OT, Libya, Japan
 

A) Libya. I assume that when cruise missiles are sent against radar
sites, they use the largest payload that works, in order to do the
most damage. But if they could find out where kaddafi is, could they
not use a small payload, big enough to kill him and maybe 25 people
closest to him? Way back in 1966, I worked as a lowest-level
undergraduate, confined mostly to delivering the mail and making
copies, plus a couple other less time-consumng things meant to teach
me more than they were meant for me to help anyone there, at the US
Naval Avionics Facility, where they were working on the Walleye
missile, to be controlled by the pilot of a plane who would identify a
target as small as a person or a doorway, lock on to it, and the
missile, with a little ongoing help from the pilot, was meant to hit
it. I think they had production problems that delayed it for years,
but by now, with faster processors, GPS, and with the great success
from cruise missiles, I think it would be possible to go through a
window or a wall and straight to where he is standing.

B) Japan. Don't they have lead-lined suits that the firemen could
wear to get their water cannon closer to the reactors? I saw that
they only shoot 100 or 150 feet, but once they had the range, I think
they would work a lot faster than dumping from the sky, where most
goes somewhere else.

Is there any kind of robot that will fit in the drivers seat and
press the pedals and steer, so they wouldn't need a special robot for
every purpose?

If not, can't they drive the truck up there and leave for a few
hours in another truck or by walking?

OT, Libya, Japan
 

mm wrote:

A) Libya.

It's too bad that western countries are going to topple Kaddafi.

When will we learn that it takes a dictator to lead arab / muslim
countries, and that in the abscence of said dictator what we end up with
is caos, confusion, stagnation, and degredation of the state of affairs
of (insert arab/muslim country here).

Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in Libya
were getting along, doing their business, living their lives, etc.

The west had their oil companies there, doing business, and the country
seemed stable enough, and people weren't being slaughtered in the
streets.

Nothing good will come of Kaddafi being assasinated (like Saddam Hussein
was, and nothing good has really come of that either).

Libya will now degenerate into a Somolia or Ethiopia or Congo, and we
(the west) will have another basket case of a country to take care of.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

Oren wrote:

Nothing good will come of Kaddafi being assasinated (like Saddam
Hussein was, and nothing good has really come of that either).

Um. For the record, Saddam Hussein was not assassinated.

The entire "war" the us prosecuted in Iraq was one big Hussein
assassination attempt. Hussein, and his 2 sons.

It was a political assassination disguised as a war - which wasn't even
a real war because the US did not declare war on Iraq and the US did not
hold a vote in the UN security council to authorize action against Iraq
like Bush said he was going to do.

U.S. Federal law prohibits the assassination of foreign dignitaries

Hence the false war in Iraq.

The very first night - over 1000 cruise missles fired at every place
they thought Hussein could be. A so-called "decapitation" of Iraq's
command and control structures. A thinly veiled assassination attempt,
and very expensive when you consider the missles cost $10 million each.

But let's not detract from the main thesis: Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or impartial
court system. They are far to tribal and clannish to achieve such
structures and enjoy the lifestyles and liberty that follows.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 19:55:43 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

He had a
trail in a court of jurisdiction and was hung.

Mrs. Hussein would have to agree.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:35:31 -0400, Home Guy wrote Re
OT, Libya, Japan:

But let's not detract from the main thesis: Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or impartial
court system. They are far to tribal and clannish to achieve such
structures and enjoy the lifestyles and liberty that follows.

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/19/2011 7:12 PM, mm wrote:

Ran across this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_837894.html

on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into Iraq to
kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came from eastern
Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that the United States
and others now have vowed to protect, according to internal al Qaeda
documents uncovered by U.S. intelligence.

Unintended consequences. Seems to me like a good site for a GE Mark 1
reactor. I know where they can get 5 or 6 used ones.

Jeff

OT, Libya, Japan
 

Jeff Thies wrote:

on a per capita basis, no country sent more young fighters into
Iraq to kill Americans than Libya -- and almost all of them came
from eastern Libya, the center of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion that
the United States and others now have vowed to protect

Just another example of the schizophrenic nature of US foreign policy
and strategic thinking.

Just like handing over weapons and training the taliban to fight the
soviets in afghanistan (who were on their way to at least tame and
civilize that stone-age excuse for a country) and we know the blowback
that happened from that.

Just like handing over chemical weapons to Sadam Hussein to use against
Iran (remember the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein?) as
Iraq fights a proxy war for the US against Iran, and later the US screws
Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait (he got the green light to do it from
the US to invade Kuwait, and the US faked satellite pictures showing
Iraq was massing tanks along border with Saudia Arabia as excuse to
station a permenant US military presence there, which arguably fed into
muslim anti-US hatred and helped foment 9/11 attacks purpetrated mostly
by Saudi men).

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in Libya
were getting along, doing their business, living their lives, etc.

Yeah, just like they should have left South Africa alone back in the days of
apartheid, everybody was getting along, doing their business, living their
lives--they didn't need all those boycotts and trade embargoes and
diplomatic pressure to change their system of government to one where
everybody gets to vote.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...


But let's not detract from the main thesis: Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or impartial
court system. They are far to tribal and clannish to achieve such
structures and enjoy the lifestyles and liberty that follows.

