Ah, the "good old days", were rotten, was OT - Bush *ignores*Supreme Court's rulings ..
 

Dave Mundt wrote:

Well, we know that now, don't we?
It ended up as scrap metal in Rotterdam.

Not all of it. After all a big chunk of the nasties that
Syria had ended up just up the road in Oak Ridge...so WE have most
of the fun toys now.

Care to educate people? Or are we talking about ships here?

Greetings and Salutations...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:58:19 +1000, Terry Collins
wrote:

Dave Mundt wrote:

Well, we know that now, don't we?
It ended up as scrap metal in Rotterdam.

Not all of it. After all a big chunk of the nasties that
Syria had ended up just up the road in Oak Ridge...so WE have most
of the fun toys now.

Care to educate people? Or are we talking about ships here?

Not ships...materials for "building nuclear weapons". There
was a bit of a stir in the area when the Feds quietly flew the stuff
into the local airport, and trucked it up to Oak Ridge. Of course
the public did not find out about this until WELL after the event
Here is a news story on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/libya/stor...170337,00.html
and a somewhat more skeptical note here
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000236.htm
I suppose it says something (I'll let YOU figure out what)
that a quick google search only brings up stories about the
event from OUTSIDE the USA.
It was a tempest in a teacup here, actually. There were
a number of folks that were kind of grumpy about the possibility
of environmental damage *IF* there had been an accident...but
really not much was said.

Regards
Dave Mundt

Dave Mundt wrote:

Sorry for being obscure. I ACTUALLY meant that I found it
kind of interesting that there seemed to be a lot more detailed
stories about this in news organizations outside the USA, and, it
was almost completely ignored (or has disappeared into the archives)
of the USA News outlets.

It is always interesting to read different (i.e. independent) sources on
various matters. In general, I find commercial source very simplistic
and uninformative, whereas government funded sources vary.

Sources from different languages can be very interesting as the
different though processes seem to lead to different view points.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:18:24 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:
Not ships...materials for "building nuclear weapons". There
was a bit of a stir in the area when the Feds quietly flew the stuff
into the local airport, and trucked it up to Oak Ridge. Of course
the public did not find out about this until WELL after the event
Here is a news story on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/libya/stor...170337,00.html
and a somewhat more skeptical note here
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000236.htm
I suppose it says something (I'll let YOU figure out what)
that a quick google search only brings up stories about the
event from OUTSIDE the USA.

Google doesn't archive network TV news programs. NBC covered
the story on the Nightly News the day of the administration's dog
and pony show.

It was a tempest in a teacup here, actually. There were
a number of folks that were kind of grumpy about the possibility
of environmental damage *IF* there had been an accident...but
really not much was said.

Yeah, aluminum tubes spilled on the highway, the horror.

Gary

"Cliff Huprich" wrote

What did you have in mind? Many of the "news" reports seem to have
been planted by wingers and later easily proved to be false.

But just the accusation (on page one) is enough. The (rare) retraction
on page 89 is rarely seen. And the right-wing mainstream airborn
media virtually never makes any retractions, no matter how egregious
the original "misstatement" (read: lie).

Then, to add to the irony, the wingnuts claim the media is "liberal."
Lewis Carroll would be mighty proud of these guys!

Dan

If you are a liberal, you see the media as being balanced or somewhat
conservative. But if you are conservative, you see fox news as being
balanced and most of the media as liberal. If you think about it,
this is natural.

If I believe that abortion is okay, any article against abortion will
be seen as far right. If I believe that abortion is the same as
murder, and article that is pro-abortion will be seen as ultra
liberal.

So the question ought to be where the media is with respect to public
opinion.
Since the public is more liberal on both coasts, and the media is
mostly located on the coasts, I would say the media is more liberal
than the public.

Note that Jim Rozen and Ed Huntress cosider themselves as
conservatives. They probably are more conservative than their
neighbors, but not as conservative as some in this group. But they
live on the East coast. If they lived in the rural South, they might
consider themselves as liberals.

Dan
( the conservative one )


"Dan" wrote in message

Then, to add to the irony, the wingnuts claim the media is "liberal."
Lewis Carroll would be mighty proud of these guys!

Dan

Dan Caster wrote:

If you are a liberal, you see the media as being balanced or somewhat
conservative. But if you are conservative, you see fox news as being
balanced and most of the media as liberal. If you think about it,
this is natural.

If I believe that abortion is okay, any article against abortion will
be seen as far right. If I believe that abortion is the same as
murder, and article that is pro-abortion will be seen as ultra
liberal.

So the question ought to be where the media is with respect to public
opinion.
Since the public is more liberal on both coasts, and the media is
mostly located on the coasts, I would say the media is more liberal
than the public.

Note that Jim Rozen and Ed Huntress cosider themselves as
conservatives. They probably are more conservative than their
neighbors, but not as conservative as some in this group. But they
live on the East coast. If they lived in the rural South, they might
consider themselves as liberals.

Dan
( the conservative one )


"Dan" wrote in message


Then, to add to the irony, the wingnuts claim the media is "liberal."
Lewis Carroll would be mighty proud of these guys!

Dan

Dear Dan
From now on, do not use logic or facts, on this board, as it
conflicts with the positions, that are derived from the years of
screaming and yelling, the hurling of insults, and the occasional
threats of bodily harm, to those who are not in agreement with the
positions held, to be correct by the any of the posters.

