$[email hidden]... > Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad > things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope > some small amount of reason enters into your thought process ;) > ...kettle........black You've convinced me that you're simply a patriotic moron. > Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. > I didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things > are looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for > and which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party > likes to think. > rotfl - what a load of bullshit! Here's good old Mitch, living in the most overlegislated society in the history of humanity talking about "freedom" - you're a fuckin' joke buddy. You're in Iraq because your hopeless president, and all those stupid enough to serve under such a goose, cant find Osama Bin Laden so they invade Iraq as a pitiful attempt to save face, thus winning some votes from those as foolish as you. American Power man - yeah, American U.S. power - fucken A baby! Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa! Rock n' roll. Kickn aaaaaaaaaassssss! Mumma said take you down............................................ Get the idea?

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6X_3e.1112$[email hidden]... > Delusional is thinking you can actually add anything constructive. Your > only motivation is pure hatred and that hate has marginalized you out of > existence. Buh-Bye... > Those who have no argument resort to big and impressive words like "marginalized" Unfortunately I think Mitch is one of the reasons the U.S. government don't bother with too many elaborate hoaxes - with a country full of one eyed patriotic morons there's simply no need. Btw Mitch, did you inherit that "Buh-Bye" from your mommy?

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UsU3e.1021$[email hidden]... > Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the > US.... > > Mitch > The U.S. wouldn't be there if not for the British ie what a load of irrelevent bullshit, as usual.

In article <42520a29$0$27857$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: > the death of the Queen Elton John died? Oh, you mean *that* Queen. <shrug> Despite momentary lapses of sanity (eg when Diana died) nobody really gives a f*ck about the monarchy. They're just a bunch of Germans imported to attract American tourists :-) Andrew McP

"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9xl4e.29305$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> You are the one who has pigeon-hold himself. Not my fault that many of > the Western European countries lean to the socialist side and wonder why > they cannot grow their economies and are falling behind. > > Bill Bollinger > www.gsxn.com >

Why am I not surprised that someone with the great dollar as their god says someone has "pigeon-hold" himself - LOL. Maybe Bill thinks this is a WWF "hold"? Time for a change of god Bill - try here for some enlightenment - http://dictionary.reference.com/

"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6wl4e.29304$[email hidden]... > The FACTS are: Americans contribute nearly 1 trillion every year to > charities. You may think that is stingy, but that would be incorrect. > I'd prefer they just wiped out all politicians, policemen, etc, wiped the legal/foreign policy slate clean and started all over again. A pity you can't just shift - R in real life :(

I wasnt going to reply to anymore of your utopian conspiracy theories Byron but honestly what do you think a shift-r would get us? A different set of leaders and rules we all try to abide by? Gee, sound a bit familiar? I just read an article that stated excessive Marijuana use causes many of the same symptoms you exhibit here. Not the least of which are either psychosis or paranoia. Mitch "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > I'd prefer they just wiped out all politicians, policemen, etc, wiped > the legal/foreign policy slate clean and started all over again. > > A pity you can't just shift - R in real life :( >

Just like ya'll.... Blame the US for the Brittish Monarchy.... Why not you blame us for all your other problems why not this one. No matter how absurd... Mitch "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> In article > <42520a29$0$27857$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: > >> the death of the Queen > > Elton John died? > > Oh, you mean *that* Queen. <shrug> Despite momentary lapses of > sanity (eg when Diana died) nobody really gives a f*ck about the monarchy. > They're just a bunch of Germans imported to attract American tourists :-) > > Andrew McP

In article <Ihr4e.16726$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Mitch_A) wrote: > you blame us for all your other problems > why not this one Problem? The Windsors aren't a problem, they're a tourist attraction that probably draws in more money to UK PLC than they cost us. You have your creationist museum. We have a few thousand years' worth of inbred monarchy. Two nations joined across the ocean by common insanity. Makes you proud ;-) Andrew McP

LOL "Andrew MacPherson" > You have your creationist museum. We have a few thousand years' worth of > inbred monarchy. Two nations joined across the ocean by common insanity. > Makes you proud ;-) > > Andrew McP

>> More than two centuries of accrued rights and civil balances havebeen watered down or made illegal>> What a crock. All that happened was that rules for dealing with criminals were extended over to counter terrorist activities whereas before they were considered separate. Keep reading to get real info, and put down Michael Moore's latest screed. Like any other search warrant, delayed-notification warrants under Section 213 may only be issued after showing probable cause and obtaining the express approval of a judge. Nothing changed here with the Patriot Act. This had always been the case and all that happened is that the rules for criminal searches were extended to cases of suspected domestic terrorism. >> "Muslim-Americans have been arrested and imprisoned without trial" That's an interesting charge. What is your substantiation for it? Your allegation: " FBI agents have the right to go into libraries and see what people are reading. " The Truth: A: No. Section 215 permits the government to obtain "tangible things" from third parties in foreign intelligence investigations. Although the USA PATRIOT Act does not mention libraries, this section could be applied to library records as business records. Under previous law, government agents had the ability to access business records, including library records, with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases. Section 215 now allows such requests in foreign intelligence cases. An important protection provides that Section 215 may not be used against U.S. persons (citizens or permanent resident aliens) solely based on activities protected by the First Amendment. In practice, these requests are made only as to specific individuals who are already the target of an investigation. This provision includes a safeguard that provides that government agents must seek a court order for the records, based on a certification from a high-ranking FBI official (Assistant Special Agent in Charge or higher) that the records sought are for "an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." An additional safeguard requires the Department of Justice to report its use of this provision to Congress every six months. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mie/ctu/FAQ_Patriot.htm >> Universities are being encouraged to report on people who show"subversive tendencies". You'll need to back that claim up.

