On 12/23/2014 06:43 PM, wrote:



snip


But the US could deal with the mid-East with a much cleared head if we
did not get any of our oil from them.


North Korea, as bad as it is probably has better religious tolerance and
woman's rights that half of the mid-East countries.

NK has absolutely NO religeous tolerance


Correct....however...



It's (possibly) better to have no tolerance for religion at all that to
declare that there is only /one/ religion as does Saudi Arabia.

Several points:

Canada has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but it's mixed with water and sand. Still, even at the current price of $55 per barrel, it's still economical to produce oil from this tar sand.

Canada's oil could very well reduce the USA's dependance on Saudi oil, and everyone know that.

Karl Marx declared that religion is the opium of the people. He meant that people are addicted to that stuff, and it allows them to tolerate the pathetic condition they live in. No communist regime that follows the teachings of Karl Marx will tolerate any form of religion. I don't know about North Korea, China or Cuba, but people in Russia used to still practice catholicism in their own private groups, and the government would turn a blind eye to it.

On 12/24/2014 03:42 PM, nestork wrote:



It's (possibly) better to have no tolerance for religion at all that to

declare that there is only /one/ religion as does Saudi Arabia.

North Korea doesn't recognize any religion.

Karl Marx declared that religion is the opium of the people. He meant
that people ingest that stuff to make them forget about the pathetic
condition they live in. If they were liberated from the chains of their
kings, queens and monarchs and worked together instead, they could
improve their lives immensely without having to rely on some sort of
Diety to give them heaven in their afterlife for all the suffering they
tolerated while alive.

No communist regime that follows the teachings of Karl Marx will
tolerate any form of religion. Neither North Korea, nor China, nor
Russia, nor Cuba recognize any religion. Despite that, people in those
countries still practice their own religions in small private groups.







True. Under a repressive regime people are still going to carry their
beliefs no matter what.


My dad always told me that "if your religion makes you a better person,
I'm all for it. "

I agree with that.

It's too bad that all too often in makes people worse.

nestork wrote:

No communist regime that follows the teachings of Karl Marx will
tolerate any form of religion. Neither North Korea, nor China, nor
Russia, nor Cuba recognize any religion. Despite that, people in those
countries still practice their own religions in small private groups.

Right. That's why Pussy Riot was charged with hooliganism motivated by
religious hatred. Cuba hasn't been officially atheist since 1992. China
hosted the World Buddhist Forum in 2006 although the Dalai Lama wasn't
invited.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/travel...igger-buddhas/

China has found out Buddha statues are good for the tourist trade although I
understand the one the government erected in Tibet somewhat resembles Mao.

Didn't you get the memo? The Cold War is over.

Pussy Riot was arrested for making a loud and noisy spectacle in a church that offended the sensibilities of most of the church goers in attendance. Pussy Riot called that a "prayer" if I recall correctly, but most of the people in the church called it an obscenity. Unfortunately, Russia never had a law against offending the sensibilities of an entire church full of people, so they got charged with hooliganism instead. I think the Russian courts simply wanted to let Pussy Riot know when enough was enough.

And, I'm not sure I'd call China a "communist" country anymore. They were communist for a long time, but now they seem to be just as capitalistic as their arch enemy; Taiwan. There is an unspoken social contract in China. If the government makes you wealthier and makes your life easier, you don't criticize the government. Both sides seem to be holding up their side of that agreement, so what we have is 1.6 or so billion people all wanting to buy their own condos and cars, living under a supposedly "Communist" government that now allows private ownership of property. It's perhaps Communism wearing a completely new wardrobe.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 06:20:43 +0100, nestork
wrote:


rbowman;3325624 Wrote:

Right. That's why Pussy Riot was charged with hooliganism motivated by
religious hatred. Cuba hasn't been officially atheist since 1992. China

hosted the World Buddhist Forum in 2006 although the Dalai Lama wasn't
invited.


