F. George McDuffee wrote

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die
before they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that.
We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive. We actually pay them to have more children.

Don't confuse ignorant with stupid.
Ignorant can be fixed, stupid is forever.

One problem is that the median level of abstract intelligence
required to function in society is continuing to increase while jobs
for those with less abstract/verbal intelligence are disappearing.

Reducing, not disappearing. There will always been some needed to
collect the trash, drive street cleaning machines, build stuff etc etc etc.

Another problem is that while the decisions that the poor make
may seem stupid to the middle class, they may be perfectly
logical when seen from inside the poverty society/culture.

Hardly ever. Most obviously with the third world when
they keep churning out huge numbers of kids that cant
possibly be sustained in their circumstances.

For example, the poor are some times faulted for being unable to
delay gratification. From their point of view, why delay gratification?
Nothing is going to change, except I am not gratified.

That's silly when the instant gratification involves
doing it on borrowed money that cannot be repaid.

We can complain all we like but nothing is going to change
until we answer the WIIFM [what's in it for me] question from
the viewpoint of the poor person [which is all they know.]

Doesnt mean that many of them have enough viable between their
ears to work out the downsides with the way they currently do things.

And there is a real sense in which we provide the wrong
WIIFM with more handouts if you have more kids etc. Its
hardly surprising that the most stupid just produce more kids.

One of the criteria for a successful species is the ability
to reproduce and possibly expand their polulation numbers.

Its much more complicated than that with human societys.

By this criteria the poor are a much more
successful species than the European middle class.

Stupidly irrelevant criteria.

What matters is the living standards, stupid.

The birth rate for this group, both in Europe and the
United States, remains below the replacement level.

It does indeed, and that is a good thing for society too.

The case can be made that the middle class has
deferred so much gratification and made such heavy
investments of time and attention in education that
we are breeding ourselves out of existance.

The reduction in numbers is at quite a small rate.

Its time to step back and look at the data.

Nope, not the way you just did it isnt.

snip
What matters is the living standards, stupid.
snip
To who? This is the old 'good for the individual' v. 'good for
the group' problematique. The saber tooth tigers may have had
very high standards of living [by tiger standards] but they are
all gone while the rabbits prosper. The American standard of
living is *NOT* the norm, although it may be an ideal. The
historical record shows the typical standard of living something
like present day China or India. We are simply 'regressing to
the mean.' You can make water run uphill, but you must
continually input energy to do it. We are paying the price for
not investing in the critical metaphorical and physical
infrastructures, or in the areas that matter.

We spend more than enough money, but on the wrong things. In
automotive terms, we have "invested" in a killer sound system,
but have not changed the oil. Now the car is not running so
good. If we keep this up, it won't run at all.

Uncle George

F. George McDuffee wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote

One of the criteria for a successful species is the ability
to reproduce and possibly expand their polulation numbers.

Its much more complicated than that with human societys.

By this criteria the poor are a much more
successful species than the European middle class.

Stupidly irrelevant criteria.

What matters is the living standards, stupid.

To who?

Those 'living' them.

This is the old 'good for the individual' v. 'good for the group'
problematique.

Nope, not with modern human societys it aint.

The saber tooth tigers may have had very high standards of living
[by tiger standards] but they are all gone while the rabbits prosper.

Completely irrelevant to modern human societys.

The American standard of living is *NOT* the norm,

Never said it was. And you were clearly talking
about the european middle class anyway.

although it may be an ideal.

It may also be close to what most aspire to too.

The historical record shows the typical standard
of living something like present day China or India.

Irrelavant to that silly line you ran.

We are simply 'regressing to the mean.'

Nope, those in china and india are in fact moving closer to the
living standards seen by the european middle class all the time.

So are the dregs of north america too.

You can make water run uphill, but you
must continually input energy to do it.

True in spades of just population numbers.

We are paying the price for not investing in the critical metaphorical
and physical infrastructures, or in the areas that matter.

No we arent. Living standards are much better than our grandparents
had and that is true for the 'poor' in modern first world countrys in spades.

We spend more than enough money, but on the wrong things.

In your opinion.

In automotive terms, we have "invested" in a killer sound system,
but have not changed the oil. Now the car is not running so good.

Another mindlessly silly analogy.

If we keep this up, it won't run at all.

Hysterics have been hyperventilating like that ever since Malthus
started doing that. Turned out nothing like he mindlessly claimed
and it aint gunna turn out anything like you claim either.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:44:13 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

snip
What matters is the living standards, stupid.
snip
To who?

Why ask? He entirely missed what you said. But to him, that's ok.
Which in essence provides proof of what you said.

--Vic

F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before they
were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep them alive, we
keep their children alive and we keep their grandchildren alive. We actually
pay them to have more children.
snip
Don't confuse ignorant with stupid. Ignorant can be fixed,
stupid is forever.

Of course. And choosing to remain ignorant is stupid.

One problem is that the median level of abstract intelligence
required to function in society is continuing to increase while
jobs for those with less abstract/verbal intelligence are
disappearing.

Another problem is that while the decisions that the poor make
may seem stupid to the middle class, they may be perfectly
logical when seen from inside the poverty society/culture. For
example, the poor are some times faulted for being unable to
delay gratification. From their point of view, why delay
gratification? Nothing is going to change, except I am not
gratified.

I've heard that before, and it indeed makes sense. Our schools are supposed
to counteract that, pointing the way to a brighter future for anyone willing
to invest the time and effort. If they just maintain the status quo then
there's no reason to make school obligatory -- leave it to the ones who want
to learn and forget about the others. The ultimate end will be no different
from what it is now, but it will be a lot cheaper.

We can complain all we like but nothing is going to change until
we answer the WIIFM [what's in it for me] question from the
viewpoint of the poor person [which is all they know.]

Somehow they manage to see some point to playing basketball, although the odds
of making it big in the sport are vanishingly small.

One of the criteria for a successful species is the ability to
reproduce and possibly expand their polulation numbers. By this
criteria the poor are a much more successful species than the
European middle class. The birth rate for this group, both in
Europe and the United States, remains below the replacement
level.

It might be useful to distinguish between the permanently poor and those who
are poor now but will be middle class or even rich in 10 years.

The case can be made that the middle class has deferred so much
gratification and made such heavy investments of time and
attention in education that we are breeding ourselves out of
existance.

Its time to step back and look at the data.

We have met the data and the data are us?


--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who
don't realize it are generally the same people." -- DAbel

Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote

...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest people end up
paying the highest rates for credit because they are most likely to end up
missing a credit account payment because the money had to be used for some
emergency.
And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the wealthy! .
Today it isn't just one account that increases the interest but perhaps all
of them. And who gets the interest, the banks of course! And who owns the
banks--the wealthy...
remainder snipped

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before they
were old enough to reproduce.

Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real
sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work.

I'm thinking caveman times, not a century ago. Remember, we haven't evolved
all that much in the last couple of thousand years.

We've changed all that.

We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture.

You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed.

We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive.

And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that
their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able
to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out.

We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special "cities" with all
the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops, movies, apartments, TV,
doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the inhabitants be useful at all.
All will be provided. Classes for those who wish to improve will be offered,
along with scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No poverty,
no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want to but you may
not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have, and it has to
be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't have to gear everything to
the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of separate citys.

Not really. We have to pretend that the skid-row derelicts, crack whores and
the generally destitute are valued members of society rather than hopeless and
useless dependents. We allow (require?) them to live in surroundings which
nearly guarantee that they will never be able to break out simply because they
have no value at all to the system -- we just don't NEED them.

Why not move them all to a decent place where they can either try to better
themselves or stagnate without causing trouble to the people who are paying
the bills?

It doesnt work.

It's never been tried. For one thing, it's not democratic.

Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of any society.

Drugs in spades.

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever people
want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs wipes out a lot
of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose within the next couple
of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than what
we're doing now...

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
The people who don't know what they're doing and the people who
don't realize it are generally the same people." -- DAbel

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote

...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest
people end up paying the highest rates for credit because they are most
likely to end up missing a credit account payment because the money had to
be used for some emergency.

And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the wealthy! .
Today it isn't just one account that increases the
interest but perhaps all of them. And who gets the interest, the
banks of course! And who owns the banks--the wealthy...
remainder snipped

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before they
were old enough to reproduce.

Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real
sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work.

I'm thinking caveman times, not a century ago.

It wasnt true even then. Humans have always been social animals
and that is a large part of the reason we have dominated since then.

The stupids were used to provide the numbers when
herding the dangerous animals over the cliff etc.

