BCITORGB wrote:
Wilko: thank you very much for your insight into what happened in
holland. horrible as it was, i audibly laughed when i read "People
like
Theo van Gogh, who used openly hostile remarks towards muslims, like
calling them
"goat-****ers" ". while there is, of course, nothing to laugh at in
the
statement i found myself thinking -- and i mean no offense to you --
that the dutch language does not lend itself well to subtlety and
nuance. dutch must be the most direct, honest language around.

like you say "which IMHO is more disturbing than the so called
anti-islamic violence rising, is that the openness of our society has
changed." this, too, is the impression i got. however, reports of
these
things in the media tend to concentrate on the sensational rather
than
the background.

You say: "Denmark is actually rather intolerant, with a considerable
list of
minority unfriendly and minority intolerant laws and regulations."

This reminds me of a visit we had in the late 80's from a danish
acquaintance. she was by every measure, the poster child/women for
the
euro-left. she was a card-carrying member of the danish socialist
party. she went to every rally and march imaginable: peace,
anti-nuke,
feminist... you name it. she was active in the teachers' union. she
had
not a racist bone in her body (she was married to a greenland inuit).
yet, when we talked about the future of denmark, she expressed only
one concern: radical islam! she was not concerned about the fact that
they were either arabs or persians. even though she was an atheist,
she
did not mind the islamic faith in moderation. but what she saw, and
what she abhorred was the growing militancy of the radical muslim
refugees/immigrants. i have lost touch with her, but it wouldn't
surprise me if, in spite of her tolerant tendencies, she would join
such a "right-wing" movement. she foresaw everything the socialists
and
feminists had worked for being threatened. for her, that was not
negotiable.

wilko says:
===========
Because muslims are tolerated and left to do what they as long as
they
bother no-one, we expect them to respect others and not try to
force
their beliefs onto others as well. Alas, a few of them fail to
understand that.
===========

alas, i fear that is the problem with radical fundamentalists: they
don't know when they've pushed far enough. they fail to understand
that
tolerance has it's limits. they fail to see that the line in the sand
is the very tolerance that gives them their liberty. by all mean, "do
your own thing", but don't think you can define what "my thing" is!

again, thanks for your insight.

frtzw906,

I will thank you as well, very succinct! Defined exactly how, NYC and
all of USA was wide open and tolerant place to live, work, and travel
on 9/10. On 9/11 all that changed when a line was etched not in sand,
but the consciousness of America. That there are politicians that would
take advantage of the new awareness, is what politics is all about.
Does not change that we can feel your hurt. TnT

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Indeed. But Canada is *still* letting terrorists in, carte blanche.

Proof?

Mike

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Just because something can evolve, doesn't mean it has to evolve. If it
fits well within its current ecological niche, it can remain in its
current form. Sharks are top predators, they don't have much incentive
to move on.

Mike

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, it's not. You don't understand the nature of rights or the function of
the Constitution. Rights are not granted by the Constitution, government
powers are limited by it.

If the constitution can be changed thru amendments, then the power is in
the hands of the politicians. No constitution is cast in stone, not yours,
not anyone's.

True, but it's extremely unlikely to be repealed,

Which contradicts your whining complaints about my supposed
misunderstanding of your constitution.

Unlikely is not the same as impossible. You still don't have
absolute freedom.

If those guns allow someone to overthrow the government, you
can't guarantee that the new goverment will be true to the original
constitution. It could just as likely be overthrown by a bunch
of communists as by capitalists.


More like 100-200,000.

Still a small fraction of 18 million.

The vast majority are doing nothing. In opposition is about
150,000 US and Brit troops. That's pretty close to one-on-one.

There is no National Guard in this country. It's a US thing.

Well, there you go. You're a slave who doesn't even know where to find the
arms needed to put down a tyrant. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

Just because there is no branch of the armed forces named "National Guard"
means nothing. We don't have a national police force called the FBI, nor
an intelligence agency called the CIA, nor a government called a Congress,
nor a lower house called a House of Representatives, nor states nor a lot
of other things you have in the US. We do have RCMP, CSIS, Parliament,
House of Commons and provinces. Different country, different names and
ways of dealing with it. It proves nothing.