Why don't you explain to us where ONE THING that he said was untrue? WS "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Randy > > > > Truth hurts sometimes. Not all have the guts to face it. > > > Particularly people like you, just off the mothership. How's Elvis, > btw? Send my greetings on one of your next trips home. > > Randy

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7mB1e.3443$[email hidden]... > First dont take my statement out of context. The lives arent "nothing"but > the crok tears form some left wing activist are... The only "croc tears" are coming from the neocons (NONE of whom have served in the military) who planned this war from the day they stole the 2000 election. Funny that their "successful" war for oil has freed up the oil supply so much that I'm now paying $2.30/gal for mid-grade gasoline. WS

"Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9xl4e.29305$[email hidden]... > You are the one who has pigeon-hold himself. Not my fault that many ofthe > Western European countries lean to the socialist side and wonder why they > cannot grow their economies and are falling behind. Damn right! That's why the Euro is worth so much more than the Dollar. Looking out for your citizens IS NOT socialist, dumbass. WS

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

Quoted text (12 lines)

> In article > <42520a29$0$27857$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: > >> the death of the Queen > > Elton John died? > > Oh, you mean *that* Queen. <shrug> Despite momentary lapses of > sanity (eg when Diana died) nobody really gives a f*ck about the monarchy. > They're just a bunch of Germans imported to attract American tourists :-) >

LOL. No doubt Elton is more relevent. They're certainly not a poster family for the concept of monarchy, that's for sure. On the other hand, nearly every prime minister or president of the "free" world is certainly a poster boy/girl for one of democracy's prime claims - anyone can make it in a democracy, no matter how stupid.

You're 10 years to late to accuse me of being a marijuana chimney and even when I was I was 1000 quantum leaps of intelectual accomplishment above the average bear even after half a dozen party cones of buddah sprikled with some high grade hashish. What I'm suggesting here is revolution - they've been happening since the begginig of time - out with the old, in with the new. Not a democratically elected "new" though - I think some proper leadership would be very novel and extremely fascinating to the hoards on this shithole of a planet that have never been blessed by it. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rfr4e.16725$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

>I wasnt going to reply to anymore of your utopian conspiracy theories Byron >but honestly what do you think a shift-r would get us? A different set of >leaders and rules we all try to abide by? Gee, sound a bit familiar? > > I just read an article that stated excessive Marijuana use causes many of > the same symptoms you exhibit here. Not the least of which are either > psychosis or paranoia. > > > Mitch > > > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > I'd prefer they > just wiped out all politicians, policemen, etc, wiped >> the legal/foreign policy slate clean and started all over again. >> >> A pity you can't just shift - R in real life :( >> > >

You're 10 years to late to accuse me of being a *** chimney and even when I was I was 1000 quantum leaps of intelectual accomplishment above the average bear even after half a dozen party cones of buddah sprikled with some high grade hashish. What I'm suggesting here is revolution - they've been happening since the begginig of time - out with the old, in with the new. Not a democratically elected "new" though - I think some proper leadership would be very novel and extremely fascinating to the hoards on this shithole of a planet that have never been blessed by it.

Quoted text (16 lines)

>I wasnt going to reply to anymore of your utopian *** theories Byron >but honestly what do you think a shift-r would get us? A different set of >leaders and rules we all try to abide by? Gee, sound a bit familiar? > I just read an article that stated excessive *** use causes many of > the same symptoms you exhibit here. Not the least of which are either > psychosis or paranoia. > Mitch > just wiped out all politicians, policemen, etc, wiped >> the legal/foreign policy slate clean and started all over again. >> A pity you can't just shift - R in real life :(

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Rfr4e.16725$[email hidden]... >> >> I just read an article that stated excessive Marijuana use causes many of >> the same symptoms you exhibit here. Not the least of which are either >> psychosis or paranoia. >> >> >> Mitch >>

Furthermore, for someone who's selling the idea that the U.S. has done some good so it deserves to get away with a little uneccessary annihilation here and there, I think there's no doubt about who's mentality is closer to an out of it druggo. Your moronic, possibly drug induced attitude is that the sun shines out of the arse of the U.S. and no ideas to the contrary will be considered. Talk about deluded denial!