Turkey and Indonesia are democracies with a combined population of over 300
million, but don't let that fact get in the way of your dogma.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

Just like handing over weapons and training the taliban to fight the
soviets in afghanistan (who were on their way to at least tame and
civilize that stone-age excuse for a country) and we know the blowback
that happened from that.

"Civilize"? The Soviet Union wasn't exactly a beacon of civilization
itself, at least by the standards you set in another post, i.e. democracy
and independent courts, but they were going to civilize Afghanistan, the
land where empires go to die?

Just like handing over chemical weapons to Sadam Hussein to use against
Iran (remember the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein?)

Kindly document that the U.S. handed over chemical weapons to Iraq.
Technology and materials useful for making such weapons came to Iraq mostly
from Europe which allowed Iraq to make its own chemical weapons.

as
Iraq fights a proxy war for the US against Iran, and later the US screws
Iraq over the invasion of Kuwait (he got the green light to do it from
the US to invade Kuwait,

That is the comic-book version of history. In the real world Iraq was $80
billion in debt as a result of its long war with Iran ($14 billion owed to
Kuwait) and Kuwait was helping to keep oil prices down with high oil
production which Iraq regarded as economic warfare. Kuwait was also
supposedly using slant-drilling technology to tap Iraqi oilfields. So the
U.S. ambassador saying America had no opinion on the economic disagreements
between Iraq and Kuwait could hardly have been taken as a green light for
invasion without which Saddam would not have acted.

and the US faked satellite pictures showing
Iraq was massing tanks along border with Saudia Arabia as excuse to
station a permenant US military presence there

Your argument is somewhat damaged by the fact that the U.S. withdrew its
forces from Saudi Arabia years ago.

, which arguably fed into
muslim anti-US hatred and helped foment 9/11 attacks purpetrated mostly
by Saudi men).

Hey, you finally got one right. U.S. and other infidel troops in Saudi
Arabia was in fact what pushed Osama bin Laden over the edge into jihad with
the west.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

DGDevin wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message ...


But let's not detract from the main thesis: Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or
impartial court system. They are far to tribal and clannish to
achieve such structures and enjoy the lifestyles and liberty that
follows.

Turkey and Indonesia are democracies with a combined population of
over 300 million, but don't let that fact get in the way of your
dogma.

Not dogma, fact.

There are 50 other predominately Muslim countries that are Theocracies
(Iran, most of Afghanistan), Monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan), Oligarchies
(Egypt), Thugocracies (Tunisia, Lybia), or out-and-out Anarchies (Sudan,
Somalia). Combined, they encompass about 1 billion souls.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

DGDevin wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in
Libya were getting along, doing their business, living their lives,
etc.

Yeah, just like they should have left South Africa alone back in the
days of apartheid, everybody was getting along, doing their business,
living their lives--they didn't need all those boycotts and trade
embargoes and diplomatic pressure to change their system of
government to one where everybody gets to vote.

If asked to name the most stable democracy in the Western world, a country
with zero unemployment, 100% literacy, and one that hasn't been in a war in
500 years, one would have to name Switzerland.

Women couldn't vote in Switzerland until 1976. After that, the country
started going downhill...

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/20/2011 8:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message ...

Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in
Libya were getting along, doing their business, living their lives,
etc.

Yeah, just like they should have left South Africa alone back in the
days of apartheid, everybody was getting along, doing their business,
living their lives--they didn't need all those boycotts and trade
embargoes and diplomatic pressure to change their system of
government to one where everybody gets to vote.

If asked to name the most stable democracy in the Western world, a country
with zero unemployment, 100% literacy, and one that hasn't been in a war in
500 years, one would have to name Switzerland.

Women couldn't vote in Switzerland until 1976. After that, the country
started going downhill...



Women don't exactly use any rational means of choosing who to vote for.
One of my grownup girlfriends whom I adore, voted for Bill Clinton
because he was better looking than the other candidate. I know the same
thing happened with Obama. There were all kinds of females swooning
over the guy, it's ridiculous and the result is devastating to the
country. A friend of mine said his elderly mother votes for candidates
based on the way they look or how pretty they are. GEEZ!

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Turkey and Indonesia are democracies with a combined population of
over 300 million, but don't let that fact get in the way of your
dogma.

Not dogma, fact.

He wrote:

"Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or impartial
court system."

I just named two Muslim countries that are in fact democracies, so he's
wrong about Muslim nations being unable to operate as democracies, it's that
simple. It's also unavoidable that however much we dislike the legal code
under which some Muslim nations operate, it is a legal code and thus it
makes no sense to say they don't have one. Maybe you don't like the
designated hitter rule, but that wouldn't justify you in saying MLB has no
rules.

There are 50 other predominately Muslim countries that are Theocracies
(Iran, most of Afghanistan), Monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan),
Oligarchies (Egypt), Thugocracies (Tunisia, Lybia), or out-and-out
Anarchies (Sudan, Somalia). Combined, they encompass about 1 billion
souls.

