|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740519 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:50 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740520 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:46 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves? Getting
a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
CT
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740523 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 18:53 |
|
On 9 Dec 2005 16:34:14 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>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
>
You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740562 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 19:46 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
>
>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
days in existence?
--
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 #740566 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 19:48 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:53:46 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4399c437.15229949 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2005 16:34:14 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
Which just shows that individual perspective can mislead. Like with
the Germans we ignored those who committed medical experiments we
found interesting. And we ignored those who slaughtered Chinese and
Korean civilians.
--
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 #740567 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 19:49 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:45:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>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.
I would be glad to dump off the South, I am tired of subsidizing their
lifestyle with my taxes.
--
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 #740597 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:04 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> 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.
I'm always charmed by the elegant speech of the Southerner.
>
> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
Have we changed the defintion of evolution? Damn! All those textbooks
we have to reprint.
>
> I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
> knows what I mean.
It's so reassuring when everyone in your social circle thinks alike,
isn't it? It saves so much explaining. Heh. My circle is politically
diverse, so I avoid many topics.
>
> Hugh
Kermit
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740604 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:24 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
>>
>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>
>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>days in existence?
Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
Today works for me but it doesn't appear to for young people who can't
seem to get their nest made.
As Omar said, "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and thou beneath me in
the wilderness." Or something close to that.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740605 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:26 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:48:13 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:53:46 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399c437.15229949 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Dec 2005 16:34:14 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>
>>You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
>
>Which just shows that individual perspective can mislead. Like with
>the Germans we ignored those who committed medical experiments we
>found interesting. And we ignored those who slaughtered Chinese and
>Korean civilians.
>
>--
>Matt Silberstein
Ya gotta keep yer priorities straight.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740607 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:14 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
mean that it isn't true.
..
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740608 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:29 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>
>So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves? Getting
>a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>
>CT
>
I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740609 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:31 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:49:23 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:45:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>I would be glad to dump off the South, I am tired of subsidizing their
>lifestyle with my taxes.
>
>--
>Matt Silberstein
>
>Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
lifestyle?
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740615 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:31 |
|
Ken Shackleton 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.
>>
>>> 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.
The US, for example.
> How does this fact make us all slaves?
If someone doesn't have the right to property, someone else controls the
products of his labor, like any slaveholder.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740621 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:39 |
|
On 9 Dec 2005 12:04:51 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I'm always charmed by the elegant speech of the Southerner.
You don't use a tack hammer to drive a spike.
If you want perfume why don't you go to the ladies room?
>>
>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>
>Have we changed the defintion of evolution? Damn! All those textbooks
>we have to reprint.
No, just clarified it for the naive.
>> I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
>> knows what I mean.
>
>It's so reassuring when everyone in your social circle thinks alike,
>isn't it? It saves so much explaining. Heh.
>My circle is politically
>diverse, so I avoid many topics.
That's spin for "I really have no idea what's happening".
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740630 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 21:53 |
|
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> Ken Shackleton 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.
> >>
> >>> 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.
>
> The US, for example.
There are no constitutional guarantees to private property. The
government can seize property at will. The law protects your property
rights against claims by other individuals, but there is no way to stop
the government from forcing you out of your home to build an
overpass....for example....they will compensate you for your
loss.....but you still lose.
>
> > How does this fact make us all slaves?
>
> If someone doesn't have the right to property, someone else controls the
> products of his labor, like any slaveholder.
Your legal right to property is not a constitutional guarantee. You
have a legal right to own property, but it is not absolute. If you work
for someone else, then they do control the products of your
labour.....which is not the same as your wages....you can do with your
wages what you wish [after paying your taxes of course].
>
> --
> Jefferson N. Glapski
> http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740634 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 22:14 |
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:48:47 -0000,
rich hammett <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
> In rec.sport.football.college Robert J. Kolker <nowhere [at] nowhere.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> 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.
>
> Said the jihadist and the Nazi.
>
> Surely you don't mean that...
Who knows, and who cares? All I think that is necessary to respond to such
nonsense as Mr. Kolker's are the wise words of Winston S. Churchill
"In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In
peace: goodwill."
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740636 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 22:19 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:39:23 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2005 12:04:51 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>I'm always charmed by the elegant speech of the Southerner.
>
> You don't use a tack hammer to drive a spike.
