Sander deWaal wrote:


Ummm.....****ing off the entire Muslem world perhaps?
They don't easily forget, you know.

I didn't realize you were so easily intimidated.

ScottW

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

**Er, no. Not just me. Pretty much the majority of the US population and the
vast majority of everyone else on this planet. It seems that the US
population has woken up to the lies perpetrated by the Bush cabal.

You mean that he is a conservative. Yeah, most people finally
figured
that out.

So how do you like like that the leading democratic candidate,
Hillary, is also a hawk?
You do realize that she was responsible for the Nato bombing campaign
on Serbia...
I'm curious if you support or oppose that murderous campaign?

ScottW

"ScottW" said:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Ummm.....****ing off the entire Muslem world perhaps?
They don't easily forget, you know.


I didn't realize you were so easily intimidated.


****ing off half of the world's population isn't a good idea, in my
opinion. Regardless their ideas and ideals.

YMMV, of course.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

****ing off half of the world's population isn't a good idea, in my
opinion. Regardless their ideas and ideals.

The "muslim world" was already ****ed, long before Dubya took office.
You could make a good case that nothing Bush has done has improved the
situation.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
Incidentally, I met Richard Small and Neville Thiel 2
weeks ago, they visited Holland briefly before the AES
convention in Paris.

Very modest guys, nothing like RAO's "audio
heavyweights".

They've led protected lives - no RAO.

Some say that Small is just keeping a low profile until he retires from
Harman.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"ScottW" said:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Ummm.....****ing off the entire Muslem world perhaps?
They don't easily forget, you know.


I didn't realize you were so easily intimidated.


****ing off half of the world's population isn't a good idea, in my
opinion. Regardless their ideas and ideals.

YMMV, of course.

Even if your breathing is what ****es them off?

http://indonesia-anonymus.blogspot.c...-infidels.html

ScottW

"ScottW" said:


Sander deWaal wrote:
"ScottW" said:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Ummm.....****ing off the entire Muslem world perhaps?
They don't easily forget, you know.


I didn't realize you were so easily intimidated.


****ing off half of the world's population isn't a good idea, in my
opinion. Regardless their ideas and ideals.

YMMV, of course.

Even if your breathing is what ****es them off?

http://indonesia-anonymus.blogspot.c...-infidels.html

ScottW


You're right, you made me see the light.

Nuke them. Now.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

You're right, you made me see the light.

It may come to that. Especially Saudi Arabia.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"ScottW" said:


Sander deWaal wrote:
"ScottW" said:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Ummm.....****ing off the entire Muslem world perhaps?
They don't easily forget, you know.


I didn't realize you were so easily intimidated.


****ing off half of the world's population isn't a good idea, in my
opinion. Regardless their ideas and ideals.

YMMV, of course.

Even if your breathing is what ****es them off?

http://indonesia-anonymus.blogspot.c...-infidels.html

ScottW


You're right, you made me see the light.

Nuke them. Now.

Talk about over reacting. We can't do that till all the journalists
in the Netherlands have been beheaded.

ScottW

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:06:12 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

A guy (who happens to be the President of the US) can be a liar, a
cheat,
uncaring, a drunk, a drug addict (all these things are on the record,
BTW)

They're all on the record, Trevor?

**Yep.

And we're on the record does it say
"uncaring"?

**Examine his reaction to news which would distress most normal humans.
Ask
yourself how he can sleep at hight, after sending young, fit people to be
killed in a bogus war, just he and his friends can make more money.

Now, now, Trevor. You're setting down your opinion of the situation
("bogus war" "he and his friends can make money") and then condemning
him for appearing uncaring in the light of your opinion. However
deeply felt, your opinion is not fact but your opinion. Others have
contrary opinions just as deeply felt. Some feel it isn't a bogus war,
just a mishandled one.

**It was a war which Bush lied to the US public, in order to get Americans
involved in. One of Dubya's closest people makes money from one of the
largest companies which supplies materiel to the war. The same company which
did not have to tender for the job. Google: 'Halliburton + Cheney' and
prepare to be deeply disturbed by what you find. You may even care to Google
'Cheney + Saddam' for some ven more disturbing information.


Where does it say, "Bush is currently a drug addict?"

**When you get to know drug addicts and drunks, you will realise that they
are ALWAYS addicts. They may not be presently taking the drug, but they're
still addicts.

Not according to the law or most criteria.

**Go speak to some 12-step people. They (who are the ones with actual
experience) will tell you differently. And before you ask, I DO have
personal experience in this area. Trust me: A drug addict/drunk is ALWAYS a
drug addict/drunk. They do not change. They just deal with it. Or not.

If what you're saying were
official opinion, no one ever classified at any time in their lives as
a drug addict or drunk would ever be able to get a job again, and
there'd be no such thing as rehabilition.

**There is no such thing as rehabilitation. There are just ways of dealing
with the problems.


"Bush is currently a drunk"?

**See above. A drunk is always a drunk.

I'm sure you wouldn't be holding old
vices and mistakes against a man who claims to have turned over a new
leaf, would you?

**His past has shaped the way he is now.

As with all of us. I'm sure you're no exception.

**Indeed. My mother is a Methodist and my father was brought up amongst The
Salvation Army.


His pas crimes should have alerted
the US voing population to what is capable of right now.

I'm not sure how that works. What "crimes" are you referring to, and
what would they have told the US populace?

**Google the following:
* 'Bush + Arlington stadium'
* 'Bush + National Guard + AWOL'
There's lots more.


and just plain incompetent at almost anything he does in life, as long
as
he
CLAIMS to be a Christian?

I don't understand this sentence. You mean being a Christian excuses
these things?

**Paul, it was a question. Note the "?" at the end?

Perhaps, but it was obviously a leading question. It is in fact your
opinion, is it not?

**No, it was a question.


Wow! I almost wish I went to church now.

A person who has no real scientific abilities and
believes in some nuttty supernatural ideas?

They wouldn't be the same nutty supernatural ideas that the majority
of the US population believes in, would they, Trevor?

**They would be the ones. Just because the majority believes it, does not
make it so. Back in the 17th Century, the majority of the population of
the
European and American continents believed that witches were evil and had
to
be burned at the stake. Before Gallileo showed them the error of their
ways,
the population of Europe believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And so on.

Right.

**I'm pleased you agree.

And how do we know that further scientific knowledge won't
reveal that the universe is not quite so unyieldingly material as we
imagined, but can in fact be traced to a point of sufficient fineness
that it moves into ethereal realms, which is just another way of
saying spiritual?

**And WHEN and IF evidence is ever discovered to that effect, we will need
to accomodate that in our explanation of this universe. So far, we have
never had any reliable evidence of supernatural events, so it is
unreasonable to include them as part of our science.

