"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:30:33 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"jak163" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:20:29 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The problem is , that there isn't any good PR coming from the
non-radical
Muslims to counter the vision of the crazed RPG carrying nutjobs
following
OBL or Zarkawi. They are either far to silent or not being given a
platform.
I tend to think it's the former, since I think the media would love to
hear
from them.

Actually it's the militant stuff that's the exception.

I believe that's probably the case, but they have still been far to silent
in not condemning the extreme elements, most notably after 9/11. We were
presented with scenes of Palestinians dancing in the streets but no mass
protests of peace loving Muslims condemning the attacks.

I think that's more revealing of the bias of the Western press than an
accurate reflection of sentiment among Muslims.

Given the number of Muslims in the world, if they decided en masse to
demonstrate against the extremists, I don't think there's anyway it could be
kept out of the press. I'm pretty sure FOX News would carry it.

The point is they are not. You can argue that either they don't want to
become targets for the terrorists or they sympathize with them. You can't
argue that they have made much of a comment on not being in support of them.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"jak163" wrote in message
...


I believe that's probably the case, but they have still been far to
silent
in not condemning the extreme elements, most notably after 9/11. We were
presented with scenes of Palestinians dancing in the streets but no mass
protests of peace loving Muslims condemning the attacks.

I think that's more revealing of the bias of the Western press than an
accurate reflection of sentiment among Muslims.


Bias of the Western press? It can't be true.
Why sure, just look at the fair shake they give the GOP, especially those
guys over at CBS and the New York Times.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Lionel said:

IMO, state and religion should be separated at all times.

This is why I am proud that the French *public* school takes a lot of
care and insists on this separation.
But I remember that it wasn't exactly your POV recently.

My POV is clear: state and religion should be separated.
People should be allowed to have freedom of religion.
Two different things.


But they can come into conflict.

Should they have the right to follow their religious dictates
regarding dress, when attending public schools?
Should they have the right to express their religious identity,
by wearing religioius jewelry and/or symbols when attending
public schools?

Is that taking separation of church and state too far?

I think it is. And I believe in the basic principle of
separation of church and state.

Get rid of public schools, end of problem.

We all can't become as dumb as you are, even without the benefit
of public education. It just can't happen. But maybe mass
lobotomization might help us.

How do they do public education in Britain?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:30:08 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Get rid of public schools, end of problem.

Did you go to public school?

Sure, I had no choice. The public schools were better then in some
respects, in others just as bad as today.
Did it ever cross your mind that if there were no
public schools, you wouldn't have a choice either?
People who want education get education.

Religious institutions provide it, libraries, private educational
institutions run for profit, groups of people who join together and pool
their money in order to provide education for their own kids.

If it has to funded by tax money for your peace of mind, then let it be done
by a voucher system.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Lionel said:

IMO, state and religion should be separated at all times.

This is why I am proud that the French *public* school takes a lot of
care and insists on this separation.
But I remember that it wasn't exactly your POV recently.

My POV is clear: state and religion should be separated.
People should be allowed to have freedom of religion.
Two different things.


But they can come into conflict.

Should they have the right to follow their religious dictates
regarding dress, when attending public schools?
Should they have the right to express their religious identity,
by wearing religioius jewelry and/or symbols when attending
public schools?

Is that taking separation of church and state too far?

I think it is. And I believe in the basic principle of
separation of church and state.

Get rid of public schools, end of problem.


Let's get rid of this damned annoying industrial/technical economy,
while we're at it. Let's go back to plowing 40 acres, and not even
doing a good job of that.

Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't really thought about the fact that
education can be had without government sticking it paws into it.

Was there no industry before public education?

Do you not think industry would educate people if it had a need that wasn't
being met some other way.

Where do you think so many idiot liberals get their indoctrination?

Why do you suppose college campi are no longer places to exchange ideas, but
have turned into factories turning out mostly liberals?

Do you think tenure is a conservative idea?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...


George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


Note that he's at least 40 IQ points less intelligent than the
other members of his family.