Do you even have a CLUE as to why Euro is worth more right now? Do you even have a CLUE as to what having a weak dollar does for our multinational and exporting corporations? When you even have a CLUE please respond. Bill Bollinger "bernard spilman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cPY4e.25205$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9xl4e.29305$[email hidden]... >> You are the one who has pigeon-hold himself. Not my fault that many of > the >> Western European countries lean to the socialist side and wonder why they >> cannot grow their economies and are falling behind. > > Damn right! That's why the Euro is worth so much more than the > Dollar. Looking out for your citizens IS NOT socialist, dumbass. > WS > >

> Do you even have a CLUE as to why Euro is worth more right now? I know that it is NOT because European economies are falling behind. Europeans have good roads, good schools, and good health care for ALL their citizens. This country is starting to look like the old Soviet Union; run-down infrastructure, crappy, ill-maintained military equipment, etc... I don't understand how you right-wing fanatics call yourselves "Patriots," and squeal like pigs when you are asked to pay your taxes. Do you think the US can remain the greatest nation on earth by doing it "on the cheap?" Do you even > have a CLUE as to what having a weak dollar does for our multinational and > exporting corporations? Let me seperate the two: Multinational corporations are getting richer. They are NOT paying more taxes, they are NOT sharing their prosperity with their employees. They are taking wealth from the US economy and distrubuting it among the world economy. Our president should be looking out for the American People, not multinationals. Exporting corporations are selling more stuff for less money. They can afford to do that since republican policies have made it so much easier for them pay illegal aliens substandard wages for jobs Americans used to hold. You could argue that more exports could add to our foreign trade surplus, if we didn't currently have the largest trade deficeit in US history. There's some solid "conservative" governing for you. Any more questions? WS

As youve made quite clear. Anything right of Stalin to you is a right-wing fanatic. The infrastructure has deteriorated because of failed liberal policies (since FDR but LBJ can claim a bunch) and nothing more. Ill make it really easy for ya, you spoil your kid rotten then that same brat takes everything in life for granted and blames everyone but himself for his failure. Teach a child appreciation and things change for the better. The reason the old folks didnt act this way was because they had appreciation, plain and simple. Now we have a society of takers while the only givers are the government with *my* money. Mitch "bernard spilman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Xgi5e.22776$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (43 lines)

> >> Do you even have a CLUE as to why Euro is worth more right now? > > I know that it is NOT because European economies are falling behind. > Europeans have good roads, good schools, and good health care for ALL > their > citizens. This country is starting to look like the old Soviet Union; > run-down > infrastructure, crappy, ill-maintained military equipment, etc... I don't > understand how you right-wing fanatics call yourselves "Patriots," and > squeal like pigs when you are asked to pay your taxes. Do you think > the US can remain the greatest nation on earth by doing it "on the cheap?" > > > Do you even >> have a CLUE as to what having a weak dollar does for our multinational >> and >> exporting corporations? > > Let me seperate the two: > Multinational corporations are getting richer. They are NOT paying more > taxes, they > are NOT sharing their prosperity with their employees. They are taking > wealth from > the US economy and distrubuting it among the world economy. Our president > should > be looking out for the American People, not multinationals. > > Exporting corporations are selling more stuff for less money. They can > afford to > do that since republican policies have made it so much easier for them pay > illegal aliens substandard wages for jobs Americans used to hold. > > You could argue that more exports could add to our foreign trade surplus, > if > we didn't currently have the largest trade deficeit in US history. There's > some > solid "conservative" governing for you. > > Any more questions? > WS > >

Polly want a cracker? I thought I'd speak Parrot-ese...you might find it easier to understand. MartyU wrote:

Quoted text (51 lines)

> Hate? Hate for the idea that might makes right (Bush foreign policy)? > Hate for the bigotry of right-wingers who have no pity for the > hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab people murdered at the hands > of a fraudulent American president responsible for a fraudulent war > in Iraq? Hate for the corporate fascism that drives Bush's forign > policy and domestic securty state? > > You bet! > > Bye-bye? No stomach for a dialog with people who don't agree with you? > > Marty > > Mitch_A wrote: > > Delusional is thinking you can actually add anything constructive. > > Your only motivation is pure hatred and that hate has marginalized > > you out of existence. Buh-Bye... > > > > > > "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:4250779b$0$[email hidden]... > > > > > Mitch_A wrote: > > > > > > > Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are > > > > the bad things. Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you > > > > straight and hope some small amount of reason enters into your > > > > thought process ;) > > > > > > The good things are good. Everyone likes the good things. The bad > > > things should be exposed and fixed. But not everyone has the guts > > > to face the bad things. It's obvious where you stand. > > > > > > > > > > Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this > > > > point in time. I didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the > > > > War started either. Things are looking better for freedom > > > > daily though and thats all we can hope for and which was our > > > > original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party likes to > > > > think. > > > > > > That's just plain delusional. Iraq is a mess because of, A.)the > > > incompetence of the Bush administration, B.)the deceit of the > > > Bush administration, C.) both incompetence and deceit of the Bush > > > administration. Anyway you look at it the people who created the > > > problem are unlikely to be the ones to fix it. > > > > > > Marty > > > > > >

