|
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 9:59 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 |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Let's close the Canadian border entirely and see how long you last without imports from the US, not to mention our tourist money. Canada has (and has had for a long time) a significant favourable trade balance over the US. If you close the border, you lose 10% of your oil, lots of natural gas, a lot of electricity in the northeast states, pulp and paper, wood, cars and trucks and lots and lots of other goods. The energy cuts alone would have you choking long before we would. There is more dollar value in imports across the Ontario-Michigan border alone than to the US from any other country. Imports across the river at Sarnia is greater than the imports from Japan to the US. Again, you're talking thru your hat. Mike |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
In fact, the Catholic church, through the Jesuit order is largely responsible for dragging the world out of the Dark Ages. While the Jesuits have long been educated and open to new ideas, that claim is pure hyperbole. Mike |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
War is hell. It's hardly surprising that spending has increased, we're at war. He was doing that _before_ the war on terrorism. He expanded the government itself - this has nothing to do with military spending. We'll do that as soon as the cowards in the EU start helping out with the war on terrorism and we can bring our troops home. It's _your_ war - you got yourself into it, you can get yourself out of it. Besides, Bush's boys claimed it would only cost $2B; it has so far cost $200B. That's your problem too. The EU nations were trying to keep you out of trouble, but you insisted on screwing yourself anyway. Mike |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Ultimately, somebody has to pay the price of the water. Yes, so what? Everybody has to pay for water, one way or another. California's agricultural water usage is enormous. If agriculture was cut in half, there would be enough water freed up to double the population and industry in CA without any change in consumption patterns. That would roughly double the state GDP while dropping less than 2% of GDP in agricultural production. It seems there are better ways of spreading the cost of water around. Mike |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Because, as someone famous once said, (I paraphrase) Democracy will survive only until the citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. Well, that sounds like what's happening in the US now, except that you're using debt markets instead of the treasury. Since the debt is drawn on the treasury, same difference. As long as you vote for fiscally irresponsible Republicans who cut taxes instead of pay bills... Mike |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Since you live on debt, you'll be broke Don't be silly. Who gets shafted in a bankruptcy? Yours is a country that can't survive, so it seems, without debt. If you default or go bankrupt, you can't borrow except at very high costs. Your dollar will also trash, making imports, which you thrive on, too expensive. The vast majority of those imports are luxury goods, not necessities or staples. We can get along without them just fine. You mean like oil? Mike |
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Well, let's see...the "countries" in the EU are now pretty much "states" like those in the US, aren't they? Different languages, different cultures, different governments... I'd say they're not. By comparison, the US states are a union with weak state rights. You do know that an alternative term for an independent nation is "state," don't you? Semantic triviality. Nothing to do with the US use of "state". Where do you think the EU got the idea? From us. Yes of course, without the US nothing would exist. This might come as a surprise to you, but the idea of an association of states goes back a long, long, long time before 1776. Total bull****, seen from my position as a person living in a country with government provided health care. Uh huh. Do you have heart disease? Diabetes? Cancer? No but members of my family do and are receiving fine treatment. Timely and quite effective. You have no idea what medical care is like in other countries, so why waste your time writing the drivel that you do? Mike |
Wilko wrote:
That reminds me, funny how the catholic church in essence kept the population dumb for centuries by picking the brightest people as their priests, and letting everyone else procreate, effectively eliminating many of the smartest people from every generation from adding to the gene pool. Fortunately Martin Luther married Katharina von Bora and had 5 children. |
That's where the Usenet is so useful -- we can all learn... your
response caused me to do some research and i came up with slightly different info.. "1525 heiratete sie Martin Luther. Dem Ehepaar wurden sechs Kinder geboren, von denen vier das Erwachsenenalter erreichten." -- 6 kids, 4 of whom survived into adulthood... who knows which source is correct, but thanks for sending me on a learning journey. frtzw906 |
