Re: Conservatives Win Big Down Under

[Lionel]

Pajama-Boy the last American Super-Hero was very worry about the futur
of Bush crusade and Bush coalition.

> Australian troops have
> not suffered any casualties and none have combat roles.

I sincerely hope that all these Australian soldiers will be back home
safe and ASAP.

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

> Yep, that's the one thing about the "grand coalition" - it isn't all
> that "grand".

Ok, now that you have deprecated our allies, how
are you now going to convince them to contribute even more?
See kerry's dilemna?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:57:58 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Yep, that's the one thing about the "grand coalition" - it isn't all
>> that "grand".
>
>Ok, now that you have deprecated our allies, how
>are you now going to convince them to contribute even more?
>See kerry's dilemna?

I haven't "deprecated" our allies, just Bush's grand claims about a
"Grand Coalition".

Do *you* think that 900 troops in a non-combat role is very essential
or is a reasonable participation in a coalition where 10 -20 US troops
are dying EACH WEEK? Heck, Halliburton et.al has more "troops" and has
had more casualties than Australia. It's cool that they've supplied
some resources when they don't have to, but frankly, that's not very
much of a participation.

BTW, did you know that most guard duty is now outsourced to the
private sector, instead of being outsourced to the lowest ranks of the
military? And that guard duty gets about $50,000 a year (not that it
isn't worth it since the chances of getting your ass blown off is
fairly high)?

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>> See kerry's dilemna?
>
> Howard Dean would have crushed Dubya in the election.
>

George, you might be right

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Who is ignoring the history is condemned to revive it".


Chapuinglish!

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Who is ignoring the history is condemned to revive it".
>
>
> Chapuinglish!

Perhaps, but you have understood it !
:-)

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> > Don't forget the pogroms.
>
>> **What are "pogroms"?
>
> You must be kidding.
>
> Most of us would be ashamed to admit to less knowledge than duh-Mikey.
> About ANYTHING.

**Oh well. What can I say? Had he capitalised the word, it may have made
some sense. Nevertheless, I knew nothing about the Pogroms, before today.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...

>
> **Strawman. We're discussing Dubya, not (Ted) Kennedy. Kennedy is not the
> President of the US. Kennedy did not send Americans to their deaths in an
> illegal war.
>

But another one did.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> > Don't forget the pogroms.
>
>> **What are "pogroms"?
>
> You must be kidding.
>
> Most of us would be ashamed to admit to less knowledge than duh-Mikey.
> About ANYTHING.
>

I would give him credit that he knows that the pogroms
have occurred, but he just might not be familiar with the term.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>> **I don't need one.
>
> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.

**I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for them,
for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I also feel that
they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs. Running the most powerful
nation on Earth, f'rinstance.

>
> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>
> Finally, something honest.

**Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away now. It
is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has a problem and
deal with it.

>
>>>
>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose people
>>> you've never met.
>>
>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>
>>
>> --
> So do you.

**Such as? Be precise in your answer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>>> **I don't need one.
>>
>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>
> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for them,
> for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I also feel that
> they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs. Running the most
> powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>
>>
>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>
>> Finally, something honest.
>
> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away now.
> It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has a problem
> and deal with it.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose people
>>>> you've never met.
>>>
>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> So do you.
>
> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>
>

Being a left wing propagandist.


>

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>
>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>
>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for them,
>> for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I also feel
>> that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs. Running the most
>> powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>
>>>
>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>
>>> Finally, something honest.
>>
>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away now.
>> It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has a problem
>> and deal with it.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose people
>>>>> you've never met.
>>>>
>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> So do you.
>>
>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>
>>
>
> Being a left wing propagandist.

**Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am a
realist.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[paul packer]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:22 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>**Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am a
>realist.

I'd love to be one of those too, Trevor, but I keep finding that my
reality is a little different from the next guy, and his is a little
different from the next guy? Follow what I mean?

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:22 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>>**Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am a
>>realist.
>
> I'd love to be one of those too, Trevor, but I keep finding that my
> reality is a little different from the next guy, and his is a little
> different from the next guy? Follow what I mean?

**I only understand that you appear to know very little about the reality of
US foreign policy and how it operates.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[paul packer]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:21:22 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:22 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>>**Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am a
>>>realist.
>>
>> I'd love to be one of those too, Trevor, but I keep finding that my
>> reality is a little different from the next guy, and his is a little
>> different from the next guy? Follow what I mean?
>
>**I only understand that you appear to know very little about the reality of
>US foreign policy and how it operates.
>

But you didn't address the point of my post, Trevor, which was not
political. You're claiming a monopoly on truth here and getting hot
under the collar about it, and I'm suggesting there is no absolute
truth in these issues so much as many perceptions. In much of this
quagmire, it's impossible even to know the facts let alone the truth.
Bottom line? A little less dogmatism. Maybe even a little less
passion.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:25:56 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> > reality is a little different from the next guy
>
>> **I only understand that you appear to know very little about the reality of
>> US foreign policy and how it operates.
>
>paulie is very certain about what's "right" and "wrong" though. Just like
>Dubya. The simpler it is, the better they like it.

Typical stirring noted.

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:21:22 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:32:22 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>>**Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am
>>>>a
>>>>realist.
>>>
>>> I'd love to be one of those too, Trevor, but I keep finding that my
>>> reality is a little different from the next guy, and his is a little
>>> different from the next guy? Follow what I mean?
>>
>>**I only understand that you appear to know very little about the reality
>>of
>>US foreign policy and how it operates.
>>
>
> But you didn't address the point of my post, Trevor, which was not
> political. You're claiming a monopoly on truth here and getting hot
> under the collar about it, and I'm suggesting there is no absolute
> truth in these issues so much as many perceptions.