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yej5e.11550$[email hidden]... > As youve made quite clear. Anything right of Stalin to you is aright-wing > fanatic. I consider myself pretty conservative. Nothing conservative about Bush's deficeit financing, nothing conservative about the federal government trying to tell the state courts how they must rule. Bush is an ideologue, he is NOT a conservative. > The infrastructure has deteriorated because of failed liberal policies > (since FDR but LBJ can claim a bunch) and nothing more. Total fu-king bullshit! Explain how, idiot. "Liberal policies?", you're gonna have to get a little more specific than that, most of us here can read and write. > Ill make it really easy for ya, you spoil your kid rotten then that same > brat takes everything in life for granted and blames everyone but himself > for his failure. Teach a child appreciation and things change for the > better. What in hell does that have to do with anything? > The reason the old folks didnt act this way was because they had > appreciation, plain and simple. Now we have a society of takers while the > only givers are the government with *my* money. I'm sure that you alone are keeping the government solvent. Its all about your money, ain't it? Dude, you are really a fu-king ZERO! You make bold ideological statements that have no basis in fact and you make no attempt to back up your bullshit. When you're finally shown to be an ignorant ass, you make some stupid, prideful boast and move on to spew your bullshit in another group. WS PS: I am still waiting to hear how FDR and LBJ ruined an infrastructure that started deteriorating in the seventies, but if you just rattle off more mumbo-jumbo I won't waste my time responding to an idiot.

Id prefer if you didnt. You make yourself out a real moron everytime you try... Buh-Bye Bernie! "bernard spilman" <[email hidden]> > > mumbo-jumbo I won't waste my time responding to an idiot. > >

rmagruder wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>>More than two centuries of accrued rights and civil balances have > > been > watered down or made illegal>> > > What a crock. All that happened was that rules for dealing with > criminals were extended over to counter terrorist activities whereas > before they were considered separate. Keep reading to get real info, > and put down Michael Moore's latest screed.

Randy, before responding to me, check your predjudices at the door, okay? Does the fact that I dislike seeing YOUR civil liberties eroded make me a Michael Moore fan?! Quite an astonishing leap of "judgement" there.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Your allegation: " FBI agents have the right to go into libraries and > see what people are > reading. " > > The Truth: > > A: No. Section 215 permits the government to obtain "tangible things" > from third parties in foreign intelligence investigations. Although the > USA PATRIOT Act does not mention libraries, this section could be > applied to library records as business records.

Therefore "The Truth" is that the "Patriot" act does allow exactly that, and is being used as such. Why is it that YOUR government is allowed to snoop on you, but you are not allowed to know what they are doing? >>>Universities are being encouraged to report on people who show >>>"subversive tendencies". > > You'll need to back that claim up. Another non-searcher? Use google - you'll find countless campus news stories, blogs, articles and reports - or do you prefer your "news" served by Murdoch in sound-bites?

Mitch_A wrote: > And those who committed crimes are paying for it. > > I bet you agree with the irony of beheading innocents in orange jumpsuits > also. I think most people are not closed to the obvious fact that there is good and bad on both sides - no-one has a monopoly on what is right.

Mitch_A wrote: > Thats exactly what this argument is about. All you can see are the bad > things. Mitch, I *just posted* the words "No-one is arguing that > the US has done good things" - I know we are "two nations separated by a common language", but was it really unclear?! :-) > Thats fine, all I can do is try and set you straight and hope some > small amount of reason enters into your thought process ;) Sorry Mitch, it's matter and anti-matter that supposedly cancel out, not open insult and then smiley... > Neither of us is right or wrong in regards to Iraq at this point in time. I > didnt expect it to be 2 years ago when the War started either. Things are > looking better for freedom daily though and thats all we can hope for and > which was our original intent in Iraq, not WMD or Oil as your party likes to > think. I have no party - please remember it. I do so hate when people try to fill in aspects about me of which they have no knowledge. I agree that no-one is right or wrong in regards to Iraq, but if you cannot accept my point on Iraq, please understand my feeling. You say things are looking better for freedom - I disagree. The US invaded Iraq, and forced upon the people a style of government and a leader that they DID NOT CHOOSE. That is not freedom. Forget for a moment if we think it is in their best interests, it is NOT democratic, it is NOT freedom, and it is NOT legal. Imagine if Saddam had the military power of the US, and decided "poor USA has George Bush as a leader, half the country vote against him - they need a dictator to solve their problems!". Then he invades, knocks out the military, and installs a style of government of which his people approve. Set aside the response of "we'll kick his ass", and "it'll never happen" - I know. Point is, it's the reverse of what was done to Iraq, and would be equally undemocratic and illegal. The people of IRAQ may think they've done the right thing - under Saddam (pre-sanctions) they had a literacy rate of overe 90% (prents were fined for not sending their kids to attain an education), they had no street children as they have now, their overall level of wellbeing for the population was among the best in the world (it's now in the bottom 20%). Those people might believe they were doing the right thing for the US, but that is not the way to bring it about - you can't make rules then just set them aside. Bringing "democracy" by undemocratic means is bizarre, no? Still, time will tell, and it's done now.