Pussy Riot was arrested for making a loud and noisy spectacle in a
church that offended the sensibilities of most of the church goers in
attendance. Pussy Riot called that a "prayer" if I recall correctly,
but most of the people in the church called it an obscenity.
Unfortunately, Russia never had a law against offending the
sensibilities of an entire church full of people, so they got charged
with hooliganism instead. I think the Russian courts simply wanted to
let Pussy Riot know when enough was enough.

And, I'm not sure I'd call China a "communist" country anymore. They
were communist for a long time, but now they seem to be just as
capitalistic as their arch enemy; Taiwan. There is an unspoken social
contract in China. If the government makes you wealthier and makes your
life easier, you don't criticize the government. Both sides seem to be
holding up their side of that agreement, so what we have is 1.6 or so
billion people all wanting to buy their own condos and cars, living
under a supposedly "Communist" government that now allows private
ownership of property. It's perhaps Communism wearing a completely new
wardrobe.
China is now a totalitarian capaitalistic society who's long-running
communist experiment has dismally failed but the leaders are not ready
yet to admit it. Religious freedom is only a dream for most. Freedom
FROM religion is more accurate.
Religion, and Christianity in particular, is thriving in Cuba. Of all
"Communist" countries, Cuba has perhaps made it work better than most.
Freedom of religion is most absent in the Islamic Republics and India,
where Christians in particular are being slaughtered at a very
alarming rate.
In the decade of 2010-2020, if the current trend continues, more
Christians will die for their faith than in the previous 2000 years
combined.

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 9:19:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 06:20:43 +0100, nestork
wrote:


rbowman;3325624 Wrote:

Right. That's why Pussy Riot was charged with hooliganism motivated by
religious hatred. Cuba hasn't been officially atheist since 1992. China

hosted the World Buddhist Forum in 2006 although the Dalai Lama wasn't
invited.


Pussy Riot was arrested for making a loud and noisy spectacle in a
church that offended the sensibilities of most of the church goers in
attendance. Pussy Riot called that a "prayer" if I recall correctly,
but most of the people in the church called it an obscenity.
Unfortunately, Russia never had a law against offending the
sensibilities of an entire church full of people, so they got charged
with hooliganism instead. I think the Russian courts simply wanted to
let Pussy Riot know when enough was enough.

And, I'm not sure I'd call China a "communist" country anymore. They
were communist for a long time, but now they seem to be just as
capitalistic as their arch enemy; Taiwan. There is an unspoken social
contract in China. If the government makes you wealthier and makes your
life easier, you don't criticize the government. Both sides seem to be
holding up their side of that agreement, so what we have is 1.6 or so
billion people all wanting to buy their own condos and cars, living
under a supposedly "Communist" government that now allows private
ownership of property. It's perhaps Communism wearing a completely new
wardrobe.
China is now a totalitarian capaitalistic society who's long-running
communist experiment has dismally failed but the leaders are not ready
yet to admit it.

I wouldn't call them capitalistic just yet. With reforms, they
have instituted many elements of capitalism. But there are plenty
of elements of communism still left with state owned "collectives"
and farmers given "leases", being one example. The only place that
is truly capitalistic is Hong Kong/Macau and that is treated as a
special region, not under the same rules as the rest of China.




Religious freedom is only a dream for most. Freedom
FROM religion is more accurate.

I don't think that's true. China has to approve churches and keeps them on
a leash. But they do have millions of Christians, Muslims, etc that
attend those churches, etc. It's far from a total ban on religion.
It's kind of like their approach to capitalism.


Religion, and Christianity in particular, is thriving in Cuba. Of all
"Communist" countries, Cuba has perhaps made it work better than most.
Freedom of religion is most absent in the Islamic Republics and India,
where Christians in particular are being slaughtered at a very
alarming rate.
In the decade of 2010-2020, if the current trend continues, more
Christians will die for their faith than in the previous 2000 years
combined.

The questions is, what is the world prepared to do about that?

wrote:

In the decade of 2010-2020, if the current trend continues, more
Christians will die for their faith than in the previous 2000 years
combined.

