|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734515 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 18:58 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:26:32 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Jay Furr wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
> >> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
> >
> >A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
> >religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a state
> >run and financed school.
> >
> >Bob Kolker
>
What is it with the first amendment? It always brings out the loons.
Not as often as the 2nd I'll admit, but....
> What is the legal basis for your separation of church and state? The
> Constitution says "Congress shall make NO (emphasis supplied) law..."
You snipped out the bit that provides that legal basis. I know *why*
you did it- the very next word undermines your ...um...argument. Here
is the 1st in it's entirety;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> "State run" sounds ominous - Heil Somebody.
What part of "public schools" don't you get?
>
> And a religious man is never apart from his religion for long. Whether
> it is obvious is a "whole nother ball game"..
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734533 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 19:45 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Tom Enright <freddy_hayek [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net wrote:
>
>
>> > Are you saying Japan would have surrendered when they did had we not
>> > dropped the bomb? That flies against all the intelligence of the time.
>
>> There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge
>> of surrendering prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of
>> evidence that surrender was extremely likely post-Hiroshima
>> and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that dropping the Nagasaki
>> bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
>
> Even after Nagasaki leaders in the military didn't want to
> surrender. Even to the point of an attempted coup.
Yes, and even before the Hiroshima drop leaders outside the military (and
even a few inside) were calling for surrender - very strongly so between
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There certainly was a power struggle, but one that
had been won by those in favor of surrender before the Nagasaki drop.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734542 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 20:07 |
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Noone Inparticular wrote:
>
> >
> > No this does NOT make it moral. It makes it expedient and, perhaps, the
> > best of two bad choices. There was NO good moral outcome. There could
> > be none.
>
> Killing your enemies is good in itself. Defending your own life or those
> of your dependents by mortal force is a good thing to do. There are far
> to many human germs who we suffer to live, but shouldn't. It is time to
> purge the hive and cull the herd.
>
> By the way, morality is just opinion. There is no such thing as a moral
> fact. Things that please us or elicit our admiration we call good.
> Things that apall us or fill us with loathing and fear we call bad.
> There is no objective basis for either conclusion.
Yes....there is....the objective basis for good and bad is the relative
benefit and harm the we see coming to ourselves and those we care
about.
>
> Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734553 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 20:59 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> Tom Enright wrote:
>> Even after Nagasaki leaders in the military didn't want to
>> surrender. Even to the point of an attempted coup.
> Yup. The Black Knight vs Arthur, King of the Britons.
> The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we would have
> had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in the pipeline) and
> the Russians would have invaded from the north. Just what we needed.
You do know that we WANTED the soviets to commit troops and materiel
to the pacific, don't you, and that's what we were holding out for?
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734559 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 21:24 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> rich hammett wrote:
>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>
>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Hawai'i?
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734578 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 22:17 |
|
On 8 Dec 2005 09:58:29 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:26:32 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Jay Furr wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
>> >> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
>> >
>> >A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
>> >religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a state
>> >run and financed school.
>> >
>> >Bob Kolker
>>
>
>What is it with the first amendment? It always brings out the loons.
>Not as often as the 2nd I'll admit, but....
>
>> What is the legal basis for your separation of church and state? The
>> Constitution says "Congress shall make NO (emphasis supplied) law..."
>
>You snipped out the bit that provides that legal basis. I know *why*
>you did it- the very next word undermines your ...um...argument. Here
>is the 1st in it's entirety;
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The three dots after "law" indicated there were more words. Pleas
excuse my overestimating you competence in English.
The entire thought is that Congress shall not make laws FOR OR AGAINST
religion or the exercise thereof - plus the other actions. I
What part of "no law" escapes you?
>
>>
>> "State run" sounds ominous - Heil Somebody.
>
>What part of "public schools" don't you get?
The drinking, the drugs, the dropouts, unionized teachers, the used
condoms lying around...
Hugh
>
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734579 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 22:18 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:20:27 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto [at] panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> > On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> >>>What woulkd you have done?
>> >>
>> >>I would have invaded Afghanistan, which then was supporting the
>> >>Taliban, and helped them set up elections, then minimize our presence.