Remember, we haven't evolved all that much in the last couple of thousand
years.

We have actually evolved very dramatically socially.

It only takes a small number of smartys to invent agriculture
and lots of stupids to put in the manual labor to make it work.

We've changed all that.

We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture.

You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed.

We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive.

And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that
their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able
to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out.

We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special
"cities" with all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops,
movies, apartments, TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the
inhabitants be useful at all. All will be provided. Classes for those who
wish to improve will be offered, along with scholarships to real schools to
those who can qualify. No poverty, no crime, no disease, no drugs and you
can leave if you want to but you may not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have,
and it has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't
have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of separate citys.

Not really.

Fraid so, with the exception of the elimination of crime,
drugs, self inflicted disease which will never be possible.

Some of the earliest socialist communitys were very
close to what you propose and they just plain didnt work.

We have to pretend that the skid-row derelicts, crack whores and the generally
destitute are valued members of society rather than hopeless and useless
dependents.

No we dont.

We allow (require?) them to live in surroundings which nearly guarantee that
they will never be able to break out simply because they have no value at all
to the system -- we just don't NEED them.

Sure, but there's nothing new about that.

Why not move them all to a decent place where they can either try to better
themselves or stagnate without causing trouble to the people who are paying
the bills?

That's what the ghettos are, and anyone with
any sense doesnt go anywhere near them.

It doesnt work.

It's never been tried.

It has actually, most obviously with the earliest attempts
at socialism, and more recently with urban ghettos.
And in my country exactly what you propose with the
exception of the size of them, they are towns, not citys.

For one thing, it's not democratic.

Its been tried anyway. Largely because
hardly any of the dregs actually bother to vote.

Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of any
society.

Drugs in spades.

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever people
want at no cost to them.

Nope, that just changes the detail.

We're actually stupid enough to pay our welfare in
cash and the worst of the dregs just spend it on
grog and that produces the most utterly obscene
murder rates that leave the worst of yours for dead.

And those are separate towns that no one with any sense goes
anywhere near. Some of them are separate islands where the
dregs were dumped and legally prevented from leaving.

Identical to what you propose, they're just too small to be full citys.

The easy availability of free drugs wipes out a lot of crime

Just some of the crime. Doesnt do a damned thing about murder
and rape and with some of the drugs it makes both much worse.

We have utterly obscene murder and rape rates in those
communitys of ours, and that includes rape of pre school
children too with absolutely unbelievable rates of sexually
transmitted diseases in kids of that age.

The kids fry their 'brains' at such a rate with petrol and glue and paint
sniffing that we actually supply those towns with petrol that doesnt
give any effect when sniffed, the problem is so utterly obscene.

as well as a lot of people who will overdose within the next couple of months.

Sure, but its better if they overdose and die.

Are we willing to do this?

We've tried it. It doesnt work. You have too with your 'native americans'

Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than what we're doing now...

Thats arguable too.

Facts you have. But the conclusions you draw from them are non sequitur
and your comprehension of them is sorely lacking. Find a teacher to
explain to you what you have read. You're not getting it on your own.

Hawke

Care to specify which conclusion is incorrect?

Almost all of them. So many in fact that it would take way too long to
explain it all.



Perhaps we can recap private property.

Okay.


Private property is defined as land, houses and chattels owned absolutely.
Ownership can be (a) absolute, or (b) qualified.
Estate is held with an interest (less than title).
Can one conclude that estate is held with qualified ownership?

The fifth amendment says PRIVATE property shall not be taken for public
use
without just compensation. There's no mention that ESTATE shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation.

Absolute ownership is a right, not subject to taxation.
Qualified ownership is a privilege, granted by government and subject to
taxation.

?There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed.?
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132

See, here is your problem. You have a supposed fact here. There is no
Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed. But look at the reality.
Are deeds recorded in Georgia? Yes they are, but according to your citation
there is no statute compelling this. So what? Whether there is a statute or
not is irrelevant. By custom, tradition, or whatever you want to call it all
transfers of real property in the state of Georgia are recorded. If you try
to sell real estate without recording it you will fail. Because the
interconnection of laws and customs is so well set that there is a defacto
compulsion to record deeds. So you see, your fact is meaningless.




If you check your own state's laws, you should find that there is no law
compelling the recording of a deed.

I just explained why that is unnecessary although I doubt you are correct.


Can one conclude that recording one's land purchase at the "REAL ESTATE"
registry is counter productive?

This question is simply gibberish, it means nothing


Another interesting fact - check the typical "title deed" that a lawyer
writes up for the "real estate" transaction.
You may find that the deed states : "For $1 in hand..." or "For $5 in
hand..." But rarely will it state the actual transaction price.

According to the 7th amendment, the rules of the common law are preserved
IF
the value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars.

[Of course, no lawyer will make the faux pas of confusing repudiated notes
with real money. In fact, I asked a judge if he'd rule that Federal
Reserve
notes were dollars. He declined.]

Oddly enough, if you bought the property with financing, the bank will
place
a lien denominated in the FULL AMOUNT borrowed.

Perhaps the lawyer (and the banker) does not want you to establish any
fact
that the rules of the common law are preserved.

What does that have to do with socialism?

Common law is the law of the land, based on justice, reason and common
sense. Common law is the prerogative of sovereigns. Sovereigns absolutely
own their property (sounds like private property!).

IF socialism, by definition, abolishes "private property", then all
socialists cannot own private property.
And that means everyone can only have an interest in estate, subject to
taxation and confiscation and condemnation by the collective State.
And that also means that the usurer can steal your property without fear.

Slaves who do not know they are enslaved, will never attempt to free
themselves.
1805 - no license needed to live, work, travel, marry, etc.
1905 - no license needed to live, work, travel, marry, etc.
2005 - need a license (or pay a tax) to work, to have a dog, marry, travel
(drive), build a house, engage in business, etc, etc.

You have no argument. None of your statements make sense and they are in no
way connected with each other. And Socialism is not the system used in the
United States. Where you get that idea is unclear but it is certainly wrong.
The US is a republican form of democracy. Despite the fact that some
institutions have a collective basis in no way does that make the US a
socialist system. You need to colate and organize your facts into some kind
of coherent argument. As it is your ideas and statements are incoherent and
nonsensical. Reems of facts that don't apply can work as a blanket approach
to make an argument but if you have no rational premise and conclusion
you're just wasting time and effort. Put another way, you really need to get
your **** together, intellectually. Right now you're just out of it.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:27:41 GMT, Anthony
wrote:

I don't know what eutopia you live in, but here in the real live world,
people starve in the US every day. Maybe you need to get off your ass
and out in the real world once in a while and have a look around. These
aren't drug addicts, or criminals either.

I've always wondered how addicts earn $100,000 ++ to
pay for their hobby.
Anyone have any clues? No Rush jokes now ....
--
Cliff

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote

...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest people
end up
paying the highest rates for credit because they are most likely to
end up
missing a credit account payment because the money had to be used for
some
emergency.
And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the
wealthy! .
Today it isn't just one account that increases the interest but
perhaps all
of them. And who gets the interest, the banks of course! And who owns
the
banks--the wealthy...
remainder snipped

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before
they
were old enough to reproduce.

Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real
sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work.

I'm thinking caveman times, not a century ago. Remember, we haven't
evolved
all that much in the last couple of thousand years.

We've changed all that.

We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture.

You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed.

We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive.

And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that
their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able
to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out.

We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special "cities"
with all
the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops, movies, apartments, TV,
doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the inhabitants be useful at
all.
All will be provided. Classes for those who wish to improve will be
offered,
along with scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No
poverty,
no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want to but you
may
not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have, and it
has to
be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't have to gear
everything to
the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of separate
citys.

Not really. We have to pretend that the skid-row derelicts, crack whores
and
the generally destitute are valued members of society rather than hopeless
and
useless dependents. We allow (require?) them to live in surroundings
which
nearly guarantee that they will never be able to break out simply because
they
have no value at all to the system -- we just don't NEED them.

Why not move them all to a decent place where they can either try to
better
themselves or stagnate without causing trouble to the people who are
paying
the bills?

It doesnt work.

It's never been tried. For one thing, it's not democratic.

Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of any
society.

Drugs in spades.

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever
people
want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs wipes out a
lot
of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose within the next
couple
of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than
what
we're doing now...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow that to happen. Half
of them would become unemployed. .

F. George McDuffee wrote:
snip

One of the criteria for a successful species is the ability to
reproduce and possibly expand their polulation numbers. By this
criteria the poor are a much more successful species than the
European middle class. The birth rate for this group, both in
Europe and the United States, remains below the replacement
level.