**There are some absolute truths in this matter. I have elucidated those
truths. You, OTOH, have misrepresnted my OPINIONS regularly. I am not
discussing opinions. I am discussing facts.

In much of this
> quagmire, it's impossible even to know the facts let alone the truth.
> Bottom line?

**It is not impossible to uncover the facts. To assume otherwise, would be
incredibly facile.

A little less dogmatism. Maybe even a little less
> passion.

**As soon as you acknowledge that the war was an illegal act, performed
amidst extreme hypocrisy, then I will be happy to move on.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:

>But most of what we're discussing is NOT absolute truth. Who was that
>wise man who said, "There is no reality, only perception"?

Good. Now apply this to audio.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> >wise man who said, "There is no reality, only perception"?

>> Good. Now apply this to audio.

>Apparently you don't believe in the sanctity of the blinding rituals. You
>got to have more faith, dude.

Faith is for the weak-hearted. I only believe in myself.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>>
>>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for
>>> them, for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I also
>>> feel that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs. Running the
>>> most powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, something honest.
>>>
>>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away now.
>>> It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has a
>>> problem and deal with it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose people
>>>>>> you've never met.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> So do you.
>>>
>>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Being a left wing propagandist.
>
> **Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am a
> realist.
>
>
You are not a realist, you are a leftist and your agenda is leftist, when
teh facts don't coincide with your beliefs you ignore them. Whent there
aren't any facts you use your opinion and claim that you "know" you are
right.


Fortunately, you don't get to vote here where it's about a 50/50 split on
which idiot gets elected.

Assuming Kerry might be better or more honest, is just NOT supported by the
facts.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>>>
>>>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for
>>>> them, for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I also
>>>> feel that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs. Running the
>>>> most powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, something honest.
>>>>
>>>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away
>>>> now. It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has a
>>>> problem and deal with it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose
>>>>>>> people you've never met.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> So do you.
>>>>
>>>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Being a left wing propagandist.
>>
>> **Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am a
>> realist.
>>
>>
> You are not a realist, you are a leftist and your agenda is leftist, when
> teh facts don't coincide with your beliefs you ignore them. Whent there
> aren't any facts you use your opinion and claim that you "know" you are
> right.

**Really? Care to offer a cite?

>
>
> Fortunately, you don't get to vote here where it's about a 50/50 split on
> which idiot gets elected.
>
> Assuming Kerry might be better or more honest, is just NOT supported by
> the facts.

**Irrelevant. Kerry is not the President of the US. Dubya is. And Dubya has
lied to the US population and the rest of the world. Moreover, he continues
to lie.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[paul packer]

On 18 Oct 2004 21:53:54 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:


>Actually, that is not the case. UN votes represent in many cases, no more nor
>less than the political motivations and agendas of various nations' rulers,
>heads-of-state, etc. Given the large number of these countres, especially in
>the Third World, where the majority of the populace is either illiterate and/or
>disenfranchised, assuming the votes of their NONELECTED (in most cases)
>"presidents-for-life" and/or various dictators are not necessarily
>representative of much at all. At any rate, the UN has long been recognized by
>many as little more than a political soundingboard for some of the most
>repressive and prejudiced countries on this planet. And then, there is the
>little matter of assuming that "majority votes" there should override all other
>considerations - a very dangerous practice.

Totally agree.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:33:21 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(paul packer) said:
>
>>But most of what we're discussing is NOT absolute truth. Who was that
>>wise man who said, "There is no reality, only perception"?
>
>Good. Now apply this to audio.

I can't. I've been so busy discussing politics I've forgotten what
audio is.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:57:39 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

> I only believe in myself.

That sounds good for your future prospects.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for
>>>>> them, for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I also
>>>>> feel that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs. Running
>>>>> the most powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, something honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away
>>>>> now. It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has a
>>>>> problem and deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose
>>>>>>>> people you've never met.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> So do you.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Being a left wing propagandist.
>>>
>>> **Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am
>>> a realist.
>>>
>>>
>> You are not a realist, you are a leftist and your agenda is leftist,
>> when teh facts don't coincide with your beliefs you ignore them. Whent
>> there aren't any facts you use your opinion and claim that you "know" you
>> are right.
>
> **Really? Care to offer a cite?

Gun control, global warming. Both of your arguments on these issues were
not supported by any science, yet you yammered on as if you had proof that
you were right. You even made upyour own statistics at one point.

>>
>>
>> Fortunately, you don't get to vote here where it's about a 50/50 split on
>> which idiot gets elected.
>>
>> Assuming Kerry might be better or more honest, is just NOT supported by
>> the facts.
>
> **Irrelevant. Kerry is not the President of the US. Dubya is. And Dubya
> has lied to the US population and the rest of the world. Moreover, he
> continues to lie.
>
>
>
So does Kerry and he wants to be President. He claims he a better
coalition, which is an obvious lie.

If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to believe
the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies on that
issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world had.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>Oh - here's another one.
>>"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
>>well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
>>vindicator only of her own."
>>John Quincy Adams (1767 - 1848)
>
>
> Where do you think Adams would lay the blame for our obscene dependence on
> petroleum?