IOW, you're making a clear distinction between
material and spiritual, taking the former for reality, the latter for
"a nutty supernatural idea". Yet if you read the mystics, those who've
undertaken spiritual investigation in the real sense, they all tell us
that there's no distinction, that the spiritual world at a sufficient
level of grossness becomes the material world, and the material world
at a sufficient level of fineness the spiritual world. I don't want to
get too deep, but it would help if you didn't make quite such a
definite mental distinction.

**Perhaps. However, until I see some actual evidence of this "spiritual
world" you speak of, I'm gonna assume that it is all in the mind of people.


As for his lack
of scientific abilities, I thought the office of President was a
political one. I didn't realize you needed any scientific degrees.

**It would help for a President to understand some basic science. Along
with
a whole bunch of other stuff.

Would all that leave him time to woo the voters? :-)

**Some basic high school stuff would be fine. He should have learned all
this stuff decades ago, like the rest of us.



That makes him qualified to hold
the position of the most powerful human on Earth. A person who has the
power
of life or death over literally billions of other humans? Is that about
it?

No, not unless I'm missing something. Since when did the President
hold the power of life and death over billions of people?

**Since right now. George W Bush appears to be plunging this planet
towards
a conflict which may last many decades and cost many lives.

Which one is that?

**The one with Iran.


Aren't there
like a kazzillion safeguards to prevent some nutty President pushing
the wrong button or declaring war?

**It seems no. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq?

I don't recall any buttons being pushed in those conflicts. Nor
billions of lives being lost.

**You did say: "....or declaring war." Vietnam cost the lives of around 3
million people. A not inconsiderable number. Particularly, considering it
was a relatively local conflict and one which was never called a 'war'.


Isn't there a Congress that has to
approve just about everything?

**So I understand.

You make it sound like the President
has a nuclear button under his desk and is salivating to use it.

**It would seem he is.

Evidence?

**Iran. The President is practising extreme hipocrisy. He suggests that he
is prepared to use violence against Iran, becuase Iran wants to possess
nukular (sic) capability, yet seems comfortable with allowing Israel the
same capability. Ditto, with Pakistan and India. If Bush REALLY wanted
peace, he would either force the other nations to forego this capacity, or
engage in meaningful dialogue to prevent further escalation.


That makes sense.

NOT!

Be ashamed Americans. Be very ashamed. You guys have screwed this planet
for
the rest of us. Voting George W Bush into power was the single worst act
of
terrorism ever perpetrated on the human race.

Er....a touch of hyperbole here, Trevor? Hmmm....could be.

**Perhaps. Time will tell.


You don't have to take "Rage Audio" literally, you know. :-)

**I'm not. It's just Dubya and those who voted for him that I reserve my
moast venomous attacks.

Yes, I can hear the hisssssssssing from here.

**Cool.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"ScottW" said:


Nuke them. Now.


Talk about over reacting. We can't do that till all the journalists
in the Netherlands have been beheaded.


I forgot to add the smiley, my bad.

Let's cut this crap and enjoy our systems, damned ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

**Er, no. Not just me. Pretty much the majority of the US population and
the
vast majority of everyone else on this planet. It seems that the US
population has woken up to the lies perpetrated by the Bush cabal.

You mean that he is a conservative.

**Nope. Bush Snr was a conservative. Bush Jnr is a liar and a nutcase.

Yeah, most people finally
figured
that out.

**Too late. Sadly. The rest of the planet had Dubya figured long ago.


So how do you like like that the leading democratic candidate,
Hillary, is also a hawk?

**Hillary is not the President. Hillary has never been the President.
Hillary has not sent more than 2,000 US service people to their deaths in a
bogus war. Dubya did.

You do realize that she was responsible for the Nato bombing campaign
on Serbia...

**Wrong. NATO (note the capitalisation) was responsible for the NATO bombing
campaign on Serbia. It was a whole bunch of nations who decided that it was
a good idea. Iraq is a whole different thing.

I'm curious if you support or oppose that murderous campaign?

**I don't support any "murderous rampage". I support the APPROPRIATE use of
force in the appropriate situations, which acts to minimise casualties on
both sides and without lies. Dubya lied to the US people and now the US
people are paying for those lies with the lives of their sons, daughters,
others and fathers and with their tax Dollars. Are you happy to send huge
numbers of tax Dollars to prosecute a war which was conducted on lies? Are
you happy sending your tax Dollars to pay a company which charges the US
government (ie: The taxpayer) ridiculous sums of money, even without needing
to tender for the job in teh first place? Are you happy to enrich your
President and his friends, with your tax Dollars, based on the lies they
told you?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:26:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:06:12 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

A guy (who happens to be the President of the US) can be a liar, a
cheat,
uncaring, a drunk, a drug addict (all these things are on the record,
BTW)

They're all on the record, Trevor?

**Yep.

And we're on the record does it say
"uncaring"?

**Examine his reaction to news which would distress most normal humans.
Ask
yourself how he can sleep at hight, after sending young, fit people to be
killed in a bogus war, just he and his friends can make more money.

Now, now, Trevor. You're setting down your opinion of the situation
("bogus war" "he and his friends can make money") and then condemning
him for appearing uncaring in the light of your opinion. However
deeply felt, your opinion is not fact but your opinion. Others have
contrary opinions just as deeply felt. Some feel it isn't a bogus war,
just a mishandled one.

**It was a war which Bush lied to the US public, in order to get Americans
involved in. One of Dubya's closest people makes money from one of the
largest companies which supplies materiel to the war. The same company which
did not have to tender for the job. Google: 'Halliburton + Cheney' and
prepare to be deeply disturbed by what you find. You may even care to Google
'Cheney + Saddam' for some ven more disturbing information.

Seen all that stuff on SBS docos. So you're saying that because Bush
and Cheney stand to profit from war, they will both push for war
without conscience, that there is in fact only evil in their hearts.
Hmmm, might make a good plot for X-Men 4, but I'm not sure it equates
with reality, which is that most men are a mixture of saint and
sinner.

Where does it say, "Bush is currently a drug addict?"

**When you get to know drug addicts and drunks, you will realise that they
are ALWAYS addicts. They may not be presently taking the drug, but they're
still addicts.

Not according to the law or most criteria.

**Go speak to some 12-step people. They (who are the ones with actual
experience) will tell you differently. And before you ask, I DO have
personal experience in this area. Trust me: A drug addict/drunk is ALWAYS a
drug addict/drunk. They do not change. They just deal with it. Or not.

The point is, do we condemn them for all time and bar them from all
responsible office? Given how many people drink, and drink to excess,
without earning the classification "drunk", it hardly seems quite
fair.