>
> If you want perfume why don't you go to the ladies room?
>
>>>
>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>
>>Have we changed the defintion of evolution? Damn! All those textbooks
>>we have to reprint.
>
> No, just clarified it for the naive.
Save that what you wrote wasn't a clarification, it was outright inaccurate.
Evolution does not denote progress, but merely change.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740638 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 22:23 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:55 GMT,
Jefferson N Glapski <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
> Ken Shackleton 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> The US, for example.
Eminent domain. Property rights are not absolute in the US, nor anywhere
else for that matter, and they ain't never been.
>
>> How does this fact make us all slaves?
>
> If someone doesn't have the right to property, someone else controls the
> products of his labor, like any slaveholder.
So American citizens are slaves because the US government can, in the
interests of the public good, take your property with compensation?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740642 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 22:30 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:48:13 GMT,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:53:46 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399c437.15229949 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Dec 2005 16:34:14 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>
>
>>You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
>
> Which just shows that individual perspective can mislead. Like with
> the Germans we ignored those who committed medical experiments we
> found interesting. And we ignored those who slaughtered Chinese and
> Korean civilians.
Let's not forget all those engineers and scientists that the Americans
trucked in, some of which were some pretty nasty guys.
From a strategic point of view, getting the Nazi rocket scientists was a
pretty major coupe, from a moral point of view, not hanging some of those
bastards was outright wrong.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740649 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 22:47 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
>>>
>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>>
>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>>days in existence?
>
>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
inspection.
[snip]
--
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 #740692 ] |
Fr, 09 Dezember 2005 23:52 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>
>>So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves? Getting
>>a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>
>>CT
>>
>
> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
showed that with your first post.
> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
God who?
CT
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740712 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 00:37 |
|
In article <4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net>,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
[...]
> 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
*
Idiot troll.
"For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people
from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast
corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led
led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest
more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no
children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in
promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money
they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes;
these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to
help insure a compassionate, humane society. Family values are much more
likely to be found in the states mistakenly called out-of-the-mainstream
liberal. By their behavior you can know them as the true conservatives.
They are showing how to conserve family life through the way they live
their family values."
--William V. D'Antonio
Professor Emeritus at University of Connecticut
Visiting Research Professor at Catholic University
And just for fun, take a look at:
Rating IQ vs. election outcome (2004):
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
Rating level of education vs. election outcome (2000):
http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
Rating divorce rate vs. election outcome:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/arti cles/2004/10/
31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
earle
*
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740748 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 02:02 |
|
Earle Jones wrote:
> Rating IQ vs. election outcome (2004):
> http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
>
> Rating level of education vs. election outcome (2000):
> http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
>
> Rating divorce rate vs. election outcome:
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/arti cles/2004/10/
> 31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
Then there's:
"religion and IQ are strongly negatively correlated"
http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html
None of this is particularly surprising.
CT
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740813 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 04:55 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>
> You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
Yamamoto was assassinated, not executed as the result of a judicial
procedure.
Bob Kolker
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740929 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 16:35 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
>>>>
>>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>>>
>>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>>>days in existence?
>>
>>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>
>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>inspection.
>
>[snip]
First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
opinions. Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
world provably better? If your only answer is human rights, China
appears to be doing very well.
I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
much worse off, albeit their right.
And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
made it better than the old simple one.
You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
won some and lost some.
The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
8-)
When were the good times is certainly arguable.
The bottom line for me: is every day I'm here it just gets better.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740937 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 16:42 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:55:13 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere [at] nowhere.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>
>> You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
>
>Yamamoto was assassinated, not executed as the result of a judicial
>procedure.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
Below is the point to which I replied.
>>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.
My point was that Yamamoto was as dead as if he had been executed as
the result of judicial procedure - thus hard to convince that the
procedure in his case was less tough.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740939 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 16:48 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>
>>>So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves? Getting
>>>a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>
>>>CT
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>
>What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>showed that with your first post.
More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
mind.
>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>
>God who?
No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
response.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740940 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 16:50 |
|
On 9 Dec 2005 21:19:27 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:39:23 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 2005 12:04:51 -0800, unrestrained_hand [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>I'm always charmed by the elegant speech of the Southerner.
>>
>> You don't use a tack hammer to drive a spike.
