weiser:
=========
Don't discount the effectiveness of insurgents.
============

shouldn't that read "freedom fighters"?

frtzw906

weiser on:
========
theories of intelligent design
==========

look, you seem to know something about this. at some level of inquiry,
it may make for an interesting debate.

but you likely heard the kansas school board officials as i did. most
(all?) of them wouldn't recognize theories of intelligent design if
they jumped up and bit them in the ass! as you well know, the agenda
was not about broadening the intellectual base. this was about
religious dogma.

if the people of that community think religion is important, i say go
ahead and have religion classes where you can promote this doctrine. it
very clearly does not belong in the science class.

when it is accepted as part of the science canon (determined by the
science community), then by all means. I don't think your local school
board officials who have a background in, say, used car sales, farming,
insurance, or whatever, are in any position to determine what is or is
not "scientific". next we'll be asking them to write revisionist
history for the history classes. recommend projects for shop class,
perhaps? decide which language ought to be taught in computer classes?

frtzw906

Melissa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Tinkerntom,

On 12 Feb 2005 15:48:41 -0800, you wrote:

Dear Melissa, you don't think you can come in to this frackus, and
not get involved with this thread do you. You have been very
helpful to me in the past, and I certainly want to express my
appreciation,...

You're welcome! Unfortunately, my efforts to help you have not yet
yielded positive results. ;-) Oh well.

...however there are no free passes that I have heard about.

And so am I to understand that you'll enlighten me as to what I now
owe, and to whom?

Especially if you're going to use those big words around us simple
black and white types, that are just oozing with
Patriotic/nationalistic pride. Then you cuddle up with the boys
from up north and across the sea. She must be from out on the right
coast!

Actually, I've lived on both the left and right coasts; currently on
the left coast again (from whence I originated, originally).
Apparently, your ability to perceive one's point of origin, and how
that may or may not affect one's ideas, is severely limited.

But being from the right coast...

See above.

If you can answer that for me I will give you a pass on the rest of
what you said. "The Tinkering One", TnT

Is it really up to you to bestow, or not, a "pass" for anyone but
your
very own self?

Now I have some outfitting to do in the cockpit of one of my boats,
and since I might find that even more interesting than continuing
this discussion at this moment, I'll be going now. Would that be
acceptable to you? ;-)

- --
Melissa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFCDppcKgHVMc6ouYMRAowTAJ4m3XxuDgL48Rt8AbxRh1 BRyFiJzACeKKPL
54bgb79SY/QlgZEtgxNqFKY=
=SlAs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Coming from you, this is originally originated redundancy. But I am
sure that working on the outfitting in the cockpit of one of your boats
would be much more interesting than this discussion, and will help
clear your head! So as far as I am concerned I will go ahead and issue
you a pass, though you failed to answer my question. You'll just owe me
one! Any passes from the others, you will have to work out with them.

To understand that you are back on the left coast, and that you
originated there, explains other phenomenon in some of your posting. I
am learning to not assume, though it seems that some recent stories I
heard indicated that you were on the Right coast. In fact I saw a web
picture of you launching into surf, with following story that would
indicate you were in the Oregon/Washington coast area, and known as
some sort of crazy lady paddler. But then maybe we are all crazy, so
what does that prove.

Well enjoy your outfitting, talk to you again, TnT
TnT

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Since when does providing students with more information rather than less
make things worse?

Unless you're providing more time to teach, they are getting less. You can't
teach two things in the space of one. Creationism also blinds them from the
truth.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Totalitarian capitalistic country

There were several in South America years ago. the US
supported them because they were capitalistic and ignored
the grotesque human rights abuses that took place. Time
to pull out your history books.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Thus, we rarely have to exercise
military force, because the threat is usually sufficient.

Name one other country that has been involved in more wars and
invasions than the US since WWII.

If you were rarely exercising military force, we wouldn't be so
concerned. In fact the Yanks use military force at the drop of
a hat and for flimsy reasons. E.g. You toppled a democratically
elected government in Honduras for the sole purpose of maintaining
the profits of a fruit company owned by Dulles and his cronies.

However, maintaining a force to defend ones territory and using that
force to defend extraterritorial interests are two very different
things. America imports almost all its oil - defending that is
not possible without violating international law. Better to
wean yourself off the stuff than wave guns around.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

science-fiction book

You get your information from science fiction? No wonder you
don't understand anything in the real world.