Uncle George

I see where you are "comming from" but as you said
"one of the criteria" (note only ONE ). There is quite
a bit more than just that one. Like not populating
beyond the food supply and being able to predict results
of decisions (or have it part of the genetic programing).
eg. the ant and the grasshoper fable.
Intresting discussion anyway. :-)
...lew...

wrote:

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the
stupid would perish promptly.

Rick Bowen

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in
public schools.
...lew...

F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip

Major contributing factor is the lack of contribution to the
US Social Security fund by manufacturing labor for products
consumed in the US because of off-shore sourcing.

Mindless stuff. Thats been a tiny part of the workforce for decades now.


This is another of the "off the books" costs that make
the initial cost cheap import goods so expensive in total.

Pig ignorant lie.

snip
Even worse --- because the employees and employers both pay about
7% of wages up to some cutoff point, when some company announces
they "saved" a billion dollars in labor costs, that's 140 million
that the Social Security Trust Fund *WON'T* get, even if the jobs
stay in the US. The SSTA loss will be lower but still
substantial if the company is including fringe benefits, etc. in
their projected "savings." This is in addition to the losses due
to off-shore labor produced goods. The loss of overtime pay also
appears to have had an impact.

USA is now projected to be the "Argentina" of the north in 2035
because of its uncontrolled federal budget and current account
trade deficits.

The Federal debt has long been dismissed as a major problem
because "we owe it to ourselves." Latest data shows this is no
longer the case.

Uncle George


George the simple answer here is to get rid of these Free Ride
Republicans. Get the government back into Democrat hands...
Yes this will mean that taxes go up.. Yes eventually when we have a
surplus again the spending will go up.

I bet Under a Democratically held Government Social Security will have a
surplus within 4-8 years of the election. The War on terror will end in
victory after 4 years Iraq will also be liberated & self Governing as
will Afghanistan.

We will have MAJOR job growth as a tax on foreign labor will be passed
requiring businesses who move companies to Mexico & Asia are taxed $2000
PER WORKER. Of course a $2500 tax break will be given to those companies
who move factories here & hire American workers.

Our Government will again become eco-friendly adding to the job market.
Our food supply will again be the best in the world as more inspectors
hit the ground running.

Our Education will vastly change as an emphasis is placed on Science
& Technology. Within 8 years alternative fuel will become the Rule.
The US will again see a boom as we corner the market on man made oil
that sells for $10 a barrel.

The Wildlife industries like Fishing, Hunting, Trapping will re-emerge
with herds & schools of farm raised & released critters.

It will be safe again to eat as much sea food as one wishes under DNC
America.

Drug Prices will drop when the markets are opened to competition.

Only you Welfare Queen Republicans will suffer... Then that is as it
should be.

Ike

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
news
[ snip ]

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before
they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep them
alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their grandchildren alive.
We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special "cities" with
all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops, movies, apartments,
TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the inhabitants be useful at
all. All will be provided. Classes for those who wish to improve will be
offered, along with scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify.
No poverty, no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want
to but you may not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have, and it
has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't have to gear
everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario? Your turn.

USConst. Amdt. XIII.

-jc-

Lew Hartswick wrote
wrote

We've kept them alive by artificial measures. In nature, the stupid would
perish promptly.

There's plenty of stupid animals around, like sheep and chickens.

Indeed. all one has to do is look at the "special ed" classes in public
schools.

Dunno, that one is more arguable.

It makes some sense to put some extra effort in with the
stupids so they can at least read by the time they leave etc.

Better than the earlier approach of just giving up
on them and have them end up close to completely
unemployable even in the most menial work.

Janie wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote

...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest
people end up paying the highest rates for credit because they
are most likely to end up missing a credit account payment
because the money had to be used for some emergency.
And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the
wealthy! . Today it isn't just one account that increases the
interest but perhaps all of them. And who gets the interest, the
banks of course! And who owns the banks--the wealthy...
remainder snipped

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die
before they were old enough to reproduce.

Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real
sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work.

I'm thinking caveman times, not a century ago. Remember, we haven't
evolved all that much in the last couple of thousand years.

We've changed all that.

We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture.

You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed.

We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive.

And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that
their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able
to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out.

We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special
"cities" with all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops,
movies, apartments, TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that
the inhabitants be useful at all. All will be provided. Classes
for those who wish to improve will be offered, along with
scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No
poverty, no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you
want to but you may not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have,
and it has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't
have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of
separate citys.

Not really. We have to pretend that the skid-row derelicts, crack
whores and the generally destitute are valued members of society
rather than hopeless and useless dependents. We allow (require?)
them to live in surroundings which nearly guarantee that they will
never be able to break out simply because they have no value at all
to the system -- we just don't NEED them.

Why not move them all to a decent place where they can either try to
better themselves or stagnate without causing trouble to the people
who are paying the bills?

It doesnt work.

It's never been tried. For one thing, it's not democratic.

Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of
any society.

Drugs in spades.

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever
people want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs
wipes out a lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will
overdose within the next couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper
than what we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow
that to happen. Half of them would become unemployed. .

The cops get no say on stuff like that.

Ike,

Are you a troll? You must be... nobody can actually believe the crap you
pretend to. Nearly every silly point you have tried to make is exactly
backward. The one about taxes going up under Democrats is correct, at the
expense of driving more industry away. The deficit will certainly go up
faster if the liberal Democrats get their hands on power. Are you one of
the ones with short memories who think the previous administration balanced
the budget? Actually it did happen because of a Republican congress over
the objection of your fearless leader who vetoed two balanced budgets
claiming balance wasn't possible in the foreseeable future. Of course, as a
pre-schooler you probably weren't paying close attention.

George the simple answer here is to get rid of these Free Ride
Republicans. Get the government back into Democrat hands...
Yes this will mean that taxes go up.. Yes eventually when we have a
surplus again the spending will go up.

I bet Under a Democratically held Government Social Security will have a
surplus within 4-8 years of the election. The War on terror will end in
victory after 4 years Iraq will also be liberated & self Governing as will
Afghanistan.

We will have MAJOR job growth as a tax on foreign labor will be passed
requiring businesses who move companies to Mexico & Asia are taxed $2000
PER WORKER. Of course a $2500 tax break will be given to those companies
who move factories here & hire American workers.

Our Government will again become eco-friendly adding to the job market.
Our food supply will again be the best in the world as more inspectors hit
the ground running.

Our Education will vastly change as an emphasis is placed on Science
& Technology. Within 8 years alternative fuel will become the Rule.
The US will again see a boom as we corner the market on man made oil
that sells for $10 a barrel.

The Wildlife industries like Fishing, Hunting, Trapping will re-emerge
with herds & schools of farm raised & released critters.

It will be safe again to eat as much sea food as one wishes under DNC
America.

Drug Prices will drop when the markets are opened to competition.

Only you Welfare Queen Republicans will suffer... Then that is as it
should be.

Ike

huge snip
George the simple answer here is to get rid of these Free Ride
Republicans. Get the government back into Democrat hands...
Yes this will mean that taxes go up.. Yes eventually when we have a
surplus again the spending will go up.
snip
In my not so humble opinion, the major problem is that we no
longer have a Republican and Democratic party. What we have is a
huge majority of DINOs and RINOs [Democrats In Name Only and
Republicans In Name Only] running things. I never knew Robert
Taft, but I did know Barry Goldwater. I think that both of them
would have turned their backs on what the Republican Party
[orgy?] has become, after them up-chucked.

Everyone knows there is a sudden stop coming soon. I see no
reason that the people who have been warning of this for a long
time, and have been hurt by the excesses should have to help
clean up the mess, but then again who else will be left?

Uncle George

F. George McDuffee wrote:
huge snip
George the simple answer here is to get rid of these Free Ride
Republicans. Get the government back into Democrat hands...
Yes this will mean that taxes go up.. Yes eventually when we have a
surplus again the spending will go up.
snip
In my not so humble opinion, the major problem is that we no
longer have a Republican and Democratic party. What we have is a
huge majority of DINOs and RINOs [Democrats In Name Only and
Republicans In Name Only] running things. I never knew Robert
Taft, but I did know Barry Goldwater. I think that both of them
would have turned their backs on what the Republican Party
[orgy?] has become, after them up-chucked.

Goldwater did so to some extent. A reading of his last writings is worth the
effort.
He was spinning long before he entered the grave and must be revolving at
monumental velocity today.