>>
>> If you want perfume why don't you go to the ladies room?
>>
>>>>
>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>
>>>Have we changed the defintion of evolution? Damn! All those textbooks
>>>we have to reprint.
>>
>> No, just clarified it for the naive.
>
>Save that what you wrote wasn't a clarification, it was outright inaccurate.
>Evolution does not denote progress, but merely change.
>
><snip>
>
>--
>Aaron Clausen
>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>
I note you have made that very clear in your case.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740947 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 17:03 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>
>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>mean that it isn't true.
>.
>
So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
had the franchise on describing you?
I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
pointing this out.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740948 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 17:07 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:37:24 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net>,
> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> 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
>
>*
I find the subject of your below post "idiot troll" fascinating.
Hugh
>Idiot troll.
>
> "For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people
>from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast
>corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led
>led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest
>more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no
>children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in
>promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money
>they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes;
>these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to
>help insure a compassionate, humane society. Family values are much more
>likely to be found in the states mistakenly called out-of-the-mainstream
>liberal. By their behavior you can know them as the true conservatives.
>They are showing how to conserve family life through the way they live
>their family values."
>
> --William V. D'Antonio
> Professor Emeritus at University of Connecticut
> Visiting Research Professor at Catholic University
>
>And just for fun, take a look at:
>
>Rating IQ vs. election outcome (2004):
> http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
>
>Rating level of education vs. election outcome (2000):
> http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg
>
>Rating divorce rate vs. election outcome:
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/arti cles/2004/10/
>31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
>
>earle
>*
>
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740958 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 17:30 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>
>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>
>>>> CT
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>
>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>> showed that with your first post.
>
> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
> mind.
>
>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>
>> God who?
>
> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
> response.
What is god?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #740996 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 18:43 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
<jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>
>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>
>>>>> CT
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>
>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>> showed that with your first post.
>>
>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish existed.
>> You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
>> mind.
>>
>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>
>>> God who?
>>
>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>> response.
>
>What is god?
He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741003 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 19:02 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:14 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
> <jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>
>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:52:00 -0600, CreateThis
>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis
>>>>> <CreateThis [at] yippee.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
>>>>>> according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves?
>>>>>> Getting a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CT
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>>>>
>>>> What you believe apparently bears no relation to reality - but you
>>>> showed that with your first post.
>>>
>>> More accurately it bears no relation to the reality you wish
>>> existed. You reality is a flea crawling up an elephant's leg with
>>> rape on his mind.
>>>
>>>>> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>>>>
>>>> God who?
>>>
>>> No intelligent person needs to ask thus eliminating the need for a
>>> response.
>>
>> What is god?
>
> He's the One you don't recognize. I expect He will return the favor.
So god is a he? That doesn't describe much, except god's sex and the fact
that he is limited and not omnipotent. Does your personal knowledge of god
mean you are blaspheming?
What is a god?
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741022 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 19:51 |
|
In article <4399e8c6.24588977 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net>,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:46:43 -0600, CreateThis <CreateThis [at] yippee.com>
> wrote:
>
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
> >> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
> >
> >So those who don't believe in evolution (I guess that's the South
> >according to you) don't believe they've progressed themselves? Getting
> >a little tripped up in your own 'logic'...
> >
> >CT
> >
> I don't believe I mentioned the South in the statement above.
>
> As far as the South not even God can improve on perfection.
>
> Hugh
*
From California: Go east until you smell it.
Go south until you step in it.
(I believe that plan takes one to Texas.)
Here's a good reply for you:
Q: What's the difference between a Florida orange and a California
orange?
A: Florida oranges don't suck back!
earle
*
(Born in Birmingham and got the hell out ASAP -- age 17.)
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741023 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 19:56 |
|
In article <p1fjp1t2h4dtrr14kj73mrmshd52fdhjgd [at] 4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
*
I believe that modern-day Japan is as good a model as we are going to
find. Gun control -- great public transportation -- no tipping!
(And a constitutional ban on sending troops out of the country.)
High on the list would be New Zealand. I was also impressed by Costa
Rica and how it somehow managed to avoid the banana-boat governmental
policies of other Central American countries.
earle
*
(Note to Kolker: I am talking about modern-day Japan, so don't remind
us of the rape of Nanking.)