How do you know that?

His utter lack of being able to follow complex
logic and his speech impediment are classic signs
of using drugs for too long.


I meant how do you know what his IQ is.

Bush is not half as bright as his father. That's
a pretty easy claim to make.


There is nothing inherently difficult about lying.
Then why does Kerry do it so badly?

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:


Clyde Slick said:

Bush is not half as bright as his father. That's
a pretty easy claim to make.

There is nothing inherently difficult about lying.

That reinforces the point that Dubya's a dummy.

BTW, how is Mikey coming on his private electricity generation system?



Could that include personal testing of an electric chair?



Your seat is waiting Dr. Quackenbush. I'll bet I could even get Lionel to
throw the switch.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Bush is not half as bright as his father. That's
a pretty easy claim to make.

There is nothing inherently difficult about lying.

That reinforces the point that Dubya's a dummy.

BTW, how is Mikey coming on his private electricity generation system?


Not good.
He can't buy the right of way to build a road to it.
Tunnel vision is so unbecoming.

duh-Mikey McStupid wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:


Clyde Slick said:

Bush is not half as bright as his father. That's
a pretty easy claim to make.

There is nothing inherently difficult about lying.

That reinforces the point that Dubya's a dummy.

BTW, how is Mikey coming on his private electricity generation system?



Could that include personal testing of an electric chair?



Your seat is waiting Dr. Quackenbush. I'll bet I could even get Lionel to
throw the switch.




We can always depend on duh-Mikey to demonstrate his stupidity. You and Lionel
are 2 of a kind, ****head.

Having fun hating everybody? LOL !!!!

I'm not surprised you admire that antisemitic Hamas lover. The 2 of you have a
lot in common. Idiocy and bigotry for starters.

Now, you can go back to hating liberals, Democrats, and in general, ranting and
raving about all the evils your deluded mind can invent.



Bruce J. Richman

Michael McKelvy wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Bush is not half as bright as his father. That's
a pretty easy claim to make.

There is nothing inherently difficult about lying.

That reinforces the point that Dubya's a dummy.

BTW, how is Mikey coming on his private electricity generation system?


Not good.
He can't buy the right of way to build a road to it.
Tunnel vision is so unbecoming.



You've been demonstrating it for years, McStupid.





Bruce J. Richman

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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

It was a heartening story last weekend, about the huge generator being
installed, piece by gigantic piece, in Baghdad. When it comes on stream in
a few months, there will supposedly be more than enough energy to power
all the new gadgets that liberated Baghdadis have been plugging in.

No, it wasn't a heartening story, either. Where was this generator when it
was needed, about 18 months ago? Who was supposed to be in charge of
seeing to that then, and why has he or she not been summarily fired?

**Is this clown serious? First, the US bombs the crap out of the Iraqi power
system. Then this idiot claims that the Iraqis will have their power back,
after *only* 18 months, thanks to the magnificent generosity of the US
government. The same government which destroyed the power station in the
first place.

Hitchens is a bit clueless.

OTOH - he has a point that all this should have been considered *before* bombing
the crap out of Iraq.

The telecoms system was shot to bits too.

I bet those Iraqis really think how lucky they are are to be liberated but
without power, running water and telecommunications, oh and jobs too ( the
former Iraqi army of 400,000 - less the pro-Saddam element - could conceivably
have been put to use in a reconstruction role keeping them usefully employed ).

Oh - and we're giving them democracy ! Lucky them ! I bet they'ld prefer a
square meal actually.


Graham

Michael McKelvy wrote:

home values increasing, and legitimate political
discourse, things that haven't been known in Iraq for decades.

Are you *seriously* suggesting that property equity is a significant positive
reason for invading Iraq ?

Assuming it were true and the the Iraqis gave a damn ! Most need a job rather
than concern themselves with the value of their homes !

Jesus Holy Christ !


Christopher Hitchens is that rarest of men, an honest Liberal.

He's a Liberal ?

So you're cluless then ?


Graham