Everyone knows there is a sudden stop coming soon. I see no
reason that the people who have been warning of this for a long
time, and have been hurt by the excesses should have to help
clean up the mess, but then again who else will be left?

The greatest threat to the American way of life is that we'll get far enough
from it that an orderly return won't be possible.
They finally charged Jose Padilla ( a US citizen arrested in the US mind
you) here last week and the charges weren't especially related to the
reasons given during his 3 year detention. The case was due a hearing before
the U.S. Supreme Court and the whispering was that the only reason the guy
was charged was to prevent the Supremes from declaring his detention, and a
goodly portion of the USA Patriot Act, unconstitutional. This is the same
USA Patriot act that is about to become permanent.

Here's a little tidbit that ought to stop people in their tracks:

WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the unlimited
detention of suspected terrorists saying, in an interview published on
Tuesday, that it benefitted the United States and the entire world.


"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them"


I wish the court had decided to hear arguments in Padilla and issue a
ruling. I think they have that option regardless of the status, but I'm not
certain, and any ruling under those circumstances would be qualified by it's
very nature. I hate to say it but I hope another case is brought, and the
sooner the better. The gravest danger the US faces today is what is
happening here at home and not in Iraq or elsewhere. This is especially true
when you consider the influence corporate America has with legislative
America. We could end up at the point where an Enron can have a competitor
or whistleblower detained indefinitely by prevailing on a guy like Tom Delay
to have it done.
That's close to the truth right now and manning the baricades might be
closer than anyone thinks.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

snip
Are you a troll? You must be... nobody can actually believe the crap you
pretend to. Nearly every silly point you have tried to make is exactly
backward. The one about taxes going up under Democrats is correct, at the
expense of driving more industry away. The deficit will certainly go up
faster if the liberal Democrats get their hands on power.
snip
Taxes are only one side of the equation. You also need to
consider what you get for the taxes. For example, many countries
in Europe have much higher taxes, but their citizens don't have
to [directly] pay medical and educational costs. To compare you
should add up what the ==total== costs are for a comparable
level/amount of services.

To a large extend the American people continue to buy the "ma
bell stripper" after being "low-balled" by the pols about how
much it costs to run an adequate government/state.

It is true that no one ever taxed their way to prosperity, but no
one ever bulls****ed their way to prosperity either. I don't
care how low the tax rate is, it is too much if you get nothing
for it.

Uncle George

F. George McDuffee wrote:
huge snip
George the simple answer here is to get rid of these Free Ride
Republicans. Get the government back into Democrat hands...
Yes this will mean that taxes go up.. Yes eventually when we have a
surplus again the spending will go up.
snip
In my not so humble opinion, the major problem is that we no
longer have a Republican and Democratic party. What we have is a
huge majority of DINOs and RINOs [Democrats In Name Only and
Republicans In Name Only] running things. I never knew Robert
Taft, but I did know Barry Goldwater. I think that both of them
would have turned their backs on what the Republican Party
[orgy?] has become, after them up-chucked.

Everyone knows there is a sudden stop coming soon.

No there isnt.

I see no reason that the people who have been warning of this
for a long time, and have been hurt by the excesses should have
to help clean up the mess, but then again who else will be left?

Mindless stuff.

Some have been claiming that sort of thing for centurys now.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:15:41 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Here's a little tidbit that ought to stop people in their tracks:

WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the unlimited
detention of suspected terrorists saying, in an interview published on
Tuesday, that it benefitted the United States and the entire world.

"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them"
snip
As Santina observed "those who will learn nothing from history
are doomed to repeat it." This is almost an exact word for word
translation of the rational Henrich Himmler, head of the SS and
GeStaPo, used to justify detention of massive numbers of people
in the concentration camps. See "Werner Best" for additional
rationals.

Fearless forecast -- It will be argued that the inmates should
have to work for their food, clothing etc. so an overt slave
labor program will be started -- however this should help our
"competiveness." the next group after the "terrorists" will be
the "asocial" and "workshy."

The problem with growing old is that you have heard all the
bulls**t before and know how the story will end.

As Einstein observed, "insanity is repeating the same actions and
expecting a different outcome." FWIW -- to be insane is not to
be stupid. If you are smart and insane, you are even more
dangerous to the public.

Uncle George

John R. Carroll wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote

Everyone knows there is a sudden stop coming soon.

Nope.

I see no reason that the people who have been warning of this
for a long time, and have been hurt by the excesses should have
to help clean up the mess, but then again who else will be left?

The greatest threat to the American way of life is that we'll
get far enough from it that an orderly return won't be possible.

Its always possible.

They finally charged Jose Padilla ( a US citizen arrested in the
US mind you) here last week and the charges weren't especially
related to the reasons given during his 3 year detention. The
case was due a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court and
the whispering was that the only reason the guy was charged
was to prevent the Supremes from declaring his detention,
and a goodly portion of the USA Patriot Act, unconstitutional.

Fantasy on that last.

This is the same USA Patriot act that is about to become permanent.

Like it or lump it.

Here's a little tidbit that ought to stop people in their tracks:

Nope.

WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice defended the unlimited detention of suspected
terrorists saying, in an interview published on Tuesday,
that it benefitted the United States and the entire world.

Corse it would.

"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them"

She's right with that sort of terrorism, stupid.

In spades with the terrorists who are happy to kill themselves
in the process of doing their terrorist act, just a tad pointless
waiting till after they have blown themselves to bits, stupid.

I wish the court had decided to hear arguments in Padilla
and issue a ruling. I think they have that option regardless
of the status, but I'm not certain, and any ruling under those
circumstances would be qualified by it's very nature. I hate
to say it but I hope another case is brought, and the sooner
the better. The gravest danger the US faces today is what
is happening here at home and not in Iraq or elsewhere.

Wrong.

This is especially true when you consider the influence
corporate America has with legislative America. We
could end up at the point where an Enron can have
a competitor or whistleblower detained indefinitely
by prevailing on a guy like Tom Delay to have it done.

Mindless pig ignorant lie.

That's close to the truth right now

Mindless pig ignorant lie.

and manning the baricades might be closer than anyone thinks.

Not a shred of evidence that you and your ilk are actually capable of thought.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:40:21 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:27:41 GMT, Anthony
wrote:

I don't know what eutopia you live in, but here in the real live world,
people starve in the US every day. Maybe you need to get off your ass
and out in the real world once in a while and have a look around. These
aren't drug addicts, or criminals either.

I've always wondered how addicts earn $100,000 ++ to
pay for their hobby.
Anyone have any clues? No Rush jokes now ....


Mostly by theft, robbery, burglary, etc.

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:15:41 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Here's a little tidbit that ought to stop people in their tracks:

WASHINGTON - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the
unlimited detention of suspected terrorists saying, in an interview
published on Tuesday, that it benefitted the United States and the
entire world.

"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain
them"

As Santina observed "those who will learn nothing from history
are doomed to repeat it." This is almost an exact word for word
translation of the rational Henrich Himmler, head of the SS and
GeStaPo, used to justify detention of massive numbers of people
in the concentration camps. See "Werner Best" for additional rationals.

Have fun suggesting what else to do with fools stupid
enough to blow themselves to bits for their cause.

Not very useful locking the pieces up after they have done that.

Fearless forecast -- It will be argued that the inmates
should have to work for their food, clothing etc. so an
overt slave labor program will be started

Slave labor is completely different and prisoners have been
expected to do more than just sit around for centurys now.

-- however this should help our "competiveness." the next
group after the "terrorists" will be the "asocial" and "workshy."

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

The problem with growing old is that you have heard
all the bulls**t before and know how the story will end.

Fools like you have been proclaiming that for centurys now.

No matter how hysterically you all hyperventilate, we have
never ever even got close to anything like what Hitler got up to.

As Einstein observed, "insanity is repeating the
same actions and expecting a different outcome."

That's a terminally silly as his other
line about 'god does not play dice'

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.

Rod Speed wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:15:41 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.


People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that their
deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could have.
They aren't looking for any sort of future whatever - "in spades" or
otherwise - and this is one of the hurdles understanding this behavior
presents. You and I can't imagine that mind set. We always have at least a
little hope, they don't have that same hope. That makes them easy targets to
convert. Check out an AA or Christian revival meeting sometime and you will
see something along these lines.

You ought to stand up a little straighter "Rod", your knuckles won't heal
properly unless you stop dragging them on the ground.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that
their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just as completely
pointless a death as their pathetic excuse for a 'life' before that, most
obviously with those who make a complete hash of blowing themselves
to bits and only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

They aren't looking for any sort of future whatever - "in spades"
or otherwise - and this is one of the hurdles understanding this
behavior presents. You and I can't imagine that mind set.