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741024 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 19:59 |
|
In article <4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net>,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> ><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
> >>
> >>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
> >>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
> >>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
> >
> >So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
> >days in existence?
>
> Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>
> Today works for me but it doesn't appear to for young people who can't
> seem to get their nest made.
>
> As Omar said, "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and thou beneath me in
> the wilderness." Or something close to that.
>
> Hugh
*
Hugh: What does the 'J' stand for that causes you to prefer Hugh?
The 'D' in my 'Earle D. Jones' stands for 'Douglas'. I think my mother
had the hots for Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.
earle
*
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741030 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 20:08 |
|
In article <slrndpjtrc.bda.mightymartianca [at] nobody.here>,
AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:48:13 GMT,
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:53:46 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> > sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> ><4399c437.15229949 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On 9 Dec 2005 16:34:14 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >
> >
> >>You'd have a tough time convincing ADM Yamamoto.
> >
> > Which just shows that individual perspective can mislead. Like with
> > the Germans we ignored those who committed medical experiments we
> > found interesting. And we ignored those who slaughtered Chinese and
> > Korean civilians.
>
> Let's not forget all those engineers and scientists that the Americans
> trucked in, some of which were some pretty nasty guys.
*
They weren't nasty -- they were scientists!
*
>
> From a strategic point of view, getting the Nazi rocket scientists was a
> pretty major coupe, from a moral point of view, not hanging some of those
> bastards was outright wrong.
*
AC:
A 'coupe' is a car. A 'coup' is a notable successful move.
earle
*
"A burro is an ass. A burrow is a hole in the ground. You should
always know the difference."
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741044 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 21:00 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<439aee88.7732338 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:47:15 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:24:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>>>>>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>>>>>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>>>>
>>>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>>>>days in existence?
>>>
>>>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>>
>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>inspection.
>>
>>[snip]
>
>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>opinions.
Right to vote depends on opinion?
>Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>world provably better?
Well, they can vote, for one thing.
>If your only answer is human rights, China
>appears to be doing very well.
If income for the top .1% is the indicator, sure. What does a deadly
spill or 100 matter after all.
>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>much worse off, albeit their right.
So your position is that it is bad for people to vote differently than
you think they should. I can't agree with you.
>And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
>about food inspection. I know beef was inspected.
We did not in 1900. Which is what I wrote.
>And the restaurants
>back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
>restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
>be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
Of course they did. Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
After all food and restaurant inspections just happened because
liberal blacks and women controlled the government and want to
restrict the rights of good white people.
>As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS,
We spawned AIDS?
>Legionnaires Disease,
ROTFLMAO.
>Bird Flu,
Try to learn just a bit before you post, it will make you look less a
flu. *All* of the influenza we get likely pass through birds at some
point. The Spanish Flu, your fault I assume, was also a "bird flu".
>more cancer...
Some because people live longer. Some because those damned liberals
insist that companies pollute the air and water. Oh, wait, that's not
right.
>And you have caused us to live
>longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
Bad liberal.
>We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
>more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
>problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
>single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
>made it better than the old simple one.
OMG! We have not made a perfect world: bad liberals.
>You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
>we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
Yeah, letting the poor starve was a better idea.
>Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
>won some and lost some.
Yep. BTW, bankruptcies are up because of medical costs and education.
>The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
>8-)
>
>When were the good times is certainly arguable.
>
>The bottom line for me: is every day I'm here it just gets better.
Huh?
--
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 #741060 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 21:45 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:00:41 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:26 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><439aee88.7732338 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>>>>>days in existence?
>>>>
>>>>Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>>>
>>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950 or 1900, right? In 1950 Blacks could
>>>not vote in most of the country. In 1900 women could not vote. Then or
>>>a bit before they could not own property in their own name (an issue
>>>not really resolved until the 1970's), they could not be lawyers, they
>>>could not be doctors. You see that as a better world. You prefer a
>>>world with no child labor laws. No medical drug laws. No food
>>>inspection.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>First of all the issues until the last sentence depend on individual
>>opinions.
>
>Right to vote depends on opinion?
Yep. I would block liberal votes. Of late they haven't won much anyhow
and even the SCOTUS is about to change.
>>Not denying the right of blacks and women, would you point
>>out some instances where the resolution of those issues has made the
>>world provably better?
>
>Well, they can vote, for one thing.
