A lap around "The Ring"

JP wrote:
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>JP wrote:
>>
>>
>>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes,
>
> it
>
>>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.
>>
>>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
>>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As
>>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity....
>
>
>
> And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place,
> besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep up
> with the facts, eh ?

JP, you are raving.

Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under
house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now
let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even
food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or
preventible disease.

Are you ****ed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for
applying it far more stringently and killing your family?

Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter
people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way
the sanctions were being applied for the genocide.

*READ* what people write to you, don't just see what you want to see.
I've explained the above already more than once.

Don't try and pigeon-hole me into your nice little theories - you have
no idea. If you can't keep your predjudice out of a discussion, keep
yourself out of a discussion.

I'd have thought it was obvious after a lifetime on usenet, that you
will never change the other person's view, and if you set out with that
in mind you are just wasting your time. Geberally the fruitful
discussions are those that elicit sufficient quality of response that
you can challenge your OWN beliefs and learn something new for yourself.
That at least is what I hope for.

Bill Bollinger wrote:
> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding the
> quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been created in
> that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? Let's just
> say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of Western Europe
> has in the past 20 years.
>
>
> The truth comes out: Socialist
>
> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com
>
>
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Asgeir Nesoen wrote:
>>
>>>I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's
>>>fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the brooding
>>>and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use *way, *way*
>>>more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. Booohoooooooo!"
>>>
>>>JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand
>>>and Availability. LOL!!!
>>>
>>>I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans
>>>will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I
>>>*eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!!
>>>
>>>Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where
>>>people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not
>>>OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices
>>>get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US
>>>is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are
>>>concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore
>>>the facts like ignorant heedless children do.
>>
>>Amen, well said.
>>
>>Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when
>>supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by
>>invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan government,
>>etc.
>>
>>By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry
>>about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is
>>used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after
>>(9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but
>>money is money, y'know...
>
>
>

Your ex-President said the US is stingy - I did not.

Get YOUR facts straight.

Bill Bollinger wrote:
> Well John, what you FAIL to quantify is how much Americans give FREELY and
> not through Government Control. While you guys need someone at the top to
> command you to give, we as a general rule give FREELY as Americans. Your
> numbers only count for Government Aid, not what is given in total by
> American citizens. The next time you imply that Americans as a general rule
> are STINGY, get your facts straight.
>
> BTW, Just through our GOVERNAMENT not including our citizens, we give 60
> TIMES ($58 Billion more in total) more than Denmark does in forein aid.
> BTW, our country does not have 60 times more citizens than Denmark and
> Denmark has a higher GDP per capita than America... Therefore, based upon
> the higher GDP per capita why isn't Denmark contributing more?
>
> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mitch_A wrote:
>>
>>>Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever
>>
>>done.
>>
>>>Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more
>>>than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world.
>>
>>Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true
>>
>>The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target
>>was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the
>>tragedies occurring daily in Africa.
>>
>>Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden,
>>Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of GDP
>>as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest nation
>>of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%.
>>
>>In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for
>>aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!). In
>>the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian
>>military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights
>>violations).
>>
>>
>>>Im not saying this in
>>>an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite
>>
>>your
>>
>>>clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people
>>
>>that
>>
>>>want the best for the World and everyone in it.
>>
>>Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and
>>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.
>
>
>

JP wrote:

> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all.

New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his
reward for a year's work.

Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a
worker, I can only say good luck to you.

In article >,
(John Wallace) wrote:

> Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about
> on that score.

Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into
Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move
and life might get interesting again. We can but hope!

Andrew McP

"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> JP wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all.
>
> New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his
> reward for a year's work.
>
> Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a
> worker, I can only say good luck to you.


<shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit
isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at
their details).

"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> JP wrote:
> > "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>JP wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes,
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.
> >>
> >>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
> >>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As
> >>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity....
> >
> >
> >
> > And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place,
> > besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep
up
> > with the facts, eh ?
>
> JP, you are raving.


I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths
under a UN Security Council sanction.


>
> Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under
> house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now
> let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even
> food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or
> preventible disease.
>
> Are you ****ed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for
> applying it far more stringently and killing your family?
>
> Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter
> people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way
> the sanctions were being applied for the genocide.