Are you counting Christians killed by Christians for not having quite the
right flavor of faith in those 2000 years?

On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 13:19:11 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

wrote:

In the decade of 2010-2020, if the current trend continues, more
Christians will die for their faith than in the previous 2000 years
combined.

Are you counting Christians killed by Christians for not having quite the
right flavor of faith in those 2000 years?

Yes, I am counting my Anabaptist ancestors killed by the Lutherans and
Catholics as part of that tally.

wrote:

Yes, I am counting my Anabaptist ancestors killed by the Lutherans and
Catholics as part of that tally.

That must have been when the Lutherans and Catholics took a break from
killing each other. The Anabaptists were mostly central Europe, weren't
they, so they probably didn't get in the way of the Catholics and Huguenots
killing each other in France.

Then there was the earlier Albigensian Crusade where the noble phrase
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" that is often misquoted
today as "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." originated.

Prior to that we have the Northern Crusades. Some Baltic pagans got caught
in the crossfire but that was primarily the Catholic and Orthodox fighting
it out.

Going even further back, wiping out Arian Christianity wasn't a bloodless
affair either.

Oh, and I almost forgot the convolutions of British history with the
Puritans, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Catholics. The one constant was the
Irish Catholics getting the short end of the stick.

All that religious freedom migrated to the American colonies where the first
thing the Puritans did was hang a few Quakers before they got down to
killing witches.

Islamists and Hindu nationalists in India killing Christians are really
going to have to get busy to match the body count of Christian on Christian
wars and persecutions. Mostly though the Moslems seem to be content killing
each other in the finest tradition.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:55:50 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

wrote:

Yes, I am counting my Anabaptist ancestors killed by the Lutherans and
Catholics as part of that tally.

That must have been when the Lutherans and Catholics took a break from
killing each other. The Anabaptists were mostly central Europe, weren't
they, so they probably didn't get in the way of the Catholics and Huguenots
killing each other in France.

Then there was the earlier Albigensian Crusade where the noble phrase
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" that is often misquoted
today as "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." originated.

Prior to that we have the Northern Crusades. Some Baltic pagans got caught
in the crossfire but that was primarily the Catholic and Orthodox fighting
it out.

Going even further back, wiping out Arian Christianity wasn't a bloodless
affair either.

Oh, and I almost forgot the convolutions of British history with the
Puritans, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Catholics. The one constant was the
Irish Catholics getting the short end of the stick.

All that religious freedom migrated to the American colonies where the first
thing the Puritans did was hang a few Quakers before they got down to
killing witches.

Islamists and Hindu nationalists in India killing Christians are really
going to have to get busy to match the body count of Christian on Christian
wars and persecutions. Mostly though the Moslems seem to be content killing
each other in the finest tradition.

The entire world population back before the 1300s was very small
compared to today. - aprox. 360 million. In 1000AD it was only 265
million.
The total number of humans who have lived on earth between 33AD and
2000AD is aprox 36,673,000,000
Over this same period there have been 8,344,000,000 Christians
In this same period, 69,420,000 christians have been killed for their
beliefs - 5,578,000 of these killed by other christians

Of these 69,420,000 christians killed over the last 2000 years,
45,400,000 were killed between 1900 and 2000AD.
Of these, 13,3000,000 have been killed since 1950.

Since 2000 the average has been 160,000 per year, and this is
increasing at an alarming rate both in the north African and middle
eastern Islamic states , the micronesian islamic states, and the
indian subcontinent

These numbers come from the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

wrote:

Since 2000 the average has been 160,000 per year, and this is
increasing at an alarming rate both in the north African and middle
eastern Islamic states , the micronesian islamic states, and the
indian subcontinent

These numbers come from the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24864587

According to the BBC analysis, the bulk of the numbers come from Christians
killing Christians in the DR Congo civil war. It has nothing to do with
religion, just that there are Christians on both sides.