JP wrote: > No you didn't. At least not to me. *You* posted quotes. I'm looking for > a link. It's posted in the thread. If you're too lazy to look, I'm not repeating myself. Tell you what, chalk this one down as another chance for you to say "thought not" and once again wallow in ignorance.

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > > Hans von Spooneck, who replaced Denis > >>Halliday. His resignation was only the first public expression of what >>was desribed as an unprecedented rebellion within the UN against the >>manipulation of the sanctions. >> >>In an television interview he stated "I had been instructed to implement >>a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide, a deliberate policy >>that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children >>and adults. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of >>control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the >>Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will >>slaughter those responsible" >> >>Please note, the security council to which he refers comprises only five >>permanent members, US, UK, China, France and Russia. The US and the UK >>were the only ones to veto supplies under the sanctions, and were the >>members to which Halliday refers. > > > > Proof (link, i.e.) showing your claim about the US/UK here ? Exactly > what kind of supplies are you referring too ? I've posted some showing > otherwise.

You've posted NOTHING but your own words, backed up with nothing. And if you don't know who comprises the UN security council members, you are WAY out of your depth.

JP wrote: >>As for being afraid their breadwagon was being cut off, can I remind you >>that these two gentlemen voluntary *resigned* in horror and protest at >>what the sanctions were forcing them to do. i.e. they were firmly on >>your "breadwagon", and they CHOSE to get off. > > Proof ? LOL! JP, you are a loon. Saying "proof" every time a fact you don't like is in front of you won't make it go away. If you really, really want to educate yourself, RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF. You will feel better for knowing. In this case I will indulge you, but no more - I'm sure you can find things for yourself. Here is a link to Halliday's first public speech after his resignation, made at Harvard in 1998. http://iraqaction.org/oldsite/harvard.html > Explain how so ? I've posted facts. You're still posting non-confirmed > quotes, theories, and opinions. So, explain exactly how so. Because you *are* talking horse manure. I have posted facts and evidence, quotes and sources. You have cited only things which you believe to be true. *You* may believe them, but that falls well short of making them facts. > You answer my questions first, since you've been dodging them, and we'll > go from there. LOL - every one has been answered. > > Ok, answered yours. Once again, how about mine, for who knows how many > times I've posted it; the $ for oil/food were present. Yet, much of it was > pocketed by UN, European officials, and SH and his gang. JP, for the third time. Listen. Post proof of this utter fallacy. There is no proof, because it did not happen. *I* have axplained to you where all the money went, and the mechanisms under which it flowed (controlled by the US). So in the extremely unlikely event of any pocketing, the US was complicit. > Simple. By living up to my end of the agreement. The one that I forced > upon myself. So you would endure the sanctions and allow yourself and your family to die. Okay, that's a fair answer, since that's what the Iraqis had to do. > Exactly. Blamed Iraq. I.e., their govt. Fairly common sense to > understand that. Or, when you incorrectly say the US didn't allow > food/medicine, you mean the US people ? Actually the UN said it. China said it. France said it. Kofi Annan said it. Independent journalists recorded and reported it. I merely quoted, although I do agree with them. > Ah, I see. Since you can't ignore the fact that all the sanctions were UN > sanctions, now you twist it so that they "don't really count" if you will, > because in your tin-beenied head, the US/UK demanded them. JP - are you *really* trying to say that the sanctions against Iraq were not requested by the US, supported by the UK? Honestly? I'm trying to help you here, I'm trying to help you salvage one tiny thread of credibility that you have an iota of a clue what you're talking about. You do know that Blair flew to the US to convince Bush to go this road? You do know they had press conferences about this? You do know they tried to spin the lie that "France would veto the sanctions no matter what". Please tell me you know this? > Second, they were Security Council sanctions. Do some research on that > body, what countries are on it, and how it's vetoes/passing work. Hint: It > takes more than the US/UK to pass/veto a sanction via this council. Er, no - it takes only ONE country. That's why they call it a veto. Go read up on how the security council works (and see which of the members has used its veto more times in the past ten years than any other ; China : 2 France : 0 UK : 0 Russia : 1 USA : 10 What do you think was so important during the last ten years that the US was the one doing more than 75% of the vetoing...? Hmmm, what was going on in the last decade.... > Ah, the moonbat comes out in full force. Quit the insults okay? You don't know me, so don't think you can judge me. > Ok, here's a very small tip of > the iceberg start for you. Btw, you conviently left out the UN and European > officials that took $ too. Well, that's because they didn't. First off, PLEASE don't take your "news" from Fox, okay? Secondly, you post me links showing Kofi Annan being *cleared*, the US State Department supporting this, and Kofi Annan's son looking into his options as far as suing the people who investigated! This is "proof" - LOL. The US was involved in the set up of the sanctions, the controlling of the sanctions, the sign off of any orders, and with power of veto over everything which went on. *If* there was a problem (which has been many times alleged and never proven), a hell of a lot of people in the US missed it. >>>>Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred >>>>immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for >>>>Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not >>>>allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced. > > Not allowed ? Proof ? Here is resolution 661 - note that medicines and humanitarian aid are very specifically allowed ; http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm Here are some reports on how this was simply ignored ; http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Sanctions_EHoskins_WC.html http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/coolwars.html Even Harvard warned of the public health catastrophe which they predicted would occur, and which was proven correct. >>>>Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which >>>>were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no >>>>possible link to any form of weapons manufacture. > > Proof ? Read the above reports. Oh, and search. >>I have already posted this. > > Then you should have no difficulty copying/pasting it. I haven't seen it. Then click back in the thread and find it.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>> Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain, > > which > >>>came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the >>>*UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn't > > have > >>>had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numbers > > listed ).