That's a whole other can of worms :)

In reality, the American people would gladly use a cleaner and
safer alternative if it was available. We moved from coal and
oil already a century ago, so a move to something better isn't
really so unreasonable.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Michael McKelvy wrote:


> The ends do not justify
>
>>the means.
>>
>
> History will prove you wrong. That's probably not new for you.

Mikey out-"DUH"'d himself on this one. New record for idiocy.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to believe
> the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies on that
> issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world had.

One small question:
What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?

Lol.

[Joseph Oberlander]

paul packer wrote:

> John Adams never witnessed a 9/11. Notice also that it says
> "well-wisher to freedom", not well-wisher to tyranny and torture.

The atricities witnessed upon them by the British soldiers
were just as bad, given the size of the population. Many
of them had lived through it and still remembered it.

> Only if you stay around to make certain things go your way. If you
> bugger off after a while and leave them to it it's no longer
> Imperialism.

LAst I heard, there was no exit strategy, no date to leave,
and the generals themselves are thinging 5-10 YEARS to finally
extricate ourselves from this mess.

Oh - feel safe in the knowledge that we are completely
over-extended. North Korea could invade South Korea and we'd
have no troops to stop them. Same with Iran.

In a way, it almost makes you wonder if Sadam wasn't aiming
for this in the first place. We now for the first time in
a century lack the might to back up our threats or even
respond to another major conflict. Way to make us safer, George.

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
>> had.
>
> One small question:
> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>

the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.

[jak163]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:27:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
>>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
>>> had.
>>
>> One small question:
>> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>>
>
>the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.

Not the same thing as I was saying, or as many opponents of the
invasion were saying. I was never persuaded of the existence of WMD
because I didn't see any proof, only inference.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>
>>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>>believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
>>>on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
>>>had.
>>
>>One small question:
>>What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>>
>
>
> the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.

Heh - but what was Michael saying ? :)

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>>>Oh - here's another one.
>>>>"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the
>>>>well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and
>>>>vindicator only of her own."
>>>>John Quincy Adams (1767 - 1848)
>
>
>>>Where do you think Adams would lay the blame for our obscene dependence on
>>>petroleum?
>
>
>>That's a whole other can of worms :)
>
>
> Actually, it's exactly the same can. Or at least the biggest, stinkiest
> worm in the can.
>
>
>>In reality, the American people would gladly use a cleaner and
>>safer alternative if it was available.
>
>
> And why do you think we're still using petroleum? It's not because "the
> people" choose it.

Unfortunately, this is true. We would always go for a cleaner
alternative if it is affordable. For instance, electricity versus
gas for lighting. But this time, lots of people are getting
very wealthy off of oil. Just like IT techs who hold onto Windows
in order to protect their jobs instead of moving towards UNIX,
there's a lot of self-serving recidivism in the industry.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>>History will prove you wrong. That's probably not new for you.
>
>
>>Mikey out-"DUH"'d himself on this one. New record for idiocy.
>
>
> You can't decide that by decree. We'll have to take a vote.

Humm.. I'll give you this one. Heh.

Still, claiming that "history will prove you wrong" in response
to the ideal of "might makes right" being wrong is really
quite a large foot in Mikey's mouth.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for
>>>>>> them, for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I
>>>>>> also feel that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs.
>>>>>> Running the most powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, something honest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away
>>>>>> now. It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has
>>>>>> a problem and deal with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose
>>>>>>>>> people you've never met.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> So do you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a left wing propagandist.
>>>>
>>>> **Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am
>>>> a realist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are not a realist, you are a leftist and your agenda is leftist,
>>> when teh facts don't coincide with your beliefs you ignore them. Whent
>>> there aren't any facts you use your opinion and claim that you "know"
>>> you are right.
>>
>> **Really? Care to offer a cite?
>
> Gun control, global warming. Both of your arguments on these issues were
> not supported by any science, yet you yammered on as if you had proof that
> you were right. You even made upyour own statistics at one point.

**Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show that
it is occuring. Australian gun control laws have been shown to work quite
well. In the 1920s, handguns were subject to very strict controls, here in
Australia. The homicide rate from bullets plumetted by around 60%. Those gun
control laws remained in place. That rate has stayed low ever since. In
1997, Australia enacted a range of new gun control laws, in response to the
1996 Port Arthur massacre (and other massacres). Since those laws were
enacted, there has not been ONE SINGLE massacre involving guns. Not one.
Before the gun laws were enacted, there were approximately 3 massacrs
invloving guns, each and every year.

If you can provide evidence to show that I am incorrect in either of these
points, please present your evidence.


>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately, you don't get to vote here where it's about a 50/50 split
>>> on which idiot gets elected.
>>>
>>> Assuming Kerry might be better or more honest, is just NOT supported by
>>> the facts.
>>
>> **Irrelevant. Kerry is not the President of the US. Dubya is. And Dubya
>> has lied to the US population and the rest of the world. Moreover, he
>> continues to lie.
>>
>>
>>
> So does Kerry and he wants to be President. He claims he a better
> coalition, which is an obvious lie.


**NOt so. Kerry has never been President. He may well be so. You cannot
prove otherwise.

>
> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
> had.