I would also guess '45,400,000 were killed between 1900 and 2000AD.' is
counting the Christian dead of WWI and WWII. Again it had nothing to do with
religion but both sides of the conflict happened to be Christian.

I don't know how good Gordon Conwell is at theology, but they are extremely
poor at producing meaningful statistics -- unless their intent is alarmist
propaganda.

I don't know how one could come up with reasonable estimates of the world's population centuries ago when it's known that there's an anomoly in the amount of diversity there is in human DNA.

Studies have shown that the amount of diversity in the DNA of human population groups around the world is less than it should be presuming that people evolved from apes over the past 1.2 million years. The amount of diversity suggests that at some time in our past, there was a mass extinction of people and only a small fraction of humans on this Good Earth survived.

Scientists believe that that mass extinction occured around the time of the last ice age, which ended about 25,000 years ago. It is believed that the Earth cooled significantly and the people who lived in the northern latitudes largely starved to death, leaving a very much smaller genetic pool than would have been the case assuming normal population growth over the past 1.2 million years.

So, the population of the Earth 25,000 years ago is anyone's guess, and the extent to which it was culled as a result of that mass extinction is another SWAG (scientific wild a$$ed guess). All we know for sure is that there was a mass extinction that greatly reduced the human population, but what fraction of humans survived is unknown.

nestork wrote:

I don't know how one could come up with reasonable estimates of the
world's population centuries ago when it's known that there's an anomoly
in the amount of diversity there is in human DNA.

They're evangelicals; the bible told them so.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:29:34 +0100, nestork
wrote:


;3325969 Wrote:


The entire world population back before the 1300s was very small
compared to today. - aprox. 360 million. In 1000AD it was only 265
million.

The total number of humans who have lived on earth between 33AD and
2000AD is aprox 36,673,000,000

Over this same period there have been 8,344,000,000 Christians
In this same period, 69,420,000 christians have been killed for their
beliefs - 5,578,000 of these killed by other christians

Of these 69,420,000 christians killed over the last 2000 years,
45,400,000 were killed between 1900 and 2000AD.
Of these, 13,3000,000 have been killed since 1950.

Since 2000 the average has been 160,000 per year, and this is
increasing at an alarming rate both in the north African and middle
eastern Islamic states , the micronesian islamic states, and the
indian subcontinent

These numbers come from the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.

I don't know how one could come up with reasonable estimates of the
world's population centuries ago when it's known that there's an anomoly
in the amount of diversity there is in human DNA.

Studies have shown that the amount of diversity in the DNA of human
population groups around the world is less than it should be presuming
that people evolved from apes over the past 1.2 million years. The
amount of diversity suggests that at some time in our past, there was a
mass extinction of people and only a small fraction of humans on this
Good Earth survived.

Scientists believe that that mass extinction occured around the time of
the last ice age, which ended about 25,000 years ago. It is believed
that the Earth cooled significantly and the people who lived in the
northern latitudes largely starved to death, leaving a very much smaller
genetic pool than would have been the case assuming normal population
growth over the past 1.2 million years.

So, the population of the Earth 25,000 years ago is anyone's guess, and
the extent to which it was culled as a result of that mass extinction is
another SWAG (scientific wild a$$ed guess). All we know for sure is
that there was a mass extinction that greatly reduced the human
population, but what fraction of humans survived is unknown.
The population figures I gave are fairly verifiable, as they only go
back TWO thousand years - not 20,000.

The DNA disersity also supports the theory that man in his current
form has not existed on this earth in it's current form for more than,
possibly, 25,000 years.(and quite possibly considerably less)

I am not an evolutionist, but also not a strictly orthodox
creationist.

The population of most of the "great civilizations" of the last 20
centuries are fairly verifiable though surviving census data etc.
My own family history is documented back over 700 years, which is a
third of the way back - largely through census and taxation records.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:15:36 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

nestork wrote:

I don't know how one could come up with reasonable estimates of the
world's population centuries ago when it's known that there's an anomoly
in the amount of diversity there is in human DNA.