Wrong. Its perfectly obvious what is driving that mind set.

We always have at least a little hope, they don't have that same hope.

Its much more complicated than that too, most obviously when
suicide missions become part of the way their society operates.

That makes them easy targets to convert. Check out an AA or Christian
revival meeting sometime and you will see something along these lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to bits.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

John Chase wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
news
[ snip ]

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before
they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep them
alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their grandchildren alive.
We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special "cities" with
all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops, movies, apartments,
TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that the inhabitants be useful at
all. All will be provided. Classes for those who wish to improve will be
offered, along with scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify.
No poverty, no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you want
to but you may not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have, and it
has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't have to gear
everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario? Your turn.


USConst. Amdt. XIII.

Which has what, exactly, to do with people being able to freely choose
whether or not to move to a special area where their needs are met?
In the scenario outlined above, they'd be able to leave at any time.

I don't think that constitutes slavery. It does mean the government
would be giving people limited choices, but everybody already has
limited choices (regardless of what the government does).

- Logan

Rod Speed wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in
spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that
their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just as
completely pointless a death as their pathetic excuse for a 'life'
before that, most obviously with those who make a complete hash of
blowing themselves
to bits and only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

Yes, they think that way. You have made my point for me. The disconnect is
complete. People used to think the earth was flat as well.
In this case, their perception becomes our reality to some degree. We are
the ones cleaning up after all.

This would all stop in a heartbeat if we were to have GM and GE build a
bunch of manufacturing capacity in the affected areas.
People would be to busy learning, working and actually improving the quality
of their existence to give any thought to blowing up anything. They'd have a
less violent and more stable means to attain their goals.


They aren't looking for any sort of future whatever - "in spades"
or otherwise - and this is one of the hurdles understanding this
behavior presents. You and I can't imagine that mind set.

Wrong. Its perfectly obvious what is driving that mind set.

Great, I'll be paying close attention to your explanation. You do have one
don't you?
If not, you are just talking out of your ass.


We always have at least a little hope, they don't have that same
hope.

Its much more complicated than that too, most obviously when
suicide missions become part of the way their society operates.

It is indeed but that's the basis. The behavior becomes ingrained over time
because it produces the desired result.


That makes them easy targets to convert. Check out an AA or Christian
revival meeting sometime and you will see something along these
lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to bits.

Only because their hopelessness is replaced with something else. A cult is
still a cult, regardless, and the condition of the initiates is what we are
discussing here not the comparative results.



reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that
their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just
as completely pointless a death as their pathetic excuse
for a 'life' before that, most obviously with those who
make a complete hash of blowing themselves to bits and
only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

Yes, they think that way. You have made my point for me.

Nope, that is nothing like your original line.

The disconnect is complete.

No it isnt with many of them.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

People used to think the earth was flat as well.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

In this case, their perception becomes our reality to
some degree. We are the ones cleaning up after all.

Yep, particularly when its impossible to stop that sort of thing completely.

This would all stop in a heartbeat if we were to have GM and
GE build a bunch of manufacturing capacity in the affected areas.

Wrong. That aint what drives fantatics like that.

People would be to busy learning, working and actually improving the
quality of their existence to give any thought to blowing up anything.

Have fun explaining the likes of Atta who did plenty
of that stuff, and chose to blow stuff up anyway.

Quite a few of them are surprisingly well qualified, at a
much better level than monkeys on an assemblyline too.

bin Laden in spades.

You clearly havent actually got a clue about what drives people like that.

They'd have a less violent and more stable means to attain their goals.

Have fun explaining bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

They aren't looking for any sort of future whatever - "in spades"
or otherwise - and this is one of the hurdles understanding this
behavior presents. You and I can't imagine that mind set.

Wrong. Its perfectly obvious what is driving that mind set.

Great, I'll be paying close attention to your explanation.
You do have one don't you?

Yep.

If not, you are just talking out of your ass.

Dont have any donkeys.

We always have at least a little hope, they don't have that same hope.

Its much more complicated than that too, most obviously when
suicide missions become part of the way their society operates.

It is indeed but that's the basis. The behavior becomes
ingrained over time because it produces the desired result.

Yep, but they clearly do have that hope, and quite a bit of
the time they do get at least part of what they are aiming for,
most obviously with the tamils and palestinians and lebanon.

Even you should have noticed that Raygun pulled the troops out
after one of the most successful suicide bombings of all time.

That makes them easy targets to convert. Check
out an AA or Christian revival meeting sometime
and you will see something along these lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to bits.

Only because their hopelessness is replaced with something else.

Nope, essentially because thos cults have always
frowned on that sort of thing except in wartime.

A cult is still a cult, regardless,

Yes, but quite a few of them have been
quite successful over a millenium or two.

and the condition of the initiates is what we
are discussing here not the comparative results.

Wrong again.

John R. Carroll wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that their
deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could have.
They aren't looking for any sort of future whatever - "in spades" or
otherwise - and this is one of the hurdles understanding this behavior
presents. You and I can't imagine that mind set.

I agree with the general sentiment, but I imagine in lots of cases it's
more about self-esteem than about purpose.

One place where lots of religious people go wrong is that they start
seeing things in terms of earning brownie points. Instead of doing
good things (where "good" is defined by the religion) because they
appreciate why those things are good or out of gratitude to their
God, which would be the ideal, they instead start doing things to
earn brownie points. The more zeal they have to do what God wants
them to do, the more they can look at themselves and say, "Hey, maybe
I am not so bad after all. I have given up all the pleasures and
comforts that normal people take for granted and devoted myself to
God." The implication is that if they have done all these things,
they must be a good person, though I believe they are not conscious
of that part of the reasoning (just as many of us are not always
conscious of our own motives).

Then for some people this goes completely out of control. It becomes
a cycle, and they stop paying attention to whether the "good" that
they are doing is actually good or not. It doesn't really matter
what it is as long as they are convinced it's what God wants them to
do. In fact, something might even be more appealing if it's a little
out there on the fringe: What's better for your ego than doing what
God commands? Knowing that you're the ONLY one who is doing it.

Religion is a controversial subject and I'd like to keep my comments
neutral, so I'll just say that I think the irony here is that most
religions actually aren't in favor of this twisted teacher's pet
approach to God. (In fact, big chunks of what Jesus is reported to
have said are all about this topic.) But it's still incredibly
common.

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that
their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could have.
They aren't looking for any sort of future whatever - "in spades" or
otherwise - and this is one of the hurdles understanding this
behavior presents. You and I can't imagine that mind set.

I agree with the general sentiment, but I imagine in lots of cases it's more
about self-esteem than about purpose.

Sure, but not so much with the sort of fanatic that
chooses to blow themselves to bits for the cause.

That is quite different to what is seen much in the west.

One place where lots of religious people go wrong is that they start seeing
things in terms of earning brownie points. Instead of doing good things
(where "good" is defined by the religion) because they appreciate why those
things are good or out of gratitude to their God, which would be the ideal,
they instead start doing things to earn brownie points. The more zeal they
have to do what God wants them to do, the more they can look at themselves and
say, "Hey, maybe I am not so bad after all. I have given up all the pleasures
and comforts that normal people take for granted and devoted myself to God."

Dunno, I've always maintained that for quite a few of those,
its more that a particular religion appeals to that sort of
mentality that actually wants to give up pleasures and comforts.

Hard to see how those who choose to live
in caves etc can have any other motivation.

Its more complicated with the puritan cults
that eschew stuff like music and dancing etc.

The implication is that if they have done all these things, they must be a
good person, though I believe they are not conscious of that part of the
reasoning (just as many of us are not always conscious of our own motives).

Sure.

Then for some people this goes completely out of control. It becomes
a cycle, and they stop paying attention to whether the "good" that
they are doing is actually good or not. It doesn't really matter what it is
as long as they are convinced it's what God wants them to do. In fact,
something might even be more appealing if it's a little out there on the
fringe: What's better for your ego than doing what
God commands? Knowing that you're the ONLY one who is doing it.

That last is never the case tho. Part of a tiny cult at best.

Religion is a controversial subject and I'd like to keep my comments
neutral, so I'll just say that I think the irony here is that most
religions actually aren't in favor of this twisted teacher's pet
approach to God. (In fact, big chunks of what Jesus is reported to
have said are all about this topic.) But it's still incredibly common.