>> >>Pretty much what we actually did there. It never would have occured to
>> >>me to invade another Near East country, especially one which had not
>> >>attacked us, nor posed an immediate threat.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
>>
>> I don't. It is one of the things no nation has soverignty over.
>>
>> > But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
>> > situation was not ready to erupt again?
>>
>> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait was in
>> no
>> clear or present danger. There was never any justification for th einvasion,
>> or, if there was, we should invade about 150 nations.
>
>I'm sure Australia cannot afford to invade 150 nations.
Maybe with roos or brown snakes?
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734580 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 22:13 |
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>> rich hammett wrote:
>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>
>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>
>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>
>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>
> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
> and Hawai'i?
What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
happy because they were like seriously lost.
--Tedward
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734597 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 22:28 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2005 09:58:29 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
> <unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:26:32 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> >> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jay Furr wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
> >> >> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
> >> >
> >> >A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
> >> >religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a state
> >> >run and financed school.
> >> >
> >> >Bob Kolker
> >>
> >
> >What is it with the first amendment? It always brings out the loons.
> >Not as often as the 2nd I'll admit, but....
> >
> >> What is the legal basis for your separation of church and state? The
> >> Constitution says "Congress shall make NO (emphasis supplied) law..."
> >
> >You snipped out the bit that provides that legal basis. I know *why*
> >you did it- the very next word undermines your ...um...argument. Here
> >is the 1st in it's entirety;
> >
> >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> >speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> >assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> The three dots after "law" indicated there were more words. Pleas
> excuse my overestimating you competence in English.
You were not suggesting an answer to your question. The rhetorical
device you were using is akin to the well known tactic of creationist
quote-mining. You were attempting to imply that there was no legal
basis for the separation of church and state and you did this by
omitting the very words that establish that basis.
You are backpedaling now, no more no less.
>
> The entire thought is that Congress shall not make laws FOR OR AGAINST
> religion or the exercise thereof - plus the other actions. I
Exactly. Providing the legal basis for separation of church and state.
The state must not become entangled with religion. There are more than
200 years of established law derived from this legal basis.
>
> What part of "no law" escapes you?
> >
> >>
> >> "State run" sounds ominous - Heil Somebody.
> >
> >What part of "public schools" don't you get?
>
> The drinking, the drugs, the dropouts, unionized teachers, the used
> condoms lying around...
You really aren't very bright, are you?
>
> Hugh
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734626 ] |
Do, 08 Dezember 2005 23:43 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> > rich hammett wrote:
> >> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
> >>
> >> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>
> > Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>
> > And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
> > firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>
> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
> and Hawai'i?
I know what you'd do...invade...
>
> rich
>
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734678 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 00:54 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:20:27 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto [at] panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
>>John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>What woulkd you have done?
>>>>>
>>>>>I would have invaded Afghanistan, which then was supporting the
>>>>>Taliban, and helped them set up elections, then minimize our presence.
>>>>>Pretty much what we actually did there. It never would have occured to
>>>>>me to invade another Near East country, especially one which had not
>>>>>attacked us, nor posed an immediate threat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
>>>
>>>I don't. It is one of the things no nation has soverignty over.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
>>>>situation was not ready to erupt again?
>>>
>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait was in
>>>no
>>>clear or present danger. There was never any justification for th einvasion,
>>>or, if there was, we should invade about 150 nations.
>>
>>I'm sure Australia cannot afford to invade 150 nations.
>
>
> Maybe with roos or brown snakes?
>
> Hugh
>
BWAHAHAHA!!!!! You know *nothing* about our poisonous army! We will *rule*.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/australia/faq.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~bush/myth.html
http://farrer.csu.edu.au/ASGAP/APOL7/sep97-4.html
http://www.termite.com/spider-identification.html
http://www.kingsnake.com/toxinology/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1129_041129_ cane_toads.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1508747.htm
and that's just what has been declassified. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734698 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 01:50 |
|
John Wilkins wrote:
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Furr wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>> news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And
>>>>> Kuwait was in no clear or present danger. There was never any
>>>>> justification for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should
>>>>> invade about 150 nations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>>>> take all the cheese and the women.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
>>> penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade
>>> *you*.
>>
>>
>> France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular
>> society or universal human rights.