>
>>If your only answer is human rights, China
>>appears to be doing very well.
>
>If income for the top .1% is the indicator, sure. What does a deadly
>spill or 100 matter after all.
Gee, those things were never major problems back in the 40s - you
could dring the water from almost any stream.
>>I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
>>much worse off, albeit their right.
>
>So your position is that it is bad for people to vote differently than
>you think they should. I can't agree with you.
That's not what I said. I was specific about liberal voting. Liberals
are a greater danger to this country than terrorists ever were.
>>And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
>>about food inspection. I know beef was inspected.
>
>We did not in 1900. Which is what I wrote.
You posted 1950 or 1900 above, ">>>So, for example, the U.S. in 1950
or 1900, right?".
>>And the restaurants
>>back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
>>restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
>>be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
>
>Of course they did. Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
I KNOW it because I ate in them then.
>After all food and restaurant inspections just happened because
>liberal blacks and women controlled the government and want to
>restrict the rights of good white people.
No, they just wanted to distribute the misery evenly.
>>As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS,
>
>We spawned AIDS?
>
>>Legionnaires Disease,
>
>ROTFLMAO.
>
>>Bird Flu,
>
>Try to learn just a bit before you post, it will make you look less a
>flu. *All* of the influenza we get likely pass through birds at some
>point. The Spanish Flu, your fault I assume, was also a "bird flu".
>
>>more cancer...
>
>Some because people live longer. Some because those damned liberals
>insist that companies pollute the air and water. Oh, wait, that's not
>right.
None of theose, except cancer, were ever mentioned in my growing
years.
>>And you have caused us to live
>>longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
>
>Bad liberal.
>>We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
>>more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
>>problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
>>single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
>>made it better than the old simple one.
>
>OMG! We have not made a perfect world: bad liberals.
>
>>You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
>>we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
>
>Yeah, letting the poor starve was a better idea.
That's one thing you have really improved on - lots more homeless and
starving now since the families no longer take care of them.
>
>>Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
>>won some and lost some.
>
>Yep. BTW, bankruptcies are up because of medical costs and education.
Do away with Medicare and Medicaid and see what happens to medical
costs. I suspect they would drop but at least 50%. I remember when
doctor bills were paid for most people who work.
>>The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
>>8-)
>>
>>When were the good times is certainly arguable.
>>
>>The bottom line for me: is every day I'm here it just gets better.
>
>Huh?
I am prettty much insulated from the escalation of misery caused by
liberals who think throwing "Government: money at every problem is the
panacea. I grew up in an age when people were not so limited in their
thinking.
You say you believe in human rights but all the disasters that
occurred this year cannot match the escalation of misery caused by
liberals.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #741065 ] |
Sa, 10 Dezember 2005 21:54 |
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:59:11 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <4399e719.24160531 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net>,
> sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:46:46 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:50:59 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> ><4399c348.14991045 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:18:37 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> 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?
>> >>
>> >>Any democracy until too many people learn that government will take
>> >>care of them if they will just do nothing except have babies by
>> >>different fathers who always vote on the absentee ballot.
>> >
>> >So, I ask again for something specific. When/where were the good old
>> >days in existence?
>>
>> Comparatively speaking, yesterday at any moment in time.
>>
>> Today works for me but it doesn't appear to for young people who can't
>> seem to get their nest made.
>>
>> As Omar said, "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and thou beneath me in
>> the wilderness." Or something close to that.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>*
>Hugh: What does the 'J' stand for that causes you to prefer Hugh?
>
>The 'D' in my 'Earle D. Jones' stands for 'Douglas'. I think my mother
>had the hots for Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.
>
>earle
>*
>
I have no objection to "James". But my mother and father called me by
my middle name and I'd rather butt heads with the government and other
entities than change. However I suggested to my two sons that whatever
they called their children should be the first name. Only one of four
is known by the middle name.
Being known by the middle name is an old Southern tradition and my dad
was known by his middle name. I've thought of doing some legal changes
but with military, FICA and other records it would be a nightmare.
KY insists on first name, middle initial on the drivers license which
I sign J. Hugh. On the few occasions when I have been stopped for
speeding and they ask if I am James H. I say NO - look at the sig. I
delight in messing up the records of those who insist on first and
middle I.
Hugh
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Sep 3 10:55:33 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04835 Sekunden |