Sure, but not much to do with the sort of individual
who chooses to blow itself to bits for the cause etc.

Rod Speed wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in
spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief that
their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever could
have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just
as completely pointless a death as their pathetic excuse
for a 'life' before that, most obviously with those who
make a complete hash of blowing themselves to bits and
only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

Yes, they think that way. You have made my point for me.

Nope, that is nothing like your original line.

Sure it is. You are correct that they don't always carry it off properly but
that's irrelevant. They are successful often enough to set the desired
example. It isn't the number that screw up that counts, it's the number that
don't and the size and scope of the mess they make.
The failures are quickly forgotten.


The disconnect is complete.

No it isnt with many of them.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

People used to think the earth was flat as well.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

In this case, their perception becomes our reality to
some degree. We are the ones cleaning up after all.

Yep, particularly when its impossible to stop that sort of thing
completely.

This would all stop in a heartbeat if we were to have GM and
GE build a bunch of manufacturing capacity in the affected areas.

Wrong. That aint what drives fantatics like that.

These people are driven by whoever scoops them into the fold. They wouldn't
come up with it on their own.


People would be to busy learning, working and actually improving the
quality of their existence to give any thought to blowing up
anything.

Have fun explaining the likes of Atta who did plenty
of that stuff, and chose to blow stuff up anyway.

Not himself he didn't. He had a purpose and that purpose is to use the
broken among his people to do his will.
He has both hope and a plan and his hopes and plans are what he lives for.



Quite a few of them are surprisingly well qualified, at a
much better level than monkeys on an assemblyline too.

Not the suicide bombers, only their recruiters and trainers.



bin Laden in spades.

You clearly havent actually got a clue about what drives people like
that.

They'd have a less violent and more stable means to attain their
goals.

Have fun explaining bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

You seem to want to combine the master and the tool into a common group.
They aren't.
The guys running the show and the hopeless are two distinct peoples. The
master and the drones if you will.


Great, I'll be paying close attention to your explanation.
You do have one don't you?

Yep.

I'm all ears, well almost.



It is indeed but that's the basis. The behavior becomes
ingrained over time because it produces the desired result.

Yep, but they clearly do have that hope, and quite a bit of
the time they do get at least part of what they are aiming for,
most obviously with the tamils and palestinians and lebanon.

Even you should have noticed that Raygun pulled the troops out
after one of the most successful suicide bombings of all time.

His other options weren't viable and he knew it. There wasn't anything in
Beirut worth the cost of staying.
There isn't, or wasn't at least, anything in Iraq either. 41 was right and
made a good call. 43 is learning that the hard way.



That makes them easy targets to convert. Check
out an AA or Christian revival meeting sometime
and you will see something along these lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to bits.

Only because their hopelessness is replaced with something else.

Nope, essentially because thos cults have always
frowned on that sort of thing except in wartime.

Not the big ones. The smaller groups didn't have the fodder to waste.


A cult is still a cult, regardless,

Yes, but quite a few of them have been
quite successful over a millenium or two.

Sure, why not. They can be useful, even benificial. Bin Laden knows that.



and the condition of the initiates is what we
are discussing here not the comparative results.

Wrong again.

Well, it's the point I was making and you have yet to provide any rational
for your pronouncements....

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief
that their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever
could have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just
as completely pointless a death as their pathetic excuse
for a 'life' before that, most obviously with those who
make a complete hash of blowing themselves to bits and
only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

Yes, they think that way. You have made my point for me.

Nope, that is nothing like your original line.

Sure it is. You are correct that they don't always
carry it off properly but that's irrelevant. They are
successful often enough to set the desired example.
It isn't the number that screw up that counts, it's the
number that don't and the size and scope of the mess
they make. The failures are quickly forgotten.

Sure, but thats nothing like your original.

The disconnect is complete.

No it isnt with many of them.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

People used to think the earth was flat as well.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

In this case, their perception becomes our reality to
some degree. We are the ones cleaning up after all.

Yep, particularly when its impossible
to stop that sort of thing completely.

This would all stop in a heartbeat if we were to have GM and
GE build a bunch of manufacturing capacity in the affected areas.

Wrong. That aint what drives fantatics like that.

These people are driven by whoever scoops them into the fold.

Wrong with bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

They wouldn't come up with it on their own.

Almost no one ever does with something as
unusual as blowing yourself to bits for the cause.

It only takes a couple to prove that its a very effective approach
that there isnt all that much that can be done to stop it.

People would be to busy learning, working and actually improving the
quality of their existence to give any thought to blowing up anything.

Have fun explaining the likes of Atta who did plenty
of that stuff, and chose to blow stuff up anyway.

Not himself he didn't. He had a purpose and that purpose
is to use the broken among his people to do his will.

Wrong again, he choose to kill himself in the process
of one of the most effective approaches ever seen.

He has both hope and a plan and his
hopes and plans are what he lives for.

Yes, but thats got nothing to do with your line
that those can be completely eliminated with
GE and GM manufacturing plants in their area
and distracting them with that sort of thing.

Quite a few of them are surprisingly well qualified, at a
much better level than monkeys on an assemblyline too.

Not the suicide bombers, only their recruiters and trainers.

Wrong. Atta was very well qualified.

And you wont distract all the suicide bombers with decent
job prospects either, most obviously with the most recent ones
in england, some of whom had good employment prospects.

bin Laden in spades.

You clearly havent actually got a clue about what drives people like that.

They'd have a less violent and more stable means to attain their goals.

Have fun explaining bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

You seem to want to combine the master and the tool into a common group.

Nope.

They aren't. The guys running the show
and the hopeless are two distinct peoples.
The master and the drones if you will.

Have fun explaining Atta.

Great, I'll be paying close attention to your explanation.
You do have one don't you?

Yep.

I'm all ears, well almost.

Already explained it.

It is indeed but that's the basis. The behavior becomes
ingrained over time because it produces the desired result.

Yep, but they clearly do have that hope, and quite a bit of
the time they do get at least part of what they are aiming for,
most obviously with the tamils and palestinians and lebanon.

Even you should have noticed that Raygun pulled the troops out
after one of the most successful suicide bombings of all time.

His other options weren't viable and he knew it. There
wasn't anything in Beirut worth the cost of staying.

He wouldnt have pulled out without that happening.

There isn't, or wasn't at least, anything in Iraq either.

There was in Afghanistan.

41 was right and made a good call.

Sure.

43 is learning that the hard way.

He wasnt the one driving that. Just the front monkey.

That makes them easy targets to convert. Check
out an AA or Christian revival meeting sometime
and you will see something along these lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to bits.

Only because their hopelessness is replaced with something else.

Nope, essentially because thos cults have always
frowned on that sort of thing except in wartime.

Not the big ones.

Yep, the big ones.

The smaller groups didn't have the fodder to waste.

Have fun explaining Jim Jones.

A cult is still a cult, regardless,

Yes, but quite a few of them have been
quite successful over a millenium or two.

Sure, why not. They can be useful,
even benificial. Bin Laden knows that.

And Atta was happy to pull the plug.

and the condition of the initiates is what we
are discussing here not the comparative results.

Wrong again.

Well, it's the point I was making and you have yet
to provide any rational for your pronouncements....

You in spades.

Rod Speed wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in
spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief
that their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever
could have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just
as completely pointless a death as their pathetic excuse
for a 'life' before that, most obviously with those who
make a complete hash of blowing themselves to bits and
only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

Yes, they think that way. You have made my point for me.

Nope, that is nothing like your original line.

Sure it is. You are correct that they don't always
carry it off properly but that's irrelevant. They are
successful often enough to set the desired example.
It isn't the number that screw up that counts, it's the
number that don't and the size and scope of the mess
they make. The failures are quickly forgotten.

Sure, but thats nothing like your original.

The disconnect is complete.

No it isnt with many of them.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

People used to think the earth was flat as well.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

In this case, their perception becomes our reality to
some degree. We are the ones cleaning up after all.

Yep, particularly when its impossible
to stop that sort of thing completely.

This would all stop in a heartbeat if we were to have GM and
GE build a bunch of manufacturing capacity in the affected areas.

Wrong. That aint what drives fantatics like that.

These people are driven by whoever scoops them into the fold.

Wrong with bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

They wouldn't come up with it on their own.

Almost no one ever does with something as
unusual as blowing yourself to bits for the cause.

It only takes a couple to prove that its a very effective approach
that there isnt all that much that can be done to stop it.

People would be to busy learning, working and actually improving
the quality of their existence to give any thought to blowing up
anything.