There are (and have been) plenty of countries with tyrannical governments,
and if you read your history you'll discover that many of them have got
along just fine with Uncle Sam so long as they kept the natural resources
flowing and cooperated with U.S. foreign policy. Greece is a democracy
*today* but it's had its share of military coups. South Africa is a
democracy *today* but as I'm sure you remember there was a day when only a
small fraction of its citizens had the vote. Latin America and South
America are full of nations that are democracies *today* but which not long
ago were run by military juntas that Washington thought were doing a fine
job. And of course some of those oppressive Arab states are allies of the
U.S., it seems America isn't too picky about that. Some of the former
satellites and republics of the Soviet Union are democracies, some are in
name only--so apparently there are other factors than the percentage of
Muslims in the population determining how that works out. Hell, the nation
with the biggest population on earth is mostly non-Muslim and it sure isn't
a democracy, so it seems religion isn't the key factor in determining what
kind of govt. a nation ends up with.

America seems to have a problem with oppressive governments only when they
don't cooperate with America. Iran once had an elected democratic govt.,
but once it started to mess with western oil profits it was bye-bye elected
government, hello U.S.-British backed coup and our new pal the Shah. And
look where that lead.

So don't be too quick to blame Islam for all those jacked-up Islamic
nations. Some of those nations are a mess in large part because western
colonial powers drew arbitrary lines on maps and created new nations full of
ethnic tensions, or because the west supported oppressive regimes which made
themselves useful. Islamophobia is a cop-out, and people who use it are
usually pig-ignorant of the facts.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

If asked to name the most stable democracy in the Western world, a country
with zero unemployment,

Switzerland has an unemployment rate of about four and a half percent.

100% literacy,

According to their govt. it is 99%.

and one that hasn't been in a war in 500 years, one would have to name
Switzerland.

Switzerland was the scene of a *civil war* in the mid 19th century, that's
how it became a federal state. In case you're wondering that puts their
last war 164 years ago although their last international war goes back 196
years. Since then they've managed to stay out of wars only by being
prepared to give any potential invader a really nasty time, although of
course the army kept in practice by shooting down strikers and protestors
over the years.

Women couldn't vote in Switzerland until 1976. After that, the country
started going downhill...

Women got the vote in some cantons of Switzerland beginning in 1959, at the
federal level in 1971.

Is there *anything* you believe that didn't come from a bumper-sticker?

Oh, if you move there you are required by law to buy health insurance unless
you're a foreign diplomat. Insurance companies are required to offer
non-profit insurance for basic coverage but can make a profit on optional
coverage. They can't turn you down because of age or medical history so the
old and crazy thing shouldn't be a problem for you.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


Women couldn't vote in Switzerland until 1976. After that, the country
started going downhill...

Women don't exactly use any rational means of choosing who to vote for.
One of my grownup girlfriends whom I adore, voted for Bill Clinton because
he was better looking than the other candidate. I know the same
thing happened with Obama. There were all kinds of females swooning
over the guy, it's ridiculous and the result is devastating to the
country. A friend of mine said his elderly mother votes for candidates
based on the way they look or how pretty they are. GEEZ!

And then there are the men-folk who vote based on which letter appears after
the candidate's name. "What, this guy is a Dumacrat?! No way in hell am I
votin' fer one of them critters, they want to make me marry one o' them thar
gays!"

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"mm" wrote in message ...


And btw, for all those witch-hunters who just assume any source that
has one liberal article is always "liberal", the huffington post
doesn't seem to be dominated like they think.

I have no problem with news outlets that tend to take a liberal or
conservative line since I can take whatever bias they have into account. So
I read the Chicago Tribune (conservative) and the San Francisco Chronicle
(liberal) as well as the NY Times and the WSJ Journal and the BBC and so on.
What cracks me up is the goofs who wouldn't believe anything that appears on
Huffington (most of which comes from other news sources) but will happily
believe the nonsense they get from Glenn Beck or Newsmax. It requires a
special kind of idiocy to believe only the propaganda from your side is
true.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:22:07 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"mm" wrote in message ...


And btw, for all those witch-hunters who just assume any source that
has one liberal article is always "liberal", the huffington post
doesn't seem to be dominated like they think.

I have no problem with news outlets that tend to take a liberal or
conservative line since I can take whatever bias they have into account. So
I read the Chicago Tribune (conservative) and the San Francisco Chronicle
(liberal) as well as the NY Times and the WSJ Journal and the BBC and so on.
What cracks me up is the goofs who wouldn't believe anything that appears on
Huffington (most of which comes from other news sources)

Exactly. That's who I was thinking of, and specifically wrt the
Huffingtonpost. although they're in another forum. College
gradueights, too, for what little it seems to be worth.

Someone else claimed she had no principles because she had changed her
position, since she was once conservative. I think if anything, that
means she has principles, just different from her old ones. Another
one said the same thing about Joe Lieberman because he worked for
McCain even though he's a Democrat. I pointed out that since he just
lost friends and votes among Democrats, and surely didn't make many
real friends among the Republicans, that proves he did it because of
principle. And we alreeady knew he took a preety hard line on the the
Iraq war. (Yes, he woudl have been offered a very good job by McCain
if he had won, but people don't work for those they disagree with
(unless they're not doing well, and Lieberman was a US Senator for
gosh sakes.)

but will happily
believe the nonsense they get from Glenn Beck or Newsmax. It requires a
special kind of idiocy to believe only the propaganda from your side is
true.

Yup

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On Mar 19, 11:55*pm, Home Guy wrote:
mm wrote:
A) Libya.

It's too bad that western countries are going to topple Kaddafi.