They're evangelicals; the bible told them so.
Actually, the bible - particularly the new testament, but also the
old testament from the time of Abraham on, is the most historically
verifiable religious text in the world, and one of the most verifiable
ancient texts period - and as the years go by more of the ancient
place names are being discovered and verified, along with historic
events that were mentioned in the biblical texts and not in any other
known historic records back in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Archeological finds over the last 200+ years have uncovered much that
agrees with and supports the old testament biblical record.
Some of the old testament is more aligorical -and is not meant as an
accurate historical record .

Dating creation using the old testament "timeline" back to Adam, I
believe, is a mis-use of scripture

No, antropologists have bone remnants to support the fact that we evolved from apes over the past 1.2 million years or so in Africa, and spread over the surface of the Earth from there. The kinds of homonid that lived in Europe only 25,000 years ago would have been virtually indistinguishable from modern man.

The discovery of "Otzi", the "Ice man" who is currently preserved in a frozen state in a museum in Tyrol, Italy is believed to have lived about 5,000 years ago. The copper ax he carried with him was CAST out of nearly pure copper and the sharp end was hammered to stress harden it before it was sharpened. The quality of the workmanship in that ax shows that the craftsmen that lived 5000 years ago were just as good as the best blacksmiths that work in iron and steel today.

The shoes the iceman wore are in fact surprisingly warm and comfortable considering they were made of grass netting, hay and dear and bear skin.

What we find when we look to the past is that people were as intelligent and resourceful as they are today; they just didn't have the benefit of the modern technology that make our lives easier. But, when it comes to crafts and skills, they were just as good working with wood, bone and leather as any craftsman working in those materials today.

So, the idea that man can have "arisen" at some point 5,000 years ago, (or whatever creationism preaches) with all the knowledge already in his head to be able to craft copper, wood, bone and leather into such finely made furnishings as we can make today out of those same materials is absurd. This would have required the same craftsmanship as we know was present in the middle ages in Europe. Young men would learn a craft from someone very knowledgeable in that craft, thereby allowing each generation to pass on it's technology to the next. There's no reason to believe that life 25,000 years ago was significantly different than it was in medieval Europe only about 1000 years ago.

wrote:

Actually, the bible - particularly the new testament, but also the
old testament from the time of Abraham on, is the most historically
verifiable religious text in the world, and one of the most verifiable
ancient texts period - and as the years go by more of the ancient
place names are being discovered and verified, along with historic
events that were mentioned in the biblical texts and not in any other
known historic records back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Fine, but it's not my history.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 20:11:05 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

wrote:

Actually, the bible - particularly the new testament, but also the
old testament from the time of Abraham on, is the most historically
verifiable religious text in the world, and one of the most verifiable
ancient texts period - and as the years go by more of the ancient
place names are being discovered and verified, along with historic
events that were mentioned in the biblical texts and not in any other
known historic records back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Fine, but it's not my history.
With the last namr Bowman there is a strong chance your ancestry
also traces back to Ulius "Julius the Farmer" Buman ,who was born
about 1369 in Zimmerberg Switzerland and died in 1425

wrote:

With the last namr Bowman there is a strong chance your ancestry
also traces back to Ulius "Julius the Farmer" Buman ,who was born
about 1369 in Zimmerberg Switzerland and died in 1425

And there is a stronger chance that it doesn't. It's not Smith but it is a
common name that can be the result of the phoenetic spelling of any number
of European surnames by anglophones and well as the craft name from Britain.

Exactly. Here in Winnipeg, our newly elected mayor is named Brian Bowman, so there's a lot of Bowmans kicking around.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:15:38 +0100, nestork
wrote:


rbowman;3326307 Wrote:
wrote:
-
With the last namr Bowman there is a strong chance your ancestry
also traces back to Ulius "Julius the Farmer" Buman ,who was born
about 1369 in Zimmerberg Switzerland and died in 1425-

And there is a stronger chance that it doesn't. It's not Smith but it is
a
common name that can be the result of the phoenetic spelling of any
number
of European surnames by anglophones and well as the craft name from
Britain.