Have fun explaining the likes of Atta who did plenty
of that stuff, and chose to blow stuff up anyway.

Not himself he didn't. He had a purpose and that purpose
is to use the broken among his people to do his will.

Wrong again, he choose to kill himself in the process
of one of the most effective approaches ever seen.

He has both hope and a plan and his
hopes and plans are what he lives for.

Yes, but thats got nothing to do with your line
that those can be completely eliminated with
GE and GM manufacturing plants in their area
and distracting them with that sort of thing.

Quite a few of them are surprisingly well qualified, at a
much better level than monkeys on an assemblyline too.

Not the suicide bombers, only their recruiters and trainers.

Wrong. Atta was very well qualified.

And you wont distract all the suicide bombers with decent
job prospects either, most obviously with the most recent ones
in england, some of whom had good employment prospects.

bin Laden in spades.

You clearly havent actually got a clue about what drives people
like that.

They'd have a less violent and more stable means to attain their
goals.

Have fun explaining bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

You seem to want to combine the master and the tool into a common
group.

Nope.

They aren't. The guys running the show
and the hopeless are two distinct peoples.
The master and the drones if you will.

Have fun explaining Atta.

I had him confused with one of the others, Zawahiri. My bad.
Given that, there is always insanity to contend with.



Great, I'll be paying close attention to your explanation.
You do have one don't you?

Yep.

I'm all ears, well almost.

Already explained it.


I didn't get it then.


It is indeed but that's the basis. The behavior becomes
ingrained over time because it produces the desired result.

Yep, but they clearly do have that hope, and quite a bit of
the time they do get at least part of what they are aiming for,
most obviously with the tamils and palestinians and lebanon.

Even you should have noticed that Raygun pulled the troops out
after one of the most successful suicide bombings of all time.

His other options weren't viable and he knew it. There
wasn't anything in Beirut worth the cost of staying.

He wouldnt have pulled out without that happening.

No but he wouldn't have acomplished anything useful either and that was the
judgement he made after the fact.



There isn't, or wasn't at least, anything in Iraq either.

There was in Afghanistan.

Yes and it's back, in spades if you will. The "it" that's back is heroine.
It's back because people need to eat.
Until an alternative exists on the economic front, nothing much is going to
change there. They will likely be a little more circumspect about the
activities of foreigners within their borders, however. Having your country
blow up in your face is something to avoid.

We should have paid more attention to the Russian experience.



41 was right and made a good call.

Sure.

43 is learning that the hard way.

He wasnt the one driving that. Just the front monkey.

That's a credible statement but a little premature. Well, it MAY be
premature. It may not be.
Looks like a group effort to me and W is the weak mind. He was, however,
electable.


That makes them easy targets to convert. Check
out an AA or Christian revival meeting sometime
and you will see something along these lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to
bits.

Only because their hopelessness is replaced with something else.

Nope, essentially because thos cults have always
frowned on that sort of thing except in wartime.

Not the big ones.

Yep, the big ones.

The smaller groups didn't have the fodder to waste.

Have fun explaining Jim Jones.

They didn't take out a target, they "saved" themselves. LOL
Nice "save" wouldn't you say...


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

Terrorists who are stupid enough to buy the line that blowing
themselves to bits will see an instant transport to nirvana in
spades.

People who perpetrate suicide attacks are acting on the belief
that their deaths will have more purpose than their lives ever
could have.

Or they 'think' that, anyway. Quite a few end up with just
as completely pointless a death as their pathetic excuse
for a 'life' before that, most obviously with those who
make a complete hash of blowing themselves to bits and
only succeed in killing themselves and no one else etc.

Yes, they think that way. You have made my point for me.

Nope, that is nothing like your original line.

Sure it is. You are correct that they don't always
carry it off properly but that's irrelevant. They are
successful often enough to set the desired example.
It isn't the number that screw up that counts, it's the
number that don't and the size and scope of the mess
they make. The failures are quickly forgotten.

Sure, but thats nothing like your original.

The disconnect is complete.

No it isnt with many of them.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

People used to think the earth was flat as well.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

In this case, their perception becomes our reality to
some degree. We are the ones cleaning up after all.

Yep, particularly when its impossible
to stop that sort of thing completely.

This would all stop in a heartbeat if we were to have GM and
GE build a bunch of manufacturing capacity in the affected areas.

Wrong. That aint what drives fantatics like that.

These people are driven by whoever scoops them into the fold.

Wrong with bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

They wouldn't come up with it on their own.

Almost no one ever does with something as
unusual as blowing yourself to bits for the cause.

It only takes a couple to prove that its a very effective approach
that there isnt all that much that can be done to stop it.

People would be to busy learning, working and actually improving
the quality of their existence to give any thought to blowing up anything.

Have fun explaining the likes of Atta who did plenty
of that stuff, and chose to blow stuff up anyway.

Not himself he didn't. He had a purpose and that purpose
is to use the broken among his people to do his will.

Wrong again, he choose to kill himself in the process
of one of the most effective approaches ever seen.

He has both hope and a plan and his
hopes and plans are what he lives for.

Yes, but thats got nothing to do with your line
that those can be completely eliminated with
GE and GM manufacturing plants in their area
and distracting them with that sort of thing.

Quite a few of them are surprisingly well qualified, at a
much better level than monkeys on an assemblyline too.

Not the suicide bombers, only their recruiters and trainers.

Wrong. Atta was very well qualified.

And you wont distract all the suicide bombers with decent
job prospects either, most obviously with the most recent ones
in england, some of whom had good employment prospects.

bin Laden in spades.

You clearly havent actually got a clue about what drives people
like that.

They'd have a less violent and more stable means to attain their
goals.

Have fun explaining bin laden, atta, top, etc etc etc.

You seem to want to combine the master and the tool into a common
group.

Nope.

They aren't. The guys running the show
and the hopeless are two distinct peoples.
The master and the drones if you will.

Have fun explaining Atta.

I had him confused with one of the others, Zawahiri. My bad.

OK.

Given that, there is always insanity to contend with.

Atta wasnt insane. He just realised that that was
a very effective way to pull off what has been one
of the most effective acts of terrorism ever seen.

Tho I doubt he actually expected both
towers would implode like they did.

Great, I'll be paying close attention to your explanation.
You do have one don't you?

Yep.

I'm all ears, well almost.

Already explained it.

I didn't get it then.

Yes you did, you commented on it. Here it is again.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

It isnt even a simple matter that its just fools stupid
enough to buy the line that its a guaranteed ticket to
instant nirvana either, there have been some from
a non religious background who have done it too.

And it isnt so different from what has produced
quite a few VCs in the british military system.

It is indeed but that's the basis. The behavior becomes
ingrained over time because it produces the desired result.

Yep, but they clearly do have that hope, and quite a bit of
the time they do get at least part of what they are aiming for,
most obviously with the tamils and palestinians and lebanon.

Even you should have noticed that Raygun pulled the troops out
after one of the most successful suicide bombings of all time.

His other options weren't viable and he knew it. There
wasn't anything in Beirut worth the cost of staying.

He wouldnt have pulled out without that happening.

No but he wouldn't have acomplished anything useful either

Sure.

and that was the judgement he made after the fact.

It was purely the success of that suicide bombing
that produced the pullout. That fool ordered
shelling from ex WW2 battleships after that.

Even more futile.

There isn't, or wasn't at least, anything in Iraq either.

There was in Afghanistan.

Yes and it's back, in spades if you will.

No it isnt, the Talibums aint back.

The "it" that's back is heroine.

Afghanistan wasnt about heroin.

It's back because people need to eat.

They ate before they exported heroin.

Until an alternative exists on the economic front, nothing much is
going to change there. They will likely be a little more circumspect
about the activities of foreigners within their borders, however.

And that was what it was about, stopping
bin Laden from operating from there.

THAT worked.

Having your country blow up in your face is something to avoid.

We should have paid more attention to the Russian experience.

Mindless stuff. We ****ed over the Talibums very comprehensively
indeed, nothing like what happened with the Russians.

41 was right and made a good call.

Sure.

43 is learning that the hard way.

He wasnt the one driving that. Just the front monkey.

That's a credible statement but a little premature.
Well, it MAY be premature. It may not be.

Nope, he's always been just the front monkey.

Looks like a group effort to me and W is the weak mind.

Just the electable front monkey.

He was, however, electable.

He was indeed. A hell of a lot more electable than his dad too.

Rummy in spades.

That makes them easy targets to convert. Check
out an AA or Christian revival meeting sometime
and you will see something along these lines.