**Bush provided the intel. Have all the people and agencies which provided
the faulty intel been fired/disbanded? If not, why not?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael McKelvy]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> Joseph Oberlander said:
>>
>>
>>>>History will prove you wrong. That's probably not new for you.
>>
>>
>>>Mikey out-"DUH"'d himself on this one. New record for idiocy.
>>
>>
>> You can't decide that by decree. We'll have to take a vote.
>
> Humm.. I'll give you this one. Heh.
>
> Still, claiming that "history will prove you wrong" in response
> to the ideal of "might makes right" being wrong is really
> quite a large foot in Mikey's mouth.
>
If you have a tyrant in charge, you're not likely to get rid of him by any
other means than might.

It was our might that ended 2 world wars. It was right.

[jak163]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:45:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to believe
>the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies on that
>issue.

Which investigations were those? The investigation of the prewar
intelligence, at the insistence of its Republican members, decided not
to consider administration representations of the intelligence. That
was left for a post-election inquiry which is still slated to be held.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
>> had.
>
> One small question:
> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>
That they would be found.

They may yet be. Until a believable explanation is given on why everybody
in the world had the same intel on this issue, I remain unconvinced that
they were not hidden or smuggled out.

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:27:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of
>>>> lies
>>>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the
>>>> world
>>>> had.
>>>
>>> One small question:
>>> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>>>
>>
>>the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.
>
> Not the same thing as I was saying, or as many opponents of the
> invasion were saying. I was never persuaded of the existence of WMD
> because I didn't see any proof, only inference.

That's how Intelligence gathering sometimes works. Odd how every government
seemed to have the same idea on the subject.

You seem fully capable of relying on inference when it suits your purpose,
as in the report about disenfranchised voters in Florida.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Trevor Wilson wrote:


>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for
>>>>>>> them, for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I
>>>>>>> also feel that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs.
>>>>>>> Running the most powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, something honest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away
>>>>>>> now. It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has
>>>>>>> a problem and deal with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose
>>>>>>>>>> people you've never met.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> So do you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being a left wing propagandist.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I am
>>>>> a realist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You are not a realist, you are a leftist and your agenda is leftist,
>>>> when teh facts don't coincide with your beliefs you ignore them. Whent
>>>> there aren't any facts you use your opinion and claim that you "know"
>>>> you are right.
>>>
>>> **Really? Care to offer a cite?
>>
>> Gun control, global warming. Both of your arguments on these issues were
>> not supported by any science, yet you yammered on as if you had proof that
>> you were right. You even made upyour own statistics at one point.
>
>**Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show that
>it is occuring. Australian gun control laws have been shown to work quite
>well. In the 1920s, handguns were subject to very strict controls, here in
>Australia. The homicide rate from bullets plumetted by around 60%. Those gun
>control laws remained in place. That rate has stayed low ever since. In
>1997, Australia enacted a range of new gun control laws, in response to the
>1996 Port Arthur massacre (and other massacres). Since those laws were
>enacted, there has not been ONE SINGLE massacre involving guns. Not one.
>Before the gun laws were enacted, there were approximately 3 massacrs
>invloving guns, each and every year.
>
>If you can provide evidence to show that I am incorrect in either of these
>points, please present your evidence.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, you don't get to vote here where it's about a 50/50 split
>>>> on which idiot gets elected.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming Kerry might be better or more honest, is just NOT supported by
>>>> the facts.
>>>
>>> **Irrelevant. Kerry is not the President of the US. Dubya is. And Dubya
>>> has lied to the US population and the rest of the world. Moreover, he
>>> continues to lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> So does Kerry and he wants to be President. He claims he a better
>> coalition, which is an obvious lie.
>
>
>**NOt so. Kerry has never been President. He may well be so. You cannot
>prove otherwise.
>
>>

You mean you don't believe the unsupported statements above that Kerry lies.
You mean you don't believe fortune-telling and/or mind-reading claims that
Kerry could not lead a better coalitioin? Why not? LOL !!!!! :) :)






>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
>> had.
>
>**Bush provided the intel. Have all the people and agencies which provided
>the faulty intel been fired/disbanded? If not, why not?
>
>
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> k.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **I don't need one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not, what you lack in Knowledge, you make for with hate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **I don't hate drunks, drug addicts and ex-drunks. I feel sorry for
>>>>>>> them, for being stupid enough in the first place to get hooked. I
>>>>>>> also feel that they should not be alloed to accept certain jobs.
>>>>>>> Running the most powerful nation on Earth, f'rinstance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've lived with drunks and ex-drunks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, something honest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Never denied it. Nor will I ever do it again, either. I walk away
>>>>>>> now. It is up to the drug addict, or drunk to figure out that he has
>>>>>>> a problem and deal with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Must not be very reputable if you claim to be able to diagnose
>>>>>>>>>> people you've never met.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Like I said: He shows all the classic symptoms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> So do you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Such as? Be precise in your answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being a left wing propagandist.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Bush is not a left wing propagandist. Nor am I, for that matter. I
>>>>> am a realist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You are not a realist, you are a leftist and your agenda is leftist,
>>>> when teh facts don't coincide with your beliefs you ignore them. Whent
>>>> there aren't any facts you use your opinion and claim that you "know"
>>>> you are right.
>>>
>>> **Really? Care to offer a cite?
>>
>> Gun control, global warming. Both of your arguments on these issues were
>> not supported by any science, yet you yammered on as if you had proof
>> that you were right. You even made upyour own statistics at one point.
>
> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact.

That must be why there is no controversy over it.

Abundant evidence exists to show that
> it is occuring.

A one degree rise in temprature at the South Pole 60 years ago is hardly
proof of anything.