Exactly. How many Coopers are decended from someone who made wooden
barrels. How many Milners are decended from someone who made hats.

How many Bowmans are decended from someone who was a particularily good
archer. Alternatively, how many Bowmans are decended from someone who
cut wood in the King's forest for making long bows and arrows for the
King's guard. Here in Winnipeg, our newly elected mayor is named Brian
Bowman, so there's a lot of Bowmans kicking around.

Immigration employees at Ellis Island (NYC) were not always good at
reading and writing. Language barriers, etc. Many times they changed
the spelling of surnames on entry documents. What ever they wrote on
paper was what your last name was

Ditto for immigration employees in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada after WWII.

When my dad and the rest of his family got off the boat in Halifax, the immigration employee's translator asked them what their last name was. They responded "Kelebaj" where the last sylable "baj" was pronounced "bye" as in Good bye. The immigration man wrote down "Kelebay", and it's been that way ever since.

So, not only did the spelling change, but the pronunciation did as well. And I expect that was a common occurance for the millions of immigrants who came to North America over the past century or so.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 18:03:06 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:15:38 +0100, nestork
wrote:


rbowman;3326307 Wrote:
wrote:
-
With the last namr Bowman there is a strong chance your ancestry
also traces back to Ulius "Julius the Farmer" Buman ,who was born
about 1369 in Zimmerberg Switzerland and died in 1425-

And there is a stronger chance that it doesn't. It's not Smith but it is
a
common name that can be the result of the phoenetic spelling of any
number
of European surnames by anglophones and well as the craft name from
Britain.

Exactly. How many Coopers are decended from someone who made wooden
barrels. How many Milners are decended from someone who made hats.

How many Bowmans are decended from someone who was a particularily good
archer. Alternatively, how many Bowmans are decended from someone who
cut wood in the King's forest for making long bows and arrows for the
King's guard. Here in Winnipeg, our newly elected mayor is named Brian
Bowman, so there's a lot of Bowmans kicking around.

Immigration employees at Ellis Island (NYC) were not always good at
reading and writing. Language barriers, etc. Many times they changed
the spelling of surnames on entry documents. What ever they wrote on
paper was what your last name was


Many Baumans. Bulmers. Bowmans, Baumans, and Balmers hark back to Urie
Buman if there is germanic/swiss backround.

nestork wrote:

How many Bowmans are decended from someone who was a particularily good
archer. Alternatively, how many Bowmans are decended from someone who
cut wood in the King's forest for making long bows and arrows for the
King's guard. Here in Winnipeg, our newly elected mayor is named Brian
Bowman, so there's a lot of Bowmans kicking around.


And how many Bowman's are descended from people that never were anywhere
near the British isles? In the graveyard where many of my people are buried
you can see my grandmother's maiden family name morphing over the years. The
oldest stones have an umlaut, the newer one the oe dipthong, and finally all
that's left is the e.

wrote:

Many Baumans. Bulmers. Bowmans, Baumans, and Balmers hark back to Urie
Buman if there is germanic/swiss backround.

And why is he of any particular interest? All I can say for certain is I had
ancestors in the 13th century that passed on the chain of life. I had
ancestors someplace when Moses was trying to find his ass in the desert but
probably not in that part of the world.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:09:12 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

wrote:

Many Baumans. Bulmers. Bowmans, Baumans, and Balmers hark back to Urie
Buman if there is germanic/swiss backround.

And why is he of any particular interest? All I can say for certain is I had
ancestors in the 13th century that passed on the chain of life. I had
ancestors someplace when Moses was trying to find his ass in the desert but
probably not in that part of the world.
Forget it - it's obvious you lost the thread long ago and are intent
on just being a jerk

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:05:10 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

nestork wrote:

How many Bowmans are decended from someone who was a particularily good
archer. Alternatively, how many Bowmans are decended from someone who
cut wood in the King's forest for making long bows and arrows for the
King's guard. Here in Winnipeg, our newly elected mayor is named Brian
Bowman, so there's a lot of Bowmans kicking around.


