golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 From: Dene Subject: O'Reilly Rules Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he said, but how he said it. My reasons.....to name a few.... 1. Admitted we were wrong to invade Iraq. Motive was pure, i.e. surrounding our true enemy (Iran)with democracies while responding to terrorism, in particular the possibility of terrorist acquiring a WMD. Strongly against an early exit strategy, stating our void will allow Iraq to merge into Iran, creating a stronger enemy than what we have now. 2. Contrasts traditional America to Denk/Holland while posing a serious question we all need to address. What kind of country do you want. One with values or one without. 3. North Korea. Believes China will handle them. O'Reilly handled Oprah's audience quite well. I was particularily impressed how he handled idiotic comments from the fat lady in a red dress. Even better, idiotic comments from Letterman, who has admittedly never watched his show or read his book. Now there's tolerant thinking in it's finest manifestation. -Greg Ps. Does O'Reilly play golf?   Date: 01 Nov 2006 11:51:32 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules bill-o wrote: > On 1-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > St. Louis has recently been rated as the most dangerous city in the US, > > which is why I mentioned it. > > Yup and when I lived in Jackson it was rated the car theft capital of the > US, and yet, I never knew anyone that had to deal with that. Just more > fodder for "eye witness" news. The best anti-depressant out there is not > watching TV news. It's amazing how many cars are stolen here though! You probably got left out because your old pickup isn't of any more interest to car theives than my old Escort was! I wonder if anyone will go after my Cobalt?   Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:44:41 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > bill-o wrote: > > On 30-Oct-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > >> It's still safer for an American to be in Baghdad > >> than it is to be in inner city St. Louis > > > > Puh-leeze! That's only because there ain't no green zone in the STL! > > St Louis is fine. I lived there 5 days a week from November 2005 through > July 2006. I, along with 30 of my friends, lived at Renaissance Grande on > 8th and Washington. We walked every day to/from SBC/AT&T; and we all walked > late at night and were never bothered. We would hang out at that little > park over by 8th and Pine; and would walk all the way up to 13 late at > night to get Sushi at Wasabi's. Nobody was ever accosted. St. Louis has recently been rated as the most dangerous city in the US, which is why I mentioned it.     Date: 01 Nov 2006 16:32:06 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 1-Nov-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > St. Louis has recently been rated as the most dangerous city in the US, > which is why I mentioned it. Yup and when I lived in Jackson it was rated the car theft capital of the US, and yet, I never knew anyone that had to deal with that. Just more fodder for "eye witness" news. The best anti-depressant out there is not watching TV news. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 31 Oct 2006 23:10:37 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > > I put Jesus higher on the list than Smith. Jesus the Magician - ever read > that book? Or Passover Plot? Jesus had a lot of people fooled; and his > disciples were in on it. I'm not going to debate this with you. You believe in a here-after. We'll learn lots then. -Greg   Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:11:27 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > John B. wrote: > > At least Clinton admits his mistakes, which has successor has shown he > > lacks the guts to do. Clinton has said that he regrets not doing > > anything in Rwanda and wishes he had that to do over again. You'll > > never hear Bush say that about Iraq or Afghanistan. > > Clinton never said that in his book; so I am not sure when/where he > admitted to his mistakes in Rwanda. Bushtard may come clean someday; but I > tend to agree with you in thinking that he won't. I also do not expect him > to admit publicly that he was a blow hound and paid off government officials > to bury his cocaine arrest. I heard Clinton say it in answer to a question after a speech. > > -- > ___________________________________________________________ > A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, > I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it > gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas > Jefferson     Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:51:33 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> John B. wrote: >>> At least Clinton admits his mistakes, which has successor has shown >>> he lacks the guts to do. Clinton has said that he regrets not doing >>> anything in Rwanda and wishes he had that to do over again. You'll >>> never hear Bush say that about Iraq or Afghanistan. >> >> Clinton never said that in his book; so I am not sure when/where he >> admitted to his mistakes in Rwanda. Bushtard may come clean >> someday; but I tend to agree with you in thinking that he won't. I >> also do not expect him to admit publicly that he was a blow hound >> and paid off government officials to bury his cocaine arrest. > > I heard Clinton say it in answer to a question after a speech. I will give you the benefit of that doubt that said he wished he made other choices with regard to Rwanda. That having been said, I highly doubt he would EVER tell the complete truth; which would certainly touch c Rich and the $10 Million c's wife gave Bubba for his Presidential Library in return for Clemency. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson     Date: 31 Oct 2006 09:00:42 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <1162300287.237417.195770@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Head Shot wrote: > > John B. wrote: > > > At least Clinton admits his mistakes, which has successor has shown he > > > lacks the guts to do. Clinton has said that he regrets not doing > > > anything in Rwanda and wishes he had that to do over again. You'll > > > never hear Bush say that about Iraq or Afghanistan. > > > > Clinton never said that in his book; so I am not sure when/where he > > admitted to his mistakes in Rwanda. Bushtard may come clean someday; but I > > tend to agree with you in thinking that he won't. I also do not expect him > > to admit publicly that he was a blow hound and paid off government officials > > to bury his cocaine arrest. > > I heard Clinton say it in answer to a question after a speech. > > He also made it in his contentious interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News.   Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:05:35 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > John B. wrote: > . > > > > OK, I apologize for the insult and the non-specific answer. To more > > directly answer the question, I would say most of the Muslim world from > > North Africa to Indonesia is "upset" that the US invaded Iraq. That's > > about a billion people right there. Most Brits are upset that we > > invaded Iraq and even more upset that we dragged them along with us. A > > recent poll showed that 70% of English people want all their troops out > > now. That's a lot of upset people. I'm sure there are more. I don't > > know of any government other than Tony Blair's that supports this war. > > And, of course, a majority of Americans believe the invasion of Iraq > > was a mistake, so I guess you could say that they're upset about it, > > too. Is that specific enough? > > I think it's fair to say that most of the Muslim world and you are > upset about the outcome of the invasion, not necessarily the invasion > itself. Few in the Muslim world were fans of Saddam. > > -Greg Whether they liked SH or not, most Muslims ferverntly oppose any Western military presence in their part of the world, regardless of the reason.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:52:05 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > I am a bit spiritual in that I do believe there is something after we die; > but I find it laughable that Christians believe in some of the things they > do. Many now are diehard believers in the Rapture; even though it was > invented by some chick in the 1800's. Hmmm....a chick made up the Rapture. That's a new one on me. Who was she? FWIW, I don't believe in the Rapture either, specifically the belief that the good guys like me suddenly disappear, leaving you blasphemers behind. ; > And don't even get me going on > Mohammed or Joseph Smith and the shit their followers still believe to be > true. Joseph Smith.....biggest con unhung. -Greg     Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:45:46 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> I am a bit spiritual in that I do believe there is something after > we die; >> but I find it laughable that Christians believe in some of the >> things they do. Many now are diehard believers in the Rapture; >> even though it was invented by some chick in the 1800's. > > Hmmm....a chick made up the Rapture. That's a new one on me. Who was > she? garet MacDonald in the 1830's. > Joseph Smith.....biggest con unhung. I put Jesus higher on the list than Smith. Jesus the Magician - ever read that book? Or Passover Plot? Jesus had a lot of people fooled; and his disciples were in on it. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:45:24 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: . > > OK, I apologize for the insult and the non-specific answer. To more > directly answer the question, I would say most of the Muslim world from > North Africa to Indonesia is "upset" that the US invaded Iraq. That's > about a billion people right there. Most Brits are upset that we > invaded Iraq and even more upset that we dragged them along with us. A > recent poll showed that 70% of English people want all their troops out > now. That's a lot of upset people. I'm sure there are more. I don't > know of any government other than Tony Blair's that supports this war. > And, of course, a majority of Americans believe the invasion of Iraq > was a mistake, so I guess you could say that they're upset about it, > too. Is that specific enough? I think it's fair to say that most of the Muslim world and you are upset about the outcome of the invasion, not necessarily the invasion itself. Few in the Muslim world were fans of Saddam. -Greg   Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:01:09 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Alan Baker wrote: > In article <_Bw1h.14795$Fd7.7761@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > Dene wrote: > > > She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to > > > Him. > > > > I do believe Big Bang was a creation event and had some sort of Creator. > > Not sure if that Creator was intelligent and alive. I suspect (with a > > lesser degree of passion) that some Creator had it's hand in the first > > abiogenesis. For all I know it was an alien life form. I have no strong > > opinion on what the Creator of abiogenesis was. That having been said; > > there have been thousands of Gods since Man started naming them; and > > typically these Gods were just Man saying "god-did-it" when they could not > > explain why something occurred. Scientific Method was not around 2,000 > > years ago to the same degree that it is today. That is the evolution of > > knowledge; so it's to be expected. > > > > I guess what I am saying in a round about way is I am spritual but don't > > believe in organized religion. I do still call myself a Jew; but it's more > > cultural than anything else. > > Why can people not see the fallacy in believing in a creator? Maybe because it's not fallacious. Why do people think that if something can't be detected by any of our 5 senses, then it can't possibly exist? Are those the only possible means of determining existence? > > -- > 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' > "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' > (Edwin on Mac OS X) > > '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- > 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the > IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)     Date: 31 Oct 2006 02:03:06 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <1162260068.926725.246320@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <_Bw1h.14795$Fd7.7761@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > > > Dene wrote: > > > > She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to > > > > Him. > > > > > > I do believe Big Bang was a creation event and had some sort of Creator. > > > Not sure if that Creator was intelligent and alive. I suspect (with a > > > lesser degree of passion) that some Creator had it's hand in the first > > > abiogenesis. For all I know it was an alien life form. I have no > > > strong > > > opinion on what the Creator of abiogenesis was. That having been said; > > > there have been thousands of Gods since Man started naming them; and > > > typically these Gods were just Man saying "god-did-it" when they could > > > not > > > explain why something occurred. Scientific Method was not around 2,000 > > > years ago to the same degree that it is today. That is the evolution of > > > knowledge; so it's to be expected. > > > > > > I guess what I am saying in a round about way is I am spritual but don't > > > believe in organized religion. I do still call myself a Jew; but it's > > > more > > > cultural than anything else. > > > > Why can people not see the fallacy in believing in a creator? > > > Maybe because it's not fallacious. Why do people think that if > something can't be detected by any of our 5 senses, then it can't > possibly exist? Are those the only possible means of determining > existence? That's not the fallacy. Try again... -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)   Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:57:48 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> The_Professor wrote: > >>> France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes > >>> tribunal needs to be set up. > >> > >> Be careful about that one, bro. You can say France; but I would > >> throw in some other thoughts supporting USA involvement in that. > >> One is that Clinton said there was no massacre and had Madelyne > >> Albright stall the UN Security Council for a while. Another is that > >> c Rich got set free and is now hiding in Switzerland somewhere; > >> which clearly proves that he was in cahoots with the USA Executive > >> Branch. So USA [may have] had their hand in part of that > >> slaughter. Have you seen the movie Hotel Rwanda yet? It's > >> brutal. Also watch Lord of War; which is loosely about c Rich. > >> The guy is a scumbag; and Clinton let the scumbag walk (well, after > >> a $100M fine and a $10M donation to the Clinton Library by c > >> Rich's wife). > > > > > > Fact is that the whole Rwanda thing was socialist inspired social > > engineering at it's worst. The French install a "noble" Hutu (= > > working class) government, who promptly massacre the Tutsi (= ruling > > class). It is not only that it was pure idiocy, but that the French > > have never owned up to it, and no one seems to want to call them on > > it. > > > I am not sure the French ever own up to anything. And Clinton never owned > up to his cover-up of the massacre. To this day Liberals speak of the man > as if he was without flaw. Sure it bothers me that he was a philanderer and > a liar; but that's small change compared to the million dead Tutsi's and > Clinton saying there was no genocide. At least Clinton admits his mistakes, which has successor has shown he lacks the guts to do. Clinton has said that he regrets not doing anything in Rwanda and wishes he had that to do over again. You'll never hear Bush say that about Iraq or Afghanistan. > > -- > ___________________________________________________________ > A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, > I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it > gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas > Jefferson     Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:24:37 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > At least Clinton admits his mistakes, which has successor has shown he > lacks the guts to do. Clinton has said that he regrets not doing > anything in Rwanda and wishes he had that to do over again. You'll > never hear Bush say that about Iraq or Afghanistan. Clinton never said that in his book; so I am not sure when/where he admitted to his mistakes in Rwanda. Bushtard may come clean someday; but I tend to agree with you in thinking that he won't. I also do not expect him to admit publicly that he was a blow hound and paid off government officials to bury his cocaine arrest. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:45:28 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules FredK wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1162227370.171887.295110@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > John B. answers this question: > > > > Who specifically is upset that the US invaded Iraq? > > > > > > Pretty much the whole fucking world, you dumbass. > > > > Non specific answer followed by an insult. Rob....why are you wasting > > time with this Neanderthal? > > > > The answer was a non-specific answer to a pretty (willfully) ignorant > question. OK, I apologize for the insult and the non-specific answer. To more directly answer the question, I would say most of the Muslim world from North Africa to Indonesia is "upset" that the US invaded Iraq. That's about a billion people right there. Most Brits are upset that we invaded Iraq and even more upset that we dragged them along with us. A recent poll showed that 70% of English people want all their troops out now. That's a lot of upset people. I'm sure there are more. I don't know of any government other than Tony Blair's that supports this war. And, of course, a majority of Americans believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, so I guess you could say that they're upset about it, too. Is that specific enough?   Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:44:15 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > Dene wrote: > > I think God was outraged. You seem to have this expectation that > > God/Jesus is suppose to eliminate evil. If He did, who would be > > standing? > > But if you read through the Old Testament / Tanakh; God did get involved in > wiping out evil. Don't you remember him stopping the earth from spinning > so Joshua could win a war before the sun set; or all the smackdowns God > gave the Egyptians? How about today when you go to those new age > fundamental Christian Church's and they do the laying of hands, etc.? That > is allegedly God working miracles through the hands of his servants. So why > wouldn't God have anything to do with stopping the Holocaust? He didn't stop the Exile either or do anything about restoring the 10 lost tribes. Both were actions in response to idolatrous evil on Israel and Judah's part. Now....was there some sort of specific idolatrous sin the European Jews were committing? I doubt it. The Exile did a nice job of curing Jewish idolatry. Instead, perhaps it is another instance of God using evil to create good, namely this event as you described.... * In 1947 AD the British hand the land over to UN who puts forth a Partition Plan (181) calling for Jerusalem to be internationalized". . * In 1948 AD the State of Israel is proclaimed "Weeping may endure for the night but joy comes in the morning." I qualify my explanation with the fact that "I see through a mirror dimly." Only God knows the big picture. I'm reminded of a dear saintly woman who lost her six year old daughter, then husband to cancer, both dying horrifically. At the funeral which I participated in, she reaffirmed her faith and love of God, but then said, "When I see Him, I will have some questions for Him." She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to Him. -Greg > > Also, one could make the argument that if it weren't for the > > Holocaust, the nation of Israel would have never been born. > > Actually, the nation of Israel was born in 1004 BCE when King David created > Jerusalem by conquering the nomadic Jebusites and then joining with them > (IMHO of course). Since then; a lot of folks have attacked the Jews and > taken over Israel. In fact; check out this list I saved from a while back: > > Israel Timeline > > * In 1004 BC Hebrew King David conquered the land from the Jebusites. > * In 586 BC the Kingdom of Judah fell to Nebuchadnezzer, King of Babylon > (who exiled the Jews to Babylon) > * In 539 BC the exiled Jews return, led by Ezra and Nehemia. > * In 350 BC the Persians conquered the area. > * In 332 BC Alexander the Great started the Hellenistic domination of the > area. > * In 313 BC Ptolemy I of Egypt conquers Jerusalem and the surrounding area > * In 170 BC Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, plundered the area. > * In 167 BC we have the Maccabean revolts throughout Philistine. > * In 63 BC the Roman invasion led by Pompei occurred. > * In 70 AD and 132 AD we have the Jewish revolts against the Romans. > * In 324 AD the area falls to the Byzantinians (Queen Helena). > * In 614 AD Jerusalem falls to Persians. > * In 629 AD the area is re-conquered by the Byzantinians . > * In 638 AD Caliph O Ben Hatav captures Jerusalem and places the area > under Arab Muslim rule > * In 1077 AD the Turks conquer the area from the Muslims > * In 1096 AD the First Crusades captures Jerusalem and all areas around her. > * In 1099 AD the First Latin/Christian Kingdom established--led by Godfrey > of Bouillon and most Jews and Moslems were slaughtered. > * In 1187 AD Saladin captures the area from the Crusaders > * In 1192 AD Richard the Lionheart fails in his bloody quest to conquer > Jerusalem after slaughtering most of the remaining Jews. > * In 1244 AD Jerusalem and the surrounding area were sacked by Tartars. > * In 1259 AD Jerusalem and the surrounding area were sacked by Mongols. > * In 1260 AD the land becomes rule by the Mamelukes > * In 1516 AD Turkish Sultan Selim conquers Jerusalem and surrounding area > for the Ottoman Empire. > * In 1831 AD the land is conquered by Mehemet Ali of Egypt > * In 1840 AD the land is conquered again by the Turks > * In 1917 AD The British Army conquered the land under General Allenby. > * In 1922 AD the Palestine Mandate is given to Britain by League of Nations > * In 1947 AD the British hand the land over to UN who puts forth a > Partition Plan (181) calling for Jerusalem to be internationalized". . > * In 1948 AD the State of Israel is proclaimed.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:17:14 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to > Him. I do believe Big Bang was a creation event and had some sort of Creator. Not sure if that Creator was intelligent and alive. I suspect (with a lesser degree of passion) that some Creator had it's hand in the first abiogenesis. For all I know it was an alien life form. I have no strong opinion on what the Creator of abiogenesis was. That having been said; there have been thousands of Gods since Man started naming them; and typically these Gods were just Man saying "god-did-it" when they could not explain why something occurred. Scientific Method was not around 2,000 years ago to the same degree that it is today. That is the evolution of knowledge; so it's to be expected. I guess what I am saying in a round about way is I am spritual but don't believe in organized religion. I do still call myself a Jew; but it's more cultural than anything else. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson       Date: 31 Oct 2006 01:47:11 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <_Bw1h.14795$Fd7.7761@bignews6.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Dene wrote: > > She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to > > Him. > > I do believe Big Bang was a creation event and had some sort of Creator. > Not sure if that Creator was intelligent and alive. I suspect (with a > lesser degree of passion) that some Creator had it's hand in the first > abiogenesis. For all I know it was an alien life form. I have no strong > opinion on what the Creator of abiogenesis was. That having been said; > there have been thousands of Gods since Man started naming them; and > typically these Gods were just Man saying "god-did-it" when they could not > explain why something occurred. Scientific Method was not around 2,000 > years ago to the same degree that it is today. That is the evolution of > knowledge; so it's to be expected. > > I guess what I am saying in a round about way is I am spritual but don't > believe in organized religion. I do still call myself a Jew; but it's more > cultural than anything else. Why can people not see the fallacy in believing in a creator? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)         Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:22:46 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Alan Baker wrote: > In article <_Bw1h.14795$Fd7.7761@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> Dene wrote: >>> She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to >>> Him. >> >> I do believe Big Bang was a creation event and had some sort of >> Creator. Not sure if that Creator was intelligent and alive. I >> suspect (with a lesser degree of passion) that some Creator had >> it's hand in the first abiogenesis. For all I know it was an alien >> life form. I have no strong opinion on what the Creator of >> abiogenesis was. That having been said; there have been thousands >> of Gods since Man started naming them; and typically these Gods >> were just Man saying "god-did-it" when they could not explain why >> something occurred. Scientific Method was not around 2,000 years >> ago to the same degree that it is today. That is the evolution of >> knowledge; so it's to be expected. >> >> I guess what I am saying in a round about way is I am spritual but >> don't believe in organized religion. I do still call myself a Jew; >> but it's more cultural than anything else. > > Why can people not see the fallacy in believing in a creator? Hey Alan. I don't think that we are talking about the same level of creator. Big Bang happened; the creator could just be a random spawn of a child universe in a megaverse due to explainable physical catalyst. Of course to use the scientific method to determine what the catalyst to the creation event was, you would have to be outside of the universe observing. I am a bit spiritual in that I do believe there is something after we die; but I find it laughable that Christians believe in some of the things they do. Many now are diehard believers in the Rapture; even though it was invented by some chick in the 1800's. And don't even get me going on Mohammed or Joseph Smith and the shit their followers still believe to be true. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson           Date: 31 Oct 2006 03:42:34 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <Gry1h.9225$N4.6604@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <_Bw1h.14795$Fd7.7761@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > >> Dene wrote: > >>> She was type who would ask! Perhaps you should do the same.....to > >>> Him. > >> > >> I do believe Big Bang was a creation event and had some sort of > >> Creator. Not sure if that Creator was intelligent and alive. I > >> suspect (with a lesser degree of passion) that some Creator had > >> it's hand in the first abiogenesis. For all I know it was an alien > >> life form. I have no strong opinion on what the Creator of > >> abiogenesis was. That having been said; there have been thousands > >> of Gods since Man started naming them; and typically these Gods > >> were just Man saying "god-did-it" when they could not explain why > >> something occurred. Scientific Method was not around 2,000 years > >> ago to the same degree that it is today. That is the evolution of > >> knowledge; so it's to be expected. > >> > >> I guess what I am saying in a round about way is I am spritual but > >> don't believe in organized religion. I do still call myself a Jew; > >> but it's more cultural than anything else. > > > > Why can people not see the fallacy in believing in a creator? > > Hey Alan. I don't think that we are talking about the same level of > creator. Big Bang happened; the creator could just be a random spawn of a > child universe in a megaverse due to explainable physical catalyst. Of > course to use the scientific method to determine what the catalyst to the > creation event was, you would have to be outside of the universe observing. > I am a bit spiritual in that I do believe there is something after we die; > but I find it laughable that Christians believe in some of the things they > do. Many now are diehard believers in the Rapture; even though it was > invented by some chick in the 1800's. And don't even get me going on > Mohammed or Joseph Smith and the shit their followers still believe to be > true. But by postulating a creator -- any kind of creator -- you just push back the question to another level of creation. Why not just attack it, head on? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)             Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:22:55 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Alan Baker wrote: > But by postulating a creator -- any kind of creator -- you just push > back the question to another level of creation. Why not just attack > it, head on? There is no way to do that. Scientific Method works like a charm with anything natural; but cannot work with anything supernatural. And besides, to use Scientific Method to observe what caused Big Bang the observer would have to be outside of Big Bang and outside of time. How the heck does an observer do that? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson               Date: 31 Oct 2006 04:50:06 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <jcA1h.49702$vi3.2727@bignews3.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > But by postulating a creator -- any kind of creator -- you just push > > back the question to another level of creation. Why not just attack > > it, head on? > > There is no way to do that. Scientific Method works like a charm with > anything natural; but cannot work with anything supernatural. And besides, > to use Scientific Method to observe what caused Big Bang the observer would > have to be outside of Big Bang and outside of time. How the heck does an > observer do that? You miss my point. You postulate that our universe had a creator, but why? If you feel that it needs a creator to have brought it about, doesn't that creator then also require a creator? And if the answer is no, then why does our universe require one? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)                 Date: 31 Oct 2006 00:04:39 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Alan Baker wrote: > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: >> Alan Baker wrote: >>> But by postulating a creator -- any kind of creator -- you just push >>> back the question to another level of creation. Why not just attack >>> it, head on? >> >> There is no way to do that. Scientific Method works like a charm >> with anything natural; but cannot work with anything supernatural. >> And besides, to use Scientific Method to observe what caused Big >> Bang the observer would have to be outside of Big Bang and outside >> of time. How the heck does an observer do that? > > You miss my point. > > You postulate that our universe had a creator, but why? If you feel > that it needs a creator to have brought it about, doesn't that > creator then also require a creator? And if the answer is no, then > why does our universe require one? I can look back through Hubble and CHANDRA until almost the time the first atoms formed; and for that 99.9% of the time this universe is in existance everything has been cause and effect. Well, Big Bang is an effect and therefore must have a cause. Since that effect is a creation event, the cause is a creator. Deductive reasoning is fairly straight up on that one. Additionally, you made a HUGE mistake in your thought, Alan. Since a Big Bang is a singularity; it makes absolutely no sense to assume a creator needs a creator. You cannot apply the laws of our physical universe to anything outside of our universe and before the singularity of the big bang. Properties do not carry through a singularity. If an atom rips apart in a black hole and the black hole shoots out a gamma ray; there is no way to interpret the physical properties of that ray and somehow deduce the kind of atom that got ripped apart. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                   Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:11:08 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <rPA1h.49716$vi3.44128@bignews3.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> Alan Baker wrote: > >>> But by postulating a creator -- any kind of creator -- you just push > >>> back the question to another level of creation. Why not just attack > >>> it, head on? > >> > >> There is no way to do that. Scientific Method works like a charm > >> with anything natural; but cannot work with anything supernatural. > >> And besides, to use Scientific Method to observe what caused Big > >> Bang the observer would have to be outside of Big Bang and outside > >> of time. How the heck does an observer do that? > > > > You miss my point. > > > > You postulate that our universe had a creator, but why? If you feel > > that it needs a creator to have brought it about, doesn't that > > creator then also require a creator? And if the answer is no, then > > why does our universe require one? > > > I can look back through Hubble and CHANDRA until almost the time the first > atoms formed; and for that 99.9% of the time this universe is in existance > everything has been cause and effect. Well, Big Bang is an effect and > therefore must have a cause. Since that effect is a creation event, the > cause is a creator. Deductive reasoning is fairly straight up on that one. > Additionally, you made a HUGE mistake in your thought, Alan. Since a Big > Bang is a singularity; it makes absolutely no sense to assume a creator > needs a creator. You cannot apply the laws of our physical universe to > anything outside of our universe and before the singularity of the big bang. > Properties do not carry through a singularity. If an atom rips apart in a > black hole and the black hole shoots out a gamma ray; there is no way to > interpret the physical properties of that ray and somehow deduce the kind of > atom that got ripped apart. Sorry, but you want to have it both ways. You interpret the Big Bang as both an effect which according to our physical laws must have a cause *and* you then say that it is a singularity where our physical laws need not apply. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)                     Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:40:20 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Alan Baker wrote: > Sorry, but you want to have it both ways. You interpret the Big Bang > as both an effect which according to our physical laws must have a > cause *and* you then say that it is a singularity where our physical > laws need not apply. That is absolutely correct. Big Bang is a singularity, and as such you don't get to see the cause. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                       Date: 01 Nov 2006 06:05:44 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <6OT1h.9902$N4.4033@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > Sorry, but you want to have it both ways. You interpret the Big Bang > > as both an effect which according to our physical laws must have a > > cause *and* you then say that it is a singularity where our physical > > laws need not apply. > > That is absolutely correct. Big Bang is a singularity, and as such you > don't get to see the cause. Or as such it doesn't require a cause. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)   Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:30:40 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes tribunal > > needs to be set up. > > Be careful about that one, bro. You can say France; but I would throw in > some other thoughts supporting USA involvement in that. One is that Clinton > said there was no massacre and had Madelyne Albright stall the UN Security > Council for a while. Another is that c Rich got set free and is now > hiding in Switzerland somewhere; which clearly proves that he was in > cahoots with the USA Executive Branch. So USA [may have] had their hand > in part of that slaughter. Have you seen the movie Hotel Rwanda yet? > It's brutal. Also watch Lord of War; which is loosely about c Rich. > The guy is a scumbag; and Clinton let the scumbag walk (well, after a $100M > fine and a $10M donation to the Clinton Library by c Rich's wife). Fact is that the whole Rwanda thing was socialist inspired social engineering at it's worst. The French install a "noble" Hutu (= working class) government, who promptly massacre the Tutsi (= ruling class). It is not only that it was pure idiocy, but that the French have never owned up to it, and no one seems to want to call them on it.     Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:18:47 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 30-Oct-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > Fact is that the whole Rwanda thing was socialist inspired social > engineering at it's worst. The French install a "noble" Hutu (= working > class) government, who promptly massacre the Tutsi (= ruling class). It > is not only that it was pure idiocy, but that the French have never > owned up to it, and no one seems to want to call them on it. If you read Jared Diamond's "When Civilizations Collapse," he posits that it had more to due with overpopulation than what the French did or didn't do (although I agree that their behavior wasn't exemplary, the Belgians made the French look like Mother Theresa). -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:12:14 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> The_Professor wrote: >>> France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes >>> tribunal needs to be set up. >> >> Be careful about that one, bro. You can say France; but I would >> throw in some other thoughts supporting USA involvement in that. >> One is that Clinton said there was no massacre and had Madelyne >> Albright stall the UN Security Council for a while. Another is that >> c Rich got set free and is now hiding in Switzerland somewhere; >> which clearly proves that he was in cahoots with the USA Executive >> Branch. So USA [may have] had their hand in part of that >> slaughter. Have you seen the movie Hotel Rwanda yet? It's >> brutal. Also watch Lord of War; which is loosely about c Rich. >> The guy is a scumbag; and Clinton let the scumbag walk (well, after >> a $100M fine and a $10M donation to the Clinton Library by c >> Rich's wife). > > > Fact is that the whole Rwanda thing was socialist inspired social > engineering at it's worst. The French install a "noble" Hutu (= > working class) government, who promptly massacre the Tutsi (= ruling > class). It is not only that it was pure idiocy, but that the French > have never owned up to it, and no one seems to want to call them on > it. I am not sure the French ever own up to anything. And Clinton never owned up to his cover-up of the massacre. To this day Liberals speak of the man as if he was without flaw. Sure it bothers me that he was a philanderer and a liar; but that's small change compared to the million dead Tutsi's and Clinton saying there was no genocide. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson       Date: 31 Oct 2006 03:37:56 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> The_Professor wrote: > >>> France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes > >>> tribunal needs to be set up. > >> > >> Be careful about that one, bro. You can say France; but I would > >> throw in some other thoughts supporting USA involvement in that. > >> One is that Clinton said there was no massacre and had Madelyne > >> Albright stall the UN Security Council for a while. Another is that > >> c Rich got set free and is now hiding in Switzerland somewhere; > >> which clearly proves that he was in cahoots with the USA Executive > >> Branch. So USA [may have] had their hand in part of that > >> slaughter. Have you seen the movie Hotel Rwanda yet? It's > >> brutal. Also watch Lord of War; which is loosely about c Rich. > >> The guy is a scumbag; and Clinton let the scumbag walk (well, after > >> a $100M fine and a $10M donation to the Clinton Library by c > >> Rich's wife). > > > > > > Fact is that the whole Rwanda thing was socialist inspired social > > engineering at it's worst. The French install a "noble" Hutu (= > > working class) government, who promptly massacre the Tutsi (= ruling > > class). It is not only that it was pure idiocy, but that the French > > have never owned up to it, and no one seems to want to call them on > > it. > > I am not sure the French ever own up to anything. And Clinton never owned > up to his cover-up of the massacre. To this day Liberals speak of the man > as if he was without flaw. Sure it bothers me that he was a philanderer and > a liar; but that's small change compared to the million dead Tutsi's and > Clinton saying there was no genocide. > ...and we wonder why peoples of less developed countries hate us so......         Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:19:01 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Robert Hamilton wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> The_Professor wrote: >>> Head Shot wrote: >>>> The_Professor wrote: >>>>> France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes >>>>> tribunal needs to be set up. >>>> Be careful about that one, bro. You can say France; but I would >>>> throw in some other thoughts supporting USA involvement in that. >>>> One is that Clinton said there was no massacre and had Madelyne >>>> Albright stall the UN Security Council for a while. Another is that >>>> c Rich got set free and is now hiding in Switzerland somewhere; >>>> which clearly proves that he was in cahoots with the USA Executive >>>> Branch. So USA [may have] had their hand in part of that >>>> slaughter. Have you seen the movie Hotel Rwanda yet? It's >>>> brutal. Also watch Lord of War; which is loosely about c Rich. >>>> The guy is a scumbag; and Clinton let the scumbag walk (well, after >>>> a $100M fine and a $10M donation to the Clinton Library by c >>>> Rich's wife). >>> >>> Fact is that the whole Rwanda thing was socialist inspired social >>> engineering at it's worst. The French install a "noble" Hutu (= >>> working class) government, who promptly massacre the Tutsi (= ruling >>> class). It is not only that it was pure idiocy, but that the French >>> have never owned up to it, and no one seems to want to call them on >>> it. >> I am not sure the French ever own up to anything. And Clinton never owned >> up to his cover-up of the massacre. To this day Liberals speak of the man >> as if he was without flaw. Sure it bothers me that he was a philanderer and >> a liar; but that's small change compared to the million dead Tutsi's and >> Clinton saying there was no genocide. >> > > ...and we wonder why peoples of less developed countries hate us so...... They hate us so much they want to come here and hate us in person, either to seek the American Dream or to kill the Americans.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:10:25 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > > The problem with your thesis is that the US doesn't have 500,000 troops > to send to Iraq. Sticking with the status quo for another few years, as > you suggest, would lead to thousands more American casualties, tens of > thousands of Iraqi casualties, expenditure of hundreds of billions more > US dollars, and a further lowering of America's standing in world > opinion -- all with a very low degree of certainty that things would be > any better in a few years than they are now. I doubt that even George > Bush agrees with you at this point. The richest nation in history...by far, cannot afford to send 1/600th of its population to Iraq, given modern methods of transport and support. Rubbish! The US spends more on "entertainment" that would be needed to do this. Fail here, and it will come to the US, like it or not.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:44:22 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > The richest nation in history...by far, cannot afford to send 1/600th > of its population to Iraq, given modern methods of transport and > support. Rubbish! The US spends more on "entertainment" that would be > needed to do this. Fail here, and it will come to the US, like it or > not. I posted a link for CNN. It clearly states that USA sent 500,000 troops in Gulf War I and that other countries ponied in another 160,000 on top of that! http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ Gulf War Facts The Coalition The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denk, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States. The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf: U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle ines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle Women killed: 15 U.S. wounded in action: 467 British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire British wounded in action: 10 French casualties: 2 French wounded in action: 25 (estimated) Allied Arab casualties: 39 Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000 Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied) Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements) Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.) Iraq In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported. Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, ch 7, 1991) 36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements 6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements 68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground 137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran 3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks 2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles 2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces 19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged 42 divisions made combat-ineffective Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control. The Cost The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion). Some of the money pledged by countries such as Saudi Arabia was delivered in the form of in-kind services to troops, such as transportation and food. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:07:44 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: . > > Sometimes you have to punt. Or do you contend that this can never be the > proposed solution? > Maybe, but the US caused this thing in the first place. If they punt now they need to evacuate the bulk of the Iraqi population to the US.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:42:52 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> Sometimes you have to punt. Or do you contend that this can never >> be the proposed solution? > > Maybe, but the US caused this thing in the first place. If they punt > now they need to evacuate the bulk of the Iraqi population to the US. In a few more weeks my son is going to finish his first 15 college credits and he remains adamant about going in the USMC. I sure as heck hope we leave Iraq and Afghanestan in a hurry. He is my only son. Now I know how my mom felt when I spent 12 years in the reserves. It's scary - you dont want to lose a child. I know we have to fight for our freedom, and I certainly did my part; but he is my only son. I will never forgive Bushtard if my son is hurt. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:04:58 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > John B. wrote: > > The_Professor wrote: > >> jeffc wrote: > >>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>> news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >>>> > >>>> I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have > >>>> sex with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red > >>>> Sox and shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these > >>>> things is as likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's > >>>> what I would have said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? > >>> > >>> I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He > >>> was trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle > >>> I posted. Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it > >>> takes awhile to explain, and even then most dimwits still won't > >>> understand it. See Hamilton, for example. > >> > >> The answer is simple. I want the US to win in Iraq. Your problem is > >> that you cannot see that. If you don't want the US to win in Iraq, > >> say so. You "riddle" is at the level of a 6 year old moron, which > >> doesn't say much about you. > > > > Look, "Professor," I'm sure we all want the US to "win" in Iraq. But > > there are few if any reasonable people left who think that's possible > > at this point. GW Bush and his gang of neo-con thugs have inflicted a > > catastrophe on that country. We need to stop talking about "winning" > > and start looking for the least objectionable way out. For someone who > > identifies himself as a "Professor," your posts are decidedly > > unprofessorial. > > > This month's Soldier of Fortune had a great article about that. The author > (I forget who, but perhaps Colonel Oliver North) goes into detail about USA > leaving countries and compares it to the other two great expansion countries > that are now divesting; England and France. The author's position is that > France has so far had the best success; and he feels it is due to France's > policy of returning to those countries with a military force when things get > too out of hand. > > France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes tribunal needs to be set up.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:36:30 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > France: Rwanda. Nothing more to say, except that a war crimes tribunal > needs to be set up. Be careful about that one, bro. You can say France; but I would throw in some other thoughts supporting USA involvement in that. One is that Clinton said there was no massacre and had Madelyne Albright stall the UN Security Council for a while. Another is that c Rich got set free and is now hiding in Switzerland somewhere; which clearly proves that he was in cahoots with the USA Executive Branch. So USA [may have] had their hand in part of that slaughter. Have you seen the movie Hotel Rwanda yet? It's brutal. Also watch Lord of War; which is loosely about c Rich. The guy is a scumbag; and Clinton let the scumbag walk (well, after a $100M fine and a $10M donation to the Clinton Library by c Rich's wife). -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:03:35 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > jeffc wrote: > >> > >> The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it's "lame". It > >> just means you can't understand it. > > > > The question I posed is: "Do you want the US to win in Iraq?". A > > simple question. You obviously cannot give a straight answer to the > > question. People like you are why democrats are nearly unelectable. > > > People like him? The Democrat Party itself and it's positions are not > detramental to it's popularity? > > With regard to your question - I have to imagine all Americans want USA to > "win in Iraq" but I don't think there is a clear definition of what winning > is. That's a real response, and raises a real issue.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:32:31 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> With regard to your question - I have to imagine all Americans want >> USA to "win in Iraq" but I don't think there is a clear definition >> of what winning is. > > That's a real response, and raises a real issue. I don't think it's an issue that will ever be solved, either. I was a young teenager at the end of Vietnam so I don't remember it all that well, but I do know that people to this day argue whether or not we "won or lost". I figure the litmus of whether we won or lost has to be if we met specific objectives with success. I have no idea who gets to pick what those objectives are/were. Same for Iraq. Who the heck knows what the objectives are. I sure don't. Every politician and person in the media seems to think it's different. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson       Date: 31 Oct 2006 01:29:23 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:32:31 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: >I don't think it's an issue that will ever be solved, either. I was a young >teenager at the end of Vietnam so I don't remember it all that well, but I >do know that people to this day argue whether or not we "won or lost". I >figure the litmus of whether we won or lost has to be if we met specific >objectives with success. I have no idea who gets to pick what those >objectives are/were. You do. And I do. And the administration that fails to convince us that we're on a winning path loses.         Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:16:23 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Howard Brazee wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:32:31 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> I don't think it's an issue that will ever be solved, either. I was >> a young teenager at the end of Vietnam so I don't remember it all >> that well, but I do know that people to this day argue whether or >> not we "won or lost". I figure the litmus of whether we won or lost >> has to be if we met specific objectives with success. I have no >> idea who gets to pick what those objectives are/were. > > You do. And I do. And the administration that fails to convince us > that we're on a winning path loses. Then if I get to set the metrics; we lost in Iraq. We found no WMD's and I do not believe the Mideast is safer because we toppled Saddam. Those are my metrics - stability in the area and stifling anyone who is a threat to feed terrorists WMDs for use against USA and Israel. I highly suspect that because we toppled Saddam that there will end up being three Iraq's and that further this is going to cause serious problems in Turkey (who also has a large Kurd population that want their own country). I think the three biggest problems in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia (human rights violations), Syria (mafia mentality government), and Iran (fundamentalist loons). Saddam was a secular strongman who had no interest in regional expansion after Gulf War I. Here is a prediction - I believe once North Korea really gets nukes (I do not believe their test was proof of them joining the nuclear club) that they are going to sell some to Iran; who is going to use them against Israel. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:02:15 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules-R&B style response on stem cells! Tex wrote: snippit.... > I appreciate the thought out scientific point of view. What of the > possibilities of using the cells from the birth cord? Does this not > replace the requirement for embryos? > > The "problem" I personally have with using embryos is that at some > point, "we" (collective Worldwide "we") will begin to pay people for > embryos. When that happens, third world countries will line up because > $20 for an egg is good money. And the explotation of the women in > those countries will continue. > > But again, thanks for the thought out reply. > Tex The cells in the cord at birth are probably too differentiated. You really need some of the first few cells of the embryo, which you can apparently harvest without too much difficulty. It is also possible that cells from other embryos will be no good for you. The immune system is a real bitch. To get those cells though, you would have to fertilize eggs in vitro and implant. Dehumanizing if you ask me. In any event, it's gonna happen, and if we aren't players, then we have no chance to have any say on what goes on.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:02:10 From: johnty Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > > Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to > be fair...and we'll go from there! > One, eh? Lemme think.... - Organised the assassination of an Egyptian President - Organised the attempted assassination of an Indonesian President - Supported the contras against goverment in Nicaragua - Overthrow government in Guatemala - Sponsored a military coup to sucessfully overthrow the government of Greece - Attempted invasion of Cuba - Overthrow Prime Minister in Iran, install US-sypathetic leader - Attempted overthrow of government in Syria - Bombed women and children in Libya - Overthrow government in Chile, and install dictator - Assisted coup and supported bloodthirsty dictator in Haiti - Unwarranted invasion of Somalia - Unwarranted invasion of Grenada - Overthrow government in Albania - Overthrow Sihanouk of Cambodia - Supported successful military coup in Brasil - Assassinated elected leader of Congo this list is not complete.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:01:55 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > Dene wrote: > > Head Shot wrote: > >> The_Professor wrote: > >>> You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent > >>> an hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got > >>> all my work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though! > >> > >> Better you than me. On Friday i was running to the car because it > >> was raining, and felt a big 'pop' in the bottom of my heel. That's > >> the best way to describe it. I hopped to the car (literally) and > >> drove home with just my left foot and spent the weekend off it and > >> taking motrin (no golf). Today my podiatrist said I ruptured the > >> plantar fascia ligament and I have to wait for the MRI group to call > >> me and schedule an appointment. So I am in this big velcro walking > >> cast and a crutch. I missed work today and I think it's gonna pile > >> up in a hurry. > > > > That's what you get for referring to Christ as Jeebus. > > > > If ole Jeebusboi is in on those day-to-day happenings; where was he when > 6.75 million of my fellow Jews were getting the Nazi smackdown? Little > Mr. waterwalker was a Jew - shouldn't he have been kind of outraged at those > mass graves and gas chambers? I think God was outraged. You seem to have this expectation that God/Jesus is suppose to eliminate evil. If He did, who would be standing? Also, one could make the argument that if it weren't for the Holocaust, the nation of Israel would have never been born. Anyway....sorry about your injury. -Greg     Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:09:19 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > I think God was outraged. You seem to have this expectation that > God/Jesus is suppose to eliminate evil. If He did, who would be > standing? But if you read through the Old Testament / Tanakh; God did get involved in wiping out evil. Don't you remember him stopping the earth from spinning so Joshua could win a war before the sun set; or all the smackdowns God gave the Egyptians? How about today when you go to those new age fundamental Christian Church's and they do the laying of hands, etc.? That is allegedly God working miracles through the hands of his servants. So why wouldn't God have anything to do with stopping the Holocaust? > Also, one could make the argument that if it weren't for the > Holocaust, the nation of Israel would have never been born. Actually, the nation of Israel was born in 1004 BCE when King David created Jerusalem by conquering the nomadic Jebusites and then joining with them (IMHO of course). Since then; a lot of folks have attacked the Jews and taken over Israel. In fact; check out this list I saved from a while back: Israel Timeline * In 1004 BC Hebrew King David conquered the land from the Jebusites. * In 586 BC the Kingdom of Judah fell to Nebuchadnezzer, King of Babylon (who exiled the Jews to Babylon) * In 539 BC the exiled Jews return, led by Ezra and Nehemia. * In 350 BC the Persians conquered the area. * In 332 BC Alexander the Great started the Hellenistic domination of the area. * In 313 BC Ptolemy I of Egypt conquers Jerusalem and the surrounding area * In 170 BC Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, plundered the area. * In 167 BC we have the Maccabean revolts throughout Philistine. * In 63 BC the Roman invasion led by Pompei occurred. * In 70 AD and 132 AD we have the Jewish revolts against the Romans. * In 324 AD the area falls to the Byzantinians (Queen Helena). * In 614 AD Jerusalem falls to Persians. * In 629 AD the area is re-conquered by the Byzantinians . * In 638 AD Caliph O Ben Hatav captures Jerusalem and places the area under Arab Muslim rule * In 1077 AD the Turks conquer the area from the Muslims * In 1096 AD the First Crusades captures Jerusalem and all areas around her. * In 1099 AD the First Latin/Christian Kingdom established--led by Godfrey of Bouillon and most Jews and Moslems were slaughtered. * In 1187 AD Saladin captures the area from the Crusaders * In 1192 AD Richard the Lionheart fails in his bloody quest to conquer Jerusalem after slaughtering most of the remaining Jews. * In 1244 AD Jerusalem and the surrounding area were sacked by Tartars. * In 1259 AD Jerusalem and the surrounding area were sacked by Mongols. * In 1260 AD the land becomes rule by the Mamelukes * In 1516 AD Turkish Sultan Selim conquers Jerusalem and surrounding area for the Ottoman Empire. * In 1831 AD the land is conquered by Mehemet Ali of Egypt * In 1840 AD the land is conquered again by the Turks * In 1917 AD The British Army conquered the land under General Allenby. * In 1922 AD the Palestine Mandate is given to Britain by League of Nations * In 1947 AD the British hand the land over to UN who puts forth a Partition Plan (181) calling for Jerusalem to be internationalized". . * In 1948 AD the State of Israel is proclaimed.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:37:04 From: Tex Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules-R&B style response on stem cells! The_Professor wrote: > Tex wrote: > > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > > > > > > > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > > > > > > I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, and > > > it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. > > > > Can someone point to me where federal dollars toward embryo stem cells > > would make a difference? So far, from what I read, the big gains are > > being made in adult stem cells. > > Let's get some science here rather than political blather to pour more > > money down a dry hole. > > Actually, the political blather is the claim that adult stem cells are > sufficient. There really isn't much promise in adult stem cells. You > can maybe do a few things with them, but they are already > differentiated into adult cells, and you can't rewind the clock on > them, for one thing. There are several other issues, but it gets fairly > technical. People who say there is more promise in adult stem cell > research than embryonic stem cell research are either ignornat or up to > something. It's a straight up lie. There is in fact very little promise > with adult stem cells and a lot of promise with embryonic stem cells. > > Not to say that embryonic stem cell research isn't disturbing in and of > itself, and does not need to be lied about. Creating human embryos as > part of therapudics is disturbing to a lot of people, howver it is > something that probably will work for a lot of things. These > technologies will be developed, that's a fact. The only issue Americans > control is wheter or not they will be developed by Americans. You > cannot really transfer techologies. The infrastructure, workforce and > support that the country that develops the technolgy has cannot really > be transferred, and is most well represented by the fact that other > countries really can't "catch up" to the US in a lot of areas. > > Of course, the vision of the future with this sort of technology is > people going in and having their gametes harvested, a secondary oocyte > fertilized and the embryo grown to some (small) size, a few cells > harvested and cultured into some number of cells that are frozen and > saved for potential later use. The embryo can then be implated in the > woman, who gives birth to a child. Later in life, the person needs say > blood, or islet cells; they can be grown from the stored embryonic > cells and transferred into the person. No immune reactions! Who knows, > maybe it's easy to get undifferentiated cells to grow into say a new > heart? We can put cells into tissues and have them differentiate into > that tissue now, so maybe you could replaced dmaged heart tissue by > introducing embryonic stem cells into the heart? One thing for sure, > adult stem cells hold no promise at all in this area. Someone like Fox > would hope that you could replace lost brain tissue with embryonic stem > cells. One thing also for sure, no way any research would help him; the > potential developments are way too off in the future.