BTW - creationism isn't an alternative theory; it's bull****.
"Intelligent design" is just a refusal to accept reality.

Mike

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


After all, nations (including the
entirely of Europe) who owe the US commonly default on repayment of their
debts.

Name one country in Europe that has defaulted on a loan to the US since WWII.

Or, maybe we'll call in
all those WWI and WWII debts that Europe owes us, with interest.

When did those countries sign up for a loan? It was a gift.

You make this stuff up as you go along and you expect us to take
you seriously?

Do you think that either Japan or China is willing to engage in nuclear war
with the US in order to try to collect those debts? I think not.

If they call in the loans and the US defaults, the economy goes down the toilet.
Since you live on debt, you'll be broke and since you import more than you
export, you have little useful collateral. The Euro is stronger than the
US dollar and is backed by more people. Start thinking more globally and
stop thinking so insularly.

Mike

BCITORGB wrote:
Tnt says:
========
Totalitarian Capitalist ?????????
=========

Nazi Germany springs to mind. Chile in a previous iteration.

Although, given the nature of this thread, I'm going to quibble with
you a bit. I'll contend that so long as nations confer welfare (both
individual and corporate), there exist absolutely NO capitalist
economies.

Like communism, capitalism is an interesting academic concept. I'm
reminded of my college physics texts which prefaced questions with
"assuming no friction" in order to make the theoretical concepts
easier
to comprehend. In the case of both communism and capitalism, if you
could preface your explanations with "assuming no human avarice, ....
oh hell, let's keep it simple: assumimg no common human traits".

I find it interesting that you should label Canada as DS, and the USA
as DC. What lead you to that conclusion? In your mind, how is the USA
more capitalist than Germany?

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++=

Oh yeah, I forgot about the NAZI, that means National Capitalistic
party! No wait, I am wrong, that was National Socialist Party. Sorry
they don't fill the bill.

Regarding Chile, I spent way to much time in Mexico, a Latin American
country, to believe you would put Chile forward as a defining example
of a Totalitarian Capitalistic country. Granted the beggar selling
pencils on the street could be considered a free Enterprise
entrepreneur, but hardly a capitalist. Judging from that, even N.Korea
could be a capitalistic country. Sorry again, you've got to do better
that that.

Regarding Canada as Ds, Us as DC, and Germany as DS. Maybe we get to
the heart of the difference of definitions. The D part has to how we
select or arrive at our leaders, and we seem to be in agreement here
that Democracy and elections are the preferable process. When we look
at the S or C distinction, is where we differ. I see it as more than
the production of profit aspect, but also the distribution of profit as
well. In a C environment the individual produces and determines the
distribution of the proceeds of the production. In a S environment, the
individual produces, and the government determines the distribution.
Now there are degrees of involvement of the individual and the
government in both production and distribution. Countries with more
involvement are defined as Socialistic, and countries with less, as
Capitalistic.

In the US we started out as the great experiment in capitalism, after a
shaky start at communism in some of the early colonies. Did not take
them long to figure out that would not work, so they issued everyone a
plot of land where they could raise their own produce, and sale any
excess for a profit. The Jamestown colony started prospering after
that. Not all the colonies were set up the same. However after the War
of Independence, and other struggles, they established the idea of
capitalism as being central in our country.

Then as a new country, they found they needed to raise taxes to support
a Dept of Defense, and then other necessary Depts. Finding out how
easy it is to raise taxes, and spend the money for our good, various
poiticians got the idea this was a good thing. Which brings us up to
today. There are some that want more federal involvement, hence more
taxes, and there are some who want less. Less fed, and less taxes. The
first are social liberals, and the second is capitalist conservatives.

There is no pure capitalism economy, and you are correct in asserting
this. But there are those of us who would like to keep it as
capitalistic as we can. All politicians love to collect money to spend
on their pet projects, and some are quite expensive. We can only hope
they are necessary, and that our politician is watching out for our
best interest.

I could consider myself more of a libertarian, though that doesn't hold
much clout in any government by definition. So you compromise. TnT

On 12-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Welfare is a drain on the system consisting
of money given to people who produce nothing in return.

Like the military-industrial complex.

it places our nation at
strategic risk for us to be dependent on other nations for our basic food
supplies.

But not oil. Bizarre contradiction.

Government protection of agriculture merely
ensures that American farmers don't go out of business because of low crop
prices.

Even if it means that the products are simply stored and never consumed?
That's not support, that's corporate welfare.

Mike