And how many Bowman's are descended from people that never were anywhere
near the British isles? In the graveyard where many of my people are buried
you can see my grandmother's maiden family name morphing over the years. The
oldest stones have an umlaut, the newer one the oe dipthong, and finally all
that's left is the e.

Which is where and why I mentioned Ulias.

wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:09:12 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

wrote:

Many Baumans. Bulmers. Bowmans, Baumans, and Balmers hark back to Urie
Buman if there is germanic/swiss backround.

And why is he of any particular interest? All I can say for certain is I
had ancestors in the 13th century that passed on the chain of life. I had
ancestors someplace when Moses was trying to find his ass in the desert
but probably not in that part of the world.
Forget it - it's obvious you lost the thread long ago and are intent
on just being a jerk

I forgot to say I'm descended from a long line of jerks and horse thieves.
You're right though. I doubt Buman lives in Cuba and I still fail to see
what significance he has.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:27:23 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

Forget it - it's obvious you lost the thread long ago and are intent
on just being a jerk

I forgot to say I'm descended from a long line of jerks and horse thieves.

Got any Scalawags and Carpetbaggers in your blood line?

It isn't your fault! Something's you don't need to know

Oren wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:27:23 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

Forget it - it's obvious you lost the thread long ago and are intent
on just being a jerk

I forgot to say I'm descended from a long line of jerks and horse thieves.

Got any Scalawags and Carpetbaggers in your blood line?

It isn't your fault! Something's you don't need to know

Probably. I have to assume any that showed up in North America had some
reason to leave Europe. At least for one line it probably was Bismarck's
Kulturkampf against Catholics. What I wouldn't expect to find is the ever
popular nobility that many amateur genealogical researchers find.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:35:41 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:27:55 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:


Maybe go visit the hotel where Elian Gonzalez
works, since we sent him back?

We? Got a mouse in your pocket

It was the you libs that took him at gun point

There would have been no guns involved if they had obeyed the law. If
someone were disobeying a court decision you liked, I'm sure you would
want it enforced, even if guns were needed. (and the picture showed his
finger off trigger, as procedure dictates in such a situation. )

and deported him, a
child at the time. (Clinton & Janet Reno)

And they did the right thing.

His mother had equal rights to him when she was alive, although I don't
think you'd like it if your ex-wife took your only kid to a foreign
country without asking you.

But once she was dead, his father's rights way trumped his uncle's or
aunt's and any political gain anyone foresaw by continuing his
kidnapping from his father.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:49:46 +0100, nestork
wrote:


Yeah, I expect the first big change in America as a result of
normalizing relations

It's not normalized relations that would change cars. It's an end to
the embargo, which is in Congress's hands.

How come they have no new Japanese cars there? No one can afford
them??

with Cuba will be a flood of 1957 Chevrolet
Impalas and 1956 Ford Fairlanes up for sale in Used Car Buyer's Guides.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:58:50 -0700, rbowman wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

I vaguely remember a quote about "you might not
like him, but he's our president". Since we're
all getting along now, it's time to normalize
relations with the Tea Party, and resume living
within the US Constitution. We can normalize
relations with the NRA while we are being bold.

I think we should make Cruz and Rubio joint ambassadors to Cuba. They are
Cubans after all and it'll keep them out of trouble.

Rubio used to say that his parents came to the US fleeing Castro, but it
turned out they came before Castro, so he does't say it anymore.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:39:53 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:35:41 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:27:55 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:


Maybe go visit the hotel where Elian Gonzalez
works, since we sent him back?