Australian gun control laws have been shown to work quite
> well. In the 1920s, handguns were subject to very strict controls, here in
> Australia. The homicide rate from bullets plumetted by around 60%.

But the overall homiced rate has not.

Those gun
> control laws remained in place. That rate has stayed low ever since. In
> 1997, Australia enacted a range of new gun control laws, in response to
> the 1996 Port Arthur massacre (and other massacres). Since those laws were
> enacted, there has not been ONE SINGLE massacre involving guns.
Not one.
> Before the gun laws were enacted, there were approximately 3 massacrs
> invloving guns, each and every year.

How are the massacre's done now?

>
> If you can provide evidence to show that I am incorrect in either of these
> points, please present your evidence.
>
Your points are irelevant.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, you don't get to vote here where it's about a 50/50 split
>>>> on which idiot gets elected.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming Kerry might be better or more honest, is just NOT supported by
>>>> the facts.
>>>
>>> **Irrelevant. Kerry is not the President of the US. Dubya is. And Dubya
>>> has lied to the US population and the rest of the world. Moreover, he
>>> continues to lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> So does Kerry and he wants to be President. He claims he can orgainize a
>> better coalition, which is an obvious lie.
>
>
> **NOt so. Kerry has never been President. He may well be so. You cannot
> prove otherwise.
>
Who could he get to improve on who we have now? Not the French and not the
Germans, nor the Russians. He's full of ****.

>>
>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies
>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the world
>> had.
>
> **Bush provided the intel.

Utter nonsense.

Have all the people and agencies which provided
> the faulty intel been fired/disbanded? If not, why not?

Because of the nature of intelligence gathering.
There's also the possiblity that at the time, teh reports were accurate.

>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:45:43 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>believe
>>the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of lies on that
>>issue.
>
> Which investigations were those? The investigation of the prewar
> intelligence, at the insistence of its Republican members, decided not
> to consider administration representations of the intelligence. That
> was left for a post-election inquiry which is still slated to be held.

The 9/11 Commission, The Senate Investigation, Lord Butler's investigation.

Remember, you don't have the expertise to second guess them.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

> It's certainly worthy of nomination, but when some time has passed, you'll
> see that it's just one of hundreds of stupefyingly moronic claims from the
> duhster. My own nomination would be the one where he chastised Krooger for
> not "leading by example". But there are so many to choose from.

Well, that's our Mikey! :) Just when you think he can't out-do
himself, he manages to come up with an even better example.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Roger McDodger wrote:

> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>
>>>**Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact.
>>
>>That must be why there is no controversy over it.
>
>
> Courtesy of the BBC:
>
> Climate change poses a bigger threat to the planet than terrorism - so
> says the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King.
>
> The World Health Organisation's Europe Global Change and Health
> Programme has estimated that more than 25,000 people died in last
> year's European heat wave.

It should be noted that this "heat wave" was normal weather for most
of the southwestern U.S., Central America, and so on. What did all
those people in was the sad fact that the countries were unprepared
to handle it(IIRC, the vast majority of the deaths were in France
among the elderly, who had no air conditioning or proper medical
facilities/support.)

I doubt they will have a repeat of the same thing now that they
know how to react to higher temperatures.

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

>
>
> Roger McDodger wrote:
>
>> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>>
>>
>>>>**Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact.
>>>
>>>That must be why there is no controversy over it.
>>
>>
>> Courtesy of the BBC:
>>
>> Climate change poses a bigger threat to the planet than terrorism - so
>> says the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King.
>>
>> The World Health Organisation's Europe Global Change and Health
>> Programme has estimated that more than 25,000 people died in last
>> year's European heat wave.
>
> It should be noted that this "heat wave" was normal weather for most
> of the southwestern U.S., Central America, and so on. What did all
> those people in was the sad fact that the countries were unprepared
> to handle it(IIRC, the vast majority of the deaths were in France
> among the elderly, who had no air conditioning or proper medical
> facilities/support.)
>
> I doubt they will have a repeat of the same thing now that they
> know how to react to higher temperatures.

I hope so, Joe but this doesn't bring any answers to the main problem.

Moreover even if in France we have the financial and material possibility to
protect our population this will not be the case for most of third world
countries.
We remain in a logic of occidental egocentrism... Watch our scary-môron,
ScottW, how he is afraid that the Mexican immigrants steal him HIS
Social*Security. Do you think he is ready to share HIS air conditionned ?

And this is the *minimum* to do... :-(

[Bruce J. Richman]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


>George M. Middius wrote:
>
>> It's certainly worthy of nomination, but when some time has passed, you'll
>> see that it's just one of hundreds of stupefyingly moronic claims from the
>> duhster. My own nomination would be the one where he chastised Krooger for
>> not "leading by example". But there are so many to choose from.
>
>Well, that's our Mikey! :) Just when you think he can't out-do
>himself, he manages to come up with an even better example.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I want to compliment you on creating a new verb that is very appropriate for
DM. He "out-Duh'd" himself. This one should definitely be part of the RAO
vocabulary.


Bruce J. Richman

[jak163]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:08:41 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:27:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>>>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of
>>>>> lies
>>>>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the
>>>>> world
>>>>> had.
>>>>
>>>> One small question:
>>>> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>>>>
>>>
>>>the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.
>>
>> Not the same thing as I was saying, or as many opponents of the
>> invasion were saying. I was never persuaded of the existence of WMD
>> because I didn't see any proof, only inference.
>
>That's how Intelligence gathering sometimes works. Odd how every government
>seemed to have the same idea on the subject.