\ > > Now maybe *YOU* don't like that vision...but who are *YOU* to im,pose > that on others? In fact, you can't. Countries like China are > prioritizing this sort of research. If they develop it and we don't, > they will move ahead of us. The Bush administration is making a big > "investment" in physical sciences...so they can make an artificial > heart? Sorta like yesterdays news to my mind! Whatever can be done with > ICs is pretty much done, IMHO. These organic technologies, like it or > not, are the future. If we want a say, we have to play. Sticking our > head in the sand isn't going to do any good. Of course, I'm a > biologist, so I am biased, but I don't think that there is any real > sense where I am wrong here. I appreciate the thought out scientific point of view. What of the possibilities of using the cells from the birth cord? Does this not replace the requirement for embryos? The "problem" I personally have with using embryos is that at some point, "we" (collective Worldwide "we") will begin to pay people for embryos. When that happens, third world countries will line up because $20 for an egg is good money. And the explotation of the women in those countries will continue. But again, thanks for the thought out reply. Tex   Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:30:29 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > John B. wrote: > > The_Professor wrote: > > > jeffc wrote: > > > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > > > > > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > > > > > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > > > > > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > > > > > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? > > > > > > > > I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He was > > > > trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle I posted. > > > > Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it takes awhile to > > > > explain, and even then most dimwits still won't understand it. See > > > > Hamilton, for example. > > > > > > The answer is simple. I want the US to win in Iraq. Your problem is > > > that you cannot see that. If you don't want the US to win in Iraq, say > > > so. You "riddle" is at the level of a 6 year old moron, which doesn't > > > say much about you. > > > > Look, "Professor," I'm sure we all want the US to "win" in Iraq. But > > there are few if any reasonable people left who think that's possible > > at this point. GW Bush and his gang of neo-con thugs have inflicted a > > catastrophe on that country. We need to stop talking about "winning" > > and start looking for the least objectionable way out. For someone who > > identifies himself as a "Professor," your posts are decidedly > > unprofessorial. > > You are blinded by personal political bias. If the US puts 500,000 > troops on the ground in Iraq for 2 years, they can stabilize the > situation. If they just stay there with the 150,000 for a few more > years, it will also settle out OK, IMHO. If the US leaves the region in > chaos, it's just another example of Americans following the political > winds in the US at the expense of the rest of the world, like JFK's > idiot adventures in Vietnam. If the US is worth anything, they *HAVE* > to stay in Iraq until it settles down. While you can agree or disagree, > as an American, you need to recognize that it is *YOUR* country that > went into Iraq, and it is decidedly *NOT* OK for you to leave it in > chaos simply because you now don't feel comfortable about it. It's not > a matter of whose fault this or that is, but a matter of responsibility > for your actions. It's still safer for an American to be in Baghdad > than it is to be in inner city St. Louis...and that's thanks to idiot > social engineering that staeted with JFK as well! > > The fact that *YOU* feel the need to make demeaning statements about me > rather than address the issue means you have nothing to say, other than > to "oppose" what other say and do, which means whatever people want to > take it to mean. The problem with your thesis is that the US doesn't have 500,000 troops to send to Iraq. Sticking with the status quo for another few years, as you suggest, would lead to thousands more American casualties, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, expenditure of hundreds of billions more US dollars, and a further lowering of America's standing in world opinion -- all with a very low degree of certainty that things would be any better in a few years than they are now. I doubt that even George Bush agrees with you at this point.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:46:47 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > The problem with your thesis is that the US doesn't have 500,000 > troops to send to Iraq. Weren't there 500K troops there in Gulf War I ? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/ The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf: -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:30:11 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent an > > hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got all my > > work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though! > > Better you than me. On Friday i was running to the car because it was > raining, and felt a big 'pop' in the bottom of my heel. That's the best > way to describe it. I hopped to the car (literally) and drove home with > just my left foot and spent the weekend off it and taking motrin (no golf). > Today my podiatrist said I ruptured the plantar fascia ligament and I have > to wait for the MRI group to call me and schedule an appointment. So I am > in this big velcro walking cast and a crutch. I missed work today and I > think it's gonna pile up in a hurry. That's what you get for referring to Christ as Jeebus. -Greg     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:44:52 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> The_Professor wrote: >>> You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent >>> an hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got >>> all my work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though! >> >> Better you than me. On Friday i was running to the car because it >> was raining, and felt a big 'pop' in the bottom of my heel. That's >> the best way to describe it. I hopped to the car (literally) and >> drove home with just my left foot and spent the weekend off it and >> taking motrin (no golf). Today my podiatrist said I ruptured the >> plantar fascia ligament and I have to wait for the MRI group to call >> me and schedule an appointment. So I am in this big velcro walking >> cast and a crutch. I missed work today and I think it's gonna pile >> up in a hurry. > > That's what you get for referring to Christ as Jeebus. If ole Jeebusboi is in on those day-to-day happenings; where was he when 6.75 million of my fellow Jews were getting the Nazi smackdown? Little Mr. waterwalker was a Jew - shouldn't he have been kind of outraged at those mass graves and gas chambers? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:59:45 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent an > hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got all my > work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though! You're a better man than me. I have a pile of work on my desk this fine Monday morning and here I sit on RSG, defending God and O'Reilly. : > -Greg     Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:44:52 From: FredK Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162227585.009230.90850@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > The_Professor wrote: > > You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent an > > hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got all my > > work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though! > > You're a better man than me. I have a pile of work on my desk this > fine Monday morning and here I sit on RSG, defending God and O'Reilly. > :> > > At least one of whom is indefensible.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:56:10 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. answers this question: > > Who specifically is upset that the US invaded Iraq? > > Pretty much the whole fucking world, you dumbass. Non specific answer followed by an insult. Rob....why are you wasting time with this Neanderthal? -Greg     Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:47:51 From: FredK Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162227370.171887.295110@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > John B. answers this question: > > > Who specifically is upset that the US invaded Iraq? > > > > Pretty much the whole fucking world, you dumbass. > > Non specific answer followed by an insult. Rob....why are you wasting > time with this Neanderthal? > The answer was a non-specific answer to a pretty (willfully) ignorant question.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:27:42 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > John B. answers this question: >>> Who specifically is upset that the US invaded Iraq? >> >> Pretty much the whole fucking world, you dumbass. > > Non specific answer followed by an insult. Rob....why are you wasting > time with this Neanderthal? He is sort of right tho - I don't think any Muslim countries are glad we went into Iraq. I also think there are a few billion Muslims. They seem kind of pissed and most are pretty crazy / dangerous. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:49:31 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent an hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got all my work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though!     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:26:25 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > You opened a real can of worms with this one, Greg! I haven't spent an > hour with RSG for years! I could say "back to work", but I got all my > work done on the weekend! Back to work tomorrow though! Better you than me. On Friday i was running to the car because it was raining, and felt a big 'pop' in the bottom of my heel. That's the best way to describe it. I hopped to the car (literally) and drove home with just my left foot and spent the weekend off it and taking motrin (no golf). Today my podiatrist said I ruptured the plantar fascia ligament and I have to wait for the MRI group to call me and schedule an appointment. So I am in this big velcro walking cast and a crutch. I missed work today and I think it's gonna pile up in a hurry. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson       Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:24:05 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 30-Oct-2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Better you than me. On Friday i was running to the car because it was > raining, and felt a big 'pop' in the bottom of my heel. That's the best > way to describe it. I hopped to the car (literally) and drove home with > just my left foot and spent the weekend off it and taking motrin (no > golf). > Today my podiatrist said I ruptured the plantar fascia ligament and I have > > to wait for the MRI group to call me and schedule an appointment. So I am > > in this big velcro walking cast and a crutch. I missed work today and I > think it's gonna pile up in a hurry. Bummer, do whatever the doc says and get well soon. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:47:38 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > jeffc wrote: > > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > > > > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > > > > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > > > > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > > > > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? > > > > > > I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He was > > > trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle I posted. > > > Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it takes awhile to > > > explain, and even then most dimwits still won't understand it. See > > > Hamilton, for example. > > > > The answer is simple. I want the US to win in Iraq. Your problem is > > that you cannot see that. If you don't want the US to win in Iraq, say > > so. You "riddle" is at the level of a 6 year old moron, which doesn't > > say much about you. > > Look, "Professor," I'm sure we all want the US to "win" in Iraq. But > there are few if any reasonable people left who think that's possible > at this point. GW Bush and his gang of neo-con thugs have inflicted a > catastrophe on that country. We need to stop talking about "winning" > and start looking for the least objectionable way out. For someone who > identifies himself as a "Professor," your posts are decidedly > unprofessorial. You are blinded by personal political bias. If the US puts 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for 2 years, they can stabilize the situation. If they just stay there with the 150,000 for a few more years, it will also settle out OK, IMHO. If the US leaves the region in chaos, it's just another example of Americans following the political winds in the US at the expense of the rest of the world, like JFK's idiot adventures in Vietnam. If the US is worth anything, they *HAVE* to stay in Iraq until it settles down. While you can agree or disagree, as an American, you need to recognize that it is *YOUR* country that went into Iraq, and it is decidedly *NOT* OK for you to leave it in chaos simply because you now don't feel comfortable about it. It's not a matter of whose fault this or that is, but a matter of responsibility for your actions. It's still safer for an American to be in Baghdad than it is to be in inner city St. Louis...and that's thanks to idiot social engineering that staeted with JFK as well! The fact that *YOU* feel the need to make demeaning statements about me rather than address the issue means you have nothing to say, other than to "oppose" what other say and do, which means whatever people want to take it to mean.     Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:14:10 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 30-Oct-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > It's still safer for an American to be in Baghdad > than it is to be in inner city St. Louis Puh-leeze! That's only because there ain't no green zone in the STL! -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.       Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:49:09 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules bill-o wrote: > On 30-Oct-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > >> It's still safer for an American to be in Baghdad >> than it is to be in inner city St. Louis > > Puh-leeze! That's only because there ain't no green zone in the STL! St Louis is fine. I lived there 5 days a week from November 2005 through July 2006. I, along with 30 of my friends, lived at Renaissance Grande on 8th and Washington. We walked every day to/from SBC/AT&T; and we all walked late at night and were never bothered. We would hang out at that little park over by 8th and Pine; and would walk all the way up to 13 late at night to get Sushi at Wasabi's. Nobody was ever accosted. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson         Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:29:06 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 31-Oct-2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > St Louis is fine. I lived there 5 days a week from November 2005 through > July 2006. I, along with 30 of my friends, lived at Renaissance Grande > on > 8th and Washington. We walked every day to/from SBC/AT&T; and we all > walked > late at night and were never bothered. We would hang out at that little > park over by 8th and Pine; and would walk all the way up to 13 late at > night to get Sushi at Wasabi's. Nobody was ever accosted. I know, I lived on Tower Grove Park from 2002 to 2004 and ran a delivery route in N. StL w/o incident. Just a dig at the Prof. We lived in the same town till I moved to StL. Now it appears you've moved to my town. Welcome, we should tee it up sometime. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:11:58 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 30-Oct-2006, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > If the US is worth anything, they *HAVE* > to stay in Iraq until it settles down. While you can agree or disagree, > as an American, you need to recognize that it is *YOUR* country that > went into Iraq, and it is decidedly *NOT* OK for you to leave it in > chaos simply because you now don't feel comfortable about it. It's not > a matter of whose fault this or that is, but a matter of responsibility > for your actions. Well put Rob! I for one did not approve of the manner that Bush got us into this situation, but we started it but we'd better stick around until some semblance of order is established. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. -- bill-O A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.       Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:46:53 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules bill-o wrote: > Well put Rob! I for one did not approve of the manner that Bush got > us into this situation, but we started it but we'd better stick > around until some semblance of order is established. To do otherwise > would be irresponsible. I don't care about irresponsibility nearly as much as I care about the children we have in Iraq. Are any of your children in Afghanestan or Iraq, by any chance? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson         Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:51:35 From: Otto Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The funny thing is, Bush thinks the Iraq situation is sooooooo important but none of his flesh and blood(kids) are there. Come'one Georgy Bushy---------put some skin in the game. How about you 536 members in the Senate and House of Representatives--How many of you have skin(kids) in the game in Iraq? After all--it is terribly important. We must not forget--- Words mean very little and they can lie. Actions tell the truth. Otto "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message news:gUT1h.9907$N4.3096@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > I don't care about irresponsibility nearly as much as I care about the > children we have in Iraq. Are any of your children in Afghanestan or > Iraq, by any chance?     Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:41:17 From: FredK Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message news:1162226858.640709.246390@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > You are blinded by personal political bias. If the US puts 500,000 > troops on the ground in Iraq for 2 years, they can stabilize the > situation. If they just stay there with the 150,000 for a few more > years, it will also settle out OK, IMHO. Hmmm. All of the above is political bias and "your humble opinion". Afganistan arguably was the feather that broke the back of the USSR. We might put a million bodies on the streets of Iraq and impose shall law that will create some type of order... until we leave. If we leave 150,000 troops in Iraq - many people - including at times people in the administration - believe that the troops will be there many years after Bush leaves office. > If the US leaves the region in > chaos, it's just another example of Americans following the political > winds in the US at the expense of the rest of the world, ike JFK's > idiot adventures in Vietnam. If the US is worth anything, they *HAVE* > to stay in Iraq until it settles down. Or the recognition that we have created a lose-lose situation through inept leadership and lack of of planning. What happens if Iraq *never* settles down? > While you can agree or disagree, > as an American, you need to recognize that it is *YOUR* country that > went into Iraq, and it is decidedly *NOT* OK for you to leave it in > chaos simply because you now don't feel comfortable about it. It's not > a matter of whose fault this or that is, but a matter of responsibility > for your actions. Yup. The you broke it, you own it rationale. Iraq IS in chaos. I have no problem with a PLAN that includes staying in Iraq. Provide us one with a GLIMMER of a chance of working - because the current one has FAILED. Bring back the draft and call up a half million 17-20 year olds and send them over. Then you will see how many people support the "war" when all of a sudden they have a personal stake in the outcome. The other thing you might want to recognize is that America - as a government - is hated by much of the world... this apparent ability to seperate ourselves from taking PERSONAL responsibility for the actions of our government cuts in many ways. > It's still safer for an American to be in Baghdad > than it is to be in inner city St. Louis...and that's thanks to idiot > social engineering that staeted with JFK as well! > Oh my. No personal politcal bias here. Please fly to Bagdad for a week and wander around on the streets. Don't bother to buy a return ticket - you won't need one. What an exaggeration. When was the last time say - 90 people died buying groceries in St. Louis? > The fact that *YOU* feel the need to make demeaning statements about me > rather than address the issue means you have nothing to say, other than > to "oppose" what other say and do, which means whatever people want to > take it to mean. > There is honor in being the opposition. The current administration created a huge mess. It took a tragedy which gave us (for a brief moment) a chance to unite the world against terrorists - and squandered it. Now if you are opposed to the mess we are in - or opposed to the direction we are headed - you cannot make constructive attempts to find a solution - because you will be attacked no matter what you suggest - unless it is in-line with the Republican party line. So - right now it is "good enough" just to stand in opposition and say "The current congress and administration has failed in all respects - get rid of them and we will do a better job - we certainly could not do a worse one". The guy didn't say anything particularly demeaning - other than you use a moniker that appears not to seem fit - in that you believe that your opinion is fact and it is not apparently based on independent thought.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:18:44 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > If the US puts 500,000 > troops on the ground in Iraq for 2 years, they can stabilize the > situation. Agreed; but only because that is the troop number from the first Gulf War. > If they just stay there with the 150,000 for a few more > years, it will also settle out OK, IMHO. Completely disagree. I think 150K troops will allow things to continue to deteriorate and cause another 'Vietnam" situation that cannot ever be won. > If the US leaves the region > in chaos, it's just another example of Americans following the > political winds in the US at the expense of the rest of the world, > like JFK's idiot adventures in Vietnam. A lot of Americans do not want USA over there; and could care less about the chaos that is left behind among the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis. > If the US is worth anything, > they *HAVE* to stay in Iraq until it settles down. Sometimes you have to punt. Or do you contend that this can never be the proposed solution? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:38:28 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Snippitalll... Cut the cost of drugs for medicare and people who aren't on medicare have to pay more. That's going to be ordinary working people one way or another. The costs have to come from somewhere...you have development costs, regualtory costs, lawsuit costs, and Americans pay for them all. Canadians can simply adopt the technology once it's developed and tested, and pay only production costs, but the rest has to come from somewhere, and that's going to be the people who actually work to generate revenue in some form or another in the US. The US was spending billions maintaining a no fly zone and other wastes of resources to keep a sweet deal for Saddam whereby he could sell stuff under the table and keep all the money himself. The cost of the war in Iraq includes a lot of costs that we would bear anyways. We would still have to maintain the troops and equipmkent anyways. Not to say the war is free, or even cheap, but given the 20 billion spent bombing Serbia (a real costly thing, IMHO that we will pay for for decades), Iraq is not *that* costly. I agree the Iraq war is a mistake, and I agree the strategy has been totally dumb, but that's the Pentagon. I really don't see Rumsfeld and Bush doing anything more but going along with the Pentagon on the issue. Powelll had the right idea about the big army, IMHO, but his faction lost out, and he is out. The small army is OK for the war, but you need the big army for the duration, again, JMHO.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:26:02 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > jeffc wrote: > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > > > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > > > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > > > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > > > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? > > > > I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He was > > trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle I posted. > > Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it takes awhile to > > explain, and even then most dimwits still won't understand it. See > > Hamilton, for example. > > The answer is simple. I want the US to win in Iraq. Your problem is > that you cannot see that. If you don't want the US to win in Iraq, say > so. You "riddle" is at the level of a 6 year old moron, which doesn't > say much about you. Look, "Professor," I'm sure we all want the US to "win" in Iraq. But there are few if any reasonable people left who think that's possible at this point. GW Bush and his gang of neo-con thugs have inflicted a catastrophe on that country. We need to stop talking about "winning" and start looking for the least objectionable way out. For someone who identifies himself as a "Professor," your posts are decidedly unprofessorial.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:15:03 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > The_Professor wrote: >> jeffc wrote: >>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have >>>> sex with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red >>>> Sox and shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these >>>> things is as likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's >>>> what I would have said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? >>> >>> I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He >>> was trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle >>> I posted. Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it >>> takes awhile to explain, and even then most dimwits still won't >>> understand it. See Hamilton, for example. >> >> The answer is simple. I want the US to win in Iraq. Your problem is >> that you cannot see that. If you don't want the US to win in Iraq, >> say so. You "riddle" is at the level of a 6 year old moron, which >> doesn't say much about you. > > Look, "Professor," I'm sure we all want the US to "win" in Iraq. But > there are few if any reasonable people left who think that's possible > at this point. GW Bush and his gang of neo-con thugs have inflicted a > catastrophe on that country. We need to stop talking about "winning" > and start looking for the least objectionable way out. For someone who > identifies himself as a "Professor," your posts are decidedly > unprofessorial. This month's Soldier of Fortune had a great article about that. The author (I forget who, but perhaps Colonel Oliver North) goes into detail about USA leaving countries and compares it to the other two great expansion countries that are now divesting; England and France. The author's position is that France has so far had the best success; and he feels it is due to France's policy of returning to those countries with a military force when things get too out of hand. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:24:34 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules John B. wrote: > > the state-sanctioned violence would stop. The violence and vicious > discrimination perpetrated against palestinians by israeli settlers in > the west bank would not. Arabs controlled the west bank from 1946-1967. Palestine was partitioned into 2 states, a much larger Arab state called Jordan and a much smaller Jewish state called Israel. If the Arabs wanted a "Palestinian State" in the west bank called "palestine", they had over 20 years to make it so. The fact is the Arabs want palestinaian concentration camps. It is Arab nations who have kept Palestinians in those camps ovet the decades. "Palestinian" Arabs in Israel have lived far better than "Palestinians" in Arab controlled areas. > > > Who is causing the anarchy in Iraq? > > the lack of security or any governmental authority, which are > consequences of our invasion, are causing the the anarchy in Iraq. The > Bush admin. was warned by a lot of people who are quite expert in > post-conflict recovery about what would happen in Iraq after we > overthrew Saddam Hussein. The admin, ignored all those people, even > refuse to associate with them. Pretty much everything they said would > happen has happened. I see, so you have a lack of authority, and this cuts off the nheads of civilians? How about criminals who need to be rounded up and removed from that society? How many people were being killed by these thugs before the US went in? Same number? More? Less? Do you know? Fact is the thing is done. We can stabilize that situation, but people like you *WANT* the US to fail, but don't want to say so, so we get silly lame responses from you on it. > Which US soldiers, under orders, shot any women working in fields, or > > kidnapped people from retail stores and killed them? Which Americans, acting under > > orders, kidnapped civilians and beheaded them? So why didn't you answer this? We have removed thousands of these thugs from the face of the earth, and can get many more. Of course you want the glorious socialist revolution to sweep away the evils of capitalism, and if the US is knocked down by Islamic nutcases, so much the better. What you miss, of course, is that they don't want your socialist utopia; they want the whole world to be a fundamentalist islamic theocracy; and would kill people like you immediately.