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. Dunno about honest, too many politicians speak Dutch, you know, but the Dutch do have long standing a reputation for being direct and to the point. Might have something to do with the trader's mentality and living so close together with so many people that you need to let off steam without being worried about the other person bashing your head in, I think. 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. As is the case with most news, I think that it's about the drawing of viewers rather than reporting what is really important to most people. 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. That's been an issue here as well, although the scale at which it's happening is not so big. Considering the percentages, that's actually a very small minority. 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! It's just a pity that those (religious) fanatics have a way of pushing people from the moderate center into the extreme, forcing them to admit colour, even if the people don't want to chose. For me the particular religion doesn't matter so much, as long as it's advocating using force to further its own goals it's pretty much a threat to most people, in my view. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
BCITORGB wrote: weiser says: ========= "If you have two operating feet, get up and walk out of the ghetto. ========= did i say something about a ghetto here? and, frankly, i don't give a **** about what the people in kansas want to teach their kids. but from where i sit, their actions and similar "ban the books" from literature classes actions in the US bible belt look awfully similar to what the taliban was up to. Look awfully similar? I think they are basically the same thing. The Taliban weren't exactly the most creative of folks, they got a lot of their ideas from those who came up with a religion before them, the christians and jews. It's amazing how well they copied the ideas of some person forcing other to do as they wish all because that one person claims to be more in touch with something bigger than us all than the other person. Religion is basically a power game, with just enough spirituality to keep the simple people from seeing the truth. The truth is that by using religion to make people conform to an idea, you can make those people do things they would never do for money or by threat of direct force. Freedom would be allowing people to believe in what they want, without being worried that some religious leader immediately convicts what they want or believe as herecy. Does that include allowing the freedom to believe in a particular religion and the free and open choice to subscribe to the teachings of that religion, or are you demanding universal secularism? The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they would beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities demanded, whether you were an adherent of Islam or not. The Catholic Church today does not demand that ANYONE subscribe to it's dogma, although it does demand that if you choose to be a Catholic, you obey the church in matters of religiosity. No one is requiring non-Catholics to act as Catholics, it's just that you can't BE a Catholic if you refuse to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a private club, and it has rules, and like any private club, if you don't obey the rules, you can't be a member. Funny how the church still advocates abstinence (sp?) as a way to prevent AIDS Abstinence just happens to be the ONLY way to entirely prevent sexually-transmitted AIDS 100% of the time. That is a scientific fact. What, I ask you, is wrong with advocating abstinence? It's not like they are demanding abstinence and are proposing criminal sanctions for promiscuity. or how it prevents the use of birth control in countries where the population explosion is causing gigantic problems. How, exactly, is the Catholic Church "preventing" the use of birth control anywhere in the world? The Catholic Church may *condemn* the use of birth control, and may refuse to participate in the dissemination of information and the distribution of birth control, but it has no legal power to "prevent" anyone from using any form of birth control they choose. The Catholic Church's stance on contraception is based in its religious beliefs, which it is entitled to hold, even if you happen to disagree with them. Or are you suggesting that the Catholic Church be denied its right of free speech on the matter of contraception? Also interesting how in most developed countries there is a direct correlation between the level of education of the population and the amount of people still believing in some kind of higher being. Any proof for this remarkable assertion? In most of Europe the amount of people still going to some kind of church dwindles by the day, although a lot of people discover other, not related to some church or constricting religion, forms of spirituality. And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet that is seeing an increase in members. great! have your regious freedom (if that's what you think it is)! i think it's a purposeful dumbing down of your children. That reminds me, funny how the catholic church in essence kept the population dumb for centuries by picking the brightest people as their priests, and letting everyone else procreate, effectively eliminating many of the smartest people from every generation from adding to the gene pool. Interesting thesis, albeit entirely unfounded and untrue. Can you say "Galieo?" How about "Da Vinci?" Should I go on? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:54 -0700, Scott Weiser wrote: Again, you make the erroneous presumption that the theory of evolution is "the truth." 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. Interesting conundrum, isn't it? Not really. Sharks may well be more intelligent than man. They may have such great intelligence that they thought about running the world, rejected the idea, and then stayed in the sea, masking their far superior intelligence from creatures like man. It's kind of easy to score highly on "intelligence tests" that you make up the questions for, grade, referee, etc. Feel free to try to prove this asinine assertion. Get back to us when you've been peer-reviewed. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser said: ========== Not EU-wide. That didn't happen till recently. ========= yes it was eu-wide... germany, the benelux, france spain, italy etc... the entire eu in 1972! Um, evidently you missed it...the EU didn't exist in 1972. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser, referring to Danes says: ========== Unless you happen to be a working stiff who has to fork over half your income to pay for free drugs and healthcare for addlepated zombies and useless leeches. ============ Isn't it strange then, that hundreds of thousands of hard-working Danes aren't clamoring to get into the free-market haven (albeit with huge subsidies - corporate welfare -- for shareholders who don't require them) that you claim is USA? There's no accounting for stupidity. Perhaps all that time spent in the dark has shrunk their brains. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
weiser says: ========= Amphigory. ========== did i miss a comma somewhere? Among other things... -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
weiser says: =========== 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. ============ i'd say that pretty-much sums up welfare of all sorts. the occasional "welfare queen" hardly negates the value of giving the underpriviliged temporary assistance. As long as its temporary. Problem is that traditional welfare programs, not just in the US, but everywhere, become permanent "entitlement" programs instead. Therein lies the problem -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Can you say "Galieo?" How about "Da Vinci?" Should I go on? While nominally Catholic, neither was religious. If you look further back than the Renaisance, you'll see that his comments are essentially true - only the clergy were taught to read and write and reading in Latin was forbidden for the everyone else. Mike |
Scott weiser says:
=================== The difference between the Taliban and the Catholic Church is that the Taliban demanded that *everyone* believe in radical Islam, and they would beat and/or kill you if you didn't do as the religious authorities demanded, ==================== And my point is that religion, unfettered, becomes the Taliban. I see that you refer to the Catholic Church today. But how do you account for the Catholic Church of the Inquisition? Or the Catholic Church that scared the beejeesus out of anyone doing science? I'll stick with my initial proposition: there's only a fine line between one group of fundamentalists and another. Weiser says: ================ And yet the Catholic Church is one of the only religions on the planet that is seeing an increase in members. ==================== Is this a good thing? But why is it losing people in Europe? Can it be that educated people find little of value in the teachings of the church.? frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
=============== Um, evidently you missed it...the EU didn't exist in 1972. ================= Pedantic semantics again. For your information: "The first step in European integration was taken when six countries (Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) set up a common market in coal and steel... The six member states then decided to build a European Economic Community (EEC) based on a common market in a wide range of goods and services. Customs duties between the six countries were completely removed on 1 July 1968 and common policies - notably on trade and agriculture - were also set up during the 1960s." http://europa.eu.int/abc/12lessons/index2_en.htm Since customs duties were removed in 1968, I obviously was able to travel within the EEC (pre-cursor of the EU) in 1972 without stopping at borders. frtzw906 |
Weiser has obviously never been to Denmark.
frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
weiser says: ========== It's sheik to call subsidies "corporate welfare," but it's also factually incorrect. ========= notwithstanding the current american obsession with arabs, i'm going to assume you mean "chic" (or perhaps "sheik" is just one more american way of getting under france's skin. Clever boy, you caught me! in that case, you ought to know that in german, sheiks are known as "pariser", but that's another story completely). but to the issue at hand: pedantic semantics! welfare is a "lifestyle subsidy" and subsidies are "welfare for corporate shareholders". I disagree. While welfare may be fairly described as a "lifestyle subsidy," business subsidies are not. They are intended to stimulate the economy. no matter how many times you deconstruct it, it still amounts to "six of one equals one half dozen of another", I disagree. welfare or subsidies: they both represent a government's decision to redistribute a nation's wealth. True. welfare has -- in both cases -- positive short-term effects but can be, as you so eloquently point out in your "what i'd do to wefare recipients" discourse, debilitating in the long-term. if welfare serves to allow the individual time to acquire skills necessary to become employable, or to permit a corporation time to readjust to market conditions, it seems we're on the same page on this one. or would that be unbearable for you? Not at all. I merely require that the intent of the grant be to stimulate the economy, either through protection of existing businesses, creation of new businesses (SBA loans) or improving the employability and capabilities of the workforce...and that those objectives be carefully monitored and achieved, so that NO ONE, corporate or individual, can scam the system. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Weiser says:
============== As long as its temporary. Problem is that traditional welfare programs, not just in the US, but everywhere, become permanent "entitlement" programs instead. Therein lies the problem ================ I knew we'd agree on something. I further contend that, like individual humans, corporations also generally behave as they are rewarded. Thus the agri-businesses growing oranges in the desert, using cheap water, will never "get off their fat asses" to figure out how things might be done more efficiently. We apparently agree. Isn't that nice? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
weiser says: =========== Ireland wouldn't have had ANY schools if it weren't for the Catholic church. =========== do you mean to suggest that without the catholic church, the gowvernment of ireland would not have provided some level of universal education? that's hard to believe! You'd better believe it. When Ireland was under the rule of the British (for many hundreds of years) the British forbade Irish education. Moreover, Britain brutally suppressed Catholicism for a long, long time and executed priests who either engaged in religious duties or educated the Irish, which priests did, in secret, for hundreds of years and at the cost of many lives. There was a specific intent on the part of the British to keep the Irish ignorant in order to keep them in subjugation. Remember that up until 1916, there was no actual Irish government, it was ruled by the British using pawns as a part of a sham assembly. Only after the Partition did most of Ireland gain independence and a democratically elected government. Northern Ireland remains in thrall to the British even today, and Catholics are still persecuted, to this day, in Northern Ireland. what isn't hard to believe is that catholic propaganda convinced the irish that the church was best able to handle the job of educating the masses. the catholic church knew well the dictum of the jesuits: "give me the boy..." Indeed. However, your argument fails when you assume that because the Jesuits taught religion as a part of a young man's education that they did not also teach science, mathematics or language. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
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. Incorrect. The theory of evolution is that all organisms evolve continuously in response to ecological challenges that causes various changes in form that either survive or don't survive. Evolutionary theory holds that evolution must be continuous because even if, for example, the shark didn't change, some other species that the shark uses for food *would* change and become a threat to the shark's existence in an evolutionary attempt to advance the other species. Thus, a prey species like, for example, dolphins, would be evolutionarily stimulated to advance in order to compete against sharks, and the sharks would be stimulated to advance in order to compete against the dolphins. And yet sharks remain the same as they were 400 million years ago. This makes the theory of evolution a theory, not an unassailable fact. Creationism, or Intelligent Design is likewise a theory, one which is supported by a number of facts about physics and mathematical probabilities. Neither has been proven or disproven conclusively. Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
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. But the Constitution cannot be changed by amendments by politicians alone, at least not directly. The process of amending the Constitution is a complex and difficult one, deliberately. It requires a much closer tie to the people than the enactment of any law, though it is subject to the representative process. Keep in mind that what can be modified by amendment can be repealed by amendment. The perfect example is Prohibition, which was repealed because the people decided they didn't want it and they directed their elected representatives to repeal it. No constitution is cast in stone, not yours, not anyone's. True, but you fail to understand that the Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. Those rights exist independent of and preexisting the Constitution, and those rights will remain even if the entire Constitution is repealed. It is up to the People to defend those rights, even against their own representatives at need. 