It's not how it worked during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>>
> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
> that it is occuring.

Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
I am not surprised.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
>> that it is occuring.
>
> Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
> I am not surprised.

**The warming that his planet is presently experiencing, is occurring faster
than at any time. Ever.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael McKelvy]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact.
>>
>>That must be why there is no controversy over it.
>
> Courtesy of the BBC:
>
> Climate change poses a bigger threat to the planet than terrorism - so
> says the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King.
>
> The World Health Organisation's Europe Global Change and Health
> Programme has estimated that more than 25,000 people died in last
> year's European heat wave.
>
> British Prime Minister Tony Blair says addressing climate change is
> his key priority during the UK's chairing of the G8.
>
> The Pentagon says climate change should be "elevated beyond a
> scientific debate to a national security concern."
>
>
> There's no controversy about global warming. It's happening. What is
> controversial is the US administrations refusal to take the issue
> seriously.
>
>
>
The majority of the scientific community that's actually qualified to
dsicuss the subject disagrees with you. and the BBC.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
>> that it is occuring.
>
> Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
> I am not surprised.
The point is that Man Made global warming is a myth.

One volcano eruption spews more CO2 than everything man has done since the
dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
>>> that it is occuring.
>>
>> Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
>> I am not surprised.
>
> **The warming that his planet is presently experiencing, is occurring
> faster than at any time. Ever.
>
>
According to the air temp. measurements the atmosphere is cooling.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
>>>> that it is occuring.
>>>
>>> Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
>>> I am not surprised.
>>
>> **The warming that his planet is presently experiencing, is occurring
>> faster than at any time. Ever.
>>
>>
> According to the air temp. measurements the atmosphere is cooling.

**The oceans and land temps are showing warming. The melting of the Polar
caps shows that there is significant warming in those regions.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[ScottW]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> **The oceans and land temps are showing warming. The melting of the Polar
> caps shows that there is significant warming in those regions.

I think nature has decided we are too numerous and is about to make a
correction. It will be a rough millenium for the human race.

ScottW

[Trevor Wilson]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
>>> that it is occuring.
>>
>> Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
>> I am not surprised.
> The point is that Man Made global warming is a myth.
>
> One volcano eruption spews more CO2 than everything man has done since the
> dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

**Is that so? Do you have some evidence (from a reputable source) for that?

BTW: Are you speaking about ONE SPECIFIC volcano and ONE SPECIFIC eruption?
Or are you talking about all of them? You need to be a lot more specific.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:08:41 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:27:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>>>>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of
>>>>>> lies
>>>>>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> had.
>>>>>
>>>>> One small question:
>>>>> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.
>>>
>>> Not the same thing as I was saying, or as many opponents of the
>>> invasion were saying. I was never persuaded of the existence of WMD
>>> because I didn't see any proof, only inference.
>>
>>That's how Intelligence gathering sometimes works. Odd how every
>>government
>>seemed to have the same idea on the subject.
>
> It's not how it worked during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:08:41 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:27:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If your still on about the WMD thing, then you're simply refusing to
>>>>>> believe the fact that 3 separate investigations have cleared Bush of
>>>>>> lies
>>>>>> on that issue. He simply went with the same intel the rest of the
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> had.
>>>>>
>>>>> One small question:
>>>>> What were you saying about WMDs two years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the same thing John Kerry and John Edwards were saying.
>>>
>>> Not the same thing as I was saying, or as many opponents of the
>>> invasion were saying. I was never persuaded of the existence of WMD
>>> because I didn't see any proof, only inference.
>>
>>That's how Intelligence gathering sometimes works. Odd how every
>>government
>>seemed to have the same idea on the subject.
>
> It's not how it worked during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You may have noticed how the Democrats have had a hand in weakening the US
ability to gather intelligence since then.

Then there's the difference in distance, language.

The point is still that there was agreement around the world that Saddam had
WMD.

There was also his involvement with terrorists like Hamas.
Nobody should be upset that he is out of power.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:07:19 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> So you're going to refuse to celebrate the freeing of 23 million people
>
>Really, paulie, that's hardly the whole picture, is it? Some are free, some
>are dead, and more will die. Plus the thousands who receive terrible
>injuries.

And who is killing and injuring most of them? Is the US military
setting off bombs outside police recruiting stations? I'm not
absolving the US of all blame--some of the military decisions have
been appalling, and I've already said enough about US insensitivity to
cultural and religious issues. But the motivating force for the daily
tragedies over there is the activities of Saddam loyalists and foreign
(albeit Arab) extremists.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:14:11 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> So you're going to refuse to celebrate the freeing of 23 million people
>> >
>> >Really, paulie, that's hardly the whole picture, is it? Some are free, some
>> >are dead, and more will die. Plus the thousands who receive terrible
>> >injuries.
>>
>> And who is killing and injuring most of them?
>
>Thank you for making a more fair and balanced statement, even if you did so
>unwillingly and only after being upbraided by a lowly corporal.

Upbraided? I must have been lashed with a feather.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> **Nonsense. Global Warming is a fact. Abundant evidence exists to show
>>>> that it is occuring.
>>>
>>> Being that we are still in the process of coming out of an ice age,
>>> I am not surprised.
>> The point is that Man Made global warming is a myth.
>>
>> One volcano eruption spews more CO2 than everything man has done since
>> the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
>
> **Is that so? Do you have some evidence (from a reputable source) for
> that?
>
> BTW: Are you speaking about ONE SPECIFIC volcano and ONE SPECIFIC
> eruption? Or are you talking about all of them? You need to be a lot more
> specific.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
I was thinking of Mt. Pinatubo(sp?).