If what you're saying were
official opinion, no one ever classified at any time in their lives as
a drug addict or drunk would ever be able to get a job again, and
there'd be no such thing as rehabilition.

**There is no such thing as rehabilitation. There are just ways of dealing
with the problems.

Well, is Bush dealing with the problem or is he falling down drunk in
the White House? Surely that's the point.

"Bush is currently a drunk"?

**See above. A drunk is always a drunk.

I'm sure you wouldn't be holding old
vices and mistakes against a man who claims to have turned over a new
leaf, would you?

**His past has shaped the way he is now.

As with all of us. I'm sure you're no exception.

**Indeed. My mother is a Methodist and my father was brought up amongst The
Salvation Army.

In that case you may be the exception that proves the rule. :-)

His pas crimes should have alerted
the US voing population to what is capable of right now.

I'm not sure how that works. What "crimes" are you referring to, and
what would they have told the US populace?

**Google the following:
* 'Bush + Arlington stadium'
* 'Bush + National Guard + AWOL'
There's lots more.

'Crimes", Trevor? Rather pedantic, what?

and just plain incompetent at almost anything he does in life, as long
as
he
CLAIMS to be a Christian?

I don't understand this sentence. You mean being a Christian excuses
these things?

**Paul, it was a question. Note the "?" at the end?

Perhaps, but it was obviously a leading question. It is in fact your
opinion, is it not?

**No, it was a question.

Wow! I almost wish I went to church now.

A person who has no real scientific abilities and
believes in some nuttty supernatural ideas?

They wouldn't be the same nutty supernatural ideas that the majority
of the US population believes in, would they, Trevor?

**They would be the ones. Just because the majority believes it, does not
make it so. Back in the 17th Century, the majority of the population of
the
European and American continents believed that witches were evil and had
to
be burned at the stake. Before Gallileo showed them the error of their
ways,
the population of Europe believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And so on.

Right.

**I'm pleased you agree.

And how do we know that further scientific knowledge won't
reveal that the universe is not quite so unyieldingly material as we
imagined, but can in fact be traced to a point of sufficient fineness
that it moves into ethereal realms, which is just another way of
saying spiritual?

**And WHEN and IF evidence is ever discovered to that effect, we will need
to accomodate that in our explanation of this universe. So far, we have
never had any reliable evidence of supernatural events, so it is
unreasonable to include them as part of our science.

IOW, you're making a clear distinction between
material and spiritual, taking the former for reality, the latter for
"a nutty supernatural idea". Yet if you read the mystics, those who've
undertaken spiritual investigation in the real sense, they all tell us
that there's no distinction, that the spiritual world at a sufficient
level of grossness becomes the material world, and the material world
at a sufficient level of fineness the spiritual world. I don't want to
get too deep, but it would help if you didn't make quite such a
definite mental distinction.

**Perhaps. However, until I see some actual evidence of this "spiritual
world" you speak of, I'm gonna assume that it is all in the mind of people.

Of course, if someone simply excludes the possibility of any reality
but that which can be apprehended with the physical senses, there's no
basis for debate, just as there's no key to open a barred door.

As for his lack
of scientific abilities, I thought the office of President was a
political one. I didn't realize you needed any scientific degrees.

**It would help for a President to understand some basic science. Along
with
a whole bunch of other stuff.

Would all that leave him time to woo the voters? :-)

**Some basic high school stuff would be fine. He should have learned all
this stuff decades ago, like the rest of us.

Don't think I'm a Bush defender. We're all embarrassed by his lack of
refinement, wit and intellectual penetration. The leader of the free
world SHOULD be smarter and better educated. When Reagan became
President there were of course jokes about him being a B-grade movie
actor (not quite true), but compared to Bush he now comes across as
the acme of refinement.. All this is a pity because the US needs to
make the right impression to achieve anything useful in foreign
policy, and that's pretty much impossible with Bush giving the press
conferences.

That makes him qualified to hold
the position of the most powerful human on Earth. A person who has the
power
of life or death over literally billions of other humans? Is that about
it?

No, not unless I'm missing something. Since when did the President
hold the power of life and death over billions of people?

**Since right now. George W Bush appears to be plunging this planet
towards
a conflict which may last many decades and cost many lives.

Which one is that?

**The one with Iran.

Damn! I knew I should have watched the news last night!

Aren't there
like a kazzillion safeguards to prevent some nutty President pushing
the wrong button or declaring war?

**It seems no. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq?

I don't recall any buttons being pushed in those conflicts. Nor
billions of lives being lost.

**You did say: "....or declaring war." Vietnam cost the lives of around 3
million people. A not inconsiderable number. Particularly, considering it
was a relatively local conflict and one which was never called a 'war'.

The number can be disputed (I've heard 1 million). But aren't we
talking about the President declaring war, and didn't you just say
Vietnam was never declared a war? As I understand it the President
can't just declare war without congressional approval. I still say
you're exaggerating the powers of the office, or rather diminishing
the safeguards.

Isn't there a Congress that has to
approve just about everything?

**So I understand.

You make it sound like the President
has a nuclear button under his desk and is salivating to use it.

**It would seem he is.

Evidence?

**Iran. The President is practising extreme hipocrisy. He suggests that he
is prepared to use violence against Iran, becuase Iran wants to possess
nukular (sic) capability, yet seems comfortable with allowing Israel the
same capability. Ditto, with Pakistan and India. If Bush REALLY wanted
peace, he would either force the other nations to forego this capacity, or
engage in meaningful dialogue to prevent further escalation.

Or....he could clean out the Aegean Stables by diverting the course of
the River Styx, or whatever. Come on now, Trevor, let's stay in the
real world. Those countries have nuclear energy and no one is about
to take it from them. In any case none is a sworn enemy of the US. The
kerfuffle over Iran having nuclear capabilty is a legitimate strategic
concern. In any case being "prepared" to use violence against a
country is a long way from rushing to do so. Let's not get ahead of
ourselves.

paul packer wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 06:41:08 GMT, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:


APR wrote:

"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
groups.com...


George M. Middius wrote:


paul packer said:



I Googled for Ozzie slang. I found two sources that said "whacker"
means
dweeb, loser, etc.

I suggest "whacker" is a mispelling of "******" IE:- one who
masturbates, either physically, mentally or both. No lack of examples
on usenet.


Whacker has been used in years gone past, as in "whacking the meat", a male
pastime.



OK. Promised to leave this one alone, but. Now its interesting. We used
to use a term in NZ, Dick Whacker.......


A relative of yours? :-)

No, but we had a Jonathan Thomas in my class. Needless to say the poor
******* suffered. If I were him, I would have sued his parents. A friend
reckoned he knew a Richard Head. But I have my doubts;-) though I have
met a few. Reminds me of a book by the late, great Barry Crump,
"*******s I have met".