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. I never suggested that I did. If those guns allow someone to overthrow the government, you can't guarantee that the new goverment will be true to the original constitution. True. In fact, our Constitution holds within it the seeds of its own destruction. It specifically says that it is the right of the People to decide what form of government will best secure their liberties. It could just as likely be overthrown by a bunch of communists as by capitalists. Well, while it's possible, it's actually extremely unlikely, given that it would require the extermination of at least half of the population of the country, who would likely fight to the death to prevent it. 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. So what? The issue is whether a small fraction of the population who are radical Islamists and supporters of Saddam dictate the will of the other 18 million Iraqis. The vast majority of those 18 million are civilians, not soldiers or insurgents, and thus need do nothing. However, it should be noted that hundreds of thousands of brave Iraqis who DO support the deposing of Saddam and the move to democracy ARE doing something. They are enlisting in the army, they are becoming police officers and elected officials, and they are being killed every day by their "own people" for daring to support democracy in Iraq. Millions more chanced death to go to the polls and vote, and millions more chance death merely because they assist in the economic and infrastructure recovery. Even workers in water and sewer plants, and electrical workers are being killed by the insurgents because their work proves the benefits of peace and democracy, while the insurgents want anarchy and terror. As time goes on, and as more and more Iraqis are killed by the insurgents, support for them, and the concealment that comes with that support, will disappear...and is disappearing today, and the insurgents will become hunted, hounded outcasts and outlaws welcome nowhere and turned in by every good, peace loving citizen. Then they will be exterminated and peace will finally come to Iraq, through the everyday efforts of 18 million Iraqis going about their daily business. So, you're absolutely wrong in saying that the "vast majority are doing nothing." By merely surviving, and by not taking up arms as insurgents, they are doing a great deal, at significant risk to their own lives. 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. It proves that you are slaves to those who do have guns. We don't need guns, we got hockey sticks and we know how to use them. Uh huh. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
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. Nice try at evasion. You said, and I quote, "Name one other country that has been INVOLVED in more wars and invasions than the US since WWII." You did not say "Name one other country that has INVADED more countries since WWII than the US." And had you said this, you would *still* be wrong. I suggest you make a list of the number of "invasions" the US has made since WWII. It's not very many at all. Thus, my answer is correct and you are wrong. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
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 Wanna bet? 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. Nor do scientific principles DENY the existence of God. There is a large body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe, combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of intelligent design of the Universe. 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. Hm. So, now any field of study that is "fringe" is not acceptable? What ever happened to academic freedom of inqiry? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
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. It provides peace. 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. Um, the primary reason for stockpiles is to provide food in the event of crop failures and shortages, which is a feature of the combination of agriculture and the environment. Once the food is spoiled, however, then it must be destroyed and replaced. Some out-of-date stockpiles are converted to other uses. Corn is a biggie, and it is used to create alcohol. Other foodstocks are turned into animal feed or are recycled as compost. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
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. Unfortunately, you are mistaken. If anyone gets into the US from Canada, the problem is at _your_ border. Indeed. Which is why we ought not have an open border with Canada...because you are careless about who you let in up there. 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. That's precisely what I'm proposing. 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? Because it's easier, physically. One can get to Toronto without any scrutiny, and then it's a short car trip across the border to the US, rather than having to walk a long way through the desert. Plus, a terrorist can import weapons much more easily from Canada, once again because they don't have to hump the Sarin precursors across the desert. 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. I dispute this assertion. While I agree that some companies are inefficient to the point that subsidies ought to be withdrawn, the majority are not. Steel [...] It's what caused Japan to go to war with us. Read your history books, Japan went to war over oil. You'd best reread yours. Japan went to war over steel. We embargoed the export of steel to Japan and that's what triggered their aggression. We were not exporting much oil to Japan prior to WWII. 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. Nope. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Let's close the Canadian border entirely and see how long you last without imports from the US, not to mention our tourist money. Canada has (and has had for a long time) a significant favourable trade balance over the US. If you close the border, you lose 10% of your oil, lots of natural gas, a lot of electricity in the northeast states, pulp and paper, wood, cars and trucks and lots and lots of other goods. The energy cuts alone would have you choking long before we would. Nah, we'll just drill more wells here. Canada will suffer far more than the US from a border closing. There is more dollar value in imports across the Ontario-Michigan border alone than to the US from any other country. Imports across the river at Sarnia is greater than the imports from Japan to the US. Nothing we can't do without. Again, you're talking thru your hat. I know you'd like to think Canada is essential to the success of the US, but it's not. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com