Such deference to facts and logic, are not with in the cannons of the
survivalist law, which governs the conduct of the people, of what ever
dubious mental stability, that continually make known to the world, the
proclamations of the correct cognitive processes, that are required for
the concept of, The End of The World as We Know it, to take form in an
environment of stability and civil discourse, that is enjoyed by the
citizens of this community but are held to be only temporary and a
transient state in nature.

As such you are here by enjoined to cease and desist your further
proclamations, based on logic and facts, as they are of such have such a
intellectual nature, as to force those of this community to entertain
certain cognitive processes, that they are not no, nor ever have been
abel to perform within the scope of their educational status, or there
lack of medication to properly control their temporary mental stability.

The Independent
"Pilot to Gunner: Bandits at 9 O'Clock."

In article , Dan Caster says...

Note that Jim Rozen and Ed Huntress cosider themselves as
conservatives. They probably are more conservative than their
neighbors, but not as conservative as some in this group. But they
live on the East coast. If they lived in the rural South, they might
consider themselves as liberals.

It's a complicated question, Dan.

There's the kind of fiscal conservative that says that the
government ought to run a tight ship and a ballanced budget.

The opposite of that used to be called 'tax and spend liberal.'
Now that same catagory is called 'republican.' For the record
I think the deficits being run up are nearly criminal.

Then you have the issue of how much government should intrude
into the citizens' lives. My personal view is that should be
the smallest amount possible. In some camps that makes me
a libertarian, in others it makes me a constitutional conservative.
In yet another it makes me 'pro abortion' which is flaming liberal.
So where do you draw the line in the sand?

I think that the government should look out for widders and orphans
which is what social security is all about - so for the over 60
crowd that makes me a staunch conservative (because they want their
benefits) but for the folks getting payroll taxes ripped from their
paychecks, I am again a flaming liberal.

Funny how the terms being bandied about are invariably used in
a derogatory sense if the person you are sticking them to disagrees
with some particular issue that's dear to the stick-er's heart!

On a lighter note I would mention that you have a very cute
grand-daughter which I happened to see the other week. Your
daughter in law said you would be miffed that you haven't had
a chance to meet her in person yet!

Congratulations to Dan!!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I agree. It is complicated. I think we agree on most things. But
mostly I was just trying to say that with the same views, you may be a
liberal in some places and a conservative in others. I consider
myself a conservative here in Washington State. When I lived in
Alabama, I was a liberal.

I expect to be in your neighborhood this Christmas. Hope to see you
then.

Dan



jim rozen wrote in message

It's a complicated question, Dan.

So where do you draw the line in the sand?


On a lighter note I would mention that you have a very cute
grand-daughter which I happened to see the other week. Your
daughter in law said you would be miffed that you haven't had
a chance to meet her in person yet!

Congratulations to Dan!!

Jim

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show (Dan
Caster) wrote back on 28 Aug 2004 08:34:48 -0700 in misc.survivalism :
If you are a liberal, you see the media as being balanced or somewhat
conservative. But if you are conservative, you see fox news as being
balanced and most of the media as liberal. If you think about it,
this is natural.

If I believe that abortion is okay, any article against abortion will
be seen as far right. If I believe that abortion is the same as
murder, and article that is pro-abortion will be seen as ultra
liberal.

So the question ought to be where the media is with respect to public
opinion.
Since the public is more liberal on both coasts, and the media is
mostly located on the coasts, I would say the media is more liberal
than the public.

Note that Jim Rozen and Ed Huntress cosider themselves as
conservatives. They probably are more conservative than their
neighbors, but not as conservative as some in this group. But they
live on the East coast. If they lived in the rural South, they might
consider themselves as liberals.

Dan
( the conservative one )

Shoot, there are even jokes about it: Orange County (California) where
you join the GOP to get the liberal vote.
Berzerkley where you join the Socialist Party to pick up the Moderate
Vote
Massachusetts, where you talk to the Kennedys to get the Moderate
position.

Etc, etc, etc.

tschus
pyotr



"Dan" wrote in message

Then, to add to the irony, the wingnuts claim the media is "liberal."
Lewis Carroll would be mighty proud of these guys!

Dan

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
I agree. It is complicated. I think we agree on most things. But
mostly I was just trying to say that with the same views, you may be a
liberal in some places and a conservative in others. I consider
myself a conservative here in Washington State. When I lived in
Alabama, I was a liberal.

In Washington State, a conservative is someone that believes
there should be any limits on welfare. The moderate position
is that "lower income" people should be given an unlimited amount
of money each month by the State. The liberal position is not
only should they be given an unlimited amount of money, they
should be able to go into anyone's home, and take anything
they like. The underlying belief being that people wouldn't
be poor, if they weren't being oppressed by the fascist
people with money, so they deserve to be "compensated" for
their "oppression".

Note: Eastern Washington State does consider itself to be part
of Washington State!

;^)

I believe you on this.

Dan


(Cliff Huprich) wrote in message om...
(Dan Caster) wrote in message om...
If you are a liberal, you see the media as being balanced or somewhat
conservative. But if you are conservative, you see fox news as being
balanced and most of the media as liberal. If you think about it,
this is natural.

I don't know what a "conservative" or a "liberal" is.

Cliff