When will we learn that it takes a dictator to lead arab / muslim
countries, and that in the abscence of said dictator what we end up with
is caos, confusion, stagnation, and degredation of the state of affairs
of (insert arab/muslim country here).

Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in Libya
were getting along, doing their business, living their lives, etc.

The west had their oil companies there, doing business, and the country
seemed stable enough, and people weren't being slaughtered in the
streets.

Nothing good will come of Kaddafi being assasinated (like Saddam Hussein
was, and nothing good has really come of that either).

Libya will now degenerate into a Somolia or Ethiopia or Congo, and we
(the west) will have another basket case of a country to take care of.

Good god! Have we here a sensible American? Are you American?
I have a very bad feeling sbout all this myself, I think you are
entirely correct.

I think we might end up with two countries. Gadafi still in one of
them, hatching up all sorts of evil plots.

BTW, Where are the Arab forces? So far it's been French,US and UK.
The f****g clothheads have ducked out

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On Mar 20, 10:55*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Home Guy" *wrote in ...
Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in Libya
were getting along, doing their business, living their lives, etc.

Yeah, just like they should have left South Africa alone back in the days of
apartheid, everybody was getting along, doing their business, living their
lives--they didn't need all those boycotts and trade embargoes and
diplomatic pressure to change their system of government to one where
everybody gets to vote.

Are they any better off now? (Post apartheit.)

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 1:16 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


Women couldn't vote in Switzerland until 1976. After that, the country
started going downhill...

Women don't exactly use any rational means of choosing who to vote for.
One of my grownup girlfriends whom I adore, voted for Bill Clinton
because he was better looking than the other candidate. I know the same
thing happened with Obama. There were all kinds of females swooning
over the guy, it's ridiculous and the result is devastating to the
country. A friend of mine said his elderly mother votes for candidates
based on the way they look or how pretty they are. GEEZ!

And then there are the men-folk who vote based on which letter appears
after the candidate's name. "What, this guy is a Dumacrat?! No way in
hell am I votin' fer one of them critters, they want to make me marry
one o' them thar gays!"

I hate to burst your bigoted bubble there DG but there are Democrats I
actually like and gay people don't bother me just because they're gay
anymore than someone who is heterosexual. Inappropriate "public"
behavior by either group does bother me. Of course you may be a Liberal
freak and could never understand something like propriety. ^_^

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 11:55 pm, Home wrote:
mm wrote:
A) Libya.

It's too bad that western countries are going to topple Kaddafi.

When will we learn that it takes a dictator to lead arab / muslim
countries, and that in the abscence of said dictator what we end up with
is caos, confusion, stagnation, and degredation of the state of affairs
of (insert arab/muslim country here).

Seems that before all this started to happen, that the people in Libya
were getting along, doing their business, living their lives, etc.

The west had their oil companies there, doing business, and the country
seemed stable enough, and people weren't being slaughtered in the
streets.

Nothing good will come of Kaddafi being assasinated (like Saddam Hussein
was, and nothing good has really come of that either).

Libya will now degenerate into a Somolia or Ethiopia or Congo, and we
(the west) will have another basket case of a country to take care of.

Good god! Have we here a sensible American? Are you American?
I have a very bad feeling sbout all this myself, I think you are
entirely correct.

I think we might end up with two countries. Gadafi still in one of
them, hatching up all sorts of evil plots.

BTW, Where are the Arab forces? So far it's been French,US and UK.
The f****g clothheads have ducked out

Harry! How insensitive of you! You can't call them schtupping cloth
heads! The correct term is "frigging towel-heads". :-)

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Turkey and Indonesia are democracies with a combined population of
over 300 million, but don't let that fact get in the way of your
dogma.

Not dogma, fact.

He wrote:

"Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or impartial
court system."

I just named two Muslim countries that are in fact democracies, so
he's wrong about Muslim nations being unable to operate as
democracies, it's that simple. It's also unavoidable that however
much we dislike the legal code under which some Muslim nations
operate, it is a legal code and thus it makes no sense to say they
don't have one. Maybe you don't like the designated hitter rule, but
that wouldn't justify you in saying MLB has no rules.

There are 50 other predominately Muslim countries that are
Theocracies (Iran, most of Afghanistan), Monarchies (Saudi Arabia,
Jordan), Oligarchies (Egypt), Thugocracies (Tunisia, Lybia), or
out-and-out Anarchies (Sudan, Somalia). Combined, they encompass
about 1 billion souls.

There are (and have been) plenty of countries with tyrannical
governments, and if you read your history you'll discover that many
of them have got along just fine with Uncle Sam so long as they kept
the natural resources flowing and cooperated with U.S. foreign
policy. Greece is a democracy *today* but it's had its share of
military coups. South Africa is a democracy *today* but as I'm sure
you remember there was a day when only a small fraction of its
citizens had the vote. Latin America and South America are full of
nations that are democracies *today* but which not long ago were run
by military juntas that Washington thought were doing a fine job. And of
course some of those oppressive Arab states are allies of the
U.S., it seems America isn't too picky about that. Some of the
former satellites and republics of the Soviet Union are democracies,
some are in name only--so apparently there are other factors than the
percentage of Muslims in the population determining how that works
out. Hell, the nation with the biggest population on earth is mostly
non-Muslim and it sure isn't a democracy, so it seems religion isn't
the key factor in determining what kind of govt. a nation ends up
with.
America seems to have a problem with oppressive governments only when
they don't cooperate with America. Iran once had an elected
democratic govt., but once it started to mess with western oil
profits it was bye-bye elected government, hello U.S.-British backed
coup and our new pal the Shah. And look where that lead.