Still, I thought Dick Whacker was a common term. There you go.....

Mark

On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:37:14 +1000, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:

paul packer wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 06:41:08 GMT, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:


APR wrote:

"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
egroups.com...


George M. Middius wrote:


paul packer said:



I Googled for Ozzie slang. I found two sources that said "whacker"
means
dweeb, loser, etc.

I suggest "whacker" is a mispelling of "******" IE:- one who
masturbates, either physically, mentally or both. No lack of examples
on usenet.


Whacker has been used in years gone past, as in "whacking the meat", a male
pastime.



OK. Promised to leave this one alone, but. Now its interesting. We used
to use a term in NZ, Dick Whacker.......


A relative of yours? :-)

No, but we had a Jonathan Thomas in my class. Needless to say the poor
******* suffered. If I were him, I would have sued his parents. A friend
reckoned he knew a Richard Head. But I have my doubts;-) though I have
met a few. Reminds me of a book by the late, great Barry Crump,
"*******s I have met".

Still, I thought Dick Whacker was a common term. There you go.....

Mark

Perhaps more a common activity than a common term.

paul packer said:

Seen all that stuff on SBS docos. So you're saying that because Bush
and Cheney stand to profit from war, they will both push for war
without conscience, that there is in fact only evil in their hearts.

Does the phrase "appearance of impropriety" ring a bell? How about
"conflict of interest"?

In America, we believe that elected officials are obligated to fully
disclose their motives, and to reveal all facts that would not compromise
national security. Since Bush's real motives for invading Iraq were
completely different than what he told us, that means he has abrogated his
responsibility to the electorate.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

What?? He's never visited the www.pcabx.**** website? He doesn't know
the intricacies of the ABX click box?

On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:17:21 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Since Bush's real motives for invading Iraq were
completely different than what he told us

Delusions of omniscience noted. :-)

Arny Krueger wrote




Some of those immigrants are Asian. Asian immigrants seem to
disproportionately dominate academia and industry with first-rate minds. I
jokingly accuse my Asian friends of being representatives of the next stage
of human evolution.

Some of those immigrants are Hispanic. Statistics show that Hispanics tend
to acclimate well to US culture (as compared to other minorities who have
been here for centuries), and quickly become highly productive.

Mix Asian and Hispanic and you have Filipino. I know some awesome Filipinos.
Smart, well-educated, hard-working and trustworthy. We're supposed to turn
these folks away?

All of the above begs the question: Why did those Asians and Hispanics fare
so poorly in their home countries? It must be something in our water, or
not.




Thank you.


Give yourself extra point by adding tall and
good looking. Dunno anything 'bout water in
old country though.

paul packer wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:37:14 +1000, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:


paul packer wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 06:41:08 GMT, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:



APR wrote:


"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
legroups.com...



George M. Middius wrote:



paul packer said:




I Googled for Ozzie slang. I found two sources that said "whacker"
means
dweeb, loser, etc.

I suggest "whacker" is a mispelling of "******" IE:- one who
masturbates, either physically, mentally or both. No lack of examples
on usenet.


Whacker has been used in years gone past, as in "whacking the meat", a male
pastime.



OK. Promised to leave this one alone, but. Now its interesting. We used
to use a term in NZ, Dick Whacker.......


A relative of yours? :-)

No, but we had a Jonathan Thomas in my class. Needless to say the poor
******* suffered. If I were him, I would have sued his parents. A friend
reckoned he knew a Richard Head. But I have my doubts;-) though I have
met a few. Reminds me of a book by the late, great Barry Crump,
"*******s I have met".

Still, I thought Dick Whacker was a common term. There you go.....

Mark


Perhaps more a common activity than a common term.

99.9% of men are ******s and 0.1% are lier's?

Mark

Mark Bedingfield said:

0.1% are lier's?

"lier's" is not a word in English.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

George M. Middius wrote:

Mark Bedingfield said:


0.1% are lier's?


"lier's" is not a word in English.


99.9% of men are ******s and 0.1% are liars.

Thank you very much for pointing out my grammatical error. I trust that
with this rewrite it will be easier for you to understand the above
statement.

Mark

Mark Bedingfield said:

0.1% are lier's?

"lier's" is not a word in English.

99.9% of men are ******s and 0.1% are liars.

See, I knew you could do it.

Thank you very much for pointing out my grammatical error.

I did no such thing. It was an orthographical error.

I trust that with this rewrite it will be easier for you to understand the above statement.

Do you really believe anybody didn't understand your ploppage? Or is it
your wounded pride that makes you lash out in low-wattage sarcasm?




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 01:02:55 GMT, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

Mark Bedingfield said:


0.1% are lier's?


"lier's" is not a word in English.


99.9% of men are ******s and 0.1% are liars.

Thank you very much for pointing out my grammatical error. I trust that
with this rewrite it will be easier for you to understand the above
statement.

Mark

Actually it was a spelling, not a grammatical error.

That's just to irritate you a little more.

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 01:02:55 GMT, Mark Bedingfield
wrote:


George M. Middius wrote:

Mark Bedingfield said:



0.1% are lier's?


"lier's" is not a word in English.


99.9% of men are ******s and 0.1% are liars.

Thank you very much for pointing out my grammatical error. I trust that
with this rewrite it will be easier for you to understand the above
statement.

Mark


Actually it was a spelling, not a grammatical error.

That's just to irritate you a little more.


Lol, Lier is a town in Belgium it would seem, so it could be considered
Grammatical.

I.e. the other 0.1% are from Lier.

http://www.trabel.com/lier/lier.htm

Not from Belgium are you Paul;-)

Anyway, does that work for you? Time for a Coffee me thinks.

Spell checked it this time, too. I sometimes type too fast, you see. Got
to slow down for some readers.

Mark

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:26:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:06:12 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

A guy (who happens to be the President of the US) can be a liar, a
cheat,
uncaring, a drunk, a drug addict (all these things are on the record,
BTW)

They're all on the record, Trevor?

**Yep.

And we're on the record does it say
"uncaring"?

**Examine his reaction to news which would distress most normal humans.
Ask
yourself how he can sleep at hight, after sending young, fit people to
be
killed in a bogus war, just he and his friends can make more money.

Now, now, Trevor. You're setting down your opinion of the situation
("bogus war" "he and his friends can make money") and then condemning
him for appearing uncaring in the light of your opinion. However
deeply felt, your opinion is not fact but your opinion. Others have
contrary opinions just as deeply felt. Some feel it isn't a bogus war,
just a mishandled one.