>>
>> Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established
>> churches prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for
>> religious services. Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic
>> Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church and ironically, the
>> Jewish religion. So much for the separation of church and state and
>> secular society.
>>
>> Individual rights? How about the right to property?
>>
> Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So what?
> Children get educated there. But the state, here and I presume in
> France, doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in a religious
> school.
No, but it can forcibly take property from an atheist like me to support a
religion that I find abhorrent.
You may support such mixing of religion and state, but don't claim it is the
separation of church and state.
> And where does the right to property come into this? (And don't you
> in the States have a little problem with eminent domain?)
I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned how
France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not protect
rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734718 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:28 |
|
rich hammett, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
:
> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> > The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we would have
> > had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in the pipeline) and
> > the Russians would have invaded from the north. Just what we needed.
> You do know that we WANTED the soviets to commit troops and materiel
> to the pacific, don't you, and that's what we were holding out for?
We did, than we didn't.
The effectiveness of the bombs proved this unneccesary. We
also knew that once the Soviets had a piece of territory it wasn't
going to be given back.
-Tom Enright
> rich
>
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734719 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:29 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Jefferson N Glapski <jeffersonWEARE [at] pennstateglapski.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned how
> France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not protect
> rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
Ah, Jeffy, always the diplomat.
John, glapski is one of those libertarians who thinks that ayn
rand was a communist.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734723 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:33 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Ken Shackleton <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> rich hammett wrote:
>> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> > rich hammett wrote:
>> >> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>> >>
>> >> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>
>> > Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>
>> > And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>> > firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>
>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>> and Hawai'i?
> I know what you'd do...invade...
Invade Canada? With THAT language barrier?
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734730 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:39 |
|
alicamdun [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> We did, than we didn't.
That is right. When it appeared that invasion was the only way to defeat
Japan we wanted the Russians to do half the bleeding with us. Once it
was clear that invasion was not necessary we wanted the Russians nowhere
near Japan. As it was they got the Sakaline Islands, but that was not
great blow to us.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734739 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:51 |
|
On 8 Dec 2005 13:28:28 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
<unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2005 09:58:29 -0800, "Noone Inparticular"
>> <unreve89 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:26:32 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> >> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Jay Furr wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They forbid people from even wearing head scarves or crucifix pendant
>> >> >> jewelry to school. You call *that* clear separation of church and state?
>> >> >
>> >> >A separation of religion and state. The message is clear. Leave your
>> >> >religion at home or in your place of worship. Do not bring it to a state
>> >> >run and financed school.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bob Kolker
>> >>
>> >
>> >What is it with the first amendment? It always brings out the loons.
>> >Not as often as the 2nd I'll admit, but....
>> >
>> >> What is the legal basis for your separation of church and state? The
>> >> Constitution says "Congress shall make NO (emphasis supplied) law..."
>> >
>> >You snipped out the bit that provides that legal basis. I know *why*
>> >you did it- the very next word undermines your ...um...argument. Here
>> >is the 1st in it's entirety;
>> >
>> >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>> >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> >speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> >assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>>
>> The three dots after "law" indicated there were more words. Pleas
>> excuse my overestimating you competence in English.
>
>You were not suggesting an answer to your question. The rhetorical
>device you were using is akin to the well known tactic of creationist
>quote-mining. You were attempting to imply that there was no legal
>basis for the separation of church and state and you did this by
>omitting the very words that establish that basis.
>
>You are backpedaling now, no more no less.
>
>>
>> The entire thought is that Congress shall not make laws FOR OR AGAINST
>> religion or the exercise thereof - plus the other actions. I
>
>Exactly. Providing the legal basis for separation of church and state.
>The state must not become entangled with religion. There are more than
>200 years of established law derived from this legal basis.
The articile does NOT provide for separation; it merely says that
congress can make no law concerning advocating or rejection of
religion. And it's only recently that some courts have agreed with
your position - not 200 years.
If we had a contract that said I could make no law concerning you
kissing my posterior it would mean that you could or not as you chose
- not that we couldn't have lunch together.
I'll agree that yours is the spin that anti-religious groups are using
now. And they will probably be successful until the SCOTUS is complete
and has time to act.
It's gonna be 5-4 conservative and moral, baby!