We don't need guns, we got hockey sticks and we know how to use them.

Mike

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Bull****. They have been suppliers of arms (as has China) and
has involved themselves by proxy (like Cuba) but have not been
directly involved in as many as the US.

Mike

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 2/16/05 9:51 AM:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Indeed. But Canada is *still* letting terrorists in, carte blanche.

Proof?

Mike

Are Florida flight schools still training terrorists to fly into buildings?
It's amazing (and scary) how Canada is still incorrectly associated with
9/11 when the terrorists did their training right inside the US of A and
there is no connection with Canada whatsoever.

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 2/16/05 9:59 AM:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

If it is, care to explain why sharks are still sharks 400 million years
later? It only took 2 million years or so for man to evolve from monkey,
according to evolutionary theory, so why haven't sharks changed appreciably
in 400 million years. If evolution is "the truth," then the world should be
being run by incredibly intelligent sharks, who ought to have evolved far
beyond what they are today. They haven't.

Just because something can evolve, doesn't mean it has to evolve. If it
fits well within its current ecological niche, it can remain in its
current form. Sharks are top predators, they don't have much incentive
to move on.

Mike

Perhaps some basic discussion of "evolution" would be helpful. It sounds
like Scott thinks that the shark just decides one day "I think I'd like to
change" and evolution begins. Sigh.

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ever wonder why they call it "science" fiction? There's often a lot of
science woven into the fiction.

As a person trained in science, I'd say there's a lot more fiction than
science in science fiction.

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

Many scholars and other people on the upside of the bell curve from you
disagree.

There aren't many people on the upside from me and few of them will
sink into the nonsense of creationism. "Intelligent Design" is just
a refusal to accept the fact that scientific principles don't prove
the existance of God. The latter is good enough for many religions,
including the Roman Catholic Church. Just because a few fringe
fundamentalists believe in that nonsense doesn't make it an acceptable
field of study.

Mike

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Which produces many products the government uses, and provides us with peace
through superior firepower, something the EU can be thankful for, given how
much of our military technology they use.

The vast majority of military spending provides nothing. Just read
economist Joan Robinson.

Oh, it usually gets consumed, eventually.

You're talking thru your hat. Better check on the history of
US agricultural supports and their "strategic" food stores.
They sit there doing nothing then get destroyed. Grains, butter,
oil seeds, you name it. All done for no other reason than to
prop up US prices and guarantee profits for big agriculture
companies.

Mike

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Your lefty-liberal "open border" and
"political refugee" policies are very scary, and it's been proven several
times that terrorists and other criminals have entered North America via
Canada. The 9-11 terrorists are hardly the only concerns here

The fact that Canada accepts more refugees than the US (but then, most
countries are more open to help others than the US) has nothing to
do with terrorism.

If anyone gets into the US from Canada, the problem is at _your_ border.
We do not check on who leaves our country - people are free to move
around here. If you are paranoid and want to keep people out, then fix
your own damned border.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants enter the US via the Mexican
border. Why would terrorists enter via Canada if the Mexican border
is so porous?

Corporate subsidies prop up ineffective and obsolete companies.

Sometimes. It's true that the programs have to be carefully assessed and
monitored, but the occasional abuse of the programs doesn't impeach the
overall benefits.

If you actually study the effects of government subsidies, you'll find that
_most_ of them prop up inefficient companies. Companies that are completely
viable can be dealt with by loan guarantees (like Chrysler 25 years ago),
not corporate welfare.


Steel [...] It's what caused Japan to go to war with us.

Read your history books, Japan went to war over oil. The US
embargoed it and threatened to intervene if Japan tried anything
in the Pacific. Japan tried to secure oil in Indonesia and took
out Pearl Harbor and the bases in the Philippines to prevent
the Yanks from interfering.

What government should be doing is paying subsidies to US steel companies
for the purposes of upgrading their technology to the current Nucor model.

What they should be doing is underwriting loans to these companies and not
seeing taxpayer's money disappear. If the loans are too risky, the companies
should be allowed to die.

All you're doing is using doublespeak to try to avoid calling subsidies
what they are - corporate welfare.

Mike