They're the UN's *proven* numbers, and accepted by your government. You should tell them they're wrong. > *I* have yet to prove it ? You're the one who first claimed the US blocked > it. Proving things is on your end. Which you haven't yet btw. So put up > already. This thread has gone on long enough, without your showing any > proof at all of your myriad moonbat claims. JP, you really need to shut up, it's embarrassing. How can you claims I haven't posted "any proof at all"? I have posted a LOT, even in this message. Cited you numbers, provided quotes and sources right to the UN and your own government. You might not like them, but please don't claim I've posted nothing to try to strengthen your position. If you can't strengthen it by fact, don't bother. > Put up or shut up. Simple concept really. Then you should shut up - really.

Andrew MacPherson wrote: > You mean, apart from terminally depressed at the state of world > leadership, the future for the environment, and the fact I still prefer > GPL to anything more recent (except maybe rFactor)? Fine John! :-) Good to hear! I'm just getting back out and about after breaking my wrist recently. Stopped me racing and, more tragically, stopped me mountain biking (although I did self-inflict the break while mountain biking, so I suppose it's wrong to complain!). Back out for a first run today up Glen Finglas and over Meall Cala, which was superb, although snowing on the peak still. > > Still staying in that amazingly quaint village? > > <peers out of the window at the M25 in the near distance>. Er, no. Not > sure I ever did :-) Yes, the M25 could seriously put a dent on things, although it should help your skills in GPL traffic! Mind you, even online I reckon most simmers drive better than I tended to see on the M25. > Nice to see you still hanging around the place. Not sure I can recommend > getting involved in the political stuff though. It's really bad for any > optimism you might have lurking at the back or your head. Yes, I'm discovering that unfortunately. It's not so much the politics that depress me here, it's people's inability to step aside for a moment from what they believe in, and objectively look at the process of how something came about. Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society" - she is normally quoted badly out of context on this, but I fear the non-contextual use is becoming the more correct. Cheers John

Bill Bollinger wrote: > The FACTS are: Americans contribute nearly 1 trillion every year to > charities. You may think that is stingy, but that would be incorrect. No, the FACTS are that the agreement made by UN participants was for 0.7% of GDP, and the US gives 0.1%. The 0.7% is the target, the 0.1% is the result. And that is why *Jimmy Carter* (not me) called the US the stingiest nation on earth. I've never been your president (too Scottish to qualify), so I'd rather you attributed Jimmy's quotes to Jimmy.

Bill Bollinger wrote: > You are the one who has pigeon-hold himself. Not my fault that many of the > Western European countries lean to the socialist side and wonder why they > cannot grow their economies and are falling behind. Bill - people *cannot* pigeon-hole themselves. Think about it.

Yes we do, but the way you make a valid point and back it up with fact instead of spin is why Ill listen so intently even if I do disagree. I know Im not always right and Im more than willing to listen to an intelligent post and thats what will sway me to that view, not calling me names. Id be happy to tilt a p[int or two with ya someday John! Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > We obviously have very different viewpoints, but I do very much > appreciate that you know the difference between an argument and a debate! > It seems a rare gift on this issue!

Bill Bollinger wrote: > Just on a side note: I treat the CEO pay no different than Sports Hero's > pay. We as a public are the only ones to blame. We make up the owners of > these companies and allow it to happen. That will be the "Royal we" I guess, because I never signed up for that. I suspect if you took a vote of all the people in the US and asked them if Motorola's CEO should get 38 million bucks a year they'd say no.

Bill Bollinger wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>The point is that in the specific case you cited, giving aid to other >>countries, the US falls well short of the standards agreed to by the UN. > > > > Ok, this just about makes me puke. Standards and the UN said in one > statement.

The US agreed to the standard - does that make you puke? Then fell short by almost 90% - does that raise a little vomit?

Byron Forbes wrote: > Question for Brits - how does the scenario of the death of the Queen and > the crowning of a King named Charles sound? A charlie for a king? Sounds cool :-) I'm actually rather curious what other Brits may say - like our Scottish so called "parliament", it's a matter of supreme indifference to me.

Byron Forbes wrote: > American Power man - yeah, American U.S. power - fucken A baby! > Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa! Rock n' roll. Kickn aaaaaaaaaassssss! > > Mumma said take you down............................................ Actually you're worryingly good at that! :-) Were you in Apocalypse Now? I bet you do a damn good "Charlie don't surf" :-)

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>the death of the Queen > > > Elton John died? > > Oh, you mean *that* Queen. <shrug> Despite momentary lapses of > sanity (eg when Diana died) nobody really gives a f*ck about the monarchy. > They're just a bunch of Germans imported to attract American tourists :-)

Hmmm, the monarchy batting 0 for 2 so far.....!