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734744 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:49 |
|
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>
>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay Furr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>>>news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And
>>>>>>Kuwait was in no clear or present danger. There was never any
>>>>>>justification for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should
>>>>>>invade about 150 nations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>>>>>take all the cheese and the women.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
>>>>penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade
>>>>*you*.
>>>
>>>
>>>France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular
>>>society or universal human rights.
>>>
>>>Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established
>>>churches prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for
>>>religious services. Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic
>>>Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church and ironically, the
>>>Jewish religion. So much for the separation of church and state and
>>>secular society.
>>>
>>>Individual rights? How about the right to property?
>>>
>>
>>Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So what?
>>Children get educated there. But the state, here and I presume in
>>France, doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in a religious
>>school.
>
>
> No, but it can forcibly take property from an atheist like me to support a
> religion that I find abhorrent.
>
> You may support such mixing of religion and state, but don't claim it is the
> separation of church and state.
See, now, as an agnostic who refuses to support religion myself, I find this a
harmless thing, so long as it is (1) equitable (in Australia it isn't) and (2)
public monies are used merely for education - that is, they aren't funding
religious activities. I think that Catholic schools can do a good job of
educating kids, for example. So far as they do this, and they often do it for
the underprivileged in a way that makes it possible for those kids to climb
the social ladder, they could and should be funded by the state, as it is to
the benefit of the common weal that it is done.
>
>
>>And where does the right to property come into this? (And don't you
>>in the States have a little problem with eminent domain?)
>
>
> I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned how
> France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not protect
> rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
>
Well, I may be ignornat, but I think the ignorance was about your nationality,
and didn't deserve the crude insult.
So enlighten me - what property rights does France fail to protect?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734745 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:55 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:54:39 +1000, John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:20:27 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto [at] panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
>>>John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 7 Dec 2005 10:38:30 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>What woulkd you have done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would have invaded Afghanistan, which then was supporting the
>>>>>>Taliban, and helped them set up elections, then minimize our presence.
>>>>>>Pretty much what we actually did there. It never would have occured to
>>>>>>me to invade another Near East country, especially one which had not
>>>>>>attacked us, nor posed an immediate threat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a problem with our forcing countries to observe human rights.
>>>>
>>>>I don't. It is one of the things no nation has soverignty over.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But didn't we have an obligation to defend Kuwait? And do we know that
>>>>>situation was not ready to erupt again?
>>>>
>>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And Kuwait was in
>>>>no
>>>>clear or present danger. There was never any justification for th einvasion,
>>>>or, if there was, we should invade about 150 nations.
>>>
>>>I'm sure Australia cannot afford to invade 150 nations.
>>
>>
>> Maybe with roos or brown snakes?
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>BWAHAHAHA!!!!! You know *nothing* about our poisonous army! We will *rule*.
I'm not sure you have convinced the aborigines of anything yet. But
throw a steak vice a shrimp on the barbie and I'll listen.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734746 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:51 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Jefferson N Glapski <jeffersonWEARE [at] penns=
tateglapski.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin h=E4m=E4h=E4kki:
>=20
>=20
>>I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned ho=
w=20
>>France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not protec=
t=20
>>rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
>=20
>=20
> Ah, Jeffy, always the diplomat.
>=20
> John, glapski is one of those libertarians who thinks that ayn
> rand was a communist.
>=20
> rich
>=20
Oh, one of *those*...
--=20
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cice=
ro
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734751 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 02:57 |
|
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>
>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>
>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>
>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>
>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>
>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>> and Hawai'i?
>
>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>
>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>
>--Tedward
If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
Hawaii when they were still unaware.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734776 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 03:26 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Jefferson N Glapski
> <jeffersonWEARE [at] pennstateglapski.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned
>> how France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not
>> protect rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
>
> Ah, Jeffy, always the diplomat.
>
> John, glapski is one of those libertarians who thinks that ayn
> rand was a communist.
Forgive me for being offended by assholes who presume they know something.
Like you.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734791 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 03:37 |
|
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>
>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jay Furr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>>>news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And
>>>>>>Kuwait was in no clear or present danger. There was never any
>>>>>>justification for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should
>>>>>>invade about 150 nations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
>>>>>take all the cheese and the women.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
>>>>penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade
>>>>*you*.