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:20:16 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > Arabs controlled the west bank from 1946-1967. Palestine was > partitioned into 2 states, a much larger Arab state called Jordan and > a much smaller Jewish state called Israel. If the Arabs wanted a > "Palestinian State" in the west bank called "palestine", they had over > 20 years to make it so. The fact is the Arabs want palestinaian > concentration camps. It is Arab nations who have kept Palestinians in > those camps ovet the decades. "Palestinian" Arabs in Israel have lived > far better than "Palestinians" in Arab controlled areas. ch 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism." On the same day Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993, he explained his actions on Jordan TV. Here's what he said: "Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel." "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people." --- Prime Minister Golda Meir   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:13:59 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? > > I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He was > trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle I posted. > Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it takes awhile to > explain, and even then most dimwits still won't understand it. See > Hamilton, for example. The answer is simple. I want the US to win in Iraq. Your problem is that you cannot see that. If you don't want the US to win in Iraq, say so. You "riddle" is at the level of a 6 year old moron, which doesn't say much about you.   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:11:05 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > > The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it's "lame". It just > means you can't understand it. The question I posed is: "Do you want the US to win in Iraq?". A simple question. You obviously cannot give a straight answer to the question. People like you are why democrats are nearly unelectable.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:12:28 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > jeffc wrote: >> >> The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it's "lame". It >> just means you can't understand it. > > The question I posed is: "Do you want the US to win in Iraq?". A > simple question. You obviously cannot give a straight answer to the > question. People like you are why democrats are nearly unelectable. People like him? The Democrat Party itself and it's positions are not detramental to it's popularity? With regard to your question - I have to imagine all Americans want USA to "win in Iraq" but I don't think there is a clear definition of what winning is. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:05:08 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules-R&B style response on stem cells! Tex wrote: > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > > > > > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > > > > I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, and > > it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. > > Can someone point to me where federal dollars toward embryo stem cells > would make a difference? So far, from what I read, the big gains are > being made in adult stem cells. > Let's get some science here rather than political blather to pour more > money down a dry hole. Actually, the political blather is the claim that adult stem cells are sufficient. There really isn't much promise in adult stem cells. You can maybe do a few things with them, but they are already differentiated into adult cells, and you can't rewind the clock on them, for one thing. There are several other issues, but it gets fairly technical. People who say there is more promise in adult stem cell research than embryonic stem cell research are either ignornat or up to something. It's a straight up lie. There is in fact very little promise with adult stem cells and a lot of promise with embryonic stem cells. Not to say that embryonic stem cell research isn't disturbing in and of itself, and does not need to be lied about. Creating human embryos as part of therapudics is disturbing to a lot of people, howver it is something that probably will work for a lot of things. These technologies will be developed, that's a fact. The only issue Americans control is wheter or not they will be developed by Americans. You cannot really transfer techologies. The infrastructure, workforce and support that the country that develops the technolgy has cannot really be transferred, and is most well represented by the fact that other countries really can't "catch up" to the US in a lot of areas. Of course, the vision of the future with this sort of technology is people going in and having their gametes harvested, a secondary oocyte fertilized and the embryo grown to some (small) size, a few cells harvested and cultured into some number of cells that are frozen and saved for potential later use. The embryo can then be implated in the woman, who gives birth to a child. Later in life, the person needs say blood, or islet cells; they can be grown from the stored embryonic cells and transferred into the person. No immune reactions! Who knows, maybe it's easy to get undifferentiated cells to grow into say a new heart? We can put cells into tissues and have them differentiate into that tissue now, so maybe you could replaced dmaged heart tissue by introducing embryonic stem cells into the heart? One thing for sure, adult stem cells hold no promise at all in this area. Someone like Fox would hope that you could replace lost brain tissue with embryonic stem cells. One thing also for sure, no way any research would help him; the potential developments are way too off in the future.\ Now maybe *YOU* don't like that vision...but who are *YOU* to im,pose that on others? In fact, you can't. Countries like China are prioritizing this sort of research. If they develop it and we don't, they will move ahead of us. The Bush administration is making a big "investment" in physical sciences...so they can make an artificial heart? Sorta like yesterdays news to my mind! Whatever can be done with ICs is pretty much done, IMHO. These organic technologies, like it or not, are the future. If we want a say, we have to play. Sticking our head in the sand isn't going to do any good. Of course, I'm a biologist, so I am biased, but I don't think that there is any real sense where I am wrong here.     Date: 31 Oct 2006 01:27:16 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules-R&B style response on stem cells! On 30 Oct 2006 08:05:08 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: >The only issue Americans >control is wheter or not they will be developed by Americans. And whether the state should be taxing us to make sure that we pay for this result. Stem cells will be used. Life saving and improving technologies will be developed. Maybe private industry will pay for it, maybe foreign taxpayers. Meanwhile our economy isn't helped by deficit spending.   Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:42:56 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? > > I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He was > trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle I posted. > Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it takes awhile to > explain, and even then most dimwits still won't understand it. See > Hamilton, for example. It was him I was asking and he gave me his answer, which was no answer at all. There obviously is no elegant solution to the catastrophe in Iraq. The question is not which proposal is best, but which is the least bad. There's only thing that I'm certain is not going to happen -- we're not going to "win."   Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:56:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Robert Hamilton wrote: > "John B." wrote: > > snip.... > > > > > Am I now? Have you ever spent any time in Isreal? I have. No one who > > has taken the trouble to really enlighten himself about this issue > > believes, as you do, that it's one-sided, i.e., the Palestinians are to > > blame for everything and the Israelis are pure and innocent. > > So you've spent time in the mideast and you don't know that the palestinian > extremists don't want to kill all the jews in israel? Or you think this is not > true? If the palestinian extremists stopped arttacking israel, the violence would > stop. You deny this also? the state-sanctioned violence would stop. The violence and vicious discrimination perpetrated against palestinians by israeli settlers in the west bank would not. > > > > > So I shoud rephrase for contemporary puposes..what did the Bush > > administration do to tick off the rest of the world? > > > > He invaded Iraq and instead of stabilizing that country, as he vowed to > > do, he allowed it to sink into a hell-hole of violence, carnage, > > anarchy and mayhem. He has allowed the Taliban to regain its strength > > in Afghanistan and that country to become the world's largest source of > > heroin. ShalI I go on? > > Who specifically is upset that the US invaded Iraq? Pretty much the whole fucking world, you dumbass. > Who is causing the anarchy in Iraq? the lack of security or any governmental authority, which are consequences of our invasion, are causing the the anarchy in Iraq. The Bush admin. was warned by a lot of people who are quite expert in post-conflict recovery about what would happen in Iraq after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. The admin, ignored all those people, even refuse to associate with them. Pretty much everything they said would happen has happened. Which US soldiers, under orders, shot any women working in fields, or > kidnapped people from retail stores and killed them? Which Americans, acting under > orders, kidnapped civilians and beheaded them?   Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:15:45 From: Tex Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <pYadnYqBX9bzk9jYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > In article <G9WdnW_QR6FlSdnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>, > > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > >>> Hi Bert, > > >>> > > >>> You disagree with the agenda, and that is fine. But the Republicans and > > >>> their cohorts have worked hard to keep that agenda from even being > > >>> talked about. Probably because some, maybe even most, of the voters > > >>> would agree with it, even if you don't. > > >> The failure of the Democrats to get their message out, if this is true, > > >> lies squarely with the Democrats. Stop whining about the Republicans. > > >> > > >>> But let's talk entitlements. For all his bluster, even Reagan couldn't > > >>> get them stopped. He found that the majority of people liked at least > > >>> some entitlements. > > >> Everyone needs to grow up and take care of themselves rather than > > >> relying upon others to do so for them. > > >> > > > That's nice to say, but there are many (maybe even most) in this society > > > that work hard and follow the rules, but only earn enough to take care > > > of today. There isn't anything left to take care of their future. > > > > Life is not fair, not now and has not ever been fair. > > > > > There's also an older generation that bought into the defined retirement > > > of the companies they worked for. Now that isn't usually part of the > > > package, but it was for many years. The bad part is that the bankruptcy > > > courts and the corporate owned gov't allowed those companies to not fund > > > those retirements properly, or weasel out in bankruptcy. > > > > Life is not fair, not now and has not ever been fair. > > > > > So rules changed, things that were aren't... > > > > When I started "donating" 6% of my pay to the "Social Security Trust > > Fund" it was understood that I would be able to receive "benefits" at > > age 65. But, then it changed and now I have to wait until I am 67 to > > receive my full "benefit". It isn't fair. > > > > >>> Hell, I like a couple myself. Military retirement, medicare and SS for > > >>> 3, since they all affect me and I paid for all of them, either in cash > > >>> (SS and medicare) or in kind (called imputed pay when I was in the Navy). > > >> Military retirement is not a entitlement, you earned it. > > >> > > > Yes, I did earn it. But it is an entitlement. > > > > > >> SS is just plain thievery. I could be retired now if I had just the > > >> money I put in, not my company's compelled match. > > > > > > While SS isn't the best retirement plan, the disability and survivor's > > > benefits make it a pretty good insurance package. And no, you could not > > > have bought an annuity with disability and survivor's benefits anywhere > > > near as much as SS for anything approaching that low cost. > > > > Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it is a basic subsistence plan > > at best. > > > > Low cost? If I could have taken the my "contribution" and my company's > > "contribution" which is about 15% of my compensation and invested it > > myself, I could retire in 5 years with many millions of dollars. Golf > > would them become my full time pastime. > > You guys that are all about how bad SS is never want to put the > disability and survivor benefits into the mix. That is what makes it so > very good, even more than the retirement benefit. > And I say again, you cannot buy an annuity that pays what SS does that > also has disability and survivor benefits anywhere near as good as SS > for the price. There is a damn good reason why you could never buy it...nobody could afford to lose the money that would sell it! 3 workers are paying for 1 retiree...soon it will be 2... Tex   Date: 29 Oct 2006 10:58:14 From: Tex Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Robert Hamilton wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > > > The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > > agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > > if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > > > > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > > legislation. > > Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years > > > > > ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. > > Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. Besides creating "more" government, just what wasn't done so far that will make such a great difference?? Inspecting cargo containers? Ok, be ready for 30,000 more federal employees...and be ready for ALL your imported goods to increase in cost...but I'm just saying. > > ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. > > OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. Just a tax on small business....you aren't getting more productivity, you are just paying higher wages. > > > > ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. > > Where does the money come from to pay for it? Why do we need to cut the interest rate on loans?? Students agree to the interest rate, they don't have to pay the loan until they are out of school. What's so wrong with that deal? Maybe you think education should be paid for with zero interest loans? We spend too much on higher education anyway...who benefits the most when millions of students go to college for 4-6 years that probably shouldn't anyway....yup, not society, the Universities and Colleges benefit!! > > > > ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > > companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. > > Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way or > another. Get government OUT of the health care business...get them OUT of my life in general. Read what The Constitution says about what the Federal Government is supposed to do. Let the State's do what they are supposed to do. If you don't like the way your state is doing it, you can move or vote...Federal representatives were not put in place to dictate policy for you to run your life. > > > > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > > I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, and > it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. Can someone point to me where federal dollars toward embryo stem cells would make a difference? So far, from what I read, the big gains are being made in adult stem cells. Let's get some science here rather than political blather to pour more money down a dry hole. > > > > ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > > spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > > hike > > Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!! Actually, you need to be afraid of Charlie Rangle...he's in line to House Ways and Means Chairman...he would be in control of the Tax Policy and has already stated clearly that ALL of the Tax cuts will be stopped...even the one that dropped the 15% rate to 10%. Tax receipts are way up...stop the spending increases and we'd start in the right direction. If you'd really like to see the fucktards in Washington scream, levy a one time 10% tax on all wealth...All those "rich" Politicians are healthy millionaires....mostly earned while on the public payroll....let's take some of it back to pay off our debts (which they all helped to create). Tex     Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:05:28 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Tex wrote: > Besides creating "more" government, just what wasn't done so far that > will make such a great difference?? Inspecting cargo containers? Ok, > be ready for 30,000 more federal employees...and be ready for ALL your > imported goods to increase in cost...but I'm just saying. Give that responsibility to the US Navy, as per the US Constitution. They are the ones that should protect our shores. How do you pay for it - simple. Get rid of welfare, medicaid, section-8 housing, WIC, food stamps, and the tens of billions that are spent each year in pork barrel theft from tax paying citizens. Read the 2006 Pig Book (and other ears) - it's enough to make you sick: www.cagw.org > Get government OUT of the health care business...get them OUT of my > life in general. IAWTP. Republicans and Democrats should be hung for treason. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson > Read what The Constitution says about what the Federal Government is > supposed to do. > Let the State's do what they are supposed to do. If you don't like > the way your state is doing it, you can move or vote...Federal > representatives were not put in place to dictate policy for you to run > your life. Americans need to vote Libertarian. Problem is, too many Americans are lazy and useless and vote for whoever gives them the most welfare, food stamps, WIC, section-8 housing, and medicaid. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson       Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:04:42 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <JX61h.41492$X11.30059@bignews7.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Tex wrote: > > Besides creating "more" government, just what wasn't done so far that > > will make such a great difference?? Inspecting cargo containers? Ok, > > be ready for 30,000 more federal employees...and be ready for ALL your > > imported goods to increase in cost...but I'm just saying. > > Give that responsibility to the US Navy, as per the US Constitution. They > are the ones that should protect our shores. How do you pay for it - > simple. Get rid of welfare, medicaid, section-8 housing, WIC, food > stamps, and the tens of billions that are spent each year in pork barrel > theft from tax paying citizens. Read the 2006 Pig Book (and other > ears) - it's enough to make you sick: www.cagw.org > > > > > Get government OUT of the health care business...get them OUT of my > > life in general. > > IAWTP. Republicans and Democrats should be hung for treason. "The tree > of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots > and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson > > > > Read what The Constitution says about what the Federal Government is > > supposed to do. > > Let the State's do what they are supposed to do. If you don't like > > the way your state is doing it, you can move or vote...Federal > > representatives were not put in place to dictate policy for you to run > > your life. > > Americans need to vote Libertarian. Problem is, too many Americans are > lazy and useless and vote for whoever gives them the most welfare, food > stamps, WIC, section-8 housing, and medicaid. Libertarians need to start working harder in local elections to build a base. That they haven't done. You cannot start at the top and work down, just doesn't work.         Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:55:14 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <JX61h.41492$X11.30059@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> Tex wrote: >>> Besides creating "more" government, just what wasn't done so far that >>> will make such a great difference?? Inspecting cargo containers? Ok, >>> be ready for 30,000 more federal employees...and be ready for ALL your >>> imported goods to increase in cost...but I'm just saying. >> Give that responsibility to the US Navy, as per the US Constitution. They >> are the ones that should protect our shores. How do you pay for it - >> simple. Get rid of welfare, medicaid, section-8 housing, WIC, food >> stamps, and the tens of billions that are spent each year in pork barrel >> theft from tax paying citizens. Read the 2006 Pig Book (and other >> ears) - it's enough to make you sick: www.cagw.org >> >> >> >>> Get government OUT of the health care business...get them OUT of my >>> life in general. >> IAWTP. Republicans and Democrats should be hung for treason. "The tree >> of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots >> and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson >> >> >>> Read what The Constitution says about what the Federal Government is >>> supposed to do. >>> Let the State's do what they are supposed to do. If you don't like >>> the way your state is doing it, you can move or vote...Federal >>> representatives were not put in place to dictate policy for you to run >>> your life. >> Americans need to vote Libertarian. Problem is, too many Americans are >> lazy and useless and vote for whoever gives them the most welfare, food >> stamps, WIC, section-8 housing, and medicaid. > > Libertarians need to start working harder in local elections to build a > base. That they haven't done. You cannot start at the top and work > down, just doesn't work. Libertarians will never become a national force. At their very heart the don't care what others do as long as it doesn't hurt them.           Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:14:44 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <crOdnZuWV7LPrNjYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <JX61h.41492$X11.30059@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > >> Tex wrote: > >>> Besides creating "more" government, just what wasn't done so far that > >>> will make such a great difference?? Inspecting cargo containers? Ok, > >>> be ready for 30,000 more federal employees...and be ready for ALL your > >>> imported goods to increase in cost...but I'm just saying. > >> Give that responsibility to the US Navy, as per the US Constitution. > >> They > >> are the ones that should protect our shores. How do you pay for it - > >> simple. Get rid of welfare, medicaid, section-8 housing, WIC, food > >> stamps, and the tens of billions that are spent each year in pork barrel > >> theft from tax paying citizens. Read the 2006 Pig Book (and other > >> ears) - it's enough to make you sick: www.cagw.org > >> > >> > >> > >>> Get government OUT of the health care business...get them OUT of my > >>> life in general. > >> IAWTP. Republicans and Democrats should be hung for treason. "The > >> tree > >> of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots > >> and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson > >> > >> > >>> Read what The Constitution says about what the Federal Government is > >>> supposed to do. > >>> Let the State's do what they are supposed to do. If you don't like > >>> the way your state is doing it, you can move or vote...Federal > >>> representatives were not put in place to dictate policy for you to run > >>> your life. > >> Americans need to vote Libertarian. Problem is, too many Americans are > >> lazy and useless and vote for whoever gives them the most welfare, food > >> stamps, WIC, section-8 housing, and medicaid. > > > > Libertarians need to start working harder in local elections to build a > > base. That they haven't done. You cannot start at the top and work > > down, just doesn't work. > > Libertarians will never become a national force. At their very heart the > don't care what others do as long as it doesn't hurt them. Too bad. I keep hoping for a 3rd party to come up from the grassroots to challenge the current bunch (that includes both dems and reps)           Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:05:52 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > Libertarians will never become a national force. At their very heart > the don't care what others do as long as it doesn't hurt them. That's not true, Bert. We think that chasrity comes from people individually or from people organized into not-for-profit organizations. We just do not think the Federal Government should take our tax dollars and spend on social programs that are not covered in the US Constitution. If States want to individually get involve in social programs; I am alright with that. At least that way, if I disagree how that money is being charitably spent, I can go to another State that more accurately reflects my view of valuable charities. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:31:39 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "John B." wrote: snip.... > > Am I now? Have you ever spent any time in Isreal? I have. No one who > has taken the trouble to really enlighten himself about this issue > believes, as you do, that it's one-sided, i.e., the Palestinians are to > blame for everything and the Israelis are pure and innocent. So you've spent time in the mideast and you don't know that the palestinian extremists don't want to kill all the jews in israel? Or you think this is not true? If the palestinian extremists stopped arttacking israel, the violence would stop. You deny this also? > > So I shoud rephrase for contemporary puposes..what did the Bush > administration do to tick off the rest of the world? > > He invaded Iraq and instead of stabilizing that country, as he vowed to > do, he allowed it to sink into a hell-hole of violence, carnage, > anarchy and mayhem. He has allowed the Taliban to regain its strength > in Afghanistan and that country to become the world's largest source of > heroin. ShalI I go on? Who specifically is upset that the US invaded Iraq? Who is causing the anarchy in Iraq? Which US soldiers, under orders, shot any women working in fields, or kidnapped people from retail stores and killed them? Which Americans, acting under orders, kidnapped civilians and beheaded them?   Date: 29 Oct 2006 08:27:19 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Robert Hamilton wrote: > "John B." wrote: > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > BigPurdueFan wrote: > > > > > > > > > snip... > > > > > > Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to > > > be fair...and we'll go from there! > > > > How about overthrowing the democratically elected govt. of Iran in 1953 > > and installing the Shah? Is that fair? You think that didn't tick off > > some Iranians? How about supplying the Israeli military with all the > > weaponry that is used to kill Palestinians? That might have ticked off > > a few people. > > So it is OK to let arab extermeists massacre jews in Israel? Fine. Arabs > controlled the west bank and gaza for the 20 years between 1946 and 1967. Why > no "palestinian state" then? Of course palestine was aprtitioned, with the > lions share becomming Jordan and the tiny sliver along the ocean (where the > jews lived) becomming Isreal. The arabs promptly tried to massacre the jews, > and jews defended themselves and fought them off, a struggle that they dare > continue today. What if palestinians stopped attacking Israel? IMHO, conflict > between palestinians and jews would stop. The palestinians are in fact the > aggressors...except for Hezbollah, who are Lebanese. I wonder what reason > these Lebanese have to attack Isreal? The answer is that the jews are > infidels and must be killed. If you think there is another reason, you are > too naive to address these issues. Am I now? Have you ever spent any time in Isreal? I have. No one who has taken the trouble to really enlighten himself about this issue believes, as you do, that it's one-sided, i.e., the Palestinians are to blame for everything and the Israelis are pure and innocent. > > I don't see the relevance of the Shah of Iran thing. Any fundamentalist govt. > in Iran would hate us because we are not muslim; period. In any case, Bush > didn't do that. If you don't see the relevance of it, then you are extremely under-informed about Middle Eastern history, politics and culture. It is extremely relevant to what's going on there today. And you call me naive? So I shoud rephrase for contemporary puposes..what did the Bush administration do to tick off the rest of the world? He invaded Iraq and instead of stabilizing that country, as he vowed to do, he allowed it to sink into a hell-hole of violence, carnage, anarchy and mayhem. He has allowed the Taliban to regain its strength in Afghanistan and that country to become the world's largest source of heroin. ShalI I go on? > > > > > > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > > > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > > > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > > > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > > > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > > > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > > > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > > > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > > > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > > > theoretical line that may or may not be there. > > > > Nice. You employ the exact same logic as Osama bin Ladin. He says all > > Americans are fair targets because we pick our govt. Therefore we are > > complicit in every action that govt. takes. Everybody is either purely > > good or purely evil, right? > > Really, so name the US soldier who, under orders, strapped explosives to > themself, got on a bus full of school kids and blew it up? Name one? How > about 1 US soldier who, under orders, kidnapped a civilian and beheaded him? > One? The sad thing is that you really don't see the difference. We are all > infidels to Osama, and should be converted or killed. We don't see Iraqis in > that light.   Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:58:00 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "John B." wrote: > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > jeffc wrote: > > > > > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message > > > news:1162064590.511029.236280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk > > > > to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really > > > > showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to > > > > win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't > > > > want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on > > > > all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need > > > > to be able to answer those sorts of questions! > > > > > > Really? OK, let's see what you're made of, mentally. I'm really serious. > > > Try your best to come up with a real solution. This will give you a good > > > idea of how some of these guys operate (not "guys" in a partisan way, just > > > any guy who either wants to trick you, or isn't st enough to understand > > > the question himself.) > > > > > > > Three men decided to split the cost of a hotel room. The hotel manager gives > > > them a price of $30. The men split the bill evenly, each paying $10, and > > > retire to their room. > > > However, the manager realizes that it was a Wednesday night, which meant the > > > hotel had a special: rooms are only $25 - he overcharged them $5. > > > > > > He calls the bellboy, gives him five one-dollar bills and tells him to > > > return it to the men. When the bellboy explains the situation to the men, > > > they were so pleased at the honesty of the establishment that they promptly > > > tipped the bellboy $2 of the $5 he had returned and each kept $1 for > > > himself. > > > > > > Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 back) > > > totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra dollar > > > go? > > > > It means you want the US to lose in Iraq. > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? I would have said I want the US to win in Iraq.   Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:55:50 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "John B." wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > BigPurdueFan wrote: > > > > > > snip... > > > > Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to > > be fair...and we'll go from there! > > How about overthrowing the democratically elected govt. of Iran in 1953 > and installing the Shah? Is that fair? You think that didn't tick off > some Iranians? How about supplying the Israeli military with all the > weaponry that is used to kill Palestinians? That might have ticked off > a few people. So it is OK to let arab extermeists massacre jews in Israel? Fine. Arabs controlled the west bank and gaza for the 20 years between 1946 and 1967. Why no "palestinian state" then? Of course palestine was aprtitioned, with the lions share becomming Jordan and the tiny sliver along the ocean (where the jews lived) becomming Isreal. The arabs promptly tried to massacre the jews, and jews defended themselves and fought them off, a struggle that they dare continue today. What if palestinians stopped attacking Israel? IMHO, conflict between palestinians and jews would stop. The palestinians are in fact the aggressors...except for Hezbollah, who are Lebanese. I wonder what reason these Lebanese have to attack Isreal? The answer is that the jews are infidels and must be killed. If you think there is another reason, you are too naive to address these issues. I don't see the relevance of the Shah of Iran thing. Any fundamentalist govt. in Iran would hate us because we are not muslim; period. In any case, Bush didn't do that. So I shoud rephrase for contemporary puposes..what did the Bush administration do to tick off the rest of the world? > > > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > > theoretical line that may or may not be there. > > Nice. You employ the exact same logic as Osama bin Ladin. He says all > Americans are fair targets because we pick our govt. Therefore we are > complicit in every action that govt. takes. Everybody is either purely > good or purely evil, right? Really, so name the US soldier who, under orders, strapped explosives to themself, got on a bus full of school kids and blew it up? Name one? How about 1 US soldier who, under orders, kidnapped a civilian and beheaded him? One? The sad thing is that you really don't see the difference. We are all infidels to Osama, and should be converted or killed. We don't see Iraqis in that light.   Date: 29 Oct 2006 06:45:57 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Robert Hamilton wrote: > jeffc wrote: > > > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message > > news:1162064590.511029.236280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk > > > to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really > > > showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to > > > win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't > > > want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on > > > all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need > > > to be able to answer those sorts of questions! > > > > Really? OK, let's see what you're made of, mentally. I'm really serious. > > Try your best to come up with a real solution. This will give you a good > > idea of how some of these guys operate (not "guys" in a partisan way, just > > any guy who either wants to trick you, or isn't st enough to understand > > the question himself.) > > > > Three men decided to split the cost of a hotel room. The hotel manager gives > > them a price of $30. The men split the bill evenly, each paying $10, and > > retire to their room. > > However, the manager realizes that it was a Wednesday night, which meant the > > hotel had a special: rooms are only $25 - he overcharged them $5. > > > > He calls the bellboy, gives him five one-dollar bills and tells him to > > return it to the men. When the bellboy explains the situation to the men, > > they were so pleased at the honesty of the establishment that they promptly > > tipped the bellboy $2 of the $5 he had returned and each kept $1 for > > himself. > > > > Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 back) > > totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra dollar > > go? > > It means you want the US to lose in Iraq. I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have said to O'Reilly? What would you have said?     Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:44:17 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1162133157.314053.231910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > I want the US to win in Iraq. I also want to win the lottery, have sex > with Scarlett Johansen, play center field for the Boston Red Sox and > shoot a sub-80 round of golf. I expect any one of these things is as > likely to happen as our "winning" in Iraq. That's what I would have > said to O'Reilly? What would you have said? I don't know. There is no good answer and O'Reilly knows that. He was trying to trick Letterman. Very lame. Exactly like the riddle I posted. Dirty pool. There actually is a good answer, but it takes awhile to explain, and even then most dimwits still won't understand it. See Hamilton, for example.   Date: 29 Oct 2006 06:32:21 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > BigPurdueFan wrote: > > > snip... > > Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to > be fair...and we'll go from there! How about overthrowing the democratically elected govt. of Iran in 1953 and installing the Shah? Is that fair? You think that didn't tick off some Iranians? How about supplying the Israeli military with all the weaponry that is used to kill Palestinians? That might have ticked off a few people. > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > theoretical line that may or may not be there. Nice. You employ the exact same logic as Osama bin Ladin. He says all Americans are fair targets because we pick our govt. Therefore we are complicit in every action that govt. takes. Everybody is either purely good or purely evil, right?   Date: 29 Oct 2006 05:50:26 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1162056579.596808.143010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > I didn't see O'Reilly's interview of Bush but I understand he was quite > > tough on him. > > People seem to think that's some sort of "vindication". O'Reilly and > Limbaugh are entertainers, nothing more. They have an audience that wants > to hear more of what they already believe. There's nothing wrong with that. > Where it gets wrong is when people start listening to these guys as if they > are a real source of information and research. Of course O'Reilly is a real source of information and research. He has several staff members that look at bills and laws and news from the day. When he rails on a judge's decision of letting a child molestor off with a 3 month jail term, and looks at the history of the judge's decisions, what do you think that is except for research? It's crystal clear you don't watch his show, because no reason person could come to the conclusion you're presenting. You might not like the stories he brings forward, or his opinion on the story, but to say he (and when I say 'he', I mean his whole production crew) doesn't research stories is just ridiculous.   Date: 29 Oct 2006 00:30:08 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bob L wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1162055421.931007.270360@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Well....I voted for Carter. Even today, I will occasionally vote for > > an honest, competent Democrat. > > > > So you don't vote much, do you? Once a year. : > -Greg   Date: 29 Oct 2006 04:12:20 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > BigPurdueFan wrote: > > > > > > snip... > > > > Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to > > be fair...and we'll go from there! > > > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > > theoretical line that may or may not be there. > > Hey Professor, > > 1. Your misuse of "they" and "them" above is sickening. > 2. Your rant above gives you no moral advantage over your enemies. > 3. How many American civilians have been decapitated? How many Iraqi or > Afghani civilians with no terrorist ties have been murdered (beaten to > death, for example, in captivity) or killed brutally in their own > homes? In much of the world's eyes, this gives th US no moral > advantage over their enemies. Fine. Name the US soldier who, under orders, strapeded explosives to himself and got on a school bus and blew it up. How many Afghans have been mridered by thugs vs how many have died as a result of US combat operations? How many Afghan civilians were murdered by the Taliban vs how many have died as a result of US military operations? Why are you such a coward that you have to post as an anon?   Date: 28 Oct 2006 19:59:45 From: Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > BigPurdueFan wrote: > > > snip... > > Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to > be fair...and we'll go from there! > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > theoretical line that may or may not be there. Hey Professor, 1. Your misuse of "they" and "them" above is sickening. 2. Your rant above gives you no moral advantage over your enemies. 3. How many American civilians have been decapitated? How many Iraqi or Afghani civilians with no terrorist ties have been murdered (beaten to death, for example, in captivity) or killed brutally in their own homes? In much of the world's eyes, this gives th US no moral advantage over their enemies.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:31:38 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message > news:1162064590.511029.236280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk > > to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really > > showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to > > win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't > > want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on > > all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need > > to be able to answer those sorts of questions! > > Really? OK, let's see what you're made of, mentally. I'm really serious. > Try your best to come up with a real solution. This will give you a good > idea of how some of these guys operate (not "guys" in a partisan way, just > any guy who either wants to trick you, or isn't st enough to understand > the question himself.) > > Three men decided to split the cost of a hotel room. The hotel manager gives > them a price of $30. The men split the bill evenly, each paying $10, and > retire to their room. > However, the manager realizes that it was a Wednesday night, which meant the > hotel had a special: rooms are only $25 - he overcharged them $5. > > He calls the bellboy, gives him five one-dollar bills and tells him to > return it to the men. When the bellboy explains the situation to the men, > they were so pleased at the honesty of the establishment that they promptly > tipped the bellboy $2 of the $5 he had returned and each kept $1 for > himself. > > Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 back) > totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra dollar > go? There is no extra dollar. The room cost them $25, plus the $2 for the tip=$27, or $9 each. The premise itself is faulty because adding the $2 to $27 is meaningless.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:32:07 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules > I understand O'Reilly is an historian. He obviously takes the time to > inform himself, and is obviously very intelligent. No wonder he has the > highest rated cable news program in the world! O'Reilly has a history degree from ist college, and a masters in something from Harvard.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:08:55 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules BigPurdueFan wrote: snip... Name one thing the US has done to tick off another country...and try to be fair...and we'll go from there! If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any theoretical line that may or may not be there.     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:15:34 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message news:1162066135.402199.193220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > theoretical line that may or may not be there. That's funny, because that's exactly the way Middle Eastern countries are talking about us, and you hate them, so...       Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:51:12 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message > news:1162066135.402199.193220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > > > If someone blows up my family, I could care less if you torture them. > > It's not like they won't torture us. If you capture a real soldier, > > from a real geopolitical entity, that person should not be tortured to > > get information. If you capture some antisocial thug whose "strategy" > > is to blow up school childern on a bus,, there is nothing wrong with > > doing whatever to learn of plans to blow up school busses in the > > future. JMHO, and I grant there is a line somewhere in there, but they > > guys who capture civilians and cut ther heads off do not have the same > > rights as real soldiers, IMHO...and I have no interest in argueing any > > theoretical line that may or may not be there. > > That's funny, because that's exactly the way Middle Eastern countries are > talking about us, and you hate them, so... Really? Who did "we" blow up in Saudi Arabia? When did an American get onto a bus in Damascus and blow it up? ...or do you think if we leave "them" alone they won't bother us?         Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:22:43 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:51:12 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: >Really? Who did "we" blow up in Saudi Arabia? When did an American get onto a >bus in Damascus and blow it up? Actually, "we" blew up a building in Oklahoma City. At least those guilty are as much "we" as Saudi Arabia is "they". >...or do you think if we leave "them" alone they won't bother us? Bin Laden knew us well. His goal was to goad us into attacking them, creating more and more religious fundamentalists in his goal to turn the middle East into a theocracy. He didn't expect us to attack the most secular power in the mid-east, that was just a bonus.         Date: 28 Oct 2006 22:21:13 From: multi Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:51:12 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: >Really? Who did "we" blow up in Saudi Arabia? When did an American get onto a >bus in Damascus and blow it up? We don't work that way. We drop a bomb from 40,000 feet, or shoot a cruise missile from 500 miles away, but the effect is exactly the same. Dozens of people are killed, including women and children, but we just say that the targets were suspected terrorists, and it's their own fault that they had families. Then, three months later, there's a tiny paragraph on page 19 of the Saturday NYT that says a Pentagon spokesman made a brief statement on Friday evening, just a bit too late to make the deadline for the network news: "Oops, it was the wrong house. Sorry."           Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:35:01 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules multi wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:51:12 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > >Really? Who did "we" blow up in Saudi Arabia? When did an American get onto a > >bus in Damascus and blow it up? > > We don't work that way. We drop a bomb from 40,000 feet, or shoot a > cruise missile from 500 miles away, but the effect is exactly the > same. Dozens of people are killed, including women and children, but > we just say that the targets were suspected terrorists, and it's their > own fault that they had families. > > Then, three months later, there's a tiny paragraph on page 19 of the > Saturday NYT that says a Pentagon spokesman made a brief statement on > Friday evening, just a bit too late to make the deadline for the > network news: "Oops, it was the wrong house. Sorry." So how many bombs has the US dropped in Damascus or Saudi Arabia during the Bush administration?             Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:48:50 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Robert Hamilton wrote: > So how many bombs has the US dropped in Damascus or Saudi Arabia > during the Bush administration? Much as I know we should not be over there in the Middle East; I sure wouldn't mind if they dropped bombs in those two spots! Those are two countries (SA and Syria) that I think at some point may get some nukes and sell them to terror organizations. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson         Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:42:33 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message news:45440730.2B040D7@att.net... >> >> That's funny, because that's exactly the way Middle Eastern countries are >> talking about us, and you hate them, so... > > Really? Who did "we" blow up in Saudi Arabia? When did an American get > onto a > bus in Damascus and blow it up? Who the F** said anything about buses? Jesus Christ, you're not really that ignorant are you? Do you really not get all this? > ...or do you think if we leave "them" alone they won't bother us? Duh! Why do you think this is happening? Do you have any clue?           Date: 29 Oct 2006 04:05:50 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message > news:45440730.2B040D7@att.net... > >> > >> That's funny, because that's exactly the way Middle Eastern countries are > >> talking about us, and you hate them, so... > > > > Really? Who did "we" blow up in Saudi Arabia? When did an American get > > onto a > > bus in Damascus and blow it up? > > Who the F** said anything about buses? Jesus Christ, you're not really that > ignorant are you? Do you really not get all this? I did. You responded to me. Short memory there. Maybe you should be checked for dementia. > > > ...or do you think if we leave "them" alone they won't bother us? > > Duh! Why do you think this is happening? Do you have any clue? We left them alone. They flew aircraft into the WTC. Do you have a clue?             Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:41:43 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message news:454426BD.84A5F615@att.net... >> Duh! Why do you think this is happening? Do you have any clue? > > We left them alone. Wow. You really *don't* get it.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:04:13 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > > : I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, > : directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. > > If you can catch a replay of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, > do it. Catch his rant at the end. It's spot on... we are coasting > on the accomplishments of our ancestors now. > I'll try to catch it. Thanks! -Greg   Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:03:25 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules The_Professor wrote: > Dene wrote: > > > snip... > > I've always liked O'Reilly's show. He is the only one who really does > get people with differing views into his show and gives them a shot at > presenting those views on the #1 cable news show in the world. I would > love to go at him on the issue of evolution, particularly as a > Christian! I'd love to hear your views on this too. I was thinking of you while responding to Multi. You are a genetic biologist, obviously intellectual and educated, yet believe in Christianity. How could you be so irrational? ; > > I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk > to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really > showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to > win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't > want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on > all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need > to be able to answer those sorts of questions! Did you hear Letterman's response to the consequence of an early Iraq withdrawal, thus turning it over to our real enemies, the Iranians. He replied, "So what." What a swifty! > I understand O'Reilly is an historian. He obviously takes the time to > inform himself, and is obviously very intelligent. No wonder he has the > highest rated cable news program in the world! It's been a long time since I've caught his show. One thing spoke loudly to me....he's more under control than before, more effective. Poise under pressure. -Greg     Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:21:45 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162065805.620843.297990@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > I'd love to hear your views on this too. I was thinking of you while > responding to Multi. You are a genetic biologist, obviously > intellectual and educated, yet believe in Christianity. Everyone believes in Christianity. Some of those call themselves Christian. A very very few of those actually are.       Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:13:48 From: John Reddy Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <JRP0h.1178$nG1.619@tornado.southeast.rr.com >, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1162065805.620843.297990@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > I'd love to hear your views on this too. I was thinking of you while > > responding to Multi. You are a genetic biologist, obviously > > intellectual and educated, yet believe in Christianity. > > Everyone believes in Christianity. Some of those call themselves Christian. > A very very few of those actually are. To quote a guy in an Irish newsgroup: Going to church doesn't make you a Christian just like going to a garage doesn't make you a mechanic.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 12:52:41 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > Chris Bellomy wrote: > > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > > > > : I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, > > : directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. > > > > If you can catch a replay of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, > > do it. Catch his rant at the end. It's spot on... we are coasting > > on the accomplishments of our ancestors now. > > > > What would you do differently? We could start by not pissing off every country on Earth, including our "friends". We could not torture. We could stand on the ideals that the country was founded on. I could give you a list fifty pages long, but I'm sure you'll nitpick it. Oh, and Bill Maher is still a prick. Funny sometimes, but still a prick.     Date: 28 Oct 2006 16:35:04 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules BigPurdueFan wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> Chris Bellomy wrote: >>> Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> : I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, >>> : directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. >>> >>> If you can catch a replay of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, >>> do it. Catch his rant at the end. It's spot on... we are coasting >>> on the accomplishments of our ancestors now. >>> >> What would you do differently? > > We could start by not pissing off every country on Earth, including our > "friends". We could not torture. We could stand on the ideals that the > country was founded on. I could give you a list fifty pages long, but > I'm sure you'll nitpick it. > > Oh, and Bill Maher is still a prick. Funny sometimes, but still a prick. > When you start off with "we could not..." you haven't said what you would do. Try starting your sentences with "I would do" and you can't say Republican or Bush.       Date: 29 Oct 2006 05:40:14 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 28-Oct-2006, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Try starting your sentences with "I would do" and you can't say > Republican or Bush. Don't know about CB, but the Democratic Party sure can't do this! -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.         Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:35:03 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: : : On 28-Oct-2006, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: : : > Try starting your sentences with "I would do" and you can't say : > Republican or Bush. : : Don't know about CB, but the Democratic Party sure can't do this! Fellas, there are times when "I won't do" is more than adequate: - I won't keep pouring gasoline on the debt fire with more Paris Hilton tax cuts - I won't further destroy our standing in the world with rendition and torture - I won't sabotage with rebuilding of one of our greatest cities with corruption and malfeasance - I won't stand idly by while our members prey on House pages - I won't destroy Social Security - I won't rig Medicare to boost pharm profits while hitting seniors in the knees As for me personally, yeah, I'd go well beyond all that. But even our milquetoast Democratic Party can give you the above, and after the last six years, that looks pretty damned good to me. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/           Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:44:22 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Chris Bellomy wrote: > > - I won't keep pouring gasoline on the debt fire with more Paris > Hilton tax cuts I'm not Paris Hilton, and the Bush tax cuts are worth about $2K per year to me. > > > - I won't sabotage with rebuilding of one of our greatest cities > with corruption and malfeasance Nagin is a democrat, and used FEMA money to rebuld the Superdome. Go Saints! > > > - I won't stand idly by while our members prey on House pages Democrats?! That's rich. > > - I won't rig Medicare to boost pharm profits while hitting > seniors in the knees Democrats will take money from education and services to children and middle class income earners to buy pills for seniors...and that provides revenue for.......the big drug companies...and most of those pills are probably meaningless in the long run. Lets not get into ZTR chairs for obsese sedentary seniors! I also could go well beyond this, but democrats never stake out a position on anything, just criticize what the republicans do. I'm not particularly liberal or conservative, but at least conservatives say where they stand. With democrats you get silly puzzles in response to simple, pointed questions. Bush has really never "won" and election. Gore and Kerry lost in deliberate, calculated acts of stupidity, and the stupidity continues. The interesting thing about this election isn't that the democrats might win control of the senate and the house, but that they might not. Given the mood of the country that should be a fregone conclusion, but it is not! And that's the thing...which is thanks to people like you. People like you and Connely are the best thing the republicans have going for them...not as good as Dean and Pelosi, but of the same sort. I'm sure every republican is eager for you to keep up the good work.             Date: 29 Oct 2006 09:13:16 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <4544BC65.E0089F38@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > Chris Bellomy wrote: > > > > > - I won't keep pouring gasoline on the debt fire with more Paris > > Hilton tax cuts > > I'm not Paris Hilton, and the Bush tax cuts are worth about $2K per year > to me. > > > > > > > - I won't sabotage with rebuilding of one of our greatest cities > > with corruption and malfeasance > > Nagin is a democrat, and used FEMA money to rebuld the Superdome. Go > Saints! > > > > > > > - I won't stand idly by while our members prey on House pages > > Democrats?! That's rich. > > > > > - I won't rig Medicare to boost pharm profits while hitting > > seniors in the knees > > Democrats will take money from education and services to children and > middle class income earners to buy pills for seniors...and that provides > revenue for.......the big drug companies...and most of those pills are > probably meaningless in the long run. Lets not get into ZTR chairs for > obsese sedentary seniors! > > I also could go well beyond this, but democrats never stake out a > position on anything, just criticize what the republicans do. I'm not > particularly liberal or conservative, but at least conservatives say > where they stand. With democrats you get silly puzzles in response to > simple, pointed questions. Bush has really never "won" and election. > Gore and Kerry lost in deliberate, calculated acts of stupidity, and the > stupidity continues. The interesting thing about this election isn't > that the democrats might win control of the senate and the house, but > that they might not. Given the mood of the country that should be a > fregone conclusion, but it is not! And that's the thing...which is > thanks to people like you. People like you and Connely are the best > thing the republicans have going for them...not as good as Dean and > Pelosi, but of the same sort. I'm sure every republican is eager for you > to keep up the good work. The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But if you would like to see part of it, here it is: ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and legislation. ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax hikes.               Date: 30 Oct 2006 01:43:03 From: bill-o Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 29-Oct-2006, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > legislation. This will only be done by abolishing the tax code or by instituting a 2/3 majority for any future tax legislation. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                 Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:06:45 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:43:03 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: >> ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and >> legislation. > >This will only be done by abolishing the tax code or by instituting a 2/3 >majority for any future tax legislation. That would make it just as difficult to pass a tax cut as a tax increase. You have to amend the suggestion to read a 2/3 majority to pass any legislation which increases taxes.                   Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:04:17 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:06:45 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >That would make it just as difficult to pass a tax cut as a tax >increase. You have to amend the suggestion to read a 2/3 majority to >pass any legislation which increases taxes. The important thing to control is spending. Because if spending increases, we will be taxed - even if it is only via inflation and debt.                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:09:18 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <454558a3$0$17463$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: > On 29-Oct-2006, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote: > > > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > > legislation. > > This will only be done by abolishing the tax code or by instituting a 2/3 > majority for any future tax legislation. Or maybe implementing the Fair Tax solution that Boortz and others are talking about.               Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:23:59 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > legislation. Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years > > ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. > > > ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. > > ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. Where does the money come from to pay for it? > > ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way or another. > > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, and it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. > > ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > hike Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!!                