[Michael McKelvy]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:07:19 -0400, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>paul packer said:
>>
>>> So you're going to refuse to celebrate the freeing of 23 million people
>>
>>Really, paulie, that's hardly the whole picture, is it? Some are free,
>>some
>>are dead, and more will die. Plus the thousands who receive terrible
>>injuries.
>
> And who is killing and injuring most of them? Is the US military
> setting off bombs outside police recruiting stations? I'm not
> absolving the US of all blame--some of the military decisions have
> been appalling, and I've already said enough about US insensitivity to
> cultural and religious issues. But the motivating force for the daily
> tragedies over there is the activities of Saddam loyalists and foreign
> (albeit Arab) extremists.

Presently the motivating force is the terrorists trying to get Bush out of
office. They figure a Democrat administration will give up and leave them
to **** things up again.

[jak163]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:03:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>The Saudi government didn't attack us on 9/11. Some people from Saudi
>Arabia did, but they were NOT acting on behalf of their government or any
>other.

But I thought you were in favor of the Bush doctrine (really the
Schultz doctrine) of drawing no connection between terrorists and the
countries that harbor them. People financing terrorists are
terrorists.

Wasn't there also involvement in Pakistan and Egypt? Pakistan is an
ally despite supporting terrorism, developing nuclear weapons, and
selling nuclear weapons technology to various rogue states including
Libya.

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:03:14 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>The Saudi government didn't attack us on 9/11. Some people from Saudi
>>Arabia did, but they were NOT acting on behalf of their government or any
>>other.
>
> But I thought you were in favor of the Bush doctrine (really the
> Schultz doctrine) of drawing no connection between terrorists and the
> countries that harbor them. People financing terrorists are
> terrorists.

IIRC the doctrine is about countries that harborcterrorists. I think SA is
actively if not agressively trying to rid itself of terrorists, now that it
sees them as a problem for their own safety. In any case, I beleive the
Royal family is on its last legs. They are becoming less of a threat rather
tan more and the administration probably sees them as more helpful than
harmful right now. Of course if you believe it's only about oil, you must
be confused about why we aren't attacking them. Of course you could be
wrong.

>
> Wasn't there also involvement in Pakistan and Egypt? Pakistan is an
> ally despite supporting terrorism, developing nuclear weapons, and
> selling nuclear weapons technology to various rogue states including
> Libya.

Libya is out of the picture and Pakistan is helping.

You think we should attack everybody at once? Who are you to be second
guessing?

[jak163]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:01:27 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>My feeling regarding any more miltary action is simply that if there is good
>reason to invade somebody we should. Not because I enjoy the idea of war.
>but becasue sometimes it is the only way to secure peace.

Thomas Hobbes said that in the state of nature men seek peace.
Because they are unable to guarantee this for themselves the result is
a war of all against all, "and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short."

This is a very bad standard for military action because if it is
applied universally it will lead to competing alliances and war.
Collective security is a much better standard and is the product of
two world wars and an effort to avert a third.

[Clyde Slick]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...

>
> This is a very bad standard for military action because if it is
> applied universally it will lead to competing alliances and war.
> Collective security is a much better standard and is the product of
> two world wars and an effort to avert a third.

It stinks. We can't rely on the unwilling. It is a death warrant

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:01:27 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>My feeling regarding any more miltary action is simply that if there is
>>good
>>reason to invade somebody we should. Not because I enjoy the idea of war.
>>but becasue sometimes it is the only way to secure peace.
>
> Thomas Hobbes said that in the state of nature men seek peace.
> Because they are unable to guarantee this for themselves the result is
> a war of all against all, "and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
> brutish and short."
>
> This is a very bad standard for military action because if it is
> applied universally it will lead to competing alliances and war.
> Collective security is a much better standard and is the product of
> two world wars and an effort to avert a third.

The best way to insure security is to have a military that is strong enough
to defeat any enemy, and hope you never have to use it.

If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

>
> I like a safer world. The world is safer with Saddam gone.

Just when you think he's gone as far off his rocker as is
humanly possible...

Time to wake up, Mikey. The world is far from a safer place.
Sadam we could contain and watch and on his end, he was
the most authoritarian leader in the area. He funded a
little bit of the groups in Palestine, like all the arab
nations dom but beyond that, hehad a vested interest in
having NO terrorists or rogue factions in his country, lest
they become a possible threat to him.

Now, we have total anarchy and at best we get another puppet
dictator in power who turns on us in 20-30 years. We keep
foolishly repeating the same mistakes thinking it will somehow
turn out different this one time. And every time we get bitten
by them, they bite harder and with worse wweapons.

Eventually there will either come a day when the damage is
too extensive and we are faced to realize our own folly in
trying to shape the world in our image, or we learn to
let everyone develop on their own and work with us as equals.

There are only two possible outcomes for the path that
our leaders have chosen, and the former seems far more
likely than the latter right now.

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Time to wake up, Mikey.

Joe is an incorrigible optimist.

[normanstrong]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke
at a
> major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?