We? Got a mouse in your pocket

It was the you libs that took him at gun point

There would have been no guns involved if they had obeyed the law. If
someone were disobeying a court decision you liked, I'm sure you would
want it enforced, even if guns were needed. (and the picture showed his
finger off trigger, as procedure dictates in such a situation. )

and deported him, a
child at the time. (Clinton & Janet Reno)

And they did the right thing.

His mother had equal rights to him when she was alive, although I don't
think you'd like it if your ex-wife took your only kid to a foreign
country without asking you.

But once she was dead, his father's rights way trumped his uncle's or
aunt's and any political gain anyone foresaw by continuing his
kidnapping from his father.

You make it sound like Cuba is France. It's not. Those supporting
allowing the grandparents to keep the child here, in the land of the
free, know the history of the brutal Castro govt. Suppose in a similar
circumstance a child today made it to South Korea or the USA, with
their mother dying trying to get to freedom, was now with
their grandparents and a father in North Korea wanted them back? What
would you do? Now, I'm not saying Cuba is as bad as NK, but if you
were a Cuban living in Miami, that had all your property taken by
Castro, relatives shot, had to flee for your life, etc, you might think so.

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:41:15 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 01:49:46 +0100, nestork
wrote:


Yeah, I expect the first big change in America as a result of
normalizing relations

It's not normalized relations that would change cars. It's an end to
the embargo, which is in Congress's hands.

How come they have no new Japanese cars there? No one can afford
them??


Bingo. Too many people believe that somehow it's the trade embargo
from the USA that's responsible for all the economic problems in Cuba.
Sure, the USA is highly desireable, close by, potential trading partner.
But there is the whole rest of the world. Their failure is 90% their
own doing. When you confiscate private property, ban foreign investment,
force the brain trust of the country to flee for their lives, ban private
business, etc, bad things happen. That's why they are still driving
around in 50s Chevys.

On 1/3/2015 8:44 AM, trader_4 wrote:


How come they have no new Japanese cars there? No one can afford
them??


Bingo. Too many people believe that somehow it's the trade embargo
from the USA that's responsible for all the economic problems in Cuba.
Sure, the USA is highly desireable, close by, potential trading partner.
But there is the whole rest of the world. Their failure is 90% their
own doing. When you confiscate private property, ban foreign investment,
force the brain trust of the country to flee for their lives, ban private
business, etc, bad things happen. That's why they are still driving
around in 50s Chevys.


Didn't the Ruskes bring in some cars? Of course a 40 year old Chevy is
probably better than a brand new Lada or Volga.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 01:39:42 -0500, micky
wrote:

His mother had equal rights to him when she was alive, although I don't
think you'd like it if your ex-wife took your only kid to a foreign
country without asking you.

But once she was dead, his father's rights way trumped his uncle's or
aunt's and any political gain anyone foresaw by continuing his
kidnapping from his father.

If I was his father living in Cuba, I'd be proud he was taken to
America instead of being forced to all of Castro's socialist
propaganda. Many parents in Cuba sent their children out of Cuba,
never to see them again. But they knew the child had a chance of
freedom, education and potential prosperity.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 01:42:31 -0500, micky
wrote:

I think we should make Cruz and Rubio joint ambassadors to Cuba. They are
Cubans after all and it'll keep them out of trouble.

Rubio used to say that his parents came to the US fleeing Castro, but it
turned out they came before Castro, so he does't say it anymore.

Is there much difference between Batista & Castro? I think not. Point
being is why Rubio's family came here in the first place...escaping
dictatorship and brutality. Repression, misery and agony.

smiley face

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:28:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 01:42:31 -0500, micky
wrote:

I think we should make Cruz and Rubio joint ambassadors to Cuba. They are
Cubans after all and it'll keep them out of trouble.

Rubio used to say that his parents came to the US fleeing Castro, but it
turned out they came before Castro, so he does't say it anymore.

Is there much difference between Batista & Castro? I think not. Point

It's not what you think. It's what Cubans who live in America think,
and they think there's an enormous difference.

being is why Rubio's family came here in the first place...escaping
dictatorship and brutality. Repression, misery and agony.

smiley face