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:02:32 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <4544EFDD.2656B825@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > > > The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > > agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > > if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > > > > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > > legislation. > > Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years > I wish I could, and like you, I've heard this one for a long time and yet nothing of substance has been done. > > > > ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. > > Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. > What upsets most, me included, is not all the conclusions were what I thought they should be. We may disagree on which points and which conclusions. > > > > > > ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. > > OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. > That is always the response, but yet it never seems to happen in any large numbers. Here in Illinois, we raised the min wage and nary a job lost even though all the naysayers kept telling us how many would be. > > > > ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. > > Where does the money come from to pay for it? > Uncle Sugar, of course! <G > We could do it with the savings after we declare ourselves the winner in Iraq and get the hell out. > > > > ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > > companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. > > Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way or > another. > Why would it cost more? > > > > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > > I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, and > it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. > > > > > ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > > spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > > hike > > Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!! Unless you live in a bubble, new taxes are coming regardless of party in power. there are huge debts owed to many, including the Chinese. When they start calling those loans, somehow they have to be paid. Trickle down (AKA voodoo economics) won't pay off those bills.                   Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:47:11 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <4544EFDD.2656B825@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat >>> agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But >>> if you would like to see part of it, here it is: >>> >>> ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and >>> legislation. >> Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years >> > I wish I could, and like you, I've heard this one for a long time and > yet nothing of substance has been done. As I said earlier, each tax paying entity may donate $1000 per year to any resisted political campaign at the federal, state and local level. >>> ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. >> Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. >> > What upsets most, me included, is not all the conclusions were what I > thought they should be. We may disagree on which points and which > conclusions. The problem is that some of the members of the commission should have been subjects of investigation by the commission. >>> >>> ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. >> OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. >> > That is always the response, but yet it never seems to happen in any > large numbers. Here in Illinois, we raised the min wage and nary a job > lost even though all the naysayers kept telling us how many would be. There should be no minimum wage period. If you don't like the wage then don't take the job. >>> ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. >> Where does the money come from to pay for it? >> > Uncle Sugar, of course! <G> > > We could do it with the savings after we declare ourselves the winner in > Iraq and get the hell out. The government doesn't save period. The either spend or don't spend. >>> ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical >>> companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. >> Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way or >> another. >> > Why would it cost more? The government should not be in the business of health care. >>> ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. >> I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, and >> it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. >> >>> ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement >>> spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax >>> hike >> Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!! > > Unless you live in a bubble, new taxes are coming regardless of party in > power. there are huge debts owed to many, including the Chinese. When > they start calling those loans, somehow they have to be paid. Trickle > down (AKA voodoo economics) won't pay off those bills. We have too many taxes already. What happens every time the tax rates are lowered? Government tax receipts increase. Try doing that with a tax increase, it doesn't happen and the government has the proof already.                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:52:29 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <1KWdnd-7ZaDystjYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <4544EFDD.2656B825@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> > >>> The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > >>> agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > >>> if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > >>> > >>> ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > >>> legislation. > >> Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years > >> > > I wish I could, and like you, I've heard this one for a long time and > > yet nothing of substance has been done. > > As I said earlier, each tax paying entity may donate $1000 per year to > any resisted political campaign at the federal, state and local level. > > >>> ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. > >> Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. > >> > > What upsets most, me included, is not all the conclusions were what I > > thought they should be. We may disagree on which points and which > > conclusions. > > The problem is that some of the members of the commission should have > been subjects of investigation by the commission. > > >>> > >>> ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. > >> OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. > >> > > That is always the response, but yet it never seems to happen in any > > large numbers. Here in Illinois, we raised the min wage and nary a job > > lost even though all the naysayers kept telling us how many would be. > > There should be no minimum wage period. If you don't like the wage then > don't take the job. > > >>> ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. > >> Where does the money come from to pay for it? > >> > > Uncle Sugar, of course! <G> > > > > We could do it with the savings after we declare ourselves the winner in > > Iraq and get the hell out. > > The government doesn't save period. The either spend or don't spend. > > >>> ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > >>> companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. > >> Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way or > >> another. > >> > > Why would it cost more? > > The government should not be in the business of health care. > > >>> ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > >> I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, > >> and > >> it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. > >> > >>> ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > >>> spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > >>> hike > >> Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!! > > > > Unless you live in a bubble, new taxes are coming regardless of party in > > power. there are huge debts owed to many, including the Chinese. When > > they start calling those loans, somehow they have to be paid. Trickle > > down (AKA voodoo economics) won't pay off those bills. > > We have too many taxes already. > > What happens every time the tax rates are lowered? Government tax > receipts increase. Try doing that with a tax increase, it doesn't happen > and the government has the proof already. Which ignores the fact that taxes went up under Clinton and things were getting better. Better economy (including the revered DOW. It would need to hit about 14K to match what it was on Clinton's watch accounting for inflation), more people at work as a percentage, less wage spread between the top and avg. workers. Clinton WITH the congress made it work. Now a Repug congress and Presidency cannot. Especially after changing the "contract with America" to the "contract ON America".                       Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:46:12 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <1KWdnd-7ZaDystjYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> In article <4544EFDD.2656B825@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat >>>>> agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But >>>>> if you would like to see part of it, here it is: >>>>> >>>>> ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and >>>>> legislation. >>>> Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years >>>> >>> I wish I could, and like you, I've heard this one for a long time and >>> yet nothing of substance has been done. >> As I said earlier, each tax paying entity may donate $1000 per year to >> any resisted political campaign at the federal, state and local level. >> >>>>> ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. >>>> Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. >>>> >>> What upsets most, me included, is not all the conclusions were what I >>> thought they should be. We may disagree on which points and which >>> conclusions. >> The problem is that some of the members of the commission should have >> been subjects of investigation by the commission. >> >>>>> ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. >>>> OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. >>>> >>> That is always the response, but yet it never seems to happen in any >>> large numbers. Here in Illinois, we raised the min wage and nary a job >>> lost even though all the naysayers kept telling us how many would be. >> There should be no minimum wage period. If you don't like the wage then >> don't take the job. >> >>>>> ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. >>>> Where does the money come from to pay for it? >>>> >>> Uncle Sugar, of course! <G> >>> >>> We could do it with the savings after we declare ourselves the winner in >>> Iraq and get the hell out. >> The government doesn't save period. The either spend or don't spend. >> >>>>> ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical >>>>> companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. >>>> Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way or >>>> another. >>>> >>> Why would it cost more? >> The government should not be in the business of health care. >> >>>>> ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. >>>> I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on this, >>>> and >>>> it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. >>>> >>>>> ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement >>>>> spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax >>>>> hike >>>> Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!! >>> Unless you live in a bubble, new taxes are coming regardless of party in >>> power. there are huge debts owed to many, including the Chinese. When >>> they start calling those loans, somehow they have to be paid. Trickle >>> down (AKA voodoo economics) won't pay off those bills. >> We have too many taxes already. >> >> What happens every time the tax rates are lowered? Government tax >> receipts increase. Try doing that with a tax increase, it doesn't happen >> and the government has the proof already. > > Which ignores the fact that taxes went up under Clinton and things were > getting better. Better economy (including the revered DOW. It would > need to hit about 14K to match what it was on Clinton's watch accounting > for inflation), more people at work as a percentage, less wage spread > between the top and avg. workers. It was all smoke and mirrors in the late '90's. People were not producing anything real it was all hype with the hope that it would be purchased by someone within a year. I am talking about the company being bought not the product. > Clinton WITH the congress made it work. Now a Repug congress and > Presidency cannot. Especially after changing the "contract with > America" to the "contract ON America". That was a Republican Congress.                         Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:08:06 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <Z_Cdnd0KLcD5xNjYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <1KWdnd-7ZaDystjYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >>> In article <4544EFDD.2656B825@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > >>>>> agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > >>>>> if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > >>>>> > >>>>> ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > >>>>> legislation. > >>>> Name those rules! People have been saying things like that for years > >>>> > >>> I wish I could, and like you, I've heard this one for a long time and > >>> yet nothing of substance has been done. > >> As I said earlier, each tax paying entity may donate $1000 per year to > >> any resisted political campaign at the federal, state and local level. > >> > >>>>> ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. > >>>> Easy to say. The 9/11 commission was semi bogus anyways. > >>>> > >>> What upsets most, me included, is not all the conclusions were what I > >>> thought they should be. We may disagree on which points and which > >>> conclusions. > >> The problem is that some of the members of the commission should have > >> been subjects of investigation by the commission. > >> > >>>>> ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. > >>>> OK. Be responsible for the low wage jobs lost while you are at it. > >>>> > >>> That is always the response, but yet it never seems to happen in any > >>> large numbers. Here in Illinois, we raised the min wage and nary a job > >>> lost even though all the naysayers kept telling us how many would be. > >> There should be no minimum wage period. If you don't like the wage then > >> don't take the job. > >> > >>>>> ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. > >>>> Where does the money come from to pay for it? > >>>> > >>> Uncle Sugar, of course! <G> > >>> > >>> We could do it with the savings after we declare ourselves the winner in > >>> Iraq and get the hell out. > >> The government doesn't save period. The either spend or don't spend. > >> > >>>>> ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > >>>>> companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. > >>>> Doesn't do much for working people, who will have to pay for it one way > >>>> or > >>>> another. > >>>> > >>> Why would it cost more? > >> The government should not be in the business of health care. > >> > >>>>> ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > >>>> I agree with you on this one. Other countries are moving forward on > >>>> this, > >>>> and > >>>> it's going to be a costly one to be behind on. > >>>> > >>>>> ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > >>>>> spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > >>>>> hike > >>>> Read Reid's lips: More New Taxes!!! > >>> Unless you live in a bubble, new taxes are coming regardless of party in > >>> power. there are huge debts owed to many, including the Chinese. When > >>> they start calling those loans, somehow they have to be paid. Trickle > >>> down (AKA voodoo economics) won't pay off those bills. > >> We have too many taxes already. > >> > >> What happens every time the tax rates are lowered? Government tax > >> receipts increase. Try doing that with a tax increase, it doesn't happen > >> and the government has the proof already. > > > > Which ignores the fact that taxes went up under Clinton and things were > > getting better. Better economy (including the revered DOW. It would > > need to hit about 14K to match what it was on Clinton's watch accounting > > for inflation), more people at work as a percentage, less wage spread > > between the top and avg. workers. > > It was all smoke and mirrors in the late '90's. People were not > producing anything real it was all hype with the hope that it would be > purchased by someone within a year. I am talking about the company being > bought not the product. > > > Clinton WITH the congress made it work. Now a Repug congress and > > Presidency cannot. Especially after changing the "contract with > > America" to the "contract ON America". > > That was a Republican Congress. Yeah, amazing isn't it? When we had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress, we actually got some good things done. And that was because both had to COMPROMISE. Now that we have a republican everything, no compromise is needed and we get to see the real neocons that are calling themselves conservatives.               Date: 29 Oct 2006 10:43:09 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <4544BC65.E0089F38@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > >> Chris Bellomy wrote: >> >>> - I won't keep pouring gasoline on the debt fire with more Paris >>> Hilton tax cuts >> I'm not Paris Hilton, and the Bush tax cuts are worth about $2K per year >> to me. >> >>> >>> - I won't sabotage with rebuilding of one of our greatest cities >>> with corruption and malfeasance >> Nagin is a democrat, and used FEMA money to rebuld the Superdome. Go >> Saints! >> >>> >>> - I won't stand idly by while our members prey on House pages >> Democrats?! That's rich. >> >>> - I won't rig Medicare to boost pharm profits while hitting >>> seniors in the knees >> Democrats will take money from education and services to children and >> middle class income earners to buy pills for seniors...and that provides >> revenue for.......the big drug companies...and most of those pills are >> probably meaningless in the long run. Lets not get into ZTR chairs for >> obsese sedentary seniors! >> >> I also could go well beyond this, but democrats never stake out a >> position on anything, just criticize what the republicans do. I'm not >> particularly liberal or conservative, but at least conservatives say >> where they stand. With democrats you get silly puzzles in response to >> simple, pointed questions. Bush has really never "won" and election. >> Gore and Kerry lost in deliberate, calculated acts of stupidity, and the >> stupidity continues. The interesting thing about this election isn't >> that the democrats might win control of the senate and the house, but >> that they might not. Given the mood of the country that should be a >> fregone conclusion, but it is not! And that's the thing...which is >> thanks to people like you. People like you and Connely are the best >> thing the republicans have going for them...not as good as Dean and >> Pelosi, but of the same sort. I'm sure every republican is eager for you >> to keep up the good work. > > The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > > > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > legislation. Doesn't go far enough. Allow any taxpaying entity to dontate $1000 per year to any registered candidate or national, state or local party organization. > ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission was faulty from the start. It should start over. > ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. Abolish the minimum wages. It artificaially holes down wages. > ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. Provide a tax credit to parents paying for post-secondary education too. > ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Abolish Medicare and Medicaid. No need for the government to be running the practice and delivery of medical care. > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. Why does the federal government have to fund stem cell research? Go and get the money from the private sector. > ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > hikes. Half the problem is solved, and maybe the whole problem is solved, by stopping all federal entitlements.                 Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:26:11 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:43:09 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >> ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. > >Abolish the minimum wages. It artificaially holes down wages. So? A better argument is that it takes away jobs from those who need the money the most.                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 09:59:05 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <99WdnVfpiPSSUdnYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <4544BC65.E0089F38@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > >> Chris Bellomy wrote: > >> > >>> - I won't keep pouring gasoline on the debt fire with more Paris > >>> Hilton tax cuts > >> I'm not Paris Hilton, and the Bush tax cuts are worth about $2K per year > >> to me. > >> > >>> > >>> - I won't sabotage with rebuilding of one of our greatest cities > >>> with corruption and malfeasance > >> Nagin is a democrat, and used FEMA money to rebuld the Superdome. Go > >> Saints! > >> > >>> > >>> - I won't stand idly by while our members prey on House pages > >> Democrats?! That's rich. > >> > >>> - I won't rig Medicare to boost pharm profits while hitting > >>> seniors in the knees > >> Democrats will take money from education and services to children and > >> middle class income earners to buy pills for seniors...and that provides > >> revenue for.......the big drug companies...and most of those pills are > >> probably meaningless in the long run. Lets not get into ZTR chairs for > >> obsese sedentary seniors! > >> > >> I also could go well beyond this, but democrats never stake out a > >> position on anything, just criticize what the republicans do. I'm not > >> particularly liberal or conservative, but at least conservatives say > >> where they stand. With democrats you get silly puzzles in response to > >> simple, pointed questions. Bush has really never "won" and election. > >> Gore and Kerry lost in deliberate, calculated acts of stupidity, and the > >> stupidity continues. The interesting thing about this election isn't > >> that the democrats might win control of the senate and the house, but > >> that they might not. Given the mood of the country that should be a > >> fregone conclusion, but it is not! And that's the thing...which is > >> thanks to people like you. People like you and Connely are the best > >> thing the republicans have going for them...not as good as Dean and > >> Pelosi, but of the same sort. I'm sure every republican is eager for you > >> to keep up the good work. > > > > The Republican spin machine doesn't want you to know the Democrat > > agenda. They've worked long and hard to ensure you don't know it. But > > if you would like to see part of it, here it is: > > > > > > ? Put new rules in place to break the link between lobbyists and > > legislation. > > Doesn't go far enough. Allow any taxpaying entity to dontate $1000 per > year to any registered candidate or national, state or local party > organization. > I agree, but you have to start somewhere. And this is long overdue. > > ? Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. > > The 9/11 commission was faulty from the start. It should start over. > I agree, but probably have different reasons from you. > > ? Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. > > Abolish the minimum wages. It artificaially holes down wages. > BS! Business never pays more than either the gov't or ket pressures force them to. > > ? Cut the interest rate on federally supported student loans in half. > > Provide a tax credit to parents paying for post-secondary education too. > I don't agree. For post-secondary education, the parents shouldn't be part of the picture. I don't want to subsidize career students. > > ? Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical > > companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. > > Abolish Medicare and Medicaid. No need for the government to be running > the practice and delivery of medical care. > Since all studies show that the gov't, surprisingly, runs it better and cheaper than private companies, why not? > > ? Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. > > Why does the federal government have to fund stem cell research? Go and > get the money from the private sector. > Because it is pure research, and that is always tough to get private sector money for because they can't see a bottom line. > > ? Impose pay-as-you-go budget rules, requiring that new entitlement > > spending or tax cuts be offset with entitlement spending cuts or tax > > hikes. > > Half the problem is solved, and maybe the whole problem is solved, by > stopping all federal entitlements. Hi Bert, You disagree with the agenda, and that is fine. But the Republicans and their cohorts have worked hard to keep that agenda from even being talked about. Probably because some, maybe even most, of the voters would agree with it, even if you don't. But let's talk entitlements. For all his bluster, even Reagan couldn't get them stopped. He found that the majority of people liked at least some entitlements. Hell, I like a couple myself. Military retirement, medicare and SS for 3, since they all affect me and I paid for all of them, either in cash (SS and medicare) or in kind (called imputed pay when I was in the Navy).                   Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:21:12 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > Hi Bert, > > You disagree with the agenda, and that is fine. But the Republicans and > their cohorts have worked hard to keep that agenda from even being > talked about. Probably because some, maybe even most, of the voters > would agree with it, even if you don't. The failure of the Democrats to get their message out, if this is true, lies squarely with the Democrats. Stop whining about the Republicans. > But let's talk entitlements. For all his bluster, even Reagan couldn't > get them stopped. He found that the majority of people liked at least > some entitlements. Everyone needs to grow up and take care of themselves rather than relying upon others to do so for them. > Hell, I like a couple myself. Military retirement, medicare and SS for > 3, since they all affect me and I paid for all of them, either in cash > (SS and medicare) or in kind (called imputed pay when I was in the Navy). Military retirement is not a entitlement, you earned it. SS is just plain thievery. I could be retired now if I had just the money I put in, not my company's compelled match.                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:24:56 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <G9WdnW_QR6FlSdnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > > Hi Bert, > > > > You disagree with the agenda, and that is fine. But the Republicans and > > their cohorts have worked hard to keep that agenda from even being > > talked about. Probably because some, maybe even most, of the voters > > would agree with it, even if you don't. > > The failure of the Democrats to get their message out, if this is true, > lies squarely with the Democrats. Stop whining about the Republicans. > > > But let's talk entitlements. For all his bluster, even Reagan couldn't > > get them stopped. He found that the majority of people liked at least > > some entitlements. > > Everyone needs to grow up and take care of themselves rather than > relying upon others to do so for them. > That's nice to say, but there are many (maybe even most) in this society that work hard and follow the rules, but only earn enough to take care of today. There isn't anything left to take care of their future. There's also an older generation that bought into the defined retirement of the companies they worked for. Now that isn't usually part of the package, but it was for many years. The bad part is that the bankruptcy courts and the corporate owned gov't allowed those companies to not fund those retirements properly, or weasel out in bankruptcy. So rules changed, things that were aren't... > > Hell, I like a couple myself. Military retirement, medicare and SS for > > 3, since they all affect me and I paid for all of them, either in cash > > (SS and medicare) or in kind (called imputed pay when I was in the Navy). > > Military retirement is not a entitlement, you earned it. > Yes, I did earn it. But it is an entitlement. > SS is just plain thievery. I could be retired now if I had just the > money I put in, not my company's compelled match. While SS isn't the best retirement plan, the disability and survivor's benefits make it a pretty good insurance package. And no, you could not have bought an annuity with disability and survivor's benefits anywhere near as much as SS for anything approaching that low cost.                       Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:26:22 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <G9WdnW_QR6FlSdnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> Hi Bert, >>> >>> You disagree with the agenda, and that is fine. But the Republicans and >>> their cohorts have worked hard to keep that agenda from even being >>> talked about. Probably because some, maybe even most, of the voters >>> would agree with it, even if you don't. >> The failure of the Democrats to get their message out, if this is true, >> lies squarely with the Democrats. Stop whining about the Republicans. >> >>> But let's talk entitlements. For all his bluster, even Reagan couldn't >>> get them stopped. He found that the majority of people liked at least >>> some entitlements. >> Everyone needs to grow up and take care of themselves rather than >> relying upon others to do so for them. >> > That's nice to say, but there are many (maybe even most) in this society > that work hard and follow the rules, but only earn enough to take care > of today. There isn't anything left to take care of their future. Life is not fair, not now and has not ever been fair. > There's also an older generation that bought into the defined retirement > of the companies they worked for. Now that isn't usually part of the > package, but it was for many years. The bad part is that the bankruptcy > courts and the corporate owned gov't allowed those companies to not fund > those retirements properly, or weasel out in bankruptcy. Life is not fair, not now and has not ever been fair. > So rules changed, things that were aren't... When I started "donating" 6% of my pay to the "Social Security Trust Fund" it was understood that I would be able to receive "benefits" at age 65. But, then it changed and now I have to wait until I am 67 to receive my full "benefit". It isn't fair. >>> Hell, I like a couple myself. Military retirement, medicare and SS for >>> 3, since they all affect me and I paid for all of them, either in cash >>> (SS and medicare) or in kind (called imputed pay when I was in the Navy). >> Military retirement is not a entitlement, you earned it. >> > Yes, I did earn it. But it is an entitlement. > >> SS is just plain thievery. I could be retired now if I had just the >> money I put in, not my company's compelled match. > > While SS isn't the best retirement plan, the disability and survivor's > benefits make it a pretty good insurance package. And no, you could not > have bought an annuity with disability and survivor's benefits anywhere > near as much as SS for anything approaching that low cost. Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it is a basic subsistence plan at best. Low cost? If I could have taken the my "contribution" and my company's "contribution" which is about 15% of my compensation and invested it myself, I could retire in 5 years with many millions of dollars. Golf would them become my full time pastime.                         Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:52:51 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:26:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >If I could have taken the my "contribution" and my company's >"contribution" which is about 15% of my compensation and invested it >myself, I could retire in 5 years with many millions of dollars. If I could have had control of all the money that I put into SS over the years, I'd be able to retire comfortably without touching the principle, which I then would leave to my kids when I die.                         Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:49:19 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:26:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >The bad part is that the bankruptcy >> courts and the corporate owned gov't allowed those companies to not fund >> those retirements properly, or weasel out in bankruptcy. And, of course, the government showed these evil corporations how it should be done by creating the Social Security Trust Fund.                           Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:16:56 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <0tbak2pbn2f49qv9kljtddaj2fkrk3khmr@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:26:22 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> > wrote: > > >The bad part is that the bankruptcy > >> courts and the corporate owned gov't allowed those companies to not fund > >> those retirements properly, or weasel out in bankruptcy. > > And, of course, the government showed these evil corporations how it > should be done by creating the Social Security Trust Fund. That is pretty much true as to the funding, but not so true of the weaseling out with bankruptcy.                             Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:46:52 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:16:56 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: >> And, of course, the government showed these evil corporations how it >> should be done by creating the Social Security Trust Fund. > >That is pretty much true as to the funding, but not so true of the >weaseling out with bankruptcy. Perhaps you will have a different opinion in 2020. I have a feeling that the government will have to do some weaseling by then.                               Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:01:08 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <nh0bk25bl7bbkldl2g05jns8hclpk9r4ll@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:16:56 -0500, Lloyd Parsons > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote: > > >> And, of course, the government showed these evil corporations how it > >> should be done by creating the Social Security Trust Fund. > > > >That is pretty much true as to the funding, but not so true of the > >weaseling out with bankruptcy. > > Perhaps you will have a different opinion in 2020. I have a feeling > that the government will have to do some weaseling by then. Current projections carry solvency out past that, and strangely every projection keeps pushing it out, year after year. Can it get into trouble? Sure, but if it lasts past 2020 there is a chance I won't be around to see it...                                 Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:25:47 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:01:08 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: >> Perhaps you will have a different opinion in 2020. I have a feeling >> that the government will have to do some weaseling by then. > >Current projections carry solvency out past that, and strangely every >projection keeps pushing it out, year after year. The strong economy and job growth in the past 6 years has improved the situation somewhat. However, if the economy goes south so will the projections. Latest projections have the program funded until 2040. However, you have to understand exactly what that means. The 2040 date is when the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) will be exhausted and will no longer be able to meet the shortfall in revenue which will start in 2014. The problem is that the SSTF has no money in it. It's full of Treasury Bonds. The government has been borrowing the surplus and spending it as general revenue. So the idea that SS is funded until 2040 is an accountants slight of hand. The shortfall starts in 2014. At that point the government has to start paying back the money it borrowed from the SSTF. The money has to come from tax revenue. The only difference between 2014 and 2040 is that in 2040 the money to cover the shortfall will no longer be repaying debt and will go directly to paying benefits.                                   Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:29:16 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Jack Hollis wrote: > The strong economy and job growth in the past 6 years has improved the > situation somewhat. Economies are so cyclical that I find it offensive when Executive Offices always take credit for it at voting time. Like Bubba Clinton or Bushtard single handedly did anything, you know? If anything; they could have given kudos to Alan Greenspan and moved on to some other subject. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                     Date: 31 Oct 2006 12:20:00 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:29:16 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: >Jack Hollis wrote: >> The strong economy and job growth in the past 6 years has improved the >> situation somewhat. > > >Economies are so cyclical that I find it offensive when Executive Offices >always take credit for it at voting time. I can't disagree with that, but that's the way it is. The economy runs in cycles and some Presidents are lucky to be elected in an up cycle. The last year of the Clinton administration was when the economy started to head south. There was nothing that Clinton did to cause it. The economy bottomed out and started to recover during the first Bush administration. So Bush gets credit for the recovery and the present strong economy, when he in fact had very little influence on it.                         Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:54:49 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <pYadnYqBX9bzk9jYnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > In article <G9WdnW_QR6FlSdnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >>> Hi Bert, > >>> > >>> You disagree with the agenda, and that is fine. But the Republicans and > >>> their cohorts have worked hard to keep that agenda from even being > >>> talked about. Probably because some, maybe even most, of the voters > >>> would agree with it, even if you don't. > >> The failure of the Democrats to get their message out, if this is true, > >> lies squarely with the Democrats. Stop whining about the Republicans. > >> > >>> But let's talk entitlements. For all his bluster, even Reagan couldn't > >>> get them stopped. He found that the majority of people liked at least > >>> some entitlements. > >> Everyone needs to grow up and take care of themselves rather than > >> relying upon others to do so for them. > >> > > That's nice to say, but there are many (maybe even most) in this society > > that work hard and follow the rules, but only earn enough to take care > > of today. There isn't anything left to take care of their future. > > Life is not fair, not now and has not ever been fair. > > > There's also an older generation that bought into the defined retirement > > of the companies they worked for. Now that isn't usually part of the > > package, but it was for many years. The bad part is that the bankruptcy > > courts and the corporate owned gov't allowed those companies to not fund > > those retirements properly, or weasel out in bankruptcy. > > Life is not fair, not now and has not ever been fair. > > > So rules changed, things that were aren't... > > When I started "donating" 6% of my pay to the "Social Security Trust > Fund" it was understood that I would be able to receive "benefits" at > age 65. But, then it changed and now I have to wait until I am 67 to > receive my full "benefit". It isn't fair. > > >>> Hell, I like a couple myself. Military retirement, medicare and SS for > >>> 3, since they all affect me and I paid for all of them, either in cash > >>> (SS and medicare) or in kind (called imputed pay when I was in the Navy). > >> Military retirement is not a entitlement, you earned it. > >> > > Yes, I did earn it. But it is an entitlement. > > > >> SS is just plain thievery. I could be retired now if I had just the > >> money I put in, not my company's compelled match. > > > > While SS isn't the best retirement plan, the disability and survivor's > > benefits make it a pretty good insurance package. And no, you could not > > have bought an annuity with disability and survivor's benefits anywhere > > near as much as SS for anything approaching that low cost. > > Social Security isn't a retirement plan, it is a basic subsistence plan > at best. > > Low cost? If I could have taken the my "contribution" and my company's > "contribution" which is about 15% of my compensation and invested it > myself, I could retire in 5 years with many millions of dollars. Golf > would them become my full time pastime. You guys that are all about how bad SS is never want to put the disability and survivor benefits into the mix. That is what makes it so very good, even more than the retirement benefit. And I say again, you cannot buy an annuity that pays what SS does that also has disability and survivor benefits anywhere near as good as SS for the price.                           Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:28:14 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:54:49 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: >You guys that are all about how bad SS is never want to put the >disability and survivor benefits into the mix. That is what makes it so >very good, even more than the retirement benefit. > >And I say again, you cannot buy an annuity that pays what SS does that >also has disability and survivor benefits anywhere near as good as SS >for the price. But remember - we are getting those benefits by taxing our kids and grandkids.                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:55:21 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <99WdnVfpiPSSUdnYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: Thanks to bush, there soon will be no money for anything, including entitlements. That also includes his first line of defense in homeland security, cuts which are now being made to local fire and police. Of course, he's sooner see "democracy" in baghdad than a safer, secure, and debt free America.                   Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:14:47 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules tiggerspalewife wrote: > In article <99WdnVfpiPSSUdnYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > Thanks to bush, there soon will be no money for anything, including > entitlements. That also includes his first line of defense in homeland > security, cuts which are now being made to local fire and police. Of > course, he's sooner see "democracy" in baghdad than a safer, secure, and > debt free America. Congress has the power to appropriate funds, the executive branch spends what is appropriated. If Congress wanted to rein in federal spending it could do so itself, seeing as Pres. Bush has signed every bill they have put in front of him.                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:25:32 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <FfmdnTg7Kt_qTtnYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > tiggerspalewife wrote: > > In article <99WdnVfpiPSSUdnYnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@comcast.com> > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks to bush, there soon will be no money for anything, including > > entitlements. That also includes his first line of defense in homeland > > security, cuts which are now being made to local fire and police. Of > > course, he's sooner see "democracy" in baghdad than a safer, secure, and > > debt free America. > > Congress has the power to appropriate funds, the executive branch spends > what is appropriated. > > If Congress wanted to rein in federal spending it could do so itself, > seeing as Pres. Bush has signed every bill they have put in front of him. True! But when you have a Congress in lockstep with the President, you get the mess we have now.                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:26:59 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <FfmdnTg7Kt_qTtnYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: Should I remind you which party is in control at this period of history or will you google that one like dubya does? bush is the poster boy. that's what rove wanted him to be and he is.......the perfect image of what the repugs have become-the party of big spending and uncontrollable debt. Generations to come thank all those who voted with the red states. A true conservative is even more pissed at bush adn the boys than the dems, who are so busy laughing up their collective sleeves that he has botched the past six years so miserably. So much so that it even makes Bubba's 8 years look so much better by comparison.                       Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:34:55 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules tiggerspalewife wrote: > In article <FfmdnTg7Kt_qTtnYnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > Should I remind you which party is in control at this period of history > or will you google that one like dubya does? bush is the poster boy. > that's what rove wanted him to be and he is.......the perfect image of > what the repugs have become-the party of big spending and uncontrollable > debt. Generations to come thank all those who voted with the red states. > A true conservative is even more pissed at bush adn the boys than the > dems, who are so busy laughing up their collective sleeves that he has > botched the past six years so miserably. So much so that it even makes > Bubba's 8 years look so much better by comparison. > > Have you ever heard me unequivocally support Bush? He is better than the two alternatives.                         Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:31:12 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <KOudnTQZLrbDn9jYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: That's the worst kind of support. Of course, you are talking in hypotheticals and I can hardly see either one of those guys being any worse than dubya or getting the country into any more trouble. You can't argue intelligently that they would have but there is no argument that bush has.                           Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:37:58 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules tiggerspalewife wrote: > In article <KOudnTQZLrbDn9jYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > That's the worst kind of support. Of course, you are talking in > hypotheticals and I can hardly see either one of those guys being any > worse than dubya or getting the country into any more trouble. You can't > argue intelligently that they would have but there is no argument that > bush has. > > Go back to off-handed insults, you are much more adept at that activity.                             Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:34:49 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <LdWdnaK3h4-7jNjYnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@comcast.com > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: That's the repug we have grown to know. Can't argue the issues? The only thing left is to change the subject, divert attention, and call the other guy names. Thanks for proving my argument for me. (does that fit the category of "give them enough rope and.....?)                         Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:41:10 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > Have you ever heard me unequivocally support Bush? He is better than > the two alternatives. Who are the two alternatives? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                           Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:55:20 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> Have you ever heard me unequivocally support Bush? He is better than >> the two alternatives. > > Who are the two alternatives? > My memory is getting a little bit fuzzy as I get older but, I think I can remember who they were. Gore. Kerry.                             Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:36:57 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> Bert Robbins wrote: >>> Have you ever heard me unequivocally support Bush? He is better than >>> the two alternatives. >> >> Who are the two alternatives? >> > > My memory is getting a little bit fuzzy as I get older but, I think I > can remember who they were. > > Gore. > > Kerry. I thought you meant right now. Like if Bushtard croaks, next choice is Hallicheney and then there was some second choice. I would rather have Hallicheney than Bushtard; and who comes next - Speaker of the House? I am not sure I like Bushtard better than InternetGore. Kerry I most definitely did not trust, nor was I impressed with his meat puppet Edwards. This coming election I think the best of the non-Libertarians might be Gingrich, McCain, and Lieberman (who is going to run Independant). -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                               Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:43:02 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> Head Shot wrote: >>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>> Have you ever heard me unequivocally support Bush? He is better than >>>> the two alternatives. >>> Who are the two alternatives? >>> >> My memory is getting a little bit fuzzy as I get older but, I think I >> can remember who they were. >> >> Gore. >> >> Kerry. > > I thought you meant right now. Like if Bushtard croaks, next choice is > Hallicheney and then there was some second choice. I would rather have > Hallicheney than Bushtard; and who comes next - Speaker of the House? If it wasn't Halliburton it would have been Bechtel, those are the only two companies with world wide logistics capabiltiy to handle the contracts that were let in Iraq. > I am not sure I like Bushtard better than InternetGore. Kerry I most > definitely did not trust, nor was I impressed with his meat puppet Edwards. > This coming election I think the best of the non-Libertarians might be > Gingrich, McCain, and Lieberman (who is going to run Independant). Gingrich = Good McCain = Idiot Lieberman = Save my seat in the Senate, he isn't going to run for President.                                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:04:42 From: multi Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:43:02 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: >If it wasn't Halliburton it would have been Bechtel, those are the only >two companies with world wide logistics capabiltiy to handle the >contracts that were let in Iraq. Jeez, what flavor is that Kool-Aid? We bombed the crap out of Iraq during the first Gulf War, and then slapped sanctions on them that drastically cut their ability to import the materials they needed to repair their infrastructure, and they still had power and water back to acceptable levels within a few months. For the current invasion, we supposedly used st bombs to avoid damage to everything but their military targets, then gave Halliburton blank check contracts and tens of billions of US taxpayer money, and they still don't have the power and water they had before we invaded.                                   Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:00:32 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:04:42 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote: >We bombed the crap out of Iraq >during the first Gulf War, and then slapped sanctions on them that >drastically cut their ability to import the materials they needed to >repair their infrastructure, and they still had power and water back >to acceptable levels within a few months. For the current invasion, >we supposedly used st bombs to avoid damage to everything but their >military targets, then gave Halliburton blank check contracts and tens >of billions of US taxpayer money, and they still don't have the power >and water they had before we invaded. Saddam didn't have to deal with an insurgency. Iraq's infrastructure is under constant attack.                                     Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:02:18 From: Howard Brazee Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:00:32 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: >Saddam didn't have to deal with an insurgency. Iraq's infrastructure >is under constant attack. He's being tried because of the effective way he dealt with insurgencies.                                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:52:12 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > Gingrich = Good I have not met him, but have heard some of his views on TV (he lives near here) and he seems like a sharp person with some integrity. > McCain = Idiot I have mixed feelings about him. I find his military career impressive and he truly is an American hero. I also like the work he has done with Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org). OTOH; there is that Keating Five issue; and that is something that cannot be just brushed aside. > Lieberman = Save my seat in the Senate, he isn't going to run for > President. I like Lieberman, even if he is a Democrat. Well, now he is an Independant; so maybe we can see what his views are when his strings are not being tugged by the Democrat Party. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                   Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:53:29 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> Gingrich = Good > > I have not met him, but have heard some of his views on TV (he lives near > here) and he seems like a sharp person with some integrity. Gingrich is a great public speaker and student of history with a wide and deep knowledge of the US government. >> McCain = Idiot > > I have mixed feelings about him. I find his military career impressive and > he truly is an American hero. I also like the work he has done with > Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org). OTOH; there is that > Keating Five issue; and that is something that cannot be just brushed > aside. My dad went to the USNA with McCain. Not just the same same year, but in the same company. My dad never had a high opinion of the Admiral's son even though my dad was an Admiral's son. >> Lieberman = Save my seat in the Senate, he isn't going to run for >> President. > > I like Lieberman, even if he is a Democrat. Well, now he is an > Independant; so maybe we can see what his views are when his strings are > not being tugged by the Democrat Party. Lieberman is a nice guy but, he is a left wing socialist at heart. I just hope he is returned to the Senate to just shove a stick up the DNC's and the SDCC's asses.                                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:20:40 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <crOdnZiWV7J0rdjYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > Head Shot wrote: > > Bert Robbins wrote: > >> Gingrich = Good > > > > I have not met him, but have heard some of his views on TV (he lives near > > here) and he seems like a sharp person with some integrity. > > Gingrich is a great public speaker and student of history with a wide > and deep knowledge of the US government. > But he's carrying too much bad baggage to be really in the running, imo. > >> McCain = Idiot > > > > I have mixed feelings about him. I find his military career impressive and > > he truly is an American hero. I also like the work he has done with > > Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org). OTOH; there is that > > Keating Five issue; and that is something that cannot be just brushed > > aside. > > My dad went to the USNA with McCain. Not just the same same year, but in > the same company. My dad never had a high opinion of the Admiral's son > even though my dad was an Admiral's son. > I can't make up my mind about him. There is something about him that just doesn't sit well with me, I wish I could put my finger on it. > >> Lieberman = Save my seat in the Senate, he isn't going to run for > >> President. > > > > I like Lieberman, even if he is a Democrat. Well, now he is an > > Independant; so maybe we can see what his views are when his strings are > > not being tugged by the Democrat Party. > > Lieberman is a nice guy but, he is a left wing socialist at heart. I > just hope he is returned to the Senate to just shove a stick up the > DNC's and the SDCC's asses. Nah, Lieberman is really a moderate. Unfortunately these days if you are slightly to the left of attila the hun, you are considered a wild eyed liberal.                                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:03:04 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > Head Shot wrote: >> Bert Robbins wrote: >>> Gingrich = Good >> >> I have not met him, but have heard some of his views on TV (he >> lives near here) and he seems like a sharp person with some >> integrity. > > Gingrich is a great public speaker and student of history with a wide > and deep knowledge of the US government. Will he end up on the ticket in 2008? > My dad went to the USNA with McCain. Not just the same same year, but > in the same company. My dad never had a high opinion of the Admiral's > son even though my dad was an Admiral's son. Who are you and your Dad hoping end up on the Republican ticket for 2008? > Lieberman is a nice guy but, he is a left wing socialist at heart. I > just hope he is returned to the Senate to just shove a stick up the > DNC's and the SDCC's asses. Socialist < > Social Program Left Winger; but I know what you meant. Yeah - I was just interested in someone getting into the Executive Office that is Jewish. They might give a bit more concern to Syria; and to the relationship between North Korea and Iran. Those countries really worry me; especially considering that something like 5% of all containers that reach USA ports get checked. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                       Date: 29 Oct 2006 20:48:41 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Head Shot wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> Head Shot wrote: >>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>> Gingrich = Good >>> I have not met him, but have heard some of his views on TV (he >>> lives near here) and he seems like a sharp person with some >>> integrity. >> Gingrich is a great public speaker and student of history with a wide >> and deep knowledge of the US government. > > Will he end up on the ticket in 2008? That depends upon what happens in 9 days. >> My dad went to the USNA with McCain. Not just the same same year, but >> in the same company. My dad never had a high opinion of the Admiral's >> son even though my dad was an Admiral's son. > > Who are you and your Dad hoping end up on the Republican ticket for 2008? My dad has been dead for 14 years, he doesn't vote anymore. I hope it is George Allen. >> Lieberman is a nice guy but, he is a left wing socialist at heart. I >> just hope he is returned to the Senate to just shove a stick up the >> DNC's and the SDCC's asses. > > Socialist <> Social Program Left Winger; but I know what you meant. Yeah - > I was just interested in someone getting into the Executive Office that is > Jewish. They might give a bit more concern to Syria; and to the > relationship between North Korea and Iran. Those countries really worry me; > especially considering that something like 5% of all containers that reach > USA ports get checked.                                         Date: 30 Oct 2006 02:21:19 From: Sparky Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 29-Oct-2006, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > My dad has been dead for 14 years, he doesn't vote anymore. Are you sure (about the not voting part)? http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_29-2006_11_04.shtml#1162144706 me                                   Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:57:10 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <Nv81h.8361$N4.2931@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: > > Gingrich = Good > > I have not met him, but have heard some of his views on TV (he lives near > here) and he seems like a sharp person with some integrity. > You need to read more about him. Gingrich would sure like to be in the mix next go 'round, but I don't expect him to get any traction. > > > McCain = Idiot > > I have mixed feelings about him. I find his military career impressive and > he truly is an American hero. I also like the work he has done with > Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org). OTOH; there is that > Keating Five issue; and that is something that cannot be just brushed > aside. > I'm with you on this. He is definitely a mixed bag. > > Lieberman = Save my seat in the Senate, he isn't going to run for > > President. > > I like Lieberman, even if he is a Democrat. Well, now he is an > Independant; so maybe we can see what his views are when his strings are > not being tugged by the Democrat Party. You mean being tugged by the Republican funding of his campaign, don't you?                                     Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:58:29 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Lloyd Parsons wrote: > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: >> I like Lieberman, even if he is a Democrat. Well, now he is an >> Independant; so maybe we can see what his views are when his >> strings are not being tugged by the Democrat Party. > > You mean being tugged by the Republican funding of his campaign, don't > you? I am not sure if or where Joe will get enough cash to compete with the Democrat and Republican Parties. Admittedly, the major political parties these days disgust me. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                       Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:16:07 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <eia1h.18960$kI6.14804@bignews4.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> I like Lieberman, even if he is a Democrat. Well, now he is an > >> Independant; so maybe we can see what his views are when his > >> strings are not being tugged by the Democrat Party. > > > > You mean being tugged by the Republican funding of his campaign, don't > > you? > > > I am not sure if or where Joe will get enough cash to compete with the > Democrat and Republican Parties. Admittedly, the major political parties > these days disgust me. I'm with you. Hell, as much as I think the Green Party is a bunch of loonies, I just may vote for the one running here for Governor. Lord knows he couldn't be MORE corrupt than what we've been getting.           Date: 29 Oct 2006 09:36:11 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Chris Bellomy wrote: > bill-o <assimilate@borg.org> wrote: > : > : On 28-Oct-2006, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > : > :> Try starting your sentences with "I would do" and you can't say > :> Republican or Bush. > : > : Don't know about CB, but the Democratic Party sure can't do this! > > Fellas, there are times when "I won't do" is more than adequate: > > - I won't keep pouring gasoline on the debt fire with more Paris > Hilton tax cuts > > - I won't further destroy our standing in the world with rendition > and torture > > - I won't sabotage with rebuilding of one of our greatest cities > with corruption and malfeasance > > - I won't stand idly by while our members prey on House pages > > - I won't destroy Social Security > > - I won't rig Medicare to boost pharm profits while hitting > seniors in the knees > > As for me personally, yeah, I'd go well beyond all that. But even > our milquetoast Democratic Party can give you the above, and after > the last six years, that looks pretty damned good to me. > America doesn't elect people that continually say what the won't do. America elects people that say what the will do.             