Mitch_A wrote: >>Oh, you mean *that* Queen. <shrug> Despite momentary lapses of >>sanity (eg when Diana died) nobody really gives a f*ck about the monarchy. >>They're just a bunch of Germans imported to attract American tourists :-) > Just like ya'll.... Blame the US for the Brittish Monarchy.... Why not > you blame us for all your other problems why not this one. No matter how > absurd... Mitch, you *really* need to work on your literary comp. How you find "blame" in that sentence, while missing the avarice is amazing.

Bill Bollinger wrote: > Do you even have a CLUE as to why Euro is worth more right now? Do you even > have a CLUE as to what having a weak dollar does for our multinational and > exporting corporations? When you even have a CLUE please respond. Bill, if you'd like to know, just ask :-)

Mitch_A wrote: > Yes we do, but the way you make a valid point and back it up with fact > instead of spin is why Ill listen so intently even if I do disagree. I know > Im not always right and Im more than willing to listen to an intelligent > post and thats what will sway me to that view, not calling me names. > > Id be happy to tilt a p[int or two with ya someday John! Believe me, having come back from my first day's mountain biking since breaking my wrist, a pint sounds superb. To counter the Scottish myth, I'll even pay! Short arms and deep pockets indeed! :-)

Yea, I been told dat before, along with, "you aint the sharpest knife in the drawer r ya" or "did ur momma drop ya as a child" ;) Oh yea, wth is a avarice :) Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, you *really* need to work on your literary comp. How you find > "blame" in that sentence, while missing the avarice is amazing.

Mitch_A wrote: > Oh yea, wth is a avarice :) Highest mountain in the world :-)

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: > > > Oh yea, wth is a avarice :) > > Highest mountain in the world > > :-)

LOL. ;o) Elrikk

Well of course John, and MOST people would say that most sports figures shouldn't get paid as much as they do either. Free country and no limit on wages, that is a good thing. I would assume that you would rather tax people at 100% bracket if they earn over 30k. That way everyone could be equally miserable :) Bill "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Just on a side note: I treat the CEO pay no different than Sports Hero's >> pay. We as a public are the only ones to blame. We make up the owners >> of these companies and allow it to happen. > > That will be the "Royal we" I guess, because I never signed up for that. > > I suspect if you took a vote of all the people in the US and asked them if > Motorola's CEO should get 38 million bucks a year they'd say no.

I could CARE LESS what the UN says - As I am sure most Americans would say/vote as well. Therefore, who cares how far we fell short :) Bill "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >>>The point is that in the specific case you cited, giving aid to other >>>countries, the US falls well short of the standards agreed to by the UN. >> >> >> >> Ok, this just about makes me puke. Standards and the UN said in one >> statement. > > The US agreed to the standard - does that make you puke? > > Then fell short by almost 90% - does that raise a little vomit?

Ok, go ahead and explain. I would love to hear this :) Bill P.S. I am just having fun --- I do lean to the right, but like having debates with the left every so often. "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: >> Do you even have a CLUE as to why Euro is worth more right now? Do you >> even have a CLUE as to what having a weak dollar does for our >> multinational and exporting corporations? When you even have a CLUE >> please respond. > > Bill, if you'd like to know, just ask :-)

Bill Bollinger wrote: > Well of course John, and MOST people would say that most sports figures > shouldn't get paid as much as they do either. Free country and no limit on > wages, that is a good thing. I would assume that you would rather tax > people at 100% bracket if they earn over 30k. That way everyone could be > equally miserable :) You should learn not to assume - you'd post fewer incorrect suppositions. It's funny those with the freedom to award themselves such salaries highly approve, but those self same people also howl in horror when a minimum wage is set. Reason is it protects people from exploitation by "the market". Freedom is assumed to be universal, but it's not, at least not the kind we have. It's extremely highly contextual, and cannot be considered to be equally applied to all.

Bill Bollinger wrote: > I could CARE LESS what the UN says - As I am sure most Americans would > say/vote as well. Therefore, who cares how far we fell short :) Can anyone tell me what's wrong with me? Despite all evidence to the contrary I *still* persist in having high hopes for people. Then I read selfish horseshit like this. Bill, there are 45,000 people PER DAY dying of starvation around the world. THAT is who cares, and why we should care. Still, I'd better warn you they're not from the US, so f*ck 'em, eh? Who could care less?

So what are YOU doing about it John? Bill "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bill, there are 45,000 people PER DAY dying of starvation around the > world. THAT is who cares, and why we should care.

> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Bill, there are 45,000 people PER DAY dying of starvation around the >>world. THAT is who cares, and why we should care. Bill Bollinger wrote: > So what are YOU doing about it John? What do you think, as much as I can! One person can't do much, but we are all just one person. Get a lot of "one persons" and things start to improve. So to reverse the subject change back to yourself, how about you? Do you think it's worth caring about, even acting upon? We worry about gas going over $3 per gallon, and if the SUV was a good purchase, while driving to McDonalds for calories we don't need. Meanwhile elsewhere in our cozy planet those 45,000 people a day are dying worrying where their next meal comes from. No-one said the world had to make sense.