<laughter>

Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but
whatever.

Btw, I'd be ****ed at myself for putting myself into the situation to
begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign
concept to you ?

Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming
anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to say
the least.

And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted against
lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions terms,
which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. Indeed,
the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more
efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed of
military use. The UK proposed similiar items.

Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that the
sanctions existed in the first place ? Or how about this, the millions of
dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by the
UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for
buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the US's
fault.

Instead of going off on another moonbat diatribe, try answering these
direct questions for a change.


>
> *READ* what people write to you, don't just see what you want to see.
> I've explained the above already more than once.


Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me.

"John Wallace" > wrote in message
...
> JP wrote:
> >>> Didn't think so. Figures.
> >>
> >>It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice.
> >>
> >>It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily
> >>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice
> >>that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge
> >>mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.
> >
> >
> > Why would I want to google for something, when I wasn't the one making
the
> > assertion ? Interesting "logic".
>
> Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your own
beliefs.


No. I have no interest being told to prove something, when I wasn't the
one making the allegation. Do your own work, in other words.


>
> Whenever you make a statement to me, I do not instantly respond
> "horse****" based upin my own beliefs. I'll first of all listen to you,
> and if I don't believe you then *I* will go and check and see if you are
> right.

<shrug> Congrats.

>
> I don't see that it's up to you to convince me, it's up to me to
> consider if I sufficiently value my beliefs being based upon correct
> information.
>
> Sort of a fundamental difference between us ut would appear

Would appear so. I hold others accountable for doing their own work,
you'd rather do it for them, it seems.

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
> In article >,
> (John Wallace) wrote:
>
>
>>Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about
>>on that score.
>
>
> Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into
> Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move
> and life might get interesting again. We can but hope!

Agreed, but Bush/Kerry, Blair/Brown, fundamentally what's the difference?

To hop back on-topic for a second, there is aerodynamically one
"perfect" shape of car, and all cars naturally evolve toward it (look at
the current crop of F1 and how quickly they clone each other).

I remember (I sound about 100!) when politics was about forming or
joining a party that represented your beliefs, and convincing others of
the validity of those beliefs. These days politicians are more like
companies - where a company exists to make profit by "giving the
consumer what they want", and lots of companies become more and more
alike chasing that goal, so too politicians seem intent only on getting
into power, and moulding their manifesto around whatever they think will
get us to vote for them.

Now either that has turned completely the wrong way around, or else
politicians all think very much alike. Heck the labour party was formed
by people who believed the then governments pandered too much to
landowners and companies - now look at labout, with Tony himself a fan
of Thatcher's approach to market economics.

In anticipation of the inevitable shoe-horning, please note the above
does not represent my own political beliefs - simply my view on the way
politics exists today.

How are you these days anyway Andrew? Still staying in that amazingly
quaint village?

"John Wallace" > wrote in message
news
> JP wrote:
>
> > "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>JP wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if
> >
> > not.
> >
> >>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power
> >>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for
> >>two wars to get him out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Proof of this assertion ?
>
> The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the
> Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great
> victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
> Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA
> train".
>
> Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide
> and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From
> now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your
> own research.


Now, you're getting the hang of it. Atta boy. No links of course, but
I'll take your word on it.


>
> Don't keep making the mistake of asking only to try and trip people up -
> ask to further your own knowledge, or do the research yourself.


I already have the research. Just trying to get you to do it too for a
change. You're learning though. A good thing, eh ?


>
> Don't only get annoyed and react only to the parts of a message you
> don't like, read the whole thing.


Oh, I get annoyed at very little in life. Just see no need to respond to
every bit of every message though, if I see no reason to. Simple concept
really.


>
> >>Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein
> >>shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though
> >
> > Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink>
>
> So how many, precisely, is a zillion, since you're saying I'm wrong?
<wink>



You tell me. You stated it first, so you must have some idea, eh ?


>
> Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths
> of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE
> THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening
> in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly
> pilloried for it.


Proof ?


>
> Why is it that because it's Iraqi kids no-one gives a f***? I bet if
> five thousand US kids were being slaughtered every day there'd be hell
> to pay.


Who says no one gives a **** ? Don't see that anywhere in this thread.