>>>
>>>
>>>France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular
>>>society or universal human rights.
>>>
>>>Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established
>>>churches prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for
>>>religious services. Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic
>>>Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church and ironically, the
>>>Jewish religion. So much for the separation of church and state and
>>>secular society.
>>>
>>>Individual rights? How about the right to property?
>>>
>>
>>Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So what?
>>Children get educated there. But the state, here and I presume in
>>France, doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in a religious
>>school.
>
>
> No, but it can forcibly take property from an atheist like me to support a
> religion that I find abhorrent.
Yeah, I agree. I am the local burglar, and I hate the fact that my taxes
pay for the police force. We should all be able to nominate what our
taxes go for, and keep what ever we don't pay in taxes. Much fairer, all
round, only the sick get to pay for hospitals, only the car drivers pay
for roads, only the patriots get to pay for the armed services etc.
Wouldn't life be great.
Or to look at it from another tack, your abhorrence is probably balanced
by some religionist's taxes being taken and spent on educating kids in
evolution. So what is your solution to all this?
[...]
Shane
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734794 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 03:43 |
|
John Wilkins wrote:
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>>> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jay Furr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>>>> news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And
>>>>>>> Kuwait was in no clear or present danger. There was never any
>>>>>>> justification for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should
>>>>>>> invade about 150 nations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we
>>>>>> could take all the cheese and the women.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
>>>>> penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should
>>>>> invade *you*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular
>>>> society or universal human rights.
>>>>
>>>> Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established
>>>> churches prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for
>>>> religious services. Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic
>>>> Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church and ironically,
>>>> the Jewish religion. So much for the separation of church and
>>>> state and secular society.
>>>>
>>>> Individual rights? How about the right to property?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So
>>> what? Children get educated there. But the state, here and I
>>> presume in France, doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in
>>> a religious school.
>>
>>
>> No, but it can forcibly take property from an atheist like me to
>> support a religion that I find abhorrent.
>>
>> You may support such mixing of religion and state, but don't claim
>> it is the separation of church and state.
>
> See, now, as an agnostic who refuses to support religion myself, I
> find this a harmless thing, so long as it is (1) equitable (in
> Australia it isn't) and (2) public monies are used merely for
> education - that is, they aren't funding religious activities. I
> think that Catholic schools can do a good job of educating kids, for
> example. So far as they do this, and they often do it for the
> underprivileged in a way that makes it possible for those kids to
> climb the social ladder, they could and should be funded by the
> state, as it is to the benefit of the common weal that it is done.
Equitable? How can it ever be equitable? It isn't in France, where the RC,
Lutherans, Reformed and Jewish religions are given preferred status.
Education only? Why is it called a religious education? Maybe it is because
mythology is taught.
It isn't harmless and it isn't a separation of church and state.
>>> And where does the right to property come into this? (And don't you
>>> in the States have a little problem with eminent domain?)
>>
>>
>> I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned
>> how France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not
>> protect rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
>>
> Well, I may be ignornat, but I think the ignorance was about your
> nationality, and didn't deserve the crude insult.
>
> So enlighten me - what property rights does France fail to protect?
France has taxes, right?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734803 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 04:07 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college alicamdun [at] yahoo.com sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> rich hammett, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
> :
>> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> > The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we would have
>> > had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in the pipeline) and
>> > the Russians would have invaded from the north. Just what we needed.
>> You do know that we WANTED the soviets to commit troops and materiel
>> to the pacific, don't you, and that's what we were holding out for?
> We did, than we didn't.
> The effectiveness of the bombs proved this unneccesary. We
> also knew that once the Soviets had a piece of territory it wasn't
> going to be given back.
I'm not sure who knew that...the US political and military
leadership seemed to think that the USSR was going to abide
by agreements up to the end of the war.
Unca Joe was quite the charmer, for a homicidal maniac.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734805 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 04:17 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:39:49 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>alicamdun [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> We did, than we didn't.
>
>That is right. When it appeared that invasion was the only way to defeat
>Japan we wanted the Russians to do half the bleeding with us. Once it
>was clear that invasion was not necessary we wanted the Russians nowhere
>near Japan. As it was they got the Sakaline Islands, but that was not
>great blow to us.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
But we delayed so they could have part of Berlin.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734806 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 04:19 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:33:38 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college Ken Shackleton <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> rich hammett wrote:
>>> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> > rich hammett wrote:
>>> >> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>> >>
>>> >> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>
>>> > Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>
>>> > And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>> > firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>
>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>> and Hawai'i?