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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Bill Bollinger wrote: >> I could CARE LESS what the UN says - As I am sure most Americans would >> say/vote as well. Therefore, who cares how far we fell short :) > > Can anyone tell me what's wrong with me? Despite all evidence to the > contrary I *still* persist in having high hopes for people. Then I read > selfish horseshit like this. >

It took a long time for the reality of the horror of just what % of humans amount to no more than a zombie - the human race is VERY over rated! Not many can distinguish between technology and intelligence/common sense. Some think you can get by on military superiority alone, and forever (Hitler, etc) - others think you can solve all problems with talk (christians). Stupid dogs on one end, pitiful bitches on the oither.

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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Byron Forbes wrote: > >> American Power man - yeah, American U.S. power - fucken A baby! >> Yeeeeeehaaaaaaa! Rock n' roll. Kickn aaaaaaaaaassssss! >> >> Mumma said take you down............................................ > > Actually you're worryingly good at that! :-) > > Were you in Apocalypse Now? I bet you do a damn good "Charlie don't surf" > :-)

I'm gunna haffta watch that DVD again now! :)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:16:16 +1000, Byron Forbes wrote: > > It took a long time for the reality of the horror of just what % of > humans amount to no more than a zombie - the human race is VERY over rated! > Not many can distinguish between technology and intelligence/common sense. > Obligatory "Dan Quinn" plug: Read "Ishmael" and call me in the morning. Weren't you the guy willing to kill his own offspring for certain reasons? ;-) Your definition of "common sense" might turn out to be rather interesting, to say the least. Cheers, uwe http://www.ishmael.org/ -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

> Bye-bye? No stomach for a dialog with people who don't agree with you? > > Marty More like no brain. He only knows slogans and jingoisms. He has no understanding of the world so when he realizes that he is in over his head, he bails out. Mitch is true chickenshit. WS

Yawn... I haven't went anywhere. You just bore me with your ridiculous nonsense wrapped around complete bullshit. When you grow up maybe we can talk more. Then again, maybe not. Mitch "bernard spilman" <[email hidden]> > More like no brain. He only knows slogans and jingoisms. He has no > understanding of the world so when he realizes that he is in over his > head, he bails out. Mitch is true chickenshit. > WS > >

"Uwe Sch�rkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:16:16 +1000, Byron Forbes wrote: >> >> It took a long time for the reality of the horror of just what % of >> humans amount to no more than a zombie - the human race is VERY over >> rated! >> Not many can distinguish between technology and intelligence/common >> sense. >> > > Obligatory "Dan Quinn" plug: Read "Ishmael" and call me in the > morning. Weren't you the guy willing to kill his own offspring for > certain reasons? ;-) Your definition of "common sense" might turn out > to be rather interesting, to say the least. >

I'm surprised you credited me with "certain reasons". Every U.S. tax payer is with me on this too - they have the death penalty so if their children murder, they get killed. So how many psychopathic children have you raised, sheltered and kept hidden in this lifetime Uwe?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:27:45 +1000, Byron Forbes wrote: > > So how many psychopathic children have you raised, sheltered and kept > hidden in this lifetime Uwe? > > Hmm, the future may tell, they're not psychopathic right now as far as I can say. Hidden? Positively none, zero zilch ;-) Cheers, uwe -- GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

The "certain reason" you'd kill your own kids for was being gay, wasn't it? Fortunately, you'll never have to fulfill this absurd claim as you obviously will never get the chance or even want to procreate (why add to the overated populous, eh?).

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only > have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in > every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate. > > You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone > with any common sense knows better. > > Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better > place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early > to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which > makes your argument seem even more marginal. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, I *truly* believe > that is what you and most US people want, and > >>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening. > > >

Mitch, why don't you fuck off and pollute another newsgroup with your fuck-wit brain, you cunt!

And it only took you twelve days to come up with this witty, intelligent, thoughtful reply eh Whoo.... <rolls eyes> You smell very familiar but you must hide your identity due to your wonderful contributions like this... Anonynimity makes even cowards like you feel brave. Mitch "Whoo" <[email hidden]> spewed his nonsense in message news:bby7e.3074$[email hidden]... > Mitch_A wrote: >> The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars l > Mitch, why don't you fuck off and pollute another newsgroup with your > fuck-wit brain, you cunt!

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The "certain reason" you'd kill your own kids for was being gay, wasn't > it? > Thanks for the reminder - I was wondering what the context was myself. > Fortunately, you'll never have to fulfill this absurd claim as you > obviously will never get the chance or even want to procreate (why add > to the overated populous, eh?). > Exactly!

Mitch_A wrote: > Delusional is thinking you can actually add anything constructive. Your > only motivation is pure hatred and that hate has marginalized you out of > existence. Buh-Bye... You idiot! They don't agree with wittle Mitch therefore they hate him!! Boo-hoo