Nope, nothing like it. Hardly any of those blow themselves to bits.

Only because their hopelessness is replaced with something else.

Nope, essentially because thos cults have always
frowned on that sort of thing except in wartime.

Not the big ones.

Yep, the big ones.

The smaller groups didn't have the fodder to waste.

Have fun explaining Jim Jones.

They didn't take out a target, they "saved" themselves. LOL
Nice "save" wouldn't you say...

They clearly wasted their fodder very spectacularly indeed.

Rod Speed wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

I had him confused with one of the others, Zawahiri. My bad.

OK.

Given that, there is always insanity to contend with.

Atta wasnt insane. He just realised that that was
a very effective way to pull off what has been one
of the most effective acts of terrorism ever seen.

Tho I doubt he actually expected both
towers would implode like they did.

It still doesn't explain why he felt the need to make such a statement.


Yes you did, you commented on it. Here it is again.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

I see.
My point of view is that they are trained in their hatred and there isn't
much in the way of alternatives.



It was purely the success of that suicide bombing
that produced the pullout. That fool ordered
shelling from ex WW2 battleships after that.

Even more futile.

Yes, a decision was forced.


There isn't, or wasn't at least, anything in Iraq either.

There was in Afghanistan.

Yes and it's back, in spades if you will.

No it isnt, the Talibums aint back.

Their warlords are running the place again and the Taliban was little more
than a fundamentalist political party.
They were tolerated because they didn't interfere with production.


The "it" that's back is heroine.

Afghanistan wasnt about heroin.

It's back because people need to eat.

They ate before they exported heroin.

Not really and certainly not recently. It had become their cash crop and was
a majority of the countries GNP.




Until an alternative exists on the economic front, nothing much is
going to change there. They will likely be a little more circumspect
about the activities of foreigners within their borders, however.

And that was what it was about, stopping
bin Laden from operating from there.

THAT worked.

He won't be back and that's for sure. There really isn't any need for those
camps anyway. Iraq is a much more suitable training ground and we have gone
to great expense to provide a fully equipped OPFOR. He's getting a good look
at our goodies. We are even assuring the world that we intend to continue to
do so come hell or high water.


They didn't take out a target, they "saved" themselves. LOL
Nice "save" wouldn't you say...

They clearly wasted their fodder very spectacularly indeed.

Jones gave the authorities the ultimate up yours. I don't think he had a
bigger purpose than that.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

George - I think you are way off beam.
I know Europe well - have friends there and used to live there for months
at a time.

Taxes in Europe are high - extremely. School - yes constant testing and
not making the level - you do these jobs. You made it - advance to the next
series of tests/years - and once you make it out of high school - another test
tells you if you are crap and get to go to the low level university that will
even with a PHD never get you a job worth crap or Better than that - or you can
attend as long as you can the best school - from which the managers come from.
Yes - very class like - very socialist type.

NOT FOR ME OR MINE.
If mine is sick for a test - he might go to another school and then transfer...
Not there he wouldn't!

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



F. George McDuffee wrote:
snip

Are you a troll? You must be... nobody can actually believe the crap you
pretend to. Nearly every silly point you have tried to make is exactly
backward. The one about taxes going up under Democrats is correct, at the
expense of driving more industry away. The deficit will certainly go up
faster if the liberal Democrats get their hands on power.

snip
Taxes are only one side of the equation. You also need to
consider what you get for the taxes. For example, many countries
in Europe have much higher taxes, but their citizens don't have
to [directly] pay medical and educational costs. To compare you
should add up what the ==total== costs are for a comparable
level/amount of services.

To a large extend the American people continue to buy the "ma
bell stripper" after being "low-balled" by the pols about how
much it costs to run an adequate government/state.

It is true that no one ever taxed their way to prosperity, but no
one ever bulls****ed their way to prosperity either. I don't
care how low the tax rate is, it is too much if you get nothing
for it.

Uncle George



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John R. Carroll wrote
Rod Speed wrote
F. George McDuffee wrote
John R. Carroll wrote

FWIW -- to be insane is not to be stupid. If you are smart
and insane, you are even more dangerous to the public.

I had him confused with one of the others, Zawahiri. My bad.

OK.

Given that, there is always insanity to contend with.

Atta wasnt insane. He just realised that that was
a very effective way to pull off what has been one
of the most effective acts of terrorism ever seen.

Tho I doubt he actually expected both
towers would implode like they did.

It still doesn't explain why he felt the need to make such a statement.

Just another of those fanatics who have decided that they want
to do the US in the eye and who are happy to die doing it.

The primary motivation with individuals like that is that they know
that the west has left the middle east for dead over the last half
a millennium or so, even if they dont actually realise that.

Israel really just gives them something to focus on.

That is true of the US too to a large extent.

It was utterly bizarre watching a recent doco on North Korea where
the fools sitting around in their units in the evening with power cuts
every evening, actually blamed the power cuts on the US.

With so many fools that far out of touch with
reality, a few manufacturing plants by GM and
GE aint actually gunna achieve a damned thing.

There is a real sense in which that sort of mentality
is what drove Japan half a century ago too and took
a couple of nukes to bring them to their senses. I
doubt even that would work in the middle east now.

Yes you did, you commented on it. Here it is again.

Quite a few of them just realise that its an approach that
is close to impossible to prevent, and they consider that
as long as they take lots of those they hate with them, that
they have achieved a lot more than they otherwise could.

I see.
My point of view is that they are trained in their hatred

Yes.

and there isn't much in the way of alternatives.

Yes. And a few manufacturing plants by GM and
GE aint actually gunna achieve a damned thing.

There is nothing that will make any real difference now.

It was purely the success of that suicide bombing
that produced the pullout. That fool ordered
shelling from ex WW2 battleships after that.

Even more futile.

Yes, a decision was forced.

And it was the effectiveness of that suicide mission that in
a real sense proved to those with a clue that it was a very
effective approach that was just about impossible to stop.

At least with what Atta got up to it isnt that hard to stop
more happening again. Israel developed very effective
ways of stopping anyone hijacking their aircraft and
they aint lost one in a hell of a long time now.

Suicide bombers who are prepared to blow themselves
to bits is a whole nother ballgame, essentially impossible
to stop except in a very homogenous country like Japan.

And lets not forget that they had their
own rabid fanatics in the runup to WW2.

There isn't, or wasn't at least, anything in Iraq either.

There was in Afghanistan.

Yes and it's back, in spades if you will.

No it isnt, the Talibums aint back.

Their warlords are running the place again and the
Taliban was little more than a fundamentalist political party.

Bull****. It was quite an effective military system, just hopeless
against a properly organised western military system.

They were tolerated because they didn't interfere with production.

Wrong again.

The "it" that's back is heroine.

Afghanistan wasnt about heroin.

It's back because people need to eat.

They ate before they exported heroin.

Not really

Corse they did.

and certainly not recently.

Only 50 years ago.

It had become their cash crop and was a majority of the countries GNP.

Yes, but the GNP is irrelevant with places like that.

Until an alternative exists on the economic front, nothing much is
going to change there. They will likely be a little more circumspect
about the activities of foreigners within their borders, however.

And that was what it was about, stopping
bin Laden from operating from there.

THAT worked.

He won't be back and that's for sure. There really isn't any need for
those camps anyway. Iraq is a much more suitable training ground and
we have gone to great expense to provide a fully equipped OPFOR.

It aint a training ground for the fools that bin Laden lit a fire under.

He's getting a good look at our goodies.

Those goodies are completely irrelevant
to an operation that uses car bombs.

We are even assuring the world that we intend
to continue to do so come hell or high water.

The same claim was made about Vietnam too.

They didn't take out a target, they "saved" themselves. LOL
Nice "save" wouldn't you say...

They clearly wasted their fodder very spectacularly indeed.

Jones gave the authorities the ultimate up yours.

Yes, when they were silly enough to not let him do what he liked there.

And there were no 'authoritys' involved, just
that fool Ryan who got a tad of a surprise.

I don't think he had a bigger purpose than that.

That was never his purpose. He just wanted to
run his own operation there and to be left alone.

Those operations ALWAYS implode, often surprisingly quickly, if left alone.

Janie wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever
people
want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs wipes out a
lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will overdose within the next
couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper than
what we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow that to happen. Half
of them would become unemployed.

That in itself might be a good enough reason to give it a shot. Not only
cops, though. Whole armies involved in the war on drugs. Shrinks. Doctors
who pronounce the addict cured when his insurance runs out, and all the
auxiliary personnel who work for them. Jailers.

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python