>
>> I know what you'd do...invade...
>
>Invade Canada? With THAT language barrier?
We might do it yet for cheaper prescriptions.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734814 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 04:38 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:58:37 -0500, in talk.origins , "Robert J.
Kolker" <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> in <3vr3igF173dilU1 [at] individual.net>
wrote:
>aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering
>> prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of evidence that surrender was
>> extremely likely post-Hiroshima and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that
>> dropping the Nagasaki bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
>>
>Bullshit. The Japs were ready to fight to the last soldier, civillian
>and child.
And, yet, there were members of the government trying to contact the
U.S. to discuss surrender. The major issue was that we demanded
unconditional surrender and they wanted to maintain the emperor. We
ended up letting them do that anyway.
>They were, at that time, crazy suicidal motherfuckers who
>knowing they would probably die would inflict as many casualities on the
>gai jiin as they could. The Japs did not regard the matter of loss
>logically. The Germans surrendered. The Japs did not have a word for
>surrender or capitulation. They operated under the code of bushido.
Sure, and Russian has no word for peace.
>Norman Schwatzkopf, who is a brilliant strategist figure a half million
>casualties if we had invaded per Operation Downfall. The Japs had no
>where to go. They just would have stood there and fought to the death.
>Think of the scence in -Monty Python and the Holy Grail-. The Black
>Knight vs Arthru, King of the Britons.
>
Given your fondness for genocide I am not sure if you are just wishing
it were so.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734817 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 04:54 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>
>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>
>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>
>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>
>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>> and Hawai'i?
>>
>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>
>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>
>>--Tedward
>
>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
the budget back to its current imbalance.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734838 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 05:41 |
|
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>
>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jay Furr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And
>>>>>>>>Kuwait was in no clear or present danger. There was never any
>>>>>>>>justification for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should
>>>>>>>>invade about 150 nations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we
>>>>>>>could take all the cheese and the women.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
>>>>>>penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should
>>>>>>invade *you*.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular
>>>>>society or universal human rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established
>>>>>churches prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for
>>>>>religious services. Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic
>>>>>Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church and ironically,
>>>>>the Jewish religion. So much for the separation of church and
>>>>>state and secular society.
>>>>>
>>>>>Individual rights? How about the right to property?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So
>>>>what? Children get educated there. But the state, here and I
>>>>presume in France, doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in
>>>>a religious school.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, but it can forcibly take property from an atheist like me to
>>>support a religion that I find abhorrent.
>>>
>>>You may support such mixing of religion and state, but don't claim
>>>it is the separation of church and state.
>>
>>See, now, as an agnostic who refuses to support religion myself, I
>>find this a harmless thing, so long as it is (1) equitable (in
>>Australia it isn't) and (2) public monies are used merely for
>>education - that is, they aren't funding religious activities. I
>>think that Catholic schools can do a good job of educating kids, for
>>example. So far as they do this, and they often do it for the
>>underprivileged in a way that makes it possible for those kids to
>>climb the social ladder, they could and should be funded by the
>>state, as it is to the benefit of the common weal that it is done.
>
>
> Equitable? How can it ever be equitable? It isn't in France, where the RC,
> Lutherans, Reformed and Jewish religions are given preferred status.
>
> Education only? Why is it called a religious education? Maybe it is because
> mythology is taught.
>
> It isn't harmless and it isn't a separation of church and state.
>
>
>>>>And where does the right to property come into this? (And don't you
>>>>in the States have a little problem with eminent domain?)
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned
>>>how France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not
>>>protect rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I may be ignornat, but I think the ignorance was about your
>>nationality, and didn't deserve the crude insult.
>>
>>So enlighten me - what property rights does France fail to protect?
>
>
> France has taxes, right?