**It was a war which Bush lied to the US public, in order to get Americans
involved in. One of Dubya's closest people makes money from one of the
largest companies which supplies materiel to the war. The same company
which
did not have to tender for the job. Google: 'Halliburton + Cheney' and
prepare to be deeply disturbed by what you find. You may even care to
Google
'Cheney + Saddam' for some ven more disturbing information.

Seen all that stuff on SBS docos. So you're saying that because Bush
and Cheney stand to profit from war, they will both push for war
without conscience, that there is in fact only evil in their hearts.

**That is part of it. Certainly it smacks of serious impropietry. At best.
Personally, I feel the issue is much deeper. There is some credible evidence
to suggest that Dubya is set of some kind of 'crusade' to destroy what he
perceives as evil. What is ACTUALLY evil seems not to concern him overly.

Hmmm, might make a good plot for X-Men 4, but I'm not sure it equates
with reality, which is that most men are a mixture of saint and
sinner.

**Sure. So far, we have seen no redeeming facets of Dubya. None at all.


Where does it say, "Bush is currently a drug addict?"

**When you get to know drug addicts and drunks, you will realise that
they
are ALWAYS addicts. They may not be presently taking the drug, but
they're
still addicts.

Not according to the law or most criteria.

**Go speak to some 12-step people. They (who are the ones with actual
experience) will tell you differently. And before you ask, I DO have
personal experience in this area. Trust me: A drug addict/drunk is ALWAYS
a
drug addict/drunk. They do not change. They just deal with it. Or not.

The point is, do we condemn them for all time and bar them from all
responsible office?

**Indeed we should. Certain drugs (such as cocaine) and alcohol are capable
of causing permanent damage to the human brain. I see no point in electing
brain damaged people to the highest office. Do you? More importantly,
however, is that they have the capacity to fall back into their old habits.

Given how many people drink, and drink to excess,
without earning the classification "drunk", it hardly seems quite
fair.

**People who drink to excess on a regular basis are not to be trusted wikth
anything. Ever. Alcohol is the most serious and second most deadly drug in
our society. The cost to the community is very great indeed. The personal
cost to those around the alcoholic can be incalculable. The issue of alcohol
abuse should not be minimised. (There's that Methodist upbringing again)


If what you're saying were
official opinion, no one ever classified at any time in their lives as
a drug addict or drunk would ever be able to get a job again, and
there'd be no such thing as rehabilition.

**There is no such thing as rehabilitation. There are just ways of dealing
with the problems.

Well, is Bush dealing with the problem or is he falling down drunk in
the White House? Surely that's the point.

**No. The point is that he has shown that does not have the capacity to
perfomr in the job. He is utterly incompetent.


"Bush is currently a drunk"?

**See above. A drunk is always a drunk.

I'm sure you wouldn't be holding old
vices and mistakes against a man who claims to have turned over a new
leaf, would you?

**His past has shaped the way he is now.

As with all of us. I'm sure you're no exception.

**Indeed. My mother is a Methodist and my father was brought up amongst
The
Salvation Army.

In that case you may be the exception that proves the rule. :-)

His pas crimes should have alerted
the US voing population to what is capable of right now.

I'm not sure how that works. What "crimes" are you referring to, and
what would they have told the US populace?

**Google the following:
* 'Bush + Arlington stadium'
* 'Bush + National Guard + AWOL'
There's lots more.

'Crimes", Trevor? Rather pedantic, what?

**They're crimes. Serious crimes.


and just plain incompetent at almost anything he does in life, as long
as
he
CLAIMS to be a Christian?

I don't understand this sentence. You mean being a Christian excuses
these things?

**Paul, it was a question. Note the "?" at the end?

Perhaps, but it was obviously a leading question. It is in fact your
opinion, is it not?

**No, it was a question.

Wow! I almost wish I went to church now.

A person who has no real scientific abilities and
believes in some nuttty supernatural ideas?

They wouldn't be the same nutty supernatural ideas that the majority
of the US population believes in, would they, Trevor?

**They would be the ones. Just because the majority believes it, does
not
make it so. Back in the 17th Century, the majority of the population of
the
European and American continents believed that witches were evil and had
to
be burned at the stake. Before Gallileo showed them the error of their
ways,
the population of Europe believed that the Sun revolved around the
Earth.
And so on.

Right.

**I'm pleased you agree.

And how do we know that further scientific knowledge won't
reveal that the universe is not quite so unyieldingly material as we
imagined, but can in fact be traced to a point of sufficient fineness
that it moves into ethereal realms, which is just another way of
saying spiritual?

**And WHEN and IF evidence is ever discovered to that effect, we will need
to accomodate that in our explanation of this universe. So far, we have
never had any reliable evidence of supernatural events, so it is
unreasonable to include them as part of our science.

IOW, you're making a clear distinction between
material and spiritual, taking the former for reality, the latter for
"a nutty supernatural idea". Yet if you read the mystics, those who've
undertaken spiritual investigation in the real sense, they all tell us
that there's no distinction, that the spiritual world at a sufficient
level of grossness becomes the material world, and the material world
at a sufficient level of fineness the spiritual world. I don't want to
get too deep, but it would help if you didn't make quite such a
definite mental distinction.

**Perhaps. However, until I see some actual evidence of this "spiritual
world" you speak of, I'm gonna assume that it is all in the mind of
people.

Of course, if someone simply excludes the possibility of any reality
but that which can be apprehended with the physical senses, there's no
basis for debate, just as there's no key to open a barred door.

**For the time that humans have been on this planet, we have constantly
searched for ways to explain the physical world around us. There seems
little point if trying to deal with issues that are not observable.


As for his lack
of scientific abilities, I thought the office of President was a
political one. I didn't realize you needed any scientific degrees.

**It would help for a President to understand some basic science. Along
with
a whole bunch of other stuff.

Would all that leave him time to woo the voters? :-)

**Some basic high school stuff would be fine. He should have learned all
this stuff decades ago, like the rest of us.

Don't think I'm a Bush defender. We're all embarrassed by his lack of
refinement, wit and intellectual penetration. The leader of the free
world SHOULD be smarter and better educated. When Reagan became
President there were of course jokes about him being a B-grade movie
actor (not quite true), but compared to Bush he now comes across as
the acme of refinement.. All this is a pity because the US needs to
make the right impression to achieve anything useful in foreign
policy, and that's pretty much impossible with Bush giving the press
conferences.

**Indeed. Better that Bush not face us other humans.


That makes him qualified to hold
the position of the most powerful human on Earth. A person who has the
power
of life or death over literally billions of other humans? Is that
about
it?

No, not unless I'm missing something. Since when did the President
hold the power of life and death over billions of people?

**Since right now. George W Bush appears to be plunging this planet
towards
a conflict which may last many decades and cost many lives.

Which one is that?

**The one with Iran.

Damn! I knew I should have watched the news last night!