So don't be too quick to blame Islam for all those jacked-up Islamic
nations. Some of those nations are a mess in large part because
western colonial powers drew arbitrary lines on maps and created new
nations full of ethnic tensions, or because the west supported
oppressive regimes which made themselves useful. Islamophobia is a
cop-out, and people who use it are usually pig-ignorant of the facts.

You make some valid points - there are certainly non-muslim tyrannical
regimes (California comes to mind).

Still, if one gives credence to the notion: "In recent times, one cannot say
all Muslims are terrorists, but one CAN say all terrorists are Muslims,"
then it's easy to extrapolate, i.e., not all tyrannies are Muslim, but
(almost) all Muslim governments are tyrannical.

There is, however, hope. Malaysia is coming along nicely. Iraq has the
ability and the will to persist in a representative government. We've yet to
see how Egypt turns out, but it has strong possibilities.

Then, too, we've seen that "hope" is not a strategy; regrettably, we must
kill great numbers of people in order to save them.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

DGDevin wrote:

And then there are the men-folk who vote based on which letter
appears after the candidate's name. "What, this guy is a Dumacrat?! No
way in hell am I votin' fer one of them critters, they want to
make me marry one o' them thar gays!"

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

What is your alternative?

* Vote for the PERSON not the party? In the last election, in my county,
there were over 700 names on the ballots. With only six months between the
primary and the general election, that was woefully insufficient time to
research the platforms, promises, experience, friends, and dog ownership of
those 700 people.

* Vote for a candidate's race, heritage (does his name end with the letter
"O"), or sex? Some did that in the last election, at some cost, I might add.

There are other criteria a voter might fall back upon while in the booth.
I'd be interested in the process that determines your vote.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 2:22 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"mm" wrote in message ...


And btw, for all those witch-hunters who just assume any source that
has one liberal article is always "liberal", the huffington post
doesn't seem to be dominated like they think.

I have no problem with news outlets that tend to take a liberal or
conservative line since I can take whatever bias they have into account.
So I read the Chicago Tribune (conservative) and the San Francisco
Chronicle (liberal) as well as the NY Times and the WSJ Journal and the
BBC and so on.

I work much the same way.

What cracks me up is the goofs who wouldn't believe
anything that appears on Huffington (most of which comes from other news
sources)

It is turning into a comprehensive meta source. In fact I used to start
with the Drudge Report, and how conservative is that! But Drudge is very
limited as are so are many others. Digging out facts does seem to have a
liberal bias. Remember all those years of whining by the right of the
media bias in reporting from Iraq. In fact FOX rarely had a reporter
anywhere near the action.

but will happily believe the nonsense they get from Glenn Beck
or Newsmax. It requires a special kind of idiocy to believe only the
propaganda from your side is true.

That is the way it is. With Rush and Glenn it is the messenger they
believe in. If you are on top of the news it is not hard to see what
isn't mentioned or is twisted. My Tea friends used to bring me
outlandish bits from one or the other and I usually knew where the skew
was and could point to the actual information. Since they are
commentators they have no journalistic ethics to uphold or be held to.
It is about entertaining and holding the audience. And they are first
rate entertainers, but getting at the facts is not their goal. It is the
Pro Wresting of "Media".

Those on the right believe the left thinks the same way as they do. In
fact they crudely refer to Obama as a "Messiah". In fact none of my
friends on the left follow *anyone*. It is the right that is so in need
of Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and such. There is a whole and very large wing
of the right that rests their beliefs firmly on faith and religion. That
is all backed up with blind faith and two millinea of haze and rewriting
of the Bible.

IMHO, if you can believe there is an all knowing God watching everything
you do, and knowing everything you are going to do, then Limbaugh or
Beck is no stretch.

Jeff

OT, Libya, Japan
 

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

If asked to name the most stable democracy in the Western world, a
country with zero unemployment,

Switzerland has an unemployment rate of about four and a half percent.

100% literacy,

According to their govt. it is 99%.

and one that hasn't been in a war in 500 years, one would have to
name Switzerland.

Switzerland was the scene of a *civil war* in the mid 19th century,
that's how it became a federal state. In case you're wondering that
puts their last war 164 years ago although their last international
war goes back 196 years. Since then they've managed to stay out of
wars only by being prepared to give any potential invader a really
nasty time, although of course the army kept in practice by shooting
down strikers and protestors over the years.

Women couldn't vote in Switzerland until 1976. After that, the
country started going downhill...

Women got the vote in some cantons of Switzerland beginning in 1959,
at the federal level in 1971.

Is there *anything* you believe that didn't come from a
bumper-sticker?

Einstein said there is nothing that cannot be explained simply and bumper
stickers are the distilled wisdom of the ages. In one instance, a judge
ruled that an Ohio State student's bumper sticker "**** Michigan" was not
obscene because:
* It did not appeal to prurient interests,
* The work, taken as a whole, was not without socially redeeming value, and
* The work accurately reflected contemporary community standards.