>
End of conversation. I can think of no profitable way to discuss public policy
with someone who thinks taxation is wrong. All the best.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Nihil tam absurdum quod non quidam Philosophi dixerit - adapted from Cicero
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #734858 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 06:20 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college alicamdun [at] yahoo.com sanoi, hitaasti
> kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> rich hammett, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>>>
>>> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker
>>> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>>>> The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we would
>>>> have had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in the
>>>> pipeline) and the Russians would have invaded from the north. Just
>>>> what we needed.
>
>>> You do know that we WANTED the soviets to commit troops and materiel
>>> to the pacific, don't you, and that's what we were holding out for?
>
>> We did, than we didn't.
>
>> The effectiveness of the bombs proved this unneccesary. We
>> also knew that once the Soviets had a piece of territory it wasn't
>> going to be given back.
>
> I'm not sure who knew that...the US political and military
> leadership seemed to think that the USSR was going to abide
> by agreements up to the end of the war.
>
> Unca Joe was quite the charmer, for a homicidal maniac.
He was not a homicidal maniac. He did not like to kill, so he was not a
homicidal maniac. If he liked killing, then sure.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740392 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 14:37 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Jefferson N Glapski <jeffersonWEARE [at] pennstateglapski.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> rich hammett wrote:
>> In rec.sport.football.college alicamdun [at] yahoo.com sanoi, hitaasti
>> kuin hämähäkki:
>>
>>> rich hammett, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>>>>
>>>> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker
>>>> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>
>>>>> The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we would
>>>>> have had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in the
>>>>> pipeline) and the Russians would have invaded from the north. Just
>>>>> what we needed.
>>
>>>> You do know that we WANTED the soviets to commit troops and materiel
>>>> to the pacific, don't you, and that's what we were holding out for?
>>
>>> We did, than we didn't.
>>
>>> The effectiveness of the bombs proved this unneccesary. We
>>> also knew that once the Soviets had a piece of territory it wasn't
>>> going to be given back.
>>
>> I'm not sure who knew that...the US political and military
>> leadership seemed to think that the USSR was going to abide
>> by agreements up to the end of the war.
>>
>> Unca Joe was quite the charmer, for a homicidal maniac.
> He was not a homicidal maniac. He did not like to kill, so he was not a
> homicidal maniac. If he liked killing, then sure.
I'm not sure that's a valid definition...perhaps you could say
he didn't like it, but he did an awful lot of it.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740397 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 14:39 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> <4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>
>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>
>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>
>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>
>>>--Tedward
>>
>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
> Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
> how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
> and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
> the budget back to its current imbalance.
I'd be willing to make the sacrifice, just so that Seinfeld
would be foreign TV and I'd never have to hear about it.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ The Bill Clinton of RSFC
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740445 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 16:51 |
|
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> >> John Wilkins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jay Furr wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John Wilkins <john [at] wilkins.id.au> wrote in
> >>>> news:dn858h$1dsp$2 [at] bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Pretty much. Iraq's army was devastated by the first war. And
> >>>>> Kuwait was in no clear or present danger. There was never any
> >>>>> justification for th einvasion, or, if there was, we should
> >>>>> invade about 150 nations.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's start with France. That'd be a quick one, and then we could
> >>>> take all the cheese and the women.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Let's see - secular society, universal human rights, no death
> >>> penalty, clear separation of state and church. *They* should invade
> >>> *you*.
> >>
> >>
> >> France doesn't have a clear separation of church and state, secular
> >> society or universal human rights.
> >>
> >> Public tax money supports religious schools in France. Established
> >> churches prior to 1905 are owned by the state, and operated for
> >> religious services. Alsace Moselle subsidizes the Roman Catholic
> >> Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church and ironically, the
> >> Jewish religion. So much for the separation of church and state and
> >> secular society.
> >>
> >> Individual rights? How about the right to property?
> >>
> > Public tax monies support religious schools in Australia too. So what?
> > Children get educated there. But the state, here and I presume in
> > France, doesn't dictate who can wear religious motifs in a religious
> > school.
>
> No, but it can forcibly take property from an atheist like me to support a
> religion that I find abhorrent.
>
> You may support such mixing of religion and state, but don't claim it is the
> separation of church and state.
>
> > And where does the right to property come into this? (And don't you
> > in the States have a little problem with eminent domain?)
>
> I'm not in the States, you ignorant cunt. When some asshat mentioned how
> France protected rights, I simply responded that France does not protect
> rights. Individuals without the right to property are slaves.