**Are you serious? Do you really not see the ramifications of what is
occuring?


Aren't there
like a kazzillion safeguards to prevent some nutty President pushing
the wrong button or declaring war?

**It seems no. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq?

I don't recall any buttons being pushed in those conflicts. Nor
billions of lives being lost.

**You did say: "....or declaring war." Vietnam cost the lives of around 3
million people. A not inconsiderable number. Particularly, considering it
was a relatively local conflict and one which was never called a 'war'.

The number can be disputed (I've heard 1 million).

**It's 3 million, give or take 500,000.

But aren't we
talking about the President declaring war, and didn't you just say
Vietnam was never declared a war?

**And it is likely that Iraq will not be referred to as a war, either.
Nevertheless, like Vietnam, it is.

As I understand it the President
can't just declare war without congressional approval. I still say
you're exaggerating the powers of the office, or rather diminishing
the safeguards.

**Not really. Bush has bought and paid for most of the media. The media
spewed his lies (notably the Fox Network), such that the Republican
controlled Congress aquiesced to his notions.


Isn't there a Congress that has to
approve just about everything?

**So I understand.

You make it sound like the President
has a nuclear button under his desk and is salivating to use it.

**It would seem he is.

Evidence?

**Iran. The President is practising extreme hipocrisy. He suggests that he
is prepared to use violence against Iran, becuase Iran wants to possess
nukular (sic) capability, yet seems comfortable with allowing Israel the
same capability. Ditto, with Pakistan and India. If Bush REALLY wanted
peace, he would either force the other nations to forego this capacity, or
engage in meaningful dialogue to prevent further escalation.

Or....he could clean out the Aegean Stables by diverting the course of
the River Styx, or whatever. Come on now, Trevor, let's stay in the
real world.

**You think that I am crazy? Iran is run by an extreme fundamentalist
'government' and is a PERFECT example of why religion has no place in
politics. Iran is a nation which has been battle hardened by a long and
bloody war with Iraq. Iran is a nation which, like France, has had a gutful
of being invaded and will likely do anything to stop agression by anyone. If
the US decides to attempt to damage the Iranian nuclear capacity, then Iran
is likely to act in unpredictable and violent ways.

Those countries have nuclear energy and no one is about
to take it from them. In any case none is a sworn enemy of the US. The
kerfuffle over Iran having nuclear capabilty is a legitimate strategic
concern. In any case being "prepared" to use violence against a
country is a long way from rushing to do so. Let's not get ahead of
ourselves.

**You're thinking in the (very) short term. Pakistan is at least as unstable
as any nation. Only it's present leadership keeps a lid on things. most
Pakistanis hate America too. However, you seem to be glossing over the
reasons for that hatred. Big mistake.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:26:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:06:12 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


A guy (who happens to be the President of the US) can be a liar, a
cheat,
uncaring, a drunk, a drug addict (all these things are on the record,
BTW)

They're all on the record, Trevor?

**Yep.

And we're on the record does it say

"uncaring"?

**Examine his reaction to news which would distress most normal humans.
Ask
yourself how he can sleep at hight, after sending young, fit people to
be
killed in a bogus war, just he and his friends can make more money.

Now, now, Trevor. You're setting down your opinion of the situation
("bogus war" "he and his friends can make money") and then condemning
him for appearing uncaring in the light of your opinion. However
deeply felt, your opinion is not fact but your opinion. Others have
contrary opinions just as deeply felt. Some feel it isn't a bogus war,
just a mishandled one.

**It was a war which Bush lied to the US public, in order to get Americans
involved in. One of Dubya's closest people makes money from one of the
largest companies which supplies materiel to the war. The same company
which
did not have to tender for the job. Google: 'Halliburton + Cheney' and
prepare to be deeply disturbed by what you find. You may even care to
Google
'Cheney + Saddam' for some ven more disturbing information.

Seen all that stuff on SBS docos. So you're saying that because Bush
and Cheney stand to profit from war, they will both push for war
without conscience, that there is in fact only evil in their hearts.


**That is part of it. Certainly it smacks of serious impropietry. At best.
Personally, I feel the issue is much deeper. There is some credible evidence
to suggest that Dubya is set of some kind of 'crusade' to destroy what he
perceives as evil. What is ACTUALLY evil seems not to concern him overly.


big snip

Have a watch of a series of documentaries done by the BBC, called "The
Power of Nightmares". Bush and most of the other Presidents and Prime
Ministers are portrayed as nothing more than obedient puppets. One of
the most revealing things I ever watched.

Profit is not high on his agenda, IIRC. But your crusade theory is
backed up for very different reasons, Trev. Well there you go, I agree
with you;-)

One thing tho, after you watch it you will most likely be a lot less
concerned about terrorism and more about Hifi.

Mark

Who is running the BBC sockpuppet?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Who is running the BBC sockpuppet?

**This man:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp

It is testimony to the health and impartiality of the British Broadacsting
System that their boss (Tony Blair) has not been able to influence their
decision to expose the evil nature of Bush's regime. Remember: Tony Blair
supports Dubya's bogus 'War on Terror' in Iraq.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Clyde Slick wrote:
Who is running the BBC sockpuppet?


The Pommy gubmit of course. But this is the sort of doco that beggars
belief in its attacks on both British and American governments. How it
even managed to be produced, I don't know. I was skeptical as well,
until I watched it.

Mark

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

Clyde Slick wrote:
Who is running the BBC sockpuppet?

The Pommy gubmit of course. But this is the sort of doco that beggars
belief in its attacks on both British and American governments. How it
even managed to be produced, I don't know. I was skeptical as well,
until I watched it.

The BBC is hardly any sockpuppet. Never heard about Hutton and the phoney Iraq
'dossier' ?

Graham

On Tue, 30 May 2006 06:54:20 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:26:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:57:55 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:06:12 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

A guy (who happens to be the President of the US) can be a liar, a
cheat,
uncaring, a drunk, a drug addict (all these things are on the record,
BTW)

They're all on the record, Trevor?

**Yep.

And we're on the record does it say
"uncaring"?

**Examine his reaction to news which would distress most normal humans.
Ask
yourself how he can sleep at hight, after sending young, fit people to
be
killed in a bogus war, just he and his friends can make more money.

Now, now, Trevor. You're setting down your opinion of the situation
("bogus war" "he and his friends can make money") and then condemning
him for appearing uncaring in the light of your opinion. However
deeply felt, your opinion is not fact but your opinion. Others have
contrary opinions just as deeply felt. Some feel it isn't a bogus war,
just a mishandled one.