Date: 29 Oct 2006 15:53:16 From: S McFarlane Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message news:aPKdnV-B7MXGIdnYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com... > > America doesn't elect people that continually say what the won't do. > > America elects people that say what the will do. Maybe. We'll see in about 9 days. I've voted for a Democrat once, maybe twice in my life. I do believe I'm going to get on board for a whole lot of "I won't s" this year. My votes in the ass's column are about to go through the roof! In truth, I'm voting pretty much straight anti-incumbent at the federal and state level this time, but that is pretty much synonomous with a straight Democrat vote where I live. I'm disgusted with the direction my country is going (down the tubes, approaching a free fall), and my vote this time around will be all about sending the 'time for a 180*, please" message. It'll be like shouting in an empty hall, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone loves to blame our problems on the politicians. IMO, we should take most of the blame. Nov.7 is a perfect chance for all God-fearin' 'mericans to feel good about themselves: "I may have been cheerleading in 2003, but now I'm against that shameful war and aren't those Washington-types such nasty folks. Just look where they led us while we were watching football games..." or " I was pretty pissed off at our politicians over the last year. Even though gas prices are below $2 a gallon again, I might just vote anyway. My tee time's at 2, so if I can finish before the polls close, I might just be there. Unless I decide to have a few at the 19th after." and so on. Outside of the Quakers I'm acquainted with, I can count on one finger the people I know who were against war in early 2003. Lots of bluster back then. It's amazing that I can find so few people now who weren't opposed to it from the start. Here's my list of those most responsible for our current troubles, skipping down to #3 3. The Bush Administration. What a silly bunch of 'ideas' you guys have. 2. The Congress of the United States. Where were you when it was time to do your job? I suppose public opinion poll taking does take a lot of time, so at least you have some small excuse. and, drumroll please... 1. The bozo's who elected and/or were to busy to not elect #2 & #3. I guess that covers us all... Scott               Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:52:18 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote: : : "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message : news:aPKdnV-B7MXGIdnYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com... : > : > America doesn't elect people that continually say what the won't do. : > : > America elects people that say what the will do. Scott, sorry to jump in on this, but I have Bert plonked and didn't see this until you replied to it. I can only say that apparently Bert doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to American politics. Mostly, Americans vote for people who say what they don't do. That's because Americans distrust power. Seriously, if Bush in 2000 had said that he planned to ignore Al Qaeda, invade Iraq, turn the surplus into a record deficit, throw Paris Hilton a few million in tax breaks, and do what he could to destroy Social Security, he wouldn't have won 40% of the popular vote. Instead, he ran on the "I won't let an intern blow me in the Oval Office" platform and won enough votes to steal the thing in the SCOTUS. Empty platitudes from guys like Robbins have zero connection to reality. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:53:03 From: S McFarlane Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T3j5ashIjh4N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Scott, sorry to jump in on this, but I have Bert plonked > and didn't see this until you replied to it. No sweat. I had this entire thread and all like it filtered from view until about an hour ago! > > I can only say that apparently Bert doesn't pay a whole > lot of attention to American politics. Mostly, Americans > vote for people who say what they don't do. That's because > Americans distrust power. I think Bert is like almost all other Americans in that regard. Even relatively well-informed Americans cast votes for people they know almost nothing about. Most Americans cast votes - let me rephrase that - most voting Americans cast votes based on what they've been spoon-fed by the media, what the candidate says about him/herself in the media (around election time, that is), and what the candidate says about his/her opponent in the media (at election time). Very few people take the time to dig deeper. I can't count myself in that category, so I'm chastising myself as well, for the record. To illustrate, almost all incumbent candidates for Congress this year will be taking credit for things they cast votes against, and bemoaning things they cast votes in favor of. For that matter, state-wide candidates will be giving very different messages throughout the state, depending on which county they happen to be in at the time. How many of their target audience is aware if 10% of what their candidate was up to 3 years ago on the voting floor, where it counts? > > Seriously, if Bush in 2000 had said that he planned to > ignore Al Qaeda, invade Iraq, turn the surplus into a > record deficit, throw Paris Hilton a few million in tax > breaks, and do what he could to destroy Social Security, > he wouldn't have won 40% of the popular vote. Instead, > he ran on the "I won't let an intern blow me in the Oval > Office" platform and won enough votes to steal the thing > in the SCOTUS. Empty platitudes from guys like Robbins > have zero connection to reality. > All of this ignores the 2004 election. How many new anti-Bush folks voted for him in 2004? Quite a high percentage would be my guess. In 2004, his platform was generally 'vote for more of the same.' He won with a better percentage in 2004 than in 2000, even when it was more or less clear to anyone with the vague beginnings of a non-partisan thought process that the stated motives for war were bogus! The only thing we've learned since then is that we are probably going to lose. America loves a winner, I suppose. Or a loser with sufficient cover. 'Had I known then what I know now, I'd have _never_ cast that vote'. The unstated truth is that _what_ in that platitude is that the war would become so unpopular. If the situation on the ground were exactly the same, but the war enjoyed popular support, the Elephants would be sitting pretty and no Congressman would be trying to retroactively change their vote on the authorization to use all means necessary. Ditto on all the other issues. Scott     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:01:58 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules BigPurdueFan <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote: : : Bert Robbins wrote: : > Chris Bellomy wrote: : > > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: : > > : > > : I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, : > > : directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. : > > : > > If you can catch a replay of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, : > > do it. Catch his rant at the end. It's spot on... we are coasting : > > on the accomplishments of our ancestors now. : > > : > : > What would you do differently? : : We could start by not pissing off every country on Earth, including our : "friends". We could not torture. We could stand on the ideals that the : country was founded on. I could give you a list fifty pages long, but : I'm sure you'll nitpick it. I'm with you completely. : Oh, and Bill Maher is still a prick. Funny sometimes, but still a prick. I'm still with you completely. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 28 Oct 2006 12:43:10 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: snip... I've always liked O'Reilly's show. He is the only one who really does get people with differing views into his show and gives them a shot at presenting those views on the #1 cable news show in the world. I would love to go at him on the issue of evolution, particularly as a Christian! I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need to be able to answer those sorts of questions! I understand O'Reilly is an historian. He obviously takes the time to inform himself, and is obviously very intelligent. No wonder he has the highest rated cable news program in the world!     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:30:20 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message news:1162064590.511029.236280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk > to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really > showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to > win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't > want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on > all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need > to be able to answer those sorts of questions! Really? OK, let's see what you're made of, mentally. I'm really serious. Try your best to come up with a real solution. This will give you a good idea of how some of these guys operate (not "guys" in a partisan way, just any guy who either wants to trick you, or isn't st enough to understand the question himself.) Three men decided to split the cost of a hotel room. The hotel manager gives them a price of $30. The men split the bill evenly, each paying $10, and retire to their room. However, the manager realizes that it was a Wednesday night, which meant the hotel had a special: rooms are only $25 - he overcharged them $5. He calls the bellboy, gives him five one-dollar bills and tells him to return it to the men. When the bellboy explains the situation to the men, they were so pleased at the honesty of the establishment that they promptly tipped the bellboy $2 of the $5 he had returned and each kept $1 for himself. Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 back) totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra dollar go?       Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:56:46 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message > news:1162064590.511029.236280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > I only caught the Letterman appearance. Letterman came across as a jerk > > to my wife, who is a middle of the road liberal. Letterman really > > showed his stuff when asked the simple question: "Do you want the US to > > win in Iraq?". Letterman's answer was obviously "no", but he didn't > > want to say it, so he dodged it. O'Reilly gets a lot of those guys, on > > all sides of issues, like that! If you go at him on something, you need > > to be able to answer those sorts of questions! > > Really? OK, let's see what you're made of, mentally. I'm really serious. > Try your best to come up with a real solution. This will give you a good > idea of how some of these guys operate (not "guys" in a partisan way, just > any guy who either wants to trick you, or isn't st enough to understand > the question himself.) > > Three men decided to split the cost of a hotel room. The hotel manager gives > them a price of $30. The men split the bill evenly, each paying $10, and > retire to their room. > However, the manager realizes that it was a Wednesday night, which meant the > hotel had a special: rooms are only $25 - he overcharged them $5. > > He calls the bellboy, gives him five one-dollar bills and tells him to > return it to the men. When the bellboy explains the situation to the men, > they were so pleased at the honesty of the establishment that they promptly > tipped the bellboy $2 of the $5 he had returned and each kept $1 for > himself. > > Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 back) > totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra dollar > go? It means you want the US to lose in Iraq.         Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:43:48 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message news:4544087E.CEDE6BAA@att.net... > > It means you want the US to lose in Iraq. > No, it means you're a moron.           Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:29:20 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:EzU0h.1679$HD6.807@tornado.southeast.rr.com... > > "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message > news:4544087E.CEDE6BAA@att.net... >> >> It means you want the US to lose in Iraq. >> > > No, it means you're a moron. Typical response from a liberal backed into a corner.       Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:17:22 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:30:20 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote: >Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 back) >totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra dollar >go? Total outlay of $27, $25 for the room, $2 for the bellboy.         Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:36:43 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:ums7k2d0jqo61cosp4fvh2um8i4dccbuam@4ax.com... > On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:30:20 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 >>back) >>totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra >>dollar >>go? > > Total outlay of $27, $25 for the room, $2 for the bellboy. First of all, this question was for the professor. Second, you didn't answer the question.           Date: 28 Oct 2006 22:09:36 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:36:43 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote: >>>Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 >>>back) >>>totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra >>>dollar >>>go? >> >> Total outlay of $27, $25 for the room, $2 for the bellboy. > >First of all, this question was for the professor. Second, you didn't >answer the question. There is no extra dollar.             Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:45:07 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message news:9a38k2li3l0ipsri2b8ahu0pdqdt748non@4ax.com... > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:36:43 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote: > > There is no extra dollar. Maybe you could explain the relevance of the answer now, to our dull friends.             Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:15:33 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Jack Hollis wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:36:43 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>Each of the three men ended up paying $9 (their original $10, minus $1 > >>>back) > >>>totalling $27, plus $2 for the bellboy makes $29. Where did the extra > >>>dollar > >>>go? > >> > >> Total outlay of $27, $25 for the room, $2 for the bellboy. > > > >First of all, this question was for the professor. Second, you didn't > >answer the question. > > There is no extra dollar. It's a stupid question. You present an issue in a debate, and someone comes up with a totally unrelated idiot question in response it means they have nothing meaningful to say.               Date: 29 Oct 2006 02:44:18 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message news:45440CE5.933D203B@att.net... > > It's a stupid question. You present an issue in a debate, and someone > comes > up with a totally unrelated idiot question in response it means they have > nothing meaningful to say. How did I know you'd think it was totally unrelated? lol                 Date: 29 Oct 2006 04:08:46 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message > news:45440CE5.933D203B@att.net... > > > > It's a stupid question. You present an issue in a debate, and someone > > comes > > up with a totally unrelated idiot question in response it means they have > > nothing meaningful to say. > > How did I know you'd think it was totally unrelated? lol Now there's a lame response. Totally unsubstantive. You want to claim that some kiddie fool puzzle somehow addrresses the fact that you cannot address a simple question: Do you want the US to win in Iraq? I think there is a little crack in your kool aid.                   Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:42:40 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message news:4544276D.591DB855@att.net... >> > >> > It's a stupid question. You present an issue in a debate, and someone >> > comes >> > up with a totally unrelated idiot question in response it means they >> > have >> > nothing meaningful to say. >> >> How did I know you'd think it was totally unrelated? lol > > Now there's a lame response. Totally unsubstantive. You want to claim that > some > kiddie fool puzzle somehow addrresses the fact that you cannot address a > simple > question: Do you want the US to win in Iraq? The fact that you can't understand it doesn't mean it's "lame". It just means you can't understand it.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 11:51:44 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > > said, but how he said it. > > You seem to be pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing. I don't particularly like Bush, and I don't like O'Reilly, but I'm not going to call someone stupid for thinking differently. Misguided, probably. :-)     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:16:41 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "BigPurdueFan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162061504.013065.278060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > jeffc wrote: >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he >> > said, but how he said it. >> >> You seem to be pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing. > > I don't particularly like Bush, and I don't like O'Reilly, but I'm not > going to call someone stupid for thinking differently. Misguided, > probably. :-) I didn't call him stupid for thinking differently. For example, you think differently than me and you seem reasonably intelligent.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:29:39 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Larry Bud wrote: > Dene wrote: > > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > > said, but how he said it. > > Missed him on Letterman but did see the last 20 minutes on Oprah. It > was entertaining, and props to Oprah for that format. I would suspect > Oprah is a liberal, but she's not one of the nutty entertainers that > think Bush is out to kill everyone to help his "oil buddies". At > least, if she is, she doesn't show it. Well said...props to Oprah. She was very fair with him and as it turned out, agreed with O'Reilly's assessment of her that she is a Traditionalist. He pointed out that she came from a background of nothing to become one of the most influential women on Earth....only in America. She clearly loves our country. > Most people that hate O'Reilly that I have run into (here and in > person) have never seen his show and go by what they read in the blogs > and hear in mainstream media sources. Anybody that thinks he's a > partisan CLEARLY has never seen his show. He pounds on Bush and the > lack of border security, and is on the left's side of global warming. > But God forbid you don't believe in partial birth abortion, or putting > child molestors behind bars for 25 years, and suddenly you're somehow a > shill for Bush. Crazy. I didn't see O'Reilly's interview of Bush but I understand he was quite tough on him. > The people here that hate him think he's a jerk. Maybe he is, I've > never met him (I'm sure they haven't either). But he's no Larry King, > that's for sure. So if you're out to go into a venue where you can > sprew your propaganda and won't be challenged, don't go on his show. > And that's the left's REAL problem. They're not used to being > questioned AT ALL. And if you DO question them, then you're a racist, > or out to kill old people and children, or just out for the "rich". Yep. Terrific assessment. It amuses me how "tolerant" the left wing is within this venue too. Letterman was like that too. Constantly interrupting, sniping. Still....I love his show and will continue to watch it. Hmmm.....is that an indication of tolerance? -Greg     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:19:42 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162056579.596808.143010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > I didn't see O'Reilly's interview of Bush but I understand he was quite > tough on him. People seem to think that's some sort of "vindication". O'Reilly and Limbaugh are entertainers, nothing more. They have an audience that wants to hear more of what they already believe. There's nothing wrong with that. Where it gets wrong is when people start listening to these guys as if they are a real source of information and research. All sources of information have some sort of bias, pretty much by definition. I'm not talking about that. Anyone can piece together something close to the truth by correlating several credible information sources. These guys don't qualify.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:19:28 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules multi wrote: > On 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > >Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > >said, but how he said it. > > Ah, this helps me understand your religious views. You're nuts. I believe in God I embrace Traditional values I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. If these beliefs makes me nuts, so be it. -Greg     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:14:05 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162055968.546740.104810@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > I believe in God > I embrace Traditional values > I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, > directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. > > If these beliefs makes me nuts, so be it. No, just kind of selectively ignorant.     Date: 28 Oct 2006 18:43:42 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, : directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. If you can catch a replay of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, do it. Catch his rant at the end. It's spot on... we are coasting on the accomplishments of our ancestors now. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:55:14 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Chris Bellomy wrote: > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > > : I think America is the greatest nation to ever grace this planet, > : directly responsible for the freedom and prosperity of millions. > > If you can catch a replay of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher, > do it. Catch his rant at the end. It's spot on... we are coasting > on the accomplishments of our ancestors now. > What would you do differently?   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:14:55 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > jeffc wrote: > > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > > > said, but how he said it. > > > > You seem to be pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing. > > What's wrong Connelly....no Pitts to play with. See, just like Jeff's comments (didn't take long, did it?). They can't STAND to be challenged. It's amusing, actually. I just smile when I see every ad hominum attack because it's a sure sign they're void of clear thinking skills.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:13:03 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > said, but how he said it. Missed him on Letterman but did see the last 20 minutes on Oprah. It was entertaining, and props to Oprah for that format. I would suspect Oprah is a liberal, but she's not one of the nutty entertainers that think Bush is out to kill everyone to help his "oil buddies". At least, if she is, she doesn't show it. Most people that hate O'Reilly that I have run into (here and in person) have never seen his show and go by what they read in the blogs and hear in mainstream media sources. Anybody that thinks he's a partisan CLEARLY has never seen his show. He pounds on Bush and the lack of border security, and is on the left's side of global warming. But God forbid you don't believe in partial birth abortion, or putting child molestors behind bars for 25 years, and suddenly you're somehow a shill for Bush. Crazy. The people here that hate him think he's a jerk. Maybe he is, I've never met him (I'm sure they haven't either). But he's no Larry King, that's for sure. So if you're out to go into a venue where you can sprew your propaganda and won't be challenged, don't go on his show. And that's the left's REAL problem. They're not used to being questioned AT ALL. And if you DO question them, then you're a racist, or out to kill old people and children, or just out for the "rich". Does he golf? Dunno. He's a BIG guy and probably could pound the ball with the proper mechanics.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:10:22 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Bert Robbins wrote: > multi wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: > >> Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > >> said, but how he said it. > > > > Ah, this helps me understand your religious views. You're nuts. > > I am to the right of Attila the Hun and have never pulled a lever for a > Democrat. > > I voted for Reagan in '80 when he said the riffs were coming to those of > us in the federal workforce. > > With that said. > > Bill O'Reilly is an ass and he should be ignored by everyone. Well....I voted for Carter. Even today, I will occasionally vote for an honest, competent Democrat. Two weeks ago, I would have agreed with your assessment of O'Reilly. I'm just saying that his two appearance on Friday were outstanding, in contrast to Rush whom I can only stomach in small doses. So....perhaps you'd come to a similar conclusion had you seen him. -Greg     Date: 28 Oct 2006 16:19:23 From: Bob L Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162055421.931007.270360@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > Well....I voted for Carter. Even today, I will occasionally vote for > an honest, competent Democrat. > So you don't vote much, do you?   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:06:19 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Chris Bellomy wrote: > Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote: > : On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 -0700, Dene wrote: > : > :> 2. Contrasts traditional America to Denk/Holland while posing a > :> serious question we all need to address. What kind of country do you > :> want. One with values or one without. > : > : Denk/Holland doesn't have values? > > Too much goddam freedom. ROFL!!! -Greg   Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:05:10 From: Dene Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules jeffc wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > > said, but how he said it. > > You seem to be pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing. What's wrong Connelly....no Pitts to play with. -Greg     Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:16:09 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162055110.079915.61070@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > jeffc wrote: >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he >> > said, but how he said it. >> >> You seem to be pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing. > > What's wrong Connelly....no Pitts to play with. It does get boring without him, eh?   Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:47:23 From: jeffc Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > said, but how he said it. You seem to be pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:04:46 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules In article <1162022857.873438.69790@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: ya, he lies at that too.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:41:55 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: : 2. Contrasts traditional America to Denk/Holland while posing a : serious question we all need to address. What kind of country do you : want. One with values or one without. Wouldn't that be a bit more convincing from a guy who doesn't spend his off-hours chasing an assistant with fantasies of touching her with a falafel? O'Reilly has no values, Greg, except for the gratification of his own ego. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:44:29 From: John B. Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules Dene wrote: > Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he > said, but how he said it. > > My reasons.....to name a few.... > > 1. Admitted we were wrong to invade Iraq. Motive was pure, i.e. > surrounding our true enemy (Iran)with democracies while responding to > terrorism, in particular the possibility of terrorist acquiring a WMD. > Strongly against an early exit strategy, stating our void will allow > Iraq to merge into Iran, creating a stronger enemy than what we have > now. > > 2. Contrasts traditional America to Denk/Holland while posing a > serious question we all need to address. What kind of country do you > want. One with values or one without. > > 3. North Korea. Believes China will handle them. > > O'Reilly handled Oprah's audience quite well. I was particularily > impressed how he handled idiotic comments from the fat lady in a red > dress. Even better, idiotic comments from Letterman, who has > admittedly never watched his show or read his book. Now there's > tolerant thinking in it's finest manifestation. > > -Greg > > Ps. Does O'Reilly play golf? Can your standards get any lower? Bill O'Reilly is your idea of a foreign policy expert? He's a fucking DJ with a big mouth. If you want to pursue a conservative view of foreign policy, that's fine, but for Christ's sake, listen to somebody that acually knows something about it.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 06:34:03 From: multi Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules On 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: >Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he >said, but how he said it. Ah, this helps me understand your religious views. You're nuts.     Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:05:34 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules "multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message news:2um6k2hsph6olops7jk5t6npvvs9djnnei@4ax.com... > On 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: >>Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he >>said, but how he said it. > > Ah, this helps me understand your religious views. You're nuts. Another tolerant liberal speaks.     Date: 28 Oct 2006 11:13:04 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: O'Reilly Rules multi wrote: > On 28 Oct 2006 01:07:37 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: >> Saw him on Oprah and then Letterman. Terrific.....not only in what he >> said, but how he said it. > > Ah, this helps me understand your religious views. You're nuts. I am to the right of Attila the Hun and have never pulled a lever for a Democrat. I voted for Reagan in '80 when he said the riffs were coming to those of us in the federal workforce. With that said. Bill O'Reilly is an ass and he should be ignored by everyone.   Date: 28 Oct 2006 08:30:32 From: Carbon Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal! On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:33:50 +0000, bill-o wrote: > On 27-Oct-2006, Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote: > >> His followers say Jesus walked on water. Here is a published >> scientific theory that potentially explains how He did it: > > What I don't understand is all the bloody tussle between rationalism and > religion. In my mind rationalism, including but not limited to the > scientific method, deals with all that can be observed, measured, tested > and proven, empirical evidence as Head Job said. Religion on the other > hand deals with that beyond Man's understanding. Many moderns are so > arrogant to believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding and > that anything that can't be proven doesn't exist. It seems like a > impoverised existence. Oh I get it. If it can't be proven or disproven we can just believe whatever we want. Then I believe that God is manifested to us as a Flying Spaghetti Monster who affects world events with His Noodly Appendage. Oh wait, I guess this week I'm going with Thor and his mighty hammer. The Flying Spaghetti Monster can be true next week.