This is strictly a hypothetical situation. That situation could not
possibly exist in the real world. There is no way of knowing what
someone is "going" to do. The best we can come up with is a situation
where an unfriendly nation has nuclear weapons pointed at our cities,
ready to fire. Since this is the situation right this minute, and has
been for decades, what do you suggest we do?

Norm Strong

[Michael McKelvy]

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
news:cS9fd.245697$wV.70093@attbi_s54...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>> If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke
> at a
>> major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>
> This is strictly a hypothetical situation. That situation could not
> possibly exist in the real world. There is no way of knowing what
> someone is "going" to do.

I don't know if it's possible or not, there are some who insist that nothing
is impossible.

The best we can come up with is a situation
> where an unfriendly nation has nuclear weapons pointed at our cities,
> ready to fire. Since this is the situation right this minute, and has
> been for decades, what do you suggest we do?
>
>
>
What we've been doing seems to be working, make sure they know they could
not recover from such actions.

Why take a chance on what Saddam might do, he did after all declare war on
us.

[jak163]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?

Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
War under certain circumstances?

[Lionel]

jak163 wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>
>
> Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
> War under certain circumstances?

McKelvy hadn't any scruple to participate to the assassination of
2,000,000 vietnamese in the last US colonial war.

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>
> Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
> War under certain circumstances?

It would have been mutually assured destruction. I was in favor of building
as many missiles as possible to keep them trying to keep up. I knew in the
end they would go bankrupt, trying to keep up militarily, was a surefire
road to the end of the USSR. I never understood the disarmament people.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "jak163" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>>
>>Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
>>War under certain circumstances?
>
>
> It would have been mutually assured destruction. I was in favor of building
> as many missiles as possible to keep them trying to keep up. I knew in the
> end they would go bankrupt, trying to keep up militarily, was a surefire
> road to the end of the USSR. I never understood the disarmament people.

McKelvy tell us that he "knew". LOL !
Nobody never took the risk to make such speculations, no analysts,
economist or historian wrote that during the 60s and 70s. But Michael
McKelvy *KNEW*, he was confident because he *KNEW* !


Watching in your crystal bowl, can you make predictions for the 20 years
to come Mickael ?

[jak163]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:28:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>>
>> Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
>> War under certain circumstances?
>
>It would have been mutually assured destruction. I was in favor of building
>as many missiles as possible to keep them trying to keep up. I knew in the
>end they would go bankrupt, trying to keep up militarily, was a surefire
>road to the end of the USSR. I never understood the disarmament people.

Is that a no?

[Clyde Slick]

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
news:cS9fd.245697$wV.70093@attbi_s54...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>> If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke
> at a
>> major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>
> This is strictly a hypothetical situation. That situation could not
> possibly exist in the real world. There is no way of knowing what
> someone is "going" to do. The best we can come up with is a situation
> where an unfriendly nation has nuclear weapons pointed at our cities,
> ready to fire. Since this is the situation right this minute, and has
> been for decades, what do you suggest we do?
>

If they don't have a massive retaliatory capability,
(such as the USSR) we should wipe their first
strike capability out first..

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
!
> >
> Watching in your crystal bowl, can you make predictions for the 20 years
> to come Mickael ?

Lionel assumes that all fat cat Americans eat out of crystal balls
and see the future in crystal bowls.

[Michael McKelvy]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:28:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>>>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>>>
>>> Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
>>> War under certain circumstances?
>>
>>It would have been mutually assured destruction. I was in favor of
>>building
>>as many missiles as possible to keep them trying to keep up. I knew in
>>the
>>end they would go bankrupt, trying to keep up militarily, was a surefire
>>road to the end of the USSR. I never understood the disarmament people.
>
> Is that a no?

Maybe. I can't conceive of winning a war with the USSR where both sides
were using nukes.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "jak163" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at a
>>>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>>>
>>>Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
>>>War under certain circumstances?
>>
>>
>> It would have been mutually assured destruction. I was in favor of
>> building as many missiles as possible to keep them trying to keep up. I
>> knew in the end they would go bankrupt, trying to keep up militarily, was
>> a surefire road to the end of the USSR. I never understood the
>> disarmament people.
>
> McKelvy tell us that he "knew". LOL !

Not all that difficult to figure out when you see pictures of people lining
up for bread or whatever goods were in limited supply.

> Nobody never took the risk to make such speculations, no analysts,
> economist or historian wrote that during the 60s and 70s. But Michael
> McKelvy *KNEW*, he was confident because he *KNEW* !
>
I think lots of them knew, that's why we kept outspending them.
>
> Watching in your crystal bowl, can you make predictions for the 20 years
> to come Mickael ?

I can understand that you ****ed up crystal ball with crystal bowl, but you
got my name wrong too.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "jak163" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:28:26 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"jak163" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:00:52 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If we have reliable evidence that someone is going to launch a nuke at
>>>>>a
>>>>>major city, should we wait or act pre-emptively?
>>>>
>>>> Were you in favor of a first strike against the USSR during the Cold
>>>> War under certain circumstances?
>>>
>>>It would have been mutually assured destruction. I was in favor of
>>>building
>>>as many missiles as possible to keep them trying to keep up. I knew in
>>>the
>>>end they would go bankrupt, trying to keep up militarily, was a surefire
>>>road to the end of the USSR. I never understood the disarmament people.
>>
>> Is that a no?
>
> Maybe. I can't conceive of winning a war with the USSR where both sides
> were using nukes.

That is NOT what he said. he said build them, lots of them,
and bankrupt the USSR as they try to keep up.