I would have added that it's brevity contributed to its effectiveness in
making a point.


Oh, if you move there you are required by law to buy health insurance
unless you're a foreign diplomat. Insurance companies are required
to offer non-profit insurance for basic coverage but can make a
profit on optional coverage. They can't turn you down because of age
or medical history so the old and crazy thing shouldn't be a problem
for you.

Thank you for the corrections. I may have had the facts wrong, but the
narrative was correct.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On Mar 21, 7:28*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

Turkey and Indonesia are democracies with a combined population of
over 300 million, but don't let that fact get in the way of your
dogma.

Not dogma, fact.

He wrote:

"Aram / muslim countries
can't evolve or maintain any sort of democracy or democratic form of
gov't or a society that obeys any sort of legal framework or impartial
court system."

I just named two Muslim countries that are in fact democracies, so
he's wrong about Muslim nations being unable to operate as
democracies, it's that simple. *It's also unavoidable that however
much we dislike the legal code under which some Muslim nations
operate, it is a legal code and thus it makes no sense to say they
don't have one. *Maybe you don't like the designated hitter rule, but
that wouldn't justify you in saying MLB has no rules.

There are 50 other predominately Muslim countries that are
Theocracies (Iran, most of Afghanistan), Monarchies (Saudi Arabia,
Jordan), Oligarchies (Egypt), Thugocracies (Tunisia, Lybia), or
out-and-out Anarchies (Sudan, Somalia). Combined, they encompass
about 1 billion souls.

There are (and have been) plenty of countries with tyrannical
governments, and if you read your history you'll discover that many
of them have got along just fine with Uncle Sam so long as they kept
the natural resources flowing and cooperated with U.S. foreign
policy. *Greece is a democracy *today* but it's had its share of
military coups. *South Africa is a democracy *today* but as I'm sure
you remember there was a day when only a small fraction of its
citizens had the vote. *Latin America and South America are full of
nations that are democracies *today* but which not long ago were run
by military juntas that Washington thought were doing a fine job. And of
course some of those oppressive Arab states are allies of the
U.S., it seems America isn't too picky about that. *Some of the
former satellites and republics of the Soviet Union are democracies,
some are in name only--so apparently there are other factors than the
percentage of Muslims in the population determining how that works
out. Hell, the nation with the biggest population on earth is mostly
non-Muslim and it sure isn't a democracy, so it seems religion isn't
the key factor in determining what kind of govt. a nation ends up
with.
America seems to have a problem with oppressive governments only when
they don't cooperate with America. *Iran once had an elected
democratic govt., but once it started to mess with western oil
profits it was bye-bye elected government, hello U.S.-British backed
coup and our new pal the Shah. *And look where that lead.

So don't be too quick to blame Islam for all those jacked-up Islamic
nations. *Some of those nations are a mess in large part because
western colonial powers drew arbitrary lines on maps and created new
nations full of ethnic tensions,

Typical. Blame it all on the USA and "colonial powers". Like those
ethnic tensions have not been there for hundreds or thousands of
years, long before the USA ever got involved. In fact, it seems
countries
with ethnic tensions do best when they have a dictator running the
place,
something many of those places seem to prefer. Take the dictator
out and then they run amuck ala Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan....who's next?
Libya?



or because the west supported
oppressive regimes which made themselves useful.

Implying that it would have been better if it were an oppressive
regime not supported by the USA. Like perhaps North Korea?
Uganda under Idi Amin?


*Islamophobia is a
cop-out, and people who use it are usually pig-ignorant of the facts.

The fact is that the world today has a major problem with terrorists
driven by extremist interpreation of one religion: Muslim That's
the
fact, yet some people, including our president and attorney general
can't even accept that
or state it. Eric Holder was asked in testimony before the Senate
if any of the recent terrorist attacks were motivated by extremist
Muslim religion. The senator listed Ft. Hood, the underwear bomber,
Times Square, etc. Despite asking about 7 times if Muslim religion
played any role, Holder refused to
give a simple YES. I'd say that's "pig ignorant".

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I hate to burst your bigoted bubble there DG but there are Democrats I
actually like and gay people don't bother me just because they're gay
anymore than someone who is heterosexual.

Good for you, seriously. On the other hand the GOP has used the threat of
gay marriage to drum up lots of votes, so apparently some folks aren't quite
so enlightened.

Inappropriate "public" behavior by either group does bother me.

Like smoking in a theatre?

Of course you may be a Liberal
freak and could never understand something like propriety. ^_^

I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"mm" wrote in message ...

Someone else claimed she had no principles because she had changed her
position, since she was once conservative. I think if anything, that
means she has principles, just different from her old ones.

I've been quite conservative on most issues for a long time, but I've had to
change my views on some things after giving them a lot of thought. Evolve
or die seems to be one way to look at it. Of course some people don't
believe in evolution.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 11:10 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I hate to burst your bigoted bubble there DG but there are Democrats I
actually like and gay people don't bother me just because they're gay
anymore than someone who is heterosexual.

Good for you, seriously. On the other hand the GOP has used the threat
of gay marriage to drum up lots of votes, so apparently some folks
aren't quite so enlightened.


The problem I have with The GOP is the fact that religious wackos seem
to have taken over the party. You don't have to be pious to possess
morals. I have no problem with gay men marrying gay women. When two
people of the same gender get married, how in the hell do you tell which
is the husband and which is the wife? ^_^

Inappropriate "public" behavior by either group does bother me.