**It was a war which Bush lied to the US public, in order to get Americans
involved in. One of Dubya's closest people makes money from one of the
largest companies which supplies materiel to the war. The same company
which
did not have to tender for the job. Google: 'Halliburton + Cheney' and
prepare to be deeply disturbed by what you find. You may even care to
Google
'Cheney + Saddam' for some ven more disturbing information.

Seen all that stuff on SBS docos. So you're saying that because Bush
and Cheney stand to profit from war, they will both push for war
without conscience, that there is in fact only evil in their hearts.

**That is part of it. Certainly it smacks of serious impropietry. At best.
Personally, I feel the issue is much deeper. There is some credible evidence
to suggest that Dubya is set of some kind of 'crusade' to destroy what he
perceives as evil. What is ACTUALLY evil seems not to concern him overly.

OK, I'll bite. What is ACTUALLY evil?

Hmmm, might make a good plot for X-Men 4, but I'm not sure it equates
with reality, which is that most men are a mixture of saint and
sinner.

**Sure. So far, we have seen no redeeming facets of Dubya. None at all.

Hmmm...well, that's seems like a balanced enough assessment.

Where does it say, "Bush is currently a drug addict?"

**When you get to know drug addicts and drunks, you will realise that
they
are ALWAYS addicts. They may not be presently taking the drug, but
they're
still addicts.

Not according to the law or most criteria.

**Go speak to some 12-step people. They (who are the ones with actual
experience) will tell you differently. And before you ask, I DO have
personal experience in this area. Trust me: A drug addict/drunk is ALWAYS
a
drug addict/drunk. They do not change. They just deal with it. Or not.

The point is, do we condemn them for all time and bar them from all
responsible office?

**Indeed we should. Certain drugs (such as cocaine) and alcohol are capable
of causing permanent damage to the human brain. I see no point in electing
brain damaged people to the highest office. Do you? More importantly,
however, is that they have the capacity to fall back into their old habits.

In an ideal world, yes, yes and yes. But how do we root out all
present or former drug takers in the real world?

Given how many people drink, and drink to excess,
without earning the classification "drunk", it hardly seems quite
fair.

**People who drink to excess on a regular basis are not to be trusted wikth
anything. Ever. Alcohol is the most serious and second most deadly drug in
our society. The cost to the community is very great indeed. The personal
cost to those around the alcoholic can be incalculable. The issue of alcohol
abuse should not be minimised. (There's that Methodist upbringing again)

Actually you're preaching to the converted, in spades. I don't drink.
I think alcohol is the greatest evil on the planet. Certainly nothing
else causes as much human misery in everyday terms. And my viewpoint
is not even coloured by the fact that my father was killed by a drunk
driver, since I held those views long before.

If what you're saying were
official opinion, no one ever classified at any time in their lives as
a drug addict or drunk would ever be able to get a job again, and
there'd be no such thing as rehabilition.

**There is no such thing as rehabilitation. There are just ways of dealing
with the problems.

Well, is Bush dealing with the problem or is he falling down drunk in
the White House? Surely that's the point.

**No. The point is that he has shown that does not have the capacity to
perfomr in the job. He is utterly incompetent.

Given that so much of the job is really performed by others, that may
not be as bad as it sounds. Remember that Reagan was senile for a good
part of his presidency.

(snip, snip. snip)

**Perhaps. However, until I see some actual evidence of this "spiritual
world" you speak of, I'm gonna assume that it is all in the mind of
people.

Of course, if someone simply excludes the possibility of any reality
but that which can be apprehended with the physical senses, there's no
basis for debate, just as there's no key to open a barred door.

**For the time that humans have been on this planet, we have constantly
searched for ways to explain the physical world around us. There seems
little point if trying to deal with issues that are not observable.

Ah, but observable in what way? A mystic might tell you that the
spiritual world is very observable, even directly observable. If we
believe in levels of consciousness, and how can we not since we're
traversing them throughout our own day, from our first sluggish steps
in the morning to the brilliantly witty remark we make to a colleagure
mid-afternoon, then we have to accept that some things may only be
observable at a higher level of consciousness than our own, common
level. Take dogs, for example. Dogs have smell far beyond ours. If
there were no dogs, we might never realise that such subtlety of smell
was possible; we simply don't have the capacity to apprehend it. So
why could it not be so in other areas? What if there were whole areas
of existance that we have not the faculties to apprehend, but perhaps
could develop those faculties with sufficient discipline and practice?

Just a thought.

As for his lack
of scientific abilities, I thought the office of President was a
political one. I didn't realize you needed any scientific degrees.

**It would help for a President to understand some basic science. Along
with
a whole bunch of other stuff.

Would all that leave him time to woo the voters? :-)

**Some basic high school stuff would be fine. He should have learned all
this stuff decades ago, like the rest of us.

Don't think I'm a Bush defender. We're all embarrassed by his lack of
refinement, wit and intellectual penetration. The leader of the free
world SHOULD be smarter and better educated. When Reagan became
President there were of course jokes about him being a B-grade movie
actor (not quite true), but compared to Bush he now comes across as
the acme of refinement.. All this is a pity because the US needs to
make the right impression to achieve anything useful in foreign
policy, and that's pretty much impossible with Bush giving the press
conferences.

**Indeed. Better that Bush not face us other humans.

"Other" humans? So he is human then?

That makes him qualified to hold
the position of the most powerful human on Earth. A person who has the
power
of life or death over literally billions of other humans? Is that
about
it?

No, not unless I'm missing something. Since when did the President
hold the power of life and death over billions of people?

**Since right now. George W Bush appears to be plunging this planet
towards
a conflict which may last many decades and cost many lives.

Which one is that?

**The one with Iran.

Damn! I knew I should have watched the news last night!

**Are you serious? Do you really not see the ramifications of what is
occuring?

I see some sabre rattling. There's been a lot of that over the years,
only a tiny proportion of which has actually led to the sabres being
unsheathed. Iran is a fanaticists country, a country liable to be
swept away by extremist ideas. I think Bush's concerns are legitimate.
I think a certain amount of sabre rattling is justified at the moment.
Beyond that is another matter.

Aren't there
like a kazzillion safeguards to prevent some nutty President pushing
the wrong button or declaring war?

**It seems no. Remember Vietnam? Remember Iraq?

I don't recall any buttons being pushed in those conflicts. Nor
billions of lives being lost.

**You did say: "....or declaring war." Vietnam cost the lives of around 3
million people. A not inconsiderable number. Particularly, considering it
was a relatively local conflict and one which was never called a 'war'.

The number can be disputed (I've heard 1 million).

**It's 3 million, give or take 500,000.

But aren't we
talking about the President declaring war, and didn't you just say
Vietnam was never declared a war?

**And it is likely that Iraq will not be referred to as a war, either.
Nevertheless, like Vietnam, it is.

As I understand it the President
can't just declare war without congressional approval. I still say
you're exaggerating the powers of the office, or rather diminishing
the safeguards.