Jefferson....please give me an example of any country where the right
to private property is guaranteed in the constitution. The government
can seize property at will....although typically the courts do require
that the owner be compensated.
How does this fact make us all slaves?
>
> --
> Jefferson N. Glapski
> http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740462 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 17:34 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:58:37 -0500, in talk.origins , "Robert J.
> Kolker" <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> in <3vr3igF173dilU1 [at] individual.net>
> wrote:
>
>>aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There certainly is some evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering
>>> prior to the Hiroshima drop - and tons of evidence that surrender was
>>> extremely likely post-Hiroshima and pre-Nagasaki. It is quite likely that
>>> dropping the Nagasaki bomb did nothing to shorten the war.
>>>
>>Bullshit. The Japs were ready to fight to the last soldier, civillian
>>and child.
>
> And, yet, there were members of the government trying to contact the
> U.S. to discuss surrender. The major issue was that we demanded
> unconditional surrender and they wanted to maintain the emperor. We
> ended up letting them do that anyway.
Yep... sadly enough we were much less tough on the Japanese for their war
crimes than on the Germans - mostly according to the historical record
because the Japanese mostly didn't kill white people.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740486 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:07 |
|
rich hammett wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Jefferson N Glapski
> <jeffersonWEARE [at] pennstateglapski.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> rich hammett wrote:
>>> In rec.sport.football.college alicamdun [at] yahoo.com sanoi, hitaasti
>>> kuin hämähäkki:
>>>
>>>> rich hammett, Thaddeus Golas has a headache:
>>>>>
>>>>> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker
>>>>> <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>
>>>>>> The attempted coup was a close thing. If it had succeeded we
>>>>>> would have had to drop more nukes on Japan (two a month were in
>>>>>> the pipeline) and the Russians would have invaded from the
>>>>>> north. Just what we needed.
>>>
>>>>> You do know that we WANTED the soviets to commit troops and
>>>>> materiel to the pacific, don't you, and that's what we were
>>>>> holding out for?
>>>
>>>> We did, than we didn't.
>>>
>>>> The effectiveness of the bombs proved this unneccesary. We
>>>> also knew that once the Soviets had a piece of territory it wasn't
>>>> going to be given back.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure who knew that...the US political and military
>>> leadership seemed to think that the USSR was going to abide
>>> by agreements up to the end of the war.
>>>
>>> Unca Joe was quite the charmer, for a homicidal maniac.
>
>> He was not a homicidal maniac. He did not like to kill, so he was
>> not a homicidal maniac. If he liked killing, then sure.
>
> I'm not sure that's a valid definition...perhaps you could say
> he didn't like it, but he did an awful lot of it.
Valid definition? It seems to work for your definition of homosexuals.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740501 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:18 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
<xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
[snip]
>
>France has taxes, right?
Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
is a good model?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740502 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:20 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:39:41 -0000, in talk.origins , rich hammett
<bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> in <11pj28thnur3ofd [at] corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> <4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>>
>>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>>
>>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>>
>>>>--Tedward
>>>
>>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
>
>> Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
>> how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
>> and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
>> the budget back to its current imbalance.
>
>I'd be willing to make the sacrifice, just so that Seinfeld
>would be foreign TV and I'd never have to hear about it.
While it was not funny, it was an excellent documentary. That said, I
see your _Seinfeld_ and raise you not just one, but two _Dukes of
Hazard_.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740511 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:40 |
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:41 GMT, in talk.origins , "Jefferson N
> Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> in
> <xb6mf.235893$ir4.203932 [at] edtnps90> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>France has taxes, right?
>
>
> Please tell me what country, existent or in the past, that you think
> is a good model?
>
Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War.
The utopian communities in America.
The Christians at Antioch
The Essene communities in Biblical days
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740514 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:45 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:54:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>
>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>
>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>
>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>
>>>--Tedward
>>
>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
>
>Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
>how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
>and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
>the budget back to its current imbalance.
>
>--
>Matt Silberstein
The only trouble with the South is that yankees are like hemorrhoids -
they come down and don't go back up.
No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
knows what I mean.
Hugh
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Sep 3 10:59:11 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04607 Sekunden |