Like smoking in a theatre?


Having sex in the public square or deep tonguing each other in front of
anyone who may be offended by such behavior when they know it will.

Of course you may be a Liberal
freak and could never understand something like propriety. ^_^

I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer.

Funny thing about that, I did a lot of ballet exercises when I studied
and practiced Karate. It gave me a reason to respect ballet dancers as
extreme athletes. Those fellows you see dancing with the girls in tutus
aren't necessarily sissies. If you tease one of them, you might get your
ears boxed with ballet slippers still attached to a coupe of feet. :-)

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 11:20 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"mm" wrote in message ...

Someone else claimed she had no principles because she had changed her
position, since she was once conservative. I think if anything, that
means she has principles, just different from her old ones.

I've been quite conservative on most issues for a long time, but I've
had to change my views on some things after giving them a lot of
thought. Evolve or die seems to be one way to look at it. Of course some
people don't believe in evolution.

You mean to tell me that y'alls ancestors was them dang monkeys?

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

The problem I have with The GOP is the fact that religious wackos seem to
have taken over the party.

Exactly. The GOP has trouble winning without them, so they have influence
outside their numbers. The patricians in the party despise them for the
most part, but they cater to them because they're a valuable voting block.

You don't have to be pious to possess morals.

Everybody has morals, it's just that some people have bad morals.

I have no problem with gay men marrying gay women. When two
people of the same gender get married, how in the hell do you tell which
is the husband and which is the wife? ^_^

Remember "Miss Manners"? Somebody wrote in and said they didn't know what
to say when introduced to a gay or lesbian couple, so Miss Manners said the
appropriate response was, "How do you do, how do you do". That works for
me. I don't have time to worry about what other people do in bed, and yet
for millions of folks it is apparently a very big deal.

Inappropriate "public" behavior by either group does bother me.

Like smoking in a theatre?

Having sex in the public square

Which would be illegal for anybody.

or deep tonguing each other in front of
anyone who may be offended by such behavior when they know it will.

If it offends you, don't watch. Read the fine print on your birth
certificate, notice that nowhere does it say you have a right not to be
offended.

Of course you may be a Liberal
freak and could never understand something like propriety. ^_^

I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer.

Funny thing about that, I did a lot of ballet exercises when I studied
and practiced Karate. It gave me a reason to respect ballet dancers as
extreme athletes.

Hell yes, those folks are in incredible shape. Not my cup of tea, but as
you say, they are serious athletes.

Those fellows you see dancing with the girls in tutus aren't necessarily
sissies. If you tease one of them, you might get your
ears boxed with ballet slippers still attached to a coupe of feet. :-)

It's even worse with male figure skaters, they can cut your head off. Best
to call them names when they've taken their skates off.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 5:27 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

The problem I have with The GOP is the fact that religious wackos seem
to have taken over the party.

Exactly. The GOP has trouble winning without them, so they have
influence outside their numbers. The patricians in the party despise
them for the most part, but they cater to them because they're a
valuable voting block.

You don't have to be pious to possess morals.

Everybody has morals, it's just that some people have bad morals.

I have no problem with gay men marrying gay women. When two
people of the same gender get married, how in the hell do you tell
which is the husband and which is the wife? ^_^

Remember "Miss Manners"? Somebody wrote in and said they didn't know
what to say when introduced to a gay or lesbian couple, so Miss Manners
said the appropriate response was, "How do you do, how do you do". That
works for me. I don't have time to worry about what other people do in
bed, and yet for millions of folks it is apparently a very big deal.

Inappropriate "public" behavior by either group does bother me.

Like smoking in a theatre?

Having sex in the public square

Which would be illegal for anybody.

or deep tonguing each other in front of
anyone who may be offended by such behavior when they know it will.

If it offends you, don't watch. Read the fine print on your birth
certificate, notice that nowhere does it say you have a right not to be
offended.


That's not quite what I'm talking about. Some of my darker cousins who
are much younger than me have a serious problem determining what is a
proper way to express themselves in public. When I chastise them about
it, I ask them if they would talk that way in front of their mama or
grand mama. Most of them say they wouldn't so I point out the families
with children within earshot and tell them I don't think their mama or
grand mama would approve of the mouthing off like that in front of a
family out to dinner. Sometimes they don't even realize who's around.

Of course you may be a Liberal
freak and could never understand something like propriety. ^_^

I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer.

Funny thing about that, I did a lot of ballet exercises when I studied
and practiced Karate. It gave me a reason to respect ballet dancers as
extreme athletes.

Hell yes, those folks are in incredible shape. Not my cup of tea, but as
you say, they are serious athletes.

Those fellows you see dancing with the girls in tutus aren't
necessarily sissies. If you tease one of them, you might get your
ears boxed with ballet slippers still attached to a coupe of feet. :-)

It's even worse with male figure skaters, they can cut your head off.
Best to call them names when they've taken their skates off.

Well, like the ballet dancers, they could jump up spin around and pop
you in the skull with the ball of their foot. ^_^

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

What is your alternative?