**Not really. Bush has bought and paid for most of the media.

Evidence?

The media
spewed his lies (notably the Fox Network), such that the Republican
controlled Congress aquiesced to his notions.

So the media is all on Bush's side, eh? And that is reflected in their
output? (Contributions from US posters are welcome at this point)

Isn't there a Congress that has to
approve just about everything?

**So I understand.

You make it sound like the President
has a nuclear button under his desk and is salivating to use it.

**It would seem he is.

Evidence?

**Iran. The President is practising extreme hipocrisy. He suggests that he
is prepared to use violence against Iran, becuase Iran wants to possess
nukular (sic) capability, yet seems comfortable with allowing Israel the
same capability. Ditto, with Pakistan and India. If Bush REALLY wanted
peace, he would either force the other nations to forego this capacity, or
engage in meaningful dialogue to prevent further escalation.

Or....he could clean out the Aegean Stables by diverting the course of
the River Styx, or whatever. Come on now, Trevor, let's stay in the
real world.

**You think that I am crazy? Iran is run by an extreme fundamentalist
'government' and is a PERFECT example of why religion has no place in
politics. Iran is a nation which has been battle hardened by a long and
bloody war with Iraq. Iran is a nation which, like France, has had a gutful
of being invaded and will likely do anything to stop agression by anyone. If
the US decides to attempt to damage the Iranian nuclear capacity, then Iran
is likely to act in unpredictable and violent ways.

A lot of "ifs" there, Trevor. But if you re-read what you've just
said, you'll see that it as much supports Bush's argument for
preventing Iran going nuclear as your own argument--i.e. Iran is a
totally unstable country which should not have dangerous toys to play
with.

Those countries have nuclear energy and no one is about
to take it from them. In any case none is a sworn enemy of the US. The
kerfuffle over Iran having nuclear capabilty is a legitimate strategic
concern. In any case being "prepared" to use violence against a
country is a long way from rushing to do so. Let's not get ahead of
ourselves.

**You're thinking in the (very) short term. Pakistan is at least as unstable
as any nation. Only it's present leadership keeps a lid on things. most
Pakistanis hate America too. However, you seem to be glossing over the
reasons for that hatred. Big mistake.

Perhaps you'd like to provide us now with a manifesto of how to get
nuclear weapons away from Israel, India and Pakistan.

Good luck.

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

So the media is all on Bush's side, eh? And that is reflected in their
output? (Contributions from US posters are welcome at this point)

Sadly, yes.

Stephen

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Well Trev, it appears you wouldn't have given Churchill the job.
? ? ?

"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Well Trev, it appears you wouldn't have given Churchill the job.
? ? ?

**Yep. An utter incompetent. Almost lost the war for the Poms.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Mark Harriss wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:


Bear in mind that Australia is pretty much the tail-end of evolving
civilization.


**LOL! And this, coming from a citizen of a nation who voted George
W Bush
into power. Twice! Let's discuss how evolution has affected the
collective
intellect of the US people, shall we?


OK, you first. No, wait, I'll go first. How many Ozzie universities
have
world-class faculty?


**AFAIK, two. The fact that the (vastly larger population) US has
more does not suggest that COLLECTIVELY Americans are the dumbest
bunch of morons on the planet. I (again) cite the evidence that
George W Bush was voted into power (twice) as evidence.



**Whoops. That should read:

AFAIK, two. The fact that the (vastly larger population) US has more
(world class universities) does
not suggest that COLLECTIVELY Americans are NOT the dumbest bunch of
morons on
the planet. I (again) cite the evidence that George W Bush was voted into
power (twice) as evidence of this readily obserable fact.





I hotly dispute your assertions, Trevor , about evolution applying to
Americans whom you replied to in this post, the principle you are
looking for is "Inbreeding".

Obviously Middius has never heard of Aussie brands like Halcro either.

Not to mention Krix, Vaf, Equinox and a host of others.

However, I will admit we are on some thin ice here - Aussies have voted
Howard in 4 times

DS

"DavidSSS" ""somewhere\"@out there" wrote in message
...
Mark Harriss wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Trevor Wilson said:


Bear in mind that Australia is pretty much the tail-end of evolving
civilization.


**LOL! And this, coming from a citizen of a nation who voted George W
Bush
into power. Twice! Let's discuss how evolution has affected the
collective
intellect of the US people, shall we?


OK, you first. No, wait, I'll go first. How many Ozzie universities
have
world-class faculty?


**AFAIK, two. The fact that the (vastly larger population) US has more
does not suggest that COLLECTIVELY Americans are the dumbest bunch of
morons on the planet. I (again) cite the evidence that George W Bush
was voted into power (twice) as evidence.



**Whoops. That should read:

AFAIK, two. The fact that the (vastly larger population) US has more
(world class universities) does
not suggest that COLLECTIVELY Americans are NOT the dumbest bunch of
morons on
the planet. I (again) cite the evidence that George W Bush was voted
into
power (twice) as evidence of this readily obserable fact.





I hotly dispute your assertions, Trevor , about evolution applying to
Americans whom you replied to in this post, the principle you are
looking for is "Inbreeding".

Obviously Middius has never heard of Aussie brands like Halcro either.

Not to mention Krix, Vaf, Equinox and a host of others.

However, I will admit we are on some thin ice here - Aussies have voted
Howard in 4 times

**Indeed. Australians are just as capable of being duped as are Americans.
The big difference being, of course, is that although Howard is a liar (and
possibly the worst cricketer I have ever seen), he is not as dumb as a pile
of rocks (like Dubya is). In fact, Howard is one of the most cunning
politicians we've seen in decades.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

On Tue, 30 May 2006 20:17:29 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


However, I will admit we are on some thin ice here - Aussies have voted
Howard in 4 times

**Indeed. Australians are just as capable of being duped as are Americans.
The big difference being, of course, is that although Howard is a liar (and
possibly the worst cricketer I have ever seen), he is not as dumb as a pile
of rocks (like Dubya is). In fact, Howard is one of the most cunning
politicians we've seen in decades.

Which makes him in a way more dangerous and certainly harder to get
rid of.

MINe 109 said:

So the media is all on Bush's side, eh? And that is reflected in their output?

Sadly, yes.

It might be more accurate to say that the corporations that own the big
media outlets are either entangled financially with Republicans or afraid
of crossing Big Brother.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

MINe 109 said:

So the media is all on Bush's side, eh? And that is reflected in their
output?

Sadly, yes.

It might be more accurate to say that the corporations that own the big
media outlets are either entangled financially with Republicans or afraid
of crossing Big Brother.

There's also a risk of snubs on the DC cocktail party circuit.

Stephen