* Vote for the PERSON not the party? In the last election, in my county,
there were over 700 names on the ballots. With only six months between the
primary and the general election, that was woefully insufficient time to
research the platforms, promises, experience, friends, and dog ownership
of those 700 people.

But then you'll turn around and rattle off the stats of your favorite ball
players or the details of your local sports team's championship seasons with
little effort. So it isn't that you're incapable of doing your homework,
it's that you're selective about what you'll put time into.

It probably isn't necessary to spend a lot of time researching the platform
of the womyn from the Interplanetary Peace Party, but if you can't explain
the differences between the leading candidates then clearly you don't take
your vote very seriously. If you don't know who wants the city to offer tax
breaks to some billionaire who wants to build a new arena for his pro sports
team and who doesn't, then don't complain later when your taxes go up.

* Vote for a candidate's race, heritage (does his name end with the letter
"O"), or sex? Some did that in the last election, at some cost, I might
add.

For every person who voted for someone because they're of the same race,
there's another guy who voted against him because there's no way he wants
one of them in the White House. That you apparently only have a problem
with one half of that equation is not to your credit.

There are other criteria a voter might fall back upon while in the booth.
I'd be interested in the process that determines your vote.

I use a combination of personal background, their record in the community,
their platform (although that has a way of changing once they're elected)
and their party--the party cannot be left out of it because the candidate
will have to operate within that party if elected. So if I think that guy
would make a terrific mayor then I'm not so concerned with whether he's D or
R. But I won't vote for someone I think would be a lousy mayor just because
he belongs to a party I'm more in favor of--in large part because there
isn't a party I'm more in favor of. Voting the party line even if that
means putting incompetent and/or corrupt people in power seems like folly to
me, your mileage may vary.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Thank you for the corrections. I may have had the facts wrong, but the
narrative was correct.

Heh, thanks for the laugh.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


I've been quite conservative on most issues for a long time, but I've
had to change my views on some things after giving them a lot of
thought. Evolve or die seems to be one way to look at it. Of course some
people don't believe in evolution.

You mean to tell me that y'alls ancestors was them dang monkeys?

That dingbat Tea Potter Christine O'Donnell says she knows evolution isn't
real because if it was real then monkeys would still be evolving into humans
and that isn't happening. So it would appear some of us evolved, and others
got in the wrong line.

OT, Libya, Japan
 

"Jeff Thies" wrote in message ...


but will happily believe the nonsense they get from Glenn Beck
or Newsmax. It requires a special kind of idiocy to believe only the
propaganda from your side is true.

Since they are commentators they have no journalistic ethics to uphold or
be held to. It is about entertaining and holding the audience. And they
are first rate entertainers, but getting at the facts is not their goal.
It is the Pro Wresting of "Media".

I used to think Limbaugh was just an entertainer, and then the chairman of
the Republican Party said some unkind (but accurate) things about Limbaugh
and promptly had to kiss Limbaugh's ass in apology. That settled the issue
of how much power those guys have within that party.

IMHO, if you can believe there is an all knowing God watching everything
you do, and knowing everything you are going to do, then Limbaugh or Beck
is no stretch.

Lots of very smart and very successful people have believed in God, but
Limbaugh and Beck look more like proof of Satan to me. ;~)

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 6:01 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


I've been quite conservative on most issues for a long time, but I've
had to change my views on some things after giving them a lot of
thought. Evolve or die seems to be one way to look at it. Of course some
people don't believe in evolution.

You mean to tell me that y'alls ancestors was them dang monkeys?

That dingbat Tea Potter Christine O'Donnell says she knows evolution
isn't real because if it was real then monkeys would still be evolving
into humans and that isn't happening. So it would appear some of us
evolved, and others got in the wrong line.

I do believe genetic researchers have determined that we Homo sapiens
are the descendants of 10,000 or fewer mating pairs from Central Africa
something like 70,000 years ago. We're all from Africa and us White
folks are the mutants. ^_^

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:11:38 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 3/21/2011 6:01 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


I've been quite conservative on most issues for a long time, but I've
had to change my views on some things after giving them a lot of
thought. Evolve or die seems to be one way to look at it. Of course some
people don't believe in evolution.

You mean to tell me that y'alls ancestors was them dang monkeys?

That dingbat Tea Potter Christine O'Donnell says she knows evolution
isn't real because if it was real then monkeys would still be evolving
into humans and that isn't happening. So it would appear some of us
evolved, and others got in the wrong line.

I do believe genetic researchers have determined that we Homo sapiens
are the descendants of 10,000 or fewer mating pairs from Central Africa
something like 70,000 years ago. We're all from Africa and us White
folks are the mutants. ^_^

I never understood why white people live in Scandinavia, for example.
Wouldn't they be warmer if they were dark and absorbed more heat from
the sun?

And why do dark people live near the equator, where it's hot?
Wouldn't they be cooler if they were light and reflected more heat.

TDD

OT, Libya, Japan
 

On 3/21/2011 8:47 PM, mm wrote:
(snip)

I do believe genetic researchers have determined that we Homo sapiens
are the descendants of 10,000 or fewer mating pairs from Central Africa
something like 70,000 years ago. We're all from Africa and us White
folks are the mutants. ^_^

I never understood why white people live in Scandinavia, for example.
Wouldn't they be warmer if they were dark and absorbed more heat from
the sun?


Look up 'Vitamin D'.

--
aem sends...